Let me start with a disclaimer: this is not so much a specific balance thread as it is simply making arguments about fundamental problems I believe exist in the structure of the Terran race, and why it is fundamentally difficult for Blizzard to balance the race.
Strategy games that involve multiple races are always going to face challenges balancing races. This was true in Starcraft, Warcraft III, and many other RTS's out there. However, in Starcraft 2, there are a number of mechanics that make the game fundamentally difficult to balance - particularly across different skill levels.
Terran units, in general, have the ability to exponentially increase in effectiveness with effective micro ability. Banshees are able to perma-kite nonstimmed marines; ghosts in theory outrange infestors and templar with snipe/emp, and stimmed marines can theoretically kite their "hard counters" such as banelings, zealots and ultralisks. Harassment with banshees, hellions, and reapers becomes infinitely more effective with correct micro of these units.
Because this makes Terran units theoretically 'stronger' than the other races, Blizzard has implemented many nerfs to the Terran race to compensate for this micro potential. The way Blizzard appears to view the race is that, in head on battles, Terrans will always lose the fights to storms/colossus/fungals/banelings, etc. However, with good micro, Terran is able to win fights that it theoretically should lose based on raw battle power.
The reason that Terran were able to dominate so well for so long in the GSL is that players at this level were able to exploit the micro potential of the Terran units and use them much more effectively than other races. In response, Blizzard has attempted to balance the Terran race based on top-level Korean players, and nerfed reapers, hellions, ghosts etc. accordingly.
The problem with this response is that at lower levels, where players are not at the same level as the Korean scene and do not have the same micro/multitask potential, Terran is fundamentally going to be a weaker race. Many may dispute this fact, but the results even of top Foreign players show that this statement is true.
Please acknoweldge this data as just an example that this phenomena seems to be occuring based on recent results. As we know, Blizzard does not release its matchup statistics for the wider public to view. As at 30/11/2011, the top 6 foreigners in TLPD are all zerg and protoss. Only two terrans are in the top 10 - Major at 7th, and Kas at 10th.
Furthermore, results from recent tournaments have been very heavily dominated by zergs and protosses from the foreign point of view. These are the top foreign scores from some recent tournaments (gaps are filled by Korean players)
Blizzcon invitational: Sen (Z) 3rd, Naniwa (P) 4th
The only notable achievements by any Terran foreign players in recent months was Goody's 2nd place behind Nerchio in Battle of Berlin, and Selects 2nd behind Idra in ASUS ROG.
Let me know what you think about this topic, to me it seems like Blizzard have dug themselves into a bit of a hole in terms of balancing the game across the board. Do you think that Heart of the Swarm will fix this issue to some degree? Do others agree that this is a problem with the game?
Apparently this thread has created a lot of confusion and argument within the community, so to better summarize myself and the points I'm trying to make:
1. My argument is not that Terran is underpowered, it is that fundamentally it is difficult to balance the game for different levels of play. The mechanics of the game are such that different levels of players are rewarded more or less by different races - because there are different 'thresholds' of skill levels where races seem to be more or less powerful, there is a fundamental flaw in trying to balance the game in this way.
2. No, this has nothing to do with my own personal play-styles, it is a comment on the way the game is played at multiple levels. I use foreign top players and data as an example to compare against Korean top gamers: I have not omitted Koreans because I'm ignoring them, I've omitted them because I'm comparing against them.
3. This flaw is not necessarily on the Terran's side. It could be, as some pointed out, that the other races have design flaws. If Terran is the 'solid' race and the other 2 races are balanced to compensate for their shortcomings at the top level of play, Terran necessarily appears to be weaker at levels where players cannot fully exploit their full functionality.
4. I did not deliberately omit any recent results, I simply took them from the first page of the Liquipedia calendar of major events.
5. People who say 'so you need to be good to play terran' are completely missing the point of this post. The argument is not that the other races don't require skill, its that Terran has different skill thresholds that make balancing the race difficult across multiple levels.
6. I'm not discussing bronze-platinum level players etc. As you'll note, the only direct references I've made have been to top level tournaments around the world. I don't think Blizzard mind if bronze-masters is not perfectly balanced, but I would argue that one of their objectives is to have a fairly level playing field across both the GSL as well as these higher level tournaments that foreign progamers compete in.
The underlying logic of this post is true; if different races require more multitasking/micro or punish lack of multitasking/micro harder than others, then balancing the game for multiple skill levels has a fundamental flaw. In broodwar I would argue that multitasking owness (during battles or otherwise) was fairly evenly spread between the races, but in its current state this is not necessarily true for SC2. The fact that it is Terran that appears to be 'the micro race' is coincidental; if units were different it could easily be Protoss or Zerg. I realise that this is a difficult concept to confer to people and I probably haven't done the best job of it but hopefully this clears things up a bit.
Perhaps this means that simple buffs/nerfs to individual units is not the correct way for Blizzard to be balancing the game, but instead, trying to rework some of the units themselves. Hopefully HOTS will rectify this problem a bit, and I'm sure its something the Blizzard team have been considering for a while. + Show Spoiler +
You're choosing selectively to look at foreigner Terran players, and that's a terrible point to argue on. Koreans (and I hate to say this, because I don't believe in the Korean/Foreigner divide, or I don't want to, at least) generally provide higher level play, and that's why there's always been a Terran in the Ro4 in the GSL.
Still, I feel like the design of Terran is remarkably solid, and it's actually the ineffectual design of the other races (in that they don't have amazing micro capability like T) that leads to this perception.
I know you said this thread wasn't about balance, but someone will step in and tell me I'm flaunting about garbage, so game is balanced.
Very insightful post. I basically agree with all of this, as the micro required for Terran is on another level, but I'm not sure if we should call this a "problem" per say.
Just because a race has a higher skill cap doesn't mean it's *impossible* to balance, and despite the decent balance results we already have (except for TvP right now which is a bit skewed in the P's favor based solely on recent statistical information (1-2 months)), I think HoTS and Legacy of the Void will give them even more room to do whatever it is they need to achieve even better results.
The only thing I'm getting from your post is that foreign Terrans are bad. As for Terran units giving more return for cost when micro'd I think that's true for a lot of units in the game, and Terran units are cost effective to begin with.
Terran is by far the most versatile race that really doesn't have any gaps in terms of game design...it probably takes the most skill at the high end but that's not a "fundamental problem" with Terran, if anything, it's a fundamental problem of the other two races.
Funny, Terrans in GSL usually win their games with strong build orders and interesting styles rather than relying entirely on micro.
I could say the same thing Pbout protoss:
"Protoss is the most microable race! They have blink stalkers, they have warp prisms, they have collosus which you can use to dance with the MMM ball and vikings, they have high templars to feedback and storm, they have forcefields, they have phoenix to harass and pick off marines as they pop out!! Hell, some go for a collosi warp prism drop play!
The problem is that they can't utilize it all!!"
When most of the Protoss victories recently relied on intelligent decision making and prepared build orders.
I think many Zerg would claim that they need hella good Micro to beat a Terran or Protoss death ball.
I guess you're saying if all fights were simple A-Moves, then Terran loses. So for the majority of players below Pro or GM, Terran just doesn't cut it? I'm not sure I agree, especially with the effective of Bio vs Protoss and the Protoss needing excellent forcefields and Storms (if going that route).
On November 30 2011 13:13 GeorgeTheGorge wrote: You really haven't specified what the problem is...
I don't know if I agree with him, but he's saying that Terran has the most micro capabilities and has been resultingly nerfed, and that only Koreans have the micro necessary to perform at the highest level with them and all the other lower level players suffer.
Also OP you forgot that Thorzain got second at Dreamhack Valencia
The world doesn't use American measurements because they make no logical sense. So don't discriminate on others, Americans, for not using your flawed system.
The world doesn't use American measurements because they make no logical sense. So don't discriminate on others, Americans, for not using your flawed system.
/rant
He wasn't discriminating. The original guy just pointed out he didn't understand the date and nothing more; perhaps you have a little man complex, as you seem to be picking on him.
Another one of these threads. How many more "Terran requires me to be really good at the game. I feel I have to work harder than the other races to be good." threads are people going to make. There seems like an endless line of them.
Zerg is my worst match up, can I make a thread about how much harder protoss is against zerg? I mean, its hard for me and really feel that zerg players have it to easy. Why can't the game just be easier for me?
On November 30 2011 13:23 Itsmedudeman wrote: This isn't a problem with terran, this is a problem with the other 2 races. All the races should be difficult and have high potentials of execution.
On November 30 2011 13:25 Plansix wrote: Another one of these threads. How many more "Terran requires me to be really good at the game. I feel I have to work harder than the other races to be good." threads are people going to make. There seems like an endless line of them.
Zerg is my worst match up, can I make a thread about how much harder protoss is against zerg? I mean, its hard for me and really feel that zerg players have it to easy. Why can't the game just be easier for me?
You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis.
On November 30 2011 13:23 Itsmedudeman wrote: This isn't a problem with terran, this is a problem with the other 2 races. All the races should be difficult and have high potentials of execution.
And they do, so I can't see where is the problem.
This is generally untrue for Protoss, as the race is generally the most effective in a giant 200/200 attacking deathball. I was actually watching Day9 earlier and heard evidence to support this when he said that it's less effective for Protoss to engage in frequent small skirmishs, and experts tend to agree with this.
the problem with nerfing terran, is that blizzard think they are imbalanced at only the highest level. However, recently it doesn't even seem that it's imbalanced. Secondly, it seems like the top terrans are JUST good, because they have high and/or higher winrates in the other matchups instead of just tvp. If tvp was so imbalanced, you'd think that the korean terrans would have a higher winrate in tvp than in any other matchup.
Also if blizzard is nerfing terran, they are just making terran weaker at every other level (code a , code b, foreign pros, every ladder except for masters korea). Does that mean that they think that those terran should theoretically be less skilled than the tosses that they are even with.
On November 30 2011 13:10 BlueBoxSC wrote: You're choosing selectively to look at foreigner Terran players, and that's a terrible point to argue on. Koreans (and I hate to say this, because I don't believe in the Korean/Foreigner divide, or I don't want to, at least) generally provide higher level play, and that's why there's always been a Terran in the Ro4 in the GSL.
Still, I feel like the design of Terran is remarkably solid, and it's actually the ineffectual design of the other races (in that they don't have amazing micro capability like T) that leads to this perception.
I know you said this thread wasn't about balance, but someone will step in and tell me I'm flaunting about garbage, so game is balanced.
Im not sure you are understanding, hes using foreigners as the example to exclude koreans for a reason. Hes saying that terran is weaker at lower skill levels because micro is so much a part of their battle success.
At the top korean level and maybe the top 1% of foreigners I think terran is even with the other races, if not stronger. But the top korean terrans are robots from outer space.
Below Code S terrans, terran is insanely hard to beat protoss (and to a lesser extent zerg) because their units are only as good as the micro that controls them. I have to wholeheartedly agree. There is a reason that Protoss and Zerg players far outnumber terrans.
That said, I think your right in the sense that Terrans design is solid. The problem i think lies in the fact that protoss and zerg units dont scale with their micro ability. Yes, micro certainly plays a factor, but really terran units are absolutely devasting under the right control, and absolutely worthless under pour control. I think Protoss and zerg units hit a diminishing returns were more micro isnt necessarily worth the extra benefit. Personally I think they need to increase micro intensive power units for the other races and that will seriously help the issue at hand.
IMO it is more like zerg and toss players have learned how to deal a lot of terran timings and turtle up to the late game. A lot of terran players simply need to adapt. Right now we see a lot of timing pushes that get held off and then the terran proceeds to get outmacroed. Just a meta game shift. Even in Korea the terrans that do well are the ones who have a strong late game, most others have fallen off.
As for terran requiring multitasking ability, that is just how the units are. Terran army is like the glass cannon of SC2 so you have to babysit your units no getting around that, in return you get a faceroll army (except for mass chargelots, they just dont die )
On November 30 2011 13:25 Plansix wrote: Another one of these threads. How many more "Terran requires me to be really good at the game. I feel I have to work harder than the other races to be good." threads are people going to make. There seems like an endless line of them.
Zerg is my worst match up, can I make a thread about how much harder protoss is against zerg? I mean, its hard for me and really feel that zerg players have it to easy. Why can't the game just be easier for me?
You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis.
OP is presenting a very subjective opinion. The tournament results you can spin a lot of different ways.
On November 30 2011 13:25 Plansix wrote: Another one of these threads. How many more "Terran requires me to be really good at the game. I feel I have to work harder than the other races to be good." threads are people going to make. There seems like an endless line of them.
Zerg is my worst match up, can I make a thread about how much harder protoss is against zerg? I mean, its hard for me and really feel that zerg players have it to easy. Why can't the game just be easier for me?
You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis.
OP is presenting a very subjective opinion. The tournament results you can spin a lot of different ways.
Weren't the tournament results the exact reason the balance patches were made?
Weren't the tournament results the exact reason the balance patches were made?
Ask like this, not at all. A lots of factors enter in why they change something, very high level games (therefore in a sens tournament resultats) are probably the more important but results by themself at higher level of play aren't that meaningfull.
In a heads up fight, Terran gets screwed if they don't micro their units. A macro Zerg can simply overwhelm you by a-moving their banelings towards you and Protoss generally gets a upper hand in engagements (though its a weird topic since I see all my marines die and marauders end up cleaning up anyways). Terrans are harder to play if you don't know how to control your units in the lower leagues.
Of course, you're only talking about units that require micro, which are marines, hellions and banshees. There's always mech which doesn't require micro as much as good tank placements; though I feel like mech sucks compare to its BW counterpart (so many hard counters to it).
My opinion probably doesn't mean jack since I'm gold, but that's my observations. There's still a ways away to balance the game and generally, the highest ELO is where patches are made to balance the game. There's too many variables in lower leagues to balance around our general incompetence.
On November 30 2011 13:25 Plansix wrote: Another one of these threads. How many more "Terran requires me to be really good at the game. I feel I have to work harder than the other races to be good." threads are people going to make. There seems like an endless line of them.
Zerg is my worst match up, can I make a thread about how much harder protoss is against zerg? I mean, its hard for me and really feel that zerg players have it to easy. Why can't the game just be easier for me?
You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis.
On November 30 2011 13:23 Itsmedudeman wrote: This isn't a problem with terran, this is a problem with the other 2 races. All the races should be difficult and have high potentials of execution.
And they do, so I can't see where is the problem.
This is generally untrue for Protoss, as the race is fundamentally the most effective in a giant attacking deathball. I was actually watching Day9 earlier and heard evidence to support this when he said that it's less effective for Protoss to engage in frequent small skirmishs, and experts tend to agree with this.
Err, how so? Frequent small skirmishes of small armies is where Protoss works best, because any unit that isn't killed will regenerate all the damage it took. This doesn't happen much because the other races have very good methods of chasing Protoss armies (Concussive shells, stim, having wtf fast units for Zerg), but that doesn't mean Protoss is bad at it.
American date format is stupid. DD/MM/YYYY makes much more sence than MM/DD/YYYY.
that said, I honestly feel that things are pretty balanced right now. I'm not sure what nerfs the OP is talking about. Was it the rax building time or the reaper speed nerf which makes TvP so unbalanced? The only nerf of any consequence in TvP was the EMP nerf which I think everyone agrees was well overdue. Ghosts are still cheaper, move faster, have more utility and out range HT. Sure EMP won't outright kill any unit, but the large amount of damage done is more than enough to tip the balance in a fight. Plus it pretty much makes the shield upgrade and obsolete waste of reources.
You have to be really good to handle Terran at the top level. It has a weird curve, where it's easy at low levels but gets progressively harder as your opponents get better.
GSL level Terran takes an absurd amount of APM and multitasking that no other race really has. It turns out Koreans are better mechanically than foreigners. Hmm...
On November 30 2011 13:25 Plansix wrote: Another one of these threads. How many more "Terran requires me to be really good at the game. I feel I have to work harder than the other races to be good." threads are people going to make. There seems like an endless line of them.
Zerg is my worst match up, can I make a thread about how much harder protoss is against zerg? I mean, its hard for me and really feel that zerg players have it to easy. Why can't the game just be easier for me?
You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis.
On November 30 2011 13:26 Pr0wler wrote:
On November 30 2011 13:23 Itsmedudeman wrote: This isn't a problem with terran, this is a problem with the other 2 races. All the races should be difficult and have high potentials of execution.
And they do, so I can't see where is the problem.
This is generally untrue for Protoss, as the race is fundamentally the most effective in a giant attacking deathball. I was actually watching Day9 earlier and heard evidence to support this when he said that it's less effective for Protoss to engage in frequent small skirmishs, and experts tend to agree with this.
Err, how so? Frequent small skirmishes of small armies is where Protoss works best, because any unit that isn't killed will regenerate all the damage it took. This doesn't happen much because the other races have very good methods of chasing Protoss armies (Concussive shells, stim, having wtf fast units for Zerg), but that doesn't mean Protoss is bad at it.
Day9 was arguing that on the scale of small skirmishes Terran units are (generally) more cost effective *if* controlled correctly (for example 4 stalkers and a zealot vs 4 marauders and 2 marines), and that larger Protoss forces are much more effective due to the strength of Protoss units and the ability they have to run over most of everything.
On November 30 2011 13:44 hmunkey wrote: You have to be really good to handle terran at the top level. It has a weird curve, where it's easy at low levels but gets progressively harder as your opponents get better.
Actually the consensus, and crutch of OP's hypothesis, is that Terran gets easier (as in more effective) the more skilled you are, because all of the units require unusually high amounts of micro.
Code S Terrans are a forced to be reckoned with, as they can micro units at 200-300 APM, while still retaining a rate of a 95%+ on-time macro cycles. The rest (majority) of the Terrans don't have this ability to babysit their units (not at such an extraordinary level at least), and subsequently this is affecting foriegn tournament results with Terrans being destroyed across the board as you can see in OP's presented statistics.
Edit: I re-read your post, and it seems that you actually may be talking from the perspective of fighting against the top level Terrans, but it's a bit vague (handle as "fight against" or handle as "use"). Sorry.
On November 30 2011 13:10 BlueBoxSC wrote: You're choosing selectively to look at foreigner Terran players, and that's a terrible point to argue on. Koreans (and I hate to say this, because I don't believe in the Korean/Foreigner divide, or I don't want to, at least) generally provide higher level play, and that's why there's always been a Terran in the Ro4 in the GSL.
Still, I feel like the design of Terran is remarkably solid, and it's actually the ineffectual design of the other races (in that they don't have amazing micro capability like T) that leads to this perception.
I know you said this thread wasn't about balance, but someone will step in and tell me I'm flaunting about garbage, so game is balanced.
Im not sure you are understanding, hes using foreigners as the example to exclude koreans for a reason. Hes saying that terran is weaker at lower skill levels because micro is so much a part of their battle success.
At the top korean level and maybe the top 1% of foreigners I think terran is even with the other races, if not stronger. But the top korean terrans are robots from outer space.
Below Code S terrans, terran is insanely hard to beat protoss (and to a lesser extent zerg) because their units are only as good as the micro that controls them. I have to wholeheartedly agree. There is a reason that Protoss and Zerg players far outnumber terrans.
That said, I think your right in the sense that Terrans design is solid. The problem i think lies in the fact that protoss and zerg units dont scale with their micro ability. Yes, micro certainly plays a factor, but really terran units are absolutely devasting under the right control, and absolutely worthless under pour control. I think Protoss and zerg units hit a diminishing returns were more micro isnt necessarily worth the extra benefit. Personally I think they need to increase micro intensive power units for the other races and that will seriously help the issue at hand.
Well written, I completely resonate with this post. There definitely is no problem with the top level of Korean play in Terran.. but there are definite inherent 'issues' at levels of play anywhere below the Koreans. It's well known foreign Terrans have struggled for the longest time, I guess the race's welfare sits on a knife edge (that edge being micro/small-scale decisions).
On November 30 2011 13:25 Plansix wrote: Another one of these threads. How many more "Terran requires me to be really good at the game. I feel I have to work harder than the other races to be good." threads are people going to make. There seems like an endless line of them.
Zerg is my worst match up, can I make a thread about how much harder protoss is against zerg? I mean, its hard for me and really feel that zerg players have it to easy. Why can't the game just be easier for me?
You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis.
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.
In SC1 terran was considered UP at first...it is still extremely hard to play terran at low levels especially at TvP. However no one in their right minds would dare say Terran sucks or the game is unbalanced.
Terran as a race has very little glaring weaknesses compared to the other 2 at this point. I think it's just that most diamond and below terrans won easily with MMM every game so they have a hard time adjusting in low masters.
Yes, Terran has the most tools for a good player to showcase his skill and outplay his opponent. Their ability to turtle also makes them able to recover from mistakes when other races would just flat out die. I agree with many other posters in this thread that overall, Terran's level of design depth is what Blizzard should be shooting for for the other two races. The disparity between the races in their micro potential and strategic options was never as huge in Broodwar as it is now in SC2. Granted, it sort of showed up in BW too. During the early stages of BW, people thought Terran was underpowered because players had yet to get to a level where they could utilize all the strengths of the race. Protoss dominated the very early tournaments. Then later in its life Terran became the "skill" race and Protoss became the "ezmode race" that also never wins any tournaments.
I agree, hence why the hardest level of Terran is usually between Plat - top NA/EU players. Bronze - Gold doesn't require much micro, but beyond that you basically have to be at a Korean level to properly micro everything.
On November 30 2011 13:25 Plansix wrote: Another one of these threads. How many more "Terran requires me to be really good at the game. I feel I have to work harder than the other races to be good." threads are people going to make. There seems like an endless line of them.
Zerg is my worst match up, can I make a thread about how much harder protoss is against zerg? I mean, its hard for me and really feel that zerg players have it to easy. Why can't the game just be easier for me?
You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis.
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.
I dont really want to argue with you because you seem to start throwing around insults when people disagree with you, but terrans didnt dominate the last GSL. The OP never even mentioned balance changes, he talked about design differences between the races. Why you get so heated is beyond me.
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.
So basically your saying Terran requires you to play better than the other races.Somehow i think your crying imbalance despite your disclaimer. Whenever you think Starcraft 2 is imbalanced go play the race you think is easy and you'll see it has its limitations.
Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out.
Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful.
Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential.
Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL).
All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +
and now he's out of GSL
.
My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon.
And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm.
I don't really think there is an issue with terran per say but more with the game in general (in the sens of this post). At every skill level you have match-up and strats that are just too good or too esay (and some that only feels that way).
Might be even more true with terran because as it was said units need more baby-sitting, however they can harass pretty esay and defending vs harass at lower level can be pretty damn hard too.
The problem with this OP is that it's, in essence, asking for terran to be dumbed down so it's easier to play. Another way of asking would be: "make it stronger so a dumbed-down playstyle is still effective". That's the kind of idea that might fly for a Blizzard in-company email while the game is in development, but if you're going to ask a community forum of semi-serious players, they really ought to be telling you to stuff it with the idea.
What they are going to suggest, instead is the contrapositive: give the other races more room for showcasing player skill.
On November 30 2011 13:25 Plansix wrote: Another one of these threads. How many more "Terran requires me to be really good at the game. I feel I have to work harder than the other races to be good." threads are people going to make. There seems like an endless line of them.
Zerg is my worst match up, can I make a thread about how much harder protoss is against zerg? I mean, its hard for me and really feel that zerg players have it to easy. Why can't the game just be easier for me?
You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis.
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.
I dont really want to argue with you because you seem to start throwing around insults when people disagree with you, but terrans didnt dominate the last GSL. The OP never even mentioned balance changes, he talked about design differences between the races. Why you get so heated is beyond me.
There is not a single insult in the post above and I am not heated at all. I will say that the argument of the OP lacks any valid point and simply states that he would like the game to be easier for him. Below is a sample of the the argument provided by the OP:
Because this makes Terran units theoretically 'stronger' than the other races, Blizzard has implemented many nerfs to the Terran race to compensate for this micro potential. The way Blizzard appears to view the race is that, in head on battles, Terrans will always lose the fights to storms/colossus/fungals/banelings, etc. However, with good micro, Terran is able to win fights that it theoretically should lose based on raw battle power.
The reason that Terran were able to dominate so well for so long in the GSL is that players at this level were able to exploit the micro potential of the Terran units and use them much more effectively than other races. In response, Blizzard has attempted to balance the Terran race based on top-level Korean players, and nerfed reapers, hellions, ghosts etc. accordingly.
The problem with this response is that at lower levels, where players are not at the same level as the Korean scene and do not have the same micro/multitask potential, Terran is fundamentally going to be a weaker race. Many may dispute this fact, but the results even of top Foreign players show that this statement is true.
Is there anything in this statement that we did not know or does not hold true for all three races? Good mirco can allow a player to win a fight that he would normally lose. That players who are able to micro well and exploit all the strengths of a specific unit will do better and win games. That the game is harder if you do not have these skills. None of the information above is ground breaking or anything that the community at large did not know.
The argument of "I am not as good as a Pro Korean, so I cannot win with terran" hold little weight.
On November 30 2011 14:15 AcrosstheSky wrote: So basically your saying Terran requires you to play better than the other races.Somehow i think your crying imbalance despite your disclaimer. Whenever you think Starcraft 2 is imbalanced go play the race you think is easy and you'll see it has its limitations.
No, what he meant is, the way Terran is designed, and the metagames for all the MU right now require Terran to go with a handful of strategies that requires to have better micro in order to win against the opponent.
And yes, I just switched to Protoss after watching HerO's games at Dreamhack, I won 3 out of 5 games vs diamond/low master Terran despite only knowing 1 build which is 1 gate expand and having no previous experience playing toss other than the campaign. My friend also just switched to zerg and he used to be one of those who always says Terran is the strongest, but after he amoved his way to platium league, he said Terran is just a sad race. And yes, we are lower league, that's what this topic is about.
On November 30 2011 13:25 Plansix wrote: Another one of these threads. How many more "Terran requires me to be really good at the game. I feel I have to work harder than the other races to be good." threads are people going to make. There seems like an endless line of them.
Zerg is my worst match up, can I make a thread about how much harder protoss is against zerg? I mean, its hard for me and really feel that zerg players have it to easy. Why can't the game just be easier for me?
You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis.
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.
Almost every single person in this thread, especially you, are taking some sort of knee-jerk TL;DR of the OPs post and then spewing out garbage at this straw troll they've imagined.
EDIT: To everyone else, this man (OP) is right and if you disagree with him you are wrong. I will argue this* as far as I can if someone wants to PM me about it. *Terran's amatuer to Grandmaster learning curve is a much higher and longer road then it is for Protoss and Zerg.
On November 30 2011 13:16 Crisium wrote: I think many Zerg would claim that they need hella good Micro to beat a Terran or Protoss death ball.
you gotta be joking right ? zerg is all about flanking and position, when they attack into a sieged line with rines, tanks and thors they literally A move and shift click mutas
"hella good micro" good one.
i agree with many things that the OP has stated. blizzard is digging an hole because to "balance" for 10 korean terrans the game is ruined for everyone who isn't a korean pro gamer with 500apm and the sickest multi tasking.
the balance of TvX is already horrible at master, below master is a joke and in fact i am not surprised by the stats at blizzcon that showed how P was winning 60%+ of their games vs terran.
i personally stopped playing several months ago. i used to be a mid/high master terran player but i got so pissed because of what they are doing with the balance that i eventually quit. the game became too much stress and no fun for me, and i feel lots of terran players in every division are in the same boat. the "terran racism" from the community does not help either. now i am just a (happy) watcher that does not play anymore. yeeeey.
On November 30 2011 13:25 Plansix wrote: Another one of these threads. How many more "Terran requires me to be really good at the game. I feel I have to work harder than the other races to be good." threads are people going to make. There seems like an endless line of them.
Zerg is my worst match up, can I make a thread about how much harder protoss is against zerg? I mean, its hard for me and really feel that zerg players have it to easy. Why can't the game just be easier for me?
You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis.
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.
Almost every single person in this thread, especially you, are taking some sort of knee-jerk TL;DR of the OPs post and then spewing out garbage at this straw troll they've imagined.
I am sorry you feel that way. I truly feel that the OP post and his evidence are garbage. Every race has it's own issues and asking for yours to be made easier is silly. Starcraft 2 is hard and no one wants it to be any easier.
This doesn't have to be a problem. I mean, it can be frustrating to lose to a-move deathballs and silly-ness, but in the end it's just more fun for me to play terran. Could I be a higher league playing another race? Yes, probably; I was pretty good as random. But in the end I just enjoy T more, and I just have more to improve upon.
Just for the record...micro isn't even that big of a factor till high master/grandmaster play and even then most games are won by good macro, not micro. Even at the pro level good positioning is more than half the battle.
On November 30 2011 14:20 Nothingtosay wrote: So lets say we accept your OP is true. You're saying that having to micro is a design flaw?
Being forced to micro when your opponent doesn't need to is a design flaw.
I don't think so actually. It's just race design. Zerg is maybe the most A-movish race of all, it's still interesting and challenging to play. Not saying that Terran isn't too weak, just that sometimes different aspects of gameplay can be solicited from the player to beat a certain strat.
As at 30/11/2011, the top 6 foreigners in TLPD are all zerg and protoss. Only two terrans are in the top 10 - Major at 7th, and Kas at 10th.
A bad argument for a maybe valid point. 2 terrans among 10 players instead of the 3 we should expect is not a problem at all. With that being said, I don't think Major or Kas are top 10 foreigners ;D
I think the biggest problem to this is that both protoss and zerg were designed around terran (I.e. blizzard first designed terran then added protoss and zerg). This results in protoss and zerg always being compared against terran and hence all the "terran op" complaints are coming from. This could also be the reason why blizzard is so reluctant to give terran a solid nerf (removal of flux vanes and KA comes to mind) preferring minor nerfs instead because terran is the reference point.
Another problem is that terrans almost always dictate the pace and flow of the game. Coupling this with a higher "micro potential" and we have a race that can never be balanced for all levels.
This thread has become the terran version of Zerg QQ a year ago. "I'm terran so I'm better than you at this game even though you beat me, because I say so."
The thing that's cool about Terran units is that they're strong without micro, but have even stronger capabilities when micro'd. You mention banshees, well they actually have sick DPS, they fly, and they can cloak. They're strong without micro but like you said they be micro'd to kite marines. And marines, well they have insane DPS and when they're in a ball they are extremely cost effective even when 1a'ing, and with stim. And when combined with medivacs it makes stimming extremely forgiveable, so they move super fast too.But they and marauders can be stutter stepped to be even more cost effective. Tanks take no micro except positioning, but can be awesome when target firing a clump of banes. Vikings have very long range, but they can also kite.
So I disagree with the OP, Terran units don't have to be micro'd to be cost-effective. I'm biased, but I would say that Protoss units need to be micro'd the most in order to be cost effective. Stalkers have terrible dps, but they're mobile and they have a blink ability - all which make it a micro unit. Zeals don't take much micro but they do need to be positioned in front of the army at all times. Sentries have barely any DPS, and FF's are so crucial that if you miss one on your ramp you can lose a game.
On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote: Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out.
Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful.
Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential.
Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL).
All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +
and now he's out of GSL
.
My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon.
And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm.
On November 30 2011 14:37 AcrosstheSky wrote: Just for the record...micro isn't even that big of a factor till high master/grandmaster play and even then most games are won by good macro, not micro. Even at the pro level good positioning is more than half the battle.
Eh, no, it used to not that big of a factor, but nowaday every zergs know how to make banelings, every protoss knows how to make collosus, HT, you won't win the game if you don't micro against the baneling, you just can't.
Well unless the zerg amove baneling into seige tanks.... But even that the case, zerglings will still kill marines if marines don't shutterstep.
On November 30 2011 14:33 iaguz wrote: The main thing you can take from looking at these results is that foreign terrans past few months have been playing like shit.
Korean Terrans can do it. Why can't they?
You've also forgotten SelCT getting 2nd place in the ASUS stars ROG invitational.
Korea is much more ideal place to train your play than it is anywhere else in the world due to BW putting a nice stable ground for SC2 players, while the rest of the world is trying to reach the same point like it is there.
i don't its fair just because a few Koreans can do it with terran and you think the game is balanced or even consider terran is OP. If you look at the recent result of foreign terrans, you know something is wrong. they might not be the best but they still practice many hours a day, you could only imagine how those nerfs would do to lower level players. I agree Blizzard should balance the game around the highest level of play, but how much is too much?
The Terran race has counters for every unit in the game, has an extremely cheap mass-able unit with great dps, has the best siege unit in the game, medivacs are awesome, ghosts have the capability to counter everything etc etc. The problem with terran race in the lower leagues is that macro is more of a hassle than just killing your opponent. Terrans can be the turtle macro race, they can be the harass race, they can be the aggressive race, they can stop all aggression and you can typically tell what you did wrong in a game.
I play Z as my main and off as T. It's always interesting to switch races because I find it incredibly difficult to tell where I would go wrong in my games as Z but as T I can almost always say "messed up here, caused me to start to lose". The reason why I bring this up is that you can literally do anything you want with the terran race, You can build 7 rax off of 2-3 base and produce 13 marines at a time, you can make 3 cc's before the 8 minute mark and have the best eco in the game, you can tech, drop, siege and defend extremely well.
If we look at the people that are at the top of those tournaments you will see players like huk, idra, naniwa and ret. These guys would be at the top of that list regardless of their race. Watch players like Major, he is a top tier terran, thorzain is top tier, hopefully demuslim will rise to the top. There will be luls in each race and I wouldn't consider terran in a lul because you are leaving out the giant elephant known as korean terrans and including the S ranked foreign players. Also, look at how the tournaments at places like MLG providence went... There were plenty of terrans in the champ bracket and a lot of them were knocked out by other Terrans.
The argument of "I am not as good as a Pro Korean, so I cannot win with terran" hold little weight.
Holds plenty of weight, because the other races aren't as micro intensive as Terran; the skill caps are lower. This is why foriegn Terrans are getting utterly dominated across the board as the statistics in OP's post state.
Agreed. It seems like the terran race is very powerful and has a lot of potential at the hands of a pro player but for people below that level its harder to play the race.
The foreign community has better Protoss and Zerg compared to their Terrans.
This can be seen by only Thorzain and Jinro putting up any kind of substantial, tangible results. (for this conversation, let's say without a korean contingent of players, the tournament doesn't matter much). Conversely, Naniwa, HuK, IdrA, Dimaga, Ret, and Stephano have all had pretty substantial victories.
The stable of foreign players that play zerg and protoss is at a higher skill level than their foreign terran counterparts, and as such, foreign zergs and protoss will do better. This seems to have nothing to do with design.
On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote: Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out.
Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful.
Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential.
Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL).
All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +
and now he's out of GSL
.
My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon.
And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm.
this man says the truth !! i agree with everything
On November 30 2011 14:48 Durp wrote: The foreign community has better Protoss and Zerg compared to their Terrans.
This can be seen by only Thorzain and Jinro putting up any kind of substantial, tangible results. (for this conversation, let's say without a korean contingent of players, the tournament doesn't matter much). Conversely, Naniwa, HuK, IdrA, Dimaga, Ret, and Stephano have all had pretty substantial victories.
The stable of foreign players that play zerg and protoss is at a higher skill level than their foreign terran counterparts, and as such, foreign zergs and protoss will do better. This seems to have nothing to do with design.
Guess that means the Korean terrans are just way, way more talented than the Korean zergs and protosses then.
On November 30 2011 14:48 Durp wrote: The foreign community has better Protoss and Zerg compared to their Terrans.
This can be seen by only Thorzain and Jinro putting up any kind of substantial, tangible results. (for this conversation, let's say without a korean contingent of players, the tournament doesn't matter much). Conversely, Naniwa, HuK, IdrA, Dimaga, Ret, and Stephano have all had pretty substantial victories.
The stable of foreign players that play zerg and protoss is at a higher skill level than their foreign terran counterparts, and as such, foreign zergs and protoss will do better. This seems to have nothing to do with design.
Guess that means the Korean terrans are just way, way more talented than the Korean zergs and protosses then.
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 14:48 Durp wrote: The foreign community has better Protoss and Zerg compared to their Terrans.
This can be seen by only Thorzain and Jinro putting up any kind of substantial, tangible results. (for this conversation, let's say without a korean contingent of players, the tournament doesn't matter much). Conversely, Naniwa, HuK, IdrA, Dimaga, Ret, and Stephano have all had pretty substantial victories.
The stable of foreign players that play zerg and protoss is at a higher skill level than their foreign terran counterparts, and as such, foreign zergs and protoss will do better. This seems to have nothing to do with design.
Guess that means the Korean terrans are just way, way more talented than the Korean zergs and protosses then.
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.
IMMVP is the most impressive player to watch for me. Maybe it's cause I play Terran but I really think he's just better than anyone else, + Show Spoiler +
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 14:48 Durp wrote: The foreign community has better Protoss and Zerg compared to their Terrans.
This can be seen by only Thorzain and Jinro putting up any kind of substantial, tangible results. (for this conversation, let's say without a korean contingent of players, the tournament doesn't matter much). Conversely, Naniwa, HuK, IdrA, Dimaga, Ret, and Stephano have all had pretty substantial victories.
The stable of foreign players that play zerg and protoss is at a higher skill level than their foreign terran counterparts, and as such, foreign zergs and protoss will do better. This seems to have nothing to do with design.
Guess that means the Korean terrans are just way, way more talented than the Korean zergs and protosses then.
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.
I know, was being sarcastic. It's obvious that what the OP and Beastyqt say are pretty much on the money. It's laughable that people can just put it down to foreign terrans being bad, it just takes a hell of a lot of skill, micro and multitasking to get the most out of the terran race, more so than the other races. People can choose to ignore it or deny it, but that's fact. In the hands of the absolute best of the best Koreans, then it begins to shine.
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.
This. Every race has their own issues at different levels.
I actually do believe they should balance on the highest level, even if it means non korean trained terrans can't compete. With that said I do think the terran imba complaints are overstated and the newly reformed GSL is proving just that.
Regardless I don't see Blizzard addressing any major balancing concerns until HOTS is released. And tbh i'm very excited about all of the new units - only thing I find disappointing is that the new 'retro goliath' has no recoil animation. :p
edit: Accidentally typed out "koreans" instead of "terran" lol a testament of their mastery over the race.
On November 30 2011 13:25 Plansix wrote: Another one of these threads. How many more "Terran requires me to be really good at the game. I feel I have to work harder than the other races to be good." threads are people going to make. There seems like an endless line of them.
Zerg is my worst match up, can I make a thread about how much harder protoss is against zerg? I mean, its hard for me and really feel that zerg players have it to easy. Why can't the game just be easier for me?
You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis.
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.
I'm not sure what you consider to be "dominate" the GSL. As a matter of fact, as far as 1v1s go, Nestea has more points than any other player. Are you talking about the vast amount of undeserving Terran players in the GSL brackets? Yes, but that isn't a balance issue, that is a GSL design issue. As a matter of fact, GSL recognized that, and they have now changed the structure. Across the board, every single race has multiple wins in the GSL, and I think we all know, Leenock will be taking this one.
The thread starter is saying that at a top KR level, Terran is perfectly fine as the players can utilize their units to their full potential. Now you scale it down to lets say, GM NA level, and you can see 8 Terrans in the top 50.
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.
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.
Terran players have been dropping a bit but be glad the metagame is leveling itself out. Funny how everyone complains that terran is OP and with nothing but some protoss upgrade changes, they're losing a lot more. No one can say the game is perfectly balanced but it shows that you have to keep working on the game and not worry about that yet.
Also, the "terran is harder to play" is a silly excuse. It was the most mechanically difficult race in BW, too. No one knows the strongest SC2 race but I've said zerg is for a long time, even when zerg tears were rampant. Look at them now... pretty scary potential. Larvae inject is insane. It is hard to say what the balance is and HotS will bring on a whole new playing field.
On November 30 2011 13:12 Endymion wrote: Small -> medium -> large, day -> month -> year. How does month -> day -> year make any sense at all?
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.
true that. besides, most days i don't even know what day it is. i just care about what month we're in. so it makes sense that we give the month its rightful place up front. in most situations involving the date it's really only the month that's important (finance, exams, major news).
as far as the OP is concerned, i 100% agree with his analysis. for a long time i've had the impression that terran is just a better designed race. every unit really has a lot of thought put into it, and they are all dynamic for use in different situations. take something like the corruptor or the colossus and compare the amount of versatility one has compared to any terran unit and it's clear why really good players are usually terran. it's just more rewarding for extremely polished mechanics. players that are incredible that play toss or zerg just don't have the capability of putting their skills to use in any efficient manner.
as a simple comparison, a good terran player is often defined by how well he splits marines or manages multiple drops. a good zerg player is often defined by how well he stays on top of injects.
it's not because zerg players aren't capable of splitting, kiting, and multi drops, it's that the race doesn't reward that kind of play the same way terran does. everyone can see kiting and splitting zerglings is largely pointless. 6 zerglings just don't have the utility 6 marines do. so basically the only efficient way for good zerg players to really put apm and mechanics to optimal use is to be really good about larva... a mundane task you must do every 40 seconds. it's just not rewarding.
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.
What?
You have MMM(VG) in TvP, Marine Tank or mech in TvZ, and TvT is just... odd.
But terran is the least forgiving for tech switches, unless you build a bunch of tech structures that will eat into your current production and take a lot of time to even get the first unit out. As opposed to building one structure and having all production available to build as that, or using chronoboost on research/production...
On topic, i wholeheartedly agree with Beastyqt and Zorba.g wrote-Blizzard is punishing the larger audience because koreans have higher apm than all the rest.
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.
Very well said.
Seems irrelevant, zerg was "out of reach" to gold and below players for a long time, they didn't exactly die out. In SC1 terran was the most fragile and micro intensive race when the game came out, you'd find people playing terran just for the pride of playing a harder race. Even though toss was the best at 1a2a3a, they became quite the underdog at the highest levels. Terran was by far the most dominant race in the history of BW.
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...
As far as i am concerned all lower level terrans do is pull out hard 1 base timing attacks, which are way easier to execute than to defend. (which contradicts everything your pull here as a fact)
your whole argument is flawed, because every player tries to utilize the strengh of their races, which is perfectly ok. Just because your not good enough doesn't have jack shit to say about balance.
Each race needs more micro capabilities, not less.
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.
Very well said.
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...
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.
one thing that is being thrown around quite a bit is that the lower levels are having trouble... that is why those people are in the lower level. the bottome 60% of players are going to be bad, the next 20% are plat and still horrible, the next 18% are diamond and still horrible, the last 20k people range from being mediocre to mvp. All races are hard at all levels and low level terrans are not an exception.
Edit:
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.
You should look at the top 32 of tournaments that are big and the op left out the asus tournament and the one that goody placed 2nd in. A lot of terrans were knocked out by other terrans and if you look at the games I can practically guarantee that the games that terrans lost were not because of balance but because of being outplayed in a best of 3 (which is ez to lose).
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.
Terran has to be and will always be more microintensive as long as they have superior DPS per Supply then the units of the other races. How else could this game be balanced. The races are different, play fundamentally different and that is what makes this game so interesting.
What the OP implies is that Terran needs less DPS and more durable units so you don't need to micro as much. But is that really what terran players want? (they are getting some with the Battle Hellion) Less potential at the highest level of play for making the game easier at the lower leagues.
On November 30 2011 15:46 ixi.genocide wrote: one thing that is being thrown around quite a bit is that the lower levels are having trouble... that is why those people are in the lower level. the bottome 60% of players are going to be bad, the next 20% are plat and still horrible, the next 18% are diamond and still horrible, the last 20k people range from being mediocre to mvp. All races are hard at all levels and low level terrans are not an exception.
Unfortunately the point seems to have went over your head. The bottom 60% may be equally bad, yes, but Terran still requires significantly greater micro to be effective.
This shows in Code S vs Foreign tournament comparisons, which is subsequently backed up by solid data.
On November 30 2011 15:46 ixi.genocide wrote: one thing that is being thrown around quite a bit is that the lower levels are having trouble... that is why those people are in the lower level. the bottome 60% of players are going to be bad, the next 20% are plat and still horrible, the next 18% are diamond and still horrible, the last 20k people range from being mediocre to mvp. All races are hard at all levels and low level terrans are not an exception.
But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent. If two people are equally bad, but one plays terran, the one that is terran will be inherently weaker because he doesn't have the necessary skills that allow terran to be on-par with other races.
This is totally fucking irrelevant. You're saying it takes more skill to control terran and because of that lower leagues suffer because terran is UP.
You completely ignore the fact that lower level zergs don't inject or spread creep nearly as well, but that has no effect on the outcome of a game either, or that protoss needs to micro forcefields, guardian shields, zealot positioning, storms, blink, collosi positioning, feedback. Again though none of that has any outcome in the game either. If a terran wants to win a game he must micro his units perfectly, and its much too hard for someone in silver level to stim up a bioball and a click, oh and maybe they have to move a fucking patch of units out of a storm.
My post is totally biased but you get the point. That and you quoted a bunch of results from protoss and zerg, but that was biased too, "1st and 4th protoss zerg, terran UP!" Wait doesn't that mean terran came 2nd and 3rd?
You claim only 2 terrans in top 10 foreigner scene, holy shit terran UP, must be because race is too hard to play when I have mules for increased 1 base income, scans for whenever I don't have detection and the cheapest highest dps and best scaling unit in the game. Yeah I mean, this GSL only had 2 terrans in ro4, must mean we're not strong enough.
Use your fucking head before you make another whiny bitch post about how I'm not good enough to be in master league and its because I play terran and they're too hard to control.
Oh and btw, blizzard has stated multiple times that the game is being balanced around pro level gameplay, if you want a crutch because your bad, maybe you should start playing on normal speed against the computer, I heard that makes it easier to control banshee's.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent. If two people are equally bad, but one plays terran, the one that is terran will be inherently weaker because he doesn't have the necessary skills that allow terran to be on-par with other races.
The thing that I do not understand is.. why would you want to help out the lower level players? I understand that it is in blizzards best interest to help them for the money, but the community.. really? It makes no sense, the more that low level players want to have balance the dumber the game is going to look from a spectator watching the pro's perspective.
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. This is just pure balance whine, such bullshit, if you play significantly more games, you'll be the better player, regardless of race.
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.
This sums up what is pretty much a Terran circle-jerk thread based on a terrible OP. Yep, protoss doesnt require micro to be effective -.- Wow, foreign terrans aren't doing so well so let's use it as an excuse to whine about how our race got a little bit harder to play. I particularly love all the terrans here clinging to beastqt's words like they're gospel. Most pros think their own race is underpowered and will post like that. Terrans have had it so easy for so long and been nerfed the least of any race despite maintainng 50%+ in all mu's since release. You're just not as good as you think you are, you don't have to be a korean terran to own with the race and you're kidding yourself if you think Toss or Zerg is significantly easier in standard play. Terran has great tools and is the most resilient vs cheese/allins (repair, bunkers, mules). Terran is nowhere near out of reach of low level players, just get used to being at the level you should've been at had blizzard designed terran better in the first place.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent.
No, you're just bad. Controlling blink stalker sentry templar effectively whilst spacing your army, focussing down vikings, feedbacking ghosts...yeah no micro there. You build bunkers, toss relies on ff's. The argument is just stupid. Both races get stronger with better micro and the player with better control generally wins.
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.
Very well said.
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...
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.
I really don't see the argument that the game being harder to balance because it takes more practice to master a race. BW proved that it doesn't need to have races that play the same at all levels to have a fairly balanced game, it is still considered to be a much better balanced game than SC2 in its current state.
This thread is just saying that terran takes more skill to play at the highest level, then it tries to undermine that there is something off with have more units that takes advantage from more micro. It is just a fancy of saying it shouldn't be too hard to play so it can be balanced for both the casuals and the pros. There is no strawman.
This racial hubris really has to stop. Seems like every terran believes that the other races don't need to have mechanics or game knowledge as good as they do to beat them. I just can't take anyone who post like that seriously.
"Those races don't benefit as much from it" lol exactly what I meant.
Yes, the races play differently, who would have thought. Granted in WoL terran has less boring 1a units like zealots, immortals, colossus, roach, corrupters, void rays, etc, but it's not a good argument to blame the game when you still have plenty of room to improve. Sometimes I wish Bliz would go back to when they would only patched once a year so people would focus on the game instead of bitching about how their race takes more skill.
EDIT: I still find it extremely ironic that the race with the most forgiving macro mechanic would complain that they aren't noob friendly enough. (Forgot supply depot? Supply drop!. Forgot to mule, has 2 orbitals with 180 energy? No prob drop 6 of em on a gold base. Ah crap, didn't get detection. Scan.)
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent. If two people are equally bad, but one plays terran, the one that is terran will be inherently weaker because he doesn't have the necessary skills that allow terran to be on-par with other races.
The thing that I do not understand is.. why would you want to help out the lower level players? I understand that it is in blizzards best interest to help them for the money, but the community.. really? It makes no sense, the more that low level players want to have balance the dumber the game is going to look from a spectator watching the pro's perspective.
It's not necessarily "helping" lower level players; it's sort of what that bald Blizzard employee on the balance team said; "I owe it to all of you to give you a balanced game", so that applies to everyone as in players in all tiers of skill.
So while Terran may have a higher skill cap because it's so micro intensive it still needs to be balanced for lesser players (IE < Code S) too, and honestly Blizzard is doing a commendable job so far, and HoTS will give them even more room to improve things.
Dreamhack Valencia: Thorzain 2nd Asus rog: Select 2nd
Tons of smaller weekly cups with players such as Nercio, Stephano and Mana are attending regularly are won by Terrans often. Go4sc2 150: DarkHydra 1st 152: Beastyqt 1st Most recent sunday cups.
1st it was the the sad zergs, then we got sad zealots, now we get sad marines?? Some people will always whine about imbalance and 99% of the time they whine about the imbalance of their own race, weird?
The statement of "Koreans are better than foreigners so that means their results cant be considered as valid" is just stupid. -What if Stephano won IPL because he is better than the others who attended, his results cannot be considered then. -What if IdrA was better? -the OP just isolates a certain small fraction of the playerbase where no koreans or smaller cups count for anything and states that the lack of terrans in that area in this specific month means terran is imbalanced.
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.
What the OP implies is that Terran needs less DPS and more durable units so you don't need to micro as much. But is that really what terran players want? (they are getting some with the Battle Hellion) Less potential at the highest level of play for making the game easier at the lower leagues.
This is exactly what I was going to post. I don't see the point of making terran less micro intensive if it's going to make pro matches less interesting...If you are stuck on plat, diamond or something you just need to get better. Remember that every bit you get better makes more difference than every bit your opponent gets better, since terran scales better with micro.
I'm probably echoing what a lot of people have said, but once you get to the plat-low masters range terran becomes exponentially harder because you cannot rely on 1 base all ins as much and also the other race can match your macro. Protoss players and zergs can keep up or even surpass you in supply unless you do some damage, and even then they could still be equal with you. And when two players' macro is even, it comes down to other things like micro and strategy and that is where terrans fall behind. Sure, micro is important for all races, but terran is on a knife's edge in large battles. If you don't micro correctly, you're dead. Forcefields are important yes, and positioning for zerg is important, but most of the time these aren't game ending mistakes.
On November 30 2011 13:16 Crisium wrote: I think many Zerg would claim that they need hella good Micro to beat a Terran or Protoss death ball.
you gotta be joking right ? zerg is all about flanking and position, when they attack into a sieged line with rines, tanks and thors they literally A move and shift click mutas
"hella good micro" good one.
What's your point...? Terran isn't particularly much harder, the only thing you really have to do in the engagement you mentioned is half a sort of almost general idea of how to set up a tank link correct and learn how to split marines. Essentially all you have to do when they attack is micro marines back and split them..
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent. If two people are equally bad, but one plays terran, the one that is terran will be inherently weaker because he doesn't have the necessary skills that allow terran to be on-par with other races.
The thing that I do not understand is.. why would you want to help out the lower level players? I understand that it is in blizzards best interest to help them for the money, but the community.. really? It makes no sense, the more that low level players want to have balance the dumber the game is going to look from a spectator watching the pro's perspective.
I would much rather have the other races get higher skillcaps as well. instead of requiring terran to do 75% of the micro in a matchup to get the most out of their units, give toss and zerg stuff that benefits as well. It's more annoying to me that they didn't give zerg and protoss the same potential from their units, because as we've seen terran gets shafted every patch just because Korea can do it better.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent. If two people are equally bad, but one plays terran, the one that is terran will be inherently weaker because he doesn't have the necessary skills that allow terran to be on-par with other races.
The thing that I do not understand is.. why would you want to help out the lower level players? I understand that it is in blizzards best interest to help them for the money, but the community.. really? It makes no sense, the more that low level players want to have balance the dumber the game is going to look from a spectator watching the pro's perspective.
I would much rather have the other races get higher skillcaps as well. instead of requiring terran to do 75% of the micro in a matchup to get the most out of their units, give toss and zerg stuff that benefits as well. It's more annoying to me that they didn't give zerg and protoss the same potential from their units, because as we've seen terran gets shafted every patch just because Korea can do it better.
I think zerg is going to get a lot more micro intensive in HOTS. The viper and the swarm host will add quite a bit of variety to the race.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent. If two people are equally bad, but one plays terran, the one that is terran will be inherently weaker because he doesn't have the necessary skills that allow terran to be on-par with other races.
The thing that I do not understand is.. why would you want to help out the lower level players? I understand that it is in blizzards best interest to help them for the money, but the community.. really? It makes no sense, the more that low level players want to have balance the dumber the game is going to look from a spectator watching the pro's perspective.
I would much rather have the other races get higher skillcaps as well. instead of requiring terran to do 75% of the micro in a matchup to get the most out of their units, give toss and zerg stuff that benefits as well. It's more annoying to me that they didn't give zerg and protoss the same potential from their units, because as we've seen terran gets shafted every patch just because Korea can do it better.
I find it hard to believe terran is getting shafted because korea can do better, ghost needed to be nerfed period. They dam near hard countered the very things that were supposed to counter them, because of their range and any competent terran could snipe infestors and hts long before they even got a chance, and the only alternative otherwise was to warp prism hts in and out (if people wanna whine about micro).
You can pull stats from anywhere and make an argument, in SEA's GO4SC2 cups there are 20ish Terran winners in 44 cups. Only 4 have been won by protoss, all by a Korean called Soulman. The terran winners are all 'foreigners', go figure.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent. If two people are equally bad, but one plays terran, the one that is terran will be inherently weaker because he doesn't have the necessary skills that allow terran to be on-par with other races.
The thing that I do not understand is.. why would you want to help out the lower level players? I understand that it is in blizzards best interest to help them for the money, but the community.. really? It makes no sense, the more that low level players want to have balance the dumber the game is going to look from a spectator watching the pro's perspective.
I would much rather have the other races get higher skillcaps as well. instead of requiring terran to do 75% of the micro in a matchup to get the most out of their units, give toss and zerg stuff that benefits as well. It's more annoying to me that they didn't give zerg and protoss the same potential from their units, because as we've seen terran gets shafted every patch just because Korea can do it better.
I think zerg is going to get a lot more micro intensive in HOTS. The viper and the swarm host will add quite a bit of variety to the race.
The swarm host sure looks like a unit that you must micro frantically.
On November 30 2011 15:46 ixi.genocide wrote: one thing that is being thrown around quite a bit is that the lower levels are having trouble... that is why those people are in the lower level. the bottome 60% of players are going to be bad, the next 20% are plat and still horrible, the next 18% are diamond and still horrible, the last 20k people range from being mediocre to mvp. All races are hard at all levels and low level terrans are not an exception.
Unfortunately the point seems to have went over your head. The bottom 60% may be equally bad, yes, but Terran still requires significantly greater micro to be effective.
This shows in Code S vs Foreign tournament comparisons, which is subsequently backed up by solid data.
Terran does not require significantly more micro to be effective, it has the potential to make your units rediculously effective. Aside running away from banelings the hellion is the only real unit that needs to be microed to be up to par. Marine splitting is really important and is one of the ways to separate a terran from the pack but all the way up to high masters you can get away with running your marines and focus firing with tanks which is not that hard. The point has no basis because the OP is leaving out the quality of Terran players, the results of terran players in the top of tournaments (such as the Asus ROG) or that this discussion is following a recent patch and will eventually be worked out. In addition to that the top level Z/P players can take on the korean terrans (especially the lower S class ones). Select, Demuslim, Major, Kas, thorzain are just a few of the good foreign terran players.
My point is Terran players can use micro to be way more effective than z/p but at all levels all races are hard in some manner or another. It would seem that the point went right by you.
On November 30 2011 15:46 ixi.genocide wrote: one thing that is being thrown around quite a bit is that the lower levels are having trouble... that is why those people are in the lower level. the bottome 60% of players are going to be bad, the next 20% are plat and still horrible, the next 18% are diamond and still horrible, the last 20k people range from being mediocre to mvp. All races are hard at all levels and low level terrans are not an exception.
But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent. If two people are equally bad, but one plays terran, the one that is terran will be inherently weaker because he doesn't have the necessary skills that allow terran to be on-par with other races.
The difficulty of races change as your skills improve. Ask a bronze player to micro 2 marines vs a zealot and he will probably fail, ask a plat zerg to get 50 drones by 9 minutes and he will probably fail. Between the reliance on 1 base play and the ease of terran all-ins I don't think that terran is harder at the bronze-gold leagues; A masters terran player may have troubles with TvP lategame but those problems don't necessarily affect the silver terran, The bronze zerg player may have problems with production while being alone but you can guarantee a <14 minute max zerg above plat.
On November 30 2011 16:23 Scarecrow wrote: You'd think master/gm randomers would cry every time they get T because they have to micro twice as hard -.-
funny how they don't.
lol what? First of all there are barely any masters randoms and no GM randoms far as I know...
Terran has always been the opposite for what the OP says IMO, a race that requires immense skill, the other two races are the ones that are flawed. Zerg in that minimal micro is required in engagements, and protoss for many more reasons.
What is comes down to is very simple, the other two races (protoss in the extreme) have a much lower skillcap. This is not to say that protoss players are worse, but even if they are immensely skilled their race does not reward it as much. I think this is much less of a problem with zerg, but by watching top games you can see how smart thinking and great decisions, coupled with great mechanics can make a race seem ridiculously OP, an example would be MVP playing terran.
This is the problem, nothing more nothing less, all other problems stem from this issue.
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.
Very well said.
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...
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.
I really don't see the argument that the game being harder to balance because it takes more practice to master a race. BW proved that it doesn't need to have races that play the same at all levels to have a fairly balanced game, it is still considered to be a much better balanced game than SC2 in its current state.
This thread is just saying that terran takes more skill to play at the highest level, then it tries to undermine that there is something off with have more units that takes advantage from more micro. It is just a fancy of saying it shouldn't be too hard to play so it can be balanced for both the casuals and the pros. There is no strawman.
This racial hubris really has to stop. Seems like every terran believes that the other races don't need to have mechanics or game knowledge as good as they do to beat them. I just can't take anyone who post like that seriously.
"Those races don't benefit as much from it" lol exactly what I meant.
Yes, the races play differently, who would have thought. Granted in WoL terran has less boring 1a units like zealots, immortals, colossus, roach, corrupters, void rays, etc, but it's not a good argument to blame the game when you still have plenty of room to improve. Sometimes I wish Bliz would go back to when they would only patched once a year so people would focus on the game instead of bitching about how their race takes more skill.
EDIT: I still find it extremely ironic that the race with the most forgiving macro mechanic would complain that they aren't noob friendly enough. (Forgot supply depot? Supply drop!. Forgot to mule, has 2 orbitals with 180 energy? No prob drop 6 of em on a gold base. Ah crap, didn't get detection. Scan.)
Forgot Overlord? Np, stockpile some larva. Forgot Pylon? Np, Warpgate cooldown resets anyway + Supply Depots take the most time to build out of the three. -_-
I don't really agree with the "you must have 300 apm to play terran" argument. Anyone who has seen Sjow playing would know he's one of the slowest apm players around. Granted he's not a code S but the fact that we can see a terran playing at ~150 apm and going up against some of the best players around is pretty indicative. I've yet to see a zerg or protoss player able to compete at such a low apm. This should already say something about the raw strength of terran.
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. This is just pure balance whine, such bullshit, if you play significantly more games, you'll be the better player, regardless of race.
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.
This sums up what is pretty much a Terran circle-jerk thread based on a terrible OP. Yep, protoss doesnt require micro to be effective -.- Wow, foreign terrans aren't doing so well so let's use it as an excuse to whine about how our race got a little bit harder to play. I particularly love all the terrans here clinging to beastqt's words like they're gospel. Most pros think their own race is underpowered and will post like that. Terrans have had it so easy for so long and been nerfed the least of any race despite maintainng 50%+ in all mu's since release. You're just not as good as you think you are, you don't have to be a korean terran to own with the race and you're kidding yourself if you think Toss or Zerg is significantly easier in standard play. Terran has great tools and is the most resilient vs cheese/allins (repair, bunkers, mules). Terran is nowhere near out of reach of low level players, just get used to being at the level you should've been at had blizzard designed terran better in the first place.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent.
No, you're just bad. Controlling blink stalker sentry templar effectively whilst spacing your army, focussing down vikings, feedbacking ghosts...yeah no micro there. You build bunkers, toss relies on ff's. The argument is just stupid. Both races get stronger with better micro and the player with better control generally wins.
Just for the record. I have no problem in the T v Z MU, I feel both races have different mechanics which make playing these races just as hard as each other.
Protoss really is just a fucking horrible joke. Stop defending your pathetic bullshit currently broken cheap ass race.
Yeah those forcefields must be so god damn hard. Yeah, point given Protoss has to micro, but it's really just the ABC's compared to what Terran has to do. Your obviously just another Protoss jerk off who gets a stiff back once someone says the way you need to control your army is baby steps.
I mean comon' really? Forcefields are hard? Casting Storm is hard?
You really need to come play Terran for a couple of months..... get a load of this;
- Stutter step (sounds easy huh, do it while macroing and trying to keep up with the split second tech switches Protoss does throughout a game)
- Emp, oh yeah it's so easy to emp a Protoss. But try and emp the units that matter such as sentries, HT, Archons. Gotta get past those 3/3 lots first.
- When you can't get those high profile targets with emp, your next option is snipe. Still need to get past those Zealots....
- Making sure you always engage Protoss out in the open. Sounds easy huh, go try it.
- Making sure your army is in a concave before engagement. Point given, it's not hard... but adds to the rest of the shit you need to do.
- Focus down Collossi with Vikings
- In the middle of all this, your also trying manage a drop elsewhere.
Now do this while trying to keep in top of your macro at the same time.
But you know whats the most pathetic bullshit? The fact that if Terran screws up 1 aspect of what I have written above, they are screwed. It's pretty obvious ABC Protoss micro is certainly more forgiving then Terrans.
Also, the fact if a Protoss doesn't feel like microing a game against Terran, they can just whip up a 3/3 Chargelot/Archon composition, 1 A and go back to macro whilst the Terran player needs to race around his keyboard like a fkn idiot.
But please, what I'm interested in hearing is.... What micro is involved with 3/3 Chargelot/Archon? Ears are all open
On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote: Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out.
Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful.
Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential.
Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL).
All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +
and now he's out of GSL
.
My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon.
And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm.
This so much. Very well said!
Thread is over.
On November 30 2011 16:28 Neelia wrote: Forgot Overlord? Np, stockpile some larva. Forgot Pylon? Np, Warpgate cooldown resets anyway + Supply Depots take the most time to build out of the three. -_-
yeah this has definitely degraded into a balance whine thread even if the OP didn't intend it to be (or maybe he did).
not to say there aren't any obvious balance problems with terran... but this thread should probably be packed up and mailed on over to the bnet forums since it's really not going to change until we see what HOTS has to offer.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent. If two people are equally bad, but one plays terran, the one that is terran will be inherently weaker because he doesn't have the necessary skills that allow terran to be on-par with other races.
The thing that I do not understand is.. why would you want to help out the lower level players? I understand that it is in blizzards best interest to help them for the money, but the community.. really? It makes no sense, the more that low level players want to have balance the dumber the game is going to look from a spectator watching the pro's perspective.
I would much rather have the other races get higher skillcaps as well. instead of requiring terran to do 75% of the micro in a matchup to get the most out of their units, give toss and zerg stuff that benefits as well. It's more annoying to me that they didn't give zerg and protoss the same potential from their units, because as we've seen terran gets shafted every patch just because Korea can do it better.
I find it hard to believe terran is getting shafted because korea can do better, ghost needed to be nerfed period. They dam near hard countered the very things that were supposed to counter them, because of their range and any competent terran could snipe infestors and hts long before they even got a chance, and the only alternative otherwise was to warp prism hts in and out (if people wanna whine about micro).
Anti-caster unit counters casters. Wow!
HuK has been done storm drops before against MVP and they were good. Infestors have burrow, so unless a lucky scan goes down zerg will almost always get spells off before they can be neutralized. And again, when you say 'competent' it's implying high masters/gm-low masters and diamond will not be that on top of the game.
The terran race as a whole is being killed by the nerfs that are meant to effect the top ~5% because what they can do exceeds the capabilities of the other two races in a relatively similarly skilled players' hands.
As both a low lvl zerg and terran player (plat) I somewhat agree with the OP. In a macro game, terran requires much much more apm/micro and macro actions that zerg in the TvZ matchup. The fact that zerg is very vulnerable to a variety of all-ins in the early game seems to be compensated by a pretty strong advantage in the late game but I think that makes the game a little awkward imho and it kinda turned me off of 1v1 laddering.
Then again I'm talking about my personal experience, not about the game's balance at pro level.
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. This is just pure balance whine, such bullshit, if you play significantly more games, you'll be the better player, regardless of race.
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.
This sums up what is pretty much a Terran circle-jerk thread based on a terrible OP. Yep, protoss doesnt require micro to be effective -.- Wow, foreign terrans aren't doing so well so let's use it as an excuse to whine about how our race got a little bit harder to play. I particularly love all the terrans here clinging to beastqt's words like they're gospel. Most pros think their own race is underpowered and will post like that. Terrans have had it so easy for so long and been nerfed the least of any race despite maintainng 50%+ in all mu's since release. You're just not as good as you think you are, you don't have to be a korean terran to own with the race and you're kidding yourself if you think Toss or Zerg is significantly easier in standard play. Terran has great tools and is the most resilient vs cheese/allins (repair, bunkers, mules). Terran is nowhere near out of reach of low level players, just get used to being at the level you should've been at had blizzard designed terran better in the first place.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent.
No, you're just bad. Controlling blink stalker sentry templar effectively whilst spacing your army, focussing down vikings, feedbacking ghosts...yeah no micro there. You build bunkers, toss relies on ff's. The argument is just stupid. Both races get stronger with better micro and the player with better control generally wins.
Just for the record. I have no problem in the T v Z MU, I feel both races have different mechanics which make playing these races just as hard as each other.
Protoss really is just a fucking horrible joke. Stop defending your pathetic bullshit currently broken cheap ass race.
Yeah those forcefields must be so god damn hard. Yeah, point given Protoss has to micro, but it's really just the ABC's compared to what Terran has to do. Your obviously just another Protoss jerk off who gets a stiff back once someone says the way you need to control your army is baby steps.
I mean comon' really? Forcefields are hard? Casting Storm is hard?
You really need to come play Terran for a couple of months..... get a load of this;
- Stutter step (sounds easy huh, do it while macroing and trying to keep up with the split second tech switches Protoss does throughout a game)
- Emp, oh yeah it's so easy to emp a Protoss. But try and emp the units that matter such as sentries, HT, Archons. Gotta get past those 3/3 lots first.
- When you can't get those high profile targets with emp, your next option is snipe. Still need to get past those Zealots....
- Making sure you always engage Protoss out in the open. Sounds easy huh, go try it.
- Making sure your army is in a concave before engagement. Point given, it's not hard... but adds to the rest of the shit you need to do.
- Focus down Collossi with Vikings
- In the middle of all this, your also trying manage a drop elsewhere.
Now do this while trying to keep in top of your macro at the same time.
But you know whats the most pathetic bullshit? The fact that if Terran screws up 1 aspect of what I have written above, they are screwed. It's pretty obvious ABC Protoss micro is certainly more forgiving then Terrans.
Also, the fact if a Protoss doesn't feel like microing a game against Terran, they can just whip up a 3/3 Chargelot/Archon composition, 1 A and go back to macro whilst the Terran player needs to race around his keyboard like a fkn idiot.
But please, what I'm interested in hearing is.... What micro is involved with 3/3 Chargelot/Archon? Ears are all open
This. I agree with what you said about TvZ and also about protoss.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent. If two people are equally bad, but one plays terran, the one that is terran will be inherently weaker because he doesn't have the necessary skills that allow terran to be on-par with other races.
The thing that I do not understand is.. why would you want to help out the lower level players? I understand that it is in blizzards best interest to help them for the money, but the community.. really? It makes no sense, the more that low level players want to have balance the dumber the game is going to look from a spectator watching the pro's perspective.
I would much rather have the other races get higher skillcaps as well. instead of requiring terran to do 75% of the micro in a matchup to get the most out of their units, give toss and zerg stuff that benefits as well. It's more annoying to me that they didn't give zerg and protoss the same potential from their units, because as we've seen terran gets shafted every patch just because Korea can do it better.
I find it hard to believe terran is getting shafted because korea can do better, ghost needed to be nerfed period. They dam near hard countered the very things that were supposed to counter them, because of their range and any competent terran could snipe infestors and hts long before they even got a chance, and the only alternative otherwise was to warp prism hts in and out (if people wanna whine about micro).
Anti-caster unit counters casters. Wow!
HuK has been done storm drops before against MVP and they were good. Infestors have burrow, so unless a lucky scan goes down zerg will almost always get spells off before they can be neutralized. And again, when you say 'competent' it's implying high masters/gm-low masters and diamond will not be that on top of the game.
The terran race as a whole is being killed by the nerfs that are meant to effect the top ~5% because what they can do exceeds the capabilities of the other two races in a relatively similarly skilled players' hands.
Ask a platinum zerg to macro, 9/10 they will fail compared to what a masters or even a diamond can do, it's the same thing for terran. I'm not sure how protoss fits in honestly, but there's a reason that at least on some of the ladders, zerg is pretty much non-existent for quit some time on the ladder (until you hit a certain league) and if you do see them it's some sort of really bad all in. These nerfs are NOT affecting the 98% of players that people are claiming they are going to make a difference too, in such a way that is greatly significant. Does nerfing blue flame hellion damage affect bronze games? Sure on a very small level, but you know what would also affect it? Teaching that terran to build 2 rax rush and kill them, or teaching them how to macro properly, or teaching them just about any build order, having them refine it for an hour and getting promoted (slight hyperbole). I just find it borderline nuts that people can claim that these nerfs are radically affecting low diamond - down because they aren't. Micro isn't even a thought until you hit gold really if i remember, and then from there it doesn't even become big until diamond it seems. Macros the same. You don't need good micro to even get into plat, you can do so with 1 build period. People are claiming as terran is so micro intensive that you can't get into diamond + without it and straight up i feel like it's a pretty well known fact these days that you can hit masters almost entirely off of good macro with just a smidgen of micro, out macroing opponent often times in the lower leagues just leads to players steam rolling the others even with horrible micro. Terran has to deal with microing more on average than say zerg and zerg has to deal with being a highly reactive race against a race like terran which can effectively nullify scouting until mutas are out (assuming you go that route). They both have their pros and cons.
In ZvT, everytime an engagement happens Terran has to micro their ass off, while zerg is on attack move with their banelings automatically exploding on the marines.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent. If two people are equally bad, but one plays terran, the one that is terran will be inherently weaker because he doesn't have the necessary skills that allow terran to be on-par with other races.
The thing that I do not understand is.. why would you want to help out the lower level players? I understand that it is in blizzards best interest to help them for the money, but the community.. really? It makes no sense, the more that low level players want to have balance the dumber the game is going to look from a spectator watching the pro's perspective.
This is turning into World of Warcraft all over again! Cater to the casuals that find the game too hard, and you get a heavily dumbed down game, progressively dumber as the expansions go on. Really sick people wanting easymode.
If terran is harder at lower levels then so be it, that's true in BW too isn't it? If the foreign terrans want to compete then they need to learn how the koreans do it. If you look in korea now, gsl is pretty racially balanced so I don't see a problem there. Was it because of patches or metagame or who knows that actually changed terrans from winning everything, but it's certainly much better in korea.
So don't make terran easier, don't dumb down the race just to make them less micro intensive and let's not go over the other races in how they are "easier".
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent. If two people are equally bad, but one plays terran, the one that is terran will be inherently weaker because he doesn't have the necessary skills that allow terran to be on-par with other races.
The thing that I do not understand is.. why would you want to help out the lower level players? I understand that it is in blizzards best interest to help them for the money, but the community.. really? It makes no sense, the more that low level players want to have balance the dumber the game is going to look from a spectator watching the pro's perspective.
I would much rather have the other races get higher skillcaps as well. instead of requiring terran to do 75% of the micro in a matchup to get the most out of their units, give toss and zerg stuff that benefits as well. It's more annoying to me that they didn't give zerg and protoss the same potential from their units, because as we've seen terran gets shafted every patch just because Korea can do it better.
I think zerg is going to get a lot more micro intensive in HOTS. The viper and the swarm host will add quite a bit of variety to the race.
The swarm host sure looks like a unit that you must micro frantically.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic so I will answer. The swarm host plus the viper will create some kind of lurker/defilerish play which by it's own doesn't require too much micro, but you add zerlings+broods+banelings+whatever the hell is on the composition and suddenly it becomes very micro intensive.
I think zerg is going to get a lot more micro intensive in HOTS. The viper and the swarm host will add quite a bit of variety to the race.
By far the most idiotic post i've seen all day. The Viper's "Get OVER HERE" ability is not micro, that is world of warcraft spell mashing. Pressing spell battles are not fun to watch, microing units is fun to watch, and very impressive when you are doing it at a high level, adding gimmicky spells like that does not add micro. Idiots these days don't even know what micro is.
On November 30 2011 16:31 ZorBa.G wrote: Protoss really is just a fucking horrible joke. Stop defending your pathetic bullshit currently broken cheap ass race...
You really need to come play Terran for a couple of months.....
I mained as toss for almost a year, switched to terran and maintained SEA masters comfortably. It's not the highest level but I feel all the races are similarly difficult to win consistently with. Stop crying, it's the player not the race.
On November 30 2011 16:46 emc wrote: well, is the answer to make terran easier?
If terran is harder at lower levels then so be it, that's true in BW too isn't it?
So don't make terran easier, don't dumb down the race just to make them less micro intensive and let's not go over the other races in how they are "easier".
I certainly don't want Terran to be made easier. The micro aspect of Terran is why I play the race, I love the challenge. What needs to happen is, Blizzard needs to make the Toss race a harder race to play. Period.
If I wanted an easy race to play, I'd be playing Protoss. If Blizzard could just somehow make the toss units weaker and require more micro to be that much effective, I'd be one happy man. And yes, I know this will never happen..... only one can dream.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent. If two people are equally bad, but one plays terran, the one that is terran will be inherently weaker because he doesn't have the necessary skills that allow terran to be on-par with other races.
The thing that I do not understand is.. why would you want to help out the lower level players? I understand that it is in blizzards best interest to help them for the money, but the community.. really? It makes no sense, the more that low level players want to have balance the dumber the game is going to look from a spectator watching the pro's perspective.
I would much rather have the other races get higher skillcaps as well. instead of requiring terran to do 75% of the micro in a matchup to get the most out of their units, give toss and zerg stuff that benefits as well. It's more annoying to me that they didn't give zerg and protoss the same potential from their units, because as we've seen terran gets shafted every patch just because Korea can do it better.
I find it hard to believe terran is getting shafted because korea can do better, ghost needed to be nerfed period. They dam near hard countered the very things that were supposed to counter them, because of their range and any competent terran could snipe infestors and hts long before they even got a chance, and the only alternative otherwise was to warp prism hts in and out (if people wanna whine about micro).
Anti-caster unit counters casters. Wow!
HuK has been done storm drops before against MVP and they were good. Infestors have burrow, so unless a lucky scan goes down zerg will almost always get spells off before they can be neutralized. And again, when you say 'competent' it's implying high masters/gm-low masters and diamond will not be that on top of the game.
The terran race as a whole is being killed by the nerfs that are meant to effect the top ~5% because what they can do exceeds the capabilities of the other two races in a relatively similarly skilled players' hands.
What is your point in this. Ask a platinum zerg to macro, 9/10 they will fail compared to what a masters or even a diamond can do, it's the same thing for terran. I'm not sure how protoss fits in. But there's a reason that at least on some of the ladders, zerg is pretty much non-existent for quit some time on the ladder (until you hit a certain league) and if you do see them it's some sort of really bad all in. These nerfs are NOT affecting the 98% of players that they make a difference too, in such a way that is greatly significant. Does nerfing blue flame hellion damage affect bronze games? Sure on a very small level, but you know what would also affect it? Teaching that terran to build 2 rax rush and kill them. I just find it borderline nuts that people can claim that these nerfs are radically affecting low diamond - down because they aren't. Micro isn't even a thought until you hit gold really if i remember, and then from there it doesn't even become big until diamond it seems. Macros the same. You don't need good micro to even get into plat, you can do so with 1 build period. People are claiming as terran is so micro intensive that you can't get into diamond + without it and straight up i feel like it's a pretty well known fact these days that you can hit masters almost entirely off of good macro with just a smidgen of micro.
Actually you can get into masters with just 1 good build. I made it to low masters as zerg by practicing 15-hatch vs terran, 11-pool vs protoss and 14/14 gas/pool vs zerg.
No one has challenged my view that the raw strength of terran has enabled players like Sjow to compete at pro levels with just 150 apm whereas no zerg or protoss has managed this. You just don't need insane apm to play terran like so many people allege.
I think zerg is going to get a lot more micro intensive in HOTS. The viper and the swarm host will add quite a bit of variety to the race.
By far the most idiotic post i've seen all day. The Viper's "Get OVER HERE" ability is not micro, that is world of warcraft spell mashing. Pressing spell battles are not fun to watch, microing units is fun to watch, and very impressive when you are doing it at a high level, adding gimmicky spells like that does not add micro. Idiots these days don't even know what micro is.
Most idiotic post I've seen all day. See how I can be an asshole just as easily?
I don't like the viper pull too, and I hope it gets removed. But their reserve dark swarm is a very interesting adition to TvZ atleast.
Forgot Overlord? Np, stockpile some larva. Forgot Pylon? Np, Warpgate cooldown resets anyway + Supply Depots take the most time to build out of the three. -_-
That's actually not how macro works, getting supply blocked messes you up badly with every race. And besides..Terran has the supply depot drop, your argument sucks that Terran has a disadvantage in this area.
Terrans, hear me out. If you will continue with this kind of excuses for your low league performance you will not improve.
Before all the terran nerfs the forum was raging with irrelevant arguments for why terran does not need nerfs : Terran players are just better. Well, after the patch, we can all safely say they are not, and now are cought in old strategies that used to work with old patches and are losing. But we see some of them still dominating and it's the ones that have strong mechanics and good game sense. The players that used to abuse units and strategies now get dominated, but players like PuMa, MVP, MMA, etc that have really good mechanics and game sense still dominate. So the key is to actually know how to play the race instead of abusing it's moments of OP.
So since this boat has sailed the new generation of bronze terrans is cought in another excuse, the insane high micro required for them to do in order to win with terran and this is another bullshit.
First of all I think people are confusing Micro with Multitasking because terran units don't require that high micro as people suggest but the terran race does require a lot of multitasking.
Terran POV: CTR+A in the direction of the kiting Stalkers and hope to hit them. From time to time target the injured Stalker.
Protoss POV: Kite the Marines, if possible target the injured one and must place the Stalker with higher shield in the back to absorb hits from Marines.
If both micro perfectly Protoss always wins and no stalker lost. Of none of them micro, Terran always wins.
In mid game protoss has less units than terran that is shaping his bio ball, and it's essential for the protoss to carefully chose the fights and use almost perfect Force Fields and positioning. Usually the mid games battles are won by the terran, and most games end here, and this is because the protoss failed to do all the work that is necessary in order for him to win the battle. At high level perfect Force Fields trap the Bio and the Zealots + Archons clean it up. Terran has to elevate his units behind the Force Fields and target the Archons. The illusion of micro at this point is the Stutter Step the Bio does, and this the easies micro to perform. We see no spread, no smar elevations, just dodging.
At this level I think the micro required is just slightly ahead for the terran but he can make more mistakes than the protoss that can miss one Force Field and lose.
Terran POV: Use the vikings to target Collosus without taking hits from stalkers. Position the Ghosts and try to effectively EMP the important units. Snipe vulnerable HTs. Move the Bio Ball to bate Storms and doge them. Steam and attack + storm dodge.
Protoss POV: Spread the army in a thin line. Position the units to have maximum efficiency. Dodge the Vikings with the Collosus and blink the stalkers + target Vikings. Try to Feedback/Storm before the fight begins. Attack, target with the Collosus the front line of Marines, Dodge the injured one from Vikings, Blink Stalkers to kill Vikings. Force Field the back of the Bio Ball. Drop HTs from Prism and Storm the army.
Perfect Micro for both players the Protoss wins most of the time.
No Micro and terran is on equal chances. Note, I am saying this because I consider the Death Ball vs the Bio Ball a safe win for protoss late game because the Bio is weak. This is why terrans need to shape their things up because this style of play is getting old.
On November 30 2011 16:46 emc wrote: well, is the answer to make terran easier?
If terran is harder at lower levels then so be it, that's true in BW too isn't it?
So don't make terran easier, don't dumb down the race just to make them less micro intensive and let's not go over the other races in how they are "easier".
I certainly don't want Terran to be made easier. The micro aspect of Terran is why I play the race, I love the challenge. What needs to happen is, Blizzard needs to make the Toss race a harder race to play. Period.
If I wanted an easy race to play, I'd be playing Protoss. If Blizzard could just somehow make the toss units weaker and require more micro to be that much effective, I'd be one happy man. And yes, I know this will never happen..... only one can dream.
so now it's a thread whining about protoss? seriously...
On November 30 2011 16:50 Scarecrow wrote: I mained as toss for almost a year, switched to terran and maintained SEA masters comfortably. It's not the highest level but I feel all the races are similarly difficult to win consistently with. Stop crying, it's the player not the race.
Ever wondered why everyone prefers to watch a T v T game over a P v P game? Just maybe because of the sick skill that required in T v T maybe?
Not sure if many people realise, but thats why watching P v P is so god damn boring....
On November 30 2011 16:50 Scarecrow wrote: I mained as toss for almost a year, switched to terran and maintained SEA masters comfortably. It's not the highest level but I feel all the races are similarly difficult to win consistently with. Stop crying, it's the player not the race.
Ever wondered why everyone prefers to watch a T v T game over a P v P game? Just maybe because of the sick skill that required in T v T maybe?
Not sure if many people realise, but thats why watching P v P is so god damn boring....
not any more... if the maps allow it PvP becomes pretty fun to watch.
I think zerg is going to get a lot more micro intensive in HOTS. The viper and the swarm host will add quite a bit of variety to the race.
By far the most idiotic post i've seen all day. The Viper's "Get OVER HERE" ability is not micro, that is world of warcraft spell mashing. Pressing spell battles are not fun to watch, microing units is fun to watch, and very impressive when you are doing it at a high level, adding gimmicky spells like that does not add micro. Idiots these days don't even know what micro is.
UGHH not to de-rail, but you're THAT guy aren't you. That guy who started in WoW not even in Vanilla who missed the "good old days" where to just maybe get good gear it required you play a game in excess of 20 hours a week on a set raiding schedule on top of any time that you wanted to spend on anything other than raid progression, forget the hell of 40 man raiding where you were lucky to have 25 good players in group of 40, let alone 40/40 raid members on at one time, and at the end of the day not realizing that as the expansions progressed, due to hard modes the game got significantly harder due to mechanics in heroic modes. I never understood the whole more time = harder game view.
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. This is just pure balance whine, such bullshit, if you play significantly more games, you'll be the better player, regardless of race.
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.
This sums up what is pretty much a Terran circle-jerk thread based on a terrible OP. Yep, protoss doesnt require micro to be effective -.- Wow, foreign terrans aren't doing so well so let's use it as an excuse to whine about how our race got a little bit harder to play. I particularly love all the terrans here clinging to beastqt's words like they're gospel. Most pros think their own race is underpowered and will post like that. Terrans have had it so easy for so long and been nerfed the least of any race despite maintainng 50%+ in all mu's since release. You're just not as good as you think you are, you don't have to be a korean terran to own with the race and you're kidding yourself if you think Toss or Zerg is significantly easier in standard play. Terran has great tools and is the most resilient vs cheese/allins (repair, bunkers, mules). Terran is nowhere near out of reach of low level players, just get used to being at the level you should've been at had blizzard designed terran better in the first place.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent.
No, you're just bad. Controlling blink stalker sentry templar effectively whilst spacing your army, focussing down vikings, feedbacking ghosts...yeah no micro there. You build bunkers, toss relies on ff's. The argument is just stupid. Both races get stronger with better micro and the player with better control generally wins.
Just for the record. I have no problem in the T v Z MU, I feel both races have different mechanics which make playing these races just as hard as each other.
Protoss really is just a fucking horrible joke. Stop defending your pathetic bullshit currently broken cheap ass race.
Yeah those forcefields must be so god damn hard. Yeah, point given Protoss has to micro, but it's really just the ABC's compared to what Terran has to do. Your obviously just another Protoss jerk off who gets a stiff back once someone says the way you need to control your army is baby steps.
I mean comon' really? Forcefields are hard? Casting Storm is hard?
You really need to come play Terran for a couple of months..... get a load of this;
- Stutter step (sounds easy huh, do it while macroing and trying to keep up with the split second tech switches Protoss does throughout a game)
- Emp, oh yeah it's so easy to emp a Protoss. But try and emp the units that matter such as sentries, HT, Archons. Gotta get past those 3/3 lots first.
- When you can't get those high profile targets with emp, your next option is snipe. Still need to get past those Zealots....
- Making sure you always engage Protoss out in the open. Sounds easy huh, go try it.
- Making sure your army is in a concave before engagement. Point given, it's not hard... but adds to the rest of the shit you need to do.
- Focus down Collossi with Vikings
- In the middle of all this, your also trying manage a drop elsewhere.
Now do this while trying to keep in top of your macro at the same time.
But you know whats the most pathetic bullshit? The fact that if Terran screws up 1 aspect of what I have written above, they are screwed. It's pretty obvious ABC Protoss micro is certainly more forgiving then Terrans.
Also, the fact if a Protoss doesn't feel like microing a game against Terran, they can just whip up a 3/3 Chargelot/Archon composition, 1 A and go back to macro whilst the Terran player needs to race around his keyboard like a fkn idiot.
But please, what I'm interested in hearing is.... What micro is involved with 3/3 Chargelot/Archon? Ears are all open
Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....seriously...this is the biggest QQ I have seen in forever...
Get real man. Every race could make a laundry list of scenarios that are difficult for them to do or hard to do while macroing.
And the fact is, there is no race less forgiving than Protoss. Don't tell me because you miss one of those things you insta-lose and Toss isn't the same? Miss an early game FF - game over, miss feedbacks - game over, clump your templar and get emp - game over / get bottlenecked so your zealots cant attack - game over, miss with storms or ffs - game over, attack into a planetary - game over? I mean come on, bro...every race has their weaknesses and strengths. If you really think Terran is so easy then come over to Toss and see what the problems are at a high level for Toss and if you get to GM and the game is too easy for you because you are soooo goooooood from playing Terran, then come talk to me.
Forgot Overlord? Np, stockpile some larva. Forgot Pylon? Np, Warpgate cooldown resets anyway + Supply Depots take the most time to build out of the three. -_-
I fail to see how toss isn't affected. It's not like the time lost of the supply block will give them extra units to warp in..? I don't get it. I would say that it probably affects them the most, because when they realize it it's putting all unit producing structures out of play at once, a terran usually have streaming units..?
I think zerg is going to get a lot more micro intensive in HOTS. The viper and the swarm host will add quite a bit of variety to the race.
By far the most idiotic post i've seen all day. The Viper's "Get OVER HERE" ability is not micro, that is world of warcraft spell mashing. Pressing spell battles are not fun to watch, microing units is fun to watch, and very impressive when you are doing it at a high level, adding gimmicky spells like that does not add micro. Idiots these days don't even know what micro is.
UGHH not to de-rail, but you're THAT guy aren't you. That guy who started in WoW not even in Vanilla who missed the "good old days" where to just maybe get good gear it required you play a game in excess of 20 hours a week on a set raiding schedule on top of any time that you wanted to spend on anything other than raid progression, forget the hell of 40 man raiding where you were lucky to have 25 good players in group of 40, let alone 40/40 raid members on at one time, and at the end of the day not realizing that as the expansions progressed, due to hard modes the game got significantly harder due to mechanics in heroic modes. I never understood the whole more time = harder game view.
- ex vanilla through cata top 200 guild raider.
sry just had to post that.
Who cares about your WoW crap? WoW is a stupid time-sink for lemmings...go play a game where you can get killed by someone not programmed by a computer and then tell me what is harder.
UGHH not to de-rail, but you're THAT guy aren't you. That guy who started in WoW not even in Vanilla who missed the "good old days" where to just maybe get good gear it required you play a game in excess of 20 hours a week on a set raiding schedule on top of any time that you wanted to spend on anything other than raid progression, forget the hell of 40 man raiding where you were lucky to have 25 good players in group of 40, let alone 40/40 raid members on at one time, and at the end of the day not realizing that as the expansions progressed, due to hard modes the game got significantly harder due to mechanics in heroic modes. I never understood the whole more time = harder game view.
- ex vanilla through cata top 200 guild raider.
sry just had to post that.
I'm not arguing more time = harder game, but catering to noobs like you that whine because your deficiencies is the problem.
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. This is just pure balance whine, such bullshit, if you play significantly more games, you'll be the better player, regardless of race.
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.
This sums up what is pretty much a Terran circle-jerk thread based on a terrible OP. Yep, protoss doesnt require micro to be effective -.- Wow, foreign terrans aren't doing so well so let's use it as an excuse to whine about how our race got a little bit harder to play. I particularly love all the terrans here clinging to beastqt's words like they're gospel. Most pros think their own race is underpowered and will post like that. Terrans have had it so easy for so long and been nerfed the least of any race despite maintainng 50%+ in all mu's since release. You're just not as good as you think you are, you don't have to be a korean terran to own with the race and you're kidding yourself if you think Toss or Zerg is significantly easier in standard play. Terran has great tools and is the most resilient vs cheese/allins (repair, bunkers, mules). Terran is nowhere near out of reach of low level players, just get used to being at the level you should've been at had blizzard designed terran better in the first place.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent.
No, you're just bad. Controlling blink stalker sentry templar effectively whilst spacing your army, focussing down vikings, feedbacking ghosts...yeah no micro there. You build bunkers, toss relies on ff's. The argument is just stupid. Both races get stronger with better micro and the player with better control generally wins.
Just for the record. I have no problem in the T v Z MU, I feel both races have different mechanics which make playing these races just as hard as each other.
Protoss really is just a fucking horrible joke. Stop defending your pathetic bullshit currently broken cheap ass race.
Yeah those forcefields must be so god damn hard. Yeah, point given Protoss has to micro, but it's really just the ABC's compared to what Terran has to do. Your obviously just another Protoss jerk off who gets a stiff back once someone says the way you need to control your army is baby steps.
I mean comon' really? Forcefields are hard? Casting Storm is hard?
You really need to come play Terran for a couple of months..... get a load of this;
- Stutter step (sounds easy huh, do it while macroing and trying to keep up with the split second tech switches Protoss does throughout a game)
- Emp, oh yeah it's so easy to emp a Protoss. But try and emp the units that matter such as sentries, HT, Archons. Gotta get past those 3/3 lots first.
- When you can't get those high profile targets with emp, your next option is snipe. Still need to get past those Zealots....
- Making sure you always engage Protoss out in the open. Sounds easy huh, go try it.
- Making sure your army is in a concave before engagement. Point given, it's not hard... but adds to the rest of the shit you need to do.
- Focus down Collossi with Vikings
- In the middle of all this, your also trying manage a drop elsewhere.
Now do this while trying to keep in top of your macro at the same time.
But you know whats the most pathetic bullshit? The fact that if Terran screws up 1 aspect of what I have written above, they are screwed. It's pretty obvious ABC Protoss micro is certainly more forgiving then Terrans.
Also, the fact if a Protoss doesn't feel like microing a game against Terran, they can just whip up a 3/3 Chargelot/Archon composition, 1 A and go back to macro whilst the Terran player needs to race around his keyboard like a fkn idiot.
But please, what I'm interested in hearing is.... What micro is involved with 3/3 Chargelot/Archon? Ears are all open
Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....seriously...this is the biggest QQ I have seen in forever...
Get real man. Every race could make a laundry list of scenarios that are difficult for them to do or hard to do while macroing.
And the fact is, there is no race less forgiving than Protoss. Don't tell me because you miss one of those things you insta-lose and Toss isn't the same? Miss an early game FF - game over, miss feedbacks - game over, clump your templar and get emp - game over / get bottlenecked so your zealots cant attack - game over, miss with storms or ffs - game over, attack into a planetary - game over? I mean come on, bro...every race has their weaknesses and strengths. If you really think Terran is so easy then come over to Toss and see what the problems are at a high level for Toss and if you get to GM and the game is too easy for you because you are soooo goooooood from playing Terran, then come talk to me.
Do you mind answering my question in that post? I like how its been avoided so far.
The world doesn't use American measurements because they make no logical sense. So don't discriminate on others, Americans, for not using your flawed system.
On November 30 2011 16:50 Scarecrow wrote: I mained as toss for almost a year, switched to terran and maintained SEA masters comfortably. It's not the highest level but I feel all the races are similarly difficult to win consistently with. Stop crying, it's the player not the race.
Ever wondered why everyone prefers to watch a T v T game over a P v P game? Just maybe because of the sick skill that required in T v T maybe?
Not sure if many people realise, but thats why watching P v P is so god damn boring....
No, you're an idiot. PvP is just poorly designed. There are very few viable unit comp's, lack of scouting between probe and obs makes it far more of a coinflip, its metagame was held back by four gate for ages and there are still no safe fe builds. It's got nothing to do with the 'skills' of the players.
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. This is just pure balance whine, such bullshit, if you play significantly more games, you'll be the better player, regardless of race.
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.
This sums up what is pretty much a Terran circle-jerk thread based on a terrible OP. Yep, protoss doesnt require micro to be effective -.- Wow, foreign terrans aren't doing so well so let's use it as an excuse to whine about how our race got a little bit harder to play. I particularly love all the terrans here clinging to beastqt's words like they're gospel. Most pros think their own race is underpowered and will post like that. Terrans have had it so easy for so long and been nerfed the least of any race despite maintainng 50%+ in all mu's since release. You're just not as good as you think you are, you don't have to be a korean terran to own with the race and you're kidding yourself if you think Toss or Zerg is significantly easier in standard play. Terran has great tools and is the most resilient vs cheese/allins (repair, bunkers, mules). Terran is nowhere near out of reach of low level players, just get used to being at the level you should've been at had blizzard designed terran better in the first place.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent.
No, you're just bad. Controlling blink stalker sentry templar effectively whilst spacing your army, focussing down vikings, feedbacking ghosts...yeah no micro there. You build bunkers, toss relies on ff's. The argument is just stupid. Both races get stronger with better micro and the player with better control generally wins.
Just for the record. I have no problem in the T v Z MU, I feel both races have different mechanics which make playing these races just as hard as each other.
Protoss really is just a fucking horrible joke. Stop defending your pathetic bullshit currently broken cheap ass race.
Yeah those forcefields must be so god damn hard. Yeah, point given Protoss has to micro, but it's really just the ABC's compared to what Terran has to do. Your obviously just another Protoss jerk off who gets a stiff back once someone says the way you need to control your army is baby steps.
I mean comon' really? Forcefields are hard? Casting Storm is hard?
You really need to come play Terran for a couple of months..... get a load of this;
- Stutter step (sounds easy huh, do it while macroing and trying to keep up with the split second tech switches Protoss does throughout a game)
- Emp, oh yeah it's so easy to emp a Protoss. But try and emp the units that matter such as sentries, HT, Archons. Gotta get past those 3/3 lots first.
- When you can't get those high profile targets with emp, your next option is snipe. Still need to get past those Zealots....
- Making sure you always engage Protoss out in the open. Sounds easy huh, go try it.
- Making sure your army is in a concave before engagement. Point given, it's not hard... but adds to the rest of the shit you need to do.
- Focus down Collossi with Vikings
- In the middle of all this, your also trying manage a drop elsewhere.
Now do this while trying to keep in top of your macro at the same time.
But you know whats the most pathetic bullshit? The fact that if Terran screws up 1 aspect of what I have written above, they are screwed. It's pretty obvious ABC Protoss micro is certainly more forgiving then Terrans.
Also, the fact if a Protoss doesn't feel like microing a game against Terran, they can just whip up a 3/3 Chargelot/Archon composition, 1 A and go back to macro whilst the Terran player needs to race around his keyboard like a fkn idiot.
But please, what I'm interested in hearing is.... What micro is involved with 3/3 Chargelot/Archon? Ears are all open
Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....seriously...this is the biggest QQ I have seen in forever...
Get real man. Every race could make a laundry list of scenarios that are difficult for them to do or hard to do while macroing.
And the fact is, there is no race less forgiving than Protoss. Don't tell me because you miss one of those things you insta-lose and Toss isn't the same? Miss an early game FF - game over, miss feedbacks - game over, clump your templar and get emp - game over / get bottlenecked so your zealots cant attack - game over, miss with storms or ffs - game over, attack into a planetary - game over? I mean come on, bro...every race has their weaknesses and strengths. If you really think Terran is so easy then come over to Toss and see what the problems are at a high level for Toss and if you get to GM and the game is too easy for you because you are soooo goooooood from playing Terran, then come talk to me.
Do you mind answering my question in that post? I like how its been avoided so far.
As i said earlier it's another one of this "Hey guys dont' worry i'm not whining about racial imbalance, just stating SOLID (laugh) facts, so i can start a discussion (laugh). I swear this isn't one of those posts"
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. This is just pure balance whine, such bullshit, if you play significantly more games, you'll be the better player, regardless of race.
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.
This sums up what is pretty much a Terran circle-jerk thread based on a terrible OP. Yep, protoss doesnt require micro to be effective -.- Wow, foreign terrans aren't doing so well so let's use it as an excuse to whine about how our race got a little bit harder to play. I particularly love all the terrans here clinging to beastqt's words like they're gospel. Most pros think their own race is underpowered and will post like that. Terrans have had it so easy for so long and been nerfed the least of any race despite maintainng 50%+ in all mu's since release. You're just not as good as you think you are, you don't have to be a korean terran to own with the race and you're kidding yourself if you think Toss or Zerg is significantly easier in standard play. Terran has great tools and is the most resilient vs cheese/allins (repair, bunkers, mules). Terran is nowhere near out of reach of low level players, just get used to being at the level you should've been at had blizzard designed terran better in the first place.
On November 30 2011 15:52 Active.815 wrote: But terran is fundamentally more difficult due to the necessity of having better micro then your opponent.
No, you're just bad. Controlling blink stalker sentry templar effectively whilst spacing your army, focussing down vikings, feedbacking ghosts...yeah no micro there. You build bunkers, toss relies on ff's. The argument is just stupid. Both races get stronger with better micro and the player with better control generally wins.
Just for the record. I have no problem in the T v Z MU, I feel both races have different mechanics which make playing these races just as hard as each other.
Protoss really is just a fucking horrible joke. Stop defending your pathetic bullshit currently broken cheap ass race.
Yeah those forcefields must be so god damn hard. Yeah, point given Protoss has to micro, but it's really just the ABC's compared to what Terran has to do. Your obviously just another Protoss jerk off who gets a stiff back once someone says the way you need to control your army is baby steps.
I mean comon' really? Forcefields are hard? Casting Storm is hard?
You really need to come play Terran for a couple of months..... get a load of this;
- Stutter step (sounds easy huh, do it while macroing and trying to keep up with the split second tech switches Protoss does throughout a game)
- Emp, oh yeah it's so easy to emp a Protoss. But try and emp the units that matter such as sentries, HT, Archons. Gotta get past those 3/3 lots first.
- When you can't get those high profile targets with emp, your next option is snipe. Still need to get past those Zealots....
- Making sure you always engage Protoss out in the open. Sounds easy huh, go try it.
- Making sure your army is in a concave before engagement. Point given, it's not hard... but adds to the rest of the shit you need to do.
- Focus down Collossi with Vikings
- In the middle of all this, your also trying manage a drop elsewhere.
Now do this while trying to keep in top of your macro at the same time.
But you know whats the most pathetic bullshit? The fact that if Terran screws up 1 aspect of what I have written above, they are screwed. It's pretty obvious ABC Protoss micro is certainly more forgiving then Terrans.
Also, the fact if a Protoss doesn't feel like microing a game against Terran, they can just whip up a 3/3 Chargelot/Archon composition, 1 A and go back to macro whilst the Terran player needs to race around his keyboard like a fkn idiot.
But please, what I'm interested in hearing is.... What micro is involved with 3/3 Chargelot/Archon? Ears are all open
Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....seriously...this is the biggest QQ I have seen in forever...
Get real man. Every race could make a laundry list of scenarios that are difficult for them to do or hard to do while macroing.
And the fact is, there is no race less forgiving than Protoss. Don't tell me because you miss one of those things you insta-lose and Toss isn't the same? Miss an early game FF - game over, miss feedbacks - game over, clump your templar and get emp - game over / get bottlenecked so your zealots cant attack - game over, miss with storms or ffs - game over, attack into a planetary - game over? I mean come on, bro...every race has their weaknesses and strengths. If you really think Terran is so easy then come over to Toss and see what the problems are at a high level for Toss and if you get to GM and the game is too easy for you because you are soooo goooooood from playing Terran, then come talk to me.
Do you mind answering my question in that post? I like how its been avoided so far.
Sure, how do you micro chargelot archon? Is that the question?
You first have to either FF perfectly or you get kited to death. Otherwise you have to engage into a dead-end to trap the units. You also have to stay alive to that point...
How about this, tell me how hard it really is to macro a 3-rax all in? Or micro a 1-1-1? or pull off 2 port banshee? Come on, seriously....you're setting up straw-men here with your questions.
On November 30 2011 16:50 Scarecrow wrote: I mained as toss for almost a year, switched to terran and maintained SEA masters comfortably. It's not the highest level but I feel all the races are similarly difficult to win consistently with. Stop crying, it's the player not the race.
Ever wondered why everyone prefers to watch a T v T game over a P v P game? Just maybe because of the sick skill that required in T v T maybe?
Not sure if many people realise, but thats why watching P v P is so god damn boring....
No, you're an idiot. PvP is just poorly designed. There are very few viable unit comp's, lack of scouting between probe and obs makes it far more of a coinflip, its metagame was held back by four gate for ages and there are still no safe fe builds. It's got nothing to do with the 'skills' of the players.
So if P v P is poorly designed..... what does that mean for Protoss in general? My arguments aren't targeted to Protoss players directly, it's more targeted towards Blizzard. If you want to play a race my 6 year old brother can, go for it... but don't try and tell me it's a hard race to play out.
And yeah, P v P has been held back by the 4-gate for ages..... I don't think there is anyone I know that can't do a 4-gate.
@reborn58, thanks mate you just proved my point. Dem forcefields must be hard huh?
On November 30 2011 17:02 deadmau wrote: I'm not arguing more time = harder game, but catering to noobs that whine about their own deficiencies is the actual problem.
Then there is no argument for that concept in this discussion. Blizzard saw that some abilities in some races were mildly overpowered, take for example EMP, which was very arguably considered OP by the majority of pro players and even some terrans simply because it hard countered most caster units undeniably in the game especially in the case of protoss and created an issue because it was essentially an instant psi storm coupled with feed back all in one with better range (smaller radius i believe though) on a unit that could insta cloak and to top it all off can attack without energy (although not very strong) unlike the other similar caster units. For the 98% of players people are arguing that this affects, while it may, it's such a small affect that it doesn't matter. Gold players aren't concerned about the reduced radius of EMP and i'd be surprised if bronze and some silver players were even aware that hellions could be upgraded. These nerfs don't become issues because the games typically come down to either a. who is allining or b. who can macro better.
On November 30 2011 16:50 Scarecrow wrote: I mained as toss for almost a year, switched to terran and maintained SEA masters comfortably. It's not the highest level but I feel all the races are similarly difficult to win consistently with. Stop crying, it's the player not the race.
Ever wondered why everyone prefers to watch a T v T game over a P v P game? Just maybe because of the sick skill that required in T v T maybe?
Not sure if many people realise, but thats why watching P v P is so god damn boring....
No, you're an idiot. PvP is just poorly designed. There are very few viable unit comp's, lack of scouting between probe and obs makes it far more of a coinflip, its metagame was held back by four gate for ages and there are still no safe fe builds. It's got nothing to do with the 'skills' of the players.
So if P v P is poorly designed..... what does that mean for Protoss in general? My arguments aren't targeted to Protoss players directly, it's more targeted towards Blizzard. If you want to play a race my 6 year old brother can, go for it... but don't try and tell me it's a hard race to play out.
And yeah, P v P has been held back by the 4-gate for ages..... I don't think there is anyone I know that can't do a 4-gate.
Please just shut up...
My 6 year old dog could play Terran, does it mean he can play it at a high level?
On November 30 2011 16:50 Scarecrow wrote: I mained as toss for almost a year, switched to terran and maintained SEA masters comfortably. It's not the highest level but I feel all the races are similarly difficult to win consistently with. Stop crying, it's the player not the race.
Ever wondered why everyone prefers to watch a T v T game over a P v P game? Just maybe because of the sick skill that required in T v T maybe?
Not sure if many people realise, but thats why watching P v P is so god damn boring....
No, you're an idiot. PvP is just poorly designed. There are very few viable unit comp's, lack of scouting between probe and obs makes it far more of a coinflip, its metagame was held back by four gate for ages and there are still no safe fe builds. It's got nothing to do with the 'skills' of the players.
So if P v P is poorly designed..... what does that mean for Protoss in general? My arguments aren't targeted to Protoss players directly, it's more targeted towards Blizzard. If you want to play a race my 6 year old brother can, go for it... but don't try and tell me it's a hard race to play out.
And yeah, P v P has been held back by the 4-gate for ages..... I don't think there is anyone I know that can't do a 4-gate.
Smurf as Protoss, reach Masters, and come back to talk. It's easy for any one of us to say that terran, zerg, protoss is weak, but that's just stupid.
ok then zorbag. To your "questions" first of all as protoss your also worry about tech switchs 2nd emp psi storm feedback snipe. it's a balanced war to whoever has the better micro and positioning on your where to engage. protoss has to do that to. stalkers have to focus down the vikings in the middle of this you have to manage the drops of terran and you have to go back to warp in units.
so why QQ? just get better. every race has its own requirements.Stop creating arguments about Terran being imbalanced.
On November 30 2011 17:13 AcrosstheSky wrote: ok then zorbag. To your "questions" first of all as protoss your also worry about tech switchs 2nd emp psi storm feedback snipe. it's a balanced war to whoever has the better micro and positioning on your where to engage. protoss has to do that to. stalkers have to focus down the vikings in the middle of this you have to manage the drops of terran and you have to go back to warp in units.
so why QQ? just get better. every race has its own requirements.Stop creating arguments about Terran being imbalanced.
On November 30 2011 16:50 Scarecrow wrote: I mained as toss for almost a year, switched to terran and maintained SEA masters comfortably. It's not the highest level but I feel all the races are similarly difficult to win consistently with. Stop crying, it's the player not the race.
Ever wondered why everyone prefers to watch a T v T game over a P v P game? Just maybe because of the sick skill that required in T v T maybe?
Not sure if many people realise, but thats why watching P v P is so god damn boring....
No, you're an idiot. PvP is just poorly designed. There are very few viable unit comp's, lack of scouting between probe and obs makes it far more of a coinflip, its metagame was held back by four gate for ages and there are still no safe fe builds. It's got nothing to do with the 'skills' of the players.
So if P v P is poorly designed..... what does that mean for Protoss in general? My arguments aren't targeted to Protoss players directly, it's more targeted towards Blizzard. If you want to play a race my 6 year old brother can, go for it... but don't try and tell me it's a hard race to play out.
And yeah, P v P has been held back by the 4-gate for ages..... I don't think there is anyone I know that can't do a 4-gate.
I'm done with this. This whole thread is one ridiculous lowbie balance whine. Your race is not why you're still in gold/plat etc.
I'll echo the voices of folks saying that the issue with terran has a lot more to do with fundamental aspects of protoss and zerg than it does with fundamental aspects of terran. Terran is very well designed, protoss and zerg have built in limitations that require balancing around, and that's why the game balance feels so fragile. A really straightforward example of this, near and dear to my heart as a protoss player, is how warpgate units have to be balanced down to account for the warp in mechanic, and then all the real muscle of a gateway army comes from sentries and not stalkers or zealots (unless you've way out-upgraded your opponent). Tons of good stuff on that floating around. Or the fact that prior to lair zerg has exactly 0 units that shoot up with any real offensive ability, unless you think you're fruitdealer.
Terran doesn't suffer from the same gimmick balancing issues or lack of roundedness/flexibility- in fact, it has the latter in droves. But it does have to be scaled back to account for the glaring Achilles' heels the other two races suffer from. It's not really possible to tell, but at this point it looks like hots is going to help out but not completely solve the problem.
On November 30 2011 17:13 AcrosstheSky wrote: ok then zorbag. To your "questions" first of all as protoss your also worry about tech switchs 2nd emp psi storm feedback snipe. it's a balanced war to whoever has the better micro and positioning on your where to engage. protoss has to do that to. stalkers have to focus down the vikings in the middle of this you have to manage the drops of terran and you have to go back to warp in units.
so why QQ? just get better. every race has its own requirements.Stop creating arguments about Terran being imbalanced.
Ok, you won.
If you can't handle that micro just get 3/3 Chargelot/Archon. Unfortunately Terrans don't have that luxury of an almost invincible microless late game composition.
But I get it, you proved your point. Protoss does require some intensive micro.
On November 30 2011 17:13 AcrosstheSky wrote: ok then zorbag. To your "questions" first of all as protoss your also worry about tech switchs 2nd emp psi storm feedback snipe. it's a balanced war to whoever has the better micro and positioning on your where to engage. protoss has to do that to. stalkers have to focus down the vikings in the middle of this you have to manage the drops of terran and you have to go back to warp in units.
so why QQ? just get better. every race has its own requirements.Stop creating arguments about Terran being imbalanced.
Ok, you won.
If you can't handle that micro just get 3/3 Chargelot/Archon. Unfortunately Terrans don't have that luxury of an almost invincible microless late game composition.
But I get it, you proved your point. Protoss does require some intensive micro.
DUDE, STIM+KITING Is the fucking easies micro there is out there. If you can't do that please go play zerg, but be aware, you need to macro a lot more.
On November 30 2011 17:13 AcrosstheSky wrote: ok then zorbag. To your "questions" first of all as protoss your also worry about tech switchs 2nd emp psi storm feedback snipe. it's a balanced war to whoever has the better micro and positioning on your where to engage. protoss has to do that to. stalkers have to focus down the vikings in the middle of this you have to manage the drops of terran and you have to go back to warp in units.
so why QQ? just get better. every race has its own requirements.Stop creating arguments about Terran being imbalanced.
Ok, you won.
If you can't handle that micro just get 3/3 Chargelot/Archon. Unfortunately Terrans don't have that luxury of an almost invincible microless late game composition.
But I get it, you proved your point. Protoss does require some intensive micro.
I'm curious as to what league you're in. Up to diamond/masters all you need is good macro, you can almost not micro and win games straight out. However by the time you get into these leagues your micro should be more than efficient enough to handle terran micro which for the most part is having different control groups attack different things and marine splits/marine kites. Which most other races do short of marine splits. From then on it's not even an argument of your micro (which will improve) it's more of a game sense/build knowledge/multi-tasking level. I don't understand the gripe about terran micro. yes you have to micro marines away from banelings (in a zvt where i play zerg), and at the same time you have to hit your hot keys to que/build units, but at the same time the zerg is running in his lings, targeting the siege tanks down with mutas, and manually moving the banelings to hit marines so they don't "a move" onto the siege tanks, so they're doing essentially the same thing you're doing... except they have to attack que (or manually attack) the mutas on the siege tanks, all while keeping up on larva injects, spreading creep if applicable and keeping an obvious eye out for drops. They don't seem much different although i'd still argue that the need for larva injects (hitting them consistently) while microing seems a tid bit harder to do than just a simple 1 or 2 hotkey hit and unit making, due to the fact that you have to cycle from often times 4+ hatcheries and manually move your screen away from your possible micro area (assuming you choose to do so), often times just dropping alone even if no physical damage is done, will result in a player missing larva injects, doing actual damage.
When the map pools of tournaments get to the point where more things become available and other tactics become unavailable we will find that some of these cute "op" things on these specific set of maps that we see now (which are oddly similar in broader terms of maps as a whole). I think it's kind of rash to say a race is imba because of the maps we play on now. Too unexplored.
There should be a poll with what league everyone in this thread is. I had just assumed everyone in this thread was a top-tier ladder player!
My hardest match up is definitely PVT. I play at high diamond, which is still a relatively low level, but still find Terran is way more abusive than Zerg.
it's more or less impossible to have 3 different races who play "exactly" the same on all levels of skill - I'm protoss and definitely thinkt that due to the mechanics of the race, zerg is the most difficult to grasp for a beginner. Even though in lower leagues it's all about a-move and macro, zerg is so unforgiving that any basic mistakes just kills them outright while terrans can hide behind bunkers and protoss has forcefields.
Is this fair? No. But that's how the world starcraft works. If you balance the game for the highest level of skill, then some races will be superior in one league or the other, it's almost inevitable.
Nevertheless I won't deny that there are fundamental flaws with protoss, mainly due to warpgate mechanics. Personally, I think that pylons just shouldn't provide for warp-ins...warp-ins should be limited to a huge radius around a nexus and the warpprism. That would solve so, so many problems...
On November 30 2011 14:34 sunman1g wrote: the balance of TvX is already horrible at master, below master is a joke and in fact i am not surprised by the stats at blizzcon that showed how P was winning 60%+ of their games vs terran.
i personally stopped playing several months ago. i used to be a mid/high master terran player but i got so pissed because of what they are doing with the balance that i eventually quit. the game became too much stress and no fun for me, and i feel lots of terran players in every division are in the same boat. the "terran racism" from the community does not help either. now i am just a (happy) watcher that does not play anymore. yeeeey.
Pretty much exactly like my case, except I'm/was Diamond.
I have played over 1500 games with terran in a high master area, it is by far the hardest race to micro properly. You lose with equal micro capabilities to your opponent outright most of the time. That's why I'm switching to zerg, and beating masters after a couple of games.
Terran POV: CTR+A in the direction of the kiting Stalkers and hope to hit them. From time to time target the injured Stalker.
Protoss POV: Kite the Marines, if possible target the injured one and must place the Stalker with higher shield in the back to absorb hits from Marines.
If both micro perfectly Protoss always wins and no stalker lost. Of none of them micro, Terran always wins.
Terran POV: Use the vikings to target Collosus without taking hits from stalkers. Position the Ghosts and try to effectively EMP the important units. Snipe vulnerable HTs. Move the Bio Ball to bate Storms and doge them. Steam and attack + storm dodge.
Protoss POV: Spread the army in a thin line. Position the units to have maximum efficiency. Dodge the Vikings with the Collosus and blink the stalkers + target Vikings. Try to Feedback/Storm before the fight begins. Attack, target with the Collosus the front line of Marines, Dodge the injured one from Vikings, Blink Stalkers to kill Vikings. Force Field the back of the Bio Ball. Drop HTs from Prism and Storm the army.
Perfect Micro for both players the Protoss wins most of the time.
No Micro and terran is on equal chances. Note, I am saying this because I consider the Death Ball vs the Bio Ball a safe win for protoss late game because the Bio is weak. This is why terrans need to shape their things up because this style of play is getting old.
Anyway, TL;DR Stop making excuses, high level terrans win with skill and terran does not require more micro than protoss, and that is by a long shot.
THis is just extremely biased. Early game with marines you have to put out injured marines away, and you dont always 1a, you some itmes move back and 1a ahead and try to take the toss by surprise. But anyway im not gonna argue that terran is hard early and mid, becasue they really aren't, but what is relevant in the balance discussion is late game, and you have made some big mistakes when analyzing typical "high level toss vs terran play".
1) Toss dont pull collosus away during battles. They 1a them (target firing marines compared to mauruders isn't that important). 2) Spreading out their unit will happen prebattle (not during a battle). 3) Toss will some times blink their stalkers to get closer to the vikings. This is however an extremely easy mechanic. 4) "Force Field the back of the Bio Ball. Drop HTs from Prism and Storm the army." THis isn't relevant in 99% of TvP's late game.
In the end what toss has to do: 1) Make sure chargelots are in the front prebattle. 2) Make sure collosus are somewhat protected from vikigns prebattle (surrounded by stlakers). 3) 1a(2a) a lot of stuff, and storm some of the bio units. 4) Blink stalkers in the direction of vikings.
This is what terran has to do before and during a battle: 1) Make sure everything is perfectly positioned relative to each other: Ghost, bio units and vikings, while spreading them out. 2) Emp everything you can during battle but be sure that you have the priotizizes correct (e.g. HT are most important, but also most difficult to hit as they are behind the army). Often time your ghosts will get stuck before they can hit HT, and hitting emps with slightl lag (as there is in bnet 2.0) can be difficult. The difference in using emp and storm is that with storm you dont have to prioritze that much. If there is a big clump of bio units you hold down t and click a lot of times. 3) Shift attack vikings on collosus. 4) Kite with bio units. Most of the time (in a 200 food battles vs AOE) you cant simply 1a (click back), 1a (click back), but you have to kite small groups of your army. THis becomes extremely hard. 5) Pull your ghosts away as well after they have emped (not veyr hard in it self).
IMo the above is what typical terrans are typical protoss (gm level) are trying to execute. The difference is that doing all this stuff optimal is so much harder for terran. Sure its possible for terran to be cost efficient vs toss if you master those 5 steps, but even then, if the toss has a good sense of economy mangement, he can rebuild so fast that the game is almost back to even (unless you absolutey destory him in that battle which shouldn't happen unless the terran compltely destorys the toss in the battle (which can only happen if the toss makes huges blunders).
ANother concept that makes terran harder late game is that terrans has to constantly react to toss tech switches. Late game toss can have a few robotics facitlies, and as terran it becomes insanely hard to predcit the optimal amoount of vikings you need.
IMO late game tvp is absolutely broken. Medicore toss play beats mediocore terran plays. And even in korea terrans dont seem comfortable late game vs toss( as they do all kind of crazy stuff right now). I hope blizzard will fix the matchup soon, because right now terran isn't worth playing unless you like to do allins.
On November 30 2011 18:20 enCore- wrote: I have played over 1500 games with terran in a high master area, it is by far the hardest race to micro properly. You lose with equal micro capabilities to your opponent outright most of the time. That's why I'm switching to zerg, and beating masters after a couple of games.
But you do understand that this is just your opinion right? If you were random than your subjective opinion would have had weight. As it is you are just telling everyone else that your race is the hardest. And guess what, this is what everybody does.
@Hider : I showed what both have to do before the battle and during.
So you take out from the list the stalkers job against the viking because it's easy to do? It's a micro task that you have to do during a 5 second battle. And no, you don't just 1a your collosus because they might all target 2 marines that are on the side of the battle, and this way you gain lots of hits from the viking. Also, it is necessary to dodge the vikings during the battle because often times the bio will retreat out of range to micro against the zealots so the collosus become useless but you don't want to lose them to nothing.
But if we are to oversimplify for the sake of our race:
Terran: EMP and 1A the bio then stutter step till they gg.
what a fucking horrible thread. both sides of the argument are being represented by idiots bar a very small amount of posts. i sure as hell hope that isnt the zorba from western australia who used to play warcraft 3.
^ all i know about zorba is that he left the australian counter-strike scene because nobody likes him
i like how after dominating since release (in the gsl/korean scene at least) terran players have decided that the race is bad because the winrates are starting to even out...
Terran is the worst race to play in Diamond and Master.
I play Terran Master, Protoss/Zerg high Diamond and let me say that once you got into Platinum with Protoss/Zerg, it is just deathball a-click/muta/ling. Not a single shred of micro needed. Furthermore Terran can't keep up with a 20 Nexus or early mass lings. So if you survive the first 10 minutes, you win about 90% of your games. As a Master Terran, I only win if I play perfectly and the enemy does major mistakes. That's the reality in Diamond/Master. But probably I get flamed anyway since the Day9 bronzies out there think nobody has the right to criticize the imbalance currently existing in this game and guess what HotS will just introduce new imbalances, not fixing them.
I don't think that SCII is imbalanced... I don't think that some race is OP... my opinion is that SCII is game that is just totaly incomplete and have some... wierd mechanics. What do I mean? I dislike way PvT is played. If Terran choses to play straight macro against me(my main is toss), he cannot win and I know it... but when close positions by air, I have really hard times to defend drops, which are, unlike in SC1, easier to do, and moreover, Terran will almost everytime have dropping units.
Points that I thinks that are problem are these: Terran units are too cheesish(Banshee is too weak as real unit and too strong against workers once it gets cloak, but after early game... it sucks)/all-inish/dropish(Hellion is just bad concept that is only good vs workers, because of its splash style, but except for that, it sucks), while in straight fight, they most time sucks, and their lategame units... do they actually have some real T3 unit? (This is problem with TvP... how can PvT remain balanced when it should be fair when terran have complete tech tree, which is easier to get, and should remain fair after Toss reaches all Tech tree buildings, which is like year after terran is possible to do so)
There are too few units for each race, and implementing more ones(like in HOTS) would be hard, because Terran don't have tech buildings (Tech lab is not REAL tech building).
My opinion is that SCII now is like playing Chess on 6x6 battlefield without knights... yes, it would be balanced... but it feels like it have long way to go before it can be said to be completed.
If I was SC2 balance maker I would: -Add one tech building for Terran -Add one unit to each unit producing building of Terran, Protoss, 3 new to Hatches -Remove hellions and replace them with more armored and durable, slower version of vulture with circle(no line omg) splash. -Remove cloak from banshee and make it more durant instead(giving cloak to some new unit).
Maybe I am wrong... but I feel this way... and if you think my post is not good, just delete it, or ignore it.
I am not on the level to talk about how hard it is at master. To settle this, I would love it if these people just post some replays as proof what race is so much harder. No replay no arguement imo.
On November 30 2011 18:20 enCore- wrote: I have played over 1500 games with terran in a high master area, it is by far the hardest race to micro properly. You lose with equal micro capabilities to your opponent outright most of the time. That's why I'm switching to zerg, and beating masters after a couple of games.
But you do understand that this is just your opinion right? If you were random than your subjective opinion would have had weight. As it is you are just telling everyone else that your race is the hardest. And guess what, this is what everybody does.
@Hider : I showed what both have to do before the battle and during.
So you take out from the list the stalkers job against the viking because it's easy to do? It's a micro task that you have to do during a 5 second battle. And no, you don't just 1a your collosus because they might all target 2 marines that are on the side of the battle, and this way you gain lots of hits from the viking. Also, it is necessary to dodge the vikings during the battle because often times the bio will retreat out of range to micro against the zealots so the collosus become useless but you don't want to lose them to nothing.
But if we are to oversimplify for the sake of our race:
Terran: EMP and 1A the bio then stutter step till they gg.
I didn't take out anything. I stated that what toss players actualyl do is blinking stalkers in the direction of vikings, and then i stated that this is an easy mechanic in it self.
Edit: Yeh sorry just realized i actually took that part out. That was a mistake, my bad.
I'm top5 in my masters league and I play like 4h/w. I don't think terran is THAT hard, but I think we need to hurt zergs economy and have really good micro through early-, mid- and lategame. Otherwise we get rolled. I also think we need to force small battles through drops and and expansionsniping vs protosses. If we let them gather a very high gateway count and a nice deathball the game becomes too hard.
My point is, terran needs good mechanics and good game sense. Which race doesn't? Zerg can die if they misplace a queen and get all drones roasted, protoss can die if terran gets a nexus through dropping while the toss is about to attack.
There's one thing I miss though, I wish that tanks were viable in TvP. Thors too! feedback and immortals just cleans my poor attempts to include tank/thor in my bioballs when I have more expansions.
On November 30 2011 18:52 JollYRoGeR wrote: I'm top5 in my masters league and I play like 4h/w. I don't think terran is THAT hard, but I think we need to hurt zergs economy and have really good micro through early-, mid- and lategame. Otherwise we get rolled. I also think we need to force small battles through drops and and expansionsniping vs protosses. If we let them gather a very high gateway count and a nice deathball the game becomes too hard.
My point is, terran needs good mechanics and good game sense. Which race doesn't? Zerg can die if they misplace a queen and get all drones roasted, protoss can die if terran gets a nexus through dropping while the toss is about to attack.
There's one thing I miss though, I wish that tanks were viable in TvP. Thors too! feedback and immortals just cleans my poor attempts to include tank/thor in my bioballs when I have more expansions.
You dont play late game very often against any race right?
Think of how long toss has been fucked in that matchup. 6 months ? 7? 8? Ok, now after about a month of the patch, terrans aren't winning EVERY SINGLE THING placing 6 out of top 8, and the game is fucking broken. Where is the sense in this? Seriously lol.
On November 30 2011 18:41 corvaleur wrote: Terran is the worst race to play in Diamond and Master.
I play Terran Master, Protoss/Zerg high Diamond and let me say that once you got into Platinum with Protoss/Zerg, it is just deathball a-click/muta/ling. Not a single shred of micro needed. Furthermore Terran can't keep up with a 20 Nexus or early mass lings. So if you survive the first 10 minutes, you win about 90% of your games. As a Master Terran, I only win if I play perfectly and the enemy does major mistakes. That's the reality in Diamond/Master. But probably I get flamed anyway since the Day9 bronzies out there think nobody has the right to criticize the imbalance currently existing in this game and guess what HotS will just introduce new imbalances, not fixing them.
Getting sick of these posts, just read what I bolded and tell me it's not irrational whining. All I see are sweeping generalisations about racial balance made by a masters terran who macros and a-moves with the other races at lower ranks (can be done with all races, terrans just have the arduous task of stimming their ball).
I don't understand this complaining about Terran. For a long time now, they have been over 50% on all non-mirror matchups, TvP being 57% in favor of T, and TvZ 53% in favor of T as of october, according to the stats on a thread that gathers all games in tournaments international and korean. Are you OP terran so spoiled that for you, not always being over 55% and having 6 on the top 10 is being UP ?
PS: some statistics 101 and science 101 courses would do you good. Including things like "of the top 10 foreigners only 2 are terrans" as if that had any utility at all is not the way to go to prove your point. People don't go (or shouldn't) go around looking for proof to prove a point. They get a point and try to disprove it. If it stands, then it might have a chance of becoming a fact and not a theory (/point).
On November 30 2011 18:56 Apolo wrote: I don't understand this complaining about Terran. For a long time now, they have been over 50% on all non-mirror matchups, TvP being 57% in favor of T, and TvZ 53% in favor of T as of october, according to the stats on a thread that gathers all games in tournaments international and korean. Are you OP terran so spoiled that for you, not always being over 55% and having 6 on the top 10 is being UP ?
PS: some statistics 101 and science 101 courses would do you good. Including things like "of the top 10 foreigners only 2 are terrans" as if that had any utility at all is not the way to go to prove your point. People don't go (or shouldn't) go around looking for proof to prove a point. They get a point and try to disprove it. If it stands, then it might have a chance of becoming a fact and not a theory (/point).
An English 101 course would do you well.
We really can't make any statistical conclusions on balance unless blizzard decides to release current matchup win rates for each race as they have in the past.
I don't see the point of OP. All my friends in lower levels (which I consider bronze to gold) play terran and they are very happy with their race. They can play 1 base safe, they can turtle, they can harass with flying DTs, they can faceroll low level zerg with stimmed marines and marauders, and their macro mechanic is just forgiveable (oh, I have skipped mules for 1 min, no problem 4 in a row)
They don't need to micro the hell of it because the opponents aren't doing so also. Zerg are not injecting as proper as they should, they are not expanding, they are not flanking or microing banelings (thus all dying in a single thor) So they just stim and faceroll, with some pre emptive split in marines, or just 2 port banshee them.
Same for protoss, no good forcefields or not guardian shield just make MMM ball to tear thought the feared deathball in no time.
In fact I have always seen terran as the most rewarding race because you have so much stuff to do and even your lowly T1 unit has so much potential, that you can achieve great things if you master them.
With zerg is more about game sense, scouting and droning/building army dichotomy. It is rewarding on its own, but harder for the casual gamer. Also zerg doesn't have much room for micro, since it is by desing a swarm race, where positioning and raw numbers are the key, not microing glass cannons.
The main problem I see about terrans is they were dominating the scene since Beta, but now protoss and zerg have found ways to counter the early pushes and all in strategies, and can progress into the late game, while the terran still are playing in the old fashion MMM style as in the beta. But don't worry, someday a new Boxer will come, he (or she) will rework the terran BO and unit composition and we will all shit bricks, once again.
On November 30 2011 18:59 Eviscerador wrote: I don't see the point of OP. All my friends in lower levels (which I consider bronze to gold) play terran and they are very happy with their race. They can play 1 base safe, they can turtle, they can harass with flying DTs, they can faceroll low level zerg with stimmed marines and marauders, and their macro mechanic is just forgiveable (oh, I have skipped mules for 1 min, no problem 4 in a row)
They don't need to micro the hell of it because the opponents aren't doing so also. Zerg are not injecting as proper as they should, they are not expanding, they are not flanking or microing banelings (thus all dying in a single thor) So they just stim and faceroll, with some pre emptive split in marines, or just 2 port banshee them.
Same for protoss, no good forcefields or not guardian shield just make MMM ball to tear thought the feared deathball in no time.
In fact I have always seen terran as the most rewarding race because you have so much stuff to do and even your lowly T1 unit has so much potential, that you can achieve great things if you master them.
With zerg is more about game sense, scouting and droning/building army dichotomy. It is rewarding on its own, but harder for the casual gamer. Also zerg doesn't have much room for micro, since it is by desing a swarm race, where positioning and raw numbers are the key, not microing glass cannons.
The main problem I see about terrans is they were dominating the scene since Beta, but now protoss and zerg have found ways to counter the early pushes and all in strategies, and can progress into the late game, while the terran still are playing in the old fashion MMM style as in the beta. But don't worry, someday a new Boxer will come, he (or she) will rework the terran BO and unit composition and we will all shit bricks, once again.
PS: Jeez, what a wall of text...
I think the problem that I see most people have with Terran are the problems that Blizzard has focused on trying to correct with new HotS units. I, myself, love to have the ability to turtle and macro as a Terran player.
I completely agree with the OPs points. This is simply a design flaw by bizzard, Nerf terran and it gets harder at lower levels, Buff it and it gets OP at.. say Bomber-MVP level..
People need to learn to use every unit before making statements like this. By this I do not mean know how to properly micro the terran units, I mean play every race at a competitive level. There is no 1a move race in the game once you get to competitive levels of play. By your argument Muta's have a fundamental problem because us in the low leagues cannot micro them as well as July. If you are having problems with Terran try a new race, if you don't want to try a new race, just muscle through the problem.
On November 30 2011 18:41 corvaleur wrote: Terran is the worst race to play in Diamond and Master.
I play Terran Master, Protoss/Zerg high Diamond and let me say that once you got into Platinum with Protoss/Zerg, it is just deathball a-click/muta/ling. Not a single shred of micro needed. Furthermore Terran can't keep up with a 20 Nexus or early mass lings. So if you survive the first 10 minutes, you win about 90% of your games. As a Master Terran, I only win if I play perfectly and the enemy does major mistakes. That's the reality in Diamond/Master. But probably I get flamed anyway since the Day9 bronzies out there think nobody has the right to criticize the imbalance currently existing in this game and guess what HotS will just introduce new imbalances, not fixing them.
Getting sick of these posts, just read what I bolded and tell me it's not irrational whining. All I see are sweeping generalisations about racial balance made by a masters terran who macros and a-moves with the other races at lower ranks (can be done with all races, terrans just have the arduous task of stimming their ball).
Typical. I don't care about this shit anymore. I said that ladder play is imbalanced since I started in Silver and continued it to say until I got into Master and would even say it if I got into Grandmaster.
I just don't care to proof anything since I don't have access to the BNet statistics.
I'm getting, hopefully, promoted with my Zerg account to Master soon, just playing ~10 games a week since 3 weeks. And that's about 25% of the (hard) work which required Terran. No experience with Zerg before. So suit yourself and stay in your illusionary balanced world, while I abuse the imbalance.
The world doesn't use American measurements because they make no logical sense. So don't discriminate on others, Americans, for not using your flawed system.
The fundamental problem with terran is that terran is the only 'finished' race. It's been pretty clear for a while that terran was the race they spent the most time on in developement, by far, and as a result the race is twice as "deep" as the other races. Every race should have the wide unit choices of terran along and units with the same potential for micro.
On November 30 2011 19:36 Ighox wrote: The fundamental problem with terran is that terran is the only 'finished' race. It's been pretty clear for a while that terran was the race they spent the most time on in developement, by far, and as a result the race is twice as "deep" as the other races. Every race should have the wide unit choices of terran along and units with the same potential for micro.
I don't think so, if terran is already finished, then why do they add new units and remove some others in HotS?
I don't think every race should have wide unit choices and units with the same potential for micro. Do you imagine that zerlings had the same potential for micro than marines? I mean, you can build 80 of them ezpz in 20 secs. Think about building 40 marines in 20 secs every production cycle...
On November 30 2011 19:36 Ighox wrote: The fundamental problem with terran is that terran is the only 'finished' race. It's been pretty clear for a while that terran was the race they spent the most time on in developement, by far, and as a result the race is twice as "deep" as the other races. Every race should have the wide unit choices of terran along and units with the same potential for micro.
The other aspect of this is, which is not often reviewed, that "unfinished" can swing in both directions: something is particular strong or particular weak.
The new HotS units are a joke, Blizzard did not invest any kind of work in this. If one had played Red Alert, which Bowder was involved in, they'd know that the "new" units are merely copies.
On November 30 2011 20:05 SpunXtain wrote: I wish with warpgate they would give some bonus to gateway units over warp gates, so that you're not forced into warpgates every game. So easy to do.
Removing Warpgates is the better solution I believe, check below.
On November 30 2011 18:01 sleepingdog wrote: it's more or less impossible to have 3 different races who play "exactly" the same on all levels of skill - I'm protoss and definitely thinkt that due to the mechanics of the race, zerg is the most difficult to grasp for a beginner. Even though in lower leagues it's all about a-move and macro, zerg is so unforgiving that any basic mistakes just kills them outright while terrans can hide behind bunkers and protoss has forcefields.
Is this fair? No. But that's how the world starcraft works. If you balance the game for the highest level of skill, then some races will be superior in one league or the other, it's almost inevitable.
Nevertheless I won't deny that there are fundamental flaws with protoss, mainly due to warpgate mechanics. Personally, I think that pylons just shouldn't provide for warp-ins...warp-ins should be limited to a huge radius around a nexus and the warpprism. That would solve so, so many problems...
Diamond toss here, i wholeheartedly agree with that last paragraph. Nerf Warpgate, Buff the Gateway units so that we don't suffer from worse defenders advantage, as warpin in at home with units that are intentionally nerfed (T1-1.5) to balance out warping (or reinforcing) at anywhere on map gives us less of a defenders advantage than other races. How can you lowbies not understand yet, it is not Terran or Zerg that has defenders advantage handicapp, it is PROTOSS, because our gateway untis are INTENTIONALLY NERFED to balance out that stupid warp mechanic. It's fun, it's kinda cool, but stupid as shit to balance my god, rather it not be there so that I dont' have to hear the idiotic whining coming out of Zergs and Terrans.
On November 30 2011 19:36 Ighox wrote: The fundamental problem with terran is that terran is the only 'finished' race. It's been pretty clear for a while that terran was the race they spent the most time on in developement, by far, and as a result the race is twice as "deep" as the other races. Every race should have the wide unit choices of terran along and units with the same potential for micro.
I don't think so, if terran is already finished, then why do they add new units and remove some others in HotS?
I don't think every race should have wide unit choices and units with the same potential for micro. Do you imagine that zerlings had the same potential for micro than marines? I mean, you can build 80 of them ezpz in 20 secs. Think about building 40 marines in 20 secs every production cycle...
I didn't say every unit should have the same micro potential as a marine, but both zerg and toss should have units that have about the same potential as a marine. Just saying that as of now terran have had so many strategies based on micro and many of the units can be microed really well, while both zerg and protoss is more of a 1a-move race (sure you can micro with these races as well, but far far less than terran.) Blizzard doesn't seem to have an answer to this though, the hots units adds nearly no micro, at least from what they've shown so far, which sort of sucks.
Since Terran has the easiest time macroing, I feel that it's only fair that the effectiveness of the terran units is a bit more dependant on good micro. Zerg and Protoss macro requires alot more apm with injects, creep spread, warp-ins and chronos, while Terrans only have to check their queues from time to time for which they don't need to go back to their base. Missing a mule timing isn't nearly as critical as missing an inject or a warp-in cycle. So the multitasking requirements for each race even out ultimately imo.
On November 30 2011 16:01 headbus wrote: This is totally fucking irrelevant. You're saying it takes more skill to control terran and because of that lower leagues suffer because terran is UP.
You completely ignore the fact that lower level zergs don't inject or spread creep nearly as well, but that has no effect on the outcome of a game either, or that protoss needs to micro forcefields, guardian shields, zealot positioning, storms, blink, collosi positioning, feedback. Again though none of that has any outcome in the game either. If a terran wants to win a game he must micro his units perfectly, and its much too hard for someone in silver level to stim up a bioball and a click, oh and maybe they have to move a fucking patch of units out of a storm.
My post is totally biased but you get the point. That and you quoted a bunch of results from protoss and zerg, but that was biased too, "1st and 4th protoss zerg, terran UP!" Wait doesn't that mean terran came 2nd and 3rd?
You claim only 2 terrans in top 10 foreigner scene, holy shit terran UP, must be because race is too hard to play when I have mules for increased 1 base income, scans for whenever I don't have detection and the cheapest highest dps and best scaling unit in the game. Yeah I mean, this GSL only had 2 terrans in ro4, must mean we're not strong enough.
Use your fucking head before you make another whiny bitch post about how I'm not good enough to be in master league and its because I play terran and they're too hard to control.
Oh and btw, blizzard has stated multiple times that the game is being balanced around pro level gameplay, if you want a crutch because your bad, maybe you should start playing on normal speed against the computer, I heard that makes it easier to control banshee's.
No... it means Koreans came 2nd and 3rd, which I stated in the post if you actually read.
And yes, it is being balanced around 'pro level players' - turns out 'pro level players' seem to experience this phenomena as well. As I pointed out with the results I posted. You've clearly missed the entire point of this thread; as I stated it has absolutely nothing to do with me and I'm arguing that at GSL level the game IS balanced and that is WHY its not balanced at levels that ARENT GSL. Turns out theres a lot of money going out in foreign tournaments as well that, by your logic, Blizzard is not balancing for.
I hate when people rage and claim people are idiots etc. when they don't even read / understand the post themselves.
On November 30 2011 20:58 Mentor wrote: Since Terran has the easiest time macroing, I feel that it's only fair that the effectiveness of the terran units is a bit more dependant on good micro. Zerg and Protoss macro requires alot more apm with injects, creep spread, warp-ins and chronos, while Terrans only have to check their queues from time to time for which they don't need to go back to their base. Missing a mule timing isn't nearly as critical as missing an inject or a warp-in cycle. So the multitasking requirements for each race even out ultimately imo.
Debatable, in my opinion Terran has the hardest time macroing because MULEs (which the game is balanced around) create a fluctuating income rate for the players, hence it is a lot harder to keep your money consistently low. Furthermore, Terran needs to invest a lot more money into building structures to sustain late game tech switches etc. in their macro, and while Protoss/Zerg can create units inbetween battles and micro situations a lot easier, Terran needs to be constantly macroing at the same time.
But I respect your opinion and can understand the argument you're making - I agree missing a mule can be less tolling than missing an inject or warp cycle.
Edit: However, missing a warp cycle is not the same as missing a mule; missing a warp cycle is the same as missing unit creation for Terran. Missing a mule is similar to missing a chronoboost for Protoss, which you can use later on the same as a Mule to catch up to an extent for this mistake.
On November 30 2011 20:58 Mentor wrote: Since Terran has the easiest time macroing, I feel that it's only fair that the effectiveness of the terran units is a bit more dependant on good micro. Zerg and Protoss macro requires alot more apm with injects, creep spread, warp-ins and chronos, while Terrans only have to check their queues from time to time for which they don't need to go back to their base. Missing a mule timing isn't nearly as critical as missing an inject or a warp-in cycle. So the multitasking requirements for each race even out ultimately imo.
Terran rewards skill and multitasking more then say, protoss which is the same as it was in BW due to all the microing. Which makes them really strong in the hands of a godlike player but very weak in the hands of lesser players
First of all, the most important question to discuss: i use YYYY.MM.DD. format which is MUCH more logical than any other, because Y has 1 angles, M has 3 and D (as a curvy character) has infinite amount, so its in order. Duh.
Second, i would really like to see any good research on why other races wouldnt get better if microed perfectly. Tournament results are not really compelling, because they are not really measure skill precisely, only that is sure that the less player you have left the more the average skill is. On average.
Using tournament wins like that isn't really helpful as the high placing players of other races are just a few guys.
Idra is listed 3 times, does it have to do with race or that Idra is just pretty good?
What if the level of the few zergs and protoss players (Idra, Elfi, Ret, Huk, Stephano) are higher skilled than terran players here in europe/us?
Can i be that there's just a few really good players that can compete with koreans at all and chance has it that those players are mostly protoss and zerg?
Can it be that the few great terrans outside of korea hasn't done exceptionally well latetly due to slumping/traveling?
So many questions yet OP jumps directly on the UP bandwagon.
In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
He's comparing foreign terran players ... with foreign zerg and protoss players. if you take koreans out of the picture and watch the games without koreans ...you'll see that terran is fundamentally ... very very weak. But Koreans have overcome that with hard training ... good strategies and extremely good micro. It seems that it takes a lot more to be a good terran then a good zerg / protoss is what the op is trying to say.
I don't believe the other two races can blame terrans for posting so much of these threads in the past weeks because it is EXTREMELY hard to play terran on ladder from bronze to mid masters. I can't say the same about GM level because i've never been there.
the stats do show that terran is under represented out of all three races from GM - Masters - Diamond - Platnium - even gold. It sky rockets at the silver and bronze levels. These are active players that have done their placements this season. While people argue it's easy to learn and play terran... it's definitely a lot harder to get good at it.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
According to these terrans, no that is unacceptable, and requires severe balance changes by Blizzard, or T is UP and P/Z is OP. Astounding logiczzzz.
Terran macro is by far the easiest, you can't really argue anything else. However, although their micro is not harder than any other races at the top level, their multitasking requirement is however, higher than the other races. I'd argue that their micro is the least cerebral of all the races, HOWEVER you have to spread it out over the whole battle.
Examples of what I mean: Zerg - begin battle by manoeuvring several groups of units into a flanking position. Then check hatches for larva and queens for energy. Protoss - Forcefield, Storm, Focus Fire. Check building queues and chrono-boost and go to a pylon to warp in units. Terran - EMP, SNIPE. Stutter step bio and focus-fire tanks whilst continuing to check building queues and Orbital energy. <- This last is very hard for most people (especially people who didn't play Broodwar, IMO).
Zerg and Protoss can do their setup micro (which is a lot more involved than Terrans with most compositions) then do their macroing. Terran needs to micro right through the whole battle.
People who don't play Terran complain because Terran micro is drop-dead simple (and it mostly is, but simple does not equal easy). However people who do play Terran understand that keeping up that micro is actually quite difficult whilst also keeping on top of their macro. If Terran had to go back to their base like Zerg (for injects) and Protoss (for warpgates) then they would actually be quite weak in the late game, especially vs Protoss.
I play all three races for what it's worth.
EDIT: Also, it's probably worth pointing out that the main reason pro foreign Terrans aren't doing so well is actually because there just aren't many particularly good ones. I would probably say that Thorzain and Jinro are the best two but Jinro is in a bit of a slump and Thorzain (the best foreigner Terran, IMO) really needs to go back to Korea for a while. The best foreigners play Protoss and Zerg right now. Maybe because with those two races strategy is more important and mechanics less so, compared to Terran?
On November 30 2011 21:16 Pulimuli wrote: Terran rewards skill and multitasking more then say, protoss which is the same as it was in BW due to all the microing. Which makes them really strong in the hands of a godlike player but very weak in the hands of lesser players
This is nothing new
I hardly doubt that PvT in BW and SC2 are comparable at all. In SC2 I agree that with free dropships that can heal and insanely high dps-infantry thanks to stim you get a lot out of multi-dropping.
However in BW Protoss had options like Reaver harass or DT drops to put the pressure back on Terran, furthermore there was recall. Also as Protoss you had to constantly take care of Vulture harassment and clear minefields which requires multitasking and skill as it does to harass effectively with Vultures.
On November 30 2011 21:42 Apolex wrote: He's comparing foreign terran players ... with foreign zerg and protoss players. if you take koreans out of the picture and watch the games without koreans ...you'll see that terran is fundamentally ... very very weak. But Koreans have overcome that with hard training ... good strategies and extremely good micro. It seems that it takes a lot more to be a good terran then a good zerg / protoss is what the op is trying to say.
I don't believe the other two races can blame terrans for posting so much of these threads in the past weeks because it is EXTREMELY hard to play terran on ladder from bronze to mid masters. I can't say the same about GM level because i've never been there.
the stats do show that terran is under represented out of all three races from GM - Masters - Diamond - Platnium - even gold. It sky rockets at the silver and bronze levels. These are active players that have done their placements this season. While people argue it's easy to learn and play terran... it's definitely a lot harder to get good at it.
That link doesn't really matter. There's a difference of a little more than 1% between zerg and terran in Grandmaster, and a few percent in Masters which means that there's no huge discrepancy. There's so many different explanations for this yet people jump on the UP bandwagon as soon as possible.
The recent results don't even matter to the point at hand - I simply put them there to show that it *appears* this phenomena exists not only theoretically but in practice as well.
The point of the post is quite simple really:
Logically, if one race requires more multitasking owness than the others, but is being balanced around only those who have the necessary ability at the top of the game to get every inch of power from those units, then below that level the race logically should be less powerful than the other races because you simply cannot utilize its full potential.
While I'm not saying that if you play shit you'll still be great as a zerg or protoss, I am saying that logic dictates you should be penalized less for lack of multitasking if you play a race that punishes you less for it.
The argument that this means "you need to get better" does not solve this problem, because if all terrans get better the game will still be balanced around that top level, and you will still be behind where you would otherwise be.
On November 30 2011 22:04 SpunXtain wrote: *Sigh* comments are frustrating, lol.
The recent results don't even matter to the point at hand - I simply put them there to show that it *appears* this phenomena exists not only theoretically but in practice as well.
The point of the post is quite simple really:
Logically, if one race requires more multitasking owness than the others, but is being balanced around only those who have the necessary ability at the top of the game to get every inch of power from those units, then below that level the race logically should be less powerful than the other races because you simply cannot utilize its full potential.
While I'm not saying that if you play shit you'll still be great as a zerg or protoss, I am saying that logic dictates you should be penalized less for lack of multitasking if you play a race that punishes you less for it.
The argument that this means "you need to get better" does not solve this problem, because if all terrans get better the game will still be balanced around that top level, and you will still be behind where you would otherwise be.
Terran players have been doing great overall since release. You have no proof that says otherwise beside some tournament results that have several good explanations that don't involve balance.
This thread seems to be thinly veiled whine to me.
I think your point about terran units having a higher potential with good micro is interesting and valid. I think it is a general consensus that terran and protoss require more micro than zerg (i play zerg fwiw).
But, you could really make this argument about arbitrary aspects of the other races as well. For example, I could say that only pros really understand larvae management, and therefore zerg is UP below the pro level. Or I could say that gateway armies are very weak, and that without gosu forcefields, protoss is the weakest race.
The entire concept of "balance below the pro level" really just doesn't make sense to talk about. The only concrete definition of balance is that if the game is played as perfectly as it can be played by humans, then all three races are viable.
Terran is by far the most complete and versatile race by design, with good game overall early, mid and late, please stop whining for not being as imbalanced and not being +4 terrans in top 8's anymmore, please. Plus, every other race have been in awful patches and pushed the limits of their builds and skills, except terran, so its time for them to brainstorm a bit for new builds that not always involve timmings, specially considering the amazing raid capabilities.
considering your starting post, i agree to you, that the problem of balancing sc2 is fundamentally connected to the amount of micro, that can be used rewardingly for each race. However i´m not sure if you thought about the following point as well. To me it seems that terran proactive battle micro, if applied gives the terran player (and rightfully so) an advantage during the course of the game, whereas no micro at all would put him in a slight disadvantage. As skill level rises, the amount of battle micro will also increase, it appears to me. But i think that proactive terran micro will force zerg and toss opponents to use reactice micro more in order to keep up. As toss or Zerg player this is necessary, as you are behind in battles otherwise. this includes (while you named the options for proactive micro) stuff like, forcefields, collosi positions, storms, feedbacks, blinks as well as flanks, ling surrounds, baneling targets etc. So i would argue, that the amount of micro used by the terran in Tvz and Tvp is necessarily the amount of micro the opponent has to deliver as well not to fall behind.
Considering this, i argue, that all races have the same necessity of micro owness, but depending on the MU, its either pro or reactive micro, thus solving the micro issue in the balance equation.
On November 30 2011 13:12 Endymion wrote: u gotta sk8
furthermore, when is 30/11/2011...
Today? For everyone in the world who isn't American and puts Day before month, as they recognize Month/Day/Year makes no sense.
This always confuses the hell out of me. It's off topic, but I need to rant here.
Small -> medium -> large, day -> month -> year. How does month -> day -> year make any sense at all?
The world doesn't use American measurements because they make no logical sense. So don't discriminate on others, Americans, for not using your flawed system.
/rant
Allow me to rant back at you because this day/month/year crap has always annoyed me. Sorry to be off topic as well.
small > medium > large, second > minute > hour
Do you say that the time is 37:10 when someone asks you what time it is at 10:37 just because you're apparently supposed to go in ascending order of measurement? Of course not. When someone asks what the date is, you say (month) (day), and so that's how you write it.
As for our other weird measurements, yes, they're dumb, and yes, we should do away with them.
He's not saying it's imbalanced or anything, he's just looking at design flaws and how the game is balanced overall (Which I agree with). AND he isn't being whiny or anything, I have no idea where people are getting that from lol... It's a pretty straightforward post.
On November 30 2011 13:12 Endymion wrote: u gotta sk8
furthermore, when is 30/11/2011...
Today? For everyone in the world who isn't American and puts Day before month, as they recognize Month/Day/Year makes no sense.
This always confuses the hell out of me. It's off topic, but I need to rant here.
Small -> medium -> large, day -> month -> year. How does month -> day -> year make any sense at all?
The world doesn't use American measurements because they make no logical sense. So don't discriminate on others, Americans, for not using your flawed system.
/rant
Allow me to rant back at you because this day/month/year crap has always annoyed me. Sorry to be off topic as well.
small > medium > large, second > minute > hour
Do you say that the time is 37:10 when someone asks you what time it is at 10:37 just because you're apparently supposed to go in ascending order of measurement? Of course not. When someone asks what the date is, you say (month) (day), and so that's how you write it.
As for our other weird measurements, yes, they're dumb, and yes, we should do away with them.
... you can't be serious. The point is that it should be either 1,2,3 OR 3,2,1, not 2,1,3... :/
On November 30 2011 22:27 shishy wrote: He's not saying it's imbalanced or anything, he's just looking at design flaws and how the game is balanced overall (Which I agree with). AND he isn't being whiny or anything, I have no idea where people are getting that from lol... It's a pretty straightforward post.
That's not true as he has no proof yet states that terran is underpowered in lower brackets based on the fact that foreign terrans aren't doing so well. There's been countless arguments against this and there's just so many other explanations that are valid that there's no reason to cry over this for quite some time.
From OP's edit:
My argument is not that Terran is underpowered, it is that fundamentally it is difficult to balance the game for different levels of play.
Conflicts with:
The problem with this response is that at lower levels, where players are not at the same level as the Korean scene and do not have the same micro/multitask potential, Terran is fundamentally going to be a weaker race. Many may dispute this fact, but the results even of top Foreign players show that this statement is true.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
You dont need brains to figure out the single obvious truth.
1. Terran units with good micro can counter the units meant to counter them.
This is largely due to the range advantage terran units possess. The marines vs banelings is a classic example, against lower skilled terrans, banelings absolutely destroys mass marines. Against pros, nope, often falls flat on its face and marines destroy banelings with relatively fewer losses.
Another simple example, Marauder with conc shells. Zealots are meant to counter them. Guess what? Doesn't happen vs pros who split and micro with stim.
Feedback to counter ghosts? Works ok vs. lesser terrans who don't pay attention, otherwise emp has a longer effective range and aoe to take out multiple templars etc.
Even Hellions vs roaches are funny in that roaches are almost meant to "hard counter" but with micro, hellions do alright.
What about BC vs VR, the unit with bonus dmg vs massive and meant to take out BCs? With yamato and good micro, the fight ends before it starts with a flawless win for BCs.
Even siege tanks vs immortals, b4 the buff, immortals 5 range vs 7 on unsieged tanks meant even tanks could kite immortals and win, but not that anyone would bother.
On November 30 2011 21:43 althaz wrote: Terran macro is by far the easiest, you can't really argue anything else. However, although their micro is not harder than any other races at the top level, their multitasking requirement is however, higher than the other races. I'd argue that their micro is the least cerebral of all the races, HOWEVER you have to spread it out over the whole battle.
Examples of what I mean: Zerg - begin battle by manoeuvring several groups of units into a flanking position. Then check hatches for larva and queens for energy. Protoss - Forcefield, Storm, Focus Fire. Check building queues and chrono-boost and go to a pylon to warp in units. Terran - EMP, SNIPE. Stutter step bio and focus-fire tanks whilst continuing to check building queues and Orbital energy. <- This last is very hard for most people (especially people who didn't play Broodwar, IMO).
Zerg and Protoss can do their setup micro (which is a lot more involved than Terrans with most compositions) then do their macroing. Terran needs to micro right through the whole battle.
People who don't play Terran complain because Terran micro is drop-dead simple (and it mostly is, but simple does not equal easy). However people who do play Terran understand that keeping up that micro is actually quite difficult whilst also keeping on top of their macro. If Terran had to go back to their base like Zerg (for injects) and Protoss (for warpgates) then they would actually be quite weak in the late game, especially vs Protoss.
I play all three races for what it's worth.
EDIT: Also, it's probably worth pointing out that the main reason pro foreign Terrans aren't doing so well is actually because there just aren't many particularly good ones. I would probably say that Thorzain and Jinro are the best two but Jinro is in a bit of a slump and Thorzain (the best foreigner Terran, IMO) really needs to go back to Korea for a while. The best foreigners play Protoss and Zerg right now. Maybe because with those two races strategy is more important and mechanics less so, compared to Terran?
Yeh I agree that macroing while doing other stuff is kinda easy with terran. But even if you factor that in, IMO to play terran late game is still harder than playing the other races.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Depends, GSL terran? Pretty damn good chance.
The argument that "foreign" good players don't play terran doesn't hold water. Given a random size pool of players with a large enough sample size, there will be good players of all races.
A good protoss/zerg > good terran.
An excellent terran > protoss/zerg.
But leenock almost disproved this by defeating MvP, however, the trend needs to keep going for it to be noteworthy.
On November 30 2011 22:51 SilverforceX wrote: You dont need brains to figure out the single obvious truth.
1. Terran units with good micro can counter the units meant to counter them.
This is largely due to the range advantage terran units possess. The marines vs banelings is a classic example, against lower skilled terrans, banelings absolutely destroys mass marines. Against pros, nope, often falls flat on its face and marines destroy banelings with relatively fewer losses.
Another simple example, Marauder with conc shells. Zealots are meant to counter them. Guess what? Doesn't happen vs pros who split and micro with stim.
Feedback to counter ghosts? Works ok vs. lesser terrans who don't pay attention, otherwise emp has a longer effective range and aoe to take out multiple templars etc.
Even Hellions vs roaches are funny in that roaches are almost meant to "hard counter" but with micro, hellions do alright.
What about BC vs VR, the unit with bonus dmg vs massive and meant to take out BCs? With yamato and good micro, the fight ends before it starts with a flawless win for BCs.
Even siege tanks vs immortals, b4 the buff, immortals 5 range vs 7 on unsieged tanks meant even tanks could kite immortals and win, but not that anyone would bother.
Why do you make shit up. (charge)zealots hard counter mauruders. HT btw were not meant to counter ghosts. It was the other way around.
Hellions do shit vs roaches.
Why is bc vs vr relevant? YOu might as well analyze queens vs carriers or whatever. Stupid irrelevant example.
On November 30 2011 22:53 Hider wrote: Why do you make shit up. (charge)zealots hard counter mauruders. HT btw were not meant to counter ghosts. It was the other way around.
Hellions do shit vs roaches.
Why is bc vs vr relevant? YOu might as well analyze queens vs carriers or whatever. Stupid irrelevant example.
BS on charge zealots "hard" countering marauders. So completely wrong. Stim micro, split, kill a shit load of zealots easy. I've seen it so many times in GSL its not funny anymore.
Hellions do shit vs roaches, yes they should. However, seen some recent games? ie. MKP mass hellion vs mass roach, did a shit load more damage than he should have been able to given the unit composition. Hint: splash dmg, little dmg from a lot of hellions add up to a LOT of dmg.
BC is relevant as another example, of a terran unit countering its counter. Got anything else to prove otherwise?
The only problem I see with Terran is the ridiculously long range of most of its units, but that's mainly because I play zerg. I don't know how it is for Protoss, if that even affects them as much. As a whole it just feels weird to have such slow/weak/low range units that require upgrades to be effective when Terran can outrange most units and win with proper micro. Not a whine, just something I've accepted when playing Zerg.
On November 30 2011 22:53 Hider wrote: Why do you make shit up. (charge)zealots hard counter mauruders. HT btw were not meant to counter ghosts. It was the other way around.
Hellions do shit vs roaches.
Why is bc vs vr relevant? YOu might as well analyze queens vs carriers or whatever. Stupid irrelevant example.
BS on charge zealots "hard" countering marauders. So completely wrong. Stim micro, split, kill a shit load of zealots easy. I've seen it so many times in GSL its not funny anymore.
Hellions do shit vs roaches, yes they should. However, seen some recent games? ie. MKP mass hellion vs mass roach, did a shit load more damage than he should have been able to given the unit composition. Hint: splash dmg, little dmg from a lot of hellions add up to a LOT of dmg.
BC is relevant as another example, of a terran unit countering its counter. Got anything else to prove otherwise?
*trying* to keep off unit balance topics.. but.. voidray is not a counter to BCs... Yamoto cannon is designed for killing high-cost single-target units such as this. Blink stalkers & templar are the appropriate response to BCs.
On November 30 2011 13:12 Endymion wrote: u gotta sk8
furthermore, when is 30/11/2011...
Today? For everyone in the world who isn't American and puts Day before month, as they recognize Month/Day/Year makes no sense.
This always confuses the hell out of me. It's off topic, but I need to rant here.
Small -> medium -> large, day -> month -> year. How does month -> day -> year make any sense at all?
The world doesn't use American measurements because they make no logical sense. So don't discriminate on others, Americans, for not using your flawed system.
/rant
Allow me to rant back at you because this day/month/year crap has always annoyed me. Sorry to be off topic as well.
small > medium > large, second > minute > hour
Do you say that the time is 37:10 when someone asks you what time it is at 10:37 just because you're apparently supposed to go in ascending order of measurement? Of course not. When someone asks what the date is, you say (month) (day), and so that's how you write it.
As for our other weird measurements, yes, they're dumb, and yes, we should do away with them.
actually i think its just US/Canada that says "month day year"
the rest of us say day month year :p (the majority at least)
It should be obvious that this thread suggests terran is underpowered at low levels. Micro simply has an unlimited skill cap and the better you are the more you get out of it. If the race that gets the most out of micro is balanced at the very highest skill level of course its going to be weaker at the level where micro isn't as great. I agree with the OP. One race getting the most out of micro is flawed design.
I personally don't care if im supposed to outmicro someone in the ladder (and it doesnt really matter at lower level), but it's pretty sad if the foreign pros can't have success in tournaments because of it.
While I agree with your basic theory, for example that well-microed marines do fine against banelings but non-microed marines die like flies and Blizzard might have to work hard with balancing to get around this, I don't really agree with the point that terran was nerfed into a "bad" position for low level players to fix the potential power at high level.
Most of the nerfs to Terran hasn't really affected this situation. Tank damage was nerfed, but using tanks demands quite a bit of micro already. Reaper timings were nerfed, but using reapers already require micro.
What we would expect if Blizzard balanced the way you mean, would for example be a damage nerf to marines, since that would make it OK that they survive "too long" because of good micro, and it would at the same time be detrimental for low-level players since their marines are dying very quickly.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Tomatriedes' post is exactly the point and the thread should be closed. The premise is fundamentally flawed. You'd have us balancing around 25+ minute games -.-?
The other contention that terran takes more multitask/mechanics is iffy and isn't seen in the winrates. There's alot of hidden actions that aren't considered, terran muling is very forgiving and don't even try and compare it to chronoboost. Terran macro can be done purely off hotkeys while controlling an army, you don't even have to shift your camera. Toss on the other hand has to look away from whatever they're doing to manually hit unit hotkeys and click the ground X amount of times. Terran has one rally point, toss has to do the rally point click for every single unit they build (it's not flashy but does take actions). Injects and creep spread for zerg are seriously important as is being active with your lings/mutas. All races get better as the player gets better. Queueing 1-2 units late game also helps those without perfect macro (Goody and all non-pro T's), toss/zerg miss inject/wg cycles and they are punished more severely. I just wish the 'but Terran's so hard for non koreans' people would realise their race is at least as forgiving and 'easy' as the others.
On November 30 2011 22:51 Hider wrote: IMO to play terran late game is still harder than playing the other races.
So what? Maybe it is but balance is hard enough without trying for anything beyond overall winrates. Terrans win more than enough early/mid games to make up for having some trouble late game.
Massive balance whine, even though it's stated as not being one.
To be honest, this is the first time in the history of Starcraft 2 so far, where we see glimps of Terrans struggling, all the months before this both Protoss & Zerg had it hard, and still do in some ways. There has been nearly no change in Terran builds, compositions and playstyle during this whole history ever, so maybe look at that first before claiming that the Terran race has fundamental problems.
All the Terran builds I encounter in Diamond league are the same as the ones I encountered a full year ago. Weird, since It has been acknowledged pretty much by everyone that the Terran race has the most options of all 3 races.
While I agree that Bio micro may be intensive, the Terran race as a whole has forgiving stuff in other areas like:
- Detection is an option all the time. - Mules can cover up for a lot of scv losses, while other races would straight up die if they lose a good chunk of their workers - Easy wall-in to deny scouting, making predicting terran builds much harder
And I'm sure I've missed a few things.
The races are different, pick races based on your playstyle. Don't complain that a race is not styled to suit your play.
The races are different and thus require different skill sets. Certainly you are correct in that this means at some point Terran players will require 'better' unit control then their opponent to defeat them, and this will disappear at the highest levels of play where every race needs perfect control. However other parts of play are more challenging for other races. Larva management is very difficult and very important to victory at higher levels of play. Terrans never need to worry about this, or creep spread, or pylon placement. Warp-In requires the player to be viewing an area of screen with pylon power, taking them away from the main battle. Terran players can build units with their screen anywhere on the map.
The list of different demands goes on. At very early levels (bronze - silver) Zerg is the hardest to play because larva inject and creep spread take up too much APM compared to barracks spam.
In BW Terrans were considered the hardest to play (just ask Artosis, lol) for the same reason, high micro demand. However they also have the best players and the most championship wins. Protoss - considered the easiest in terms of unit control (hello 12 units per group max) have the least BW success. This is because there is more to the game the unit control, and other races have other aspects of the game which are harder for them.
So, YES Terrans require the most unit micro. NO this doesn't mean they are any easier or harder to play at any level. Although it COULD be unbalanced (but probably isn't).
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Tomatriedes' post is exactly the point and the thread should be closed. The premise is fundamentally flawed. You'd have us balancing around 25+ minute games -.-?
The other contention that terran takes more multitask/mechanics is iffy and isn't seen in the winrates. There's alot of hidden actions that aren't considered, terran muling is very forgiving and don't even try and compare it to chronoboost. Terran macro can be done purely off hotkeys while controlling an army, you don't even have to shift your camera. Toss on the other hand has to look away from whatever they're doing to manually hit unit hotkeys and click the ground X amount of times. Terran has one rally point, toss has to do the rally point click for every single unit they build (it's not flashy but does take actions). Injects and creep spread for zerg are seriously important as is being active with your lings/mutas. All races get better as the player gets better. Queueing 1-2 units late game also helps those without perfect macro (Goody and all non-pro T's), toss/zerg miss inject/wg cycles and they are punished more severely. I just wish the 'but Terran's so hard for non koreans' people would realise their race is at least as forgiving and 'easy' as the others.
Exactly. And I would like to point out that among the slow pro players, Terrans are the ones who do the best (Sjow, Goody), compared to slow Protosses like Incontrol, Axslav or (ex) Cruncher, who, let's be honest, don't win games. And there is no slow pro zerg (:D).
I totally agree that Sjow or Goody are not of the caliber of MVP or MMA (to the point where they don't even seem to play the same race), but they win their fair share of games. Fucking Goody beat fucking Nestea, even if it was a long time ago, it's a hard thing to imagine.
OP, saying that you are not balance whinning is pretty lame when u actually are.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This. It was meant to happen someday, now the crazy koreans will adapt, and soon the rest of the world as well. Eventually Terrans will begin to dominate again. Just have fun playing and abuse the million builds terran have.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
What the OP is describing sounds exactly what terran was like in BW. Arguably harder to play, less successful on foreign level yet also most successful in Korea.
I've thought this was true for a long time now as well, and I don't see it as a huge problem. The fact that you have always room to improve makes the race more interesting and fun. I also think that the new terran units in HOTS might be there to help with this, as they seem less micro intensive and more about raw power.
The races are different and thus require different skill sets. Certainly you are correct in that this means at some point Terran players will require 'better' unit control then their opponent to defeat them, and this will disappear at the highest levels of play where every race needs perfect control. However other parts of play are more challenging for other races. Larva management is very difficult and very important to victory at higher levels of play. Terrans never need to worry about this, or creep spread, or pylon placement. Warp-In requires the player to be viewing an area of screen with pylon power, taking them away from the main battle. Terran players can build units with their screen anywhere on the map.
The list of different demands goes on. At very early levels (bronze - silver) Zerg is the hardest to play because larva inject and creep spread take up too much APM compared to barracks spam.
In BW Terrans were considered the hardest to play (just ask Artosis, lol) for the same reason, high micro demand. However they also have the best players and the most championship wins. Protoss - considered the easiest in terms of unit control (hello 12 units per group max) have the least BW success. This is because there is more to the game the unit control, and other races have other aspects of the game which are harder for them.
So, YES Terrans require the most unit micro. NO this doesn't mean they are any easier or harder to play at any level. Although it COULD be unbalanced (but probably isn't).
I know each race has its own challenges facing it :-) the fact its terran is just coincidental.
As an example, imagine if you could put micro/multitasking etc on a scale 1-5 scale (5 being best):
5 - A = 100 B = 100 C = 100 4 - A = 80 B = 90 C = 90 3 - A = 60 B = 75 C = 70 2 - A = 50 B = 60 C = 40 1 - A = 45 B = 40 C = 30
By having such different mechanics in the game there are bound to be different thresholds where 1 race is comparatively better than the other. For example, the game might be balanced around the players at lvl5, so they're all equal. But then the players at lvl4 from group A are weaker than B / C. If they balance around those at lvl 4 so that A = 90 B = 90 C = 90, then at lvl 5 become A = 110, B = 100, C = 100.
Its simply fundamentally hard to balance a game that has so much diversity in playstyles and rewards different levels of micromanagement in different ways. Perhaps Blizzard is trying to make the races *too* different from each other, to the point that its just impossible to have a game that is an even playing field at all the important levels?
Perhaps lvl1-3 are casual gamers; they probably don't matter too much since they're just there to play for fun etc. But if there is a balance problem at say lvl4, where foreigners for example are playing competitively but arent at the same skill as korean pros, surely Blizzard would want to try and balance it for them as best as they could as well?
I don't understand what you are trying to prove. There is no situation were you can come and ask how to get better at one aspect of your play and to be no answer because it's just a balance flaw.
The races are different and thus require different skill sets. Certainly you are correct in that this means at some point Terran players will require 'better' unit control then their opponent to defeat them, and this will disappear at the highest levels of play where every race needs perfect control. However other parts of play are more challenging for other races. Larva management is very difficult and very important to victory at higher levels of play. Terrans never need to worry about this, or creep spread, or pylon placement. Warp-In requires the player to be viewing an area of screen with pylon power, taking them away from the main battle. Terran players can build units with their screen anywhere on the map.
The list of different demands goes on. At very early levels (bronze - silver) Zerg is the hardest to play because larva inject and creep spread take up too much APM compared to barracks spam.
In BW Terrans were considered the hardest to play (just ask Artosis, lol) for the same reason, high micro demand. However they also have the best players and the most championship wins. Protoss - considered the easiest in terms of unit control (hello 12 units per group max) have the least BW success. This is because there is more to the game the unit control, and other races have other aspects of the game which are harder for them.
So, YES Terrans require the most unit micro. NO this doesn't mean they are any easier or harder to play at any level. Although it COULD be unbalanced (but probably isn't).
I know each race has its own challenges facing it :-) the fact its terran is just coincidental.
As an example, imagine if you could put micro/multitasking etc on a scale 1-5 scale (5 being best):
5 - A = 100 B = 100 C = 100 4 - A = 80 B = 90 C = 90 3 - A = 60 B = 75 C = 70 2 - A = 50 B = 60 C = 40 1 - A = 45 B = 40 C = 30
By having such different mechanics in the game there are bound to be different thresholds where 1 race is comparatively better than the other. For example, the game might be balanced around the players at lvl5, so they're all equal. But then the players at lvl4 from group A are weaker than B / C. If they balance around those at lvl 4 so that A = 90 B = 90 C = 90, then at lvl 5 become A = 110, B = 100, C = 100.
Its simply fundamentally hard to balance a game that has so much diversity in playstyles and rewards different levels of micromanagement in different ways. Perhaps Blizzard is trying to make the races *too* different from each other, to the point that its just impossible to have a game that is an even playing field at all the important levels?
Perhaps lvl1-3 are casual gamers; they probably don't matter too much since they're just there to play for fun etc. But if there is a balance problem at say lvl4, where foreigners for example are playing competitively but arent at the same skill as korean pros, surely Blizzard would want to try and balance it for them as best as they could as well?
If you think back to broodwar, noone really complained about protoss, prootos would be the easy race to start with, very easy, you just make units ant attack, no complicated stuff (low lvl). But blizzard is so obsessed with ballancing the whole spectrum and cant consider that the "broodwar prootos effect" is innevitable.
but higher lvl it gets way harder, one misclick and you lose 5 dragoons to line of tanks in 1 second etc.
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.
Very well said.
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...
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.
I really don't see the argument that the game being harder to balance because it takes more practice to master a race. BW proved that it doesn't need to have races that play the same at all levels to have a fairly balanced game, it is still considered to be a much better balanced game than SC2 in its current state.
This thread is just saying that terran takes more skill to play at the highest level, then it tries to undermine that there is something off with have more units that takes advantage from more micro. It is just a fancy of saying it shouldn't be too hard to play so it can be balanced for both the casuals and the pros. There is no strawman.
This racial hubris really has to stop. Seems like every terran believes that the other races don't need to have mechanics or game knowledge as good as they do to beat them. I just can't take anyone who post like that seriously.
"Those races don't benefit as much from it" lol exactly what I meant.
Yes, the races play differently, who would have thought. Granted in WoL terran has less boring 1a units like zealots, immortals, colossus, roach, corrupters, void rays, etc, but it's not a good argument to blame the game when you still have plenty of room to improve. Sometimes I wish Bliz would go back to when they would only patched once a year so people would focus on the game instead of bitching about how their race takes more skill.
EDIT: I still find it extremely ironic that the race with the most forgiving macro mechanic would complain that they aren't noob friendly enough. (Forgot supply depot? Supply drop!. Forgot to mule, has 2 orbitals with 180 energy? No prob drop 6 of em on a gold base. Ah crap, didn't get detection. Scan.)
Forgot Overlord? Np, stockpile some larva. Forgot Pylon? Np, Warpgate cooldown resets anyway + Supply Depots take the most time to build out of the three. -_-
I didn't realize I sounded like that, but you're missing my point by nitpicking the 2 sentences at the end.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
After these recent patches we have terrans playing outdated strategies. It's fair for them to lose but not fair to call UP.
Why doesn't Terran add 5-10 tanks to the BioBall? They want mobility? Well than they pay with vulnerability.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
Lol this reminds me of when terran said there's no way they could win a macro game back in March when the big maps started to come.
Then they started to use 1 rax expand and realize how good it actually is.
On December 01 2011 00:11 mrafaeldie12 wrote: I'm sorry but didn't MMA win a GSL where the Ro4 was only terran?
You don't understand. Korean terrans aren't terran, they are Kerrans, and therefore do not ever matter in the balance of the true game that you and I are actually playing. Winrates for the top top doesn't really matter, nor at the bottom, but only at a specific level between diamond and mid masters. You see! Terran is now fundamentally broken because they require effort to win.
As is the opinion of most of the posters I know here,
Blizzard should not be focused on low-level balance in a professionally played game. Without changing the rules for each ladder ranking, it won't work.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
After these recent patches we have terrans playing outdated strategies. It's fair for them to lose but not fair to call UP.
Why doesn't Terran add 5-10 tanks to the BioBall? They want mobility? Well than they pay with vulnerability.
Wrong wrong. Terrans dont do outdated strategies. THey do optimal strategies. Bio is everything terran can do(thor/banshee is really really bad if the toss knows its ocmming and is reacting correctly).
Tanks are just bad tvp btw.
Btw I am not saying terran cant win. Im just saying its ´much harder for terran to win than it is for toss.
Mediocore toss plays > beats mediocore terran play.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
Lol this reminds me of when terran said there's no way they could win a macro game back in March when the big maps started to come.
Then they started to use 1 rax expand and realize how good it actually is.
Cool story bro. Now this isn't relevant to what i wrote.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
After these recent patches we have terrans playing outdated strategies. It's fair for them to lose but not fair to call UP.
Why doesn't Terran add 5-10 tanks to the BioBall? They want mobility? Well than they pay with vulnerability.
Wrong wrong. Terrans dont do outdated strategies. THey do optimal strategies. Bio is everything terran can do(thor/banshee is really really bad if the toss knows its ocmming and is reacting correctly).
Tanks are just bad tvp btw.
Btw I am not saying terran cant win. Im just saying its ´much harder for terran to win than it is for toss.
Mediocore toss plays > beats mediocore terran play.
Well maybe they should force tanks in the composition because they have splash. EMP the zealots and tanks melt them down. I find terrans really cocky that they want to win a fight with bio against a protoss army that has storm, colosus and archon, so big AOEs.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
Lol this reminds me of when terran said there's no way they could win a macro game back in March when the big maps started to come.
Then they started to use 1 rax expand and realize how good it actually is.
Cool story bro. Now this isn't relevant to what i wrote.
Keep pretending that it isn't. You can use vague rhetorical questions to say terran is hard in the lategame, but really no one here knows the game that well yet.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
After these recent patches we have terrans playing outdated strategies. It's fair for them to lose but not fair to call UP.
Why doesn't Terran add 5-10 tanks to the BioBall? They want mobility? Well than they pay with vulnerability.
Wrong wrong. Terrans dont do outdated strategies. THey do optimal strategies. Bio is everything terran can do(thor/banshee is really really bad if the toss knows its ocmming and is reacting correctly).
Tanks are just bad tvp btw.
Btw I am not saying terran cant win. Im just saying its ´much harder for terran to win than it is for toss.
Mediocore toss plays > beats mediocore terran play.
Except if terran is mediocre and wants to win he should simply 1-1-1 or marine+tank allin'. Its not like low level players lack options when it comes to winning. Protoss need to cut units to the bare minium which people just figured it out. This is why just recently we have seen the Protoss upswing in the GSL and Mixed tournaments.
Bio does a better job than vultures for holding the line and if you add Ravens to the mix slow pushing becomes really possible. EMP the toss army and fire Seeker Missles and the army has no chance in breaking the line. I am not saying this can work from the start, but there are ways to practice it. But no, we must go bio because this is the way to go.
This is a good thread. I have thought similar things for a while.
I think that Blizzard has balanced the three races to revolve around different aspects of the Starcraft 2 skillset. While each piece of the pie is there in all three races, each race focuses on one thing above the other two.
Terran is about micro. 9/10 units have an active ability and the two that don't (Hellion & Reaper) require a lot of micro to be used effectively. In contrast their build orders are more flexible than other races and do not need to be as set in stone, and their economy management is simple because Mules are OP and easy to use.
Zerg is about economy management. When do you build bases, where do you build the base, how many workers do you have on what at what time, and most importantly how do you manage your larva. Zerg build orders are more about larva management than they are about what buildings do you build when, and their units comparatively have very few active abilities and require less precision micromanagement than the other two races (Mutalisks aside, those are pretty micro heavy)
Protoss is about build order and strategic timing. Chronoboost, warp ins and all the sneaky shit Protoss can do leads to extremely strong timings that if executed properly can come faster than normally expected or from attack angles not normally expected. However, Protoss build orders are rather rigid compared to Terran and Zerg, they need to be planned out in advance and executed properly, and are difficult to change once you've got the buildings made. In contrast, Protoss economy management is not as complicated as Zergs, and their units do not require as much micro as Terran. A Protoss deathball usually requires very few active abilities, while a Terran deathball requires stimpack, EMP, siege mode, PDD and likely kiting as well.
I think what this inevitably means is that at lower levels (non pro levels) Terran and Zerg are simply harder to play than Protoss. Protoss you can copy a pro's build order, learn it to the letter, and likely win a lot of games without really having perfect micro or understanding too much about what you're doing. Terran you have to be able to micro to do well and Zerg you have to be able to manage your larva on the fly.
This also means that at higher levels, Terran is theoretically better than Zerg and Protoss, because all of their units are theoretically better. With perfect micro Marines beat just about anything in the game, so the measure of real game balance is less the units statistics and more how perfect is the players micro.
I do think terran play with outdated strategies. Protoss has been using a lot more lategame focused gameplan with upgrades and tier 3 units (archons / high templars / colossus / mothership) whereas terran runs around with their 3/3 marauders. Time to start using your tier 3 units? Can't expect winning going fully upgraded deathball vs deathball with just marauders as terran has been doing for so long now.
Both zerg and toss has been innovating in the matchups whereas terran (apart from TvT) has been stuck with the same thing. Hellion openers has been used for like what? a year now? Yes it's solid etc but maybe it's time for something new.
I hardly ever see ravens still and that is way too good of a unit to skip. Need more thors / cattlebruisers (they are still viable)
This post is biased as I play zerg. But srsly, start using something else but marauders vs protoss
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
its not hard to win late game as T unless u go marine tank all game. T is the best late game as ull always have an army supply advantage due to mules. just many dont make enuf production facil;ities and lose once armies r traded
On December 01 2011 01:00 DrPandaPhD wrote: I do think terran play with outdated strategies. Protoss has been using a lot more lategame focused gameplan with upgrades and tier 3 units (archons / high templars / colossus / mothership) whereas terran runs around with their 3/3 marauders. Time to start using your tier 3 units? Can't expect winning going fully upgraded deathball vs deathball with just marauders as terran has been doing for so long now.
Both zerg and toss has been innovating in the matchups whereas terran (apart from TvT) has been stuck with the same thing. Hellion openers has been used for like what? a year now? Yes it's solid etc but maybe it's time for something new.
I hardly ever see ravens still and that is way too good of a unit to skip. Need more thors / cattlebruisers (they are still viable)
This post is biased as I play zerg. But srsly, start using something else but marauders vs protoss
are you suggesting going multiple thor/raven/battlecruiser against protoss tech, for real? guess what, if terran goes bio you can hope to be on par with protoss upgrades, but if you want to mix mech, hey !!! terran upgrades are not shared between bio and mech air / ground ....
On December 01 2011 01:07 Sated wrote: At low-levels you have a 50% win-rate no matter what. It doesn't matter how the balance changes, you will always be at 50% win-rate. People who care about their ladder position etc. should use that as an incentive to get better instead of waiting for balance changes to get them further up the ladder. There is always lots of room to improve at the lower-levels, balance is hardly at the top of the list of problems most lower-level players have.
Balance only matters at the very top-level of competition, where win-rates aren't balanced out to be 50%. Where win-rates are based on skill. People like Stephano and Happy getting a ridiculous win % on ladder isn't a fluke or a mistake, it's because they are genuinely better than most people they play on the ladder. Blizzard should only balance the game at this level.
Completely agree.
Everybody thinks that they are playing against worse players than them or maybe equal in terms of skill and it's unacceptable to lose to those kind of people. No dudes, if you lost to them you lost because they played better not because they play a certain race.
its not hard to win late game as T unless u go marine tank all game. T is the best late game as ull always have an army supply advantage due to mules. just many dont make enuf production facil;ities and lose once armies r traded
Doesn't matter when protoss gets superior efficiency in battle due to all their AoE, and can remax much faster than you.
its not hard to win late game as T unless u go marine tank all game. T is the best late game as ull always have an army supply advantage due to mules. just many dont make enuf production facil;ities and lose once armies r traded
Doesn't matter when protoss gets superior efficiency in battle due to all their AoE, and can remax much faster than you.
I guess if you restrict Terran to "foreigner Terrans", then Terran has been doing terribly lately. The crop of GSL "Code S" Terrans are of course doing A-OK, however. I don't think it's anything to balance for. Rather, I think it's just a sign that Terran players in particular can squeeze a lot out of improving their game.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
After these recent patches we have terrans playing outdated strategies. It's fair for them to lose but not fair to call UP.
Why doesn't Terran add 5-10 tanks to the BioBall? They want mobility? Well than they pay with vulnerability.
Wrong wrong. Terrans dont do outdated strategies. THey do optimal strategies. Bio is everything terran can do(thor/banshee is really really bad if the toss knows its ocmming and is reacting correctly).
Tanks are just bad tvp btw.
Btw I am not saying terran cant win. Im just saying its ´much harder for terran to win than it is for toss.
Mediocore toss plays > beats mediocore terran play.
Well maybe they should force tanks in the composition because they have splash. EMP the zealots and tanks melt them down. I find terrans really cocky that they want to win a fight with bio against a protoss army that has storm, colosus and archon, so big AOEs.
T would need three flipping tank shots to destroy one zealot once it's shield had gone. Even without Zealot charge the Zealot would be close enough to a deployed tank before the third shot that the tank wouldn't fire. When it was a chargelot then the tank would fire once and then promptly be obliterated.
Tanks do not work in a TvP that goes any sort of length due to zealot charge and stalker blink meaning they can be on top of a tank in second, blink allowing P to move around wherever the tanks happen to be, immortals negating the majority of tank damage while being able to three shot a tank in return, phoenixes being able to lift up deployed tanks... enough reasons?
Meanwhile Hellions are far too flimsy (hurrah for HotS!) while Thors, Battlecruisers, Banshees and Ravens are all screaming "please feedback me!" and are easily countered with mass immortal for Thors and Stalkers/Phoenix/Voids depending on what air army Terran is going for.
The only WORKABLE AoE Terran has is EMP and against mass chargelot that can at most reduce the P army to 66% of it's max hp and really isn't that big a deal considering armour is upgraded to 3 before shield is upgraded once and the innate +1 Zealots gain to their armour.
Meanwhile I would love to know how on earth Terran are playing with outdated strats. I would honestly say T are playing with the best strat possible against P where you assume the game will last a fair length of time and the P can be bothered to scout you and assumed to react accordingly if needs be. If you look through the recent patch balance notes (say until... 1.2) you'll see a fair few P buffs, one key nerf that is matched by a similar T nerf. If you look through for T's you'll see many nerfs and one or two buffs... battlecruiser and seeker missile speed increases.
For all this harping on that suddenly P have invented many new builds I frankly don't buy it. They are using builds that they've used before but that are now simply better given patch changes. The great increase in warp prism play isn't mass innovation, it's the fact that until the patches it was in the same boat as Terran dropships and you couldn't run it over turrets or a few guarding marines / stalkers without it dying.
This is the same thing as when foreign zergs whine about ZvP because foreign zergs have awful ZvPs compared to koreans at master level, not only just pro level. The statistic was like 60% winrate for PvZ, while in Korea it was like 45% win rate in masters.
It's harder for foreigners, but the biggest difference is either a difference in skillsets that are favored (micro vs. macro) and builds/playstyle. Korean terrans are not having troubles at master level, and neither are protoss while zergs struggle and yet zergs are the most prevalent race in EU/NA.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
After these recent patches we have terrans playing outdated strategies. It's fair for them to lose but not fair to call UP.
Why doesn't Terran add 5-10 tanks to the BioBall? They want mobility? Well than they pay with vulnerability.
Wrong wrong. Terrans dont do outdated strategies. THey do optimal strategies. Bio is everything terran can do(thor/banshee is really really bad if the toss knows its ocmming and is reacting correctly).
Tanks are just bad tvp btw.
Btw I am not saying terran cant win. Im just saying its ´much harder for terran to win than it is for toss.
Mediocore toss plays > beats mediocore terran play.
Well maybe they should force tanks in the composition because they have splash. EMP the zealots and tanks melt them down. I find terrans really cocky that they want to win a fight with bio against a protoss army that has storm, colosus and archon, so big AOEs.
T would need three flipping tank shots to destroy one zealot once it's shield had gone. Even without Zealot charge the Zealot would be close enough to a deployed tank before the third shot that the tank wouldn't fire. When it was a chargelot then the tank would fire once and then promptly be obliterated.
Tanks do not work in a TvP that goes any sort of length due to zealot charge and stalker blink meaning they can be on top of a tank in second, blink allowing P to move around wherever the tanks happen to be, immortals negating the majority of tank damage while being able to three shot a tank in return, phoenixes being able to lift up deployed tanks... enough reasons?
Meanwhile Hellions are far too flimsy (hurrah for HotS!) while Thors, Battlecruisers, Banshees and Ravens are all screaming "please feedback me!" and are easily countered with mass immortal for Thors and Stalkers/Phoenix/Voids depending on what air army Terran is going for.
The only WORKABLE AoE Terran has is EMP and against mass chargelot that can at most reduce the P army to 66% of it's max hp and really isn't that big a deal considering armour is upgraded to 3 before shield is upgraded once and the innate +1 Zealots gain to their armour.
First of all tanks should be placed behind the line. Blinking stalkers on top of the tanks should be suicide for the toss because bio would melt down everything.
Second, EMPing and firing Seeker Missiles at the zealots would melt them and even if they don't they would not stand a chance in front of the bio + tanks. To delay the chargelots you can even path their way with Auto-Turrets.
Blink stalkers would dance in front of point defence drones.
And I am talking about a new composition, not using every unit on it's own, because that is fail. I think idra should start talking about the raven as he was about the ghost "People need to start using them".
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
After these recent patches we have terrans playing outdated strategies. It's fair for them to lose but not fair to call UP.
Why doesn't Terran add 5-10 tanks to the BioBall? They want mobility? Well than they pay with vulnerability.
Wrong wrong. Terrans dont do outdated strategies. THey do optimal strategies. Bio is everything terran can do(thor/banshee is really really bad if the toss knows its ocmming and is reacting correctly).
Tanks are just bad tvp btw.
Btw I am not saying terran cant win. Im just saying its ´much harder for terran to win than it is for toss.
Mediocore toss plays > beats mediocore terran play.
Well maybe they should force tanks in the composition because they have splash. EMP the zealots and tanks melt them down. I find terrans really cocky that they want to win a fight with bio against a protoss army that has storm, colosus and archon, so big AOEs.
T would need three flipping tank shots to destroy one zealot once it's shield had gone. Even without Zealot charge the Zealot would be close enough to a deployed tank before the third shot that the tank wouldn't fire. When it was a chargelot then the tank would fire once and then promptly be obliterated.
Tanks do not work in a TvP that goes any sort of length due to zealot charge and stalker blink meaning they can be on top of a tank in second, blink allowing P to move around wherever the tanks happen to be, immortals negating the majority of tank damage while being able to three shot a tank in return, phoenixes being able to lift up deployed tanks... enough reasons?
Meanwhile Hellions are far too flimsy (hurrah for HotS!) while Thors, Battlecruisers, Banshees and Ravens are all screaming "please feedback me!" and are easily countered with mass immortal for Thors and Stalkers/Phoenix/Voids depending on what air army Terran is going for.
The only WORKABLE AoE Terran has is EMP and against mass chargelot that can at most reduce the P army to 66% of it's max hp and really isn't that big a deal considering armour is upgraded to 3 before shield is upgraded once and the innate +1 Zealots gain to their armour.
First of all tanks should be placed behind the line. Blinking stalkers on top of the tanks should be suicide for the toss because bio would melt down everything.
Second, EMPing and firing Seeker Missiles at the zealots would melt them and even if they don't they would not stand a chance in front of the bio + tanks. To delay the chargelots you can even path their way with Auto-Turrets.
Blink stalkers would dance in front of point defence drones.
And I am talking about a new composition, not using every unit on it's own, because that is fail. I think idra should start talking about the raven as he was about the ghost "People need to start using them".
The range on auto turret and seeker missile deployment is such that before a T can use it near a P army they'll be feedbacked to death. Likewise one feedback and the PDD is also gone. Also the chance to mass a tier 3 unit that costs 200 gas and can only be produced one at a time from a tier three tech building that requires an upgrade to use the strategies you are suggesting and will start 25/50 or 50/75 energy short of the spells you are mentioning (depending on upgrade) shows how non viable it is without crippling yourself to the level where P have massive windows where they acan deal significant damage.
EDIT: Last post I'm making in this thread, I've seen so many of these TvP threads recently which all go down the same path I cannot be bothered.
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
After these recent patches we have terrans playing outdated strategies. It's fair for them to lose but not fair to call UP.
Why doesn't Terran add 5-10 tanks to the BioBall? They want mobility? Well than they pay with vulnerability.
Wrong wrong. Terrans dont do outdated strategies. THey do optimal strategies. Bio is everything terran can do(thor/banshee is really really bad if the toss knows its ocmming and is reacting correctly).
Tanks are just bad tvp btw.
Btw I am not saying terran cant win. Im just saying its ´much harder for terran to win than it is for toss.
Mediocore toss plays > beats mediocore terran play.
You see Terran players are just better than you. If you are of march up on the ladder the only reason you win is because the Terran race is weaker. You skill level factors little, since your race is just better. You are in fact playing SC2 on easy mode.
If a Terran were to race switch, they would destroy 2 of their initial probes. Why? It is the only way to make it fair.
I support this message. Terran is just a harder race to play, with more unforgiving macro mechanics and more rewarding micro mechanics (which have been balanced in such a way that failing to micro properly results in losing)
But I'm not whining for buffs or changes. I know I'm only diamond because I'm doing things wrong, not because my race is bad.
well terran takes micro to be effective, so if you are bad at micro you will be weaker with terran, means you train more. Now where is the problem ? Makes terran the difficult race, i like it. Other races need micro too. But i guess you are talking about the point that the other races have aoes that can easily destroy unmicroed units and terran doesn't have these sort of units. That might be true, but we have units that can fight those units pretty effectively. On low level its just another composition, someone better can use the micro intensive units, but this is true for the other races as well. So i don't really see it as an issue. People that say they lose because of their race, are doing something wrong anyway. And its natural that a game that has such a diversity in units, is at some points easier for one race. But the only solution would be just one race with different models. And the terran domination in korea doesn't only come from the micro only.
Anyway i love terran how they are and love playing them, by the way seeker works on low lvel just fine lol. And actually since the emp nerf infestors outrange ghosts.
It may be a bit of an exaggeration, but i think this is what TS is trying to say:
Which kinda explains why korean terrans are owning korean protosses and korean zergs but foreign terrans arent exactly owning foreign protosses and zergs.
Well I am not going to talk about balance, but the one thing that annoys me most is that people always seem to cheer for the non Terran player in events like MLG/Dreamhack.
For example some casters did pull of bad jokes like:
"Can´t wait for the Final this year! it´s gonna be awesome!" "Yee I am curious to see which TvT it will be"
Don´t see why people are bashing on Terrans(correct me If i am wrong i get that feeling)
For me the most complete Satisfying thing is to see a really good terran microing, and owning
Like Boxers TvZ in BW, so incredible ! I dont get it why people dont wan´t to see such an amazing play !.
On December 01 2011 01:45 Honeybadger wrote: I support this message. All the races are hard to play, with more unforgiving macro mechanics and more rewarding micro mechanics (which have been balanced in such a way that failing to micro properly results in losing)
But I'm not whining for buffs or changes. I know I'm only diamond because I'm doing things wrong, not because my race is bad.
Ahhhhhh...so much better. It is the little things that matter.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
On November 30 2011 13:10 BlueBoxSC wrote: You're choosing selectively to look at foreigner Terran players, and that's a terrible point to argue on. Koreans (and I hate to say this, because I don't believe in the Korean/Foreigner divide, or I don't want to, at least) generally provide higher level play, and that's why there's always been a Terran in the Ro4 in the GSL.
Still, I feel like the design of Terran is remarkably solid, and it's actually the ineffectual design of the other races (in that they don't have amazing micro capability like T) that leads to this perception.
I know you said this thread wasn't about balance, but someone will step in and tell me I'm flaunting about garbage, so game is balanced.
About the Korea/Foreigner divide you are talking about: I don't think it exists either. In broodwar, the only reason there was a huge skill cap is that the Koreans practice HARDER. In sc2, we actually have dedicated teams that are training almost as hard as the Koreans and therefore we can compete.
On December 01 2011 01:52 Clazziquai10 wrote: It may be a bit of an exaggeration, but i think this is what TS is trying to say:
Which kinda explains why korean terrans are owning korean protosses and korean zergs but foreign terrans arent exactly owning foreign protosses and zergs.
lol @ top Foreigners closer to bronze level than to Korean level.
Does this means I have chances to beat Idra, Thorzain or Mana in a BO3??? Wow I didn't knew !!
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote: In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
After these recent patches we have terrans playing outdated strategies. It's fair for them to lose but not fair to call UP.
Why doesn't Terran add 5-10 tanks to the BioBall? They want mobility? Well than they pay with vulnerability.
Wrong wrong. Terrans dont do outdated strategies. THey do optimal strategies. Bio is everything terran can do(thor/banshee is really really bad if the toss knows its ocmming and is reacting correctly).
Tanks are just bad tvp btw.
Btw I am not saying terran cant win. Im just saying its ´much harder for terran to win than it is for toss.
Mediocore toss plays > beats mediocore terran play.
Well maybe they should force tanks in the composition because they have splash. EMP the zealots and tanks melt them down. I find terrans really cocky that they want to win a fight with bio against a protoss army that has storm, colosus and archon, so big AOEs.
You're not really getting it. Tanks just are not good enough in TvP. They're not worth it. They are NEVER costefficient lategame, except when the protoss is playing like a retard.
They have uses in specific timing attacks and allins (one/two base) but that's it. Once the toss gets more tech and upgrades, they start sucking. Badly.
On December 01 2011 01:52 Clazziquai10 wrote: It may be a bit of an exaggeration, but i think this is what TS is trying to say:
Which kinda explains why korean terrans are owning korean protosses and korean zergs but foreign terrans arent exactly owning foreign protosses and zergs.
lol @ top Foreigners closer to bronze level than to Korean level.
Does this means I have chances to beat Idra, Thorzain or Mana in a BO3??? Wow I didn't knew !!
Are you serious? That pic is just ilustration of course! Either shut... your mouth, or use your brain...
This isn't BW. Terran is not the most mechanical race.
Terran has more resiliency both because of the design of their basic production units and the mule (and I suppose superrepair bunkers as well).
Terrans simple combos scale amazingly with upgrades as the game goes on.
Mechanically you can shift click your hypereffective drops. If you're running an MMA style drop campaign, OK then you're looking really impressive on par with Hero's warp prism pvz. Macroing you hit a hotkey to macro EZPZ while you're microing your units. In PvT, your splash is more devastating and more unforgiving. Likewise, while you do active control in your microing you pay marginally less attention to the location or arrangement of your troops compared to the other races. "Metagame" wise you can generally play mindgames with an opening that threatens a 1-1-1 and take a pretty safe 1rax expo. There are few reasons you can't be on par or ahead in bases in most matchups (atleast first 10 minutes)
Only exception to the microcase is the latelategame as stated by Drewbie. Because once your army gets emped... not much spell tricks a toss can do beyond the initial positioning.
The foreign results can in large part be explained by the foreign participation in Korea.
On December 01 2011 01:52 Clazziquai10 wrote: It may be a bit of an exaggeration, but i think this is what TS is trying to say:
Which kinda explains why korean terrans are owning korean protosses and korean zergs but foreign terrans arent exactly owning foreign protosses and zergs.
lol @ top Foreigners closer to bronze level than to Korean level.
Does this means I have chances to beat Idra, Thorzain or Mana in a BO3??? Wow I didn't knew !!
i think you missed the "bit of an exaggeration" part
If Heart of Swarm brings more micro-intensive units to Protoss and Zerg, I believe the 'fundamental' problem that OP is mentioning will fix itself quite nicely. Units like Viper, Oracle, and Replicator seem to fulfill this issue imo.
I skimmed the original post but in general I agree, from Bronze to Diamond terran is the easiest race, then protoss with zerg being the hardest, but once you get into masters Zerg is by far the easiest race to play, then protoss then terran is actually quite difficult. This is not a problem with terran this is just how the game should be, zerg needs to be made way harder to play... it is wayyyyy too easy, just look at someone like sheth, he is no one, but because he plays the easiest race he is able to achieve things in SC2.
i understand the purpose of this thread, but i don't think its one thats really threadworthy. if they tried to balance this game for all the bronzies it would never succeed as an esport, adjusting the game to balance at the highest possible level is the best way, and only way imo, to do it. only at that point do glaring imbalances really begin to show. as the ghost has proven, and still proves despite the emp nerf. otherwise you'll be trying to balance over people's in-game mistakes and lack of action which even sounds like a poor idea, let alone being one.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
On December 01 2011 01:45 Honeybadger wrote: I support this message. Terran is just a harder race to play, with more unforgiving macro mechanics and more rewarding micro mechanics (which have been balanced in such a way that failing to micro properly results in losing)
But I'm not whining for buffs or changes. I know I'm only diamond because I'm doing things wrong, not because my race is bad.
I personally think it is quite of a stretch to call macro mechanics like the MULE and Supply Drop as "unforgiving". One might even argue and that's what I read all the time in the past, that is in fact the opposite of "unforgiving".
Anyway even if the OP is right, and it is harder with terran too reach the maximum potential of the units, I think that this would not be a fundamental flaw in the terran race but in the other races.
i think this thread dose not understand one thing about low lvl players
for example you can perfect 1000 things in a sitation(matchup) (ofcourse its much much more complicated).
Pro players might be 912 vs 892 things, wich is close and in play it dosent seem overpowered.
but if a bronze player knows 100 vs 100, then those 100 might cover completely different things, like 50 on attack and 50 on macro, other is 50 on attack and 50 on rushing (means one cant handle long game, other cant handle rushes basically), so its like poker, its tottaly random what seems to be overpowered to who (ladder), this is the reason why you dont care about the lowest players.
as others have said in this thread, I would MUCH rather they give Z and P the higher skill cap instead of removing that from T. Let non terrans show their incredible micro skills instead of just need to to have positioning and hit a few spells in fights.
Personally I wish they'd bring back BW muta micro style play for zerg...
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
I fell like terran is not well equipped to deal with mutalisks. I think these problems will be addressed in HOTS.
I feel like terran is fully equipped to deal with protoss. Especially if they capitalize on their advantages in the early game.
PF with turrets is much more difficult to kill than a comparable amount of canons or spine/spores+queen.
Terran has the most rewarding harass, especially when takign into account that they dont need to diverge from their regular tech path to get medivac/marine or hellions or banshees. The only possible costs wasted on failed harass could be the research of cloak or Blue flame (which could very well end up being useful later in the game). how often do we see a banshee go out and multi-prong mineral lines in the late game. All you have to do is put it close to the mineral line but out of range of any static defenses and hold position until you have the time to attend more micro to it.
Terran has the most unexplored units/upgrades (specifically the raven in all matchups, and thor/tank with bio in tvp). Not to mention, how often do you see terran players repairing their vikings/medivacs in the late game.
They go into large engagements with an army that is injured or damage, medivacs with depleted energy, and often attack into bad angles.
Yes, if you attack up a ramp into zealot/sentry/stalker/colosus/archon.. you shoudl lose... dont do it...
if you attack way in the open, ya you will probably win.. or kill a ton of zealots for only the cost of a stim
It is largely situational. Different situations require more or less micro from different races. Lets take 1-1-1 vs protoss. For terran, they need to get their siege tanks into position, control their marine ball, and handle their banshee(s). For protoss, they need to have their army spread out, use guardian shield, try to trap marines with ff, keep zealots up front, have immortals (or phoenix) focus tanks, and micro stalkers back and forth. I'd say more is asked of protoss in that situation.
I do think terran usually has the "micro advantage" in a lot of situations. What I mean by this is that it is up to the terran to succeed or fail on particular micro tasks, and if they succeed the other two races do not have a "micro counter play" to try to over come what the terran did, they just lose that micro engagement. This is a little theoretical, but I'll try to give an example.
I think Ghost vs. HT is a good example of this. Snipe has range 10, feedback has range 9. 1 range isn't a huge margin for error, ghosts could easily be hit with feedback if terran isn't really on point that instant. However, if they are, 10 range will always beat 9 range, and there is nothing protoss can do about it. Of course you could say well use blink stalkers, lead with chargelots, etc. Then the terran ball could lead instead of ghosts, and on and on. There are other situations that I think this is true as well (marines vs. banelings), and I think the point stands. Terran are usually in a situation where if they micro correctly, the other two races don't have a real response to the micro play, however the requirement put on terran is pretty difficult, and if they fail, they will probably lose.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
I think a lot of Protoss would argue that Mech was not used beause Bio was far more effective and faster. Since the launch, terrans have been floating the factory around as the most expensive scout in SC2. Although I understant that pure mech may not be the way to go, but terrans could start by building units out of the factory and see who they work out.
Also, players continue to use Goody as an example of a terran player who gave up mech vs protoss. Although I do like Goody and his style, other pros have been critical of his mechanics. He is known for having lack luster macro and decision making. I think an MMA or MVP could find a way to make factory units work as support for bio. Just like protoss were forced to figure out how to make zealots work in PvZ. I never used zealots in that match up 5 months ago and they were widely considered horrible(Day 9 said protoss feel stupid building them). Now they are one of my main units that I use all the time.
I don't really get the point of this thread. Terran players are bad?
Whining about how micro-intensive Terran is would be comparable to me whining about how I can never keep up with injects and my queens' energy is always floating high. I'm not going to make a thread about it, I'm going to practice injecting and macroing while I'm elsewhere on the map. With Terran you have to out micro your opponent in certain engagements, with Zerg you have to outproduce your opponent and be able to remax quickly mid-late game. I can't speak for the Brotoss but I'm sure someone can step in and say something that they have to worry about incessantly that other races don't.
On December 01 2011 02:54 Bagi wrote: Do people really think mech is the answer in TvP?
Even Goody stopped meching in TvP after the immortal buff for gods sake. Get your heads out of your asses.
I dont think anyone is suggesting pure mech. Throw in labout 6 seige tanks and 2 thors and have them focus the stalkers/colosus while your MM kite the zealots could be incredibly powerful.
I'm not saying it would be easy. im suggesting that it may be effective.
DPS wise, unseiged tanks are huge. they have 7 range, absoultely destroy stalkers. if unseiged can kite along with your army. when the zealtos are dead, you can seige them up to do even more damage to any remaining stalkers that stick around.
Ideally I would like to see P and Z be more demanding in micro (especially P) but it's already apparent Blizzard is trying to make Terran easier with things like battle hellions fighting chargelots. Terran won't be any better, as I'm sure good kiting will be about equal to battle hellions, but the idea is to just make things as easy as using the chargelots themselves and not have one side use more demanding mechanics to be balanced.
On December 01 2011 03:11 DarK[A] wrote: I don't really get the point of this thread. Terran players are bad?
Whining about how micro-intensive Terran is would be comparable to me whining about how I can never keep up with injects and my queens' energy is always floating high. I'm not going to make a thread about it, I'm going to practice injecting and macroing while I'm elsewhere on the map. With Terran you have to out micro your opponent in certain engagements, with Zerg you have to outproduce your opponent and be able to remax quickly mid-late game. I can't speak for the Brotoss but I'm sure someone can step in and say something that they have to worry about incessantly that other races don't.
I guess I could whine about how chrono only lasts 20 seconds, like inject and mules last for around 45 seconds. It means I have to go back to my base twice as much to use my chrono effectively and that puts me at a disadvantage because I can't control my army...I guess.
But I am not going to make that thread, becase it is silly.
On December 01 2011 03:09 Multifail wrote: It is largely situational. Different situations require more or less micro from different races. Lets take 1-1-1 vs protoss. For terran, they need to get their siege tanks into position, control their marine ball, and handle their banshee(s). For protoss, they need to have their army spread out, use guardian shield, try to trap marines with ff, keep zealots up front, have immortals (or phoenix) focus tanks, and micro stalkers back and forth. I'd say more is asked of protoss in that situation.
I do think terran usually has the "micro advantage" in a lot of situations. What I mean by this is that it is up to the terran to succeed or fail on particular micro tasks, and if they succeed the other two races do not have a "micro counter play" to try to over come what the terran did, they just lose that micro engagement. This is a little theoretical, but I'll try to give an example.
I think Ghost vs. HT is a good example of this. Snipe has range 10, feedback has range 9. 1 range isn't a huge margin for error, ghosts could easily be hit with feedback if terran isn't really on point that instant. However, if they are, 10 range will always beat 9 range, and there is nothing protoss can do about it. Of course you could say well use blink stalkers, lead with chargelots, etc. Then the terran ball could lead instead of ghosts, and on and on. There are other situations that I think this is true as well (marines vs. banelings), and I think the point stands. Terran are usually in a situation where if they micro correctly, the other two races don't have a real response to the micro play, however the requirement put on terran is pretty difficult, and if they fail, they will probably lose.
Snipe has a built in casttime and delay between fires, and it requires 2 to kill the HT. Feedback is instantaneous with zero cooldown and incapacitates the ghost with one hit. The time it takes for the snipe to go off is 100% enough time for the HT to get that 1 range closer.
I mean, if you're gonna do proper theorycrafting, you ought to have the facts straight.
On December 01 2011 01:45 Honeybadger wrote: I support this message. Terran is just a harder race to play, with more unforgiving macro mechanics and more rewarding micro mechanics (which have been balanced in such a way that failing to micro properly results in losing)
But I'm not whining for buffs or changes. I know I'm only diamond because I'm doing things wrong, not because my race is bad.
I personally think it is quite of a stretch to call macro mechanics like the MULE and Supply Drop as "unforgiving". One might even argue and that's what I read all the time in the past, that is in fact the opposite of "unforgiving".
Anyway even if the OP is right, and it is harder with terran too reach the maximum potential of the units, I think that this would not be a fundamental flaw in the terran race but in the other races.
Mules is needed to balance out the economy. Terran always have slower workers production than Protoss and Zerg, and they even need to dedicate 1,2 workers to build stuffs the whole time. If you don't build stuff, you're doing something wrong. It's purely good mechanic coming from the Terran players to keep building scv all the time. I watched pro streams, such as Sage, MC, Huk.., and I don't think I see them building probes as mechanically as Terran players. So yes. Mules do break the game, but for good Terran only. Again, we return to the topic where the Terran race is designed to break the game at high level, but weak at low level.
And Supply Drop is forgiving, but what about Zerg and Protoss? Supply block? No problem, just stockpile your money and larva, after having supply, build 100 stuff at once. And Protoss? It's less forgiving that zerg, but as long as you realize you're supply blocked, you make pylon, wait 25sec, then warp your units in 5 sec. That is still faster build time than most of Terran's units. Imagine if Terran don't have supply drop, he has to build supply for 25sec, then build units which take from 25sec to 60sec to come out again.
On December 01 2011 03:14 SolidMoose wrote: Ideally I would like to see P and Z be more demanding in micro (especially P) but it's already apparent Blizzard is trying to make Terran easier with things like battle hellions fighting chargelots. Terran won't be any better, as I'm sure good kiting will be about equal to battle hellions, but the idea is to just make things as easy as using the chargelots themselves and not have one side use more demanding mechanics to be balanced.
I'm having trouble finding where you could demand more micro of Zerg players without completely crippling the race even more. On top of the general rule of having a base up on our opponent, we have to micro pretty hard to win most engagements, unless our opponent is just plain terrible.
On December 01 2011 03:11 DarK[A] wrote: I don't really get the point of this thread. Terran players are bad?
Whining about how micro-intensive Terran is would be comparable to me whining about how I can never keep up with injects and my queens' energy is always floating high. I'm not going to make a thread about it, I'm going to practice injecting and macroing while I'm elsewhere on the map. With Terran you have to out micro your opponent in certain engagements, with Zerg you have to outproduce your opponent and be able to remax quickly mid-late game. I can't speak for the Brotoss but I'm sure someone can step in and say something that they have to worry about incessantly that other races don't.
I guess I could whine about how chrono only lasts 20 seconds, like inject and mules last for around 45 seconds. It means I have to go back to my base twice as much to use my chrono effectively and that puts me at a disadvantage because I can't control my army...I guess.
But I am not going to make that thread, becase it is silly.
exactly. everyone could nitpick.. there has to be things different about the races or things would be boring.
you know what is a hell of a lot easier than pressing (Zerg: 5 s zzzzzzzzzzzzzz) or (terran: 5 aaaaaaddd tab dddd).. finding a pylon somewhere, warpign units in idividually, finding a place that is perfectly capable of placing a stalkers but not being able to place it anyways, then adding it to your army hotkey and then going back to your army to attack your enemy, only to notice 5 seconds later that because you told them to A move to a location instead of M moving to a location, they decided to stay put.
the benefit to warp in is that if your army is out of posistion, you do have some ability to re-inforce. obviously you cant hold off an entire army, but you can warp in enough to scare away a small drop if you are not on cooldown.
protoss has widely explored their unit compositions. many have been rendered ineffective because of critical weaknesses to things such as EMP (zealot/archon/HT,Immortal) or the ever present threat of a banshee (you must go robo).
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
I think a lot of Protoss would argue that Mech was not used beause Bio was far more effective and faster. Since the launch, terrans have been floating the factory around as the most expensive scout in SC2. Although I understant that pure mech may not be the way to go, but terrans could start by building units out of the factory and see who they work out.
Also, players continue to use Goody as an example of a terran player who gave up mech vs protoss. Although I do like Goody and his style, other pros have been critical of his mechanics. He is known for having lack luster macro and decision making. I think an MMA or MVP could find a way to make factory units work as support for bio. Just like protoss were forced to figure out how to make zealots work in PvZ. I never used zealots in that match up 5 months ago and they were widely considered horrible(Day 9 said protoss feel stupid building them). Now they are one of my main units that I use all the time.
There is this guy called MVP, he is best Terran player, best mech player in TvT and TvZ, he has one weaker matchup - TvP, yet he still doesnt use mech in this matchup. So i would argue that MVP knows more about viablity of mech in TvP than a "lot of Protoss"
On December 01 2011 03:09 Multifail wrote: It is largely situational. Different situations require more or less micro from different races. Lets take 1-1-1 vs protoss. For terran, they need to get their siege tanks into position, control their marine ball, and handle their banshee(s). For protoss, they need to have their army spread out, use guardian shield, try to trap marines with ff, keep zealots up front, have immortals (or phoenix) focus tanks, and micro stalkers back and forth. I'd say more is asked of protoss in that situation.
I do think terran usually has the "micro advantage" in a lot of situations. What I mean by this is that it is up to the terran to succeed or fail on particular micro tasks, and if they succeed the other two races do not have a "micro counter play" to try to over come what the terran did, they just lose that micro engagement. This is a little theoretical, but I'll try to give an example.
I think Ghost vs. HT is a good example of this. Snipe has range 10, feedback has range 9. 1 range isn't a huge margin for error, ghosts could easily be hit with feedback if terran isn't really on point that instant. However, if they are, 10 range will always beat 9 range, and there is nothing protoss can do about it. Of course you could say well use blink stalkers, lead with chargelots, etc. Then the terran ball could lead instead of ghosts, and on and on. There are other situations that I think this is true as well (marines vs. banelings), and I think the point stands. Terran are usually in a situation where if they micro correctly, the other two races don't have a real response to the micro play, however the requirement put on terran is pretty difficult, and if they fail, they will probably lose.
Snipe has a built in casttime and delay between fires, and it requires 2 to kill the HT. Feedback is instantaneous with zero cooldown and incapacitates the ghost with one hit. The time it takes for the snipe to go off is 100% enough time for the HT to get that 1 range closer.
I mean, if you're gonna do proper theorycrafting, you ought to have the facts straight.
You are assuming it is 1 ht vs 1 ghost. I never said that was the case, as it usually isn't. If you send 2 ghost vs 2 ht, the ghosts will both snipe the targeted HT, and he will die before his FB goes off, every time. If you add more numbers, the results are the same. Pretty much anything beyond 1 vs 1, ghosts will win. And I'm not going to even get into the use of cloak.
The delay isn't enough time for FB to go off, I have no clue where you got that idea. It is just plain wrong. Try a unit tester before you start trying to sound smart.
On December 01 2011 01:45 Honeybadger wrote: I support this message. Terran is just a harder race to play, with more unforgiving macro mechanics and more rewarding micro mechanics (which have been balanced in such a way that failing to micro properly results in losing)
But I'm not whining for buffs or changes. I know I'm only diamond because I'm doing things wrong, not because my race is bad.
I personally think it is quite of a stretch to call macro mechanics like the MULE and Supply Drop as "unforgiving". One might even argue and that's what I read all the time in the past, that is in fact the opposite of "unforgiving".
Anyway even if the OP is right, and it is harder with terran too reach the maximum potential of the units, I think that this would not be a fundamental flaw in the terran race but in the other races.
Mules is needed to balance out the economy. Terran always have slower workers production than Protoss and Zerg, and they even need to dedicate 1,2 workers to build stuffs the whole time. If you don't build stuff, you're doing something wrong. It's purely good mechanic coming from the Terran players to keep building scv all the time. I watched pro streams, such as Sage, MC, Huk.., and I don't think I see them building probes as mechanically as Terran players. So yes. Mules do break the game, but for good Terran only. Again, we return to the topic where the Terran race is designed to break the game at high level, but weak at low level.
And Supply Drop is forgiving, but what about Zerg and Protoss? Supply block? No problem, just stockpile your money and larva, after having supply, build 100 stuff at once. And Protoss? It's less forgiving that zerg, but as long as you realize you're supply blocked, you make pylon, wait 25sec, then warp your units in 5 sec. That is still faster build time than most of Terran's units. Imagine if Terran don't have supply drop, he has to build supply for 25sec, then build units which take from 25sec to 60sec to come out again.
25 seconds is 13 seconds short of a full warp in cycle. This assumes that the pylon is built instantly when the supply block happens. If you miss a warp in cycle, you are down on supply. It is no different than terran. The protoss can chrono his gates to make up for it, but that is 2-3 chrono boosts that could have been spent elsewhere. Just like the mule that was taken up by the supply drop.
I don't see an issue at all. It appears both races have ability to make up for a supply drop in different ways.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Stop taking artosis words for granted. Artosis is a midmaster protoss player. What does he know about how terran is supposed to play tvp. WHen every korean player + even Goody says mech is useless vs toss, it probably is useless....
Now I expect you to say stuff like Artosis watches a lot of game, he is very intelligent, good at bw, or whatever nonsense you will come up.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped
same reason we are forced not to go stargate.. the aforementioned rape would ensue
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
I think a lot of Protoss would argue that Mech was not used beause Bio was far more effective and faster. Since the launch, terrans have been floating the factory around as the most expensive scout in SC2. Although I understant that pure mech may not be the way to go, but terrans could start by building units out of the factory and see who they work out.
Also, players continue to use Goody as an example of a terran player who gave up mech vs protoss. Although I do like Goody and his style, other pros have been critical of his mechanics. He is known for having lack luster macro and decision making. I think an MMA or MVP could find a way to make factory units work as support for bio. Just like protoss were forced to figure out how to make zealots work in PvZ. I never used zealots in that match up 5 months ago and they were widely considered horrible(Day 9 said protoss feel stupid building them). Now they are one of my main units that I use all the time.
There is this guy called MVP, he is best Terran player, best mech player in TvT and TvZ, he has one weaker matchup - TvP, yet he still doesnt use mech in this matchup. So i would argue that MVP knows more about viablity of mech in TvP than a "lot of Protoss"
I don't have any direct quotes from him on the topic. If he said mech was horrible and not viable, I would likely agree with him, as he is one of the best terrans in the world. However, just because he isn't doing it does not me it is not possible to factory units viable in the match up.
And lets be clear, none of the terran players in this thread are MVP, so their points are no more valid than mine. I didn't use zealots in PvZ until I saw Liquid Hero ripping zergs appart with them. I bet if MVP started using tanks and ravens with his MMM tomorrow, we would all be in awe and terrans would start to follow suite.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
I think a lot of Protoss would argue that Mech was not used beause Bio was far more effective and faster. Since the launch, terrans have been floating the factory around as the most expensive scout in SC2. Although I understant that pure mech may not be the way to go, but terrans could start by building units out of the factory and see who they work out.
Also, players continue to use Goody as an example of a terran player who gave up mech vs protoss. Although I do like Goody and his style, other pros have been critical of his mechanics. He is known for having lack luster macro and decision making. I think an MMA or MVP could find a way to make factory units work as support for bio. Just like protoss were forced to figure out how to make zealots work in PvZ. I never used zealots in that match up 5 months ago and they were widely considered horrible(Day 9 said protoss feel stupid building them). Now they are one of my main units that I use all the time.
There is this guy called MVP, he is best Terran player, best mech player in TvT and TvZ, he has one weaker matchup - TvP, yet he still doesnt use mech in this matchup. So i would argue that MVP knows more about viablity of mech in TvP than a "lot of Protoss"
I don't have any direct quotes from him on the topic. If he said mech was horrible and not viable, I would likely agree with him, as he is one of the best terrans in the world. However, just because he isn't doing it does not me it is not possible to factory units viable in the match up.
And lets be clear, none of the terran players in this thread are MVP, so their points are no more valid than mine. I didn't use zealots in PvZ until I saw Liquid Hero ripping zergs appart with them. I bet if MVP started using tanks and ravens with his MMM tomorrow, we would all be in awe and terrans would start to follow suite.
wait.. hold on a second.. when did zealots become viable against zerg? i thought they can only kill zerglings and are decent fodder against ultras?
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
I think a lot of Protoss would argue that Mech was not used beause Bio was far more effective and faster. Since the launch, terrans have been floating the factory around as the most expensive scout in SC2. Although I understant that pure mech may not be the way to go, but terrans could start by building units out of the factory and see who they work out.
Also, players continue to use Goody as an example of a terran player who gave up mech vs protoss. Although I do like Goody and his style, other pros have been critical of his mechanics. He is known for having lack luster macro and decision making. I think an MMA or MVP could find a way to make factory units work as support for bio. Just like protoss were forced to figure out how to make zealots work in PvZ. I never used zealots in that match up 5 months ago and they were widely considered horrible(Day 9 said protoss feel stupid building them). Now they are one of my main units that I use all the time.
There is this guy called MVP, he is best Terran player, best mech player in TvT and TvZ, he has one weaker matchup - TvP, yet he still doesnt use mech in this matchup. So i would argue that MVP knows more about viablity of mech in TvP than a "lot of Protoss"
I don't have any direct quotes from him on the topic. If he said mech was horrible and not viable, I would likely agree with him, as he is one of the best terrans in the world. However, just because he isn't doing it does not me it is not possible to factory units viable in the match up.
And lets be clear, none of the terran players in this thread are MVP, so their points are no more valid than mine. I didn't use zealots in PvZ until I saw Liquid Hero ripping zergs appart with them. I bet if MVP started using tanks and ravens with his MMM tomorrow, we would all be in awe and terrans would start to follow suite.
wait.. hold on a second.. when did zealots become viable against zerg? i thought they can only kill zerglings and are decent fodder against ultras?
You sir, have missed out. You need to watch Liquid Hero's and Incontrols stream and be inspired(there are others, but those are the ones I watch). They are not good all the time, but they are amazing if the zerg is relying on lings and are amazing in drops once they have charge.
But they require really good scouting. I have had some silly losses from miss reading my opponent.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped
Protoss go like that in all 3 MU, what's the problem? At least Protoss knows those units are usable and viable.
On December 01 2011 02:54 Bagi wrote: Do people really think mech is the answer in TvP?
Even Goody stopped meching in TvP after the immortal buff for gods sake. Get your heads out of your asses.
Adding tanks and ravens is overkill right?
Tanks are worthless outside timing pushes. Once you have upgrades like charge and blink, even pure gateway units can deal with tanks no problem. Don't even get me started on the new immortal.
Feedback outranges all raven abilities, PDD does jack shit against zealot/archon/colossus. Ravens are absolutely worthless in comparision to ghosts.
I'm sorry, but if you believe tanks can solve lategame TvP you truly do not understand this game at all.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Bolded part shows how much you know about game, mech in TvP - okay.
On December 01 2011 03:03 Roxy wrote: I completely disagree with so many things here.
I fell like terran is not well equipped to deal with mutalisks. I think these problems will be addressed in HOTS.
I feel like terran is fully equipped to deal with protoss. Especially if they capitalize on their advantages in the early game.
PF with turrets is much more difficult to kill than a comparable amount of canons or spine/spores+queen.
Terran has the most rewarding harass, especially when takign into account that they dont need to diverge from their regular tech path to get medivac/marine or hellions or banshees. The only possible costs wasted on failed harass could be the research of cloak or Blue flame (which could very well end up being useful later in the game). how often do we see a banshee go out and multi-prong mineral lines in the late game. All you have to do is put it close to the mineral line but out of range of any static defenses and hold position until you have the time to attend more micro to it.
Terran has the most unexplored units/upgrades (specifically the raven in all matchups, and thor/tank with bio in tvp). Not to mention, how often do you see terran players repairing their vikings/medivacs in the late game.
They go into large engagements with an army that is injured or damage, medivacs with depleted energy, and often attack into bad angles.
Yes, if you attack up a ramp into zealot/sentry/stalker/colosus/archon.. you shoudl lose... dont do it...
if you attack way in the open, ya you will probably win.. or kill a ton of zealots for only the cost of a stim
You heard it here first, banshees and helions are regular tech path in TvP.
Terran having most unexplored units - not sure if you are trolling, thor/tank/bio in tvp? really?
More than half of people here are posting stuff like: OMG BUT TERRAN IS GOOD RACE NOOB GTFO!!
You should read the thread first, thread isnt about terran being WEAK race, thread is about that terran is more time consuming race because its micro is more difficult than the other 2 races which results in people quiting terran or changing to other race. If you are thinking "well who cares about lower leagues", you should probably re-think again. Terran is already STILL the most hated race from beta which doesnt help new players coming into game or help the old ones stick to their race.
I will post again for those people saying "terran was winning before because they were OP and now when they lose terrans suck and zergs and toss are better", sure can you tell me why terrans never won anything outside Korea? You actually want to say that out of over million people that wasnt ONE talented terran player?
What terrans want is not their race being boosted, I like my race as it is and I want it to be hard, but I use a lot of time on this game, terrans want the other 2 races to be given MORE options in terms of micro making them not HARDER to use but having the potential to do better, very good example of this are blink stalkers and mutas. Bad example of this is zealot/archon army, the strenght in it is too much for its ..micro - and we need less of those for SC2 to be better game.
Also Roxy stop posting you are melting my brain with your posts, newest one "when did zealots become viable vs zerg?". /facepalm
On December 01 2011 02:54 Bagi wrote: Do people really think mech is the answer in TvP?
Even Goody stopped meching in TvP after the immortal buff for gods sake. Get your heads out of your asses.
Adding tanks and ravens is overkill right?
Tanks are worthless outside timing pushes. Once you have upgrades like charge and blink, even pure gateway units can deal with tanks no problem. Don't even get me started on the new immortal.
Feedback outranges all raven abilities, PDD does jack shit against zealot/archon/colossus. Ravens are absolutely worthless in comparision to ghosts.
I'm sorry, but if you believe tanks can solve lategame TvP you truly do not understand this game at all.
Positioning and slow pushing make tanks worth their price. Ravens can have a free roam if ghosts are used against templars.
And nobody even tried bio+ tanks + ravens + vikings.
On December 01 2011 03:09 Multifail wrote: It is largely situational. Different situations require more or less micro from different races. Lets take 1-1-1 vs protoss. For terran, they need to get their siege tanks into position, control their marine ball, and handle their banshee(s). For protoss, they need to have their army spread out, use guardian shield, try to trap marines with ff, keep zealots up front, have immortals (or phoenix) focus tanks, and micro stalkers back and forth. I'd say more is asked of protoss in that situation.
I do think terran usually has the "micro advantage" in a lot of situations. What I mean by this is that it is up to the terran to succeed or fail on particular micro tasks, and if they succeed the other two races do not have a "micro counter play" to try to over come what the terran did, they just lose that micro engagement. This is a little theoretical, but I'll try to give an example.
I think Ghost vs. HT is a good example of this. Snipe has range 10, feedback has range 9. 1 range isn't a huge margin for error, ghosts could easily be hit with feedback if terran isn't really on point that instant. However, if they are, 10 range will always beat 9 range, and there is nothing protoss can do about it. Of course you could say well use blink stalkers, lead with chargelots, etc. Then the terran ball could lead instead of ghosts, and on and on. There are other situations that I think this is true as well (marines vs. banelings), and I think the point stands. Terran are usually in a situation where if they micro correctly, the other two races don't have a real response to the micro play, however the requirement put on terran is pretty difficult, and if they fail, they will probably lose.
Snipe has a built in casttime and delay between fires, and it requires 2 to kill the HT. Feedback is instantaneous with zero cooldown and incapacitates the ghost with one hit. The time it takes for the snipe to go off is 100% enough time for the HT to get that 1 range closer.
I mean, if you're gonna do proper theorycrafting, you ought to have the facts straight.
You are assuming it is 1 ht vs 1 ghost. I never said that was the case, as it usually isn't. If you send 2 ghost vs 2 ht, the ghosts will both snipe the targeted HT, and he will die before his FB goes off, every time. If you add more numbers, the results are the same. Pretty much anything beyond 1 vs 1, ghosts will win. And I'm not going to even get into the use of cloak.
The delay isn't enough time for FB to go off, I have no clue where you got that idea. It is just plain wrong. Try a unit tester before you start trying to sound smart.
sounds like you're the one that needs unit testing. feedback and snipe will land at the same time.
But because of having no cooldown on feedback, you can always feedback 2 ghosts before 2 snipes go off if you have vision
On December 01 2011 02:54 Bagi wrote: Do people really think mech is the answer in TvP?
Even Goody stopped meching in TvP after the immortal buff for gods sake. Get your heads out of your asses.
Adding tanks and ravens is overkill right?
Tanks are worthless outside timing pushes. Once you have upgrades like charge and blink, even pure gateway units can deal with tanks no problem. Don't even get me started on the new immortal.
Feedback outranges all raven abilities, PDD does jack shit against zealot/archon/colossus. Ravens are absolutely worthless in comparision to ghosts.
I'm sorry, but if you believe tanks can solve lategame TvP you truly do not understand this game at all.
Positioning and slow pushing make tanks worth their price. Ravens can have a free roam if ghosts are used against templars.
And nobody even tried bio+ tanks + ravens + vikings.
What you are describing is a 1-2 base timing push, which are quite common. But the longer the game the less you can rely on tanks, which is why you usually see marauder transitions after it. Protoss just has too many units that effectively counter tanks, especially once you have upgrades for them.
Once the protoss has a maxed army, your cute little tank army just gets rolled over unless you have perfect positioning. This is not BW where tank lines could break entire armies, don't delude yourself.
Lots of people do bio/tanks/ravens/vikings as a timing push, and they know its not viable in a long game. That's why they are progamers and you are not.
On December 01 2011 03:09 Multifail wrote: It is largely situational. Different situations require more or less micro from different races. Lets take 1-1-1 vs protoss. For terran, they need to get their siege tanks into position, control their marine ball, and handle their banshee(s). For protoss, they need to have their army spread out, use guardian shield, try to trap marines with ff, keep zealots up front, have immortals (or phoenix) focus tanks, and micro stalkers back and forth. I'd say more is asked of protoss in that situation.
I do think terran usually has the "micro advantage" in a lot of situations. What I mean by this is that it is up to the terran to succeed or fail on particular micro tasks, and if they succeed the other two races do not have a "micro counter play" to try to over come what the terran did, they just lose that micro engagement. This is a little theoretical, but I'll try to give an example.
I think Ghost vs. HT is a good example of this. Snipe has range 10, feedback has range 9. 1 range isn't a huge margin for error, ghosts could easily be hit with feedback if terran isn't really on point that instant. However, if they are, 10 range will always beat 9 range, and there is nothing protoss can do about it. Of course you could say well use blink stalkers, lead with chargelots, etc. Then the terran ball could lead instead of ghosts, and on and on. There are other situations that I think this is true as well (marines vs. banelings), and I think the point stands. Terran are usually in a situation where if they micro correctly, the other two races don't have a real response to the micro play, however the requirement put on terran is pretty difficult, and if they fail, they will probably lose.
Snipe has a built in casttime and delay between fires, and it requires 2 to kill the HT. Feedback is instantaneous with zero cooldown and incapacitates the ghost with one hit. The time it takes for the snipe to go off is 100% enough time for the HT to get that 1 range closer.
I mean, if you're gonna do proper theorycrafting, you ought to have the facts straight.
You are assuming it is 1 ht vs 1 ghost. I never said that was the case, as it usually isn't. If you send 2 ghost vs 2 ht, the ghosts will both snipe the targeted HT, and he will die before his FB goes off, every time. If you add more numbers, the results are the same. Pretty much anything beyond 1 vs 1, ghosts will win. And I'm not going to even get into the use of cloak.
The delay isn't enough time for FB to go off, I have no clue where you got that idea. It is just plain wrong. Try a unit tester before you start trying to sound smart.
sounds like you're the one that needs unit testing. feedback and snipe will land at the same time.
But because of having no cooldown on feedback, you can always feedback 2 ghosts before 2 snipes go off if you have vision
The ghost has sight 11 compaired to the HTs 10. Feedback had range 9 and snipe has range 10. The ghost is faster than the HT.
The only way this would happen is if 2 ghosts happened to wander into the HTs range and they both noticed and cued up their abilities at the exact same time. If that happens, you should avoid it. If the terran can see the HTs and cues up 2 snipes, there is a pretty good chance it will go off before the HT gets into range.
If only we had some ex BW players in SC2, like MVP, Boxer,Nada, ForGG to show us how to mech TvP. With their BW experience they'd be mad not to use their skills in positioning, timings, etc.
I can understand race bias, ignorance, being down right mean, but some of the comments here look like they are made by people that never played a SC2 game in their life.
Unless you can play mech at a high level stop with the retarded "suggestions" of "exploring" and what not. I'm sure MVP would bite your hand of if you can show him how to mech. Mech is broken in TvP and EVERY top terran player can tell you that.
You could also just, ya know, cloak, and the ghosts just troll the HT. The bottom line is ghosts alone > HT alone. This is getting way off-topic at this point.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped
And terrans aren't suggesting you to do anything else, so your point was...?
I'd have to agree with you OP. There is also another issue however you didn't mention, if we assume you are indeed correct and terran does reward micro better, the best terrans(assuming equal skill improvement) will always end up as the best players(eventually). This in turn will force Blizzard to do another terran nerf to equalize the game again.
But I guess with HotS, terran will be a lot better off, since it does seem like we're loosing a bit of harassment options to being able to fight a straight up fight(without _having_ to neutralize all the aoe of the opponent first).
On December 01 2011 02:54 Bagi wrote: Do people really think mech is the answer in TvP?
Even Goody stopped meching in TvP after the immortal buff for gods sake. Get your heads out of your asses.
Adding tanks and ravens is overkill right?
Tanks are worthless outside timing pushes. Once you have upgrades like charge and blink, even pure gateway units can deal with tanks no problem. Don't even get me started on the new immortal.
Feedback outranges all raven abilities, PDD does jack shit against zealot/archon/colossus. Ravens are absolutely worthless in comparision to ghosts.
I'm sorry, but if you believe tanks can solve lategame TvP you truly do not understand this game at all.
Positioning and slow pushing make tanks worth their price. Ravens can have a free roam if ghosts are used against templars.
And nobody even tried bio+ tanks + ravens + vikings.
What you are describing is a 1-2 base timing push, which are quite common. But the longer the game the less you can rely on tanks, which is why you usually see marauder transitions after it. Protoss just has too many units that effectively counter tanks, especially once you have upgrades for them.
Once the protoss has a maxed army, your cute little tank army just gets rolled over unless you have perfect positioning. This is not BW where tank lines could break entire armies, don't delude yourself.
Lots of people do bio/tanks/ravens/vikings as a timing push, and they know its not viable in a long game. That's why they are progamers and you are not.
If only pros would be allowed to talk than TL would be quite. That argument is stupid.
And check Hero vs asd from GSL (todays matches). Game 2 is mech play at his best.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Bolded part shows how much you know about game, mech in TvP - okay.
On December 01 2011 03:03 Roxy wrote: I completely disagree with so many things here.
I fell like terran is not well equipped to deal with mutalisks. I think these problems will be addressed in HOTS.
I feel like terran is fully equipped to deal with protoss. Especially if they capitalize on their advantages in the early game.
PF with turrets is much more difficult to kill than a comparable amount of canons or spine/spores+queen.
Terran has the most rewarding harass, especially when takign into account that they dont need to diverge from their regular tech path to get medivac/marine or hellions or banshees. The only possible costs wasted on failed harass could be the research of cloak or Blue flame (which could very well end up being useful later in the game). how often do we see a banshee go out and multi-prong mineral lines in the late game. All you have to do is put it close to the mineral line but out of range of any static defenses and hold position until you have the time to attend more micro to it.
Terran has the most unexplored units/upgrades (specifically the raven in all matchups, and thor/tank with bio in tvp). Not to mention, how often do you see terran players repairing their vikings/medivacs in the late game.
They go into large engagements with an army that is injured or damage, medivacs with depleted energy, and often attack into bad angles.
Yes, if you attack up a ramp into zealot/sentry/stalker/colosus/archon.. you shoudl lose... dont do it...
if you attack way in the open, ya you will probably win.. or kill a ton of zealots for only the cost of a stim
You heard it here first, banshees and helions are regular tech path in TvP.
Terran having most unexplored units - not sure if you are trolling, thor/tank/bio in tvp? really?
More than half of people here are posting stuff like: OMG BUT TERRAN IS GOOD RACE NOOB GTFO!!
You should read the thread first, thread isnt about terran being WEAK race, thread is about that terran is more time consuming race because its micro is more difficult than the other 2 races which results in people quiting terran or changing to other race. If you are thinking "well who cares about lower leagues", you should probably re-think again. Terran is already STILL the most hated race from beta which doesnt help new players coming into game or help the old ones stick to their race.
I will post again for those people saying "terran was winning before because they were OP and now when they lose terrans suck and zergs and toss are better", sure can you tell me why terrans never won anything outside Korea? You actually want to say that out of over million people that wasnt ONE talented terran player?
What terrans want is not their race being boosted, I like my race as it is and I want it to be hard, but I use a lot of time on this game, terrans want the other 2 races to be given MORE options in terms of micro making them not HARDER to use but having the potential to do better, very good example of this are blink stalkers and mutas. Bad example of this is zealot/archon army, the strenght in it is too much for its ..micro - and we need less of those for SC2 to be better game.
Also Roxy stop posting you are melting my brain with your posts, newest one "when did zealots become viable vs zerg?". /facepalm
Yeah well I've been saying this since 6 months ago, Terrans outside of Korea haven't won shit besides some online cups. But ofc Terran is OP cuz MVP, Bomber and MMA steamroll everything in GSL and that's all these "sad zealots" and zergs need for their argument.
On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote: Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out.
Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful.
Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential.
Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL).
All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +
and now he's out of GSL
.
My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon.
And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm.
On December 01 2011 02:54 Bagi wrote: Do people really think mech is the answer in TvP?
Even Goody stopped meching in TvP after the immortal buff for gods sake. Get your heads out of your asses.
Adding tanks and ravens is overkill right?
Tanks are worthless outside timing pushes. Once you have upgrades like charge and blink, even pure gateway units can deal with tanks no problem. Don't even get me started on the new immortal.
Feedback outranges all raven abilities, PDD does jack shit against zealot/archon/colossus. Ravens are absolutely worthless in comparision to ghosts.
I'm sorry, but if you believe tanks can solve lategame TvP you truly do not understand this game at all.
Positioning and slow pushing make tanks worth their price. Ravens can have a free roam if ghosts are used against templars.
And nobody even tried bio+ tanks + ravens + vikings.
What you are describing is a 1-2 base timing push, which are quite common. But the longer the game the less you can rely on tanks, which is why you usually see marauder transitions after it. Protoss just has too many units that effectively counter tanks, especially once you have upgrades for them.
Once the protoss has a maxed army, your cute little tank army just gets rolled over unless you have perfect positioning. This is not BW where tank lines could break entire armies, don't delude yourself.
Lots of people do bio/tanks/ravens/vikings as a timing push, and they know its not viable in a long game. That's why they are progamers and you are not.
If only pros would be allowed to talk than TL would be quite. That argument is stupid.
And check Hero vs asd from GSL (todays matches). Game 2 is mech play at his best.
I didnt see the game but if its familiar to Jjakji-Oz and Ryung-Brown its not mech play it timing push with units from all 3 tech trees. So it works in midgame before upgrades kick out. If for example Protoss has 2/0/2 you have decide which upgrade tree you want to go and base army on this.
Why is this a problem? I understand your point, that as a player, a given race appears to be more or less effective in my hands against the other two, depending on how good I am, so my perception of balance keeps changing as I move up through the leagues. So Blizzard has a choice -- make all the races fundamentally the same, so every matchup works like a mirror and then this effect never appears, or choose a particular skill level at which the all races should handle more or less equally effectively against each other and try to balance things around that. The former choices leads to boring gameplay, so we're stuck with the latter. The suits over at Activision might be tempted to balance the game towards whoever represents their largest consumer base (bronze/silver players?), but this entire game was designed with high-level competition in mind, and that scene could not exist if the game was balanced for anything other than "perfect" play, or as close to it as players can come.
This is such a bad argument because anyone decent at BW knows that Terran by far was the hardest race to learn because they had so many options at their disposal.
On December 01 2011 04:52 Iranon wrote: Why is this a problem? I understand your point, that as a player, a given race appears to be more or less effective in my hands against the other two, depending on how good I am, so my perception of balance keeps changing as I move up through the leagues. So Blizzard has a choice -- make all the races fundamentally the same, so every matchup works like a mirror and then this effect never appears, or choose a particular skill level at which the all races should handle more or less equally effectively against each other and try to balance things around that. The former choices leads to boring gameplay, so we're stuck with the latter. The suits over at Activision might be tempted to balance the game towards whoever represents their largest consumer base (bronze/silver players?), but this entire game was designed with high-level competition in mind, and that scene could not exist if the game was balanced for anything other than "perfect" play, or as close to it as players can come.
No, ofc the races shouldn't be the same, but retarded micro requirement differences ruin the game. Zealot Archon Colossus Templar vs MMM Ghost Viking for example, while the Protoss just A moves and has to hit a couple of storms, the Terran has to hit perfect EMPs on everything and still have some for the templar who are in the back and most of the time won't be hit with the first wave. Add constant stutter step to small groups of units and you have a huge difference in micro requirement. So while the Terran micros his heart out,the Toss can warp in units, macro at home etc. Maybe MVP can squeeze in some stuff between microing but I bet even some Terran pros can't.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped
Hi, my names Adelscott from the TSL3, and I beat MVP with ONLY gateway units in a real macro game.
On December 01 2011 04:54 superstartran wrote: This is such a bad argument because anyone decent at BW knows that Terran by far was the hardest race to learn because they had so many options at their disposal.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped
Hi, my names Adelscott from the TSL3, and I beat MVP with ONLY gateway units in a real macro game.
Adel would never have won against Mvp if they played in a no-lag environment. Even if protoss was considered imba (especially by zerg players) at that time, it was not the race that made Mvp lose lol. Even NesTea lost to Goody ^^.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
Bomber went for 14 barracks vs idra and made pure marines. So what? These kind of arguments are not arguments.
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped
Hi, my names Adelscott from the TSL3, and I beat MVP with ONLY gateway units in a real macro game.
Bomber went for 14 barracks vs idra and made only marines. So what? This is not an argument of any kind.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
Bomber went for 14 barracks vs idra and made pure marines. So what? These kind of arguments are not arguments.
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped
Hi, my names Adelscott from the TSL3, and I beat MVP with ONLY gateway units in a real macro game.
Bomber went for 14 barracks vs idra and made only marines. So what? This is not an argument of any kind.
On December 01 2011 04:52 Iranon wrote: Why is this a problem? I understand your point, that as a player, a given race appears to be more or less effective in my hands against the other two, depending on how good I am, so my perception of balance keeps changing as I move up through the leagues. So Blizzard has a choice -- make all the races fundamentally the same, so every matchup works like a mirror and then this effect never appears, or choose a particular skill level at which the all races should handle more or less equally effectively against each other and try to balance things around that. The former choices leads to boring gameplay, so we're stuck with the latter. The suits over at Activision might be tempted to balance the game towards whoever represents their largest consumer base (bronze/silver players?), but this entire game was designed with high-level competition in mind, and that scene could not exist if the game was balanced for anything other than "perfect" play, or as close to it as players can come.
No, ofc the races shouldn't be the same, but retarded micro requirement differences ruin the game. Zealot Archon Colossus Templar vs MMM Ghost Viking for example, while the Protoss just A moves and has to hit a couple of storms, the Terran has to hit perfect EMPs on everything and still have some for the templar who are in the back and most of the time won't be hit with the first wave. Add constant stutter step to small groups of units and you have a huge difference in micro requirement. So while the Terran micros his heart out,the Toss can warp in units, macro at home etc. Maybe MVP can squeeze in some stuff between microing but I bet even some Terran pros can't.
Lol, this is so wrong :D Try to A-move protoss army into MMMG ball and see what will happen. When did you see Hero or Huk just A-move and macro behind ? They will never do it cus it's impossible to win that way.
IMO the game should be balanced towards the highest possible level(GSL at the moment). You cannot nerf protoss and zerg units just because bronze, silver and gold players cant handle their army properly. This is competitive game after all.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Bolded part shows how much you know about game, mech in TvP - okay.
On December 01 2011 03:03 Roxy wrote: I completely disagree with so many things here.
I fell like terran is not well equipped to deal with mutalisks. I think these problems will be addressed in HOTS.
I feel like terran is fully equipped to deal with protoss. Especially if they capitalize on their advantages in the early game.
PF with turrets is much more difficult to kill than a comparable amount of canons or spine/spores+queen.
Terran has the most rewarding harass, especially when takign into account that they dont need to diverge from their regular tech path to get medivac/marine or hellions or banshees. The only possible costs wasted on failed harass could be the research of cloak or Blue flame (which could very well end up being useful later in the game). how often do we see a banshee go out and multi-prong mineral lines in the late game. All you have to do is put it close to the mineral line but out of range of any static defenses and hold position until you have the time to attend more micro to it.
Terran has the most unexplored units/upgrades (specifically the raven in all matchups, and thor/tank with bio in tvp). Not to mention, how often do you see terran players repairing their vikings/medivacs in the late game.
They go into large engagements with an army that is injured or damage, medivacs with depleted energy, and often attack into bad angles.
Yes, if you attack up a ramp into zealot/sentry/stalker/colosus/archon.. you shoudl lose... dont do it...
if you attack way in the open, ya you will probably win.. or kill a ton of zealots for only the cost of a stim
You heard it here first, banshees and helions are regular tech path in TvP.
Terran having most unexplored units - not sure if you are trolling, thor/tank/bio in tvp? really?
More than half of people here are posting stuff like: OMG BUT TERRAN IS GOOD RACE NOOB GTFO!!
You should read the thread first, thread isnt about terran being WEAK race, thread is about that terran is more time consuming race because its micro is more difficult than the other 2 races which results in people quiting terran or changing to other race. If you are thinking "well who cares about lower leagues", you should probably re-think again. Terran is already STILL the most hated race from beta which doesnt help new players coming into game or help the old ones stick to their race.
I will post again for those people saying "terran was winning before because they were OP and now when they lose terrans suck and zergs and toss are better", sure can you tell me why terrans never won anything outside Korea? You actually want to say that out of over million people that wasnt ONE talented terran player?
What terrans want is not their race being boosted, I like my race as it is and I want it to be hard, but I use a lot of time on this game, terrans want the other 2 races to be given MORE options in terms of micro making them not HARDER to use but having the potential to do better, very good example of this are blink stalkers and mutas. Bad example of this is zealot/archon army, the strenght in it is too much for its ..micro - and we need less of those for SC2 to be better game.
Also Roxy stop posting you are melting my brain with your posts, newest one "when did zealots become viable vs zerg?". /facepalm
I honestly expected more from someone who plays and has as much experience as you.
If you have a factory, yes, that means you can build hellions. I dont see what is difficult to understand here. If you have a starport (build vikings or medivacs), do you have a tech lab.. build marauders? How about you switch them and build a banshee... not so hard to figure out bro. If banshee fails, no worries, just switch the starport over to a reactor and build a barax where that tech lab was. again, not hard to do. you are not wasting any money diverging in tech paths (like say... going DTs and realizing they ahve turrets up?)
Yes, terran has not fully explored the raven. I thought this was common knowledge. Zerg doesnt have many units, the units that they have are all used. Protoss puts every unit in its ball, no unexpelored units. Carriers suck.. deny it.. i dare you. By default, yes, terran has the most unexplored units. Not to mention the available upgrades that they dont use. Are zealots killing your PF too quickly? 2 more armor on your PF reduces the zealot damage by 20-25%.. how well would this decrease zergling damage? Up until about 6 months ago, ghosts were largely unexplored as well.
Terran is not harder to micro. Terran is different to micro. Its not like any protoss or zergs put their hands behind their head, kick back, and spectate their battles. All races have more micro oportunity than is physically possible. I would argue that what makes terran appear to be harder to micro is that if you are attacking a protoss army with an army of lesser value, the battle can drag on and you can stay alive long enough to do tones of damage with an inferior force. A comparable protoss or zerg army would have evaporated well before that point. I would assess that you are confusing the length of time microing with the difficulty of micro. pressing 1 EEE, 2 t, stutter is not substnatically more difficult than the options availabe to the other races.
Have you tried incorporating tanks into your play with bio? i'm not guaranteeing that the strategy would be viable, i am just saying that it MAY be viable. tanks trade very cost effectively with stalkers (whether seiged or not), and when not seiged, can kite along with the marine/marauder given that it starts out further back with a minimum of 7 range.
Pretty sure a terran won TSL3, pretty sure thorzain took out MC right after he won GSL, and he beat naniwa right around when he cleaned up MLG.. so there is your "Name one foreign terran winner".
Pure zealot archon are not unbeatable, nor are they more powerful than they should be. You can kite them nearly endlessely while you are stimmed. When terrans lose to zealot archon, it is because of positioning and an incorrect unit response. Marauders are not the answer to zealot/archon.
Are you seriously criticizing me for not knowing that zealots are good against zerg? I'm sorry, i have a job. I dont watch streams 16 hours a day. I said in that OP that i am well aware of zealots being good against zerglings. They would certainly not be my first choice against roach/hydra.
I dont excatly know in what situation zealots are good against zerg other than against zerglings, but if you are suggesting that zealot drop play will regularly do critical damage, I beg to differ. Zerg should have a good spread and good map control or they are a failure anyways. If they fail to notice a warp prism coming to their base and fail to respond to it, that is not because zealots are too strong, that is because they are incompetant. They should have a spore and a spine at every base anyways, that will buy enough time for their army to get there. The only reason zealots would ever be used is because unless you have a storm-ready temp, there is no unit that can pay for itself in a drop. Zealots are the cheapest protoss throw-away unit and all the attakc would do to a zerg is buy some time.
1. My argument is not that Terran is underpowered, it is that fundamentally it is difficult to balance the game for different levels of play. The mechanics of the game are such that different levels of players are rewarded more or less by different races - because there are different 'thresholds' of skill levels where races seem to be more or less powerful, there is a fundamental flaw in trying to balance the game in this way.
Yeah... there will be races that are easier to learn right off that bat than other races. It shouldn't be balanced at all levels... because there's a human element to this game and there are many trashy players. I couldn't give a #%* if some diamond scrub can't hold off [insert random thing here]. Don't dumb the game down/hold the players hand to help them get through it. If they don't have the skill for it (i.e. you mean I have to lay down mines and siege my tank and I can't do that on one hotkey? Ugh [+1 for BW example]) then they don't deserve to win a game.
3. This flaw is not necessarily on the Terran's side. It could be, as some pointed out, that the other races have design flaws. If Terran is the 'solid' race and the other 2 races are balanced to compensate for their shortcomings at the top level of play, Terran necessarily appears to be weaker at levels where players cannot fully exploit their full functionality.
Sure this game isn't fully balanced, but why should ALL players be able to fully exploit their race at all levels? You know what a bad game that would be? If any one person in any one league can do exactly what the #1 pro in the world can do... that's bogus.
5. People who say 'so you need to be good to play terran' are completely missing the point of this post. The argument is not that the other races don't require skill, its that Terran has different skill thresholds that make balancing the race difficult across multiple levels.
And again, my question would be why you feel this game needs to be balanced across multiple levels. Seems pretty absurd to me.
6. I'm not discussing bronze-platinum level players etc. As you'll note, the only direct references I've made have been to top level tournaments around the world. I don't think Blizzard mind if bronze-masters is not perfectly balanced, but I would argue that one of their objectives is to have a fairly level playing field across both the GSL as well as these higher level tournaments that foreign progamers compete in.
So you're not discussing lower level players yet you bring up lower level players in a few of your #s up above, such as Terran necessarily appears to be weaker at levels where players cannot fully exploit their full functionality. Be that as it may, if you want to just focus on foreign progamers.. do you think they're all amazing at micro and amazing at macro? Nah, some still are lacking in those areas, obviously, and there are many pro games that I've watched and said, "Well, for the most part he microed really well, but then it seemed there was this one battle where he half-assed it and it cost him the game."
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Bolded part shows how much you know about game, mech in TvP - okay.
On December 01 2011 03:03 Roxy wrote: I completely disagree with so many things here.
I fell like terran is not well equipped to deal with mutalisks. I think these problems will be addressed in HOTS.
I feel like terran is fully equipped to deal with protoss. Especially if they capitalize on their advantages in the early game.
PF with turrets is much more difficult to kill than a comparable amount of canons or spine/spores+queen.
Terran has the most rewarding harass, especially when takign into account that they dont need to diverge from their regular tech path to get medivac/marine or hellions or banshees. The only possible costs wasted on failed harass could be the research of cloak or Blue flame (which could very well end up being useful later in the game). how often do we see a banshee go out and multi-prong mineral lines in the late game. All you have to do is put it close to the mineral line but out of range of any static defenses and hold position until you have the time to attend more micro to it.
Terran has the most unexplored units/upgrades (specifically the raven in all matchups, and thor/tank with bio in tvp). Not to mention, how often do you see terran players repairing their vikings/medivacs in the late game.
They go into large engagements with an army that is injured or damage, medivacs with depleted energy, and often attack into bad angles.
Yes, if you attack up a ramp into zealot/sentry/stalker/colosus/archon.. you shoudl lose... dont do it...
if you attack way in the open, ya you will probably win.. or kill a ton of zealots for only the cost of a stim
You heard it here first, banshees and helions are regular tech path in TvP.
Terran having most unexplored units - not sure if you are trolling, thor/tank/bio in tvp? really?
More than half of people here are posting stuff like: OMG BUT TERRAN IS GOOD RACE NOOB GTFO!!
You should read the thread first, thread isnt about terran being WEAK race, thread is about that terran is more time consuming race because its micro is more difficult than the other 2 races which results in people quiting terran or changing to other race. If you are thinking "well who cares about lower leagues", you should probably re-think again. Terran is already STILL the most hated race from beta which doesnt help new players coming into game or help the old ones stick to their race.
I will post again for those people saying "terran was winning before because they were OP and now when they lose terrans suck and zergs and toss are better", sure can you tell me why terrans never won anything outside Korea? You actually want to say that out of over million people that wasnt ONE talented terran player?
What terrans want is not their race being boosted, I like my race as it is and I want it to be hard, but I use a lot of time on this game, terrans want the other 2 races to be given MORE options in terms of micro making them not HARDER to use but having the potential to do better, very good example of this are blink stalkers and mutas. Bad example of this is zealot/archon army, the strenght in it is too much for its ..micro - and we need less of those for SC2 to be better game.
Also Roxy stop posting you are melting my brain with your posts, newest one "when did zealots become viable vs zerg?". /facepalm
I honestly expected more from someone who plays and has as much experience as you.
If you have a factory, yes, that means you can build hellions. I dont see what is difficult to understand here. If you have a starport (build vikings or medivacs), do you have a tech lab.. build marauders? How about you switch them and build a banshee... not so hard to figure out bro. If banshee fails, no worries, just switch the starport over to a reactor and build a barax where that tech lab was. again, not hard to do. you are not wasting any money diverging in tech paths (like say... going DTs and realizing they ahve turrets up?)
Yes, terran has not fully explored the raven. I thought this was common knowledge. Zerg doesnt have many units, the units that they have are all used. Protoss puts every unit in its ball, no unexpelored units. Carriers suck.. deny it.. i dare you. By default, yes, terran has the most unexplored units. Not to mention the available upgrades that they dont use. Are zealots killing your PF too quickly? 2 more armor on your PF reduces the zealot damage by 20-25%.. how well would this decrease zergling damage? Up until about 6 months ago, ghosts were largely unexplored as well.
Terran is not harder to micro. Terran is different to micro. Its not like any protoss or zergs put their hands behind their head, kick back, and spectate their battles. All races have more micro oportunity than is physically possible. I would argue that what makes terran appear to be harder to micro is that if you are attacking a protoss army with an army of lesser value, the battle can drag on and you can stay alive long enough to do tones of damage with an inferior force. A comparable protoss or zerg army would have evaporated well before that point. I would assess that you are confusing the length of time microing with the difficulty of micro. pressing 1 EEE, 2 t, stutter is not substnatically more difficult than the options availabe to the other races.
Have you tried incorporating tanks into your play with bio? i'm not guaranteeing that the strategy would be viable, i am just saying that it MAY be viable. tanks trade very cost effectively with stalkers (whether seiged or not), and when not seiged, can kite along with the marine/marauder given that it starts out further back with a minimum of 7 range.
Pretty sure a terran won TSL3, pretty sure thorzain took out MC right after he won GSL, and he beat naniwa right around when he cleaned up MLG.. so there is your "Name one foreign terran winner".
Pure zealot archon are not unbeatable, nor are they more powerful than they should be. You can kite them nearly endlessely while you are stimmed. When terrans lose to zealot archon, it is because of positioning and an incorrect unit response. Marauders are not the answer to zealot/archon.
Are you seriously criticizing me for not knowing that zealots are good against zerg? I'm sorry, i have a job. I dont watch streams 16 hours a day. I said in that OP that i am well aware of zealots being good against zerglings. They would certainly not be my first choice against roach/hydra.
I dont excatly know in what situation zealots are good against zerg other than against zerglings, but if you are suggesting that zealot drop play will regularly do critical damage, I beg to differ. Zerg should have a good spread and good map control or they are a failure anyways. If they fail to notice a warp prism coming to their base and fail to respond to it, that is not because zealots are too strong, that is because they are incompetant. They should have a spore and a spine at every base anyways, that will buy enough time for their army to get there. The only reason zealots would ever be used is because unless you have a storm-ready temp, there is no unit that can pay for itself in a drop. Zealots are the cheapest protoss throw-away unit and all the attakc would do to a zerg is buy some time.
Too bad everything you just said about Thorzain is like 6 months old. Also, you need to stop with these posts. Everything I read from you just makes me facepalm.
I love how alot of people are suggesting builds/tech paths, theres a reason why we stick to a certain strategy.. its been tested out time and time again in Korea. Mech in TvP what a joke, warp a few units in the T main and if the army is out of position more than likely going to cause way more damage than 2-3 units should.
Especially in TvP I think P has a lot more choices than T in what path they go, but ofcourse the only viable strategy for us is MMM + Vikings/Ghosts, personally I would love a different strategy in TvP but thats just not the case.
High Diamond T here and I'm beginning to hit that wall which sucks, and sadly the only games vs P i've been winning are ones where I'm super risky and double expanding. It would be awesome to have some beefier units early on, but its just too hard to pull off, usually when you have 4 medivacs theres 1-2 colossus out and you really cant attack into that am i right? I just think some of the timings are really whack and T only really has 1 good timing in the match up.
On December 01 2011 02:54 Bagi wrote: Do people really think mech is the answer in TvP?
Even Goody stopped meching in TvP after the immortal buff for gods sake. Get your heads out of your asses.
Adding tanks and ravens is overkill right?
Tanks are worthless outside timing pushes. Once you have upgrades like charge and blink, even pure gateway units can deal with tanks no problem. Don't even get me started on the new immortal.
Feedback outranges all raven abilities, PDD does jack shit against zealot/archon/colossus. Ravens are absolutely worthless in comparision to ghosts.
I'm sorry, but if you believe tanks can solve lategame TvP you truly do not understand this game at all.
Positioning and slow pushing make tanks worth their price. Ravens can have a free roam if ghosts are used against templars.
And nobody even tried bio+ tanks + ravens + vikings.
What you are describing is a 1-2 base timing push, which are quite common. But the longer the game the less you can rely on tanks, which is why you usually see marauder transitions after it. Protoss just has too many units that effectively counter tanks, especially once you have upgrades for them.
Once the protoss has a maxed army, your cute little tank army just gets rolled over unless you have perfect positioning. This is not BW where tank lines could break entire armies, don't delude yourself.
Lots of people do bio/tanks/ravens/vikings as a timing push, and they know its not viable in a long game. That's why they are progamers and you are not.
If only pros would be allowed to talk than TL would be quite. That argument is stupid.
And check Hero vs asd from GSL (todays matches). Game 2 is mech play at his best.
You propose a certain unit composition for lategame, the unit composition is used but only in the early-midgame. This means pros have plenty of experience using the said composition but they also avoid using it in longer games, most likely because its simply not effective. If you would still argue that the unit composition is good in longer games, its essentially your word against all the progamers in the world (they all go bio in longer games), and it's pretty obvious who wins that argument. Stop trying to tell better players what they should be doing.
I can't watch GSL because I haven't bought the season, but let me guess: timing push?
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Bolded part shows how much you know about game, mech in TvP - okay.
On December 01 2011 03:03 Roxy wrote: I completely disagree with so many things here.
I fell like terran is not well equipped to deal with mutalisks. I think these problems will be addressed in HOTS.
I feel like terran is fully equipped to deal with protoss. Especially if they capitalize on their advantages in the early game.
PF with turrets is much more difficult to kill than a comparable amount of canons or spine/spores+queen.
Terran has the most rewarding harass, especially when takign into account that they dont need to diverge from their regular tech path to get medivac/marine or hellions or banshees. The only possible costs wasted on failed harass could be the research of cloak or Blue flame (which could very well end up being useful later in the game). how often do we see a banshee go out and multi-prong mineral lines in the late game. All you have to do is put it close to the mineral line but out of range of any static defenses and hold position until you have the time to attend more micro to it.
Terran has the most unexplored units/upgrades (specifically the raven in all matchups, and thor/tank with bio in tvp). Not to mention, how often do you see terran players repairing their vikings/medivacs in the late game.
They go into large engagements with an army that is injured or damage, medivacs with depleted energy, and often attack into bad angles.
Yes, if you attack up a ramp into zealot/sentry/stalker/colosus/archon.. you shoudl lose... dont do it...
if you attack way in the open, ya you will probably win.. or kill a ton of zealots for only the cost of a stim
You heard it here first, banshees and helions are regular tech path in TvP.
Terran having most unexplored units - not sure if you are trolling, thor/tank/bio in tvp? really?
More than half of people here are posting stuff like: OMG BUT TERRAN IS GOOD RACE NOOB GTFO!!
You should read the thread first, thread isnt about terran being WEAK race, thread is about that terran is more time consuming race because its micro is more difficult than the other 2 races which results in people quiting terran or changing to other race. If you are thinking "well who cares about lower leagues", you should probably re-think again. Terran is already STILL the most hated race from beta which doesnt help new players coming into game or help the old ones stick to their race.
I will post again for those people saying "terran was winning before because they were OP and now when they lose terrans suck and zergs and toss are better", sure can you tell me why terrans never won anything outside Korea? You actually want to say that out of over million people that wasnt ONE talented terran player?
What terrans want is not their race being boosted, I like my race as it is and I want it to be hard, but I use a lot of time on this game, terrans want the other 2 races to be given MORE options in terms of micro making them not HARDER to use but having the potential to do better, very good example of this are blink stalkers and mutas. Bad example of this is zealot/archon army, the strenght in it is too much for its ..micro - and we need less of those for SC2 to be better game.
Also Roxy stop posting you are melting my brain with your posts, newest one "when did zealots become viable vs zerg?". /facepalm
I honestly expected more from someone who plays and has as much experience as you.
If you have a factory, yes, that means you can build hellions. I dont see what is difficult to understand here. If you have a starport (build vikings or medivacs), do you have a tech lab.. build marauders? How about you switch them and build a banshee... not so hard to figure out bro. If banshee fails, no worries, just switch the starport over to a reactor and build a barax where that tech lab was. again, not hard to do. you are not wasting any money diverging in tech paths (like say... going DTs and realizing they ahve turrets up?)
Yes, terran has not fully explored the raven. I thought this was common knowledge. Zerg doesnt have many units, the units that they have are all used. Protoss puts every unit in its ball, no unexpelored units. Carriers suck.. deny it.. i dare you. By default, yes, terran has the most unexplored units. Not to mention the available upgrades that they dont use. Are zealots killing your PF too quickly? 2 more armor on your PF reduces the zealot damage by 20-25%.. how well would this decrease zergling damage? Up until about 6 months ago, ghosts were largely unexplored as well.
Terran is not harder to micro. Terran is different to micro. Its not like any protoss or zergs put their hands behind their head, kick back, and spectate their battles. All races have more micro oportunity than is physically possible. I would argue that what makes terran appear to be harder to micro is that if you are attacking a protoss army with an army of lesser value, the battle can drag on and you can stay alive long enough to do tones of damage with an inferior force. A comparable protoss or zerg army would have evaporated well before that point. I would assess that you are confusing the length of time microing with the difficulty of micro. pressing 1 EEE, 2 t, stutter is not substnatically more difficult than the options availabe to the other races.
Have you tried incorporating tanks into your play with bio? i'm not guaranteeing that the strategy would be viable, i am just saying that it MAY be viable. tanks trade very cost effectively with stalkers (whether seiged or not), and when not seiged, can kite along with the marine/marauder given that it starts out further back with a minimum of 7 range.
Pretty sure a terran won TSL3, pretty sure thorzain took out MC right after he won GSL, and he beat naniwa right around when he cleaned up MLG.. so there is your "Name one foreign terran winner".
Pure zealot archon are not unbeatable, nor are they more powerful than they should be. You can kite them nearly endlessely while you are stimmed. When terrans lose to zealot archon, it is because of positioning and an incorrect unit response. Marauders are not the answer to zealot/archon.
Are you seriously criticizing me for not knowing that zealots are good against zerg? I'm sorry, i have a job. I dont watch streams 16 hours a day. I said in that OP that i am well aware of zealots being good against zerglings. They would certainly not be my first choice against roach/hydra.
I dont excatly know in what situation zealots are good against zerg other than against zerglings, but if you are suggesting that zealot drop play will regularly do critical damage, I beg to differ. Zerg should have a good spread and good map control or they are a failure anyways. If they fail to notice a warp prism coming to their base and fail to respond to it, that is not because zealots are too strong, that is because they are incompetant. They should have a spore and a spine at every base anyways, that will buy enough time for their army to get there. The only reason zealots would ever be used is because unless you have a storm-ready temp, there is no unit that can pay for itself in a drop. Zealots are the cheapest protoss throw-away unit and all the attakc would do to a zerg is buy some time.
Too bad everything you just said about Thorzain is like 6 months old. Also, you need to stop with these posts. Everything I read from you just makes me facepalm.
That is the only flaw you see in my post after im sure you examined it very closely. While what i said my no longer be relavent, it is not incorrect. Other than huk(questionable if he still counts as foreign) and nerchio, how about you find me a foreign tournament winner that isnt terran?
the argument that no foreign terran wins is only valid because foreigners very rarely win tournaments. If you have a population of 4 winners and none of them happen to be terran, that is simpyl not enough to draw any conclusions.
Taking all tournament wins into consideration, the above chart supports that terran is probably the easiest race - contrary to what all of the terrans in this thread are whining about
Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult
Yeah, that's why Terran is doing so well outside Korea. Come on. With the increased skill cap Terran has comes the OBLIGATION to use that skill cap to equal the other races. The micro and multitasking is clearly more difficult, but you can delude yourself in believing otherwise.
On December 01 2011 06:07 Roxy wrote: That is the only flaw you see in my post after im sure you examined it very closely. While what i said my no longer be relavent, it is not incorrect. Other than huk(questionable if he still counts as foreign) and nerchio, how about you find me a foreign tournament winner that isnt terran?
Stephano, Naniwa, HuK, Idra are all foreigners who aren't Terran that have recently won major tournaments (ESWC, IPL3, ASUS ROG, IEM, MLG Invitational).
It is no secret that while Korean Terrans are doing really well at the highest level, foreign Terrans have a harder time, whatever the reason. I don't personally believe it is a great issue - it is one that can be overcome by just playing on a higher level or maybe by switching the mindset. I don't know, I'm no expert. But this isn't a problem which has gone on for months and has had lots of attempts at solutions, like Code S Protoss problems before the Immortal range buff and the EMP nerf/upgrade buff patches. In those days, PvT just looked outright broken, especially after IEM Cologne, but the issue here is far more subtle and less convincing.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this"
I could sympathise with the OP but for this.
Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch.
Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking.
Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.
To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating.
If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL?
I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP.
I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on.
There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Bolded part shows how much you know about game, mech in TvP - okay.
On December 01 2011 03:03 Roxy wrote: I completely disagree with so many things here.
I fell like terran is not well equipped to deal with mutalisks. I think these problems will be addressed in HOTS.
I feel like terran is fully equipped to deal with protoss. Especially if they capitalize on their advantages in the early game.
PF with turrets is much more difficult to kill than a comparable amount of canons or spine/spores+queen.
Terran has the most rewarding harass, especially when takign into account that they dont need to diverge from their regular tech path to get medivac/marine or hellions or banshees. The only possible costs wasted on failed harass could be the research of cloak or Blue flame (which could very well end up being useful later in the game). how often do we see a banshee go out and multi-prong mineral lines in the late game. All you have to do is put it close to the mineral line but out of range of any static defenses and hold position until you have the time to attend more micro to it.
Terran has the most unexplored units/upgrades (specifically the raven in all matchups, and thor/tank with bio in tvp). Not to mention, how often do you see terran players repairing their vikings/medivacs in the late game.
They go into large engagements with an army that is injured or damage, medivacs with depleted energy, and often attack into bad angles.
Yes, if you attack up a ramp into zealot/sentry/stalker/colosus/archon.. you shoudl lose... dont do it...
if you attack way in the open, ya you will probably win.. or kill a ton of zealots for only the cost of a stim
You heard it here first, banshees and helions are regular tech path in TvP.
Terran having most unexplored units - not sure if you are trolling, thor/tank/bio in tvp? really?
More than half of people here are posting stuff like: OMG BUT TERRAN IS GOOD RACE NOOB GTFO!!
You should read the thread first, thread isnt about terran being WEAK race, thread is about that terran is more time consuming race because its micro is more difficult than the other 2 races which results in people quiting terran or changing to other race. If you are thinking "well who cares about lower leagues", you should probably re-think again. Terran is already STILL the most hated race from beta which doesnt help new players coming into game or help the old ones stick to their race.
I will post again for those people saying "terran was winning before because they were OP and now when they lose terrans suck and zergs and toss are better", sure can you tell me why terrans never won anything outside Korea? You actually want to say that out of over million people that wasnt ONE talented terran player?
What terrans want is not their race being boosted, I like my race as it is and I want it to be hard, but I use a lot of time on this game, terrans want the other 2 races to be given MORE options in terms of micro making them not HARDER to use but having the potential to do better, very good example of this are blink stalkers and mutas. Bad example of this is zealot/archon army, the strenght in it is too much for its ..micro - and we need less of those for SC2 to be better game.
Also Roxy stop posting you are melting my brain with your posts, newest one "when did zealots become viable vs zerg?". /facepalm
I honestly expected more from someone who plays and has as much experience as you.
If you have a factory, yes, that means you can build hellions. I dont see what is difficult to understand here. If you have a starport (build vikings or medivacs), do you have a tech lab.. build marauders? How about you switch them and build a banshee... not so hard to figure out bro. If banshee fails, no worries, just switch the starport over to a reactor and build a barax where that tech lab was. again, not hard to do. you are not wasting any money diverging in tech paths (like say... going DTs and realizing they ahve turrets up?)
Yes, terran has not fully explored the raven. I thought this was common knowledge. Zerg doesnt have many units, the units that they have are all used. Protoss puts every unit in its ball, no unexpelored units. Carriers suck.. deny it.. i dare you. By default, yes, terran has the most unexplored units. Not to mention the available upgrades that they dont use. Are zealots killing your PF too quickly? 2 more armor on your PF reduces the zealot damage by 20-25%.. how well would this decrease zergling damage? Up until about 6 months ago, ghosts were largely unexplored as well.
Terran is not harder to micro. Terran is different to micro. Its not like any protoss or zergs put their hands behind their head, kick back, and spectate their battles. All races have more micro oportunity than is physically possible. I would argue that what makes terran appear to be harder to micro is that if you are attacking a protoss army with an army of lesser value, the battle can drag on and you can stay alive long enough to do tones of damage with an inferior force. A comparable protoss or zerg army would have evaporated well before that point. I would assess that you are confusing the length of time microing with the difficulty of micro. pressing 1 EEE, 2 t, stutter is not substnatically more difficult than the options availabe to the other races.
Have you tried incorporating tanks into your play with bio? i'm not guaranteeing that the strategy would be viable, i am just saying that it MAY be viable. tanks trade very cost effectively with stalkers (whether seiged or not), and when not seiged, can kite along with the marine/marauder given that it starts out further back with a minimum of 7 range.
Pretty sure a terran won TSL3, pretty sure thorzain took out MC right after he won GSL, and he beat naniwa right around when he cleaned up MLG.. so there is your "Name one foreign terran winner".
Pure zealot archon are not unbeatable, nor are they more powerful than they should be. You can kite them nearly endlessely while you are stimmed. When terrans lose to zealot archon, it is because of positioning and an incorrect unit response. Marauders are not the answer to zealot/archon.
Are you seriously criticizing me for not knowing that zealots are good against zerg? I'm sorry, i have a job. I dont watch streams 16 hours a day. I said in that OP that i am well aware of zealots being good against zerglings. They would certainly not be my first choice against roach/hydra.
I dont excatly know in what situation zealots are good against zerg other than against zerglings, but if you are suggesting that zealot drop play will regularly do critical damage, I beg to differ. Zerg should have a good spread and good map control or they are a failure anyways. If they fail to notice a warp prism coming to their base and fail to respond to it, that is not because zealots are too strong, that is because they are incompetant. They should have a spore and a spine at every base anyways, that will buy enough time for their army to get there. The only reason zealots would ever be used is because unless you have a storm-ready temp, there is no unit that can pay for itself in a drop. Zealots are the cheapest protoss throw-away unit and all the attakc would do to a zerg is buy some time.
Too bad everything you just said about Thorzain is like 6 months old. Also, you need to stop with these posts. Everything I read from you just makes me facepalm.
That is the only flaw you see in my post after im sure you examined it very closely. While what i said my no longer be relavent, it is not incorrect. Other than huk(questionable if he still counts as foreign) and nerchio, how about you find me a foreign tournament winner that isnt terran?
the argument that no foreign terran wins is only valid because foreigners very rarely win tournaments. If you have a population of 4 winners and none of them happen to be terran, that is simpyl not enough to draw any conclusions.
Idra with his IEM and Star Invite win, Stephano with his IPL3, Electronic Sports World Cup 2011, and IGN ProLeague Season 4/UK Qualifiers victories. Naniwa's MLG Global Inv victory
On December 01 2011 05:50 Superneenja wrote: I love how alot of people are suggesting builds/tech paths, theres a reason why we stick to a certain strategy.. its been tested out time and time again in Korea. Mech in TvP what a joke, warp a few units in the T main and if the army is out of position more than likely going to cause way more damage than 2-3 units should.
In BW it was far more important to deny arbiters in your base to prevent recall and it was possible, but with a lot of skill. You can't deny a warpprism if you want to?
Bagi: I can bet you that the pros will change their strategies in 2012 and you will forget my posts and it's ok. But I don't need to be a pro to see that late game terrans don't have a good plan going against protoss. Killer steam rolls late game vs bio. I mean he owns them. Protoss not only did catch up but has passed terrans in the metagame.
And you forget the time when terrans did not use ghosts while people theorized the potential of ghosts. And now ghosts are essential. Ravens are next.
Edit: And most of the players are copy paste of real innovators of strategies. The innovators are few and are in the top, because that's why they are copied. MVP has no reason to change his style now, but if MVP wants to i think he can make mech viable.
On December 01 2011 05:50 Superneenja wrote: I love how alot of people are suggesting builds/tech paths, theres a reason why we stick to a certain strategy.. its been tested out time and time again in Korea. Mech in TvP what a joke, warp a few units in the T main and if the army is out of position more than likely going to cause way more damage than 2-3 units should.
In BW it was far more important to deny arbiters in your base to prevent recall and it was possible, but with a lot of skill. You can't deny a warpprism if you want to?
Bagi: I can bet you that the pros will change their strategies in 2012 and you will forget my posts and it's ok. But I don't need to be a pro to see that late game terrans don't have a good plan going against protoss. Killer steam rolls late game vs bio. I mean he owns them. Protoss not only did catch up but has passed terrans in the metagame.
And you forget the time when terrans did not use ghosts while people theorized the potential of ghosts. And now ghosts are essential. Ravens are next.
Stop rewriting history. Terrans has always been using ghosts. Just aren't that nessarcary vs non archon/HT armies. After archon buff, they was seen alot more, and hence terran used more ghosts (thats the main reason at least). True terrans at times were not building enough ghosts, (like only 3-4 instead of 5+).
On December 01 2011 06:18 Hider wrote: Stop rewriting history. Terrans has always been using ghosts.
I think it is you who is rewriting history here. Useage of Ghosts after SC2 was released was seen as a joke, an ingame comedy, like going for Ultralisk Drops, Motherships or Carriers. TLO was thought to be an amazing player because he managed to pull off playing with Ghosts in TvT by Nuking tanks when they seiged.
To put things in perspective, this was around the same time when every PvT involved going for 1base colossus, and making Phoenix was a laugh outside of Nony's 2 stargate off of 1base Phoenix build in PvZ. Every PvZ was considered a macro game if it made it to 2 bases, and making Barracks before Supply Depot in TvZ was pretty standard.
It was only AFTER Kahydarin Amulet was removed that Ghosts became really popular in TvP, which is another reason why it is so sad they removed the upgrade completely.
EDIT: And the Archon buff had barely anything to do with Ghosts becoming popular. The Archon buff only made it massive and increased the range by one. It made the Archon more ubiquitous and better vs Terran air units, but it alone hardly began the introduction of Ghosts in standard TvP. It may have catalysed it, but not to any great extent.
Terrans have always used ghosts, especially in TvP. Maybe not in beta or first few months, but that period of Steppes of War and Blistering Sands is completely irrelevant now, as macro games were extremely rare. People do build ghosts in greater numbers now, but they cannot be compared to ravens.
As for the raven unit itself, how do you propose it changes the terran army? Auto-turrets are only useful in small skirmishes. Stalkers are hardly a problem in the lategame, so that rules out PDD. Seeker missile can only hit a protoss player if they are caught completely off guard by it, which is highly unlikely + you will probably do a few hundred points of damage at most. You're probably more likely to nuke his army than to land a seeker missile, and its easier to get nukes since ghost tech is necessary anyway.
Please, instead of throwaway comments, how about something substantial. How will the raven become useful?
Will players change their strategies in 2012? Well duh, once HOTS is out they will. Until then its bio TvP with the occasional timing push with a few select mech units. If you had played TvP as terran at a decent level, you would know this yourself.
I was reading Bagi's comment about PDD, and out of curiosity decided to look up the liquipedia article about it here and was surprised to realise that there are only 3 units the PDD can defend against in TvP. I'm especially curious as to why this might be so - did Blizzard think that PDDs vs Colossi might be OP in the lategame, or is it just because the Thermal Lance isn't a projectile? It's kind of irrelevant to the rest of the thread, but I really wish Ravens were considered viable in the lategame vP. I think a slow transition from bio to air play in TvP would just be such an exciting matchup to watch, but hey ho.
On December 01 2011 06:28 Bagi wrote: Terrans have always used ghosts, especially in TvP. Maybe not in beta or first few months, but that period of Steppes of War and Blistering Sands is completely irrelevant now, as macro games were extremely rare. People do build ghosts in greater numbers now, but they cannot be compared to ravens.
As for the raven unit itself, how do you propose it changes the terran army? Auto-turrets are only useful in small skirmishes. Stalkers are hardly a problem in the lategame, so that rules out PDD. Seeker missile can only hit a protoss player if they are caught completely off guard by it, which is highly unlikely + you will probably do a few hundred points of damage at most. You're probably more likely to nuke his army than to land a seeker missile, and its easier to get nukes since ghost tech is necessary anyway.
Please, instead of throwaway comments, how about something substantial. How will the raven become useful?
Will players change their strategies in 2012? Well duh, once HOTS is out they will. Until then its bio TvP with the occasional timing push with a few select mech units. If you had played TvP as terran at a decent level, you would know this yourself.
So much bullshit in one post. You win. I can't stand the smell.
My personal opinion on the raven is that it needs a major rehaul for HOTS, but I doubt they'll change it much. Terran has too many options already as Browder has said.
Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult
Yeah, that's why Terran is doing so well outside Korea. Come on. With the increased skill cap Terran has comes the OBLIGATION to use that skill cap to equal the other races. The micro and multitasking is clearly more difficult, but you can delude yourself in believing otherwise.
You have no proof that this so called "increased skill cap" lies in micros requirement as opposed to game sense requirement.
And Terran are obliged to use their race to their full potential? LOL I don't think you understand the whole idea of competitive gaming. You must really hate esport if you think players should be able to do well at the top without actually using everything that's given to them in the game.
If there's something truly broken, Blizzard should just fix what's broken, i.e. increase the animation cool-down for marine/marauder so they can't be stutter-stepped as well, just like they did with reaver in BW. The wrong thing to do is to make one race so imbalanced at the top just to compensate all the scrubs at the lower level that it will literally destroys the whole competitive scene. Last time I checked there's no Global Red Alert League or anything resembling it. We will soon if everyone starts switching to Terran at the top level play because it's the only race viable.
TLDR: (Some) low-level Terran are really a bunch of entitled crybabies. I don't know where people get the audacity to put their own low-level frustration ahead of the top-level play, where people's careers and livelihood are directly affected by game balance.
On December 01 2011 06:07 Roxy wrote: That is the only flaw you see in my post after im sure you examined it very closely. While what i said my no longer be relavent, it is not incorrect. Other than huk(questionable if he still counts as foreign) and nerchio, how about you find me a foreign tournament winner that isnt terran?
Stephano, Naniwa, HuK, Idra are all foreigners who aren't Terran that have recently won major tournaments (ESWC, IPL3, ASUS ROG, IEM, MLG Invitational). .
Once again, the foreign winners are the ones with Korean training (excepting Stephano). I think there's a more interesting case to be made about the koreans who drop out of the open bracket tending to be Protoss (more drop out and earlier). Though hell I don't care for this argument as much but who are the standout foreign terrans you think of? Qxc... maybe kas? Can't say I'm excited about any of them like I am for players like Mana.
Between the ghost nerf and the map changes it should always have been expected that hte weaker players would fade away as the 1/1/1 and complete dominance in the lategame sustained them.
The ghost post by bagi is complete BS. It was a joke how Terrans were saying ghosts were not viable in March/april of this year. Before the KA switch ghosts were completely underused (especially by todays standards). To say anything else is to be blatantly lieing or ignorant.
On December 01 2011 06:28 Bagi wrote: Terrans have always used ghosts, especially in TvP. Maybe not in beta or first few months, but that period of Steppes of War and Blistering Sands is completely irrelevant now, as macro games were extremely rare. People do build ghosts in greater numbers now, but they cannot be compared to ravens.
As for the raven unit itself, how do you propose it changes the terran army? Auto-turrets are only useful in small skirmishes. Stalkers are hardly a problem in the lategame, so that rules out PDD. Seeker missile can only hit a protoss player if they are caught completely off guard by it, which is highly unlikely + you will probably do a few hundred points of damage at most. You're probably more likely to nuke his army than to land a seeker missile, and its easier to get nukes since ghost tech is necessary anyway.
Please, instead of throwaway comments, how about something substantial. How will the raven become useful?
Will players change their strategies in 2012? Well duh, once HOTS is out they will. Until then its bio TvP with the occasional timing push with a few select mech units. If you had played TvP as terran at a decent level, you would know this yourself.
Open a thread in the strategy forum, discuss how raven would be useful instead of brainlessly whine.
And wrt to HotS, yes it will make Terrans change their strategy: instead of going Marine/Marauder, they will go Hellion/Warhound, which is exactly like Marine/Marauder, but with 50% more splash. (GJ Blizzard).
Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
On December 01 2011 06:28 Bagi wrote: Terrans have always used ghosts, especially in TvP. Maybe not in beta or first few months, but that period of Steppes of War and Blistering Sands is completely irrelevant now, as macro games were extremely rare. People do build ghosts in greater numbers now, but they cannot be compared to ravens.
As for the raven unit itself, how do you propose it changes the terran army? Auto-turrets are only useful in small skirmishes. Stalkers are hardly a problem in the lategame, so that rules out PDD. Seeker missile can only hit a protoss player if they are caught completely off guard by it, which is highly unlikely + you will probably do a few hundred points of damage at most. You're probably more likely to nuke his army than to land a seeker missile, and its easier to get nukes since ghost tech is necessary anyway.
Please, instead of throwaway comments, how about something substantial. How will the raven become useful?
Will players change their strategies in 2012? Well duh, once HOTS is out they will. Until then its bio TvP with the occasional timing push with a few select mech units. If you had played TvP as terran at a decent level, you would know this yourself.
Open a thread in the strategy forum, discuss how raven would be useful instead of brainlessly whine.
And wrt to HotS, yes it will make Terrans change their strategy: instead of going Marine/Marauder, they will go Hellion/Warhound, which is exactly like Marine/Marauder, but with 50% more splash. (GJ Blizzard).
I'm not brainlessly whining, this guy is theorycrafting (out of his ass, I might add) how ravens are the next big thing in TvP with tanks. Obviously they are not, which I just explained.
I swear, any text that might suggest something terran-related isn't that great gets labeled as idiotic whine. The antagonizing is getting ridiculous here.
It doesn't seem like people are talking about the OP anymore at this point, but I think it's completely right. And as he suggests, there isn't something wrong with Terran -- the issue is that the other races need to have their own units with micro potential that raises the skillcap. This doesn't just mean harass units by the way. I hope HOTS will help with this but I feel that the fundamental issues with the SC2 engine need to be addressed: moving shot and clumping.
Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult
Yeah, that's why Terran is doing so well outside Korea. Come on. With the increased skill cap Terran has comes the OBLIGATION to use that skill cap to equal the other races. The micro and multitasking is clearly more difficult, but you can delude yourself in believing otherwise.
You have no proof that this so called "increased skill cap" lies in micros requirement as opposed to game sense requirement.
And Terran are obliged to use their race to their full potential? LOL I don't think you understand the whole idea of competitive gaming. You must really hate esport if you think players should be able to do well at the top without actually using everything that's given to them in the game.
If there's something truly broken, Blizzard should just fix what's broken, i.e. increase the animation cool-down for marine/marauder so they can't be stutter-stepped as well, just like they did with reaver in BW. The wrong thing to do is to make one race so imbalanced at the top just to compensate all the scrubs at the lower level that it will literally destroys the whole competitive scene. Last time I checked there's no Global Red Alert League or anything resembling it. We will soon if everyone starts switching to Terran at the top level play because it's the only race viable.
TLDR: (Some) low-level Terran are really a bunch of entitled crybabies. I don't know where people get the audacity to put their own low-level frustration ahead of the top-level play, where people's careers and livelihood are directly affected by game balance.
You are braver than I sir, but I totally agree. All of the recent threads have basicly come down to "make the game easier for me, you removed all the abusive things I used and its not fair".
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
Ya, god forbid admitting to the possibility that you are just bad.
Bagi you first say terrans always used ghosts. 1st fail.
Than say stalkers are not a problem in tvp so PDD useless. Who shuts down the Vikings that shut down the collosus? 2nd fail.
Than you say that I get things out of my ass and you have proven me wrong. While I am theorycrafting indeed all you say is that "pros don't do it so shut up". 3rd fail.
You actually say nothing but you do it loudly.
It's quite funny cause I am watching White Ra owning terrans after terrans on ladder right now. Bio ball is melting so nice under storm + archons + zeals. Sweeeet!
This thread should get closed because nothing interesting can pop out of this discussion.
On December 01 2011 05:50 Superneenja wrote: I love how alot of people are suggesting builds/tech paths, theres a reason why we stick to a certain strategy.. its been tested out time and time again in Korea. Mech in TvP what a joke, warp a few units in the T main and if the army is out of position more than likely going to cause way more damage than 2-3 units should.
In BW it was far more important to deny arbiters in your base to prevent recall and it was possible, but with a lot of skill. You can't deny a warpprism if you want to?
Bagi: I can bet you that the pros will change their strategies in 2012 and you will forget my posts and it's ok. But I don't need to be a pro to see that late game terrans don't have a good plan going against protoss. Killer steam rolls late game vs bio. I mean he owns them. Protoss not only did catch up but has passed terrans in the metagame.
And you forget the time when terrans did not use ghosts while people theorized the potential of ghosts. And now ghosts are essential. Ravens are next.
Edit: And most of the players are copy paste of real innovators of strategies. The innovators are few and are in the top, because that's why they are copied. MVP has no reason to change his style now, but if MVP wants to i think he can make mech viable.
I wasn't specifically speaking of a warp prism as you need to beef your base up before you roll out if you went mech anyway. I was talking more about closely placed pylons or even using a warp prism well outside my base. Now looking for these type of things with helions are your best bet, but being out of position before thors are out is just as damaging. I'm talking about a couple of dts in your base while you are trying to attack theirs between a production cycle, or a base trade type situation...basically I think mech is too slow for a mobile P army. I dunno I've just been feeling frustrated at the match up lately and after watching alot of pro terran streams I can say i'm not the only one.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
Ya, god forbid admitting to the possibility that you are just bad.
User was temp banned for this post.
I know I shouldn't answer to this taunt but even if I was really just bad there's no other explaination to the decline of the terran race outside korea. I've tried playing protoss multiple times in the past (in the only matchup I know for SC2 protoss, PvT) and I could easily beat some of the top terrans in Europe by just camping, chronoboosting my upgrades and waiting on 3 bases. That's basically what every protoss does now and the amount of skill and multitasking it takes is so ridicolously low I feel like crying whenever I think I could have just kept playing protoss when SC2 started. If warpgate was not in the game it would be much different, not having to deal with walking distances and smartcasting makes everything way way WAY easier.
For those who think Terran micro is on par with say zerg let me pose this question. Is it easier to split your marines or is it easier for you to attack marines using your banelings? We all wish we could split like MVP and MKP but that just isn't the case.
On December 01 2011 05:50 Superneenja wrote: I love how alot of people are suggesting builds/tech paths, theres a reason why we stick to a certain strategy.. its been tested out time and time again in Korea. Mech in TvP what a joke, warp a few units in the T main and if the army is out of position more than likely going to cause way more damage than 2-3 units should.
In BW it was far more important to deny arbiters in your base to prevent recall and it was possible, but with a lot of skill. You can't deny a warpprism if you want to?
Bagi: I can bet you that the pros will change their strategies in 2012 and you will forget my posts and it's ok. But I don't need to be a pro to see that late game terrans don't have a good plan going against protoss. Killer steam rolls late game vs bio. I mean he owns them. Protoss not only did catch up but has passed terrans in the metagame.
And you forget the time when terrans did not use ghosts while people theorized the potential of ghosts. And now ghosts are essential. Ravens are next.
Edit: And most of the players are copy paste of real innovators of strategies. The innovators are few and are in the top, because that's why they are copied. MVP has no reason to change his style now, but if MVP wants to i think he can make mech viable.
MVP has every reason to change his style in TvP since its his only weakness and he is heavy mech user in other 2 matchups yet he does not do it.
On December 01 2011 07:29 raginglemon wrote: For those who think Terran micro is on par with say zerg let me pose this question. Is it easier to split your marines or is it easier for you to attack marines using your banelings? We all wish we could split like MVP and MKP but that just isn't the case.
now add in the zerg having to split his banelings so that tanks cant kill big clumps of them at a time as they roll towards the stimmed marines that move faster than them.
On December 01 2011 07:29 raginglemon wrote: For those who think Terran micro is on par with say zerg let me pose this question. Is it easier to split your marines or is it easier for you to attack marines using your banelings? We all wish we could split like MVP and MKP but that just isn't the case.
Didn't read the thread the past few pages but did someone honestly think marine splitting, and focus firing banes with tankfire, is easier then rolling banes in with lings? :p.. Even on the highest level I still see zergs A-move their banes here and there inefficiently. Example being just recently lucky a-moving 40 banelings onto nada's thor and tank, killing neither, and not touching the marines at all. Lucky still ending up winning rather easily though... and the fact that lots of zergs can get away with playing sloppy like this on the pro level speaks great volumes of the margin of error zerg have in the bane vs bio battle. >_<
On December 01 2011 07:29 raginglemon wrote: For those who think Terran micro is on par with say zerg let me pose this question. Is it easier to split your marines or is it easier for you to attack marines using your banelings? We all wish we could split like MVP and MKP but that just isn't the case.
now add in the zerg having to split his banelings so that tanks cant kill big clumps of them at a time as they roll towards the stimmed marines that move faster than them.
I off race Z once in a while, and shift queing small groups of baneling targets is alot easier than splitting marines. I'm not sure if its like this for everyone else, but I find when I off race the skills I picked up playing terran help me do much better with Z or P. I'm not sure it works the other way around.
On December 01 2011 05:50 Superneenja wrote: I love how alot of people are suggesting builds/tech paths, theres a reason why we stick to a certain strategy.. its been tested out time and time again in Korea. Mech in TvP what a joke, warp a few units in the T main and if the army is out of position more than likely going to cause way more damage than 2-3 units should.
In BW it was far more important to deny arbiters in your base to prevent recall and it was possible, but with a lot of skill. You can't deny a warpprism if you want to?
Bagi: I can bet you that the pros will change their strategies in 2012 and you will forget my posts and it's ok. But I don't need to be a pro to see that late game terrans don't have a good plan going against protoss. Killer steam rolls late game vs bio. I mean he owns them. Protoss not only did catch up but has passed terrans in the metagame.
And you forget the time when terrans did not use ghosts while people theorized the potential of ghosts. And now ghosts are essential. Ravens are next.
Edit: And most of the players are copy paste of real innovators of strategies. The innovators are few and are in the top, because that's why they are copied. MVP has no reason to change his style now, but if MVP wants to i think he can make mech viable.
MVP has every reason to change his style in TvP since its his only weakness and he is heavy mech user in other 2 matchups yet he does not do it.
Yeah lots of people said jjakji made mech viable but not really... 1st style was gimmicky mass thor build. Third match jjakji did a similar mvp style marine/tank contain which put him ahead, then switched to maruader and ghosts... both these were more surprise/gimmick style rather than being able to shift the metagame away from mmm balls.
I do think HOTS will let mech viable vs toss though
Zergs don't have to micro the banes that much but they do send them to relevant packs of marines and in the same time try to surround with zerglings.
And Stephano zergling play is so effective because he microes the zerglings in small packs to get the most out of them.
And the essence of zerg is to macro in the same time so that they have a second wave ready (aka once 200/200, always 200). This is what the swarm means after all. If you look at idra he doesn't micro a lot but he is like a macro beast that overwhelms the opponent with power.
On December 01 2011 03:11 DarK[A] wrote: I don't really get the point of this thread. Terran players are bad?
Whining about how micro-intensive Terran is would be comparable to me whining about how I can never keep up with injects and my queens' energy is always floating high. I'm not going to make a thread about it, I'm going to practice injecting and macroing while I'm elsewhere on the map. With Terran you have to out micro your opponent in certain engagements, with Zerg you have to outproduce your opponent and be able to remax quickly mid-late game. I can't speak for the Brotoss but I'm sure someone can step in and say something that they have to worry about incessantly that other races don't.
Nope, Protoss is very relaxing to play. You can pretty much win with whatever you do.
On December 01 2011 07:48 ceaRshaf wrote: Zergs don't have to micro the banes that much but they do send them to relevant packs of marines and in the same time try to surround with zerglings.
And Stephano zergling play is so effective because he microes the zerglings in small packs to get the most out of them.
And the essence of zerg is to macro in the same time so that they have a second wave ready (aka once 200/200, always 200). This is what the swarm means after all. If you look at idra he doesn't micro a lot but he is like a macro beast that overwhelms the opponent with power.
Different races play different.
Yeah stephano also does clever things like deal with initial tankfire with infested terran eggs a split second before he engages with lings/banes so that more of them can get in position before they can get picked off.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
Ya, god forbid admitting to the possibility that you are just bad.
User was temp banned for this post.
I know I shouldn't answer to this taunt but even if I was really just bad there's no other explaination to the decline of the terran race outside korea. I've tried playing protoss multiple times in the past (in the only matchup I know for SC2 protoss, PvT) and I could easily beat some of the top terrans in Europe by just camping, chronoboosting my upgrades and waiting on 3 bases. That's basically what every protoss does now and the amount of skill and multitasking it takes is so ridicolously low I feel like crying whenever I think I could have just kept playing protoss when SC2 started. If warpgate was not in the game it would be much different, not having to deal with walking distances and smartcasting makes everything way way WAY easier.
While this is true, I believe a lot of it has to do with the Colossus + Wargate tech The whole Colossus : Viking/Corruptor relationship is horrible, as is the trading armies cost effectively, and then the Protoss remaxes right outside your base via pylon or prism, with zero build time and zero travel time.
The fundamental problem with terran currently is all terran does is all in or timing attack, they are very similar to how protoss once was, all ining instead of actually figuring out a standard way of playing. Watching terran koreans play, yes they all in but everyone of them can have very solid extended macro games. Terran has to learn how to play because mass medivac drops and 1-1-1's are finally starting to get figured out. I know this wont help any terran player immediatly but learn how to play without scv marine all in and maybe u will win a big tournament like zerg and protoss have been~
On December 01 2011 03:11 DarK[A] wrote: I don't really get the point of this thread. Terran players are bad?
Whining about how micro-intensive Terran is would be comparable to me whining about how I can never keep up with injects and my queens' energy is always floating high. I'm not going to make a thread about it, I'm going to practice injecting and macroing while I'm elsewhere on the map. With Terran you have to out micro your opponent in certain engagements, with Zerg you have to outproduce your opponent and be able to remax quickly mid-late game. I can't speak for the Brotoss but I'm sure someone can step in and say something that they have to worry about incessantly that other races don't.
I agree, as protoss you have to worry about chronoboosting your upgs early on so you can roll over your opponent even easier when you get to 200/200 of your 3 base!
Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult
Yeah, that's why Terran is doing so well outside Korea. Come on. With the increased skill cap Terran has comes the OBLIGATION to use that skill cap to equal the other races. The micro and multitasking is clearly more difficult, but you can delude yourself in believing otherwise.
You have no proof that this so called "increased skill cap" lies in micros requirement as opposed to game sense requirement.
And Terran are obliged to use their race to their full potential? LOL I don't think you understand the whole idea of competitive gaming. You must really hate esport if you think players should be able to do well at the top without actually using everything that's given to them in the game.
If there's something truly broken, Blizzard should just fix what's broken, i.e. increase the animation cool-down for marine/marauder so they can't be stutter-stepped as well, just like they did with reaver in BW. The wrong thing to do is to make one race so imbalanced at the top just to compensate all the scrubs at the lower level that it will literally destroys the whole competitive scene. Last time I checked there's no Global Red Alert League or anything resembling it. We will soon if everyone starts switching to Terran at the top level play because it's the only race viable.
TLDR: (Some) low-level Terran are really a bunch of entitled crybabies. I don't know where people get the audacity to put their own low-level frustration ahead of the top-level play, where people's careers and livelihood are directly affected by game balance.
You are braver than I sir, but I totally agree. All of the recent threads have basicly come down to "make the game easier for me, you removed all the abusive things I used and its not fair".
I'm amazed so many people think the bronze - platinum players arnt important. We make up 80% of all players. This is blizzards design. I'd have little interest in SC2 if i didn't play it and enjoy playing it. I watch player streams and tournaments, and keep an eye on TL forums. I imagine many other bronze - plats do the same and they are probably a large proportion of stream viewers.
my point
If we bronze to plat players arnt happy, we'll leave. THATS 80% OF PLAYERS.
so get of your high horse about pro players and their livelihoods when WE 80% allow them to have it.
Since when is there a fundamental problem with Terran? Why are you making an argument based around ignoring their amazing performance in the GSL? The game should be balanced purely for highest level play, first and only.
On December 01 2011 01:52 Clazziquai10 wrote: It may be a bit of an exaggeration, but i think this is what TS is trying to say:
Which kinda explains why korean terrans are owning korean protosses and korean zergs but foreign terrans arent exactly owning foreign protosses and zergs.
This man understands my post.
As you can see if a certain race rewards multitask/micro etc potential more than the others, it is going to be better at higher levels. But if blizzard balances it around those players (ie so the lines touch at the end where koreans are), even foreign players with less ability will suffer more as Terran than as Protoss/Zerg.
Those saying the game should be balanced around people who play as progamers, and their lives are affected by balance changes etc, surely this includes foreign players who also rely on balancing the game equally at their level as well as korean pro level?
The overall idea of the post is that, Blizzard's balance changes to date have simply been trying to shift the terran line up or down, which does not fundamentally fix the problem. Only by either relieving some of the micro on terrans, or by making the other races have more to do (which sounds better to me) can they change the slant of this graph.
I think this is what they are trying to do in the HOTS expansion. Terran are getting some new units that don't require as much micro, while the others are getting units with spells etc. Hopefully this will go some way in leveling the field a bit.
On December 01 2011 08:15 nt-rAven wrote: The fundamental problem with terran currently is all terran does is all in or timing attack, they are very similar to how protoss once was, all ining instead of actually figuring out a standard way of playing. Watching terran koreans play, yes they all in but everyone of them can have very solid extended macro games. Terran has to learn how to play because mass medivac drops and 1-1-1's are finally starting to get figured out. I know this wont help any terran player immediatly but learn how to play without scv marine all in and maybe u will win a big tournament like zerg and protoss have been~
I assume you talk about TvP since thats the only matchup where this happens. The reason is that going into lategame vs toss is absolutely stupid atm. For those who think immortal buff/emp nerf changed the matchup you are horribly wrong. The matchup changed when every toss started to go for both colossus and twilight tech + double upgrades. Immortals have hardly any effect on the matchup and people use so many ghosts that they can mostly emp your whole army anyway. Lategame TvP is so stupid that there is no reason to go for it.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
On December 01 2011 08:23 HolyExlxF wrote: What I am reading:
Terran units should win in engagements both when they're micro'd and when they are not.
No, what you're reading is that Terran units shouldn't always win when they're perfectly micro'd (and so are the opponents units) and always lose when they're not perfectly micro'd. Its a crappy design mechanic because it inherently makes balancing the game problematic.
How can you say that terran v protoss late game is broken? terran is not even explored u dont even use lategame units vs protoss, you use marines and marauders ghhost and vikings, no offense but protoss fully teched should be able to beat that composition or there would be serious problem with terran~ no offense but that seems like a whine from a race that has dominated sc2 for the past 6 months and u will get no sympathy from either zerg or protoss whov already been through darkages!
On December 01 2011 01:52 Clazziquai10 wrote: It may be a bit of an exaggeration, but i think this is what TS is trying to say:
Which kinda explains why korean terrans are owning korean protosses and korean zergs but foreign terrans arent exactly owning foreign protosses and zergs.
This man understands my post.
As you can see if a certain race rewards multitask/micro etc potential more than the others, it is going to be better at higher levels. But if blizzard balances it around those players (ie so the lines touch at the end where koreans are), even foreign players with less ability will suffer more as Terran than as Protoss/Zerg.
Those saying the game should be balanced around people who play as progamers, and their lives are affected by balance changes etc, surely this includes foreign players who also rely on balancing the game equally at their level as well as korean pro level?
The overall idea of the post is that, Blizzard's balance changes to date have simply been trying to shift the terran line up or down, which does not fundamentally fix the problem. Only by either relieving some of the micro on terrans, or by making the other races have more to do (which sounds better to me) can they change the slant of this graph.
I think this is what they are trying to do in the HOTS expansion. Terran are getting some new units that don't require as much micro, while the others are getting units with spells etc. Hopefully this will go some way in leveling the field a bit.
If you talk about the Korean scene (in BW and Sc2) Terran dominate. Look at the top Korean T (having both innovation and control): Bomber, Polt, Fin, Mvp, Keen, Happy, SC, MKP and Team Slayers. P has Oz, Puzzle, MC, Yongwha, Sage, JYP. Z has Losira, Coca, Leenock, Nestea, Curious, DRG, July. There as soo many more top T than there are top Z and P. The reason T dominates Korea is because the most of the best player play Terran.
The graph shows not the balance of the game but what the scene looks like currently
FYI this post had nothing to do with "terran late game vs toss" . . . . damn this has devolved into such a mindless thread.
But I'll nibble and try to bring it back to the point, if Toss are implying Terran need to use more units like ravens and stuff, that further increases the oweness on micro for terrans, it would probably further exacerbate the problem described.
On December 01 2011 08:40 SpunXtain wrote: FYI this post had nothing to do with "terran late game vs toss" . . . . damn this has devolved into such a mindless thread.
But I'll nibble and try to bring it back to the point, if Toss are implying Terran need to use more units like ravens and stuff, that further increases the oweness on micro for terrans, it would probably further exacerbate the problem described.
On December 01 2011 08:40 SpunXtain wrote: FYI this post had nothing to do with "terran late game vs toss" . . . . damn this has devolved into such a mindless thread.
But I'll nibble and try to bring it back to the point, if Toss are implying Terran need to use more units like ravens and stuff, that further increases the oweness on micro for terrans, it would probably further exacerbate the problem described.
Seriously, how are you supposed to use ravens in a TvP lategame with hts ready. Well you could use the PDD, but the protoss can force you to use it and afterwards the raven is pretty useless. If you try to get off a seeker missile any HT can feedback the raven before it can shoot the missile because its range is so awefully low. at the same time the high energy cost on the missile will let the raven die instantly to feedback.
On December 01 2011 08:33 nt-rAven wrote: How can you say that terran v protoss late game is broken? terran is not even explored u dont even use lategame units vs protoss, you use marines and marauders ghhost and vikings, no offense but protoss fully teched should be able to beat that composition or there would be serious problem with terran~ no offense but that seems like a whine from a race that has dominated sc2 for the past 6 months and u will get no sympathy from either zerg or protoss whov already been through darkages!
please tell me what endgame units, that have not yet been proved to be just bad in tvp, to use and i will gladly do so.
I do think the game is pretty damn well balanced, it's just balanced at different levels of play.
For example:
Defensive whines: 1. It's waaaay too easy for good Zergs to lose to stupid cheese 2. Terran requires more unit micro than other races 3. Protoss are chained to the Robo because its their only source of mobile detection
Offensive whines: 4. Lategame Zerg is so tough to counter properly because they can completely reverse their unit composition in single production round. Which is insanely powerful in a game with strong counter units. 5. Terran units are so cost efficient that if Terran units are perfect microed against perfectly microed P/Z units, the Terran units always win. 6. Between Warpin and Forcefield, Protoss can completely nullify their opponent's defender's advantage and apply it to their own defense as well.
Those are all pretty big things that I don't think they can fix in a live patch. HotS is the right place to work on them.
omg you give me a headache just reading that, i guess u never use ghost or seige tanks lol u sound like ht is the gg unit of all time! anyways wtv try to help terran and u get flamed lol alright whine about it more!
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
On December 01 2011 08:57 arfyron wrote: Wasn't this the same as in BW?
I would say it kinda was, but to a lesser extent. Protoss was not that much easier than Terran in BW to players that would be diamond-masters back then. Don`t get me wrong, it was easier, not just as much. The funny thing though is that this fact was (is) well accepted in the BW community.
Even BW Protoss players agree that Protoss is easier somewhat (in levels like D until C or even B). Now, in SC2, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many others), the difference got bigger and you'll see every Protoss player that come to this thread deny it like their life depends on it.
So, this thread basicly says that there is a problem with T because they require skill to be very strong? I guess with what you're saying T would have to be nerfed but made easier to play? I mean they already kinda own everyone at the very top so you can't just straight out buff them like I see al ot of people suggest.
Yeah this is how I feel as well. Although I would modify it a bit.
At lowest levels of skill: 1. Protoss strongest 2. Terran 3. Zerg weakest
At foreigner level of skill: 1. Zerg strongest 2. Protoss 3. Terran weakest
At Korean level of skill: 1. Terran strongest 2. Zerg 3. Protoss weakest
So every race dips quite a bit.
Protoss starts strong because it has the best 200/200 balls, but gets weaker as skill increases because they don't have many ways to use crazy amounts of apm.
Terran starts out balanced, and then drops to really weak because they're very dependent upon micro, but after mastering said micro nobody can beat them because their units are all so cost efficient.
Zerg starts out weakest because its macro mechanic is the most demanding. However after you get to the point where you can hit all your injects, know how to kill all the stupid all-ins, and you can see the entire map with Creep+OL spread, then you've achieved "macro nirvana". But then at the highest level things kinda drop off because your units are so weak that there's not much point in microing them.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
You know top players don't spend every single second of their life practicing. If I post here just because I am used to do so for years and state protoss is way easier to play than terran it doesn't mean I am less dedicated than any of the other players you consider better than me. Actually I've talked to Naniwa recently and he told me he takes his time to do what he likes to do just as much or more than I do. Thing is you don't have to try to shit on my image just because I said a race takes considerably less skill and effort to be played at a foreign high level, because it doesn't change the reality of what I'm saying or the fact every foreign tournament result completely proves my point.
On December 01 2011 08:33 nt-rAven wrote: How can you say that terran v protoss late game is broken? terran is not even explored u dont even use lategame units vs protoss, you use marines and marauders ghhost and vikings, no offense but protoss fully teched should be able to beat that composition or there would be serious problem with terran~ no offense but that seems like a whine from a race that has dominated sc2 for the past 6 months and u will get no sympathy from either zerg or protoss whov already been through darkages!
it's silly of terrans to complain because we haven't explored everything
but you know, protoss spent months and months whining before they figured anything out. and they still complain plenty. mkp perfected marine splitting against banes almost a year ago, protoss are only now really respecting the warp prism. I understand that it got a buff but the old 'it's too easy to lose' whine was so sad in the face of not feeling like they had options. it's hard, so don't try!
A fundamental problem with terran is that they can lose 95% of their SCVs and because of Mules still amass a sizable army. This concept just breaks my brain. A race should not have a spell that simply gives you money .
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
That's very silly considering that a more accurate comparison of westerner:korean would be Cloud to someone like Hyperdub or Supernova. You don't compare an Axslav to Nestea, you compare Huk to Nestea.
MC is a pro player who posts alot on PlayXP, kinda like Idra over here (well at least he used to, before he started doing all those webshows..then again, MC does a lot of webshows now too)
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
You know top players don't spend every single second of their life practicing. If I post here just because I am used to do so for years and state protoss is way easier to play than terran it doesn't mean I am less dedicated than any of the other players you consider better than me. Actually I've talked to Naniwa recently and he told me he takes his time to do what he likes to do just as much or more than I do. Thing is you don't have to try to shit on my image just because I said a race takes considerably less skill and effort to be played at a foreign high level, because it doesn't change the reality of what I'm saying or the fact every foreign tournament result completely proves my point.
Yeah, sorry, I admit I went out of line there. Wasn't trying to imply that you're not good or anything. So what do you propose? Wait for HotS? Straight up buff Terran? Terran still seems pretty strong at the GSL (in Code A today for example, no Protoss won). I don't think we're at a level of imbalance where a much worse player than you can beat you if he plays Protoss (http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/eu you don't lose much btw, gj ;D), so I don't really understand why you complain. And in my book you got a pretty decent run at DH where you beat Naniwa, a protoss. Is it just the feeling when you're playing? That you must do much more than the other guy to win? I say it doesn't matter if you still win, it's that much more satisfying.
It's just weird that you, a good player with 76% winrate in EU GM, want to have your race made easier to play. But I mean, I kinda understand in a way, your livelihood depends on it, not mine.
On December 01 2011 09:25 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: A fundamental problem with terran is that they can lose 95% of their SCVs and because of Mules still amass a sizable army. This concept just breaks my brain. A race should not have a spell that simply gives you money .
You're not very smart are you? A mule = 3.5 scvs. If you constantly drop it. And never scan or supply drop.
On December 01 2011 09:25 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: A fundamental problem with terran is that they can lose 95% of their SCVs and because of Mules still amass a sizable army. This concept just breaks my brain. A race should not have a spell that simply gives you money .
Yes and Protoss has chronoboost and Zerg has larva injects... you are a idiot don't post here again unless you have something that actually has thought behind it.
On December 01 2011 09:25 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: A fundamental problem with terran is that they can lose 95% of their SCVs and because of Mules still amass a sizable army. This concept just breaks my brain. A race should not have a spell that simply gives you money .
Yes and Protoss has chronoboost and Zerg has larva injects... you are a idiot don't post here again unless you have something that actually has thought behind it.
I would not say that it's a big problem, but you constantly see Terrans with less than 10 SCV make comebacks. If you got less than 10 probes/drones, you know you're fucked. It stems from the fact that if you use chronoboost or larva inject to relaunch your economy, you still have to pay for the workers (and you have to pay faster, because chrono forces you to pay more frequently for them). Mule is 3.5 FREE scvs, instantly. It's obviously the better mechanics in low worker count situations.
Taken to the extreme. If you got 1 scv and 50 energy on an orbital, compared to 1 probe and 50 energy on a nexus, who will have the better economy? Chronoboost will essentially be wasted because you don't have any income to produce any probes. MULEs are, well, a free boost.
As I said, it's not a fundamental flaw or whatnot, it's just how it has been designed. MULE sure are not a weakness of Terran ;D In normal game situations, all is pretty much evened out, but the game has not been balanced around a state where you lose all your workers.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
You know top players don't spend every single second of their life practicing. If I post here just because I am used to do so for years and state protoss is way easier to play than terran it doesn't mean I am less dedicated than any of the other players you consider better than me. Actually I've talked to Naniwa recently and he told me he takes his time to do what he likes to do just as much or more than I do. Thing is you don't have to try to shit on my image just because I said a race takes considerably less skill and effort to be played at a foreign high level, because it doesn't change the reality of what I'm saying or the fact every foreign tournament result completely proves my point.
Yeah, sorry, I admit I went out of line there. Wasn't trying to imply that you're not good or anything. So what do you propose? Wait for HotS? Straight up buff Terran? Terran still seems pretty strong at the GSL (in Code A today for example, no Protoss won). I don't think we're at a level of imbalance where a much worse player than you can beat you if he plays Protoss (http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/eu you don't lose much btw, gj ;D), so I don't really understand why you complain. And in my book you got a pretty decent run at DH where you beat Naniwa, a protoss. Is it just the feeling when you're playing? That you must do much more than the other guy to win? I say it doesn't matter if you still win, it's that much more satisfying.
It's just weird that you, a good player with 76% winrate in EU GM, want to have your race made easier to play. But I mean, I kinda understand in a way, your livelihood depends on it, not mine.
I think this game was made wrong for a tons of reasons and I am just frustrated cause I ended up getting the shortest end of the stick. When I see players like Seiplo who can't even explain why they do what they do randomly beating players 10 times better than them at DH and a monster like Kas playing all day long the best players in Europe losing in the groupstage like he did then I can't help but thinking this game is bad and unfair. Of course there are really good protoss players and they get the merit they deserve, but in Europe there's so many joke all in protoss players who just randomly take risks and can win because the race just requires no mechanics (bling or elfi being other good examples) and can be played with overall very poor understanding of RTS. I mean look at Titan he's actually a really good and skilled protoss player, he picked up the game very late and it took him very little time to compete at the highest level in Europe. There's nothing to do right now, this game has been fucked up by the bad pathing that makes units clump too much, the smart casting system and super smart AI a-move units. Also warpgate mechanic is ridicolous and makes me wonder if blizzard balance team has any clue about how RTS games work since the distance between production buildings and where you want to have your units is one of the biggest things a player has to consider in order to perform well.
The game is balanced enough. you have NEVER lost a game because of balance issues. I can guarantee that. Neither have I, and neither has anyone else apart from people with brilliant play
Eh counting podium finishes is pretty dumb way of analyzing matchups. Take away stephano and idra, and zerg's gone. Take away Huk/naniwa, and protoss becomes irrelevant. It just so happens terran have no outliers who are willing to step up when it counts.
All it takes is for 1 person to blossom and your whole theory goes out the window.
On November 30 2011 13:16 Gamegene wrote: Funny, Terrans in GSL usually win their games with strong build orders and interesting styles rather than relying entirely on micro.
I could say the same thing Pbout protoss:
"Protoss is the most microable race! They have blink stalkers, they have warp prisms, they have collosus which you can use to dance with the MMM ball and vikings, they have high templars to feedback and storm, they have forcefields, they have phoenix to harass and pick off marines as they pop out!! Hell, some go for a collosi warp prism drop play!
The problem is that they can't utilize it all!!"
When most of the Protoss victories recently relied on intelligent decision making and prepared build orders.
This is pretty much completely completely true. Seriously most of the tosses use good ff's and strong positioning rather than super gosu micro because of the constant warping, chrono-ing etc. Along with this fact the toss micro ability may be high with stalkers, but most everything else is kinda clumsy, like collo.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
Ya, god forbid admitting to the possibility that you are just bad.
User was temp banned for this post.
I know I shouldn't answer to this taunt but even if I was really just bad there's no other explaination to the decline of the terran race outside korea. I've tried playing protoss multiple times in the past (in the only matchup I know for SC2 protoss, PvT) and I could easily beat some of the top terrans in Europe by just camping, chronoboosting my upgrades and waiting on 3 bases. That's basically what every protoss does now and the amount of skill and multitasking it takes is so ridicolously low I feel like crying whenever I think I could have just kept playing protoss when SC2 started. If warpgate was not in the game it would be much different, not having to deal with walking distances and smartcasting makes everything way way WAY easier.
Top Terrans in Europe? Ok. Can you beat top Terrans in Korea?
As a spectator, I want the game to be balanced at the highest levels of play. And when I say that, I don't mean the pro scene. I mean the Korean pro scene. And given how much Korean Terrans dominate, it's looks pretty bad when NA and EU Terrans complain about balance, because proof of just how much Terran is capable of is right there in the Korean scene - at the very highest level of play. The only route for you to go from there is to declare that Korean Terrans are simply miles and miles ahead of Korean Protosses in skill, which doesn't really make much sense unless you have evidence that despite the rigorous practice regimen of Koreans in their team houses, the Protosses in those team houses all happen to not practice as much as the Terrans, or that all the Protosses just happen to all have less inherent skill than the Terrans, both of which are frankly scenarios that are very difficult to believe, as opposed to the scenario where Korean Ts and Ps both practice a ton despite Ts winning a disproportionate amount of time.
I understand that NA and EU Terran pros also want to do well. But from an ideal standpoint of balance, the very best deserve players deserve balance the most, and the very best right now happen to be the Koreans. If Terran nerfs and Protoss buffs to help with the Korean scene end up hurting Ts in the EU/NA scene, then I'm sorry, because that's very unfortunate. Please, go complain to Blizzard for designing a game where the races have such skewed relations between skill and race efficacy, but trying to discredit Protoss as a whole does the Korean Protoss players (who likely practice more than you - and that isn't meant as an insult - if you accept that Korea is ahead of the rest of the world, and that Koreans don't have any sort of genetic disposition toward SC2 ability, then the logical conclusion is that they generally practice harder than foreigners) a huge disservice.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
That's very silly considering that a more accurate comparison of westerner:korean would be Cloud to someone like Hyperdub or Supernova. You don't compare an Axslav to Nestea, you compare Huk to Nestea.
MC is a pro player who posts alot on PlayXP, kinda like Idra over here (well at least he used to, before he started doing all those webshows..then again, MC does a lot of webshows now too)
what is wrong with you axslave is easily top 5 foreign protoss.. this isnt the place to sneak in your player bashing artosis went over this last night in his rant on sotg cmon.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
That's very silly considering that a more accurate comparison of westerner:korean would be Cloud to someone like Hyperdub or Supernova. You don't compare an Axslav to Nestea, you compare Huk to Nestea.
MC is a pro player who posts alot on PlayXP, kinda like Idra over here (well at least he used to, before he started doing all those webshows..then again, MC does a lot of webshows now too)
what is wrong with you axslave is easily top 5 foreign protoss.. this isnt the place to sneak in your player bashing artosis went over this last night in his rant on sotg cmon.
What artosis ranted about had nothing to do with people not liking players on forums and was almost exclusively directed at caster/player relations during tournaments, and furthermore there is no way Axslav makes top 5 on any level. It has nothing to do with bashing, and everything to do with the fact that his results aren't anywhere near as good as most other high level players.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
You know top players don't spend every single second of their life practicing. If I post here just because I am used to do so for years and state protoss is way easier to play than terran it doesn't mean I am less dedicated than any of the other players you consider better than me. Actually I've talked to Naniwa recently and he told me he takes his time to do what he likes to do just as much or more than I do. Thing is you don't have to try to shit on my image just because I said a race takes considerably less skill and effort to be played at a foreign high level, because it doesn't change the reality of what I'm saying or the fact every foreign tournament result completely proves my point.
Yeah, sorry, I admit I went out of line there. Wasn't trying to imply that you're not good or anything. So what do you propose? Wait for HotS? Straight up buff Terran? Terran still seems pretty strong at the GSL (in Code A today for example, no Protoss won). I don't think we're at a level of imbalance where a much worse player than you can beat you if he plays Protoss (http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/eu you don't lose much btw, gj ;D), so I don't really understand why you complain. And in my book you got a pretty decent run at DH where you beat Naniwa, a protoss. Is it just the feeling when you're playing? That you must do much more than the other guy to win? I say it doesn't matter if you still win, it's that much more satisfying.
It's just weird that you, a good player with 76% winrate in EU GM, want to have your race made easier to play. But I mean, I kinda understand in a way, your livelihood depends on it, not mine.
I think this game was made wrong for a tons of reasons and I am just frustrated cause I ended up getting the shortest end of the stick. When I see players like Seiplo who can't even explain why they do what they do randomly beating players 10 times better than them at DH and a monster like Kas playing all day long the best players in Europe losing in the groupstage like he did then I can't help but thinking this game is bad and unfair. Of course there are really good protoss players and they get the merit they deserve, but in Europe there's so many joke all in protoss players who just randomly take risks and can win because the race just requires no mechanics (bling or elfi being other good examples) and can be played with overall very poor understanding of RTS. I mean look at Titan he's actually a really good and skilled protoss player, he picked up the game very late and it took him very little time to compete at the highest level in Europe. There's nothing to do right now, this game has been fucked up by the bad pathing that makes units clump too much, the smart casting system and super smart AI a-move units. Also warpgate mechanic is ridicolous and makes me wonder if blizzard balance team has any clue about how RTS games work since the distance between production buildings and where you want to have your units is one of the biggest things a player has to consider in order to perform well.
I completely understand where you're coming from dude. It must be hard for you that is making a living out of this. You could be a protoss and be way more succesful. =[. I guess you should still try the switch though.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
You know top players don't spend every single second of their life practicing. If I post here just because I am used to do so for years and state protoss is way easier to play than terran it doesn't mean I am less dedicated than any of the other players you consider better than me. Actually I've talked to Naniwa recently and he told me he takes his time to do what he likes to do just as much or more than I do. Thing is you don't have to try to shit on my image just because I said a race takes considerably less skill and effort to be played at a foreign high level, because it doesn't change the reality of what I'm saying or the fact every foreign tournament result completely proves my point.
Yeah, sorry, I admit I went out of line there. Wasn't trying to imply that you're not good or anything. So what do you propose? Wait for HotS? Straight up buff Terran? Terran still seems pretty strong at the GSL (in Code A today for example, no Protoss won). I don't think we're at a level of imbalance where a much worse player than you can beat you if he plays Protoss (http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/eu you don't lose much btw, gj ;D), so I don't really understand why you complain. And in my book you got a pretty decent run at DH where you beat Naniwa, a protoss. Is it just the feeling when you're playing? That you must do much more than the other guy to win? I say it doesn't matter if you still win, it's that much more satisfying.
It's just weird that you, a good player with 76% winrate in EU GM, want to have your race made easier to play. But I mean, I kinda understand in a way, your livelihood depends on it, not mine.
I think this game was made wrong for a tons of reasons and I am just frustrated cause I ended up getting the shortest end of the stick. When I see players like Seiplo who can't even explain why they do what they do randomly beating players 10 times better than them at DH and a monster like Kas playing all day long the best players in Europe losing in the groupstage like he did then I can't help but thinking this game is bad and unfair. Of course there are really good protoss players and they get the merit they deserve, but in Europe there's so many joke all in protoss players who just randomly take risks and can win because the race just requires no mechanics (bling or elfi being other good examples) and can be played with overall very poor understanding of RTS. I mean look at Titan he's actually a really good and skilled protoss player, he picked up the game very late and it took him very little time to compete at the highest level in Europe. There's nothing to do right now, this game has been fucked up by the bad pathing that makes units clump too much, the smart casting system and super smart AI a-move units. Also warpgate mechanic is ridicolous and makes me wonder if blizzard balance team has any clue about how RTS games work since the distance between production buildings and where you want to have your units is one of the biggest things a player has to consider in order to perform well.
Cloud i <3 you, but protoss takes a lot of skill. You are a terran and that takes skill too, all the races take skill to play. The fundamentals of toss are different than terran, that doesn't make it bad. Also why hate on elfi? His PvP (as said by the SotG podcast) is probably one of the best and that has nothing to do with Terran. Warp is not rediculous, its about as rediculous as creating up to 10 marines at a time out of 5 rax or getting all your tech in one path for air, mech, and bio. The races are fine, just different.
Why do people have such narrowminded views on the MULE?
Let me explain MULEs once and for all:
1. MULEs represent the warpgate/larva effect BY reducing the amount of food tied into SCVs, so that the standing T army is larger.
In 30s, 3 base stockpiled T can approximately make 30 food of army. It would take significant investments in production+addons to do more. In contrast, Z/P have much faster production, consider the fact that P can warp in 20+ food in a late game fight.
This is counterbalanced by T having equal income at ~55 SCVs + 3 MULEs. So the standing T army can be 20 food larger, in anticipation of 20+ food warpin. Similarly, Z with 4-5 hatches can easily burst upwards of 70 food in one 30-40s cycle and the T army needs to be larger.
2. Most players would agree that MULEs are necessary early to keep up in econ, but they also point to the effects of MULEs when T has lost his SCVs.
This is a poorly constructed argument because the races have different points of resilience tied to their macro mechanics.
It is true that if P loses all his probes, he is most likely done. But similarly, late game, if P is in T's base sitting on the production, the game is over. P production can still continue until all warpgates are eliminated, while T is unable to produce. So the two races favor different end states.
In the case of Z, as long as Z has resources banked, drone loss is not an issue (unless Z also has no army). It takes a single cycle to replenish a base. Let's also recognize that in this matchup, if there were no MULEs, the moment T lost his SCVs to fungal/muta the game would be over. There would be no way to catch up to Z. This is different from BW because in BW larva did not outstrip T so vastly, such that you could literally make 40-50 drones at once.
I hope these points make you think a bit about the role of the MULE, and how it's just asymmetric with the advantages the other races have.
On December 01 2011 09:25 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: A fundamental problem with terran is that they can lose 95% of their SCVs and because of Mules still amass a sizable army. This concept just breaks my brain. A race should not have a spell that simply gives you money .
Agree whole heartedly. One of the only true broken mechanics of the game. Takes away the need for Terran's to Macro consistently. I have seen high level master Terran's miss SCV production consistently throughout replays and make up for it with mules. On the other hand I have seen some players never miss an SCV... macro really well.. and then get the added benefit of mules on top of this.... its a huge advantage.
Mules also don't take up any supply which is just dumb. Late game PvT will consist of mass orbital commands with mass mule call down... therefore allowing the Terran to get rid of SCV's and pump more supply into Army.
Its piss annoying to see people whine about terran. The TOP players are TOP players for a reason, they are excellent at both micro and macro.
Terran is weak without good micro and macro. Toss just mass warps zealots and zerg can remax in an instant. A good player can make terran a pretty darn good race.. but think about it, a good player can dominate with any race.
I'm silver and I don't have many problems with Terran against Zerg or Protoss. TvT is way fun, too.
IDK, maybe I'm completely insane here, but I feel like it's perfectly balanced at the low leagues, and from what I've seen: well balanced at the higher leagues.
I find this whole argument silly, it attempts to make some sort of factual causal effect based upon a small group of players, and the driving force behind this that essentially good terrans are underrepresented in foreign scenes. Which is a problem, but even to this day there are only a handful, maybe 5 entire foreign players that can compete with top level foreign players. It just so happens that these couple of players, and mind you i can only think of 3-4, don't play terran. It's a dumb argument just because people are basing their claims on the fact that these 3-4 players aren't terran and act like that's why they're good not any other factors.
On December 01 2011 10:15 ZenithM wrote: So what do we Protoss do?
Switch races? Or continue playing the imba race in utter shame, bowing our heads while taking wins we don't deserve?
Ya'll should use moar marines. Or zerglings. I hear those BroodLords are super good too. Just go Muta-Infestor to Mainre-Siege and finish it with Collosi-Viking.
On December 01 2011 09:25 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: A fundamental problem with terran is that they can lose 95% of their SCVs and because of Mules still amass a sizable army. This concept just breaks my brain. A race should not have a spell that simply gives you money .
Agree whole heartedly. One of the only true broken mechanics of the game. Takes away the need for Terran's to Macro consistently. I have seen high level master Terran's miss SCV production consistently throughout replays and make up for it with mules. On the other hand I have seen some players never miss an SCV... macro really well.. and then get the added benefit of mules on top of this.... its a huge advantage.
Mules also don't take up any supply which is just dumb. Late game PvT will consist of mass orbital commands with mass mule call down... therefore allowing the Terran to get rid of SCV's and pump more supply into Army.
Agree whole heartedly. One of the only true broken mechanics of the game. Take away the need for Protoss's to Macro consistently. I have seen high level master Protoss's miss unit production consistently throuhout replays and make up for it with mass warpins. On the other hand I have seen some players never miss a cycle... macro really well... and then get the added benefit of warpins on top of this... its a huge advantage.
You get to pick what race you play. Do you want to build your gameplan around instant 20+ food of army on demand during a fight, or do you want to build around free harvesters. Both are advantages.
This picture describes the problem. The other races should have to micro too, so that their units are very effective if microed effectively, and suck if they don't.
On December 01 2011 10:15 Ace.Xile wrote: I find this whole argument silly, it attempts to make some sort of factual causal effect based upon a small group of players, and the driving force behind this that essentially good terrans are underrepresented in foreign scenes. Which is a problem, but even to this day there are only a handful, maybe 5 entire foreign players that can compete with top level foreign players. It just so happens that these couple of players, and mind you i can only think of 3-4, don't play terran. It's a dumb argument just because people are basing their claims on the fact that these 3-4 players aren't terran and act like that's why they're good not any other factors.
What about the reverse, when people whined that T's are overrepresented in GSL. How come it's reasonable to argue that only 4-5 foreign pros (all nonT) are good enough and the foreign T's just aren't good, but not reasonable to say that many of the code S T's are just better players than the non T players.
I don't know if people are watching the GSL games because the level of play from P players is just really pathetically low. Z have some superstars like Nestea, Leenock, and DRG.
On December 01 2011 10:19 kofman wrote: This picture describes the problem. The other races should have to micro too, so that their units are very effective if microed effectively, and suck if they don't.
That picture has the right idea, though I wouldn't consider the race strengths to be completely linear, as that implies that Terran is somehow massively underpowered compared to T/Z as you go down in skill levels (i.e Bronze/Silver/Gold/Plat), which doesn't seem true.
On December 01 2011 10:15 ZenithM wrote: So what do we Protoss do?
Switch races? Or continue playing the imba race in utter shame, bowing our heads while taking wins we don't deserve?
I don't get what you are trying to say. I'm just pointing out how ridicolous the current situation is outside of Korea I'm not aiming at anything except saying my own honest opinion on an useless forum thread anyway. Pretty much like everyone is doing. It's not like I want to represent something and want something back just because I am a progamer.
On December 01 2011 10:19 kofman wrote: This picture describes the problem. The other races should have to micro too, so that their units are very effective if microed effectively, and suck if they don't.
Are you just posting graphs without actual statistical basis in order to make a point you can't actually make?
Protoss, contrary to popular belief, cannot just be 1Aed in their death ball to win, especially not in high level games, but even in lower levels. I've found this out to my chagrin many a time, because it's difficult when you're still learning to multi-task to micro your army and build from your base. Especially when you can't just hit a hotkey, queue a unit up at each building, all while watching your army (Protoss using Warpgates have to go back to a pylon in order to click and place their units).
I'm by no means saying that Protoss have a problem, just showing that just about anyone can talk about how much they have to "micro" their race in order to do well.
These arguments can be made by anyone, without actual data to support the claims they're rather baseless.
On December 01 2011 10:19 kofman wrote: This picture describes the problem. The other races should have to micro too, so that their units are very effective if microed effectively, and suck if they don't.
Are you just posting graphs without actual statistical basis in order to make a point you can't actually make?
Protoss, contrary to popular belief, cannot just be 1Aed in their death ball to win, especially not in high level games, but even in lower levels. I've found this out to my chagrin many a time, because it's difficult when you're still learning to multi-task to micro your army and build from your base. Especially when you can't just hit a hotkey, queue a unit up at each building, all while watching your army (Protoss using Warpgates have to go back to a pylon in order to click and place their units).
I'm by no means saying that Protoss have a problem, just showing that just about anyone can talk about how much they have to "micro" their race in order to do well.
These arguments can be made by anyone, without actual data to support the claims they're rather baseless.
I don't think the graph is meant to imply that Protoss can just 1a to victory, but, rather, to just be a very basic explanation of why we see EU and NA Terrans describing about how they're struggling while KR Terrans continue to perform very well.
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.
On December 01 2011 09:25 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: A fundamental problem with terran is that they can lose 95% of their SCVs and because of Mules still amass a sizable army. This concept just breaks my brain. A race should not have a spell that simply gives you money .
Agree whole heartedly. One of the only true broken mechanics of the game. Takes away the need for Terran's to Macro consistently. I have seen high level master Terran's miss SCV production consistently throughout replays and make up for it with mules. On the other hand I have seen some players never miss an SCV... macro really well.. and then get the added benefit of mules on top of this.... its a huge advantage.
Mules also don't take up any supply which is just dumb. Late game PvT will consist of mass orbital commands with mass mule call down... therefore allowing the Terran to get rid of SCV's and pump more supply into Army.
And a Protoss has 20+ Warpgate in these stages allowing him to almost instantly remax ( or at least way faster then the Terran ). So what if the Terran can sacrifice his workers he has the hardest time rebuilding an army in these stages anyways .
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 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".
On December 01 2011 10:15 Ace.Xile wrote: I find this whole argument silly, it attempts to make some sort of factual causal effect based upon a small group of players, and the driving force behind this that essentially good terrans are underrepresented in foreign scenes. Which is a problem, but even to this day there are only a handful, maybe 5 entire foreign players that can compete with top level foreign players. It just so happens that these couple of players, and mind you i can only think of 3-4, don't play terran. It's a dumb argument just because people are basing their claims on the fact that these 3-4 players aren't terran and act like that's why they're good not any other factors.
What about the reverse, when people whined that T's are overrepresented in GSL. How come it's reasonable to argue that only 4-5 foreign pros (all nonT) are good enough and the foreign T's just aren't good, but not reasonable to say that many of the code S T's are just better players than the non T players.
I don't know if people are watching the GSL games because the level of play from P players is just really pathetically low. Z have some superstars like Nestea, Leenock, and DRG.
Ts were overrepresented in GSL due to several of factors, alot of it being how easy it was to stay in GSL and how strong T was when the GSL started. It is entirely reasonable to say that Code S t's are better players than non Ts, but to say that they are vastly better due to the fact that they place a race that is for some reason underpowered is silly. My argument was 100% saying that foreign players (those very small few) aren't the best players because of their race, they are the best players because they are, and they just happening to be playing that race, saying that they are so good because of their race makes no sense in direct opposition of the korean scene. I'm entirely fine with people saying that some T players are better than some P or Z players, but stating that they are better because like i said earlier, are playing some underpowered race makes little sense.
I've always found it dam near impossible to grasp at where people think terran is incredibly hard, every race has to micro, every race has to macro. Terran is very micro oriented and in turn macro is relatively not as hard, they have to be concerned with things like building units, make scvs and not getting supply blocked while throwing down mules. Zerg on the other hand, micro isn't as hard in some cases although it could be argued otherwise i spose, but they're macro is respectively harder, on top of not getting supply blocked, and building units, they are responsible for spreading creep and keeping up on larva injects. I think the whole idea stems from the idea that however long ago someone showed how marines can counter pretty much every unit in the game with god like micro essentially. And they saw this as something where blizzard intended this type of micro to be necessary for races to be even. But the issue is that micro is not necessary to beat players of other races and it will likely never be reached ever.
On December 01 2011 10:36 alpinefpOPP wrote: i dont quite understand how this is a problem, and forgive me if ive misunderstood, but dont all races benefit from stronger micro and multi tasking?
Not really. zerg and protoss don't micro anywhere close to what terran does, and Terran does 10x as many drops as toss or zerg.
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 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".
Race distribution is not the proper statistic to be looking at.
On December 01 2011 09:25 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: A fundamental problem with terran is that they can lose 95% of their SCVs and because of Mules still amass a sizable army. This concept just breaks my brain. A race should not have a spell that simply gives you money .
Agree whole heartedly. One of the only true broken mechanics of the game. Takes away the need for Terran's to Macro consistently. I have seen high level master Terran's miss SCV production consistently throughout replays and make up for it with mules. On the other hand I have seen some players never miss an SCV... macro really well.. and then get the added benefit of mules on top of this.... its a huge advantage.
Mules also don't take up any supply which is just dumb. Late game PvT will consist of mass orbital commands with mass mule call down... therefore allowing the Terran to get rid of SCV's and pump more supply into Army.
And a Protoss has 20+ Warpgate in these stages allowing him to almost instantly remax ( or at least way faster then the Terran ). So what if the Terran can sacrifice his workers he has the hardest time rebuilding an army in these stages anyways .
If he has the luxury of sacrificing workers, common sense would almost dictate that he has enough production facilities and orbitals and probably banked minerals and gas to sustain maxing rather quickly again, yes protoss has the luxury of remaxing quicker, they also have the not so-luxury of having an army that's almost 50-60 supply smaller due to the need usually for probes.
On December 01 2011 10:36 alpinefpOPP wrote: i dont quite understand how this is a problem, and forgive me if ive misunderstood, but dont all races benefit from stronger micro and multi tasking?
Not really. zerg and protoss don't micro anywhere close to what terran does, and Terran does 10x as many drops as toss or zerg.
Please explain this micro so that i can break it down step by step for you about how wrong you are, please, Tvp, or Tvz. I'll give you an example. Typical TvZ. Tank/marine/medivac vs muta/ling/bane. So if the tanks are sieged, which they should be, the outcome comes to this, zerg attacks, the only real micro that is necessary is marine splits to avoid the banelings, there is micro in terms of having an ideal engagement place but that's typically done pre-battle. So marines run back etc, the zerg comes in shift attacks his mutas on tanks, a moves his lings in, and move commands his banelings in to hit the marines.. that you are splitting, so often time's he is splitting his banes too. Ontop of this they have to macro, so terran often times will have to hit a button but he can still watch the engagement, for zerg to macro, he has to change screen and cycle through 4+ hatcheries typically, which is a couple of seconds where he can not physically be looking at the engagement, which then becomes a choice, do you lose your army because of bad micro, or get behind economically because of missed injects.
On December 01 2011 10:36 alpinefpOPP wrote: i dont quite understand how this is a problem, and forgive me if ive misunderstood, but dont all races benefit from stronger micro and multi tasking?
In my opinion Terran benefints most from having those things / gets bigger disadvantages if you don't have that.
On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote: Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out.
Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful.
Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential.
Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL).
All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +
and now he's out of GSL
.
My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon.
And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm.
Theres your explanation about why Terran micro is harder than zerg or protoss micro. No need to restate everything that has been said already.
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.
Unless there isn't 100% proof, it's called a hypothesis. We're here, because the OP wanted to post a hypothesis that is more or less represented by this graph and have a discussion about it. If you are just dismissing the graph, you're probably also not planning on discussing.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
Heres more arguements, from a pro player, about Terran being harder.
On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote: Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out.
Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful.
Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential.
Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL).
All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +
and now he's out of GSL
.
My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon.
And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm.
Theres your explanation about why Terran micro is harder than zerg or protoss micro. No need to restate everything that has been said already.
That doesn't explain at all why terran micro is harder than other races. Period. It provides an argument as to why it should be, but gives no real examples as to why it is. Logically terran should be much micro harder than say zerg, but that's due to the fact that zerg macro by and large is considered harder. Everything you're quoting is just pro terrans saying their race is the hardest, go ask 99% of pros what they think is the hardest, and they will say their race. I'm asking for in game situations as to where the micro of terran units vastly outweighs the micro of other races units.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
I dont understand this part at all
so Protoss is the strongest....until people are actually good....like Nestea/MVP good.....but once they lose its not because Naniwa is good....its because Protoss is the strongest
On December 01 2011 09:25 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: A fundamental problem with terran is that they can lose 95% of their SCVs and because of Mules still amass a sizable army. This concept just breaks my brain. A race should not have a spell that simply gives you money .
Agree whole heartedly. One of the only true broken mechanics of the game. Takes away the need for Terran's to Macro consistently. I have seen high level master Terran's miss SCV production consistently throughout replays and make up for it with mules. On the other hand I have seen some players never miss an SCV... macro really well.. and then get the added benefit of mules on top of this.... its a huge advantage.
Mules also don't take up any supply which is just dumb. Late game PvT will consist of mass orbital commands with mass mule call down... therefore allowing the Terran to get rid of SCV's and pump more supply into Army.
And a Protoss has 20+ Warpgate in these stages allowing him to almost instantly remax ( or at least way faster then the Terran ). So what if the Terran can sacrifice his workers he has the hardest time rebuilding an army in these stages anyways .
If he has the luxury of sacrificing workers, common sense would almost dictate that he has enough production facilities and orbitals and probably banked minerals and gas to sustain maxing rather quickly again, yes protoss has the luxury of remaxing quicker, they also have the not so-luxury of having an army that's almost 50-60 supply smaller due to the need usually for probes.
The only units that rebuild quick enough are MM that die pretty quick without support ( and those units take plenty of time ).
50-60 Probes more ? , how many workers do you build 90-120 ? 20 is more like it in most cases ( unless the Map starts to drown ) and tbh building more workers then having enough to saturate 3-3.5 Bases is way too many no matter what race you play.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
Heres more arguements, from a pro player, about Terran being harder.
Well it's still "Terran being harder", brought to you by a Terran player. Not that convincing. Ask a pro from every other races, they'll probably state that they play the hardest race as well. When you're a pro, you don't really want to admit that you win (and that you win money) because your race is easier than another, so you say that it's harder.
Fair enough if you ask me, but it still doesn't prove anything.
On December 01 2011 09:25 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: A fundamental problem with terran is that they can lose 95% of their SCVs and because of Mules still amass a sizable army. This concept just breaks my brain. A race should not have a spell that simply gives you money .
Agree whole heartedly. One of the only true broken mechanics of the game. Takes away the need for Terran's to Macro consistently. I have seen high level master Terran's miss SCV production consistently throughout replays and make up for it with mules. On the other hand I have seen some players never miss an SCV... macro really well.. and then get the added benefit of mules on top of this.... its a huge advantage.
Mules also don't take up any supply which is just dumb. Late game PvT will consist of mass orbital commands with mass mule call down... therefore allowing the Terran to get rid of SCV's and pump more supply into Army.
And a Protoss has 20+ Warpgate in these stages allowing him to almost instantly remax ( or at least way faster then the Terran ). So what if the Terran can sacrifice his workers he has the hardest time rebuilding an army in these stages anyways .
If he has the luxury of sacrificing workers, common sense would almost dictate that he has enough production facilities and orbitals and probably banked minerals and gas to sustain maxing rather quickly again, yes protoss has the luxury of remaxing quicker, they also have the not so-luxury of having an army that's almost 50-60 supply smaller due to the need usually for probes.
The only units that rebuild quick enough are MM that die pretty quick without support ( and those units take plenty of time ).
50-60 Probes more ? , how many workers do you build 90-120 ? 20-30 is more like it in most cases ( unless the Map starts to drown ) and tbh building more workers then having enough to saturate 3-3.5 Bases is way too many no matter what race you play.
Why would a protoss only have 20-30 probes across the 3+ bases that won't even support the supposed 20 gateways mentioned. The situation being discussed is where the terran is essentially able to kill of SCVs to free up quite a bit of supply because of the fact that he has enough orbitals.
On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote: Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out.
Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful.
Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential.
Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL).
All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +
and now he's out of GSL
.
My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon.
And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm.
Theres your explanation about why Terran micro is harder than zerg or protoss micro. No need to restate everything that has been said already.
That doesn't explain at all why terran micro is harder than other races. Period. It provides an argument as to why it should be, but gives no real examples as to why it is. Logically terran should be much micro harder than say zerg, but that's due to the fact that zerg macro by and large is considered harder. Everything you're quoting is just pro terrans saying their race is the hardest, go ask 99% of pros what they think is the hardest, and they will say their race. I'm asking for in game situations as to where the micro of terran units vastly outweighs the micro of other races units.
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?
Heres a direct quote from the AMA with TLO: Chahlz : Why are you so awesome at Zerg? I love what you do against Protoss. TLO : Zerg is EZ.
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.
Unless there isn't 100% proof, it's called a hypothesis. We're here, because the OP wanted to post a hypothesis that is more or less represented by this graph and have a discussion about it. If you are just dismissing the graph, you're probably also not planning on discussing.
There doesn't need to be 100% proof, just something concrete. I'd love to discuss, if there was something to discuss, but there isn't. The original poster asserted an opinion as fact, people have called him out on it, other posters are continuing to assert opinion as fact.
Believe it or not, a hypothesis still needs support. Pulling a hypothesis out of thin air is not true theory, it's speculation, and speculation is generally bad if you're trying to make a real argument about concrete things.
There is concrete information out there, statistics about how races match up against each other at various skill levels, all of which would be relevant here, and all of which are being ignored.
Furthermore, a hypothesis is a statement, not a graph. A graph present the illusion of a conclusion. "I have found x data, and have summarized it in a neat little graph for you". When people see a graph, they often, ignorantly, assume you have created the graph based on actual findings. As such, it's misleading to post a graph when the work hasn't been done to support it. At the very least, the graph should have come with a bolded disclaimer stating "this graph is based upon my own anecdotal speculation".
Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult
Yeah, that's why Terran is doing so well outside Korea. Come on. With the increased skill cap Terran has comes the OBLIGATION to use that skill cap to equal the other races. The micro and multitasking is clearly more difficult, but you can delude yourself in believing otherwise.
You have no proof that this so called "increased skill cap" lies in micros requirement as opposed to game sense requirement.
And Terran are obliged to use their race to their full potential? LOL I don't think you understand the whole idea of competitive gaming. You must really hate esport if you think players should be able to do well at the top without actually using everything that's given to them in the game.
If there's something truly broken, Blizzard should just fix what's broken, i.e. increase the animation cool-down for marine/marauder so they can't be stutter-stepped as well, just like they did with reaver in BW. The wrong thing to do is to make one race so imbalanced at the top just to compensate all the scrubs at the lower level that it will literally destroys the whole competitive scene. Last time I checked there's no Global Red Alert League or anything resembling it. We will soon if everyone starts switching to Terran at the top level play because it's the only race viable.
TLDR: (Some) low-level Terran are really a bunch of entitled crybabies. I don't know where people get the audacity to put their own low-level frustration ahead of the top-level play, where people's careers and livelihood are directly affected by game balance.
You are braver than I sir, but I totally agree. All of the recent threads have basicly come down to "make the game easier for me, you removed all the abusive things I used and its not fair".
I'm amazed so many people think the bronze - platinum players arnt important. We make up 80% of all players. This is blizzards design. I'd have little interest in SC2 if i didn't play it and enjoy playing it. I watch player streams and tournaments, and keep an eye on TL forums. I imagine many other bronze - plats do the same and they are probably a large proportion of stream viewers.
my point
If we bronze to plat players arnt happy, we'll leave. THATS 80% OF PLAYERS.
so get of your high horse about pro players and their livelihoods when WE 80% allow them to have it.
Just wondering:
Poll:
Variety of matches at GSL/MLG/Dreamhack etc.. (7)
54%
50/50 winrate from Bronze to Diamond (6)
46%
13 total votes
Your vote:
(Vote): 50/50 winrate from Bronze to Diamond (Vote): Variety of matches at GSL/MLG/Dreamhack etc..
Btw, I'm not saying that the design of Terran is fine, just what needs to take priority.
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.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
Heres more arguements, from a pro player, about Terran being harder.
Same logic : At blizzcon Nestea said that Zerg is way harder than terran. As it was stated before, every pro says that his race is the hardest.
The conclusion is that foreigner terrans should train and become as good as korean ones... Then everyone will be happy The question is : Is there enough talent on the foreigner scene ?
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.
I can't believe you are even disputing the fact that Terran is the most micro intensive race. Its common knowledge.
On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote: Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out.
Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful.
Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential.
Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL).
All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +
and now he's out of GSL
.
My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon.
And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm.
Theres your explanation about why Terran micro is harder than zerg or protoss micro. No need to restate everything that has been said already.
That doesn't explain at all why terran micro is harder than other races. Period. It provides an argument as to why it should be, but gives no real examples as to why it is. Logically terran should be much micro harder than say zerg, but that's due to the fact that zerg macro by and large is considered harder. Everything you're quoting is just pro terrans saying their race is the hardest, go ask 99% of pros what they think is the hardest, and they will say their race. I'm asking for in game situations as to where the micro of terran units vastly outweighs the micro of other races units.
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?
Terran has to: -split marines -target fire banelings
Terran does have to do that, all while macroing, and on the other hand like i said earlier
Zerg has to:
- a- move with lings, micro group of banelings to attack the marines you are splitting because if you don't they will detonate on the tanks, while microing mutas to attack the tanks and not the marines. All while having to keep up with the macro that is arguably much harder of zerg, to not auto take an economic hit.
As for protoss:
While you're arguing about how hard stutter step micro is (which every race has to do at one point) Protoss do have to forcefields, although somehow you act as if forcefielding is easier than emps for some reason, furthermore to use HTs at all, you either have to use a warp prism or have them all split and be able to move them individually so they don't get clumped and destroyed by one emp, on top of taking out the shields all around them, and in the case of colossus yes bio balls have to stutter step but often times protoss has to micro colossus away from vikings all while focus firing them down with stalkers all while in the middle of the engagement and not dying to your bio ball.
You try to create examples and in the end it just seems as if you've never played any of the other races.
On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote: Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out.
Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful.
Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential.
Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL).
All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +
and now he's out of GSL
.
My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon.
And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm.
Theres your explanation about why Terran micro is harder than zerg or protoss micro. No need to restate everything that has been said already.
That doesn't explain at all why terran micro is harder than other races. Period. It provides an argument as to why it should be, but gives no real examples as to why it is. Logically terran should be much micro harder than say zerg, but that's due to the fact that zerg macro by and large is considered harder. Everything you're quoting is just pro terrans saying their race is the hardest, go ask 99% of pros what they think is the hardest, and they will say their race. I'm asking for in game situations as to where the micro of terran units vastly outweighs the micro of other races units.
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?
Terran has to: -split marines -target fire banelings
Terran does have to do that, all while macroing, and on the other hand like i said earlier
Zerg has to:
- a- move with lings, micro group of banelings to attack the marines you are splitting because if you don't they will detonate on the tanks, while microing mutas to attack the tanks and not the marines. All while having to keep up with the macro that is arguably much harder of zerg, to not auto take an economic hit.
As for protoss:
While you're arguing about how hard stutter step micro is (which every race has to do at one point) Protoss do have to forcefields, although somehow you act as if forcefielding is easier than emps for some reason, furthermore to use HTs at all, you either have to use a warp prism or have them all split and be able to move them individually so they don't get clumped and destroyed by one emp, on top of taking out the shields all around them, and in the case of colossus yes bio balls have to stutter step but often times protoss has to micro colossus away from vikings all while focus firing them down with stalkers all while in the middle of the engagement and not dying to your bio ball.
You try to create examples and in the end it just seems as if you've never played any of the other races.
Its obvious you've never played Terran if you think that in TvZ zerg has to do anything close to what Terran has to do microwise.
I would argue that all three races are fundamentally difficult to balance due to the design choices Blizzard has made in SC2 when compared to SC1.
Even with all the progress that has been made in the meta-game and with balance patches, I would estimate that the majority of all matches come down to one big battle, and the victor of this battle will almost always go on to win the match.
For Protoss, units like Colossus, blink stalkers and HT's mean that it's common for the game to swing heavily in their favor if the opponent does not respond correctly to these massive damage units. For Blizzard to balance these force multiplier units, they give means for other races to counter those units. The problem is that either the opponent will counter correctly and often destroy the protoss, or the opponent will not and be subsequently destroyed. There is very little middle ground where massing 'average' (or non force multiplying) units by both sides, and the multiple battles between them, determine the victor.
For Zerg I consider the larva mechanic to be the economic & production equivalent of the Colossus. We've seen time and time again where Zerg's will either run over their opponent by being able to severely out-produce their opponents, or they'll get totally destroyed because they built a round of drones too many. Again there's a lack of middle ground where a back and forth can occur.
On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote: Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out.
Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful.
Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential.
Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL).
All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +
and now he's out of GSL
.
My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon.
And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm.
Theres your explanation about why Terran micro is harder than zerg or protoss micro. No need to restate everything that has been said already.
That doesn't explain at all why terran micro is harder than other races. Period. It provides an argument as to why it should be, but gives no real examples as to why it is. Logically terran should be much micro harder than say zerg, but that's due to the fact that zerg macro by and large is considered harder. Everything you're quoting is just pro terrans saying their race is the hardest, go ask 99% of pros what they think is the hardest, and they will say their race. I'm asking for in game situations as to where the micro of terran units vastly outweighs the micro of other races units.
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?
Terran has to: -split marines -target fire banelings
Terran does have to do that, all while macroing, and on the other hand like i said earlier
Zerg has to:
- a- move with lings, micro group of banelings to attack the marines you are splitting because if you don't they will detonate on the tanks, while microing mutas to attack the tanks and not the marines. All while having to keep up with the macro that is arguably much harder of zerg, to not auto take an economic hit.
As for protoss:
While you're arguing about how hard stutter step micro is (which every race has to do at one point) Protoss do have to forcefields, although somehow you act as if forcefielding is easier than emps for some reason, furthermore to use HTs at all, you either have to use a warp prism or have them all split and be able to move them individually so they don't get clumped and destroyed by one emp, on top of taking out the shields all around them, and in the case of colossus yes bio balls have to stutter step but often times protoss has to micro colossus away from vikings all while focus firing them down with stalkers all while in the middle of the engagement and not dying to your bio ball.
You try to create examples and in the end it just seems as if you've never played any of the other races.
Its obvious you've never played Terran if you think that in TvZ zerg has to do anything close to what Terran has to do microwise.
So please enlighten me as to why your micro is so much harder, you're controlling tanks which often times will just hit banelings automatically due to how they clump with lings, and you have to split which is hard yes, it still doesn't change the time that to effectively micro as a zerg you still have to "split" banelings to a degree, shift que mutas (just how you would kill with tanks on banelings), and they have to a move zerglings (which is almost negligible), while the terran can go up and que up some units in their production facilities while on the other hand zerg is required to larva inject during this fight or automatically take an economic hit due to missed injects. EVEN IF the terran micro is harder, it's hard to argue that it is so much vastly harder, yes you can theoretically perfectly micro splits so that banelings don't hit anything, but it won't happen ever. Zerg can theoretically kill 100 tanks with something like 200 lings, and that will never happen either. At the end of the day if Terran micro is harder, it's only slightly so, and in return zerg has to deal with macro which is much more difficult mid engagement than terran.
There doesn't need to be 100% proof, just something concrete. I'd love to discuss, if there was something to discuss, but there isn't. The original poster asserted an opinion as fact, people have called him out on it, other posters are continuing to assert opinion as fact.
Believe it or not, a hypothesis still needs support. Pulling a hypothesis out of thin air is not true theory, it's speculation, and speculation is generally bad if you're trying to make a real argument about concrete things.
There is concrete information out there, statistics about how races match up against each other at various skill levels, all of which would be relevant here, and all of which are being ignored.
Furthermore, a hypothesis is a statement, not a graph. A graph present the illusion of a conclusion. "I have found x data, and have summarized it in a neat little graph for you". When people see a graph, they often, ignorantly, assume you have created the graph based on actual findings. As such, it's misleading to post a graph when the work hasn't been done to support it. At the very least, the graph should have come with a bolded disclaimer stating "this graph is based upon my own anecdotal speculation".
Actually I didn't post the graph, as you'll note, someone else did. And as he stated it was very exagerated and simply trying to get the point of the argument across. And concrete data that foreign pros *seem* to be failing in top tournaments was provided, as you'll note if you read the initial post. Which is more than enough to atleast make a comment about, and discuss a possible explanation that is backed by theory.
On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote: Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out.
Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful.
Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential.
Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL).
All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time.
Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +
and now he's out of GSL
.
My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon.
And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm.
Theres your explanation about why Terran micro is harder than zerg or protoss micro. No need to restate everything that has been said already.
That doesn't explain at all why terran micro is harder than other races. Period. It provides an argument as to why it should be, but gives no real examples as to why it is. Logically terran should be much micro harder than say zerg, but that's due to the fact that zerg macro by and large is considered harder. Everything you're quoting is just pro terrans saying their race is the hardest, go ask 99% of pros what they think is the hardest, and they will say their race. I'm asking for in game situations as to where the micro of terran units vastly outweighs the micro of other races units.
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?
Heres a direct quote from the AMA with TLO: Chahlz : Why are you so awesome at Zerg? I love what you do against Protoss. TLO : Zerg is EZ.
Hey I'm going to do the whole "dramatically oversimplify what you have to do but make what I have to do appear harder in a list" thing too.
Terran has to: - Stim - A move
Zerg has to: - Connect banes - Hit fungals - A move
Protoss has to: - Blink micro a shit ton - land perfect force fields - Throw up guardian shields - Land perfect storms - Feedback all medis, ghosts, infestors, etc. - Spread against EMP
What sounds hardest to you? If you say Terran you are simply in denial.
For the record, I don't actually agree with the bullshit I just said. The fact is, it is impossible to determine an "easiest" race. In doing so, you are assuming that there are no variations in playstyles, that all builds and compositions within each race are equally difficult to manage, and every single player has the exact same skill set. None of those things are remotely true.
Please close this thread lol, I'm getting sick of the incredibly stupid things being posted here.
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.
I can't believe you are even disputing the fact that Terran is the most micro intensive race. Its common knowledge.
Lots of things that are "common knowledge" are, in fact, not true. And they change too, fancy that. In a few months, a new race will be the "hardest" race. I'm sorry, I cannot argue with someone who cannot actually deal in terms of logic and facts and who refuses to look beyond their own perspective.
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.
I can't believe you are even disputing the fact that Terran is the most micro intensive race. Its common knowledge.
Yep. In fact, at least 30% of people agree with that fact.
On December 01 2011 11:01 BuddhaMonk wrote: I would argue that all three races are fundamentally difficult to balance due to the design choices Blizzard has made in SC2 when compared to SC1.
Even with all the progress that has been made in the meta-game and with balance patches, I would estimate that the majority of all matches come down to one big battle, and the victor of this battle will almost always go on to win the match.
For Protoss, units like Colossus, blink stalkers and HT's mean that it's common for the game to swing heavily in their favor if the opponent does not respond correctly to these massive damage units. For Blizzard to balance these force multiplier units, they give means for other races to counter those units. The problem is that either the opponent will counter correctly and often destroy the protoss, or the opponent will not and be subsequently destroyed. There is very little middle ground where massing 'average' (or non force multiplying) units by both sides, and the multiple battles between them, determine the victor.
For Zerg I consider the larva mechanic to be the economic & production equivalent of the Colossus. We've seen time and time again where Zerg's will either run over their opponent by being able to severely out-produce their opponents, or they'll get totally destroyed because they built a round of drones too many. Again there's a lack of middle ground where a back and forth can occur.
I agree with your statement sir. Also with the design of SC2. It's heading even worse with HotS, look at what they're adding...Replicant (copy the other races unit -__-), Viper ("get over here" ability). These are not adding micro, it's just spells, we already have enough spells in Fungal, Storm, Emp, etc. We need more Micro, and fixes to design imbalances, not purely gimmick spells that they pulled from WoW.
There doesn't need to be 100% proof, just something concrete. I'd love to discuss, if there was something to discuss, but there isn't. The original poster asserted an opinion as fact, people have called him out on it, other posters are continuing to assert opinion as fact.
Believe it or not, a hypothesis still needs support. Pulling a hypothesis out of thin air is not true theory, it's speculation, and speculation is generally bad if you're trying to make a real argument about concrete things.
There is concrete information out there, statistics about how races match up against each other at various skill levels, all of which would be relevant here, and all of which are being ignored.
Furthermore, a hypothesis is a statement, not a graph. A graph present the illusion of a conclusion. "I have found x data, and have summarized it in a neat little graph for you". When people see a graph, they often, ignorantly, assume you have created the graph based on actual findings. As such, it's misleading to post a graph when the work hasn't been done to support it. At the very least, the graph should have come with a bolded disclaimer stating "this graph is based upon my own anecdotal speculation".
Actually I didn't post the graph, as you'll note, someone else did. And as he stated it was very exagerated and simply trying to get the point of the argument across. And concrete data that foreign pros *seem* to be failing in top tournaments was provided, as you'll note if you read the initial post. Which is more than enough to atleast make a comment about, and discuss a possible explanation that is backed by theory.
It's a general "you". I lost track of who posted the graph and was simply replying to anyone who was defending the graph as a legitimate means of communicating the point without being misleading.
Pros failing in top tournaments is hardly concrete data, especially over so short a period of time, the sample size is just far too small and limited. You really have to get much larger numbers to see the whole story, which is why Blizzard, thank God, looks at everything, and not just pros in tournaments.
It's a general "you". I lost track of who posted the graph and was simply replying to anyone who was defending the graph as a legitimate means of communicating the point without being misleading.
Pros failing in top tournaments is hardly concrete data, especially over so short a period of time, the sample size is just far too small and limited. You really have to get much larger numbers to see the whole story, which is why Blizzard, thank God, looks at everything, and not just pros in tournaments.
Okay well I guess there's no point discussing the game in any way shape or form because we don't have sufficient data. MVP isn't one of the best players in the world, he hasn't even won the GSL 50 times yet, so we really have very minimal evidence that hes any good.
Maybe we should talk about something completely unrelated to SC2 on these forums, the games only been around for 16 months which is hardly enough time to start discussing it yet.
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!!!!
I disagree with the original post whole-heartily. The game is not meant to be balanced anywhere besides pro 1v1. Money comes from pros and pro tournaments, if something is swaying the pros games one way or another, that's when/where it will be balanced. I have not seen one buff or nerf that wasn't a direct buff or nerf because of how it affected pro's. Whatever makes the game balanced for the pros is how the game is going to be balanced. If you would like to accept that or not it's up to you.
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.
Unless there isn't 100% proof, it's called a hypothesis. We're here, because the OP wanted to post a hypothesis that is more or less represented by this graph and have a discussion about it. If you are just dismissing the graph, you're probably also not planning on discussing.
There doesn't need to be 100% proof, just something concrete. I'd love to discuss, if there was something to discuss, but there isn't. The original poster asserted an opinion as fact, people have called him out on it, other posters are continuing to assert opinion as fact.
Believe it or not, a hypothesis still needs support. Pulling a hypothesis out of thin air is not true theory, it's speculation, and speculation is generally bad if you're trying to make a real argument about concrete things.
There is concrete information out there, statistics about how races match up against each other at various skill levels, all of which would be relevant here, and all of which are being ignored.
Furthermore, a hypothesis is a statement, not a graph. A graph present the illusion of a conclusion. "I have found x data, and have summarized it in a neat little graph for you". When people see a graph, they often, ignorantly, assume you have created the graph based on actual findings. As such, it's misleading to post a graph when the work hasn't been done to support it. At the very least, the graph should have come with a bolded disclaimer stating "this graph is based upon my own anecdotal speculation".
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;averaged over all built marines).
It's a general "you". I lost track of who posted the graph and was simply replying to anyone who was defending the graph as a legitimate means of communicating the point without being misleading.
Pros failing in top tournaments is hardly concrete data, especially over so short a period of time, the sample size is just far too small and limited. You really have to get much larger numbers to see the whole story, which is why Blizzard, thank God, looks at everything, and not just pros in tournaments.
Okay well I guess there's no point discussing the game in any way shape or form because we don't have sufficient data. MVP isn't one of the best players in the world, he hasn't even won the GSL 50 times yet, so we really have very minimal evidence that hes any good.
Maybe we should talk about something completely unrelated to SC2 on these forums, the games only been around for 16 months which is hardly enough time to start discussing it yet.
There's more than sufficient data in the short life of SC2. Data is not necessarily relative in its requirements, and, usually, it's absolute. When it is relative, it's relative to the overall population of data out there. So, for instance, a few dozen players over the past month or two is a really small amount of data in comparison to the millions of games played over half a year, which provides far stronger statistical significance in proportion to the true population than the former. And, as a result, you're more likely to find "the truth" in the latter.
There's plenty to discuss in this game, and there's even plenty to discuss in regards to whether or not one feels their race is balanced. It can be fun and entertaining. But that fun and entertainment gets shoveled to the side when people begin to use conjecture as fact and anecdote as data. "Because I've experienced it and a lot of people I know or have talked to agree with me" is not actually sufficient to support the claim that "Terran is the most micro intensive race". "I think Terran is the most micro intensive race" is fine, and a point that is open for discussion, it encourages other opinions. Dropping the "I think" simply because of your own experiences and anecdotes closes off the conversation and challenges others before they've even tried to enter it, there's an implied "I'm going to tell you you're wrong if you disagree". Not particularly discussion friendly.
That's my problem with what I've seen in this thread. From the outset it has taken the stance that its opinions are actually based in fact, when they're not. So, instead of actually opening up to discussion it's essentially stating "here's the problem as I see it, if you disagree, you're wrong". People who agree are giving the post props and defending it to the death. People who disagree are getting attacked and called ignorant and no one wins, because no one is necessarily right or wrong, and it's most definitely not a discussion.
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"?
I would more or less agree with the OP, except I think it might be to specific. I think there is no problem with one race having more "micro" potential then another. At the same time I feel that balancing a game around multiple skill levels(bronze to pro) is all but impossible if a game allows for micro. Let's take an arbitrary look at this concept(which to me seems to be the whole point of the OP).
We have unit Pirate and unit Ninja. If i just take a blob of Pirates and throw them at an equivalent blob of Ninjas, the Ninjas barely win every single time. Its just straight math. We could say then that at the lowest skill level(D-) no micro is done, just blob on blob, Ninjas win.
Now we move up a few skill levels(C+). Ninjas happen to have an ability(lets say throwing shurikens) that with a tiny bit of micro(just click S and it auto throws to the nearest enemy in range) gives them a slight edge over Pirates. People now have the skill to take advantage of this in a big fight and Ninjas easily win now if you just click S.
Now we move up a few more skill levels(A). It just so happens that Pirates are ironically faster then Ninjas, have range on their pistols vs the Ninjas sword, and fire their matchlock pistols just like a marines C-14, thus can stutter step. Due to the higher skill level players can have their Pirates stutter step after each shot and with their range being a bit higher now beat Ninjas rather easily.
So clearly if I try and balance the game around ALL players, there will be a skill level where one unit is better then the other, just look at the people who are C+, Ninja's rape this skill level, but if you nerf Ninjas to fix this, well they are getting demolished at the A level, so they would only get more demolished, they are also just barely winning at the D- level, so then Pirates might win at this level now. There is like no way to win....unless we remove all the micro and make it a pure numbers game so that the skill cap is now purely on who has the bigger blob. To me this is really what the OP is saying and its fairly obvious(this is only a 2 unit example....imagine including Pirate Birds and other such units) that trying to balance a game at all skill levels isn't just impossible, aka a poor design choice.
Well, the original post is saying it's specific to Terran, whereas you're saying it's a problem across the board, SIlver777, which I would agree with. Though I don't necessarily see it as a problem. It makes balance difficult, but it also makes the game more dynamic and exciting. Somewhere in there Blizzard can find a sweet spot, and, when they do, we're going to be truly rewarded both as players and spectators. I can't wait.
If I were to try and summarize your argument for the idiots who think you're whining about balance, I would say the following.
Terran has the highest skill ceiling. An ideal way to balance the game would be to raise every other races skill ceiling. A bad way of balancing is to just give Terran units an overall nerf, thus lowering the skill ceiling to the same level as the other races, but also lowering the skill floor as a result, which makes it harder for low-level players. This is the problem Blizzard faces. Do they understand it and will they deal with it properly?
On December 01 2011 11:41 Divergence wrote: I agree with you!
If I were to try and summarize your argument for the idiots who think you're whining about balance, I would say the following.
Terran has the highest skill ceiling. An ideal way to balance the game would be to raise every other races skill ceiling. A bad way of balancing is to just give Terran units an overall nerf, thus lowering the skill ceiling to the same level as the other races, but also lowering the skill floor as a result, which makes it harder for low-level players. This is the problem Blizzard faces. Do they understand it and will they deal with it properly?
You make a presumption that Terran has the highest skill ceiling. Where's your evidence? Where's the data to support such a claim?
You have the audacity to call people idiots for "not understanding" the argument, when it's clear that you don't even understand what some people who disagree with the post are actually arguing, and yet you show the same exact flaws as the original post and many others in this thread, using conjecture in order to make statements which sound like they're grounded in fact. It's misleading and does not lend itself to good discussion.
On December 01 2011 11:41 Divergence wrote: I agree with you!
If I were to try and summarize your argument for the idiots who think you're whining about balance, I would say the following.
Terran has the highest skill ceiling. An ideal way to balance the game would be to raise every other races skill ceiling. A bad way of balancing is to just give Terran units an overall nerf, thus lowering the skill ceiling to the same level as the other races, but also lowering the skill floor as a result, which makes it harder for low-level players. This is the problem Blizzard faces. Do they understand it and will they deal with it properly?
Terran theoretically has the highest skill ceiling due to the incredible power of marines when microd properly, this however is not a problem because that skill ceiling or even reaching close to it isn't even reachable by people like flash, who is pretty much jesus on wheels. The APM that would be required is likely not even humanly possible. So yes the skill ceiling is, but it's not really because people will only get so far until it won't get any higher. It's arguable if it's even theoretically possible, but it's not by any means practical for any top pro in the RTS games in general. Expecting players to macro perfectly while microing 600 + (significant) APM isn't realistic.
On November 30 2011 14:43 thesauceishot wrote: The thing that's cool about Terran units is that they're strong without micro, but have even stronger capabilities when micro'd. You mention banshees, well they actually have sick DPS, they fly, and they can cloak. They're strong without micro but like you said they be micro'd to kite marines. And marines, well they have insane DPS and when they're in a ball they are extremely cost effective even when 1a'ing, and with stim. And when combined with medivacs it makes stimming extremely forgiveable, so they move super fast too.But they and marauders can be stutter stepped to be even more cost effective. Tanks take no micro except positioning, but can be awesome when target firing a clump of banes. Vikings have very long range, but they can also kite.
So I disagree with the OP, Terran units don't have to be micro'd to be cost-effective. I'm biased, but I would say that Protoss units need to be micro'd the most in order to be cost effective. Stalkers have terrible dps, but they're mobile and they have a blink ability - all which make it a micro unit. Zeals don't take much micro but they do need to be positioned in front of the army at all times. Sentries have barely any DPS, and FF's are so crucial that if you miss one on your ramp you can lose a game.
Yeah let's just a-move our really strong terran marines and marauders into a giant deathball with 3-5 colossus, they're so strong even without micro!!
On November 30 2011 14:48 Durp wrote: The foreign community has better Protoss and Zerg compared to their Terrans.
This can be seen by only Thorzain and Jinro putting up any kind of substantial, tangible results. (for this conversation, let's say without a korean contingent of players, the tournament doesn't matter much). Conversely, Naniwa, HuK, IdrA, Dimaga, Ret, and Stephano have all had pretty substantial victories.
The stable of foreign players that play zerg and protoss is at a higher skill level than their foreign terran counterparts, and as such, foreign zergs and protoss will do better. This seems to have nothing to do with design.
Guess that means the Korean terrans are just way, way more talented than the Korean zergs and protosses then.
They kindof are. MVP was actually A-Class before he switched. MMA has the emperor training him and Nada is freaking beast.
It's hard to look at purely tournament results without looking at the games themselves. For one, we have no idea what kind of strategies were utilized and we have no idea what kind of mental/physical state the players were in. Second, we don't have any background on the racial balance at the start of the tournament. If you provided us with the racial stats, from beginning to end then that paints a clearer picture. If this is a thread about balancing terran, then you need to SERIOUSLY do some research and give us undeniable stats. And third, Tournaments are random quite frankly, just so happens that you can run into an amazing player or a very easy player. Look at stephano's run in IPL, tell me he didn't have at least a little luck in his bracket? Then look at Leenock in MLG, you can't tell me he had an easy time at all.
It's hard to look at this topic and take it seriously because you have to consider SO many factors. The skill of the players, the tactics and strategies used... Just listen to david kim talk about he balances the game and you'll understand it's not so damn simple. Where Terran has extreme flexibility and every unit is good, Zerg has larva injects for mass droning and tech switching and protoss has warp-ins, mass upgrades and sick as hell timing attacks.
WoL feels pretty balanced, GSL is finally evening out the races. If next GSL is dominated by zerg and protoss with very few terrans, then maybe we can come back and discuss this topic, but until then let's not fuel the fire.
Balancing across multiple levels lolololol that is so wrong.
I don't know how Blizzard handles balance issue but I sure do hope they don't do it according to "skill levels".
There is no skill levels. There is playing the game right and playing it wrong.
If you're not at the top of Masters league or beyond, you're playing it wrong and your game experience should be ignored and disregarded because you don't know wtf you're doing. That's how it should be balanced imo. lol multiple skill levels that makes me laugh and facepalm so munch.
Here's this thread in a nutshell: OP: Point Supporters: Agree! Detractors: You're Wrong! Supporters: How can you disagree, you're stupid! Detractors: Your points and counter points are wrong. Supporters: Your points and counter points are wrong.
We can run around in circles all day, because all anyone is throwing up is opinion. Unfortunately, one side is asserting these opinions as something akin to fact, they're making claims like "most micro intensive race" or "race with the highest skill ceiling", claims which require evidence, of which very little to none is being offered (and when it is being offered, it's usually unrelated).
Neither side is right, nor is either side wrong. But, here's the kicker: the burden of proof isn't on the detractors. We're not the ones making a claim which needs to be supported. I'm not saying that Terran isn't the most "Micro Intensive" "Skill Required" "Highest Ceiling" race because I'm not qualified to make that judgment, nor do I have the data to support it. All I'm asking for is the data to support the equally ridiculous claim that the Terran race is all of those things.
It's true that the original argument was much broader than that one claim, but, the fact of the matter is that the rest of the argument hinges on the assumption being true. If that assumption is not true then we can interject with [your favorite race here] instead. Maybe it's not Terrans that have the problem being balanced because they require so much micro and skill, maybe it's Zerg? Who knows? Suddenly the entire thing shifts simply because the basis of the argument was founded on an unsupported presumption.
Does that make sense? Maybe? I should probably listen to the number one rule of the internet and realize that no matter what I post I'm never going to change your mind. If you're going to stubbornly exist that what you believe is true and that the evidence you've presented is sufficient, I suppose nothing will change your mind, and, as a result, we'll just continue in pointless circles indefinitely.
I really dont agree with the idea that terran benefit more from micro than other races. I just don't see this to be the case. Certainly there are units on both sides which dont benefit from micro but i dont see that terran suffer less from this. Also consider how players are always getting better. It would be silly to argue that the skills of foreigners now are not past those of koreans 6 months ago, nevertheless, terran domination has been intact throughout.
On December 01 2011 12:02 Chamenas wrote: Another point:
Here's this thread in a nutshell: OP: Point Supporters: Agree! Detractors: You're Wrong! Supporters: How can you disagree, you're stupid! Detractors: Your points and counter points are wrong. Supporters: Your points and counter points are wrong.
We can run around in circles all day, because all anyone is throwing up is opinion. Unfortunately, one side is asserting these opinions as something akin to fact, they're making claims like "most micro intensive race" or "race with the highest skill ceiling", claims which require evidence, of which very little to none is being offered (and when it is being offered, it's usually unrelated).
Neither side is right, nor is either side wrong. But, here's the kicker: the burden of proof isn't on the detractors. We're not the ones making a claim which needs to be supported. I'm not saying that Terran isn't the most "Micro Intensive" "Skill Required" "Highest Ceiling" race because I'm not qualified to make that judgment, nor do I have the data to support it. All I'm asking for is the data to support the equally ridiculous claim that the Terran race is all of those things.
It's true that the original argument was much broader than that one claim, but, the fact of the matter is that the rest of the argument hinges on the assumption being true. If that assumption is not true then we can interject with [your favorite race here] instead. Maybe it's not Terrans that have the problem being balanced because they require so much micro and skill, maybe it's Zerg? Who knows? Suddenly the entire thing shifts simply because the basis of the argument was founded on an unsupported presumption.
Does that make sense? Maybe? I should probably listen to the number one rule of the internet and realize that no matter what I post I'm never going to change your mind. If you're going to stubbornly exist that what you believe is true and that the evidence you've presented is sufficient, I suppose nothing will change your mind, and, as a result, we'll just continue in pointless circles indefinitely.
There is no simple way to actually PROVE that Terran has the highest skill ceiling compared to Protoss and Zerg. Proving is something indeed really strong. What the OP (and supporters) are actually doing is stating that Terran has the highest skill ceiling based on intuition (what some people call common sense). This statement is supported by the fact that T foreigners lose to foreigner P/Z while Korean T wins against Korean P/Z (in general sense). You obviously will say that this fact doesnt PROVE anything and I agree with that. But for those that are not obviously biased (like you) this fact at least SUPPORTS the hypothesis.
On November 30 2011 14:43 thesauceishot wrote: The thing that's cool about Terran units is that they're strong without micro, but have even stronger capabilities when micro'd. You mention banshees, well they actually have sick DPS, they fly, and they can cloak. They're strong without micro but like you said they be micro'd to kite marines. And marines, well they have insane DPS and when they're in a ball they are extremely cost effective even when 1a'ing, and with stim. And when combined with medivacs it makes stimming extremely forgiveable, so they move super fast too.But they and marauders can be stutter stepped to be even more cost effective. Tanks take no micro except positioning, but can be awesome when target firing a clump of banes. Vikings have very long range, but they can also kite.
So I disagree with the OP, Terran units don't have to be micro'd to be cost-effective. I'm biased, but I would say that Protoss units need to be micro'd the most in order to be cost effective. Stalkers have terrible dps, but they're mobile and they have a blink ability - all which make it a micro unit. Zeals don't take much micro but they do need to be positioned in front of the army at all times. Sentries have barely any DPS, and FF's are so crucial that if you miss one on your ramp you can lose a game.
Yeah let's just a-move our really strong terran marines and marauders into a giant deathball with 3-5 colossus, they're so strong even without micro!!
Marines and marauders wipe the floor with any unit composition of the same tier except maybe banelings when stimmed and a-moved. They are far less fragile than BW MM.
I for one think that the game would be really broken if a t1 unit can beat a t3 unit designed to counter said t1 unit without micro.
On November 30 2011 14:43 thesauceishot wrote: The thing that's cool about Terran units is that they're strong without micro, but have even stronger capabilities when micro'd. You mention banshees, well they actually have sick DPS, they fly, and they can cloak. They're strong without micro but like you said they be micro'd to kite marines. And marines, well they have insane DPS and when they're in a ball they are extremely cost effective even when 1a'ing, and with stim. And when combined with medivacs it makes stimming extremely forgiveable, so they move super fast too.But they and marauders can be stutter stepped to be even more cost effective. Tanks take no micro except positioning, but can be awesome when target firing a clump of banes. Vikings have very long range, but they can also kite.
So I disagree with the OP, Terran units don't have to be micro'd to be cost-effective. I'm biased, but I would say that Protoss units need to be micro'd the most in order to be cost effective. Stalkers have terrible dps, but they're mobile and they have a blink ability - all which make it a micro unit. Zeals don't take much micro but they do need to be positioned in front of the army at all times. Sentries have barely any DPS, and FF's are so crucial that if you miss one on your ramp you can lose a game.
Yeah let's just a-move our really strong terran marines and marauders into a giant deathball with 3-5 colossus, they're so strong even without micro!!
Marines and marauders wipe the floor with any unit composition of the same tier except maybe banelings when stimmed and a-moved. They are far less fragile than BW MM.
I for one think that the game would be really broken if a t1 unit can beat a t3 unit designed to counter said t1 unit without micro.
Yes, yes, you've stated your opinion several times in this thread already as well as calling it to be closed.
I think the most difficult thing about balancing for blizzard at this point will be the foreigner-korean differences. Foreigners are still progamers, so they have a countable opinion in balancing.... but koreans can just so easily get more usage out of units. i would prefer for them to find a way to even out all the races through changes to z/p because terran just feels fantastic when you can pull off some of that pro micro... but that's very unlikely, unfortunately :S
On December 01 2011 11:59 TuElite wrote: Balancing across multiple levels lolololol that is so wrong.
I don't know how Blizzard handles balance issue but I sure do hope they don't do it according to "skill levels".
There is no skill levels. There is playing the game right and playing it wrong.
If you're not at the top of Masters league or beyond, you're playing it wrong and your game experience should be ignored and disregarded because you don't know wtf you're doing. That's how it should be balanced imo. lol multiple skill levels that makes me laugh and facepalm so munch.
You've missed OP's point. The OP was comparing foreign sc2 terran pros to korean sc1/2 terran pros. That's a good bit better than master league. Foreign terrans can't win tournaments. Korean terrans easily take tournament wins over and over again.
On December 01 2011 12:15 RavenLoud wrote: Marines and marauders wipe the floor with any unit composition of the same tier except maybe banelings when stimmed and a-moved. They are far less fragile than BW MM.
I for one think that the game would be really broken if a t1 unit can beat a t3 unit designed to counter said t1 unit without micro.
What tier 3 units can terrans field in the course of a typical game? There is no balance based on "tiers" in sc2. This isn't Supreme Commander.
SC1 marines were far less fragile in the TvZ matchup because lurkers aren't as stupidly overpowered as banelings are. 1 Lurker cost: 150 gas cost total. That's 6 banelings worth of gas in sc2. You'd be lucky if one lurker killed one marine in sc1 over the course of a normal game. How many marines can 6 banelings kill?
TvP and TvT they got instagibbed ya. But mech didn't suck in sc1.
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.
On December 01 2011 12:02 Chamenas wrote: Another point:
Here's this thread in a nutshell: OP: Point Supporters: Agree! Detractors: You're Wrong! Supporters: How can you disagree, you're stupid! Detractors: Your points and counter points are wrong. Supporters: Your points and counter points are wrong.
We can run around in circles all day, because all anyone is throwing up is opinion. Unfortunately, one side is asserting these opinions as something akin to fact, they're making claims like "most micro intensive race" or "race with the highest skill ceiling", claims which require evidence, of which very little to none is being offered (and when it is being offered, it's usually unrelated).
Neither side is right, nor is either side wrong. But, here's the kicker: the burden of proof isn't on the detractors. We're not the ones making a claim which needs to be supported. I'm not saying that Terran isn't the most "Micro Intensive" "Skill Required" "Highest Ceiling" race because I'm not qualified to make that judgment, nor do I have the data to support it. All I'm asking for is the data to support the equally ridiculous claim that the Terran race is all of those things.
It's true that the original argument was much broader than that one claim, but, the fact of the matter is that the rest of the argument hinges on the assumption being true. If that assumption is not true then we can interject with [your favorite race here] instead. Maybe it's not Terrans that have the problem being balanced because they require so much micro and skill, maybe it's Zerg? Who knows? Suddenly the entire thing shifts simply because the basis of the argument was founded on an unsupported presumption.
Does that make sense? Maybe? I should probably listen to the number one rule of the internet and realize that no matter what I post I'm never going to change your mind. If you're going to stubbornly exist that what you believe is true and that the evidence you've presented is sufficient, I suppose nothing will change your mind, and, as a result, we'll just continue in pointless circles indefinitely.
There is no simple way to actually PROVE that Terran has the highest skill ceiling compared to Protoss and Zerg. Proving is something indeed really strong. What the OP (and supporters) are actually doing is stating that Terran has the highest skill ceiling based on intuition (what some people call common sense). This statement is supported by the fact that T foreigners lose to foreigner P/Z while Korean T wins against Korean P/Z (in general sense). You obviously will say that this fact doesnt PROVE anything and I agree with that. But for those that are not obviously biased (like you) this fact at least SUPPORTS the hypothesis.
When I use statements like "burden of proof" it's because "burden of evidence" wouldn't make sense. I never said they had to prove their point, only that the burden was on them, but that burden is to produce any sort of concrete evidence which is convincing. Ideally it would be provable, and therefore irrefutable, but any intelligent person can reason that that's not likely in this situation, so, instead, convincing evidence would be sufficient. But even that hasn't been offered. NOTHING has been offered except for conjecture.
You can label me biased all you want, but I'm not the one making ridiculous claims. I'm just asking for evidence, evidence which hasn't been produced. Nothing has supported the hypothesis except conjecture, assumptions and anecdotes. That is NOT how you support a hypothesis. "Intuition" is not a worthy bias-free way to suggest anything.
My intuition tells me that Protoss has a higher ceiling than Terran. How will you refute that? I'm sure if I wanted I could get people to agree with my stance. Are we going to have a popularity contest? Need I show you all the examples of where common sense fails?
On December 01 2011 11:58 Vei wrote: i would say the problem is more that
a) they can deny scouting easily
b) they have 12 combat units to zerg's 9 and protoss's 10
a) All the races can deny scouting easily. Stalkers run down workers no problem and Protoss can wall regardless. Zerg can use lings to keep scouts away as well. And before someone says "bu-but scan!" no good Terran player is going to scan in the early stages of the game. It isn't worth it.
b) Where are you getting 10? Zealot, stalker, sentry, high templar, dark templar, archon, immortal, colossus, phoenix, void ray, carrier, mothership, warp prism makes 13 units not counting observers since they don't serve a "direct" combat role.
@ Kwanny - I respect your knowledge of logic and argument. My points against the logic of opposing arguments was less about the structure and more about the fallibility of the information they were trying to support. But I'm very tired now and have been for a bit, so I'm quite certain that my ability to make sense is falling apart. It doesn't help that there are still individuals in this thread who insist on resorting to personal attacks to make their point, which always frustrates me.
Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult
Yeah, that's why Terran is doing so well outside Korea. Come on. With the increased skill cap Terran has comes the OBLIGATION to use that skill cap to equal the other races. The micro and multitasking is clearly more difficult, but you can delude yourself in believing otherwise.
You have no proof that this so called "increased skill cap" lies in micros requirement as opposed to game sense requirement.
And Terran are obliged to use their race to their full potential? LOL I don't think you understand the whole idea of competitive gaming. You must really hate esport if you think players should be able to do well at the top without actually using everything that's given to them in the game.
If there's something truly broken, Blizzard should just fix what's broken, i.e. increase the animation cool-down for marine/marauder so they can't be stutter-stepped as well, just like they did with reaver in BW. The wrong thing to do is to make one race so imbalanced at the top just to compensate all the scrubs at the lower level that it will literally destroys the whole competitive scene. Last time I checked there's no Global Red Alert League or anything resembling it. We will soon if everyone starts switching to Terran at the top level play because it's the only race viable.
TLDR: (Some) low-level Terran are really a bunch of entitled crybabies. I don't know where people get the audacity to put their own low-level frustration ahead of the top-level play, where people's careers and livelihood are directly affected by game balance.
You are braver than I sir, but I totally agree. All of the recent threads have basicly come down to "make the game easier for me, you removed all the abusive things I used and its not fair".
I'm amazed so many people think the bronze - platinum players arnt important. We make up 80% of all players. This is blizzards design. I'd have little interest in SC2 if i didn't play it and enjoy playing it. I watch player streams and tournaments, and keep an eye on TL forums. I imagine many other bronze - plats do the same and they are probably a large proportion of stream viewers.
my point
If we bronze to plat players arnt happy, we'll leave. THATS 80% OF PLAYERS.
so get of your high horse about pro players and their livelihoods when WE 80% allow them to have it.
Blizzard specifically stated that they care about team games and low levels. Dustin Browser said in the HotS interview that they didn't want to make shredder drop too unforgiving for the bronze players.
However, it is absolutely UNJUSTIFIED to claim that the balance of a game must be catered towards the beginners, giving them ezpz wins so they won't leave. Blizzard want Starcraft to have the following in order to succed as an e-sport: easy to understand game dynamic, easy to learn yet impossible to master difficulty curve and balance at the top level. It is absurd to blame that the game is not giving you a easy time so you will have less incentive to improve.
On December 01 2011 11:59 TuElite wrote: Balancing across multiple levels lolololol that is so wrong.
I don't know how Blizzard handles balance issue but I sure do hope they don't do it according to "skill levels".
There is no skill levels. There is playing the game right and playing it wrong.
If you're not at the top of Masters league or beyond, you're playing it wrong and your game experience should be ignored and disregarded because you don't know wtf you're doing. That's how it should be balanced imo. lol multiple skill levels that makes me laugh and facepalm so munch.
You've missed OP's point. The OP was comparing foreign sc2 terran pros to korean sc1/2 terran pros. That's a good bit better than master league. Foreign terrans can't win tournaments. Korean terrans easily take tournament wins over and over again.
On December 01 2011 12:15 RavenLoud wrote: Marines and marauders wipe the floor with any unit composition of the same tier except maybe banelings when stimmed and a-moved. They are far less fragile than BW MM.
I for one think that the game would be really broken if a t1 unit can beat a t3 unit designed to counter said t1 unit without micro.
What tier 3 units can terrans field in the course of a typical game? There is no balance based on "tiers" in sc2. This isn't Supreme Commander.
SC1 marines were far less fragile in the TvZ matchup because lurkers aren't as stupidly overpowered as banelings are. 1 Lurker cost: 150 gas cost total. That's 6 banelings worth of gas in sc2. You'd be lucky if one lurker killed one marine in sc1 over the course of a normal game. How many marines can 6 banelings kill?
TvP and TvT they got instagibbed ya. But mech didn't suck in sc1.
6 banelings can kill anywhere from 20 to 0 marines depending on the situation, if you send 6 banes towards a marine/sieged tank line you'd likely get 0.
lol @ lurkers not killing marines. Though it is true that the space control aspect of the lurker is more arguably more important, they murdered marines, even with a Casy split you'd still lose a few. Anyway enough of this useless theorycraft. Marines are beefier in SC2, and marauders are so tank against everything.
The tier thing is indeed difficult to assess in Starcraft, other than Zerg it isn't very well defined. You can argue that banshees are t3 even. Nevertheless, a colossus is a typical hardcounter unit to infantry, and it isn't as good as the reaver was against bio because of the marauder, not a bad thing since it made bio viable.
This mindset that we shouldn't use one unit because the opponent could shut it down with their counter is short sighted. Why don't you stop building marines against storm then? Oh wait because you can build ghosts to counter the templars, and you can hit where the templars aren't with drops and abuse whatever the situation offers. With the amount of gas terran float in the lategame, it's not like there isn't room for improvements. Ravens probably need a acceleration buff though, they are hard to keep alive.
I'm not sure why people can't seem to accept the possibility that the race they play may require less skill than another race at a particular level of play. In BW, there's consensus that Protoss is a bit easier while Terran is a bit harder at a certain level.
Maybe what's wrong is that people in ladder games too often use the excuse "your race is easy and that's why I lost" and BM their opponents with this opinion. If people care so much about this, then I can see them wanting to avoid affirming the conclusions of the OP because then it gives whatever race requires more skill a free pass to say this all the time.
People get mad when they perceive that they are a better player but they still lose the game. This is the wrong way to think about it. You should think about your games as a test of how well you can play your chosen race against how well your opponent can play their race. Because that's how the ladder matches you.
Unless you're actually a professional player that's going to win or lose money based on the outcomes of your games, you shouldn't care if your opponent has a higher or lower "potential skill level." Even if your race is easier to play, you should be proud of your wins because the system matched you against someone that was supposed to have your skill level with whatever race they play.
Putting this into explanation, each race and player has a soft-cap and a hard-cap.
Soft-cap is the reasonable 'efficiency' attainable for a reasonable amount of learning time, experience and IQ. To each his own, everybody has their own soft-cap. ie: A player who plays SC2 to a point where they start complaining that they're not really improving.
Hard-cap is the maximum amount of 'efficiency' attainable for an unlimited learning time, experience and IQ. ie: Perfect macro and perfect micro, decision making, army composition etc..
Now the players in diamond/master are most likely running on their soft-caps, they have good macro, decent micro, decision making etc, some of these players have probably shot up from silver league to diamond/master, but can never compete in a GM-environment.
The pro-players out there are there to attain the hard-cap. To play their race the absolutely finest they can play at. Ironing out the absolute potential of each unit.
Here we are.... the fundamental flaw in balance is that each race has a different soft-cap and hard-cap due to each race having entirely different units and abilities.
What is the basis of the flaw? I would say movement speed in SC2 is the biggest factor in driving the soft and hard-cap scenario. Having a unit that can move really fast with range just makes that unit that much more powerful (Think flux vane void rays anyone?) if used properly. In a micro situation, the power of marine/marauder is how well you can utilize them with stimpack.
Once again, i'll ask, is it more difficult to split marines vs attacking marines with banes. nothing else, just the two tasks. Since the last time I asked people are like "Well Z needs to micro their lings to attack the tanks, and mutas to attack the tanks etc.."
They are two tasks that should take comparable amount of micro since one is the attacker and the other is the defender... why is this not the case?
a lot of double pronged attacks can be quite effective just b shift queueing up attacks while microing your army. there are a lot of ways that you can simplify your micro. it won't be as a good as pro, but half the time double pronged attacks work just because of how strong 16 stimmed marines with medivac is when they're threatening another area with MM.
in big ball battles you can just hit your vikings and shift queue up click the clossus, that way they auto focus fire.
i really dont' think terran is harder than the other races even at diamond level/master level.
On December 01 2011 14:24 raginglemon wrote: Once again, i'll ask, is it more difficult to split marines vs attacking marines with banes. nothing else, just the two tasks. Since the last time I asked people are like "Well Z needs to micro their lings to attack the tanks, and mutas to attack the tanks etc.."
They are two tasks that should take comparable amount of micro since one is the attacker and the other is the defender... why is this not the case?
The fact that rines can hold their own cost-wise against zerg's best low-tier counter unit with micro isn't enough for you? It's like saying muta vs archon isn't fair because the archons can just a-move
On December 01 2011 14:24 raginglemon wrote: Once again, i'll ask, is it more difficult to split marines vs attacking marines with banes. nothing else, just the two tasks. Since the last time I asked people are like "Well Z needs to micro their lings to attack the tanks, and mutas to attack the tanks etc.."
They are two tasks that should take comparable amount of micro since one is the attacker and the other is the defender... why is this not the case?
It's not the case because they are not exact mirrors. In general you will not have pure banes against pure marines. The WHOLE of the attacking (micro banes, lings, mutas) is comparable to the WHOLE of the defending (running/splitting marines, target firing tanks). No one compared those two tasks specifically because its a silly, incomplete way to look at the micro required.
On December 01 2011 14:24 raginglemon wrote: Once again, i'll ask, is it more difficult to split marines vs attacking marines with banes. nothing else, just the two tasks. Since the last time I asked people are like "Well Z needs to micro their lings to attack the tanks, and mutas to attack the tanks etc.."
They are two tasks that should take comparable amount of micro since one is the attacker and the other is the defender... why is this not the case?
The fact that rines can hold their own cost-wise against zerg's best low-tier counter unit with micro isn't enough for you? It's like saying muta vs archon isn't fair because the archons can just a-move
That's the thing that the OP is saying, at lower levels where micro isn't INCREDIBLE, marines actually CAN'T hold their own vs. banelings. Anybody saying that lower level terrans don't need to micro their marines (awesome splits) need to give their head a shake.
Protoss and zerg definitely need more micro-rewardy units. Force fields sort of serve that purpose. You can completely turn a battle around heavily in your favor. Just like how well micored marines can beat banelings. It's not just terran that can die horribly if they have an A-move war with the enemy army. Protoss are guaranteed death with poor mistimed force fields. Blink stalkers micro is also heavily rewarding.
Anyway, more of these unit quirks should be in the game, where you can turn the tide of battle with more skill/micro. Reavers are better than colossus for this reason. Lots of baby sitting, but it paid massive dividends.
But I do get your point. A terran army that A-moves into a colossus death ball will likely lose that battle at even cost and tech simply because with awesome micro you can completely turn that battle around at which point protoss doesn't have a whole lot of options. I guess that's why they added the a-move friendly robotech helions. Helps the noobs out with their a-move micro (haha). Maybe the oracle will reward good multi-taskers for protoss.
I absolutely hate medivacs. Not from a balance point of view, but merely as a game spectator. Literally I cannot see anything when a bioball engages melee units like zealots or zerglings, those goddamn hovering white billboards block out my vision.
Please blizzard make them smaller or remove them and roll back to medics or something. It's retarded to have such a unit in a game designed to be a competitive esport. It's detrimental.
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.
On December 01 2011 13:35 castled wrote: I'm not sure why people can't seem to accept the possibility that the race they play may require less skill than another race at a particular level of play. In BW, there's consensus that Protoss is a bit easier while Terran is a bit harder at a certain level.
Maybe what's wrong is that people in ladder games too often use the excuse "your race is easy and that's why I lost" and BM their opponents with this opinion. If people care so much about this, then I can see them wanting to avoid affirming the conclusions of the OP because then it gives whatever race requires more skill a free pass to say this all the time.
People get mad when they perceive that they are a better player but they still lose the game. This is the wrong way to think about it. You should think about your games as a test of how well you can play your chosen race against how well your opponent can play their race. Because that's how the ladder matches you.
Unless you're actually a professional player that's going to win or lose money based on the outcomes of your games, you shouldn't care if your opponent has a higher or lower "potential skill level." Even if your race is easier to play, you should be proud of your wins because the system matched you against someone that was supposed to have your skill level with whatever race they play.
Agreed, however the OP is making an argument that uneven difficulty across different levels of play for different races is a design problem. It isn't, it's just the nature of a game with distinct races that have distinct style of play.
The issue I faced, and that many other Protoss players faced or still face at lower levels is force field micro. A 3 rax kills you every time if you don't force field your ramp or chop up their army correctly. It may seem trivial to force field the ramp, but if you miss and the stimmed units go up, you die. You are just one simple mistake away from death.
At least as Terran if you mess up a single stutter step, you don't die instantly. You have to mess up multiple stutter steps in a row.
That has always bothered me, and at this point I am very solid with my force fields, but once a in blue moon I miss and leave a gap, and the stimmed units run up my ramp and I think to myself:
"I know exactly how to stop this, I've done it hundreds of times but now a slight misclick has cost me the game. Nice."
So just be happy that as a Terran player, you can afford to make slight misclicks, and I'll be happy as a Protoss player that I don't have to wear my hands out stutter stepping like a madman in every engagement.
On December 01 2011 14:51 BronzeKnee wrote: The issue I faced, and that many other Protoss players faced or still face at lower levels is force field micro. A 3 rax kills you every time if you don't force field your ramp or chop up their army correctly. It may seem trivial to force field the ramp, but if you miss and the stimmed units go up, you die. You are just one simple mistake away from death.
At least as Terran if you mess up a single stutter step, you don't die instantly. You have to mess up multiple stutter steps in a row.
That has always bothered me, and at this point I am very solid with my force fields, but once a in blue moon I miss and leave a gap, and the stimmed units run up my ramp and I think to myself:
"I know exactly how to stop this, I've done it hundreds of times but now a slight misclick has cost me the game. Nice."
So just be happy that as a Terran player, you can afford to make slight misclicks, and I'll be happy as a Protoss player that I don't have to wear my hands out stutter stepping like a madman in every engagement.
No, you cant... In TvZ, marine/tank vs ling/bling/muta, if you misclick your marines at all, you lose.
On December 01 2011 14:51 BronzeKnee wrote: The issue I faced, and that many other Protoss players faced or still face at lower levels is force field micro. A 3 rax kills you every time if you don't force field your ramp or chop up their army correctly. It may seem trivial to force field the ramp, but if you miss and the stimmed units go up, you die. You are just one simple mistake away from death.
At least as Terran if you mess up a single stutter step, you don't die instantly. You have to mess up multiple stutter steps in a row.
That has always bothered me, and at this point I am very solid with my force fields, but once a in blue moon I miss and leave a gap, and the stimmed units run up my ramp and I think to myself:
"I know exactly how to stop this, I've done it hundreds of times but now a slight misclick has cost me the game. Nice."
So just be happy that as a Terran player, you can afford to make slight misclicks, and I'll be happy as a Protoss player that I don't have to wear my hands out stutter stepping like a madman in every engagement.
You should play Terran for a bit. There's tons of stuff like this, you just have to get used to it.
On December 01 2011 14:51 BronzeKnee wrote: The issue I faced, and that many other Protoss players faced or still face at lower levels is force field micro. A 3 rax kills you every time if you don't force field your ramp or chop up their army correctly. It may seem trivial to force field the ramp, but if you miss and the stimmed units go up, you die. You are just one simple mistake away from death.
At least as Terran if you mess up a single stutter step, you don't die instantly. You have to mess up multiple stutter steps in a row.
That has always bothered me, and at this point I am very solid with my force fields, but once a in blue moon I miss and leave a gap, and the stimmed units run up my ramp and I think to myself:
"I know exactly how to stop this, I've done it hundreds of times but now a slight misclick has cost me the game. Nice."
So just be happy that as a Terran player, you can afford to make slight misclicks, and I'll be happy as a Protoss player that I don't have to wear my hands out stutter stepping like a madman in every engagement.
No, you cant... In TvZ, marine/tank vs ling/bling/muta, if you misclick your marines at all, you lose.
There is a difference between a misclick and a slight misclick, and I used the latter in my post. Let's define a misclick as anytime you use your units in a non-optimal way.
My point was that occasionally the game is balanced on a razor's edge for the Protoss when it comes to holding early pressure. If you miss the FF on the ramp vs Z or T and let Marines or Lings up, you die. If you hit it, you block them and you live on. It is very odd to have such a dynamic, where you either die or your opponent does no damage. Thus even slight misclicks are game ending, because it allows enough space for units to get up your ramp. You have to hit the FF perfectly to survive, any misclick kills you.
In your case, there is a large variety of outcomes across a range, from misclicking and losing all your marines, to losing most, to losing some, to losing a few. I would define a slight misclick as one where you lose only a few Marines. Often that isn't game ending.
And there you have it, you make a slight misclick and lose a few Marines to a Baneling and maybe the game goes on. I make a slight misclick and don't block off the SCV train from coming into my base and I die.
On December 01 2011 14:51 BronzeKnee wrote: The issue I faced, and that many other Protoss players faced or still face at lower levels is force field micro. A 3 rax kills you every time if you don't force field your ramp or chop up their army correctly. It may seem trivial to force field the ramp, but if you miss and the stimmed units go up, you die. You are just one simple mistake away from death.
At least as Terran if you mess up a single stutter step, you don't die instantly. You have to mess up multiple stutter steps in a row.
That has always bothered me, and at this point I am very solid with my force fields, but once a in blue moon I miss and leave a gap, and the stimmed units run up my ramp and I think to myself:
"I know exactly how to stop this, I've done it hundreds of times but now a slight misclick has cost me the game. Nice."
So just be happy that as a Terran player, you can afford to make slight misclicks, and I'll be happy as a Protoss player that I don't have to wear my hands out stutter stepping like a madman in every engagement.
Lol Terran is probably more unforgiving if you mismicro than protoss -_-
I see it differently. I feel like because terran units have the most micro potential with many forms of harass, that 'theoretically' makes terran the best race design wise.
You're using the word design but I think you're really trying to about their balance philosophy.
My opinion on their balance philosophy: Even if they overcompensate due to design, they can always backtrack later on. We also have issues such as Blizzard is still changing the race designs as well as players are still changing the metagame designs.
I also agree with the post that this is more of a problem with the other 2 races that blizzard is having to babysit terrans designs and balance simply because the other 2 races aren't designed quite in the same way. All in all from my last idea on reasons for balance philosophy there's essentially no problem in place, as the problems you've described are going to constantly change as factors change.
On December 01 2011 11:59 TuElite wrote: Balancing across multiple levels lolololol that is so wrong.
I don't know how Blizzard handles balance issue but I sure do hope they don't do it according to "skill levels".
There is no skill levels. There is playing the game right and playing it wrong.
If you're not at the top of Masters league or beyond, you're playing it wrong and your game experience should be ignored and disregarded because you don't know wtf you're doing. That's how it should be balanced imo. lol multiple skill levels that makes me laugh and facepalm so munch.
Nice job being a jackass. Remember what % of players is top master and beyond ? 1% You really think Blizzard wants to waste their money for 1% of possible RTS players ? Sorry to wake you up from your snooze in Disney Land but this is a buisness. Besides, you really think those ppl who worked their asses off up to high masters would have done it if during this whole period of time they experienced a completely imbalanced game ?
I agree with just increasing the amount of micro needed for zerg and protoss. A-move should be changed to ALWAYS be the worst choice when engaging in a big battle (So at pro level A-moving loses you a big engagement all of the time). Protoss and zerg can have the same potency they have now but add in elements where they have to micro a lot more to get same results. TLDR; nerf MMM balls make mech standard in tvp, remove banes add lurker, remove colossus add reaver :p
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
Ya, god forbid admitting to the possibility that you are just bad.
User was temp banned for this post.
I know I shouldn't answer to this taunt but even if I was really just bad there's no other explaination to the decline of the terran race outside korea. I've tried playing protoss multiple times in the past (in the only matchup I know for SC2 protoss, PvT) and I could easily beat some of the top terrans in Europe by just camping, chronoboosting my upgrades and waiting on 3 bases. That's basically what every protoss does now and the amount of skill and multitasking it takes is so ridicolously low I feel like crying whenever I think I could have just kept playing protoss when SC2 started. If warpgate was not in the game it would be much different, not having to deal with walking distances and smartcasting makes everything way way WAY easier.
It's not too late, seriously. Morrow changed races relatively late and has done well and TLO has just switched. If protoss is really that much easier then please prove it to everyone by switching and winning some top tournaments.
I'm seriously not taunting you- I would love to see a pro actually have the balls to do that. I think we would be able to settle this debate once and for all if that happened.
On December 01 2011 11:59 TuElite wrote: Balancing across multiple levels lolololol that is so wrong.
I don't know how Blizzard handles balance issue but I sure do hope they don't do it according to "skill levels".
There is no skill levels. There is playing the game right and playing it wrong.
If you're not at the top of Masters league or beyond, you're playing it wrong and your game experience should be ignored and disregarded because you don't know wtf you're doing. That's how it should be balanced imo. lol multiple skill levels that makes me laugh and facepalm so munch.
Nice job being a jackass. Remember what % of players is top master and beyond ? 1% You really think Blizzard wants to waste their money for 1% of possible RTS players ? Sorry to wake you up from your snooze in Disney Land but this is a buisness. Besides, you really think those ppl who worked their asses off up to high masters would have done it if during this whole period of time they experienced a completely imbalanced game ?
Lol. So you want the game to return to the state is was this summer? Unwatchable? The only other time I remember this much bitching by terrans was before they lobbied to get rid of KA and the game was balanced after that.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
Ya, god forbid admitting to the possibility that you are just bad.
User was temp banned for this post.
I know I shouldn't answer to this taunt but even if I was really just bad there's no other explaination to the decline of the terran race outside korea. I've tried playing protoss multiple times in the past (in the only matchup I know for SC2 protoss, PvT) and I could easily beat some of the top terrans in Europe by just camping, chronoboosting my upgrades and waiting on 3 bases. That's basically what every protoss does now and the amount of skill and multitasking it takes is so ridicolously low I feel like crying whenever I think I could have just kept playing protoss when SC2 started. If warpgate was not in the game it would be much different, not having to deal with walking distances and smartcasting makes everything way way WAY easier.
It's not too late, seriously. Morrow changed races relatively late and has done well and TLO has just switched. If protoss is really that much easier then please prove it to everyone by switching and winning some top tournaments.
I'm seriously not taunting you- I would love to see a pro actually have the balls to do that. I think we would be able to settle this debate once and for all if that happened.
I won Kas and many other pro terrans with both zerg and protoss without knowing any build orders just by simply going ling/infestor and zealot/archon/colossus, I play offraces once every 2 weeks.
Now I know people will want to quote and say "switch then", thats not the point of this thread, point is what I wrote in other 2 posts I made.
On December 01 2011 11:58 Vei wrote: i would say the problem is more that
a) they can deny scouting easily
b) they have 12 combat units to zerg's 9 and protoss's 10
a) All the races can deny scouting easily. Stalkers run down workers no problem and Protoss can wall regardless. Zerg can use lings to keep scouts away as well. And before someone says "bu-but scan!" no good Terran player is going to scan in the early stages of the game. It isn't worth it.
b) Where are you getting 10? Zealot, stalker, sentry, high templar, dark templar, archon, immortal, colossus, phoenix, void ray, carrier, mothership, warp prism makes 13 units not counting observers since they don't serve a "direct" combat role.
not counter carrier or warp prism; carrier is never used warp prism i suppose now could be counted
On December 01 2011 11:59 TuElite wrote: Balancing across multiple levels lolololol that is so wrong.
I don't know how Blizzard handles balance issue but I sure do hope they don't do it according to "skill levels".
There is no skill levels. There is playing the game right and playing it wrong.
If you're not at the top of Masters league or beyond, you're playing it wrong and your game experience should be ignored and disregarded because you don't know wtf you're doing. That's how it should be balanced imo. lol multiple skill levels that makes me laugh and facepalm so munch.
Nice job being a jackass. Remember what % of players is top master and beyond ? 1% You really think Blizzard wants to waste their money for 1% of possible RTS players ? Sorry to wake you up from your snooze in Disney Land but this is a buisness. Besides, you really think those ppl who worked their asses off up to high masters would have done it if during this whole period of time they experienced a completely imbalanced game ?
You forgot the part about having the highest level of play be a legitimate spectator event brings Blizzard a shit load of exposure. Thats a huge part of business. The amount of imbalance at lower levels is pretty small, definitely small enough for casual players to ignore and buy the game anyway.
Sad for you.
Edit: And yes I think the people who worked their asses off up to high masters would have done it anyway. Thats what makes them high masters/grandmasters/professionals. They take the adversity and run with it. They run into hard times and they fight through it to get better instead of bitching and moaning. Remember when Zerg was considered to be by far the shittiest race in SC2? Fruitdealer won GSL1 anyway despite the pathetic metagame and general mood. Idra considered quitting because of it but just kept on going. Thats the difference between the pros and people like us
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
Ya, god forbid admitting to the possibility that you are just bad.
User was temp banned for this post.
I know I shouldn't answer to this taunt but even if I was really just bad there's no other explaination to the decline of the terran race outside korea. I've tried playing protoss multiple times in the past (in the only matchup I know for SC2 protoss, PvT) and I could easily beat some of the top terrans in Europe by just camping, chronoboosting my upgrades and waiting on 3 bases. That's basically what every protoss does now and the amount of skill and multitasking it takes is so ridicolously low I feel like crying whenever I think I could have just kept playing protoss when SC2 started. If warpgate was not in the game it would be much different, not having to deal with walking distances and smartcasting makes everything way way WAY easier.
It's not too late, seriously. Morrow changed races relatively late and has done well and TLO has just switched. If protoss is really that much easier then please prove it to everyone by switching and winning some top tournaments.
I'm seriously not taunting you- I would love to see a pro actually have the balls to do that. I think we would be able to settle this debate once and for all if that happened.
I won Kas and many other pro terrans with both zerg and protoss without knowing any build orders just by simply going ling/infestor and zealot/archon/colossus, I play offraces once every 2 weeks.
Now I know people will want to quote and say "switch then", thats not the point of this thread, point is what I wrote in other 2 posts I made.
Nice to see some credible players being open about this. Hopefully it will become the consensus soon.
I don't know if anyone's highlighted this but if you take a look at the foreigner pool of Terran player's it's significantly smaller. Most notable NA and Euro pro players are either Zergs or Protoss.
Thorzain, DeMuslim, Drewbie, Sjow, Jinro, **TLO** are pretty much all of the pro Terran players that get their names thrown around regularly outside of the Koreans. If you think about it that's a meager sum since that number can almost be matched by an individual teams roster. I mean look at Liquid Ret, Sheth, Haypro, then add TLO, who's switched; and that team alone's already almost equaled the entire pool of named Terran players. With that it's actually no surprise that so many tournaments have lacked a foreign Terran breakout since the actual foreign Terran pool's so small.
I'm not saying you're not raising interesting details, but just like Korea has a massive swell of pro Terrans, I think NA and Europe have a tendency to find their most dedicated pros coming from Zerg's and Protoss.
I honestly find Terran to be the most diverse race in terms of build opportunities. I think their players are lacking behind if anything. The reason we don't see top terran foreigners is, in my eyes, because the top korean terrans are so good.
On December 01 2011 16:57 Testuser wrote: It's funny how you say this.
I honestly find Terran to be the most diverse race in terms of build opportunities. I think their players are lacking behind if anything. The reason we don't see top terran foreigners is, in my eyes, because the top korean terrans are so good.
so you're saying the korean zergs and protoss are bad?
I just hope that with HotS will blizzard get off this ridiculous idea that the game needs to be balanced at all skill levels with stupid, boring units like the Marauder for an example.
I hope that being that it is just an expansion and they are keeping the WoL ladder live and supported anyways they might as well go full force into making an epic esports no matter how difficult to play the game ends up being.
The more difficult the game sorta-ish = the better the esport if it is watchable because the more difficult it is the wider the skill gap between pros and noobs which means it makes it easier to distinguish the good players from the bad or even separate the top players and the legends.
the harder the game the means the more you can learn from practice means the more of a sport it can become.
I don't care how difficult to play Terran is in HotS i'm gunna play it regardless as long as i know it is balanced eventually at the pro level and pro terrans can somehow win games i will play and work hard to be just like my idols.
edit: i basically mean to say get rid of dumb units specifically designed to make the game easier and just go hardcore into cool ideas that would just make the game epic.
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.
On December 01 2011 16:45 synkronized wrote: Thorzain, DeMuslim, Drewbie, Sjow, Jinro, **TLO** are pretty much all of the pro Terran players that get their names thrown around regularly outside of the Koreans.
Maybe if you live in the US, but here in EU there are other popular Terrans:
Kas, Beastyqt, Major, Brat_OK, dde, Happy, Select, Strelok etc. The foreign scene isn't lacking in Terran players compared to P or Z.
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.
how can you write a post like that and call anyone ignorant and stupid..... it's blatantly obvious terran micros a crap ton in tvp whereas it definitely can appear like the protoss death ball is just a-move because in reality aside from keeping the collosus alive and focus firing...it's really all you have to do whereas the Terran cannot fight a protoss army straight on he has to maneuver his vikings to kill the collossi while stutter stepping back to avoid damage while dealing damage because terran units are squishy as heck especially when facing a collosus beam.
On December 01 2011 16:45 synkronized wrote: Thorzain, DeMuslim, Drewbie, Sjow, Jinro, **TLO** are pretty much all of the pro Terran players that get their names thrown around regularly outside of the Koreans.
Maybe if you live in the US, but here in EU there are other popular Terrans:
Kas, Beastyqt, Major, Brat_OK, dde, Happy, Select, Strelok etc. The foreign scene isn't lacking in Terran players compared to P or Z.
when was the last time ANY of the players you just named did something like win an MLG or Dreamhack that had korean players in it. hmm? I don't know much about minor weekly tournaments other than the korean weekly but i know for a fact that non of those players have had an achievement worth talking about int he community. not any foreign terran. not since thorzain in TSL3 which nobody even talks about anymore.
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.
"unmicroed units in TvP and Terran ALWAYS wins"- the most stupid thing i've ever heard. a-move vs a-move, protoss absolutely CRUSHES terran in a 200/200 battle.
This thread's already been talked to death, but I agree that there is a severe lack of good foreign Terrans. Just look at the featured TL stream ANY time of day. It's usually about 60% zerg, 30% protoss, and 10% terran. And that's not because terrans don't stream, it's just that there aren't that many to begin with.
Meanwhile in Korea there's a gajillion ultra-gosu terrans that roflstomp everyone on the korean ladder and the GSL. It's no wonder Blizzard nerfs terran if the top players in the world are mostly terran. I for one play terran and of the my main reasons for doing is that terran is so underplayed on the NA server.
I still don't understand this whole rant. You are saying that it's hard to balance terran because... ...there's a higher skill ceiling which makes korean play better...because koreans are more skilled....
Isn't that the point? More skill-->more wins?
Who cares if the foreigners are not doing well with Terrans.
On December 01 2011 17:23 Jacuzzi wrote: This thread's already been talked to death, but I agree that there is a severe lack of good foreign Terrans. Just look at the featured TL stream ANY time of day. It's usually about 60% zerg, 30% protoss, and 10% terran. And that's not because terrans don't stream, it's just that there aren't that many to begin with.
There are currently 2 T (Drewbie and Beastyqt) and a Z (TLO), that alone proves this (anecdotal, and in my experience dead wrong) argument wrong.
I think we should give it another 2-3 months and see how all the results stack up in foreigh/korean tournaments. I want to see if this trend changes direction or if it continues and why.
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.
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 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
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.
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?
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 10:30 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 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
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".
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.
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.
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).
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.
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):
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 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):
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)
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 10:53 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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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 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.
(...) 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. ^^
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.'
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.
(...) 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.
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.'
Well, we have learned that when Korean Terrans dominate is because of imba, nothing to do with skill. When "foreigner" Terrans underachieve is because of skill, nothing to do with balance.
We have also learned that Terrans world wide, including ex BW legends, are stupid and should just play mech in TvP.
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.
Not necessarily. The game changes as it goes on. Longer games are undoubtedly the best practice for long games, but possibly not for middling or short games, because there's more for the brain to absorb. If I play twenty half-hour games and you execute the same cheese twenty times, who'll be finished quicker and who'll have crisper execution?
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.
Not necessarily. The game changes as it goes on. Longer games are undoubtedly the best practice for long games, but possibly not for middling or short games, because there's more for the brain to absorb. If I play twenty half-hour games and you execute the same cheese twenty times, who'll be finished quicker and who'll have crisper execution?
Very true, but mechanics break down so often in long games that most Players (even I would say most pros) would probably be able to win 20-30% more games just by keeping macro and unit spacing at 80% of their early game level.
There was a 40+ min game I just watched, TVZ, it was Happy vs. X. The terran was clearly dominating the game the first 25 mins, but couldn't break through. He won several battles that should have been decisive with sick ghost micro , but didn't remax fast enough or with the right comp and eventually got starved out because the zerg had mediocre creep spread (it wasn't even good, just adequate enough to be mobile). If the T's macro was operating at 80% (probably even 60%) at the 30 min mark he would have won, and won handily.
Races require different player skill levels at different game skill levels.
It was like this in Brood War, and it is like this in StarCraft 2. I understand the OP's concern, but the only way to balance the game without taking anything away from the depth of it - is to balance at top level.
This is just the way it is, and always will be.
Threshold examples: An example from BW is that Protoss is the easiest race to play for a good while from the bottom, but the closer you get to the top, the more it flattens out.
These levels are far from layed out in SC2 because the game is still so young and it changes rapidly all the time (with patch changes). It would seem Zerg is the hardest race a distance from the bottom, close to the top Zerg and Protoss seems to be stronger than Terran, and at the very top it would seem the races are somewhat balanced.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
Ya, god forbid admitting to the possibility that you are just bad.
User was temp banned for this post.
I know I shouldn't answer to this taunt but even if I was really just bad there's no other explaination to the decline of the terran race outside korea. I've tried playing protoss multiple times in the past (in the only matchup I know for SC2 protoss, PvT) and I could easily beat some of the top terrans in Europe by just camping, chronoboosting my upgrades and waiting on 3 bases. That's basically what every protoss does now and the amount of skill and multitasking it takes is so ridicolously low I feel like crying whenever I think I could have just kept playing protoss when SC2 started. If warpgate was not in the game it would be much different, not having to deal with walking distances and smartcasting makes everything way way WAY easier.
It's not too late, seriously. Morrow changed races relatively late and has done well and TLO has just switched. If protoss is really that much easier then please prove it to everyone by switching and winning some top tournaments.
I'm seriously not taunting you- I would love to see a pro actually have the balls to do that. I think we would be able to settle this debate once and for all if that happened.
I was thinking about it, but it would take around 2-3 weeks to get to the level I am with terran and I will probably try to switch when I have less tournaments and I am at top form so I wouldn't lose my form from not playing terran 2-3 weeks.
On December 02 2011 02:32 sonnert wrote: OP is completely right on the threshold thing.
Races require different player skill levels at different game skill levels.
It was like this in Brood War, and it is like this in StarCraft 2. I understand the OP's concern, but the only way to balance the game without taking anything away from the depth of it - is to balance at top level.
This is just the way it is, and always will be.
Threshold examples: An example from BW is that Protoss is the easiest race to play for a good while from the bottom, but the closer you get to the top, the more it flattens out.
These levels are far from layed out in SC2 because the game is still so young and it changes rapidly all the time (with patch changes). It would seem Zerg is the hardest race a distance from the bottom, close to the top Zerg and Protoss seems to be stronger than Terran, and at the very top it would seem the races are somewhat balanced.
We know it was like that in Brood War. In my opinion, though, the difference was smaller in BW. Yes, Terran was harder from the bottom in BW, but not as much as it is harder in SC2 (just to throw around some numbers in order to make my point - in BW it was like T 100 and P 85 and in SC2 is more like T 100 and P 70). Mainly, because of how the skill ceiling has dropped for P. Besides, just because it was so in BW, it doesn't mean it also has to be this way in SC2. That's why we are here, because we want it to level up more in HotS.
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.
It doesn't seem right to say that Terran buildings cost more because of lost SCV mining time seeing as Zerg lose the drone forever and need to replace it which means more larvae need to be spent on drones. It isn't as though Terran CC's are unable to build SCVs while barracks are building. By your logic a spawning pool costs a minimum of infinity + two zerglings. Terran also have mules which add to mineral gathering much more than build time detracts from it, therefore I would have to say there is no disadvantage with regards to fundamental economic mechanisms. As for marines, especially with stim + combat shield, WTF? Which would you prefer 10 chargelots, 20 marines or 40 cracklings? The marine, I think, needs to be a little less incredible as the OP has a point in that controlled marines devastate most of the stuff that's supposed to kill them and it doesn't need to be gosu control by any means. I have a friend that is as bronze as you can get and has been since season one and he very competently deals with banes and zealots and the like against much higher level opponents because the micro is not hard.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
You know top players don't spend every single second of their life practicing. If I post here just because I am used to do so for years and state protoss is way easier to play than terran it doesn't mean I am less dedicated than any of the other players you consider better than me. Actually I've talked to Naniwa recently and he told me he takes his time to do what he likes to do just as much or more than I do. Thing is you don't have to try to shit on my image just because I said a race takes considerably less skill and effort to be played at a foreign high level, because it doesn't change the reality of what I'm saying or the fact every foreign tournament result completely proves my point.
Yeah, sorry, I admit I went out of line there. Wasn't trying to imply that you're not good or anything. So what do you propose? Wait for HotS? Straight up buff Terran? Terran still seems pretty strong at the GSL (in Code A today for example, no Protoss won). I don't think we're at a level of imbalance where a much worse player than you can beat you if he plays Protoss (http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/eu you don't lose much btw, gj ;D), so I don't really understand why you complain. And in my book you got a pretty decent run at DH where you beat Naniwa, a protoss. Is it just the feeling when you're playing? That you must do much more than the other guy to win? I say it doesn't matter if you still win, it's that much more satisfying.
It's just weird that you, a good player with 76% winrate in EU GM, want to have your race made easier to play. But I mean, I kinda understand in a way, your livelihood depends on it, not mine.
I think this game was made wrong for a tons of reasons and I am just frustrated cause I ended up getting the shortest end of the stick. When I see players like Seiplo who can't even explain why they do what they do randomly beating players 10 times better than them at DH and a monster like Kas playing all day long the best players in Europe losing in the groupstage like he did then I can't help but thinking this game is bad and unfair. Of course there are really good protoss players and they get the merit they deserve, but in Europe there's so many joke all in protoss players who just randomly take risks and can win because the race just requires no mechanics (bling or elfi being other good examples) and can be played with overall very poor understanding of RTS. I mean look at Titan he's actually a really good and skilled protoss player, he picked up the game very late and it took him very little time to compete at the highest level in Europe. There's nothing to do right now, this game has been fucked up by the bad pathing that makes units clump too much, the smart casting system and super smart AI a-move units. Also warpgate mechanic is ridicolous and makes me wonder if blizzard balance team has any clue about how RTS games work since the distance between production buildings and where you want to have your units is one of the biggest things a player has to consider in order to perform well.
So I'm assuming you raged alot in BW when Protoss players were doing 1a move with 2 base Carrier on every map that they could right?
I love how in BW people just simply accepted the fact that Terran players had to work harder for their wins, and yet over here despite the fact that Terran players have dominated both the foreign and international scene in terms of overall tournament wins, that they can't accept the fact that Protoss players might have finally figured out how to actually win for once after getting NUMEROUS amounts of nerfs.
I'm not saying you don't have a point, but in BW people simply accepted the fact that playing Protoss was a hell of alot easier than the other races. And really, it was. You had so many cheesy strats at your disposal it was hilarious.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
You know top players don't spend every single second of their life practicing. If I post here just because I am used to do so for years and state protoss is way easier to play than terran it doesn't mean I am less dedicated than any of the other players you consider better than me. Actually I've talked to Naniwa recently and he told me he takes his time to do what he likes to do just as much or more than I do. Thing is you don't have to try to shit on my image just because I said a race takes considerably less skill and effort to be played at a foreign high level, because it doesn't change the reality of what I'm saying or the fact every foreign tournament result completely proves my point.
Yeah, sorry, I admit I went out of line there. Wasn't trying to imply that you're not good or anything. So what do you propose? Wait for HotS? Straight up buff Terran? Terran still seems pretty strong at the GSL (in Code A today for example, no Protoss won). I don't think we're at a level of imbalance where a much worse player than you can beat you if he plays Protoss (http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/eu you don't lose much btw, gj ;D), so I don't really understand why you complain. And in my book you got a pretty decent run at DH where you beat Naniwa, a protoss. Is it just the feeling when you're playing? That you must do much more than the other guy to win? I say it doesn't matter if you still win, it's that much more satisfying.
It's just weird that you, a good player with 76% winrate in EU GM, want to have your race made easier to play. But I mean, I kinda understand in a way, your livelihood depends on it, not mine.
I think this game was made wrong for a tons of reasons and I am just frustrated cause I ended up getting the shortest end of the stick. When I see players like Seiplo who can't even explain why they do what they do randomly beating players 10 times better than them at DH and a monster like Kas playing all day long the best players in Europe losing in the groupstage like he did then I can't help but thinking this game is bad and unfair. Of course there are really good protoss players and they get the merit they deserve, but in Europe there's so many joke all in protoss players who just randomly take risks and can win because the race just requires no mechanics (bling or elfi being other good examples) and can be played with overall very poor understanding of RTS. I mean look at Titan he's actually a really good and skilled protoss player, he picked up the game very late and it took him very little time to compete at the highest level in Europe. There's nothing to do right now, this game has been fucked up by the bad pathing that makes units clump too much, the smart casting system and super smart AI a-move units. Also warpgate mechanic is ridicolous and makes me wonder if blizzard balance team has any clue about how RTS games work since the distance between production buildings and where you want to have your units is one of the biggest things a player has to consider in order to perform well.
So I'm assuming you raged alot in BW when Protoss players were doing 1a move with 2 base Carrier on every map that they could right?
I love how in BW people just simply accepted the fact that Terran players had to work harder for their wins, and yet over here despite the fact that Terran players have dominated both the foreign and international scene in terms of overall tournament wins, that they can't accept the fact that Protoss players might have finally figured out how to actually win for once after getting NUMEROUS amounts of nerfs.
I was protoss in brood war and while I always admitted it was a bit easier it still took insane skill, multitasking macro and micro to play protoss at high level while the skill ceiling for protoss in sc2 is just so low even really bad players can touch some of it. It's not fair even for the good protoss players who get to face bad players in their broken mirror and lose to them cause the game is flawed.
Problem with terran is simply that they're constantly forced to do damage, so vs a player that defends well it's just not winnable in the lategame. Blizzard should have sticked with the way terran was in bw, maybe hots will improve things.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
You know top players don't spend every single second of their life practicing. If I post here just because I am used to do so for years and state protoss is way easier to play than terran it doesn't mean I am less dedicated than any of the other players you consider better than me. Actually I've talked to Naniwa recently and he told me he takes his time to do what he likes to do just as much or more than I do. Thing is you don't have to try to shit on my image just because I said a race takes considerably less skill and effort to be played at a foreign high level, because it doesn't change the reality of what I'm saying or the fact every foreign tournament result completely proves my point.
Yeah, sorry, I admit I went out of line there. Wasn't trying to imply that you're not good or anything. So what do you propose? Wait for HotS? Straight up buff Terran? Terran still seems pretty strong at the GSL (in Code A today for example, no Protoss won). I don't think we're at a level of imbalance where a much worse player than you can beat you if he plays Protoss (http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/eu you don't lose much btw, gj ;D), so I don't really understand why you complain. And in my book you got a pretty decent run at DH where you beat Naniwa, a protoss. Is it just the feeling when you're playing? That you must do much more than the other guy to win? I say it doesn't matter if you still win, it's that much more satisfying.
It's just weird that you, a good player with 76% winrate in EU GM, want to have your race made easier to play. But I mean, I kinda understand in a way, your livelihood depends on it, not mine.
I think this game was made wrong for a tons of reasons and I am just frustrated cause I ended up getting the shortest end of the stick. When I see players like Seiplo who can't even explain why they do what they do randomly beating players 10 times better than them at DH and a monster like Kas playing all day long the best players in Europe losing in the groupstage like he did then I can't help but thinking this game is bad and unfair. Of course there are really good protoss players and they get the merit they deserve, but in Europe there's so many joke all in protoss players who just randomly take risks and can win because the race just requires no mechanics (bling or elfi being other good examples) and can be played with overall very poor understanding of RTS. I mean look at Titan he's actually a really good and skilled protoss player, he picked up the game very late and it took him very little time to compete at the highest level in Europe. There's nothing to do right now, this game has been fucked up by the bad pathing that makes units clump too much, the smart casting system and super smart AI a-move units. Also warpgate mechanic is ridicolous and makes me wonder if blizzard balance team has any clue about how RTS games work since the distance between production buildings and where you want to have your units is one of the biggest things a player has to consider in order to perform well.
So I'm assuming you raged alot in BW when Protoss players were doing 1a move with 2 base Carrier on every map that they could right?
I love how in BW people just simply accepted the fact that Terran players had to work harder for their wins, and yet over here despite the fact that Terran players have dominated both the foreign and international scene in terms of overall tournament wins, that they can't accept the fact that Protoss players might have finally figured out how to actually win for once after getting NUMEROUS amounts of nerfs.
I'm not saying you don't have a point, but in BW people simply accepted the fact that playing Protoss was a hell of alot easier than the other races. And really, it was. You had so many cheesy strats at your disposal it was hilarious.
Really? Terran foreigners are dominating the foreign scene? I must be living in a parallel universe then.
I was wondering, does anyone with an incredible memory or the time to dig the data know what the consistency of foreign terrans commitment is like to that of their zerg and protoss counterparts? To clarify, how many terrans have stayed active in the scene without disappearing or switching races etc? Qxc only plays half the year, Gretorp became a caster, Fenix went to korea and was awesome then vanished, Select wanders off for long periods.... Where are the terran versions of Huk who just kept trying to get better 'til he did, Idra who refused to win games for a while but was always there and competitive, Socke the immovable object at the top end of every tournament he seems to enter, Sen - the beast that waits?
Where is the Tyler or Incontrol of terran? It doesn't seem to me that there are foreign terrans with the fortitude to keep active long enough to figure things out like their Korean cousins and smash face at tournaments.
On December 02 2011 03:04 BBQSAC wrote: I was wondering, does anyone with an incredible memory or the time to dig the data know what the consistency of foreign terrans commitment is like to that of their zerg and protoss counterparts? To clarify, how many terrans have stayed active in the scene without disappearing or switching races etc? Qxc only plays half the year, Gretorp became a caster, Fenix went to korea and was awesome then vanished, Select wanders off for long periods.... Where are the terran versions of Huk who just kept trying to get better 'til he did, Idra who refused to win games for a while but was always there and competitive, Socke the immovable object at the top end of every tournament he seems to enter, Sen - the beast that waits?
Where is the Tyler or Incontrol of terran? It doesn't seem to me that there are foreign terrans with the fortitude to keep active long enough to figure things out like their Korean cousins and smash face at tournaments.
KAS, BeastyQT, Happy, Jinro, Drewbie? From what I've heard Huk barely has time to practice these days due to traveling across the world so I'm not sure if he helps your argument here.
Recently been watching Artists' stream and he is just as frustrated at P so its reassuring to know i'm not the only one! He shouldnt be losing to master's NA protoss right? since he's korean and all... I know he may not be the best, but he's up there.
On December 02 2011 03:04 BBQSAC wrote: I was wondering, does anyone with an incredible memory or the time to dig the data know what the consistency of foreign terrans commitment is like to that of their zerg and protoss counterparts? To clarify, how many terrans have stayed active in the scene without disappearing or switching races etc? Qxc only plays half the year, Gretorp became a caster, Fenix went to korea and was awesome then vanished, Select wanders off for long periods.... Where are the terran versions of Huk who just kept trying to get better 'til he did, Idra who refused to win games for a while but was always there and competitive, Socke the immovable object at the top end of every tournament he seems to enter, Sen - the beast that waits?
Where is the Tyler or Incontrol of terran? It doesn't seem to me that there are foreign terrans with the fortitude to keep active long enough to figure things out like their Korean cousins and smash face at tournaments.
KAS, BeastyQT, Happy, Jinro, Drewbie? From what I've heard Huk barely has time to practice these days due to traveling across the world so I'm not sure if he helps your argument here.
Recently been watching Artists' stream and he is just as frustrated at P so its reassuring to know i'm not the only one! He shouldnt be losing to master's NA protoss right? since he's korean and all... I know he may not be the best, but he's up there.
None of the terrans you mentioned is winning anything except some minor online cups.
kas - is really good, but atm also whining sometimes about toss on his stream beasty - is whining about toss for ages now (which i totally understand xD) and has not won anything but online cups happy - the same with online cups jinro - has not shown anything since he was gsl semis like 1 year ago drewbie - have actually not seen anything from him in a long time
and artosis is neither a korean nor a very good player. i'm not saying he could not be, but he just does not nearly have enough time to play.
€: I dont want to insult anyone of those terrans - they are all great players but just cant seem to win something bigger.
On December 02 2011 03:04 BBQSAC wrote: I was wondering, does anyone with an incredible memory or the time to dig the data know what the consistency of foreign terrans commitment is like to that of their zerg and protoss counterparts? To clarify, how many terrans have stayed active in the scene without disappearing or switching races etc? Qxc only plays half the year, Gretorp became a caster, Fenix went to korea and was awesome then vanished, Select wanders off for long periods.... Where are the terran versions of Huk who just kept trying to get better 'til he did, Idra who refused to win games for a while but was always there and competitive, Socke the immovable object at the top end of every tournament he seems to enter, Sen - the beast that waits?
Where is the Tyler or Incontrol of terran? It doesn't seem to me that there are foreign terrans with the fortitude to keep active long enough to figure things out like their Korean cousins and smash face at tournaments.
Painuser is as close as they get. But there is no visionary(madman?) like Kiwi or micro machine Sasa, though. I would like to see a terran take it to the next level and use some of the neglected units in the match up. Blue flame hellion and ravens have a role against protoss. It may not be be in support of the bio ball, but it is hard to believe they can't do anything.
We will see, someone will step to the plate and make the brave step of not flying his factory around and seeing what he can do with the units it builds.
On December 02 2011 03:04 BBQSAC wrote: I was wondering, does anyone with an incredible memory or the time to dig the data know what the consistency of foreign terrans commitment is like to that of their zerg and protoss counterparts? To clarify, how many terrans have stayed active in the scene without disappearing or switching races etc? Qxc only plays half the year, Gretorp became a caster, Fenix went to korea and was awesome then vanished, Select wanders off for long periods.... Where are the terran versions of Huk who just kept trying to get better 'til he did, Idra who refused to win games for a while but was always there and competitive, Socke the immovable object at the top end of every tournament he seems to enter, Sen - the beast that waits?
Where is the Tyler or Incontrol of terran? It doesn't seem to me that there are foreign terrans with the fortitude to keep active long enough to figure things out like their Korean cousins and smash face at tournaments.
KAS, BeastyQT, Happy, Jinro, Drewbie? From what I've heard Huk barely has time to practice these days due to traveling across the world so I'm not sure if he helps your argument here.
Recently been watching Artists' stream and he is just as frustrated at P so its reassuring to know i'm not the only one! He shouldnt be losing to master's NA protoss right? since he's korean and all... I know he may not be the best, but he's up there.
None of the terrans you mentioned is winning anything except some minor online cups.
kas - is really good, but atm also whining sometimes about toss on his stream beasty - is whining about toss for ages now (which i totally understand xD) and has not won anything but online cups happy - the same with online cups jinro - has not shown anything since he was gsl semis like 1 year ago drewbie - have actually not seen anything from him in a long time
and artosis is neither a korean nor a very good player. i'm not saying he could not be, but he just does not nearly have enough time to play.
€: I dont want to insult anyone of those terrans - they are all great players but just cant seem to win something bigger.
I'm sorry I didn't know commitment meant you had to win something... also I said Artist as in RGNArtist not Artosis...
On December 02 2011 03:04 BBQSAC wrote: I was wondering, does anyone with an incredible memory or the time to dig the data know what the consistency of foreign terrans commitment is like to that of their zerg and protoss counterparts? To clarify, how many terrans have stayed active in the scene without disappearing or switching races etc? Qxc only plays half the year, Gretorp became a caster, Fenix went to korea and was awesome then vanished, Select wanders off for long periods.... Where are the terran versions of Huk who just kept trying to get better 'til he did, Idra who refused to win games for a while but was always there and competitive, Socke the immovable object at the top end of every tournament he seems to enter, Sen - the beast that waits?
Where is the Tyler or Incontrol of terran? It doesn't seem to me that there are foreign terrans with the fortitude to keep active long enough to figure things out like their Korean cousins and smash face at tournaments.
KAS, BeastyQT, Happy, Jinro, Drewbie? From what I've heard Huk barely has time to practice these days due to traveling across the world so I'm not sure if he helps your argument here.
Recently been watching Artists' stream and he is just as frustrated at P so its reassuring to know i'm not the only one! He shouldnt be losing to master's NA protoss right? since he's korean and all... I know he may not be the best, but he's up there.
None of the terrans you mentioned is winning anything except some minor online cups.
kas - is really good, but atm also whining sometimes about toss on his stream beasty - is whining about toss for ages now (which i totally understand xD) and has not won anything but online cups happy - the same with online cups jinro - has not shown anything since he was gsl semis like 1 year ago drewbie - have actually not seen anything from him in a long time
and artosis is neither a korean nor a very good player. i'm not saying he could not be, but he just does not nearly have enough time to play.
€: I dont want to insult anyone of those terrans - they are all great players but just cant seem to win something bigger.
I'm sorry I didn't know commitment meant you had to win something... also I said Artist as in RGNArtist not Artosis...
oh im sorry, i totally read artosis. i don't know why. Oo well in my oppinion the thing was to mention terrans who have been able to stay at the top. i don't think anyone of those (perhaps except kas but even that can be discussed) did do that. youre right, artist should be able to win against na protoss. :D
On December 02 2011 03:04 BBQSAC wrote: I was wondering, does anyone with an incredible memory or the time to dig the data know what the consistency of foreign terrans commitment is like to that of their zerg and protoss counterparts? To clarify, how many terrans have stayed active in the scene without disappearing or switching races etc? Qxc only plays half the year, Gretorp became a caster, Fenix went to korea and was awesome then vanished, Select wanders off for long periods.... Where are the terran versions of Huk who just kept trying to get better 'til he did, Idra who refused to win games for a while but was always there and competitive, Socke the immovable object at the top end of every tournament he seems to enter, Sen - the beast that waits?
Where is the Tyler or Incontrol of terran? It doesn't seem to me that there are foreign terrans with the fortitude to keep active long enough to figure things out like their Korean cousins and smash face at tournaments.
KAS, BeastyQT, Happy, Jinro, Drewbie? From what I've heard Huk barely has time to practice these days due to traveling across the world so I'm not sure if he helps your argument here.
Recently been watching Artists' stream and he is just as frustrated at P so its reassuring to know i'm not the only one! He shouldnt be losing to master's NA protoss right? since he's korean and all... I know he may not be the best, but he's up there.
None of the terrans you mentioned is winning anything except some minor online cups.
kas - is really good, but atm also whining sometimes about toss on his stream beasty - is whining about toss for ages now (which i totally understand xD) and has not won anything but online cups happy - the same with online cups jinro - has not shown anything since he was gsl semis like 1 year ago drewbie - have actually not seen anything from him in a long time
and artosis is neither a korean nor a very good player. i'm not saying he could not be, but he just does not nearly have enough time to play.
€: I dont want to insult anyone of those terrans - they are all great players but just cant seem to win something bigger.
I'm sorry I didn't know commitment meant you had to win something... also I said Artist as in RGNArtist not Artosis...
oh im sorry, i totally read artosis. i don't know why. Oo well in my oppinion the thing was to mention terrans who have been able to stay at the top. i don't think anyone of those (perhaps except kas but even that can be discussed) did do that. youre right, artist should be able to win against na protoss. :D
I definitively think he should be winning most if not all of his matches vs NA masters** toss... and its real sad to see him lose and then get mad and off race as Z a game or 2 after. And if you watch his games closing in most of the matches he loses he doesn't make any huge mistake or anything of that sort.
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.
It doesn't seem right to say that Terran buildings cost more because of lost SCV mining time seeing as Zerg lose the drone forever and need to replace it which means more larvae need to be spent on drones. It isn't as though Terran CC's are unable to build SCVs while barracks are building. By your logic a spawning pool costs a minimum of infinity + two zerglings. Terran also have mules which add to mineral gathering much more than build time detracts from it, therefore I would have to say there is no disadvantage with regards to fundamental economic mechanisms. As for marines, especially with stim + combat shield, WTF? Which would you prefer 10 chargelots, 20 marines or 40 cracklings? The marine, I think, needs to be a little less incredible as the OP has a point in that controlled marines devastate most of the stuff that's supposed to kill them and it doesn't need to be gosu control by any means. I have a friend that is as bronze as you can get and has been since season one and he very competently deals with banes and zealots and the like against much higher level opponents because the micro is not hard.
Your comparison with the drone isn't quite right, as that specific drone hasn't been made for the purpose of mining, but for the purpose of morphing to a building. You should consider that additional mining before morphing as an extra, and not think of future income as opportunity cost. And at least you agree, that terran needs mules. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make, that terran needs mules in order to keep up with mineral income due to the race mechanics/costs. And regarding the supply drop: it hurts and punishes terran more to miss/lose a supply depot than a pylon or overlord (mainly buildtime 30 secs vs 25 for pylon, 25 overlord, but also lost minerals for the walking distance and building time).
As i see it, there is clearly a game design flaw on how big engagements are processed in SC2, and the bigger the battle, the worse it gets.
Most if not all Terran units require defensive micro to be effective, and by defensive micro i mean you either micro your units or you die. This may be OK in small skirmishes but when a big fight takes place the ease with which you can lose all your stuff is uncanny.
To make things worse both protoss and zerg have this big aoe low micro units like banelings and colossus. And again this would not be a problem in a small engagement that allows you to focus on that specific combat and do your best micro like some sick marine split but it becomes a problem late game, like when you are sitting in the middle of the map with tanks, distracted by a thousand stuff going on like mutas picking off tanks and then suddenly comes an a-moved tsunami of banelings and speedlings that just clean everything off.
You may argue that this just my personal experience, but if you look at top top terran players like MvP, especialy the lastest games, this is definetly an issue. Even if you are playing great, doing damage all over the map, you can still lose everything, including tanks to just a mass of a-moved banelings. Zerg could argue that banelings are highly inefficient against non-light units, however when the game reaches a certain point, this becomes a non-issue, because a) the core of the terran army was wiped b) zerg can remax much faster.
Note however that im not saying speedlings or banelings more specificly are imbalanced, i am just pointing out that for a unit that forces that much "defensive micro" it takes very little effort to use. If baneling was removed and lurker was implemented again the matchup would become 10x better and more entertaining to watch right there.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Again the same combination of offensive units that force defensive micro coupled with big aoe damage seems to be the issue here.
On December 01 2011 22:02 petro1987 wrote: But have you guys ever stopped to think that it's not feasible for everyone to just keep getting better?
On December 02 2011 01:28 petro1987 wrote: I've never said is not feasible to get better.
Lol, sure you didn't.
I know what you meant, but that's the game. If you can't get better because you have limited time, then go to this thread and this one so you can improve with minimal grinding. SC2 is not something you must have 300 apm to compete. A diamand/low master player probably already has the 120-ish that they need. They just need to make the right decisions.
On December 02 2011 03:56 Alexstrasas wrote: I completely agree with what OP said.
As i see it, there is clearly a game design flaw on how big engagements are processed in SC2, and the bigger the battle, the worse it gets.
Most if not all Terran units require defensive micro to be effective, and by defensive micro i mean you either micro your units or you die. This may be OK in small skirmishes but when a big fight takes place the ease with which you can lose all your stuff is uncanny.
To make things worse both protoss and zerg have this big aoe low micro units like banelings and colossus. And again this would not be a problem in a small engagement that allows you to focus on that specific combat and do your best micro like some sick marine split but it becomes a problem late game, like when you are sitting in the middle of the map with tanks, distracted by a thousand stuff going on like mutas picking off tanks and then suddenly comes an a-moved tsunami of banelings and speedlings that just clean everything off.
You may argue that this just my personal experience, but if you look at top top terran players like MvP, especialy the lastest games, this is definetly an issue. Even if you are playing great, doing damage all over the map, you can still lose everything, including tanks to just a mass of a-moved banelings. Zerg could argue that banelings are highly inefficient against non-light units, however when the game reaches a certain point, this becomes a non-issue, because a) the core of the terran army was wiped b) zerg can remax much faster.
Note however that im not saying speedlings or banelings more specificly are imbalanced, i am just pointing out that for a unit that forces that much "defensive micro" it takes very little effort to use. If baneling was removed and lurker was implemented again the matchup would become 10x better and more entertaining to watch right there.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Again the same combination of offensive units that force defensive micro coupled with big aoe damage seems to be the issue here.
PLEASE show me a game that IMMVP lost in the late game to massive amounts of a-moved banelings.
Because when I watch MVP I see him insta target banelings with tanks and make them look like wasted supply.
On December 02 2011 03:56 Alexstrasas wrote: I completely agree with what OP said.
As i see it, there is clearly a game design flaw on how big engagements are processed in SC2, and the bigger the battle, the worse it gets.
Most if not all Terran units require defensive micro to be effective, and by defensive micro i mean you either micro your units or you die. This may be OK in small skirmishes but when a big fight takes place the ease with which you can lose all your stuff is uncanny.
To make things worse both protoss and zerg have this big aoe low micro units like banelings and colossus. And again this would not be a problem in a small engagement that allows you to focus on that specific combat and do your best micro like some sick marine split but it becomes a problem late game, like when you are sitting in the middle of the map with tanks, distracted by a thousand stuff going on like mutas picking off tanks and then suddenly comes an a-moved tsunami of banelings and speedlings that just clean everything off.
You may argue that this just my personal experience, but if you look at top top terran players like MvP, especialy the lastest games, this is definetly an issue. Even if you are playing great, doing damage all over the map, you can still lose everything, including tanks to just a mass of a-moved banelings. Zerg could argue that banelings are highly inefficient against non-light units, however when the game reaches a certain point, this becomes a non-issue, because a) the core of the terran army was wiped b) zerg can remax much faster.
Note however that im not saying speedlings or banelings more specificly are imbalanced, i am just pointing out that for a unit that forces that much "defensive micro" it takes very little effort to use. If baneling was removed and lurker was implemented again the matchup would become 10x better and more entertaining to watch right there.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Again the same combination of offensive units that force defensive micro coupled with big aoe damage seems to be the issue here.
PLEASE show me a game that IMMVP lost in the late game to massive amounts of a-moved banelings.
Because when I watch MVP I see him insta target banelings with tanks and make them look like wasted supply.
I think he was thinking about the Nada vs. Nestea game where banelings wiped the floor with a bunch of clumped up thors.
Those situations are rare though, if Z can afford enough banes to actually kill thors then he probably should win regardless.
What comes to terran using high-tier units, thors were actually a really interesting unit when they had their energy removed and immortals only had 5 range. Who could forget Thorzains thor builds in the TSL? Thor/hellion actually seemed like a good alternative to bio for a while, one that wasn't so micro-intensive either. You really can just focus fire with thors at most, otherwise its a-move and hope to win.
Then Blizzard decided thors were a "support unit" and nerfed them again, before players even really had time to experiment with the unit. One of the weirdest decisions I've seen in the history of SC2.
On December 02 2011 03:56 Alexstrasas wrote: I completely agree with what OP said.
As i see it, there is clearly a game design flaw on how big engagements are processed in SC2, and the bigger the battle, the worse it gets.
Most if not all Terran units require defensive micro to be effective, and by defensive micro i mean you either micro your units or you die. This may be OK in small skirmishes but when a big fight takes place the ease with which you can lose all your stuff is uncanny.
To make things worse both protoss and zerg have this big aoe low micro units like banelings and colossus. And again this would not be a problem in a small engagement that allows you to focus on that specific combat and do your best micro like some sick marine split but it becomes a problem late game, like when you are sitting in the middle of the map with tanks, distracted by a thousand stuff going on like mutas picking off tanks and then suddenly comes an a-moved tsunami of banelings and speedlings that just clean everything off.
You may argue that this just my personal experience, but if you look at top top terran players like MvP, especialy the lastest games, this is definetly an issue. Even if you are playing great, doing damage all over the map, you can still lose everything, including tanks to just a mass of a-moved banelings. Zerg could argue that banelings are highly inefficient against non-light units, however when the game reaches a certain point, this becomes a non-issue, because a) the core of the terran army was wiped b) zerg can remax much faster.
Note however that im not saying speedlings or banelings more specificly are imbalanced, i am just pointing out that for a unit that forces that much "defensive micro" it takes very little effort to use. If baneling was removed and lurker was implemented again the matchup would become 10x better and more entertaining to watch right there.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Again the same combination of offensive units that force defensive micro coupled with big aoe damage seems to be the issue here.
PLEASE show me a game that IMMVP lost in the late game to massive amounts of a-moved banelings.
Because when I watch MVP I see him insta target banelings with tanks and make them look like wasted supply.
I think he was thinking about the Nada vs. Nestea game where banelings wiped the floor with a bunch of clumped up thors.
Those situations are rare though, if Z can afford enough banes to actually kill thors then he probably should win regardless.
That only worked because the Thors were clumped and Nada attacked right before his upgrade finished. Pretty unlucky. Or Nestea being a genius. Who knows? But if the upgrade finishes and those Thors are even a little less clumped, GG Nestea.
As a terran play who switched from protoss a while ago, I must say I do agree with this post to a certain extent.
No matter what says, there are a few irrefutable points that we have to make.
1. Terran units are generally the most fragile out of the three races, in terms of production (2x zerglings = 70hp/marine = 45/55)
2. Terran (combat) units are ALL ranged
3. Terran units are generally specialized to deal with specific threats. Besides the generalized Marine (which I will admit, probably the best unit in the game), all of their units have specific counters and weaknesses.
Now, we'll see how each of these points factors into why Terran may be balanced at high levels, but fall off a little bit in mid and low-level play.
1: Fragility means you must be careful with your engagements. A part of your army left in a storm for too long, or an unscanned baneling mine will decimate a portion of your forces, while a Protoss or Zerg army will still be alive (and dealing DPS).
2. Ranged units means that you are fundamentally stronger, since you can hit them from further away. But coupled with fact one, you will need to actually exploit your range, be it terrain, or kiting, for maximum effectiveness. 4 marines can easily take out 8 slowlings with proper micro, but don't stand a chance if they sit still.
3. Specialized units means that you must carefully cater your composition to handle specific threats. Marauders are amazing against roaches, but don't fare well against Zerglings and cannot even retaliate against mutalisks. Siege tanks are expensive but can eradicate ground forces, but must require careful positioning and sieging at the right time for maximum effectiveness.
With these points combined, it really does support the argument that OP is trying to make. To be honest though, I think this is the trademark of Terran. It'll be interesting to see what Blizzard adds or changes in HotS.
On December 02 2011 04:08 Bagi wrote: What comes to terran using high-tier units, thors were actually a really interesting unit when they had their energy removed and immortals only had 5 range. Who could forget Thorzains thor builds in the TSL? Thor/hellion actually seemed like a good alternative to bio for a while, one that wasn't so micro-intensive either. You really can just focus fire with thors at most, otherwise its a-move and hope to win.
Then Blizzard decided thors were a "support unit" and nerfed them again, before players even really had time to experiment with the unit. One of the weirdest decisions I've seen in the history of SC2.
The decision made perfect sense looking at the game and other thor builds coming out at the time. Jjijaki's observer sniping build is one I have waited to see for a long while.
More to the point, why can't ghosts emping your own thors/ BCs make such builds viable? Essentially the inclusion of energy potentially neutered certain timings. Now when you move your ball of metal death across the map, you merely have to emp your units before the energy reaches crippling heights. Considering what people used to do to avoid rogue vulture mine placement it doesn't seem too high a hurdle.
*I say timing fully aware of the increased gas costs. Maybe replace any hellion component of the build with additional marines ?
small Marine/ghost force accompanying your thor force?
edit: all the complaints about zealots though seem insane. I understand you like winning but do you want some sort of competition? or back to TvT all the time?
As i see it, the problem is the a-move AI of especially zealots with charge and speedlings. Zeals without charge and slow lings gives some really nice microbattles with each other and with marines so i guess its the micro-discouraging upgrades that is the problem. They make up for the upgrades with battle helions in HOTS, but that may just dumb down terran which imo is a bad thing.
And the Colossus is probably the easiest unit in the game. Vision of everything, close to no collision, attack that deals tons of damage with no micro required, and little positioning required while still covering insane distances. I have no clue why they make Thors unique and not the Colossus.
I am Platinum League and if they 'fixed' these two, the TvZ and TvP matchups would be at least double the fun.
It's Warp Tech and Weak Terran Mech (Against P) that is biting our Terran asses really.
I don't like playing Bio very much, especially not in the lategame. I'm hoping for HOTS but I'm not sure.
Also if Protoss manages to turtle and defend drops/allins and get up 3+ bases they get so strong lategame.
In the scenarios we're I'm fighting while trying to macro lategame i always feels its so much easier as P. Just warping in some Chargelots to your ball and a-move and the terran needs to spend valuable seconds kiting while you macro up nicely.
I've been Terran/Random since Beta but i still can play PvT almost as decently as TvP. My lategame PvT is better imo .
All the all-ins you can do as Terran makes it hard to balance - because at that stage it's always much harder for the P to hold them then for the Terran to kill them.
It's not really a balance issue, the matchup just feels wierd. Both races are fragile in different points of the game (Which i guess is fair, but i still dislike it) TvZ is soo much better .
Maybe Terrans just have to get used to playing against the clock or switch? Gah i wish i could enjoy half ZvZ as much as i enjoy TvT
On December 02 2011 04:08 Bagi wrote: What comes to terran using high-tier units, thors were actually a really interesting unit when they had their energy removed and immortals only had 5 range. Who could forget Thorzains thor builds in the TSL? Thor/hellion actually seemed like a good alternative to bio for a while, one that wasn't so micro-intensive either. You really can just focus fire with thors at most, otherwise its a-move and hope to win.
Then Blizzard decided thors were a "support unit" and nerfed them again, before players even really had time to experiment with the unit. One of the weirdest decisions I've seen in the history of SC2.
I'm still waiting for the revival of thor banshee marine timing attacks (or even late game switch!). Seems like terrans are silently protesting and not getting thors in TvP at all. Bliz probably anticipated that it would be too good against toss so they renerfed it.
I think the immortal is a really badly designed "hard counter" unit too. When I talked with one of my Dota/Wc3 fan friends about watching SC2, he said he was turned off by those types of rock paper scissor units in SC2 and that BW is way better to watch.
On December 02 2011 03:56 Alexstrasas wrote: I completely agree with what OP said.
As i see it, there is clearly a game design flaw on how big engagements are processed in SC2, and the bigger the battle, the worse it gets.
Most if not all Terran units require defensive micro to be effective, and by defensive micro i mean you either micro your units or you die. This may be OK in small skirmishes but when a big fight takes place the ease with which you can lose all your stuff is uncanny.
To make things worse both protoss and zerg have this big aoe low micro units like banelings and colossus. And again this would not be a problem in a small engagement that allows you to focus on that specific combat and do your best micro like some sick marine split but it becomes a problem late game, like when you are sitting in the middle of the map with tanks, distracted by a thousand stuff going on like mutas picking off tanks and then suddenly comes an a-moved tsunami of banelings and speedlings that just clean everything off.
You may argue that this just my personal experience, but if you look at top top terran players like MvP, especialy the lastest games, this is definetly an issue. Even if you are playing great, doing damage all over the map, you can still lose everything, including tanks to just a mass of a-moved banelings. Zerg could argue that banelings are highly inefficient against non-light units, however when the game reaches a certain point, this becomes a non-issue, because a) the core of the terran army was wiped b) zerg can remax much faster.
Note however that im not saying speedlings or banelings more specificly are imbalanced, i am just pointing out that for a unit that forces that much "defensive micro" it takes very little effort to use. If baneling was removed and lurker was implemented again the matchup would become 10x better and more entertaining to watch right there.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Again the same combination of offensive units that force defensive micro coupled with big aoe damage seems to be the issue here.
Lists of the micro people have to do are not helpful because everyone has a huge list of things that may or may not be just as hard. Its not like there is a Random player who is top 20 (which by the way would be awesome so we could get some of these questions answered).
I play random and I find my winrate with all races is within the margin of error. I don't understand how you can just state, "terran micro is the hardest" then list whatever you want. I can make lists for every race that range from simple to complex.
If you are at the level where terran is stim kiting and engaging in even rudimentary splits, A-moving banelings does not work well, nor do poorly placed FF's work (actually FF's that are placed poorly sometimes hurt the Protoss). IMO feedbacking ghosts is 2-3x harder than EMPing templars/infestors, but I think storm placement is fairly easy. Vikings/Corruptors are just as easy to use as Colossus, I think.
FF placement is easily the most unforgiving micro tactic, but it does have a skill cap that is low enough for most of us to achieve, while marine splitting is hard to do perfectly. On the other hand, perfect Zealot Charge micro would be absurdly devastating, and no one ever talks about that as part of the Protoss skill cap, very few people talk about how perfect creep spread could probably cover the entire map by the 10 minute mark (and open up a ton more micro options for zerg).
With some empirical evidence (not a sampling of 10 foreign players) I'd be willing to accept the Terran=hardmode argument, but listing random things is not helpful.
On December 02 2011 03:56 Alexstrasas wrote: I completely agree with what OP said.
As i see it, there is clearly a game design flaw on how big engagements are processed in SC2, and the bigger the battle, the worse it gets.
Most if not all Terran units require defensive micro to be effective, and by defensive micro i mean you either micro your units or you die. This may be OK in small skirmishes but when a big fight takes place the ease with which you can lose all your stuff is uncanny.
To make things worse both protoss and zerg have this big aoe low micro units like banelings and colossus. And again this would not be a problem in a small engagement that allows you to focus on that specific combat and do your best micro like some sick marine split but it becomes a problem late game, like when you are sitting in the middle of the map with tanks, distracted by a thousand stuff going on like mutas picking off tanks and then suddenly comes an a-moved tsunami of banelings and speedlings that just clean everything off.
You may argue that this just my personal experience, but if you look at top top terran players like MvP, especialy the lastest games, this is definetly an issue. Even if you are playing great, doing damage all over the map, you can still lose everything, including tanks to just a mass of a-moved banelings. Zerg could argue that banelings are highly inefficient against non-light units, however when the game reaches a certain point, this becomes a non-issue, because a) the core of the terran army was wiped b) zerg can remax much faster.
Note however that im not saying speedlings or banelings more specificly are imbalanced, i am just pointing out that for a unit that forces that much "defensive micro" it takes very little effort to use. If baneling was removed and lurker was implemented again the matchup would become 10x better and more entertaining to watch right there.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Again the same combination of offensive units that force defensive micro coupled with big aoe damage seems to be the issue here.
Lists of the micro people have to do are not helpful because everyone has a huge list of things that may or may not be just as hard. Its not like there is a Random player who is top 20 (which by the way would be awesome so we could get some of these questions answered).
I play random and I find my winrate with all races is within the margin of error. I don't understand how you can just state, "terran micro is the hardest" then list whatever you want. I can make lists for every race that range from simple to complex.
If you are at the level where terran is stim kiting and engaging in even rudimentary splits, A-moving banelings does not work well, nor do poorly placed FF's work (actually FF's that are placed poorly sometimes hurt the Protoss). IMO feedbacking ghosts is 2-3x harder than EMPing templars/infestors, but I think storm placement is fairly easy. Vikings/Corruptors are just as easy to use as Colossus, I think.
FF placement is easily the most unforgiving micro tactic, but it does have a skill cap that is low enough for most of us to achieve, while marine splitting is hard to do perfectly. On the other hand, perfect Zealot Charge micro would be absurdly devastating, and no one ever talks about that as part of the Protoss skill cap, very few people talk about how perfect creep spread could probably cover the entire map by the 10 minute mark (and open up a ton more micro options for zerg).
With some empirical evidence (not a sampling of 10 foreign players) I'd be willing to accept the Terran=hardmode argument, but listing random things is not helpful.
Cool post and it's even cooler that your are random.
On December 02 2011 04:08 Bagi wrote: What comes to terran using high-tier units, thors were actually a really interesting unit when they had their energy removed and immortals only had 5 range. Who could forget Thorzains thor builds in the TSL? Thor/hellion actually seemed like a good alternative to bio for a while, one that wasn't so micro-intensive either. You really can just focus fire with thors at most, otherwise its a-move and hope to win.
Then Blizzard decided thors were a "support unit" and nerfed them again, before players even really had time to experiment with the unit. One of the weirdest decisions I've seen in the history of SC2.
The decision made perfect sense looking at the game and other thor builds coming out at the time. Jjijaki's observer sniping build is one I have waited to see for a long while.
More to the point, why can't ghosts emping your own thors/ BCs make such builds viable? Essentially the inclusion of energy potentially neutered certain timings. Now when you move your ball of metal death across the map, you merely have to emp your units before the energy reaches crippling heights. Considering what people used to do to avoid rogue vulture mine placement it doesn't seem too high a hurdle.
Well, using the old strike cannons was a big part of the strategy as you could disable immortals with them. EMPing means you won't be able to do that.
I'd say the immortal range is an even bigger problem though, the one thing thors had over immortals was 2 extra range which allowed them to either use cannons or just FF them quickly. Now immortals are sure to get some shots in before they go down. Thors mow down gateway units with ease, but I'm pretty convinced that immortal/colossus beats thors cost-for-cost no problem.
You can still make a decent 1-2 base all-in with thors but it becomes impossible to keep up in army strength in the long run. Thors are also so ridiculously slow that your only hope is to crush the protoss ball head on, you don't have all the options to outmaneuver your opponent that you get with bio.
On December 02 2011 04:15 Osteriet wrote: As i see it, the problem is the a-move AI of especially zealots with charge and speedlings. Zeals without charge and slow lings gives some really nice microbattles with each other and with marines so i guess its the micro-discouraging upgrades that is the problem. They make up for the upgrades with battle helions in HOTS, but that may just dumb down terran which imo is a bad thing.
And the Colossus is probably the easiest unit in the game. Vision of everything, close to no collision, attack that deals tons of damage with no micro required, and little positioning required while still covering insane distances. I have no clue why they make Thors unique and not the Colossus.
I am Platinum League and if they 'fixed' these two, the TvZ and TvP matchups would be at least double the fun.
Agree with this 100%, the whole point i was trying to make in my own post.
I think the issue of different micro requirements is a general problem of SC2.
Due to the easier mechanics macroing has become way easier than it was in BW for instance. This on the other hand means that players should be able to focus more on battles.
Look at WC3 for example. The macro mechanics were pretty rudimentary and not such an important factor, games were decided in the battles. And those were amazing to watch imo and also insanely difficult. If you watch high-level WC3 players micro, it is really impressive.
Looking at SC2 it is somehow between BW and WC3. Macro is more demanding than it is in Warcraft, but a lot less apm-intensive than it is in BW. By that logic micro in battles should be relatively important in SC2, as it is the case with WC3. Looking at WC3 though, you will realize that all 4 races demand a ton of micro in battles in order to come out victorious.
In SC2 I have the feeling the micro-bility of the races' units differ a lot. It actually gets to the point where the micro of one race can completely negate any micro efforts from the other races.
Examples:
- Terran/Zerg engages a Protoss early game. Protoss lands very good force fields. The battle will end in the Protoss' favour and the T/Z can't do anything about it.
- Terran has 6 ghosts, scans ahead and sees aToss army. T cloaks the ghosts and EMPs the whole Toss army, then stims runs in and kills the Protoss. No matter how good you are as Protoss, this "mistake" costs you the game, you can't win the engagement since you can hardly run from a Terran army.
And this is plainly bad. If a good Terran lands good EMPs it is most of the time GG. You can't micro against it. You can't micro against FF, nore Fungal.
On top of this different units benefit differently from micro. Look at the difference between a microed and unmicroed marine/marauder: These units become so much stronger in the hands of a good player. Why is a Banshee able to kite marines, but Stalker's not? Look at how pathetic Stalkers look when trying to kite Marines. Due to animation issues microing Stalkers is a farce.
Don't get me started about Zerg units. Someone quoted Day9 saying: "If you lose to Roaches, your macro was bad. There is nothing special about Roaches." In other words: There is almost no difference between the Roach control of a pro and a "good" player. What you wanna do with Hydras, Corrupters, Lings, Ultras or Broodlords other than a-moving?
So far - apart from ling-bling mirror wars - no Zerg has impressed me with great unit control. I feel like there is no Zerg excelling because of how he controls his armies during battles. To me it looks like good Zergs need to stay on top of their macro (which is difficult I admit) and adequately prepare for the crap Terrans and Tosses throw at them. But when it comes to late game Zerg vs T/P engagements, I feel that the Zerg's victory depends on the Terran and Protoss messing up their micro, not on the Zerg controlling their units in a superior fashion.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
You know top players don't spend every single second of their life practicing. If I post here just because I am used to do so for years and state protoss is way easier to play than terran it doesn't mean I am less dedicated than any of the other players you consider better than me. Actually I've talked to Naniwa recently and he told me he takes his time to do what he likes to do just as much or more than I do. Thing is you don't have to try to shit on my image just because I said a race takes considerably less skill and effort to be played at a foreign high level, because it doesn't change the reality of what I'm saying or the fact every foreign tournament result completely proves my point.
Yeah, sorry, I admit I went out of line there. Wasn't trying to imply that you're not good or anything. So what do you propose? Wait for HotS? Straight up buff Terran? Terran still seems pretty strong at the GSL (in Code A today for example, no Protoss won). I don't think we're at a level of imbalance where a much worse player than you can beat you if he plays Protoss (http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/eu you don't lose much btw, gj ;D), so I don't really understand why you complain. And in my book you got a pretty decent run at DH where you beat Naniwa, a protoss. Is it just the feeling when you're playing? That you must do much more than the other guy to win? I say it doesn't matter if you still win, it's that much more satisfying.
It's just weird that you, a good player with 76% winrate in EU GM, want to have your race made easier to play. But I mean, I kinda understand in a way, your livelihood depends on it, not mine.
I think this game was made wrong for a tons of reasons and I am just frustrated cause I ended up getting the shortest end of the stick. When I see players like Seiplo who can't even explain why they do what they do randomly beating players 10 times better than them at DH and a monster like Kas playing all day long the best players in Europe losing in the groupstage like he did then I can't help but thinking this game is bad and unfair. Of course there are really good protoss players and they get the merit they deserve, but in Europe there's so many joke all in protoss players who just randomly take risks and can win because the race just requires no mechanics (bling or elfi being other good examples) and can be played with overall very poor understanding of RTS. I mean look at Titan he's actually a really good and skilled protoss player, he picked up the game very late and it took him very little time to compete at the highest level in Europe. There's nothing to do right now, this game has been fucked up by the bad pathing that makes units clump too much, the smart casting system and super smart AI a-move units. Also warpgate mechanic is ridicolous and makes me wonder if blizzard balance team has any clue about how RTS games work since the distance between production buildings and where you want to have your units is one of the biggest things a player has to consider in order to perform well.
So I'm assuming you raged alot in BW when Protoss players were doing 1a move with 2 base Carrier on every map that they could right?
I love how in BW people just simply accepted the fact that Terran players had to work harder for their wins, and yet over here despite the fact that Terran players have dominated both the foreign and international scene in terms of overall tournament wins, that they can't accept the fact that Protoss players might have finally figured out how to actually win for once after getting NUMEROUS amounts of nerfs.
I was protoss in brood war and while I always admitted it was a bit easier it still took insane skill, multitasking macro and micro to play protoss at high level while the skill ceiling for protoss in sc2 is just so low even really bad players can touch some of it. It's not fair even for the good protoss players who get to face bad players in their broken mirror and lose to them cause the game is flawed.
Is this some kind of a joke?
You could beat a FAR significantly better Terran player just by running dumb shit like bulldog reaver drop styles or just simply a-moving when he makes a crucial positional mistake with his Tanks. It took infinitely more skill to ever play Terran than it did to play Protoss in BW, it's just not even anywhere close. Just standard 2 base Carrier was like lol ez for Protoss to beat Terran on a plethora of maps, even if he goes double armory Goliaths.
Yes, alot of good P players lose because of mirror match-ups in SC2. However, I don't think anyone is ever going to dispute the fact that the game should be balanced around top level play. And right now at top level play, this is almost as balanced as it has ever been. You have Terran players still placing very high all around, and Zerg AND Protoss players finishing with good results in the recent major tournaments.
On December 02 2011 04:41 Iamyournoob wrote: I think the issue of different micro requirements is a general problem of SC2.
Due to the easier mechanics macroing has become way easier than it was in BW for instance. This on the other hand means that players should be able to focus more on battles.
Look at WC3 for example. The macro mechanics were pretty rudimentary and not such an important factor, games were decided in the battles. And those were amazing to watch imo and also insanely difficult. If you watch high-level WC3 players micro, it is really impressive.
Looking at SC2 it is somehow between BW and WC3. Macro is more demanding than it is in Warcraft, but a lot less apm-intensive than it is in BW. By that logic micro in battles should be relatively important in SC2, as it is the case with WC3. Looking at WC3 though, you will realize that all 4 races demand a ton of micro in battles in order to come out victorious.
In SC2 I have the feeling the micro-bility of the races' units differ a lot. It actually gets to the point where the micro of one race can completely negate any micro efforts from the other races.
Examples:
- Terran/Zerg engages a Protoss early game. Protoss lands very good force fields. The battle will end in the Protoss' favour and the T/Z can't do anything about it.
- Terran has 6 ghosts, scans ahead and sees aToss army. T cloaks the ghosts and EMPs the whole Toss army, then stims runs in and kills the Protoss. No matter how good you are as Protoss, this "mistake" costs you the game, you can't win the engagement since you can hardly run from a Terran army.
And this is plainly bad. If a good Terran lands good EMPs it is most of the time GG. You can't micro against it. You can't micro against FF, nore Fungal.
On top of this different units benefit differently from micro. Look at the difference between a microed and unmicroed marine/marauder: These units become so much stronger in the hands of a good player. Why is a Banshee able to kite marines, but Stalker's not? Look at how pathetic Stalkers look when trying to kite Marines. Due to animation issues microing Stalkers is a farce.
Don't get me started about Zerg units. Someone quoted Day9 saying: "If you lose to Roaches, your macro was bad. There is nothing special about Roaches." In other words: There is almost no difference between the Roach control of a pro and a "good" player. What you wanna do with Hydras, Corrupters, Lings, Ultras or Broodlords other than a-moving?
So far - apart from ling-bling mirror wars - no Zerg has impressed me with great unit control. I feel like there is no Zerg excelling because of how he controls his armies during battles. To me it looks like good Zergs need to stay on top of their macro (which is difficult I admit) and adequately prepare for the crap Terrans and Tosses throw at them. But when it comes to late game Zerg vs T/P engagements, I feel that the Zerg's victory depends on the Terran and Protoss messing up their micro, not on the Zerg controlling their units in a superior fashion.
Theres a few things I disagree with, first off if your army gets scanned you might not want to stand still and more so the toss should have a scouting observer ahead of his army by this point when they KNOW ghosts will be out. Its easy to send a small pack of stalkers/chargelots to pick off someone the ghosts, because most terrans will want to lead with them.
One thing to note is that I dont think perfectly landed emp's are auto GG at all, I think with the reduction in shield upgrades costs combined with the fact that many toss go double forge these days means that while the toss army won't be as efficient from the emp the lag of production compared between the races allows the toss to still be effective. Also if the toss is able to save a colossus or 2 and a few units, they are still able to defend what should be a damaged Terran army. This is happened to me time and time again, and its double sad when they are the one attacking but have a pylon in front of my base and able to resupply almost instantly.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
You know top players don't spend every single second of their life practicing. If I post here just because I am used to do so for years and state protoss is way easier to play than terran it doesn't mean I am less dedicated than any of the other players you consider better than me. Actually I've talked to Naniwa recently and he told me he takes his time to do what he likes to do just as much or more than I do. Thing is you don't have to try to shit on my image just because I said a race takes considerably less skill and effort to be played at a foreign high level, because it doesn't change the reality of what I'm saying or the fact every foreign tournament result completely proves my point.
Yeah, sorry, I admit I went out of line there. Wasn't trying to imply that you're not good or anything. So what do you propose? Wait for HotS? Straight up buff Terran? Terran still seems pretty strong at the GSL (in Code A today for example, no Protoss won). I don't think we're at a level of imbalance where a much worse player than you can beat you if he plays Protoss (http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/eu you don't lose much btw, gj ;D), so I don't really understand why you complain. And in my book you got a pretty decent run at DH where you beat Naniwa, a protoss. Is it just the feeling when you're playing? That you must do much more than the other guy to win? I say it doesn't matter if you still win, it's that much more satisfying.
It's just weird that you, a good player with 76% winrate in EU GM, want to have your race made easier to play. But I mean, I kinda understand in a way, your livelihood depends on it, not mine.
I think this game was made wrong for a tons of reasons and I am just frustrated cause I ended up getting the shortest end of the stick. When I see players like Seiplo who can't even explain why they do what they do randomly beating players 10 times better than them at DH and a monster like Kas playing all day long the best players in Europe losing in the groupstage like he did then I can't help but thinking this game is bad and unfair. Of course there are really good protoss players and they get the merit they deserve, but in Europe there's so many joke all in protoss players who just randomly take risks and can win because the race just requires no mechanics (bling or elfi being other good examples) and can be played with overall very poor understanding of RTS. I mean look at Titan he's actually a really good and skilled protoss player, he picked up the game very late and it took him very little time to compete at the highest level in Europe. There's nothing to do right now, this game has been fucked up by the bad pathing that makes units clump too much, the smart casting system and super smart AI a-move units. Also warpgate mechanic is ridicolous and makes me wonder if blizzard balance team has any clue about how RTS games work since the distance between production buildings and where you want to have your units is one of the biggest things a player has to consider in order to perform well.
So I'm assuming you raged alot in BW when Protoss players were doing 1a move with 2 base Carrier on every map that they could right?
I love how in BW people just simply accepted the fact that Terran players had to work harder for their wins, and yet over here despite the fact that Terran players have dominated both the foreign and international scene in terms of overall tournament wins, that they can't accept the fact that Protoss players might have finally figured out how to actually win for once after getting NUMEROUS amounts of nerfs.
I was protoss in brood war and while I always admitted it was a bit easier it still took insane skill, multitasking macro and micro to play protoss at high level while the skill ceiling for protoss in sc2 is just so low even really bad players can touch some of it. It's not fair even for the good protoss players who get to face bad players in their broken mirror and lose to them cause the game is flawed.
Is this some kind of a joke?
You could beat a FAR significantly better Terran player just by running dumb shit like bulldog reaver drop styles or just simply a-moving when he makes a crucial positional mistake with his Tanks. It took infinitely more skill to ever play Terran than it did to play Protoss in BW, it's just not even anywhere close.
Lol calm down with the hyperbole. From what I understand, Cloud is just saying that the skill ceiling for protoss is much lower in SC2 than Sc1, that's all.
In SC2 I have the feeling the micro-bility of the races' units differ a lot. It actually gets to the point where the micro of one race can completely negate any micro efforts from the other races.
Examples:
- Terran/Zerg engages a Protoss early game. Protoss lands very good force fields. The battle will end in the Protoss' favour and the T/Z can't do anything about it.
- Terran has 6 ghosts, scans ahead and sees aToss army. T cloaks the ghosts and EMPs the whole Toss army, then stims runs in and kills the Protoss. No matter how good you are as Protoss, this "mistake" costs you the game, you can't win the engagement since you can hardly run from a Terran army.
And this is plainly bad. If a good Terran lands good EMPs it is most of the time GG. You can't micro against it. You can't micro against FF, nore Fungal.
On top of this different units benefit differently from micro. Look at the difference between a microed and unmicroed marine/marauder: These units become so much stronger in the hands of a good player. Why is a Banshee able to kite marines, but Stalker's not? Look at how pathetic Stalkers look when trying to kite Marines. Due to animation issues microing Stalkers is a farce.
Good point here. The power of spell casters and the way armies clump up in SC2 make engagements very black and white depending on who lands the FF, Storm, EMPs first.
Playing as Terran I've had times where I pre-empt my opponent with EMPs (post patch size) and proceed to crush him. Why? Because 2,000 dmg worth of shields in addition to Energy loss is irrecoverable. Conversely, playing as Toss, some money Storms and FF's crush a Terran army.
On December 01 2011 07:02 aTnClouD wrote: Well terran is by an huge amount the hardest race in the game, no doubt. I am not sure if the game is balanced at the current korean highest level but I can see for sure the level of knowledge and mechanics protoss and zerg require is incomparably inferior. Especially protoss. Zerg can be hard aswell but to a very good and experienced mechanical player from scbw there's not much else to learn. This is the reason foreign terrans do bad. They simply don't have a structure and practice with good enough players to keep up with korean terrans so they just lose to the easier to play races.
I agree with your post 100% i have a hard time respecting Protoss players as much (at my level) because of how easier IMO personal opinion the Race is . I agree with you that Terran is probably the Hardest Race at the High Level (Top Master, GM)
I play ZvT and i love it i feel its balanced and all really well ---PvZ (I don't feel its balanced at my level (Mid Master).
I really think Protoss is the Strongest Race at Certain levels (maybe the Strongest possibly at levels a little lower than Nestea,MVP) Although Naniwa has proven this wrong in the Latest MLG. (He beat the two best Players(Beating Nestea Twice in a B03) in world with Protoss)
Which actually reinforces your Argument. So with that happening at MLG i really think it brings into attention how strong Protoss really is in terms of balance. (Hero won Dreamhack Winter too (Not to take anything away from that He's an amazing player)
Yeah, let's shit on every Protoss player regardless of their actual skill.
What you don't understand is that your master gameplay is not comparable to ClouD's gameplay. And I would go as far as to say that ClouD's gameplay is not comparable to Nestea, MVP, and Naniwa (yeah, deal with it, Naniwa is a good player). Goddammit man, these three are training non stop in Korea while ClouD takes his time posting balance whine (twice!) on a trash thread on TL. Who do you think will win the most??
Protoss...obviously.
You know top players don't spend every single second of their life practicing. If I post here just because I am used to do so for years and state protoss is way easier to play than terran it doesn't mean I am less dedicated than any of the other players you consider better than me. Actually I've talked to Naniwa recently and he told me he takes his time to do what he likes to do just as much or more than I do. Thing is you don't have to try to shit on my image just because I said a race takes considerably less skill and effort to be played at a foreign high level, because it doesn't change the reality of what I'm saying or the fact every foreign tournament result completely proves my point.
Yeah, sorry, I admit I went out of line there. Wasn't trying to imply that you're not good or anything. So what do you propose? Wait for HotS? Straight up buff Terran? Terran still seems pretty strong at the GSL (in Code A today for example, no Protoss won). I don't think we're at a level of imbalance where a much worse player than you can beat you if he plays Protoss (http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/eu you don't lose much btw, gj ;D), so I don't really understand why you complain. And in my book you got a pretty decent run at DH where you beat Naniwa, a protoss. Is it just the feeling when you're playing? That you must do much more than the other guy to win? I say it doesn't matter if you still win, it's that much more satisfying.
It's just weird that you, a good player with 76% winrate in EU GM, want to have your race made easier to play. But I mean, I kinda understand in a way, your livelihood depends on it, not mine.
I think this game was made wrong for a tons of reasons and I am just frustrated cause I ended up getting the shortest end of the stick. When I see players like Seiplo who can't even explain why they do what they do randomly beating players 10 times better than them at DH and a monster like Kas playing all day long the best players in Europe losing in the groupstage like he did then I can't help but thinking this game is bad and unfair. Of course there are really good protoss players and they get the merit they deserve, but in Europe there's so many joke all in protoss players who just randomly take risks and can win because the race just requires no mechanics (bling or elfi being other good examples) and can be played with overall very poor understanding of RTS. I mean look at Titan he's actually a really good and skilled protoss player, he picked up the game very late and it took him very little time to compete at the highest level in Europe. There's nothing to do right now, this game has been fucked up by the bad pathing that makes units clump too much, the smart casting system and super smart AI a-move units. Also warpgate mechanic is ridicolous and makes me wonder if blizzard balance team has any clue about how RTS games work since the distance between production buildings and where you want to have your units is one of the biggest things a player has to consider in order to perform well.
So I'm assuming you raged alot in BW when Protoss players were doing 1a move with 2 base Carrier on every map that they could right?
I love how in BW people just simply accepted the fact that Terran players had to work harder for their wins, and yet over here despite the fact that Terran players have dominated both the foreign and international scene in terms of overall tournament wins, that they can't accept the fact that Protoss players might have finally figured out how to actually win for once after getting NUMEROUS amounts of nerfs.
I was protoss in brood war and while I always admitted it was a bit easier it still took insane skill, multitasking macro and micro to play protoss at high level while the skill ceiling for protoss in sc2 is just so low even really bad players can touch some of it. It's not fair even for the good protoss players who get to face bad players in their broken mirror and lose to them cause the game is flawed.
Is this some kind of a joke?
You could beat a FAR significantly better Terran player just by running dumb shit like bulldog reaver drop styles or just simply a-moving when he makes a crucial positional mistake with his Tanks. It took infinitely more skill to ever play Terran than it did to play Protoss in BW, it's just not even anywhere close.
Lol calm down with the hyperbole. From what I understand, Cloud is just saying that the skill ceiling for protoss is much lower in SC2 than Sc1, that's all.
It is, I agree. However, the skill ceiling for all the races have been lowered in an effort to make the game more mainstream. The influx of more players has brought life to a lifeless community for quite some time (lifeless as in very small population). I understand the frustrations for a pro player to lose to a supposedly inferior player, however, that happened in BW ALOT, particularly in TvP where just doing silly stuff like fast shuttle drops and DT timings could end the game right then and there for a Terran player.
In SC2 I have the feeling the micro-bility of the races' units differ a lot. It actually gets to the point where the micro of one race can completely negate any micro efforts from the other races.
Examples:
- Terran/Zerg engages a Protoss early game. Protoss lands very good force fields. The battle will end in the Protoss' favour and the T/Z can't do anything about it.
- Terran has 6 ghosts, scans ahead and sees aToss army. T cloaks the ghosts and EMPs the whole Toss army, then stims runs in and kills the Protoss. No matter how good you are as Protoss, this "mistake" costs you the game, you can't win the engagement since you can hardly run from a Terran army.
And this is plainly bad. If a good Terran lands good EMPs it is most of the time GG. You can't micro against it. You can't micro against FF, nore Fungal.
On top of this different units benefit differently from micro. Look at the difference between a microed and unmicroed marine/marauder: These units become so much stronger in the hands of a good player. Why is a Banshee able to kite marines, but Stalker's not? Look at how pathetic Stalkers look when trying to kite Marines. Due to animation issues microing Stalkers is a farce.
Good point here. The power of spell casters and the way armies clump up in SC2 make engagements very black and white depending on who lands the FF, Storm, EMPs first.
Playing as Terran I've had times where I pre-empt my opponent with EMPs (post patch size) and proceed to crush him. Why? Because 2,000 dmg worth of shields in addition to Energy loss is irrecoverable. Conversely, playing as Toss, some money Storms and FF's crush a Terran army.
That's what happens when you make a game more explosive. More exciting to watch at times, although very silly to play.
Like many others said before, i really dont think there is a fundamental problem with terran. It should be hard but rewarding to play on a high level. I think its safe to assume that protoss pros (Hero/Huk/Naniwa) are equally skilled as terran pros, so effectivness of units should scale in a similiar way with both races. I think this can be done by
- add some macro mechanic to warp gates. i cant imagine blizz will ever remove it, as it is deeply rooted in the race. but why not add a macro function to it, so that good macro will make a bigger difference.
- give protoss units they can micro that are NOT spellcasters. Best example would be the colossus, it is easy to use and deals a ton of damage. So to balance it blizz made it very expensive and vulnerable alone, which forces deathballs. So make the colossus cheaper/more durable/less damage and rewarding to micro. Obviously thats not easy, but with moving speed/move-shoot or else it maybe can be done. Blizzard wont change pathfinding or ai, so i think changing the way certain units behave will be the way to go.
If you look at HotS though, it seems they really didnt get it. They just add more spellcasters, when everybody and their mother tells them that is the last thing toss needed.
Protoss is by no means ezpz now, and there certainly is room for some additional macro mechanics/mirco with terran aswell.
It sounds like BW. Terran was impossible to play unless you were grandmasters level. There is not a problem with having disparity between difficulty of each race and balance. Just because terran is a more "micro" oriented race, doesn't mean there are any fundamental problems with the race itself. If you ask me the difference in levels of difficulty is not that big of a gap to consider revision. It seems at the pro levels this gap tightens as players from all races have to refine their skills.
If you ask me it is more enjoyable to play a difficult race in diamond/masters level because there is not that many terrans left on these platforms making TvT a rare occurrence than what it was 10 months ago where almost everything was TvT.
The one thing I hate the most is the community bashing on Terrans if not anything. People should give terran players more respect and acknowledgement then following the Artosis fan wagon. Sure Artosis is a great guy, but he is bias as hell and we all know that.
Terran really is a more complete race, players of higher skill caliburs become attracted to this race because of its versatility in every aspect. Thats why we see so many Korean terrans and not as much foreign representation. Its a race that makes you feel great after practicing because you get to do crazy stuff like multiple drop harasses and picking apart players from every angle.
OP, THIS AS A SARCASTIC RESPONSE TO the Protoss myth about having the weakest units, isn't it, ISN'T IT?
Your words, "Because <micro> makes Terran units theoretically 'stronger' than the other races, Blizzard has implemented many nerfs to the Terran race to compensate for this micro potential." are in essence exact replicas of words I have seen in a thread on TL or Battle.net about Protoss having weaker units due to the warp in mechanics negating defenders advantage (and thus P being the weaker race and in need of buffs, etc, etc).
Again: ISN'T IT?
('cause it would be so cool if it were. I wonder when zerg will get their fabled Achilles heel)
On December 02 2011 03:56 Alexstrasas wrote: I completely agree with what OP said.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Interesting. From a P perspective, we have to
- Split HTs to avoid Snipes (which outrange feedback) and EMPS - Control observers at multiple points around the battle because Ghosts are cloaking spellcasters - Spread our units in a wide arc to avoid devastating EMPs on clusters of units - Position Stalkers so that they can take out Vikings before they are concussed to death by marauders - Place storms properly: given how easily they are moved out of, Ghosts, and the lack of Khaydarin, each miss is huge - Micro Colossus away from Vikings if they are getting focused - Make sure that our flank is covered, because a small Marauder hit squad stimming into undefended Colossi = GG - Carefully manage our Zealot count and back off when the count is too low
Failure in any of these will probably result in a loss. Have all your HTs EMP'd? GG. Have your stalkers taken out before the Viking count goes down? Free reign on your Colossi. And so on.
On December 02 2011 03:56 Alexstrasas wrote: I completely agree with what OP said.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Interesting. From a P perspective, we have to
- Split HTs to avoid Snipes (which outrange feedback) and EMPS - Control observers at multiple points around the battle because Ghosts are cloaking spellcasters - Spread our units in a wide arc to avoid devastating EMPs on clusters of units - Position Stalkers so that they can take out Vikings before they are concussed to death by marauders - Place storms properly: given how easily they are moved out of, Ghosts, and the lack of Khaydarin, each miss is huge - Micro Colossus away from Vikings if they are getting focused - Make sure that our flank is covered, because a small Marauder hit squad stimming into undefended Colossi = GG - Carefully manage our Zealot count and back off when the count is too low
Failure in any of these will probably result in a loss. Have all your HTs EMP'd? GG. Have your stalkers taken out before the Viking count goes down? Free reign on your Colossi. And so on.
It's all about perspective.
1. How can your HTs get sniped if they are either behind your army or if you have a spotter obs in front of your army.(which you should always have anyway..I'd rather get EMP'd and storm/colossus laser the bio ball because you will be able to out produce the T) 2.If your spending alot of time microing obs, your playing wrong, again if you have a spotter obs this should be real easy. 3.Terran has to do this as well against storm and colossus, in your case you may still be able to save some units, in our case we die. 4.FF T army pick off vikings, if they dont micro vikings and army then they will take some loses they most likely cant afford. 5.Refer to 4, plus run Colossus back and kite vikings closer to stalkers again if Terran doesnt micro you'll most likely clean up with your colossus and storms. 6.FF helps, and also your obs should give you enough field of vision in the battle. 7.Not sure this is micro more than it is smart decision making. Or just warp some in to the battle?
On December 02 2011 03:56 Alexstrasas wrote: I completely agree with what OP said.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Interesting. From a P perspective, we have to
- Split HTs to avoid Snipes (which outrange feedback) and EMPS - Control observers at multiple points around the battle because Ghosts are cloaking spellcasters - Spread our units in a wide arc to avoid devastating EMPs on clusters of units - Position Stalkers so that they can take out Vikings before they are concussed to death by marauders - Place storms properly: given how easily they are moved out of, Ghosts, and the lack of Khaydarin, each miss is huge - Micro Colossus away from Vikings if they are getting focused - Make sure that our flank is covered, because a small Marauder hit squad stimming into undefended Colossi = GG - Carefully manage our Zealot count and back off when the count is too low
Failure in any of these will probably result in a loss. Have all your HTs EMP'd? GG. Have your stalkers taken out before the Viking count goes down? Free reign on your Colossi. And so on.
It's all about perspective.
1. How can your HTs get sniped if they are either behind your army or if you have a spotter obs in front of your army.(which you should always have anyway..I'd rather get EMP'd and storm/colossus laser the bio ball because you will be able to out produce the T) 2.If your spending alot of time microing obs, your playing wrong, again if you have a spotter obs this should be real easy. 3.Terran has to do this as well against storm and colossus, in your case you may still be able to save some units, in our case we die. 4.FF T army pick off vikings, if they dont micro vikings and army then they will take some loses they most likely cant afford. 5.Refer to 4, plus run Colossus back and kite vikings closer to stalkers again if Terran doesnt micro you'll most likely clean up with your colossus and storms. 6.FF helps, and also your obs should give you enough field of vision in the battle. 7.Not sure this is micro more than it is smart decision making. Or just warp some in to the battle?
Wait, so every counter... HAS IT'S OWN COUNTER? INCONCEIVABLE!
We could keep going around in circles all day on this without getting anywhere. If every point has a counter point, that sounds, what's the word... balanced?
Please dont turn this into a 'wah wah i have to do SO much or i lose' thread. Listing stuff to do and making them sound difficult while implicitly offending the other races aren't helping the discussion one bit. The talking point was: does the huge gain from near perfect micro of terran units, and the continuous nerfs suffered from this, hurt us mere mortals playing Terran when we combat other mere mortals who happen to play other races..
If you bring the discussion of snipe having longer range than FB and FB having no animation and being way easier to target, i dont think you understand the subject.
On December 02 2011 03:56 Alexstrasas wrote: I completely agree with what OP said.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Interesting. From a P perspective, we have to
- Split HTs to avoid Snipes (which outrange feedback) and EMPS - Control observers at multiple points around the battle because Ghosts are cloaking spellcasters - Spread our units in a wide arc to avoid devastating EMPs on clusters of units - Position Stalkers so that they can take out Vikings before they are concussed to death by marauders - Place storms properly: given how easily they are moved out of, Ghosts, and the lack of Khaydarin, each miss is huge - Micro Colossus away from Vikings if they are getting focused - Make sure that our flank is covered, because a small Marauder hit squad stimming into undefended Colossi = GG - Carefully manage our Zealot count and back off when the count is too low
Failure in any of these will probably result in a loss. Have all your HTs EMP'd? GG. Have your stalkers taken out before the Viking count goes down? Free reign on your Colossi. And so on.
It's all about perspective.
1. How can your HTs get sniped if they are either behind your army or if you have a spotter obs in front of your army.(which you should always have anyway..I'd rather get EMP'd and storm/colossus laser the bio ball because you will be able to out produce the T) 2.If your spending alot of time microing obs, your playing wrong, again if you have a spotter obs this should be real easy. 3.Terran has to do this as well against storm and colossus, in your case you may still be able to save some units, in our case we die. 4.FF T army pick off vikings, if they dont micro vikings and army then they will take some loses they most likely cant afford. 5.Refer to 4, plus run Colossus back and kite vikings closer to stalkers again if Terran doesnt micro you'll most likely clean up with your colossus and storms. 6.FF helps, and also your obs should give you enough field of vision in the battle. 7.Not sure this is micro more than it is smart decision making. Or just warp some in to the battle?
Wait, so every counter... HAS IT'S OWN COUNTER? INCONCEIVABLE!
We could keep going around in circles all day on this without getting anywhere. If every point has a counter point, that sounds, what's the word... balanced?
Not sure if your sarcasm is using "counter" in the right context here, but just for giggles give me some counter points to the micro issues T have brought up here.
For example whats the counter point to focus firing banelings with tanks while splitting marines?
On December 02 2011 03:56 Alexstrasas wrote: I completely agree with what OP said.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Interesting. From a P perspective, we have to
- Split HTs to avoid Snipes (which outrange feedback) and EMPS - Control observers at multiple points around the battle because Ghosts are cloaking spellcasters - Spread our units in a wide arc to avoid devastating EMPs on clusters of units - Position Stalkers so that they can take out Vikings before they are concussed to death by marauders - Place storms properly: given how easily they are moved out of, Ghosts, and the lack of Khaydarin, each miss is huge - Micro Colossus away from Vikings if they are getting focused - Make sure that our flank is covered, because a small Marauder hit squad stimming into undefended Colossi = GG - Carefully manage our Zealot count and back off when the count is too low
Failure in any of these will probably result in a loss. Have all your HTs EMP'd? GG. Have your stalkers taken out before the Viking count goes down? Free reign on your Colossi. And so on.
It's all about perspective.
1. How can your HTs get sniped if they are either behind your army or if you have a spotter obs in front of your army.(which you should always have anyway..I'd rather get EMP'd and storm/colossus laser the bio ball because you will be able to out produce the T) 2.If your spending alot of time microing obs, your playing wrong, again if you have a spotter obs this should be real easy. 3.Terran has to do this as well against storm and colossus, in your case you may still be able to save some units, in our case we die. 4.FF T army pick off vikings, if they dont micro vikings and army then they will take some loses they most likely cant afford. 5.Refer to 4, plus run Colossus back and kite vikings closer to stalkers again if Terran doesnt micro you'll most likely clean up with your colossus and storms. 6.FF helps, and also your obs should give you enough field of vision in the battle. 7.Not sure this is micro more than it is smart decision making. Or just warp some in to the battle?
Wait, so every counter... HAS IT'S OWN COUNTER? INCONCEIVABLE!
We could keep going around in circles all day on this without getting anywhere. If every point has a counter point, that sounds, what's the word... balanced?
Not sure if your sarcasm is using "counter" in the right context here, but just for giggles give me some counter points to the micro issues T have brought up here.
For example whats the counter point to focus firing banelings with tanks while splitting marines?
Interested to hear.
Attack on creep and don't mindlessly roll banelings into tank lines? Baneling drops while poking with zerglings to get tanks to hit their own marines? Medivac sniping?
I've said before many times that pointing out random micro things is a pointless argument. Creep spread is the most essential and neglected part of Zerg micro.
If you want to make a point STOP POSTING RANDOM MICRO TACTICS and start posting stats that indicate that gold-diamond terrans are struggling compared to masters terrans compared to grandmasters terrans compared to pro terrans.
Attack on creep and don't mindlessly roll banelings into tank lines? Baneling drops while poking with zerglings to get tanks to hit their own marines? Medivac sniping?
I've said before many times that pointing out random micro things is a pointless argument. Creep spread is the most essential and neglected part of Zerg micro.
If you want to make a point STOP POSTING RANDOM MICRO TACTICS and start posting stats that indicate that gold-diamond terrans are struggling compared to masters terrans compared to grandmasters terrans compared to pro terrans.
I don't think anyone really cares that the lower leagues are struggling. Why is there low league Terran QQ all of a sudden? Consider that the same thing happened to zerg a year ago when everyone was complaining how hard it was for zerg to keep up with all the zerggy mechanics: inject/creep spread. To this day, lower league zergs still have trouble hitting inject timing and spreading creep, while the upper echelons don't have any trouble.
On December 02 2011 03:56 Alexstrasas wrote: I completely agree with what OP said.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Interesting. From a P perspective, we have to
- Split HTs to avoid Snipes (which outrange feedback) and EMPS - Control observers at multiple points around the battle because Ghosts are cloaking spellcasters - Spread our units in a wide arc to avoid devastating EMPs on clusters of units - Position Stalkers so that they can take out Vikings before they are concussed to death by marauders - Place storms properly: given how easily they are moved out of, Ghosts, and the lack of Khaydarin, each miss is huge - Micro Colossus away from Vikings if they are getting focused - Make sure that our flank is covered, because a small Marauder hit squad stimming into undefended Colossi = GG - Carefully manage our Zealot count and back off when the count is too low
Failure in any of these will probably result in a loss. Have all your HTs EMP'd? GG. Have your stalkers taken out before the Viking count goes down? Free reign on your Colossi. And so on.
It's all about perspective.
1. How can your HTs get sniped if they are either behind your army or if you have a spotter obs in front of your army.(which you should always have anyway..I'd rather get EMP'd and storm/colossus laser the bio ball because you will be able to out produce the T) 2.If your spending alot of time microing obs, your playing wrong, again if you have a spotter obs this should be real easy. 3.Terran has to do this as well against storm and colossus, in your case you may still be able to save some units, in our case we die. 4.FF T army pick off vikings, if they dont micro vikings and army then they will take some loses they most likely cant afford. 5.Refer to 4, plus run Colossus back and kite vikings closer to stalkers again if Terran doesnt micro you'll most likely clean up with your colossus and storms. 6.FF helps, and also your obs should give you enough field of vision in the battle. 7.Not sure this is micro more than it is smart decision making. Or just warp some in to the battle?
Wait, so every counter... HAS IT'S OWN COUNTER? INCONCEIVABLE!
We could keep going around in circles all day on this without getting anywhere. If every point has a counter point, that sounds, what's the word... balanced?
Not sure if your sarcasm is using "counter" in the right context here, but just for giggles give me some counter points to the micro issues T have brought up here.
For example whats the counter point to focus firing banelings with tanks while splitting marines?
Interested to hear.
Attack on creep and don't mindlessly roll banelings into tank lines? Baneling drops while poking with zerglings to get tanks to hit their own marines? Medivac sniping?
I've said before many times that pointing out random micro things is a pointless argument. Creep spread is the most essential and neglected part of Zerg micro.
If you want to make a point STOP POSTING RANDOM MICRO TACTICS and start posting stats that indicate that gold-diamond terrans are struggling compared to masters terrans compared to grandmasters terrans compared to pro terrans.
Maybe you should read the perspective I was speaking about (As terran what's the alternative to what i stated above). Also I really don't care what you say so you can keep saying it over and over if you wish. Third, bold means your serious Oooo... and i'm really not sure where to get the stats, but the fact that terran is the least race played in these leagues maybe a good indicator(Not sure on this but i think it was mentioned before on this post)
Also not sure if anyone knows, but have any pro Z or P players switched to T in SC2? Just curious.
Its interesting that some people compare this problem to Broodwar and say it was the same. I never played BW competitively, but I did watch some pro games.
I don't know why people say "It was like this in BW so it doesnt matter if its like this in SC2". This is perhaps one of the most important shortcomings of broodwar... wouldn't we want to theoretically improve on the shortcomings of the previous game, not exacerbate it? SC2 is a much more global game than BW, which necessitates that Blizzard should put more emphasis into trying to balance the game at multiple skill levels than Broodwar.
Also, I noticed someone made an interesting post comparing SC2 with BW and WC3, arguing that SC2's macro is easier than BW but harder than WC3. This means that inherently players should have more time to focus on microing in SC2 than in SC1 - but this thread argues that it is not evenly spread. Furthermore, the micro of WC3 is in no means attainable in SC2 because in the late game you're faced with battles of up to a hundred units, whereas in WC3 battles usually had 20-30 units in major engagements.
I do feel like Blizzard tried to find a middleground between the macro intensity of BW and the micro intensity of WC3. I'm not saying SC2 shouldn't be a whole new game - in my mind it should - but it definitely seems to be what they're punting for. However, by adopting a much larger audience in SC2 they need to try and balance the game at more levels, and currently I don't believe that is happening. Yes, the game should be balanced primarly around the top players, but it seems pointless to argue noone else matters - especially when this is the lions share of players. Even foreign pro-gamers seem to be experiencing this problem, as Cloud and Beastyqt have testified to in this thread.
I agree quite a lot with the point the OP is making, terran seems to benefit a lot more from excellent micro than Protoss or Zerg, which led to nerfs (which were justified) and made the game a lot harder for non Korean GM terrans.
That said, I really think that the OP is looking at the problem in the wrong way. Terran is fine. It's more that Protoss and Zerg should scale better on unit control and have more micro options.
The thing is that micro can be divided in two categories, unit control (Stutterstepping, splitting units etc.) and spellcasting (storm/emp/fungal). Zerg and protoss micro is essentially spellcasting, and with the addition of smartcasting it has become pretty easy.The huge strength of terran comes from the fact that bio units benefit a LOT from unit-control micro, while Protoss and Zerg unit cant do much more than amove. This is the thing that needs to be changed, Protoss and Zerg units need to reward good control more and punish bad control more.
Making terran easier at low levels and nerfing scaling on unit-control (for example by increasing the shoot animation time of marines) of Terran units would be really bad for the game, since a competitive game has to reward skill as much as possible.
Terran has the hardest execution and the easiest decision making. Execution is where skill ceiling arises from.
A related piece of evidence is to look at pro gamers who develope wrist issues. The is a MUCH higher rate of players that have wrist issues that play terran. I can name TLO, Thorzain, and MVP as ones that INSTANTLY come to mind as having wrist issues.
Terran micro and macro is very straight forward yet requires a few more clicks to accomplish. Marine spitting, sending SCVs back after making buildings, the constant production nature of terran vs the powering nature of toss/zerg, all lead to a few more clicks per gameflow cycle.
This is why in korea we see Terran as the dominate race and in the rest of the world we see toss/zerg do so much better than in korea.
When one race has the its best unit as its most basic unit, and that unit is its best unit because of how much micro can increase the cost effectiveness of it, you are going to have a race that has less decisions to make but much more execution built in (t1 builds fast so faster macro cycles and the apm you can put into marines is almost the highest amount in the game AND it makes them more and more cost effective).
This is all extremely relative to where you play skill wise though. If people do not have near perfect decision making or near perfect execution at the level you play at then this does not matter.
This is also not a 100% bad thing, it leads to the extremely different feels and mindsets that the different races have. I love that part of sc2.
On December 02 2011 03:56 Alexstrasas wrote: I completely agree with what OP said.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Interesting. From a P perspective, we have to
- Split HTs to avoid Snipes (which outrange feedback) and EMPS - Control observers at multiple points around the battle because Ghosts are cloaking spellcasters - Spread our units in a wide arc to avoid devastating EMPs on clusters of units - Position Stalkers so that they can take out Vikings before they are concussed to death by marauders - Place storms properly: given how easily they are moved out of, Ghosts, and the lack of Khaydarin, each miss is huge - Micro Colossus away from Vikings if they are getting focused - Make sure that our flank is covered, because a small Marauder hit squad stimming into undefended Colossi = GG - Carefully manage our Zealot count and back off when the count is too low
Failure in any of these will probably result in a loss. Have all your HTs EMP'd? GG. Have your stalkers taken out before the Viking count goes down? Free reign on your Colossi. And so on.
It's all about perspective.
I never quite understood that. Lore-wise and gameplay-wise, Stalkers are machines, non-bio. They are, essentially, dead things. How come they suffer the effect of concussive shells? O_o'
On December 02 2011 03:56 Alexstrasas wrote: I completely agree with what OP said.
The same happens in TvP.
Lets see how much "defensive micro" do you have to do.
- Try to emp the HT so you dont eat storms left and right. - Kite zealots with marauders - Dodge storms - Micro vikings away from the stalkers if they get focused. - Try to minimize colossus effect.
Failure in any of these will result in a lose right there, emp doesnt land, HT now have enough storm to cover everything, dont kite zealots efficiently ? marauders get wiped, fail do dodge a storm ? All units get in the red, lose too many vikings? Not enough dps on the colossus, colossus burn everything on the ground.
What does the protoss has to do if not aiming for maximum efficiency ? Put zealots in the front, a-move the ball and just focus microing the HT.
Interesting. From a P perspective, we have to
- Split HTs to avoid Snipes (which outrange feedback) and EMPS - Control observers at multiple points around the battle because Ghosts are cloaking spellcasters - Spread our units in a wide arc to avoid devastating EMPs on clusters of units - Position Stalkers so that they can take out Vikings before they are concussed to death by marauders - Place storms properly: given how easily they are moved out of, Ghosts, and the lack of Khaydarin, each miss is huge - Micro Colossus away from Vikings if they are getting focused - Make sure that our flank is covered, because a small Marauder hit squad stimming into undefended Colossi = GG - Carefully manage our Zealot count and back off when the count is too low
Failure in any of these will probably result in a loss. Have all your HTs EMP'd? GG. Have your stalkers taken out before the Viking count goes down? Free reign on your Colossi. And so on.
It's all about perspective.
I never quite understood that. Lore-wise and gameplay-wise, Stalkers are machines, non-bio. They are, essentially, dead things. How come they suffer the effect of concussive shells? O_o'
They are resurrected (salvaged? xD) warriors using a robotic body, like dragoons.
What really gets on my nerves is that poeple used to (and occasionally still do) call Terran the "ez race", when it is just the opposite. You have to be aggresive as Terran; the ball is in your court. I'm not saying that Protoss and Zerg are ez, but calling Terran the "amove race" is just plain ignorant because Terran is the most micro-intensive.
On December 02 2011 09:11 kofman wrote: What really gets on my nerves is that poeple used to (and occasionally still do) call Terran the "ez race", when it is just the opposite. You have to be aggresive as Terran; the ball is in your court. I'm not saying that Protoss and Zerg are ez, but calling Terran the "amove race" is just plain ignorant because Terran is the most micro-intensive.
TBH calling any race the "ez race" or "amove race" is pretty ignorant. All 3 races require pretty damn high levels of micro and macro to be efficient at a solid level.
The thing that gets me about terran is the effectiveness of their early pushes. After about ~8 minutes it all evens out but it's really frustrating losing to those early 2 rax pushes off a 1 Gate FE. Perhaps thats just me being bad but I find the cost effectiveness of the MM composition in the early game right before your transitioning to the mid-game to be brutal.
The problem I have with the OP's argument is that it is literally impossible to balance a game across all levels.
Just look at Brood War.
Terran is arguably the hardest to master (Korean or not); whereas, Protoss was a lot easier for players just learning the game (a lot of foreigners decided to dominate with it).
On December 02 2011 08:42 vaderseven wrote: Terran has the hardest execution and the easiest decision making. Execution is where skill ceiling arises from.
...
This is actually one of the better posts I've seen describing difficulties with terran.
Using TvZ as an example, its actually really easy to play safe, build up your army and know when to push out. Whats hard is simply executing a tank push without getting caught unsieged, microing individual groups of marines and tanks while still keeping up in macro, defending from mutalisks, dropping... Basically you probably know what you should be doing, but its so easy to get overwhelmed and so very hard to get the maximum efficiency from your micro-heavy units.
Terran have advantages and disadvantges the same as every other race. Marines are suuuuper good until splash damage is on the field. Vikings very good at taking out the protoss super unit, and if it comes down to HT vs ghost i'd give ghost the edge. (range, speed, hp, healing from medivac, all add up to a slightly better unit)
the "spotter" obs thing is funny. if protoss is doing their job properly they have an obs to spot the terran army. if terran is doing their job properly they are scanning and killing obs. In fact, why not get yourself a raven. You've got the vikings to kill the colossus and a well timed PDD is worth it's weight in gold vs stalkers and omg the obs magically melt if you do that. And please don't insult me by saying "zomg they too expensive". If protoss have HT and colossus and a deahtball terran can get a damn raven.
But it basically comes down to this: if all things are equal splitting and positioning your army is key for both sides. A move protoss die fast to vikings / emp / stim. A move terran die fast to storms / colossus / zealot. It comes down to who is playing best that game. And yes, GAME, not engagement. Better ups or significantly stronger economy with production to back it will mean a win for either side as much as "but i did a perfect split!". 3/3 beats 0/0 for either side.
On December 02 2011 09:29 Kharnage wrote: Ahh, terran tears, they taste so sweet.
Terran have advantages and disadvantges the same as every other race. Marines are suuuuper good until splash damage is on the field. Vikings very good at taking out the protoss super unit, and if it comes down to HT vs ghost i'd give ghost the edge. (range, speed, hp, healing from medivac, all add up to a slightly better unit)
the "spotter" obs thing is funny. if protoss is doing their job properly they have an obs to spot the terran army. if terran is doing their job properly they are scanning and killing obs. In fact, why not get yourself a raven. You've got the vikings to kill the colossus and a well timed PDD is worth it's weight in gold vs stalkers and omg the obs magically melt if you do that. And please don't insult me by saying "zomg they too expensive". If protoss have HT and colossus and a deahtball terran can get a damn raven.
But it basically comes down to this: if all things are equal splitting and positioning your army is key for both sides. A move protoss die fast to vikings / emp / stim. A move terran die fast to storms / colossus / zealot. It comes down to who is playing best that game. And yes, GAME, not engagement. Better ups or significantly stronger economy with production to back it will mean a win for either side as much as "but i did a perfect split!". 3/3 beats 0/0 for either side.
Actually A move protoss does not die to vikings/emp/stim at all, a move terran does not die to all 3 of storm collosus and zealot, it only takes 1 (maybe not just zealot). If you a move into collosus without focus firing or having all ur bio clumped and not spread YOU WILL LOSE. Go try it.
This thread is looking from the wrong perspective. It's not a problem that Terran units are all very microable. The problem is that many toss and zerg units are NOT. Unfortunately this is because Blizzard seems intent on removing some micro from the game. One example of this is when they hugely nerfed the charged damage on voidrays, severely reducing the incentive to micro them carefully. The void ray used to be the perfect example of a unit that is like what terrans have. On the weak side without micro, and on the strong side when micro is applied. Blizzard noobified it to be better without micro, and worse with micro. Is this type of change really what terrans want for their own units? I don't think so. I know that for me, the void ray went from being my favorite unit to my second least favorite overnight. Well, maybe not overnight. The removal of fazing was also sad to see, from the standpoint of someone who likes the micro potential of units.
What's my least favorite unit? The colossus. It used to require some micro when it had a high damage, high cooldown attack. Then Blizzard changed it to have lower damage, lower cooldown. This again reduced incentive to put apm into microing it. Everyone should want a game where each unit gets better if more micro is applied to control it. Right now only terrans have more of those units than the other races. Instead of making terran units more boring, what is needed is for units to increase in "microability" to make the game more interesting.
On December 02 2011 09:11 kofman wrote: What really gets on my nerves is that poeple used to (and occasionally still do) call Terran the "ez race", when it is just the opposite. You have to be aggresive as Terran; the ball is in your court. I'm not saying that Protoss and Zerg are ez, but calling Terran the "amove race" is just plain ignorant because Terran is the most micro-intensive.
TBH calling any race the "ez race" or "amove race" is pretty ignorant. All 3 races require pretty damn high levels of micro and macro to be efficient at a solid level.
The thing that gets me about terran is the effectiveness of their early pushes. After about ~8 minutes it all evens out but it's really frustrating losing to those early 2 rax pushes off a 1 Gate FE. Perhaps thats just me being bad but I find the cost effectiveness of the MM composition in the early game right before your transitioning to the mid-game to be brutal.
If you throw down 3 more gateways after the nexus you'll kill the push easily simply with mass zealot stalker + a sentry or two. Even with just a total of 3 gateways it's possible, but you'll be making a more even army trade and will have to micro a bit harder. The only times I have success with a 2rax vs protoss is if I trick them into not expecting it or they simply don't know that they need to chrono out some units to defend their fast expansion.
If anything, I'd say protoss has the advantage regarding early-game pushes in TvP. Against a 1gate expand, 4gate can be really effective especially on certain maps where you can abuse high-ground warpins, mass blink stalker all-ins can be very potent if terran doesn't build a ton of bunkers, and there's also the fast expand into 4-5gate pressure or 6-7gate all-in.
Another advantage protoss has is flexibility. On a huge map, Terran can't really 2rax unless it's proxied, which makes it a big risk, while thanks to the warp-in mechanics, gateway pushes are just as good on a big map as a small one.
On December 02 2011 10:02 Fig wrote: This thread is looking from the wrong perspective. It's not a problem that Terran units are all very microable. The problem is that many toss and zerg units are NOT. Unfortunately this is because Blizzard seems intent on removing some micro from the game. One example of this is when they hugely nerfed the charged damage on voidrays, severely reducing the incentive to micro them carefully. The void ray used to be the perfect example of a unit that is like what terrans have. On the weak side without micro, and on the strong side when micro is applied. Blizzard noobified it to be better without micro, and worse with micro. Is this type of change really what terrans want for their own units? I don't think so. I know that for me, the void ray went from being my favorite unit to my second least favorite overnight. Well, maybe not overnight. The removal of fazing was also sad to see, from the standpoint of someone who likes the micro potential of units.
What's my least favorite unit? The colossus. It used to require some micro when it had a high damage, high cooldown attack. Then Blizzard changed it to have lower damage, lower cooldown. This again reduced incentive to put apm into microing it. Everyone should want a game where each unit gets better if more micro is applied to control it. Right now only terrans have more of those units than the other races. Instead of making terran units more boring, what is needed is for units to increase in "microability" to make the game more interesting.
Bingo, its not that terran is "too microable" its that Blizzard created 2 other races that require less micro abilities. For an example, look at top pro games in TvZ. If you really, really study the replays that come with it you will see the difference between a zerg's micro and a terran's micro in the midst of the battle. It takes an absorbent amount of skill to simply split you lings and blings. (Sarcasm for all the slow people in TL.)
Another example of TvP, a-move chargelots and do the same "simple-ish" split that zergs do with lings. 90% of the time there is actually little to no micro of chargelots in the battle. The only unit(s) that I ever see having to do some sort of micro is the colossus, (occassionally), Rofl at target firing with stalkers (man that is just too difficult), okay I give protoss they need to know how to use HT kinda, and FF from sentries (phew pressing the f key and rapid right clicking the mouse is hard). While terran, due to the design, split or die, make mass vikings and target fire the collossus while you are being torn up by mass chargelot and HT, and Oh yea snipe with your ghosts in the middle of the battle or the trade was ineffective and you lose. That is the problem.
Now a solution, builds similar to the TvZ in Broodwar, possibly approx. 9 min push every game until something is done?
On December 02 2011 10:02 Fig wrote: This thread is looking from the wrong perspective. It's not a problem that Terran units are all very microable. The problem is that many toss and zerg units are NOT. Unfortunately this is because Blizzard seems intent on removing some micro from the game. One example of this is when they hugely nerfed the charged damage on voidrays, severely reducing the incentive to micro them carefully. The void ray used to be the perfect example of a unit that is like what terrans have. On the weak side without micro, and on the strong side when micro is applied. Blizzard noobified it to be better without micro, and worse with micro. Is this type of change really what terrans want for their own units? I don't think so. I know that for me, the void ray went from being my favorite unit to my second least favorite overnight. Well, maybe not overnight. The removal of fazing was also sad to see, from the standpoint of someone who likes the micro potential of units.
What's my least favorite unit? The colossus. It used to require some micro when it had a high damage, high cooldown attack. Then Blizzard changed it to have lower damage, lower cooldown. This again reduced incentive to put apm into microing it. Everyone should want a game where each unit gets better if more micro is applied to control it. Right now only terrans have more of those units than the other races. Instead of making terran units more boring, what is needed is for units to increase in "microability" to make the game more interesting.
Bingo, its not that terran is "too microable" its that Blizzard created 2 other races that require less micro abilities. For an example, look at top pro games in TvZ. If you really, really study the replays that come with it you will see the difference between a zerg's micro and a terran's micro in the midst of the battle. It takes an absorbent amount of skill to simply split you lings and blings. (Sarcasm for all the slow people in TL.)
Another example of TvP, a-move chargelots and do the same "simple-ish" split that zergs do with lings. 90% of the time there is actually little to no micro of chargelots in the battle. The only unit(s) that I ever see having to do some sort of micro is the colossus, (occassionally), Rofl at target firing with stalkers (man that is just too difficult), okay I give protoss they need to know how to use HT kinda, and FF from sentries (phew pressing the f key and rapid right clicking the mouse is hard). While terran, due to the design, split or die, make mass vikings and target fire the collossus while you are being torn up by mass chargelot and HT, and Oh yea snipe with your ghosts in the middle of the battle or the trade was ineffective and you lose. That is the problem.
Now a solution, builds similar to the TvZ in Broodwar, possibly approx. 9 min push every game until something is done?
you just simply dont know or are ignoring how difficult it is to keep your zealots in front of your collossus how does that require less micro then terran bioball.
On December 02 2011 10:02 Fig wrote: This thread is looking from the wrong perspective. It's not a problem that Terran units are all very microable. The problem is that many toss and zerg units are NOT. Unfortunately this is because Blizzard seems intent on removing some micro from the game. One example of this is when they hugely nerfed the charged damage on voidrays, severely reducing the incentive to micro them carefully. The void ray used to be the perfect example of a unit that is like what terrans have. On the weak side without micro, and on the strong side when micro is applied. Blizzard noobified it to be better without micro, and worse with micro. Is this type of change really what terrans want for their own units? I don't think so. I know that for me, the void ray went from being my favorite unit to my second least favorite overnight. Well, maybe not overnight. The removal of fazing was also sad to see, from the standpoint of someone who likes the micro potential of units.
What's my least favorite unit? The colossus. It used to require some micro when it had a high damage, high cooldown attack. Then Blizzard changed it to have lower damage, lower cooldown. This again reduced incentive to put apm into microing it. Everyone should want a game where each unit gets better if more micro is applied to control it. Right now only terrans have more of those units than the other races. Instead of making terran units more boring, what is needed is for units to increase in "microability" to make the game more interesting.
Bingo, its not that terran is "too microable" its that Blizzard created 2 other races that require less micro abilities. For an example, look at top pro games in TvZ. If you really, really study the replays that come with it you will see the difference between a zerg's micro and a terran's micro in the midst of the battle. It takes an absorbent amount of skill to simply split you lings and blings. (Sarcasm for all the slow people in TL.)
Another example of TvP, a-move chargelots and do the same "simple-ish" split that zergs do with lings. 90% of the time there is actually little to no micro of chargelots in the battle. The only unit(s) that I ever see having to do some sort of micro is the colossus, (occassionally), Rofl at target firing with stalkers (man that is just too difficult), okay I give protoss they need to know how to use HT kinda, and FF from sentries (phew pressing the f key and rapid right clicking the mouse is hard). While terran, due to the design, split or die, make mass vikings and target fire the collossus while you are being torn up by mass chargelot and HT, and Oh yea snipe with your ghosts in the middle of the battle or the trade was ineffective and you lose. That is the problem.
Now a solution, builds similar to the TvZ in Broodwar, possibly approx. 9 min push every game until something is done?
you just simply dont know or are ignoring how difficult it is to keep your zealots in front of your collossus how does that require less micro then terran bioball.
yea, putting your zealots in front of your collosi is very hard. The amount of micro it takes is unimaginable.
On December 02 2011 10:02 Fig wrote: This thread is looking from the wrong perspective. It's not a problem that Terran units are all very microable. The problem is that many toss and zerg units are NOT. Unfortunately this is because Blizzard seems intent on removing some micro from the game. One example of this is when they hugely nerfed the charged damage on voidrays, severely reducing the incentive to micro them carefully. The void ray used to be the perfect example of a unit that is like what terrans have. On the weak side without micro, and on the strong side when micro is applied. Blizzard noobified it to be better without micro, and worse with micro. Is this type of change really what terrans want for their own units? I don't think so. I know that for me, the void ray went from being my favorite unit to my second least favorite overnight. Well, maybe not overnight. The removal of fazing was also sad to see, from the standpoint of someone who likes the micro potential of units.
What's my least favorite unit? The colossus. It used to require some micro when it had a high damage, high cooldown attack. Then Blizzard changed it to have lower damage, lower cooldown. This again reduced incentive to put apm into microing it. Everyone should want a game where each unit gets better if more micro is applied to control it. Right now only terrans have more of those units than the other races. Instead of making terran units more boring, what is needed is for units to increase in "microability" to make the game more interesting.
Bingo, its not that terran is "too microable" its that Blizzard created 2 other races that require less micro abilities. For an example, look at top pro games in TvZ. If you really, really study the replays that come with it you will see the difference between a zerg's micro and a terran's micro in the midst of the battle. It takes an absorbent amount of skill to simply split you lings and blings. (Sarcasm for all the slow people in TL.)
Another example of TvP, a-move chargelots and do the same "simple-ish" split that zergs do with lings. 90% of the time there is actually little to no micro of chargelots in the battle. The only unit(s) that I ever see having to do some sort of micro is the colossus, (occassionally), Rofl at target firing with stalkers (man that is just too difficult), okay I give protoss they need to know how to use HT kinda, and FF from sentries (phew pressing the f key and rapid right clicking the mouse is hard). While terran, due to the design, split or die, make mass vikings and target fire the collossus while you are being torn up by mass chargelot and HT, and Oh yea snipe with your ghosts in the middle of the battle or the trade was ineffective and you lose. That is the problem.
Now a solution, builds similar to the TvZ in Broodwar, possibly approx. 9 min push every game until something is done?
you just simply dont know or are ignoring how difficult it is to keep your zealots in front of your collossus how does that require less micro then terran bioball.
Your zealots can move under the colossus... so if you hit s on the colossus for a second, your zealots will move in front. Sorry, that doesn't seem to me as difficult.
I guess it's because you're terran you're comepletely blind to the issues of other races.
Protoss positioning is difficult because all of your units move at different speeds. Getting into a good position with all your units in the right place is actually quite difficult. That's why even pros mess it up and get their zealots trapped all the time. There are a lot of games where the protoss doesn't get this perfect before the engagement and gets slaughtered.
As EZ mode Terran, I wouldn't expect you to understand when your entire MMMVG moves at the same damn speed.
On December 02 2011 12:42 Necrophantasia wrote: As EZ mode Terran, I wouldn't expect you to understand when your entire MMMVG moves at the same damn speed.
marine move at 2.25 speed, medivacs move at 2.5 speed... plz actually play the game before you post.
On December 02 2011 12:42 Necrophantasia wrote: As EZ mode Terran, I wouldn't expect you to understand when your entire MMMVG moves at the same damn speed.
marine move at 2.25 speed, medivacs move at 2.5 speed... plz actually play the game before you post.
You aren't suppose to keep them on the same hotkey though. All the combat units are of the same speed. If you a-move and kite with your medivacs then you actually are doing it wrong.
Same for protoss, most pros at least put stalkers on another hotkey.
On December 02 2011 08:42 vaderseven wrote: Terran has the hardest execution and the easiest decision making. Execution is where skill ceiling arises from.
...
This is actually one of the better posts I've seen describing difficulties with terran.
Using TvZ as an example, its actually really easy to play safe, build up your army and know when to push out. Whats hard is simply executing a tank push without getting caught unsieged, microing individual groups of marines and tanks while still keeping up in macro, defending from mutalisks, dropping... Basically you probably know what you should be doing, but its so easy to get overwhelmed and so very hard to get the maximum efficiency from your micro-heavy units.
I've had alot of reason to think about it.
I played terran from start of beta till 3 months ago. In Feb of this year I developed wrist issues in my mouse hand especially after long games vs zerg. It was bad enough to make my hand unable to open doors.
I took a 6 week break (omg I was playing 40-50 hours a week before this gah so hard) and then slowly played more and more again.
It started to come back.
Since I have switched races it has gone comletely.
For reference I was a 'macro' terran with ~230-270 apm as sc2gears saw it. Its like switching from playing a fast pased fighting game to playing chess to go from Terran to Protoss.
There is nothing easy about it at the level I play with either race (I was high master on NA and mid master KR terran playing vs GMs a bit on NA and currently low/mid master on NA and KR as P). Execution and decision making lost me games for both races. As terran though, it was always more so the execution side. As protoss, the level of decision making to even play a decent set of games at mid masters on KR is beyond what I was doing decision wise as terran at any point in time.
Its also VERY fair to point out that the korean method of training leads to VERY good execution and sometimes sub par decision making (I saw insanely well executed but awfully done builds on the KR server and MVP once voiced this opionon on Koreans vs the World at one point) while the non korean approach encourages a much more adaptable (decision making based) play style that isnt executed 100% correctly.
Koreans win by doing whatever they choose to do almost perfectly and Non-Koreans win by chosing to do the right thing decisions every time.
the execution vs decision making thing is what keeps making me bounce between T and P.... The thrill of the knife's-edge battles that (sometimes) happen with T is awesome, but losing because i can't really micro all that well is very discouraging... whereas, to me, P feels like the battles just kind of happen~and you either smash or get smashed, there's no close middle ground (Roaches vs blink stalkers excepted)
On December 02 2011 10:02 Fig wrote: This thread is looking from the wrong perspective. It's not a problem that Terran units are all very microable. The problem is that many toss and zerg units are NOT. Unfortunately this is because Blizzard seems intent on removing some micro from the game. One example of this is when they hugely nerfed the charged damage on voidrays, severely reducing the incentive to micro them carefully. The void ray used to be the perfect example of a unit that is like what terrans have. On the weak side without micro, and on the strong side when micro is applied. Blizzard noobified it to be better without micro, and worse with micro. Is this type of change really what terrans want for their own units? I don't think so. I know that for me, the void ray went from being my favorite unit to my second least favorite overnight. Well, maybe not overnight. The removal of fazing was also sad to see, from the standpoint of someone who likes the micro potential of units.
What's my least favorite unit? The colossus. It used to require some micro when it had a high damage, high cooldown attack. Then Blizzard changed it to have lower damage, lower cooldown. This again reduced incentive to put apm into microing it. Everyone should want a game where each unit gets better if more micro is applied to control it. Right now only terrans have more of those units than the other races. Instead of making terran units more boring, what is needed is for units to increase in "microability" to make the game more interesting.
This. I completely agree with everything you said. We don't need to make the game more "noob" friendly. I think that if Protoss and Zerg got some more units that NEEDED micro, it would really help the game.
On December 02 2011 14:06 Active.815 wrote: vaderseven is the god of thread :D
the execution vs decision making thing is what keeps making me bounce between T and P.... The thrill of the knife's-edge battles that (sometimes) happen with T is awesome, but losing because i can't really micro all that well is very discouraging... whereas, to me, P feels like the battles just kind of happen~and you either smash or get smashed, there's no close middle ground (Roaches vs blink stalkers excepted)
@_@
lol.
I just spent a shit ton of time thinking about the issue. At one point when my wrist was bad i began looking into progamers that had mouse hand issues and I came up with a list of i think it was 11. Every single one was a Terran player.
That's when i started to think about the issue in a critical way.
There is a reason that among MC, Nestea, and MVP only one has wrist issues (MVP). There is a reason that among Flash, Bisu, and Jeadong only one has wrist issues (Flash). There is a reason that among Thorzain, Huk/Naniwa, Idra that only one has wrist issues (Thorzain).
TLO is the other I can recall off the top of my head.
This is not a game design problem. The game can be balanced with these things in mind and it has been. People just don't see at first that because what is easy about your race is hard in another doesnt actually mean anything is easy for any race lol. They are relative terms. If you, as a Terran, don't know how to scout cheese and spot the mid game choices of your enemy you will never be a pro. If you, as a Protoss, can't micro properly to ensure that every ultra expensive unit does its proper use you will never be a pro.
Being a winner at a high level is about abusing the strs of what you are given. Thats why Nestea appears to just be too smart to beat. He knows how to make decisions and has honed that to a razer's edge.
MMA/MVP/Puma all have multitasking and macro/micro that is always just a thing of pure awe to watch if you appreciate it for what it is.
Dont let some weird bias flavor your view towards a Race because it has a bit of an easier time with what you struggle and rage over. Ya terran's dont have to have nearly as much deviation or reaction preplanned into thier play. Cool. Zerg and Protoss aren't forced to split thier army and use it many places at once in order to maximize cost effectiviness.
I am glad I played terran as my first race in sc2. Nothing can compare to the joy of doing multi drops while defending a run by all while taking a 4th base and adding 5 more rax and 2 factories while mass producing marines out of of you 12 active rax. Straight forward and hard helped me to learn how to focus in and refine timings to a fine point. I was never really meant to play that way though. Physically my mouse hand can't do it and I enjoy the theory side WAY too much. I don't feel like I am playing poorly nearly as often when I play toss, I just feel like I don't know what the right deviation is at every point.
Talking about variance in skill levels at any level other than players that have put in massive amounts of time over a long time frame is absolutely nonsensical. Going from plat to diamond while a great personal accomplishment that means you have surpassed thousands of players that used to be better than you on a ranking system has nothing to do with the balance of the races. You are probably becoming slowly more adept at some skills and your race switch put you in a position to better use those skills.
If you were trying to FE as Terran into a long passive macro game where you defended and defended until you had the right army to go win then switch to Zerg you will prolly have a shit ton of success no matter the exp difference. The difference in mechanics at that level of play between the races is slim if any at all.
Any zerg, terran, or toss can go from Plat to Diamond from either mass gaming the same 3 builds over and over for 40-50 hours a week for 2 weeks straight OR by having a professional player coach them on teh decision making in each matchup for 40-50 hours. Players that are at a sub GM level (honestly probably a sub mid pro level) always have enough gaps in every area of play that any large investment of time that has any focus (do the same builds over and over 40 hours a week will perfect execution to a new level for a Plat and having a pro teach you how to make decisions for 40 hours a week will make you really good at that compared to where you started).
To be clear, If toss and zerg offered ways to excel at execution to the point that they could play their wrists off like terran players then you can bet your golden ass that players like MC and Nestea would be at the same level of risk for that kind of injury. The lack of injuries in the P/Z pro player lists doesn't mean that they are really easier, it means that there is very little to be gained from playing with that kind of hand movements.
At a pro level, fast mouse hand movements are a direct result of high multitasking based micro. There is nothing else in the game that should speed up the mouse hand like that.
Goody is often touted as being a 'slow' terran that wins alot with his very refined mech play. He is the best example of someone that is playing terran in ways that are not similar at all to the common pro methods. His success is very often attributed to his amazingly smart decision making.
You CAN play any race any way you want. The reason you aren't being paid to play video games for living isn't because you didn't or did join the Terran train early in the life of this game. Its because your multitasking, micro, macro, and decision making are not near good enough to compare to the refined play of a professional that is able and willing to practice his play for 40+ hours a week, every week.
If you can't see and understand that then you are not ready to try to think about the concept of design goals in a game like sc2.
This discussion should be over imo, the only things that will result are agreements with this or whining about A-Move race vs 0 micro unit vs OP ability vs cost effective unit X.
Its pointless, illogical, and SMALL MINDED. If you feel like a race is better than yours then try race switching. I promise you that 95% or more of people that try to race switch either end up inactive as a player or go back to their 'underpowered' race cuz they can win more with them. The other 5% suck it up and suck for awhile then slowly get better. That 5% will get to a point and then if they play long enough surpass their old abilities with their old race.
The only constant in this is playing and practicing make you better. Change disrupts that and then it falls right back into that same exact pattern.
I never will understand how people can fool themselves into accepting anything other than honest and open self criticism in the face of losing a game vs another human playing the same game. The fact that there is a pro scene and that any pro is able to beat you just the same no matter your race or his race means guess what, the human that is playing the game is the one that wins, not the race he chooses.
On December 02 2011 14:51 vaderseven wrote: To be clear, If toss and zerg offered ways to excel at execution to the point that they could play their wrists off like terran players then you can bet your golden ass that players like MC and Nestea would be at the same level of risk for that kind of injury. The lack of injuries in the P/Z pro player lists doesn't mean that they are really easier, it means that there is very little to be gained from playing with that kind of hand movements.
At a pro level, fast mouse hand movements are a direct result of high multitasking based micro. There is nothing else in the game that should speed up the mouse hand like that.
Goody is often touted as being a 'slow' terran that wins alot with his very refined mech play. He is the best example of someone that is playing terran in ways that are not similar at all to the common pro methods. His success is very often attributed to his amazingly smart decision making.
You CAN play any race any way you want. The reason you aren't being paid to play video games for living isn't because you didn't or did join the Terran train early in the life of this game. Its because your multitasking, micro, macro, and decision making are not near good enough to compare to the refined play of a professional that is able and willing to practice his play for 40+ hours a week, every week.
If you can't see and understand that then you are not ready to try to think about the concept of design goals in a game like sc2.
This discussion should be over imo, the only things that will result are agreements with this or whining about A-Move race vs 0 micro unit vs OP ability vs cost effective unit X.
Its pointless, illogical, and SMALL MINDED. If you feel like a race is better than yours then try race switching. I promise you that 95% or more of people that try to race switch either end up inactive as a player or go back to their 'underpowered' race cuz they can win more with them. The other 5% suck it up and suck for awhile then slowly get better. That 5% will get to a point and then if they play long enough surpass their old abilities with their old race.
The only constant in this is playing and practicing make you better. Change disrupts that and then it falls right back into that same exact pattern.
I never will understand how people can fool themselves into accepting anything other than honest and open self criticism in the face of losing a game vs another human playing the same game. The fact that there is a pro scene and that any pro is able to beat you just the same no matter your race or his race means guess what, the human that is playing the game is the one that wins, not the race he chooses.
pce.
Your signature is quite informational. You're changing from T to P, right? I can obviously see why you have this opinion about all this discussion being pointless, illogical and small minded now.
If you yourself changed races because P is "less mechanical demanding", then why wouldn't other players that don't even have 40 hrs a week to play wouldn't? Besides, the point of the OP doesn't have anything to do with balance. He just wants Z and P to be made "more mechanical demanding". The game itself would only benefit from it.
That completely ignores the huge pluses you get for playing T in the form of the least demanding decision making skill set.Read the last post on page 35. I think I explain that in detail there.
The world doesn't use American measurements because they make no logical sense. So don't discriminate on others, Americans, for not using your flawed system.
/rant
Also off topic :/
I'm not going to argue that the American systems are better. They aren't. But don't be so ignorant that you think there's no logical basis. Measurement are not random.
Celsius is based around Melting/Boiling points. 0-100 (melt - boil) Fahrenheit is based around standard living temperature. 0-100 (really cold - really hot)
1 pound = 16 ounces. No different than 1 kilogram = 1000 grams. Mind you base 10 is a bit easier. Nobody uses the stone. Don't know why you'd even bring that up. For extremely large measurements tons are used, but that's it. Everything is just in terms of pounds.
The year is clearly is the least immediately important since it's such a long period of time it's kind of a given, so it's universally last. The most relevant should be the month, so it should go first. And then the date fits right into the middle. So this is also a matter of relevance similar to the temperature scale. A bit more subjective, so there isn't really an argument to be had in this case. Sure small to large makes sense when you say it that way. But the way we use the date has nothing to do with some order of small to large, but rather an identification of a moment in time. Not really related.
On December 02 2011 23:53 vaderseven wrote: That completely ignores the huge pluses you get for playing T in the form of the least demanding decision making skill set.Read the last post on page 35. I think I explain that in detail there.
??? I don't see how any race is more or less decision demanding except perhaps zerg to an extent with larva. Terran are punished if they make poor decisions on when to move out, when to upgrade, when to drop, where to place buildings, etc etc etc.
I hardly think this completely balances the relative lack of micro oweness on the other two races.
On December 02 2011 23:53 vaderseven wrote: That completely ignores the huge pluses you get for playing T in the form of the least demanding decision making skill set.Read the last post on page 35. I think I explain that in detail there.
??? I don't see how any race is more or less decision demanding except perhaps zerg to an extent with larva. Terran are punished if they make more decisions on when to move out, when to upgrade, when to drop, where to place buildings, etc etc etc.
I hardly thing this completely balances the relative lack of micro oweness on the other two races.
Let me rephrase. The is a much higher skill cap built into the decision making of toss and zerg.
The world doesn't use American measurements because they make no logical sense. So don't discriminate on others, Americans, for not using your flawed system.
/rant
Also off topic :/
I'm not going to argue that the American systems are better. They aren't. But don't be so ignorant that you think there's no logical basis. Measurement are not random.
Celsius is based around Melting/Boiling points. 0-100 (melt - boil) Fahrenheit is based around standard living temperature. 0-100 (really cold - really hot)
1 pound = 16 ounces. No different than 1 kilogram = 1000 grams. Mind you base 10 is a bit easier. Nobody uses the stone. Don't know why you'd even bring that up. For extremely large measurements tons are used, but that's it. Everything is just in terms of pounds.
The year is clearly is the least immediately important since it's such a long period of time it's kind of a given, so it's universally last. The most relevant should be the month, so it should go first. And then the date fits right into the middle. So this is also a matter of relevance similar to the temperature scale. A bit more subjective, so there isn't really an argument to be had in this case. Sure small to large makes sense when you say it that way. But the way we use the date has nothing to do with some order of small to large, but rather an identification of a moment in time. Not really related.
/counterrant
I don't agree, why is the month more important than the date?
Now, I understand the argument that you generally say it in the m-d-y order, assuming you speak English. It's the other way around in Iceland though, and many other places around the world.
But the main issue is of course that the american way of writing it down makes no sense because unlike almost any other format of numbers it doesn't go either from the smallest to the largest, or the other way around, but from the middle to the smallest to the largest.
Now I'm gonna give you this though, I'm a system admin, and I name all log/version/anything files in a pretty clear format everyone understands. (YYYYMMDDHHMM), and that makes even more sense. But yeah, putting the month before the date makes no sense, because the date is the smallest, and thus the most precise variable.
On December 02 2011 14:25 vaderseven wrote: That's when i started to think about the issue in a critical way.
There is a reason that among MC, Nestea, and MVP only one has wrist issues (MVP). There is a reason that among Flash, Bisu, and Jeadong only one has wrist issues (Flash). There is a reason that among Thorzain, Huk/Naniwa, Idra that only one has wrist issues (Thorzain).
TLO is the other I can recall off the top of my head.
HOLY SHIT ! SC HAS A COLLAPSED LUNG! PLAYING TERRAN IS FUCKING DANGEROUS !!!
Nah really... next you will be making absurd comments like zerg players are fat therefore their race requires the most visits to kfc out of all races.
If this is your level of critical thinking then I am worried for you.
I'd like to add that HongUn (a Protoss player, for those not familiar with him) was/is considering retirement as a progamer due to wrist issues. Cherrypicking evidence is bad. Or if you didn't intend to cherrypick and simply didn't know, then now you know
On December 02 2011 23:53 vaderseven wrote: That completely ignores the huge pluses you get for playing T in the form of the least demanding decision making skill set.Read the last post on page 35. I think I explain that in detail there.
??? I don't see how any race is more or less decision demanding except perhaps zerg to an extent with larva. Terran are punished if they make more decisions on when to move out, when to upgrade, when to drop, where to place buildings, etc etc etc.
I hardly thing this completely balances the relative lack of micro oweness on the other two races.
Let me rephrase. The is a much higher skill cap built into the decision making of toss and zerg.
- despite displaying 'foreigner-tier' marine splitting and less than perfect multitasking. He made up for it by having innovative and smartly predictive plays combined with really solid build ideas + great macro.
On December 02 2011 14:25 vaderseven wrote: That's when i started to think about the issue in a critical way.
There is a reason that among MC, Nestea, and MVP only one has wrist issues (MVP). There is a reason that among Flash, Bisu, and Jeadong only one has wrist issues (Flash). There is a reason that among Thorzain, Huk/Naniwa, Idra that only one has wrist issues (Thorzain).
TLO is the other I can recall off the top of my head.
HOLY SHIT ! SC HAS A COLLAPSED LUNG! PLAYING TERRAN IS FUCKING DANGEROUS !!!
Nah really... next you will be making absurd comments like zerg players are fat therefore their race requires the most visits to kfc out of all races.
If this is your level of critical thinking then I am worried for you.
You must have read the post in this thread within the alst page or two where I outlined a wrist injury I developed and then researched heavily. One of the areas I looked into was pro gamers that had developed wrist issues.
If you disagree then don't post all caps hyperbole that isn't implied at all by my post and instead post evidence that clarify the issue.
Insulting people by saying things that they did not say and then attributing them to them is not a valid way to bring evidence to the table.
To be clear, if you know of other race's pro gamers that have mouse hand issues that have developed I would love to know because this IS something I am interested in for personal reasons.
On December 02 2011 23:53 vaderseven wrote: That completely ignores the huge pluses you get for playing T in the form of the least demanding decision making skill set.Read the last post on page 35. I think I explain that in detail there.
??? I don't see how any race is more or less decision demanding except perhaps zerg to an extent with larva. Terran are punished if they make more decisions on when to move out, when to upgrade, when to drop, where to place buildings, etc etc etc.
I hardly thing this completely balances the relative lack of micro oweness on the other two races.
Let me rephrase. The is a much higher skill cap built into the decision making of toss and zerg.
And you say this based on what?
My own experience. Conversations with players I know such as nrgmonk. Watching a very large % of the pro games that are put into vods and a large amount of replays.
The whole general attitude of Terran being the race that sets the pace of a game supports this as well.
On December 03 2011 08:21 HolyArrow wrote: I'd like to add that HongUn (a Protoss player, for those not familiar with him) was/is considering retirement as a progamer due to wrist issues. Cherrypicking evidence is bad. Or if you didn't intend to cherrypick and simply didn't know, then now you know
Thanks! I will be looking into that. I always am looking for more source info to see if a player of that level talks about how they deal with it and/or what caused the condition in their opinion.
I don't buy that Terran is imbalanced for foreigners at all, with people citing that Naniwa, HuK, and Idra don't play Terran and do exceptionally well. Those players aren't just considered really good foreigners, they are very often cited as some of the best players in the world in their respective races - period. Just in the Nov Code S finals Tasteless talks about how he thinks Naniwa is the best protoss in the world. There is just no foreign Terran player yet that is at the level of their Korean counterparts yet. When Protoss and Zerg players were whining about T being overpowered in Korea , the response was simply that Korean Terrans are simply that much better than everyone else - and that still holds true for Korean v Foreigner Terrans. Lots of Terran foreigners don't play at as many tournaments lately - like Thorzain or Major, but they do have impressive results. Thorzain winning TSL3 and doing very well in the NASL finals is of course ignored in these discussions. I just think if you're looking to make a point you can make up any number of reasons that you believe are direct proof, but it doesn't mean there's actually truth in what someone is saying.
Also, in terms of carpal tunnel and wrist disorders, it's really silly to blame that on the race. There are lots of things that factor into having wrist nerve damage, such as genetic susceptibility and just having poor posture that are not related in any way to what race someone chooses in Starcraft 2, it is truly grasping straws and very likely is coincidental. Thousands of people suffer from these disorders without playing any RTS video game of any sort along with not being on the computer as much in general as many many pro gamers.
Oh yeah I notice I don't mention Terran design, that's because this is a whine thread with a [D] tag and thus I'm addressing the whine with my opinion. Terran is beautifully designed, if anything the other races are not as well designed.
On November 30 2011 13:02 SpunXtain wrote: Let me start with a disclaimer: this is not so much a specific balance thread as it is simply making arguments about fundamental problems I believe exist in the structure of the Terran race, and why it is fundamentally difficult for Blizzard to balance the race.
Strategy games that involve multiple races are always going to face challenges balancing races. This was true in Starcraft, Warcraft III, and many other RTS's out there. However, in Starcraft 2, there are a number of mechanics that make the game fundamentally difficult to balance - particularly across different skill levels.
Terran units, in general, have the ability to exponentially increase in effectiveness with effective micro ability. Banshees are able to perma-kite nonstimmed marines; ghosts in theory outrange infestors and templar with snipe/emp, and stimmed marines can theoretically kite their "hard counters" such as banelings, zealots and ultralisks. Harassment with banshees, hellions, and reapers becomes infinitely more effective with correct micro of these units.
Because this makes Terran units theoretically 'stronger' than the other races, Blizzard has implemented many nerfs to the Terran race to compensate for this micro potential. The way Blizzard appears to view the race is that, in head on battles, Terrans will always lose the fights to storms/colossus/fungals/banelings, etc. However, with good micro, Terran is able to win fights that it theoretically should lose based on raw battle power.
The reason that Terran were able to dominate so well for so long in the GSL is that players at this level were able to exploit the micro potential of the Terran units and use them much more effectively than other races. In response, Blizzard has attempted to balance the Terran race based on top-level Korean players, and nerfed reapers, hellions, ghosts etc. accordingly.
The problem with this response is that at lower levels, where players are not at the same level as the Korean scene and do not have the same micro/multitask potential, Terran is fundamentally going to be a weaker race. Many may dispute this fact, but the results even of top Foreign players show that this statement is true.
Please acknoweldge this data as just an example that this phenomena seems to be occuring based on recent results. As we know, Blizzard does not release its matchup statistics for the wider public to view. As at 30/11/2011, the top 6 foreigners in TLPD are all zerg and protoss. Only two terrans are in the top 10 - Major at 7th, and Kas at 10th.
Furthermore, results from recent tournaments have been very heavily dominated by zergs and protosses from the foreign point of view. These are the top foreign scores from some recent tournaments (gaps are filled by Korean players)
Blizzcon invitational: Sen (Z) 3rd, Naniwa (P) 4th
The only notable achievements by any Terran foreign players in recent months was Goody's 2nd place behind Nerchio in Battle of Berlin, and Selects 2nd behind Idra in ASUS ROG.
Let me know what you think about this topic, to me it seems like Blizzard have dug themselves into a bit of a hole in terms of balancing the game across the board. Do you think that Heart of the Swarm will fix this issue to some degree? Do others agree that this is a problem with the game?
Apparently this thread has created a lot of confusion and argument within the community, so to better summarize myself and the points I'm trying to make:
1. My argument is not that Terran is underpowered, it is that fundamentally it is difficult to balance the game for different levels of play. The mechanics of the game are such that different levels of players are rewarded more or less by different races - because there are different 'thresholds' of skill levels where races seem to be more or less powerful, there is a fundamental flaw in trying to balance the game in this way.
2. No, this has nothing to do with my own personal play-styles, it is a comment on the way the game is played at multiple levels. I use foreign top players and data as an example to compare against Korean top gamers: I have not omitted Koreans because I'm ignoring them, I've omitted them because I'm comparing against them.
3. This flaw is not necessarily on the Terran's side. It could be, as some pointed out, that the other races have design flaws. If Terran is the 'solid' race and the other 2 races are balanced to compensate for their shortcomings at the top level of play, Terran necessarily appears to be weaker at levels where players cannot fully exploit their full functionality.
4. I did not deliberately omit any recent results, I simply took them from the first page of the Liquipedia calendar of major events.
5. People who say 'so you need to be good to play terran' are completely missing the point of this post. The argument is not that the other races don't require skill, its that Terran has different skill thresholds that make balancing the race difficult across multiple levels.
6. I'm not discussing bronze-platinum level players etc. As you'll note, the only direct references I've made have been to top level tournaments around the world. I don't think Blizzard mind if bronze-masters is not perfectly balanced, but I would argue that one of their objectives is to have a fairly level playing field across both the GSL as well as these higher level tournaments that foreign progamers compete in.
The underlying logic of this post is true; if different races require more multitasking/micro or punish lack of multitasking/micro harder than others, then balancing the game for multiple skill levels has a fundamental flaw. In broodwar I would argue that multitasking owness (during battles or otherwise) was fairly evenly spread between the races, but in its current state this is not necessarily true for SC2. The fact that it is Terran that appears to be 'the micro race' is coincidental; if units were different it could easily be Protoss or Zerg. I realise that this is a difficult concept to confer to people and I probably haven't done the best job of it but hopefully this clears things up a bit.
Perhaps this means that simple buffs/nerfs to individual units is not the correct way for Blizzard to be balancing the game, but instead, trying to rework some of the units themselves. Hopefully HOTS will rectify this problem a bit, and I'm sure its something the Blizzard team have been considering for a while. + Show Spoiler +
I think guys that the issue is currently terran armies, when we aren't able to manipulate terrain to bolster our micro, are simply too fragile right now. Protoss and Zerg armies simply squash terran forces in large battles, and this has been progressing since release, terran drops and harassment has to do extreme damage, or terran early game has to win us games.
Basically we need more big meaty units, and harassment units (specifically banshees) need to be more frail than they currently are.
On December 02 2011 23:53 vaderseven wrote: That completely ignores the huge pluses you get for playing T in the form of the least demanding decision making skill set.Read the last post on page 35. I think I explain that in detail there.
??? I don't see how any race is more or less decision demanding except perhaps zerg to an extent with larva. Terran are punished if they make more decisions on when to move out, when to upgrade, when to drop, where to place buildings, etc etc etc.
I hardly thing this completely balances the relative lack of micro oweness on the other two races.
Let me rephrase. The is a much higher skill cap built into the decision making of toss and zerg.
And you say this based on what?
My own experience. Conversations with players I know such as nrgmonk. Watching a very large % of the pro games that are put into vods and a large amount of replays.
The whole general attitude of Terran being the race that sets the pace of a game supports this as well.
What? Setting the pace of the game = easy decision making? By defintiion being reactive means that you are not making decisions but simply reacting. Your logic = fail. Zerg for example can make poor decisions and easily recover from them due to their speed. Protoss can recover from a poor decision by throwing down a FF wall. A terran who moves out at the wrong time into a poor position, typically can't retreat easily.
edit : noticed that im kinda whining and maybe off topic a litle ,but im fealing this show what someone not pro gamer but considered good think but if any mods feal that not ok , you can remove if this dont help this topic or that not right to say that .
first i want to say that im korean so my english not realy good but plz read .
the op realy say my fealing with terran since some months
im not a pro gamer but im at 1k master and play vs mostly grandmaster and good high master .
and honestly im doing worst each months since 3-4 months , all the nerf to terran dont help me either .
the ghost nerf realy got me hard , since i realy needed them for get the chance to win , now i alway get 2-3 storm in because im not good like the 1 % pro gamer korean who can still snipe and emp the templar good . i just got owned .
and for the people who say you see more and more terran doing all in and early attack , that because the mid and late game with terran realy realy hard to play right now vs good zerg and protoss .
matchup work like that now : p v t , protoss got many good all in that can kill the terran before late game , but most of the protoss now fast nexus and good protoss can hold any kind of baract all in now because mostly of the 5 sec baract nerf ( that was for fix t v z 2 rax but this changed the pvt matchup too ) after fast nexus they rush to colosus
what this mean ? terran need viking now for do any kind of attack other that dropship harass and that usualy very early in the game so by the time the terran got enough viking for do anything the protoss got zealot leg speed ( crazy dps ) storm/ archon , here that very hard for the terran to win unless you got perfect unit control that only the 1 % korean can do.
yes you can still win t v p here but you usualy need to be more skilled that the protoss for the same result ( or he failed in early game all in you so you kinda got a advantage )
t v z realy not the same but still very hard to play too , but in this matchup terran got MANY good all in and build order . mostly what zerg need to do for win here = hold the all in and get the game into the mid/late game , if they do that and dont loss to many drone in the early game they usualy win ( unless we talk here again about the 1 % korean )
basicaly they make 50-60 drone and got eco advantage , take third and make muta , when they got muta out they will harass the whole game with them keeping the terran on the defense side , at the same time you usualy see better food count , that not strange for exemple to see 90 terran vs 110 zerg at some point , after 110 terran and 160 zerg because of queen inject system ( same problem for z v p btw , but here that worst )
anyway good zerg will rally all unit in the midle of the map and mass zergling/roach/infestor and when terran move out they morf baneling and will A move terran army ( with some micro required but not the same level required on the terran part )
because that the terran who need to do something in this matchup , if the terran loss any big fight in mid/late game that game over , and the control for everything realy more hard on the terran side .
that what someone with 1k master feal like about the current game and metagame curently . of course im biased for terran but im sure they are some true in what i have write .
good topic and i hope this add something , thx for read .
Well a lot of high Terran players have been complaining about protoss lately from the stream I have been watching: Jinro, Cloud, Beasty, Kas, Illusion; and Rainbow right now is playing protoss instead of terran... But honestly at my level the 111 all in is still easier to do than it is for the protoss to defend, so i can't complain, i can always revert to it if I went to win. And it's nice than in macro play you have to outplay the P as T, it's a great way of learning!
My quick opinions on the subject, as I play both races. . . .
As Protoss, I feel that the micro is more clutch, as in with FF, if you screw up your forcefields (especially in the early-mid game) It can very well cost you the game. Good micro and bad micro can mean life and death in that regard.
As terran, I feel you are allowed to make more mistakes with your micro and not get punished horribly, however i feel that (to make up for this) you have to micro MORE.
Early game, Toss requires more micro then Terran in order to survive (2 rax, 1-1-1, etc). Midgame and lategame, however, I would say that the Terran player has to micro more in order to come out ahead in a fight. There is no way anyone can argue that chargelot archon is more micro intensive the MMMG, Chargelot archon is the epitome of A-Move. The micro intensive part is with casting feedback and storm, which is matched in difficulty with EMP + snipe. But the terran has to stutter step (for his life btw), and whilst stutter stepping in itself isn't very complicated, it requires a lot more time effort and attention then, say, forcefields.
So, to satisfy both sides (?) I would say that Protoss micro is Quality over Quantity, screwing up can be very costly, especially early/mid game. And Terran is Quantity over Quality, in that screwing up wont end the game (usually), but it requires much more time as you have to micro hard over long durations.
On December 05 2011 12:08 Sajaki wrote: My quick opinions on the subject, as I play both races. . . .
As Protoss, I feel that the micro is more clutch, as in with FF, if you screw up your forcefields (especially in the early-mid game) It can very well cost you the game. Good micro and bad micro can mean life and death in that regard.
As terran, I feel you are allowed to make more mistakes with your micro and not get punished horribly, however i feel that (to make up for this) you have to micro MORE.
Early game, Toss requires more micro then Terran in order to survive (2 rax, 1-1-1, etc). Midgame and lategame, however, I would say that the Terran player has to micro more in order to come out ahead in a fight. There is no way anyone can argue that chargelot archon is more micro intensive the MMMG, Chargelot archon is the epitome of A-Move. The micro intensive part is with casting feedback and storm, which is matched in difficulty with EMP + snipe. But the terran has to stutter step (for his life btw), and whilst stutter stepping in itself isn't very complicated, it requires a lot more time effort and attention then, say, forcefields.
So, to satisfy both sides (?) I would say that Protoss micro is Quality over Quantity, screwing up can be very costly, especially early/mid game. And Terran is Quantity over Quality, in that screwing up wont end the game (usually), but it requires much more time as you have to micro hard over long durations.
This guy is smart. My feelings on it exactly.
Good example is Protoss early FF on the ramp is slightly off, protoss lose. Terran miss a stutter step and take a bit of extra damage then continue stuttering(?) to do almost exactly the same amount of damage. Note, i'm not saying stutter step vs not stutter stepping, just if you stutter step poorly you're still "ok" but if you FF poorly you lose int he early game.
Honestly, it's the relative success of foreigner Zerg players that surprises me more than the failure of the Terrans.
I mean, look at all these "foreigner" Protosses tearing it up: HuK, Naniwa and Sase have all been staying in Korea for a good amount of time now, and they have no plans of leaving anytime soon. I mean, literally, nearly every foreigner to commit seriously to practicing there plays Protoss. So yeah, it's not exactly surprising when they fly over to an MLG and do well.
If you exclude these guys, the actual foreigner Protosses (players practicing on NA and EU servers) do about as well as the Terrans. The only real anomaly here is Stephano, although he didn't look that hot during Dreamhack.
I feel like the biggest problem with Terran is the lack of map control due to how every unit is mega slow with the exception of Hellions which are terrible against anything but Zealots Marines and Zerglings. The only map control Terran can get is drops and banshees, both are denied in the same fashion. I feel like spidermines would be enough and maybe a tank buff to make them not horrible against Toss. It seems really silly for Terran to go Bio, a style based around mobility when Bio is slower than everything Zerg and Toss have. And no stimming across the map is a dumb idea. However Bio is pretty legit in TvT.
Other than Thorzain, are there any other foreigner Terrans that can consistently beat koreans?
On December 05 2011 16:05 Zombo Joe wrote: I feel like the biggest problem with Terran is the lack of map control due to how every unit is mega slow with the exception of Hellions which are terrible against anything but Zealots Marines and Zerglings. The only map control Terran can get is drops and banshees, both are denied in the same fashion. I feel like spidermines would be enough and maybe a tank buff to make them not horrible against Toss. It seems really silly for Terran to go Bio, a style based around mobility when Bio is slower than everything Zerg and Toss have. And no stimming across the map is a dumb idea. However Bio is pretty legit in TvT.
Other than Thorzain, are there any other foreigner Terrans that can consistently beat koreans?
On December 05 2011 16:05 Zombo Joe wrote: I feel like the biggest problem with Terran is the lack of map control due to how every unit is mega slow with the exception of Hellions which are terrible against anything but Zealots Marines and Zerglings. The only map control Terran can get is drops and banshees, both are denied in the same fashion. I feel like spidermines would be enough and maybe a tank buff to make them not horrible against Toss. It seems really silly for Terran to go Bio, a style based around mobility when Bio is slower than everything Zerg and Toss have. And no stimming across the map is a dumb idea. However Bio is pretty legit in TvT.
Other than Thorzain, are there any other foreigner Terrans that can consistently beat koreans?
To be fair... bio is faster than protoss ball because their main aoe colossus and templar are slow, so it naturally slows down the army, and getting in the wrong position will get them picked off from a good terran with faster viking and ghosts...
Watch puma vs hero nasl 2 game 6 to see my point... but of course puma is puma, and it takes a ton of multitasking and apm to constantly move your units around, do side distractions, etc. to pull the protoss ball around so that the slower units get into bad positions and are able to be picked off by your ghost /vikings... definitely something not every terran can do but the game should be balanced around pro level anyways ...
You don't need to constantly stim your bio across the map to have map control with them, but you seem to think that harass options are your only form of map control, so what do I know about what you mean.
I love how this guy blatantly leaves out the fact that a terran won the last two GSLs. Stop beating a dead horse by talking about all this design flaw crap. Go play some games and get better instead.
On December 05 2011 16:05 Zombo Joe wrote: I feel like the biggest problem with Terran is the lack of map control due to how every unit is mega slow with the exception of Hellions which are terrible against anything but Zealots Marines and Zerglings. The only map control Terran can get is drops and banshees, both are denied in the same fashion. I feel like spidermines would be enough and maybe a tank buff to make them not horrible against Toss. It seems really silly for Terran to go Bio, a style based around mobility when Bio is slower than everything Zerg and Toss have. And no stimming across the map is a dumb idea. However Bio is pretty legit in TvT.
Other than Thorzain, are there any other foreigner Terrans that can consistently beat koreans?
To be fair... bio is faster than protoss ball because their main aoe colossus and templar are slow, so it naturally slows down the army, and getting in the wrong position will get them picked off from a good terran with faster viking and ghosts...
Watch puma vs hero nasl 2 game 6 to see my point... but of course puma is puma, and it takes a ton of multitasking and apm to constantly move your units around, do side distractions, etc. to pull the protoss ball around so that the slower units get into bad positions and are able to be picked off by your ghost /vikings... definitely something not every terran can do but the game should be balanced around pro level anyways ...
bio have the same speed as colossus......what are you talking about. you can stim yes, but that doesn't give you map control. and your medivac would be lagging behind
On December 05 2011 09:42 DrowSwordsman wrote: Also, in terms of carpal tunnel and wrist disorders, it's really silly to blame that on the race. There are lots of things that factor into having wrist nerve damage, such as genetic susceptibility and just having poor posture...
I can confirm this. When I first started playing Counter-Strike it was on my family's computer on a desk at a weird position and I developed intense pain in my wrist after playing for a while. Once I got my own computer that was able to run it (lol 1.6) and got things set up more comfortably, there was no more pain, despite getting into some competitive leagues and playing even longer hours.
On December 05 2011 09:53 Happylime wrote: Basically we need more big meaty units, and harassment units (specifically banshees) need to be more frail than they currently are.
This is actually everything that the Terran army DOESN'T need more of and what is currently causing problems in the game.
-Marines have 15 more HP than their BW equivalent. -Marauders have 125 hp, compare that to the firebats 50hp, we won't even talk about 6 range and concussive shells. -Ghosts have 100, +55hp compared to BW. -Siege tanks got 10 HP -Hellions got 10 HP -Medivacs heal 2x as fast and 2x as efficiently as medics. -Thors are an abomination of a unit and getting removed by Blizzard in HotS because they present too many problems.
From a design perspective, the last thing Terran needs is more beef, if anything, they could use 5 less HP on Marines (I've pointed out all the reasons this would make their unit interactions actually interesting in previous threads) and probably some sort of HP reduction on Marauders too.
The whole Terran army generally has a 30% DPS boost compared to Protoss or Zerg, not to mention longer range and more splash. Giving the Terran army more beef without significantly reducing their DPS is essentially making them unstoppable. It's already basically impossible to beat a Terran in a straight-up fight as is.
On December 05 2011 12:08 Sajaki wrote: My quick opinions on the subject, as I play both races. . . .
As Protoss, I feel that the micro is more clutch, as in with FF, if you screw up your forcefields (especially in the early-mid game) It can very well cost you the game. Good micro and bad micro can mean life and death in that regard.
As terran, I feel you are allowed to make more mistakes with your micro and not get punished horribly, however i feel that (to make up for this) you have to micro MORE.
Early game, Toss requires more micro then Terran in order to survive (2 rax, 1-1-1, etc). Midgame and lategame, however, I would say that the Terran player has to micro more in order to come out ahead in a fight. There is no way anyone can argue that chargelot archon is more micro intensive the MMMG, Chargelot archon is the epitome of A-Move. The micro intensive part is with casting feedback and storm, which is matched in difficulty with EMP + snipe. But the terran has to stutter step (for his life btw), and whilst stutter stepping in itself isn't very complicated, it requires a lot more time effort and attention then, say, forcefields.
So, to satisfy both sides (?) I would say that Protoss micro is Quality over Quantity, screwing up can be very costly, especially early/mid game. And Terran is Quantity over Quality, in that screwing up wont end the game (usually), but it requires much more time as you have to micro hard over long durations.
This guy is smart. My feelings on it exactly.
Good example is Protoss early FF on the ramp is slightly off, protoss lose. Terran miss a stutter step and take a bit of extra damage then continue stuttering(?) to do almost exactly the same amount of damage. Note, i'm not saying stutter step vs not stutter stepping, just if you stutter step poorly you're still "ok" but if you FF poorly you lose int he early game.
I see you've never stutter stepped against banelings. If you stutter step poorly you die.
On December 05 2011 09:53 Happylime wrote: Basically we need more big meaty units, and harassment units (specifically banshees) need to be more frail than they currently are.
This is actually everything that the Terran army DOESN'T need more of and what is currently causing problems in the game.
-Marines have 15 more HP than their BW equivalent. -Marauders have 125 hp, compare that to the firebats 50hp, we won't even talk about 6 range and concussive shells. -Ghosts have 100, +55hp compared to BW. -Siege tanks got 10 HP -Hellions got 10 HP -Medivacs heal 2x as fast and 2x as efficiently as medics. -Thors are an abomination of a unit and getting removed by Blizzard in HotS because they present too many problems.
From a design perspective, the last thing Terran needs is more beef, if anything, they could use 5 less HP on Marines (I've pointed out all the reasons this would make their unit interactions actually interesting in previous threads) and probably some sort of HP reduction on Marauders too.
The whole Terran army generally has a 30% DPS boost compared to Protoss or Zerg, not to mention longer range and more splash. Giving the Terran army more beef without significantly reducing their DPS is essentially making them unstoppable. It's already basically impossible to beat a Terran in a straight-up fight as is.
Beefy Terran = Bad Design (see the Marauder).
Such a brillant idea to compare units with different designs simply because they hold the same place in the production facility. I mean, Marauders are known to be melee-like AoE damage dealers against small targets, right? And Ghosts in Broodwar were your unit of choice against Zerg lategame, while being necessary against any Protoss force past early game, eh? And maybe Medivacs heal faster because they're higher tech? And where does this stupid "30% dps boost" figure come from, I ask? More splash from Terran, really? Fungal and/or banes against Siege Tank splash, EMP against Colossi/Storm, where do you see some splash edge for Terran?
If all you want to do is whine about Terran being supposedly imbalanced, please don't try to bring in some terrible ""arguments"" based on biased comparisons and imaginary figures.
"In broodwar I would argue that multitasking owness (during battles or otherwise) was fairly evenly spread between the races, but in its current state this is not necessarily true for SC2."
I assume that multitasking "oneness" refers to homogeneity of army control and base management across the races.
I would argue that multitasking "oneness" exists to an even lesser extent in Brood War than in Starcraft 2. I'd give reasons, but you should just go play the game and find out for yourself.
Also, this "oneness" is not something I'd like Starcraft 2 to have more of.
Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
On December 05 2011 16:59 .Sic. wrote: I love how this guy blatantly leaves out the fact that a terran won the last two GSLs. Stop beating a dead horse by talking about all this design flaw crap. Go play some games and get better instead.
I love how you literally don't read the first post of this topic and see that it blatantly states that it's for people outside of Korea.
As far as this topic goes, I think that Terrans do get punished for being not as good. But I think Terrans should just adapt in a better way and outplay their opponents. Speaking as a Terran player myself.
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote: Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote: Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote: Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
On December 05 2011 12:08 Sajaki wrote: My quick opinions on the subject, as I play both races. . . .
As Protoss, I feel that the micro is more clutch, as in with FF, if you screw up your forcefields (especially in the early-mid game) It can very well cost you the game. Good micro and bad micro can mean life and death in that regard.
As terran, I feel you are allowed to make more mistakes with your micro and not get punished horribly, however i feel that (to make up for this) you have to micro MORE.
Early game, Toss requires more micro then Terran in order to survive (2 rax, 1-1-1, etc). Midgame and lategame, however, I would say that the Terran player has to micro more in order to come out ahead in a fight. There is no way anyone can argue that chargelot archon is more micro intensive the MMMG, Chargelot archon is the epitome of A-Move. The micro intensive part is with casting feedback and storm, which is matched in difficulty with EMP + snipe. But the terran has to stutter step (for his life btw), and whilst stutter stepping in itself isn't very complicated, it requires a lot more time effort and attention then, say, forcefields.
So, to satisfy both sides (?) I would say that Protoss micro is Quality over Quantity, screwing up can be very costly, especially early/mid game. And Terran is Quantity over Quality, in that screwing up wont end the game (usually), but it requires much more time as you have to micro hard over long durations.
This guy is smart. My feelings on it exactly.
Good example is Protoss early FF on the ramp is slightly off, protoss lose. Terran miss a stutter step and take a bit of extra damage then continue stuttering(?) to do almost exactly the same amount of damage. Note, i'm not saying stutter step vs not stutter stepping, just if you stutter step poorly you're still "ok" but if you FF poorly you lose int he early game.
I see you've never stutter stepped against banelings. If you stutter step poorly you die.
That is the one and only example you have for getting badly punished for doing a poor job of stutter stepping. Especially in the early game.
Compare the FF issue. Against early rushes protoss usually have 1 FF (1 zealot, 1 sentry, 1 stalker. standard as standard can be). Miss it and you've just lost. It doesn't matter what unit composition. Marines, maruaders, lings, banelings, roaches, hellions. you're screwed. Hell, if it's a 5 zealot rush you're dead.
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote: Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
Yes I definitely agree. Terran's units make it so the player can outplay their opponent with drops and micro whereas the other races can't really do that to that extent.
I think it's a design flaw of the other two races moreso than a design flaw of Terran.
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote: Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
Yes I definitely agree. Terran's units make it so the player can outplay their opponent with drops and micro whereas the other races can't really do that to that extent.
I think it's a design flaw of the other two races moreso than a design flaw of Terran.
Thats what I meant. I think Terran is designed great in that it requires a lot of micro and allows for great play. The real problem lies in the other races, because they can't really micro, and dont have the opportunity to do amazing plays like multipronged drops (although some protosses are now discovering a unit called the warp prism).
On December 08 2011 14:41 LunarC wrote: "In broodwar I would argue that multitasking owness (during battles or otherwise) was fairly evenly spread between the races, but in its current state this is not necessarily true for SC2."
I assume that multitasking "oneness" refers to homogeneity of army control and base management across the races.
I would argue that multitasking "oneness" exists to an even lesser extent in Brood War than in Starcraft 2. I'd give reasons, but you should just go play the game and find out for yourself.
Also, this "oneness" is not something I'd like Starcraft 2 to have more of.
i think he means "onus," meaning that every single race in broodwar needs to micro to win a fight, but in sc2 certain races in certain matchups don't need to do anything.
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote: Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
I agree with this, if talking in regards to the T v Z mu. But in T v P, Terran needs to micro in order to "keep up" with toss.
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote: Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
I agree with this, if talking in regards to the T v Z mu. But in T v P, Terran needs to micro in order to "keep up" with toss.
And so you fucking should when you have teir 1 units as the balls of your army. You have an entire half an army that never gets used because MMMGV is so fucking good, why would you need to go it? Mech is starting to get used a little bit. And mech basically has almost no micro ... it's all about the strategy and positioning. You have to micro more cause of the unit composition you choose, NOT because of your race.
EDIT: Also don't want to get into a "HERP DERP MECH ISNT VIABLE THATS WHY HERP DERP" ... dont' give a shit. Just wanted to point it out.
On December 08 2011 16:40 Tingles wrote: And so you fucking should when you have teir 1 units as the balls of your army. You have an entire half an army that never gets used because MMMGV is so fucking good, why would you need to go it?
Nice way to reverse things. By the way, Zealots are tier1 too, so what's your point?
On December 08 2011 16:40 Tingles wrote: Mech is starting to get used a little bit.
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote: Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
I agree with this, if talking in regards to the T v Z mu. But in T v P, Terran needs to micro in order to "keep up" with toss.
And so you fucking should when you have teir 1 units as the balls of your army. You have an entire half an army that never gets used because MMMGV is so fucking good, why would you need to go it? Mech is starting to get used a little bit. And mech basically has almost no micro ... it's all about the strategy and positioning. You have to micro more cause of the unit composition you choose, NOT because of your race.
EDIT: Also don't want to get into a "HERP DERP MECH ISNT VIABLE THATS WHY HERP DERP" ... dont' give a shit. Just wanted to point it out.
The reason why Ghost Academy, Armory and Fusion Core are half tier higher than it should be is that they need a tech lab at their respective structure to allow its unit to be built.
2.5: Robotics Bay, Fleet Beacon, Dark Shrine and Templar Archives
So, while you may say you have higher tech units, you don't count vikings and medivacs as Tier 3 (which they are). And by those tiers I don't mean like it's easier for Protoss to get to its max tier than Terran. But it's just to show that it's not like you think it is. Getting to tier 2.5 as Protoss should be as expensive as getting to tier 4.
The great problem doing this kind of comparison is that the cost of Tech Labs increases with the count of structures, while Protoss don't have this. And the overall cost-efficiency of units through tier is something like this.
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote: Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
I agree with this, if talking in regards to the T v Z mu. But in T v P, Terran needs to micro in order to "keep up" with toss.
And so you fucking should when you have teir 1 units as the balls of your army. You have an entire half an army that never gets used because MMMGV is so fucking good, why would you need to go it? Mech is starting to get used a little bit. And mech basically has almost no micro ... it's all about the strategy and positioning. You have to micro more cause of the unit composition you choose, NOT because of your race.
EDIT: Also don't want to get into a "HERP DERP MECH ISNT VIABLE THATS WHY HERP DERP" ... dont' give a shit. Just wanted to point it out.
This is just the problem, MMMVG is not "so fucking good" once you get into late game. By then, our only choice is to micro our asses off against a Toss who has literally headbutted his keyboard into the a move (Chargelot/Archon). While the Terran player has his whole fucking family at the keyboard looking after 1 control group each trying to micro. Yes, it gets crowded at my desk......
And I agree, we do have to micro because of our unit composition, I wish mech was viable and believe me...SOOOOO many other Terrans do as well. At least we would be able to a move headbutt our armies into each other!........
I'm getting sick of having my whole family in the room, believe me! Fix this Blizzard!
On December 08 2011 19:19 Angel_ wrote: I guess this is just the best place to ask:
Why do you never see terran compositions using non-seiged tanks, in big or small numbers?
You do see them frequently in TvZ and sometimes in TvT and TvP to create an uncommon timing attack. Furthermore the unsieged DPS is higher, so you always see unsieged tanks vs Ultralisks or in a brute force bust in TvT.
Even BW is not balanced in lowest of the low levels. Lurkers always kill marines regardless of whether the user knows what he's doing or not and sending DTs to opponent's main to kill drones and snipe tech is a lot easier than getting rid of the DT without taking damage. But when you move out of the "purple keyboard and mouse" level, stimming away marines while lurkers are burrowing happens more frequently than walking the entire army into a lurker meatgrinder.
Those fundamental problems OP is talking about exists in all games. Not just SC2. Answer lies in getting better.
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote: Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
I agree with this, if talking in regards to the T v Z mu. But in T v P, Terran needs to micro in order to "keep up" with toss.
And so you fucking should when you have teir 1 units as the balls of your army. You have an entire half an army that never gets used because MMMGV is so fucking good, why would you need to go it? Mech is starting to get used a little bit. And mech basically has almost no micro ... it's all about the strategy and positioning. You have to micro more cause of the unit composition you choose, NOT because of your race.
EDIT: Also don't want to get into a "HERP DERP MECH ISNT VIABLE THATS WHY HERP DERP" ... dont' give a shit. Just wanted to point it out.
This is just the problem, MMMVG is not "so fucking good" once you get into late game. By then, our only choice is to micro our asses off against a Toss who has literally headbutted his keyboard into the a move (Chargelot/Archon). While the Terran player has his whole fucking family at the keyboard looking after 1 control group each trying to micro. Yes, it gets crowded at my desk......
And I agree, we do have to micro because of our unit composition, I wish mech was viable and believe me...SOOOOO many other Terrans do as well. At least we would be able to a move headbutt our armies into each other!........
I'm getting sick of having my whole family in the room, believe me! Fix this Blizzard!
erm ... once agian back the ignorant argument of "terran has the most micro, toss has to do noting! it's so easy!" And at no point did i say Terran micro is easy btw, it's hard. All 3 races are. But you are living in a fantasy world if you think that it's like a surgeon preforming heart surgery for Terran to fight, and Toss is the lazy supervisor eating a bagel occasionally checking on the progress of the open wound.
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote: Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
I agree with this, if talking in regards to the T v Z mu. But in T v P, Terran needs to micro in order to "keep up" with toss.
And so you fucking should when you have teir 1 units as the balls of your army. You have an entire half an army that never gets used because MMMGV is so fucking good, why would you need to go it? Mech is starting to get used a little bit. And mech basically has almost no micro ... it's all about the strategy and positioning. You have to micro more cause of the unit composition you choose, NOT because of your race.
EDIT: Also don't want to get into a "HERP DERP MECH ISNT VIABLE THATS WHY HERP DERP" ... dont' give a shit. Just wanted to point it out.
This is just the problem, MMMVG is not "so fucking good" once you get into late game. By then, our only choice is to micro our asses off against a Toss who has literally headbutted his keyboard into the a move (Chargelot/Archon). While the Terran player has his whole fucking family at the keyboard looking after 1 control group each trying to micro. Yes, it gets crowded at my desk......
And I agree, we do have to micro because of our unit composition, I wish mech was viable and believe me...SOOOOO many other Terrans do as well. At least we would be able to a move headbutt our armies into each other!........
I'm getting sick of having my whole family in the room, believe me! Fix this Blizzard!
erm ... once agian back the ignorant argument of "terran has the most micro, toss has to do noting! it's so easy!" And at no point did i say Terran micro is easy btw, it's hard. All 3 races are. But you are living in a fantasy world if you think that it's like a surgeon preforming heart surgery for Terran to fight, and Toss is the lazy supervisor eating a bagel occasionally checking on the progress of the open wound.
Can you please detail what is so hard about Protoss micro? Sorry if I'm ignorant, but it just seems piss easy... f shift spam click. t shift spam click. box all army a move click. lean back and drink a soda
The main problem I find with Terran is they have no late game composition vZ or vP.
Really all you get is a mid game push. Then when that's killed, you build the same units, over and over and over.
Marine Maruader Medi Viking Ghost, verse protoss.
Marine Tank Medi Ghost/Viking, verse zerg..... I guess you could maybe count thor, but to be honest, I don't find them effective, and defenitely not cost efficient.
At least in TvT you can tech up to Battlecruiser. Something to look forward to.
If it weren't for the intensity of the micro Terran has to do, I think it would be a pretty stale race to play. Sure everyone talks about the diversity of the Terran units, but really, we are forced into those 1 unit composition per matchup, again and again TvT seems to be the only real area for experimentation IMO.
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote: Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
I agree with this, if talking in regards to the T v Z mu. But in T v P, Terran needs to micro in order to "keep up" with toss.
And so you fucking should when you have teir 1 units as the balls of your army. You have an entire half an army that never gets used because MMMGV is so fucking good, why would you need to go it? Mech is starting to get used a little bit. And mech basically has almost no micro ... it's all about the strategy and positioning. You have to micro more cause of the unit composition you choose, NOT because of your race.
EDIT: Also don't want to get into a "HERP DERP MECH ISNT VIABLE THATS WHY HERP DERP" ... dont' give a shit. Just wanted to point it out.
This is just the problem, MMMVG is not "so fucking good" once you get into late game. By then, our only choice is to micro our asses off against a Toss who has literally headbutted his keyboard into the a move (Chargelot/Archon). While the Terran player has his whole fucking family at the keyboard looking after 1 control group each trying to micro. Yes, it gets crowded at my desk......
And I agree, we do have to micro because of our unit composition, I wish mech was viable and believe me...SOOOOO many other Terrans do as well. At least we would be able to a move headbutt our armies into each other!........
I'm getting sick of having my whole family in the room, believe me! Fix this Blizzard!
erm ... once agian back the ignorant argument of "terran has the most micro, toss has to do noting! it's so easy!" And at no point did i say Terran micro is easy btw, it's hard. All 3 races are. But you are living in a fantasy world if you think that it's like a surgeon preforming heart surgery for Terran to fight, and Toss is the lazy supervisor eating a bagel occasionally checking on the progress of the open wound.
Can you please detail what is so hard about Protoss micro? Sorry if I'm ignorant, but it just seems piss easy... f shift spam click. t shift spam click. box all army a move click. lean back and drink a soda
I like to imagine my Protoss opponents 1a'ing across the map, getting up and grabbing a snack from the kitchen, and coming back to collect their ladder points after a few minutes.
Really though, there's no other viable late-game strategy in TvP other than bio... But by that point, it's all down to the little micro.. Unless you just say screw it and stim and attack the protoss. It's all about spreading units and staying back til you snipe some colossi with Vikings or get some good EMP's on the High Templar.. And on the Protoss side you need to worry about being EMP'd and keeping your Colossi back behind your stalkers.
I think TvP would be so much more enjoyable if you could just attack your opponent and not get your army melted in a few seconds. Nope, instead it's all about ~30 supply of your army, until the important units are killed (for either side).
On December 09 2011 00:10 Qibla wrote: The main problem I find with Terran is they have no late game composition vZ or vP.
Really all you get is a mid game push. Then when that's killed, you build the same units, over and over and over.
Marine Maruader Medi Viking Ghost, verse protoss.
Marine Tank Medi Ghost/Viking, verse zerg..... I guess you could maybe count thor, but to be honest, I don't find them effective, and defenitely not cost efficient.
At least in TvT you can tech up to Battlecruiser. Something to look forward to.
If it weren't for the intensity of the micro Terran has to do, I think it would be a pretty stale race to play. Sure everyone talks about the diversity of the Terran units, but really, we are forced into those 1 unit composition per matchup, again and again TvT seems to be the only real area for experimentation IMO.
You may have a point about TvP, but in a typical lategame TvZ you end up using every single unit except for Starport+techlab units and hellions. How is that not diverse? Protoss almost never use Stargate units in a typical PvT, but you seem to think they have diverse unit comps in that matchup.
On a related note, this whole thread feels really strange to me. It's essentially Terrans saying "our race is well-designed, but we're bad, so please make it so that we can a-move to victory like Protoss". If anything, you should be asking for Protoss and Zerg to receive more opportunities to micro and show off their multitasking. Then the game would actually be hard for everyone, which is a great thing.
And if you want to win on the ladder so bad, just 1 base all-in all the way, they're still very good, and you can usually at least force the opponent to coinflip.
JUST GOING TO SAY... I don't think anything matters if your not the top 1 percent of skill in this game. Otherwise practice more. If there are issues MVP and the other best terrans in the world are having, David Kim and friends i'm sure are looking into them, they HAVE to make this game good and totally balanced and playable for the next 10 years through multiple expansions and constant buff/nerfs. There is too big of a community in the world around this game. Anything we deal with on the ladder, we lost because we needed to play better, and we didn't. Only if 2 players are playing a perfect, or near perfect game can true imbalance really be seen. Otherwise, stop wasting time, practice more. Balance is not in our control to change, so let those in control of it figure it out. We are here to figure out the best way to expoit everything we can about the game engine and mechancis. That is the goal of gamers, to figure out how the game is suppose to be played, and then break all the rules and exploit it.
All races have differences in them thay may come out as imbalanced at anything lower than the top of the pro scene. Burrowed banelings can seem imbalanced if you never scan while pushing or have a raven. Zerg seems imbalanced when you can't properly keep them in control with harass and timing pushes. Protoss seems overpowered when you engadge 3/3 zealots/col with no corrupters or hive tech. Terran seems overpowered when 2 BFH get dropped into your base because you had shitty overlord spread and kills 40 workers. In short, everything can be imbalanced when we aren't reacting, or dealing with it perfectly. And until we are, there isn't a need to think anything other than I need to practice more.
While stutter stepping may be time consuming, it is not hard to do. Alternating between emps and ghosts is certainly more challenging, but i would argue that it is no more challenging than doing everything a protoss needs to do in a regular battle PLUS dealing with HT in a warp prism.
This form of micromanagement may require a lot of attention for the short duration that you are doing it. This is compensated by the fact that every unit you would want to build can be done with hotkeys (no going to a pylon to warp in units, or going to a hatch to inject).
You can hotkey produce anything you want and rally them wherever you want right from the screen you are stutter stepping.
Mules stack, so that is just something you can deal with once you have my time at your disposal.
Contrary to what many of you beleive, protoss and zerg players are certainly not goign for a snack during the battle... Both of those races are very difficult to deal with as well.
Zerg involves more macro along with their microing (screen jumping), unless they need to focus on their infestors.
Protoss has a little bit more screen jumping (Warp-in), but usually it is focus firing with the colosus, pulling back colosus that are being focused, targeting vikings, making sure zealots dont get too far ahead, and making sure proper FF and guardian sheild coverage.
People in this thread need to stop getting defensive about the OP's assertions. He's clearly not saying anything about other races not having to micro or Terran being harder than the other races. A lot of people have just read the first post and immediately jumped into "MUST DEFEND MY RACE" mode. Of course every race requires high APM and precise micro to play optimally.
What's he's saying is that Terran benefits the most from outstanding micro. This is objectively true, considering that Terran can even counter unit counters with micro. After all, it's theoretically possible for marines to take no damage from banelings or storms, two things that are supposed to hard counter them. Meanwhile, every other races counters are unavoidable. Because of this the better professionals get at Terran micro the more cost effective and dominant they will will become. This is why Terran has been doing so well at the highest levels of play. However, if Blizzard balances around this, then most players below very high masters will be underpowered.
I agree with what many other people have said in this thread. Terran is designed how the other races should be, with units that benefit from greatly from superior micro. Unfortunately none of the HotS units seem like they are going to give Protoss and Zerg similar playstyles, so I think we're going to have this problem for the foreseeable future.
On December 09 2011 01:23 Roxy wrote: While stutter stepping may be time consuming, it is not hard to do. Alternating between emps and ghosts is certainly more challenging, but i would argue that it is no more challenging than doing everything a protoss needs to do in a regular battle PLUS dealing with HT in a warp prism.
This form of micromanagement may require a lot of attention for the short duration that you are doing it. This is compensated by the fact that every unit you would want to build can be done with hotkeys (no going to a pylon to warp in units, or going to a hatch to inject).
You can hotkey produce anything you want and rally them wherever you want right from the screen you are stutter stepping.
Mules stack, so that is just something you can deal with once you have my time at your disposal.
Contrary to what many of you beleive, protoss and zerg players are certainly not goign for a snack during the battle... Both of those races are very difficult to deal with as well.
Zerg involves more macro along with their microing (screen jumping), unless they need to focus on their infestors.
Protoss has a little bit more screen jumping (Warp-in), but usually it is focus firing with the colosus, pulling back colosus that are being focused, targeting vikings, making sure zealots dont get too far ahead, and making sure proper FF and guardian sheild coverage.
Exactly... totally agree. I sense a lot of these discussions just comes down to a lot of confusion over not liking 1 races strength. Terran's is obviously holding certain positions very well, and your cost-effectivness is mainly determined by your micro. COOL! Just as zerg strength is speed and ability to reinforce. I don't know how many times as a Zerg player my banelings attacks that normally work on Terran, are destroyed when playing a Master level terran over lower league terrans. Focus firing banelings with tanks, marine spread = winning the fight most of the time. not doing these things, then sure, banelings roll into them and tear it apart. So that to me is you not exploiting the strength of your race properly. Just as if a protoss 1a's with no FF's or micro and gets mad when they lose. But if they have templar in warp prisms, dropping, storming, and picking up. Microing Col. and everything you mentioned, then the fight turns out differently... totally differently.
People hate Terran when they have good micro. People hate protoss when they are smart about how they engadge. People hate zerg when there on top of their injects/macro. Just because a race benefits from something a bit more than others doesn't mean it's imbalanced. Micro may benefit terran more in the cost-effective department more than the other races. Toss benefits from having units in a ball more than the other races. Does that make it imbalanced? Zerg benefits from having more hatches more than the other 2 benefit from having more CC/nexi, does that make it imbalanced? Truly, truly, any imbalances should be talked about only if you have specific examples of 2 players playing XvX perfectly. Otherwise nothing is imbalanced, it's only you not knowing fully how to deal with something..
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote: Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
I agree with this, if talking in regards to the T v Z mu. But in T v P, Terran needs to micro in order to "keep up" with toss.
And so you fucking should when you have teir 1 units as the balls of your army. You have an entire half an army that never gets used because MMMGV is so fucking good, why would you need to go it? Mech is starting to get used a little bit. And mech basically has almost no micro ... it's all about the strategy and positioning. You have to micro more cause of the unit composition you choose, NOT because of your race.
EDIT: Also don't want to get into a "HERP DERP MECH ISNT VIABLE THATS WHY HERP DERP" ... dont' give a shit. Just wanted to point it out.
This is just the problem, MMMVG is not "so fucking good" once you get into late game. By then, our only choice is to micro our asses off against a Toss who has literally headbutted his keyboard into the a move (Chargelot/Archon). While the Terran player has his whole fucking family at the keyboard looking after 1 control group each trying to micro. Yes, it gets crowded at my desk......
And I agree, we do have to micro because of our unit composition, I wish mech was viable and believe me...SOOOOO many other Terrans do as well. At least we would be able to a move headbutt our armies into each other!........
I'm getting sick of having my whole family in the room, believe me! Fix this Blizzard!
erm ... once agian back the ignorant argument of "terran has the most micro, toss has to do noting! it's so easy!" And at no point did i say Terran micro is easy btw, it's hard. All 3 races are. But you are living in a fantasy world if you think that it's like a surgeon preforming heart surgery for Terran to fight, and Toss is the lazy supervisor eating a bagel occasionally checking on the progress of the open wound.
Can you please detail what is so hard about Protoss micro? Sorry if I'm ignorant, but it just seems piss easy... f shift spam click. t shift spam click. box all army a move click. lean back and drink a soda
I like to imagine my Protoss opponents 1a'ing across the map, getting up and grabbing a snack from the kitchen, and coming back to collect their ladder points after a few minutes.
Really though, there's no other viable late-game strategy in TvP other than bio... But by that point, it's all down to the little micro.. Unless you just say screw it and stim and attack the protoss. It's all about spreading units and staying back til you snipe some colossi with Vikings or get some good EMP's on the High Templar.. And on the Protoss side you need to worry about being EMP'd and keeping your Colossi back behind your stalkers.
I think TvP would be so much more enjoyable if you could just attack your opponent and not get your army melted in a few seconds. Nope, instead it's all about ~30 supply of your army, until the important units are killed (for either side).
Same here. I like to think of my Terran opponents as 1aing, hitting stim and then right clicking on a colossi with a few units. Once they win, they turn and say "Look mom, I like MVP!"
Seriously, any Terran or Protoss who claims that either side take no micro is just silly. Fully upgraded protoss armies have storm, blink, g-shield and ff to worry about. Terran have stim, wandering medivacs, emp, snipe, scans, picking up if trapped by ffs.
The set up for the battle is where most of the work is done. Once the battle starts, it's mostly keeping the efficiency going.
On December 08 2011 14:54 kofman wrote: [quote] Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
I agree with this, if talking in regards to the T v Z mu. But in T v P, Terran needs to micro in order to "keep up" with toss.
And so you fucking should when you have teir 1 units as the balls of your army. You have an entire half an army that never gets used because MMMGV is so fucking good, why would you need to go it? Mech is starting to get used a little bit. And mech basically has almost no micro ... it's all about the strategy and positioning. You have to micro more cause of the unit composition you choose, NOT because of your race.
EDIT: Also don't want to get into a "HERP DERP MECH ISNT VIABLE THATS WHY HERP DERP" ... dont' give a shit. Just wanted to point it out.
This is just the problem, MMMVG is not "so fucking good" once you get into late game. By then, our only choice is to micro our asses off against a Toss who has literally headbutted his keyboard into the a move (Chargelot/Archon). While the Terran player has his whole fucking family at the keyboard looking after 1 control group each trying to micro. Yes, it gets crowded at my desk......
And I agree, we do have to micro because of our unit composition, I wish mech was viable and believe me...SOOOOO many other Terrans do as well. At least we would be able to a move headbutt our armies into each other!........
I'm getting sick of having my whole family in the room, believe me! Fix this Blizzard!
erm ... once agian back the ignorant argument of "terran has the most micro, toss has to do noting! it's so easy!" And at no point did i say Terran micro is easy btw, it's hard. All 3 races are. But you are living in a fantasy world if you think that it's like a surgeon preforming heart surgery for Terran to fight, and Toss is the lazy supervisor eating a bagel occasionally checking on the progress of the open wound.
Can you please detail what is so hard about Protoss micro? Sorry if I'm ignorant, but it just seems piss easy... f shift spam click. t shift spam click. box all army a move click. lean back and drink a soda
I like to imagine my Protoss opponents 1a'ing across the map, getting up and grabbing a snack from the kitchen, and coming back to collect their ladder points after a few minutes.
Really though, there's no other viable late-game strategy in TvP other than bio... But by that point, it's all down to the little micro.. Unless you just say screw it and stim and attack the protoss. It's all about spreading units and staying back til you snipe some colossi with Vikings or get some good EMP's on the High Templar.. And on the Protoss side you need to worry about being EMP'd and keeping your Colossi back behind your stalkers.
I think TvP would be so much more enjoyable if you could just attack your opponent and not get your army melted in a few seconds. Nope, instead it's all about ~30 supply of your army, until the important units are killed (for either side).
The set up for the battle is where most of the work is done. Once the battle starts, it's mostly keeping the efficiency going.
This is true for protoss. But for terran it's the exact opposite, terran has to micro the entire time in a big engagament, protoss on the other hand has to set up their army pre-fight and can then sit back, cast a few forcefields and storms and well... a move the rest of the army.
what you are saying is that the game is not balanced for terran at lower levels, and you use statistics from high level play to prove that ? makes no sense to me \_(^^)_/ (thats a horrible slayersDragoon smileything) besides, it is completely irelevant how hard terran is to play at lower levels, when they do just as well at the other races in gm and in tournaments.
This is just my opinion, and I hope it gets read because I really think it is a valid and understated point, even on page 39 or 40.
Yes, each race has their unique strengths and skill requirements. Terran needs perfect micro Zerg needs perfect injects Protoss needs perfect something, forgive me
However, when a Terran screws up his micro and loses a major engagement, his opponent can sprint for his production facilities, and once they're camped in his production line, it is complete GG. No other race has this problem. Yes, a Zerg can have one or two hatches cut off, but a pro Zerg will just not reproduce their army from those larvae and move on (note, when I say pro, even most pro's don't have the presence of mind to do this.. sad). A Protoss might have that problem with their Robo, but their warpgates can warp in an army anywhere, so trying to camp a Protoss production is nearly impossible.
Now, combine this with the super mobility of Protoss/Zerg reinforcements, and the super immobility of Terran reinforcements, and the problem compounds itself. Once a Zerg or Protoss is in a Terran production line, their ability to reinforce their battleworn armies is superior. Proxy warp-ins/superspeed zerg units allow them to bolster their camping party, while denying any hope of retaliation.
So not only can Terran not camp Protoss or Zerg production efficiently once they've taken advantage after a battle, they can't even reinforce their troops in a timely manner.
All of what I've just stated relates back to the original topic, in that the ramifications for a Terran messing up their most difficult task is far worse than the other races.
On December 09 2011 02:23 spbelky wrote: This is just my opinion, and I hope it gets read because I really think it is a valid and understated point, even on page 39 or 40.
Yes, each race has their unique strengths and skill requirements. Terran needs perfect micro Zerg needs perfect injects Protoss needs perfect something, forgive me
However, when a Terran screws up his micro and loses a major engagement, his opponent can sprint for his production facilities, and once they're camped in his production line, it is complete GG. No other race has this problem. Yes, a Zerg can have one or two hatches cut off, but a pro Zerg will just not reproduce their army from those larvae and move on (note, when I say pro, even most pro's don't have the presence of mind to do this.. sad). A Protoss might have that problem with their Robo, but their warpgates can warp in an army anywhere, so trying to camp a Protoss production is nearly impossible.
Now, combine this with the super mobility of Protoss/Zerg reinforcements, and the super immobility of Terran reinforcements, and the problem compounds itself. Once a Zerg or Protoss is in a Terran production line, their ability to reinforce their battleworn armies is superior. Proxy warp-ins/superspeed zerg units allow them to bolster their camping party, while denying any hope of retaliation.
So not only can Terran not camp Protoss or Zerg production efficiently once they've taken advantage after a battle, they can't even reinforce their troops in a timely manner.
All of what I've just stated relates back to the original topic, in that the ramifications for a Terran messing up their most difficult task is far worse than the other races.
You almost make it sound as if different races have different strengths and weaknesses ^_^
It's definitely true that a terran can get checkmated more easily by units sitting on their production compared to the other two races, but they also have a handful of effective and inexpensive racial perks to stall small enemy armies from getting into their base. Protoss can often lose outright if their army gets smashed by a bad engagement in the middle of the map, since stim will put a bio army on their doorstep very quickly and a single reinforcement of gateway units tends to do poorly versus terran bio. Cannons are quite bad against stimmed marauder medivac, as well.
On December 09 2011 02:23 spbelky wrote: This is just my opinion, and I hope it gets read because I really think it is a valid and understated point, even on page 39 or 40.
Yes, each race has their unique strengths and skill requirements. Terran needs perfect micro Zerg needs perfect injects Protoss needs perfect something, forgive me
However, when a Terran screws up his micro and loses a major engagement, his opponent can sprint for his production facilities, and once they're camped in his production line, it is complete GG. No other race has this problem. Yes, a Zerg can have one or two hatches cut off, but a pro Zerg will just not reproduce their army from those larvae and move on (note, when I say pro, even most pro's don't have the presence of mind to do this.. sad). A Protoss might have that problem with their Robo, but their warpgates can warp in an army anywhere, so trying to camp a Protoss production is nearly impossible.
Now, combine this with the super mobility of Protoss/Zerg reinforcements, and the super immobility of Terran reinforcements, and the problem compounds itself. Once a Zerg or Protoss is in a Terran production line, their ability to reinforce their battleworn armies is superior. Proxy warp-ins/superspeed zerg units allow them to bolster their camping party, while denying any hope of retaliation.
So not only can Terran not camp Protoss or Zerg production efficiently once they've taken advantage after a battle, they can't even reinforce their troops in a timely manner.
All of what I've just stated relates back to the original topic, in that the ramifications for a Terran messing up their most difficult task is far worse than the other races.
But it's the same for all the races. If terrans mess up there most important task, microing there army, sure, there can be a very bad outcome. But it's just the same for a zerg player who terribly screws up his injects and macro. Or toss engadging wrong and not using any chrono boosts. It's just as bad on a pro level. If zerg's injects and macro are horrible, terran has more room for error on his strength. If terran fucks up and doesn't micro his units well, then zerg/protoss has more room for error. If protoss doesn't engadge correctly, more room for error is given to the enemy race. I don't think bad terran micro is worse than bad injects, or not engadging right as protoss to their respective races play. If you a play a race and don't utilize the core strengths of it, your gunna have a very hard time. Camping terrans production isn't the issue at hand. And most of the time terrans aren't reinforcing directly to their main army until they know it's safe, at a pro level. You see marines/medivacs parked outside their natural all the damn time when there on the map somewhere sieging an expansion or what not. Then reinforce when it's safe, ie you know where their army is,mutas etc. You can drops and take out gateways uber cost effective with drops, protoss can't do that as well. You can set up tanks in a position where zerg has to spread out his rally points and split up his army in order to not just have units dieing as they try and run to the rest of your army.
Again all of this is just people not wanting to recognize dealing with another races strengths dead-on is quite hard. It's hard to face a terran who is on top of his micro. It's really hard to face a toss who won't fight you until he is in a the perfect position to fight you. It's really hard to face a zerg who doesn't miss an inject and spends all his larve immediately. So naturally if you aren't exploiting your race as good as he is, your going to lose. And then you watch the reps and see ohh shit man.. terran is just so good. I had 40 banelings and didn't kill that army. Not ever noticing the fact that he focus fired your banelings with tanks, pre-split his marines and you didn't do everything you could to get a flank or surround.
Imbalance talk such as if terran fucks up it's worse than for the other races. IF ANYONE FUCKS UP IT'S BAD IF YOUR OPPONANT DOESN'T FUCK UP or capitalizes on your mistakes.
On December 09 2011 02:23 spbelky wrote: This is just my opinion, and I hope it gets read because I really think it is a valid and understated point, even on page 39 or 40.
Yes, each race has their unique strengths and skill requirements. Terran needs perfect micro Zerg needs perfect injects Protoss needs perfect something, forgive me
However, when a Terran screws up his micro and loses a major engagement, his opponent can sprint for his production facilities, and once they're camped in his production line, it is complete GG. No other race has this problem. Yes, a Zerg can have one or two hatches cut off, but a pro Zerg will just not reproduce their army from those larvae and move on (note, when I say pro, even most pro's don't have the presence of mind to do this.. sad). A Protoss might have that problem with their Robo, but their warpgates can warp in an army anywhere, so trying to camp a Protoss production is nearly impossible.
Now, combine this with the super mobility of Protoss/Zerg reinforcements, and the super immobility of Terran reinforcements, and the problem compounds itself. Once a Zerg or Protoss is in a Terran production line, their ability to reinforce their battleworn armies is superior. Proxy warp-ins/superspeed zerg units allow them to bolster their camping party, while denying any hope of retaliation.
So not only can Terran not camp Protoss or Zerg production efficiently once they've taken advantage after a battle, they can't even reinforce their troops in a timely manner.
All of what I've just stated relates back to the original topic, in that the ramifications for a Terran messing up their most difficult task is far worse than the other races.
But it's the same for all the races. If terrans mess up there most important task, microing there army, sure, there can be a very bad outcome. But it's just the same for a zerg player who terribly screws up his injects and macro. Or toss engadging wrong and not using any chrono boosts. It's just as bad on a pro level. If zerg's injects and macro are horrible, terran has more room for error on his strength. If terran fucks up and doesn't micro his units well, then zerg/protoss has more room for error. If protoss doesn't engadge correctly, more room for error is given to the enemy race. I don't think bad terran micro is worse than bad injects, or not engadging right as protoss to their respective races play. If you a play a race and don't utilize the core strengths of it, your gunna have a very hard time. Camping terrans production isn't the issue at hand. And most of the time terrans aren't reinforcing directly to their main army until they know it's safe, at a pro level. You see marines/medivacs parked outside their natural all the damn time when there on the map somewhere sieging an expansion or what not. Then reinforce when it's safe, ie you know where their army is,mutas etc. You can drops and take out gateways uber cost effective with drops, protoss can't do that as well. You can set up tanks in a position where zerg has to spread out his rally points and split up his army in order to not just have units dieing as they try and run to the rest of your army.
Again all of this is just people not wanting to recognize dealing with another races strengths dead-on is quite hard. It's hard to face a terran who is on top of his micro. It's really hard to face a toss who won't fight you until he is in a the perfect position to fight you. It's really hard to face a zerg who doesn't miss an inject and spends all his larve immediately. So naturally if you aren't exploiting your race as good as he is, your going to lose. And then you watch the reps and see ohh shit man.. terran is just so good. I had 40 banelings and didn't kill that army. Not ever noticing the fact that he focus fired your banelings with tanks, pre-split his marines and you didn't do everything you could to get a flank or surround.
Imbalance talk such as if terran fucks up it's worse than for the other races. IF ANYONE FUCKS UP IT'S BAD IF YOUR OPPONANT DOESN'T FUCK UP or capitalizes on your mistakes.
If you don't cronoboost as toss you can just crono all your warpgates after a big engagement and reinforce faster than a zerg yo.
If you lose an engagement as Terran its gg if they reach your production facilities unless its TvT because Tanks are literally the only unit that lets you beat much stronger armies back with good positioning. Basically you're fucked if you ever reach 200/200 as Terran because your production is way slower and your rally times are much longer so if you barely lose the endgame engagement its GG. This is a fundamental problem which could easily be fixed by a global reduction of supply costs on most units, not just for Terran units but for all races.
On December 08 2011 14:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
I agree with this, if talking in regards to the T v Z mu. But in T v P, Terran needs to micro in order to "keep up" with toss.
And so you fucking should when you have teir 1 units as the balls of your army. You have an entire half an army that never gets used because MMMGV is so fucking good, why would you need to go it? Mech is starting to get used a little bit. And mech basically has almost no micro ... it's all about the strategy and positioning. You have to micro more cause of the unit composition you choose, NOT because of your race.
EDIT: Also don't want to get into a "HERP DERP MECH ISNT VIABLE THATS WHY HERP DERP" ... dont' give a shit. Just wanted to point it out.
This is just the problem, MMMVG is not "so fucking good" once you get into late game. By then, our only choice is to micro our asses off against a Toss who has literally headbutted his keyboard into the a move (Chargelot/Archon). While the Terran player has his whole fucking family at the keyboard looking after 1 control group each trying to micro. Yes, it gets crowded at my desk......
And I agree, we do have to micro because of our unit composition, I wish mech was viable and believe me...SOOOOO many other Terrans do as well. At least we would be able to a move headbutt our armies into each other!........
I'm getting sick of having my whole family in the room, believe me! Fix this Blizzard!
erm ... once agian back the ignorant argument of "terran has the most micro, toss has to do noting! it's so easy!" And at no point did i say Terran micro is easy btw, it's hard. All 3 races are. But you are living in a fantasy world if you think that it's like a surgeon preforming heart surgery for Terran to fight, and Toss is the lazy supervisor eating a bagel occasionally checking on the progress of the open wound.
Can you please detail what is so hard about Protoss micro? Sorry if I'm ignorant, but it just seems piss easy... f shift spam click. t shift spam click. box all army a move click. lean back and drink a soda
I like to imagine my Protoss opponents 1a'ing across the map, getting up and grabbing a snack from the kitchen, and coming back to collect their ladder points after a few minutes.
Really though, there's no other viable late-game strategy in TvP other than bio... But by that point, it's all down to the little micro.. Unless you just say screw it and stim and attack the protoss. It's all about spreading units and staying back til you snipe some colossi with Vikings or get some good EMP's on the High Templar.. And on the Protoss side you need to worry about being EMP'd and keeping your Colossi back behind your stalkers.
I think TvP would be so much more enjoyable if you could just attack your opponent and not get your army melted in a few seconds. Nope, instead it's all about ~30 supply of your army, until the important units are killed (for either side).
The set up for the battle is where most of the work is done. Once the battle starts, it's mostly keeping the efficiency going.
This is true for protoss. But for terran it's the exact opposite, terran has to micro the entire time in a big engagament, protoss on the other hand has to set up their army pre-fight and can then sit back, cast a few forcefields and storms and well... a move the rest of the army.
I guess you could assume that. I could say that terrans just stim and then alternate between clicking behind their army and pressing the stop command. But I know thats not true.
Protoss also have to move their colossi away from viking. Focus down the vikings with the stalkers(which will default to shooting ground units). Retarget and focus with their colossi. Make sure guardian shield is covering as many zealots as possible. Hit storms and morph the templars into archons. Make sure that templar do not bunch up. Feedback medivacs if possible or necessary.
Both sides have lots work to do in an engagment. No one is free from the need to micro.
I'm pretty sure that if there was any race that was so easy it only required an "a-click" and a bit of macro to win; we would see about 99.9999999999999999% of the pros instantly switch over and start playing on that race...
I wish people just accepted that they need to play better to win. Thats the only thing that matters.
Blizzard should announce they won't patch anymore so that people stop being concerned on [How I would design the game] and start being concerned in [What do I need to improve to win]
All races need Micro, I don't even know why people say that P and Z just A move, yeah the micro may not be flashy, but it is definitively there.
Welp, I guess I am a happy player because now that T is a hard race I can feel cooler when I win ^_^
On December 09 2011 03:28 windsupernova wrote: I wish people just accepted that they need to play better to win. Thats the only thing that matters.
Blizzard should announce they won't patch anymore so that people stop being concerned on [How I would design the game] and start being concerned in [What do I need to improve to win]
All races need Micro, I don't even know why people say that P and Z just A move, yeah the micro may not be flashy, but it is definitively there.
Welp, I guess I am a happy player because now that T is a hard race I can feel cooler when I win ^_^
Yes they sohuld have stopped patching the game when tanks did 60 dmg to everyything.
On December 09 2011 02:23 spbelky wrote: This is just my opinion, and I hope it gets read because I really think it is a valid and understated point, even on page 39 or 40.
Yes, each race has their unique strengths and skill requirements. Terran needs perfect micro Zerg needs perfect injects Protoss needs perfect something, forgive me
However, when a Terran screws up his micro and loses a major engagement, his opponent can sprint for his production facilities, and once they're camped in his production line, it is complete GG. No other race has this problem. Yes, a Zerg can have one or two hatches cut off, but a pro Zerg will just not reproduce their army from those larvae and move on (note, when I say pro, even most pro's don't have the presence of mind to do this.. sad). A Protoss might have that problem with their Robo, but their warpgates can warp in an army anywhere, so trying to camp a Protoss production is nearly impossible.
Now, combine this with the super mobility of Protoss/Zerg reinforcements, and the super immobility of Terran reinforcements, and the problem compounds itself. Once a Zerg or Protoss is in a Terran production line, their ability to reinforce their battleworn armies is superior. Proxy warp-ins/superspeed zerg units allow them to bolster their camping party, while denying any hope of retaliation.
So not only can Terran not camp Protoss or Zerg production efficiently once they've taken advantage after a battle, they can't even reinforce their troops in a timely manner.
All of what I've just stated relates back to the original topic, in that the ramifications for a Terran messing up their most difficult task is far worse than the other races.
But it's the same for all the races. If terrans mess up there most important task, microing there army, sure, there can be a very bad outcome. But it's just the same for a zerg player who terribly screws up his injects and macro. Or toss engadging wrong and not using any chrono boosts. It's just as bad on a pro level. If zerg's injects and macro are horrible, terran has more room for error on his strength. If terran fucks up and doesn't micro his units well, then zerg/protoss has more room for error. If protoss doesn't engadge correctly, more room for error is given to the enemy race. I don't think bad terran micro is worse than bad injects, or not engadging right as protoss to their respective races play. If you a play a race and don't utilize the core strengths of it, your gunna have a very hard time. Camping terrans production isn't the issue at hand. And most of the time terrans aren't reinforcing directly to their main army until they know it's safe, at a pro level. You see marines/medivacs parked outside their natural all the damn time when there on the map somewhere sieging an expansion or what not. Then reinforce when it's safe, ie you know where their army is,mutas etc. You can drops and take out gateways uber cost effective with drops, protoss can't do that as well. You can set up tanks in a position where zerg has to spread out his rally points and split up his army in order to not just have units dieing as they try and run to the rest of your army.
Again all of this is just people not wanting to recognize dealing with another races strengths dead-on is quite hard. It's hard to face a terran who is on top of his micro. It's really hard to face a toss who won't fight you until he is in a the perfect position to fight you. It's really hard to face a zerg who doesn't miss an inject and spends all his larve immediately. So naturally if you aren't exploiting your race as good as he is, your going to lose. And then you watch the reps and see ohh shit man.. terran is just so good. I had 40 banelings and didn't kill that army. Not ever noticing the fact that he focus fired your banelings with tanks, pre-split his marines and you didn't do everything you could to get a flank or surround.
Imbalance talk such as if terran fucks up it's worse than for the other races. IF ANYONE FUCKS UP IT'S BAD IF YOUR OPPONANT DOESN'T FUCK UP or capitalizes on your mistakes.
If you don't cronoboost as toss you can just crono all your warpgates after a big engagement and reinforce faster than a zerg yo.
If you lose an engagement as Terran its gg if they reach your production facilities unless its TvT because Tanks are literally the only unit that lets you beat much stronger armies back with good positioning. Basically you're fucked if you ever reach 200/200 as Terran because your production is way slower and your rally times are much longer so if you barely lose the endgame engagement its GG. This is a fundamental problem which could easily be fixed by a global reduction of supply costs on most units, not just for Terran units but for all races.
Ofc losing an engadgement as terran/protoss is worse than zerg. It has to be. So your saying if your bad and have a bunch of chrono you can reinforce super fast as toss? That's really inaccurate imo. Sure they may have 2-4 nexus with energy, and can chrono maybe 2-3 rounds of units before the enemy gets there if he just crushes the army and walks to there front door. But 2-3 rounds of units is BS against any decent bio force/hive tech army. And if he has enough energy on his nexus to keep up chronoing units to remax, he hasn't been doing so well with his macro mechanic up until that point has he? Just like terran dropping 100000 mules late game because they forget to keep sending down mules the whole game and because the person there playing is bad, even after massive harassment they can attack and then reinforce because of random godlike income. Terran lategame can be crappy against toss, this is well known and discussed. Ghosts are godlike against zerg lategame, mass ghosts beat everything zerg has to offer at hive tech. The rally times are much slower, but I see a lot of times pro terrans stopping production camping from mutas and what not by over making turrets and not having there rally point accross the map every time there attacking. instead, move out with a big force, and rally to there natural, and when there tanks are setup, and they know where the enemy army is, they can safely reinforce. If a warp prism/mutas come into the terran main, he has units there to defend because he hasn't just sent everything he has with his army and herp derp didn't care about finding out if it was safe or not. If toss loses a big late game fight it's over too. Losing Col you've built up over time, sentrys built up over time etc, and if they've been using there chronos correctly they SHOULDN'T be able to chrono out 5-8 warpgate cycles of units for 2 reasons, 1, they surely will have enough energy for 1-3 cycles possibly, but they should be using that chrono the whole game. 2. if you've crushed a lategame push who is going to go back and turtle? If you crush an army with mass late game tech your going to push and see if you can end it or at least do damage and the very least clean up expos which is the main focus of late game play. So your arguement is that it's GG when terran loses a push because he didn't micro and they can just auto-camp his production isn't true at the high levels, which is the only level you can discuss fundemental problems on. Camping terran production happens when the terran has already reinforced, and a zerg for instead decides to camp his production and risk not having mutas for the fight the terran is bringing to their doorstep with there whole army. And mutas not being there can make the difference between losing the fight and the game because all you have are mutas and he's fucking your base up. Or keep your mutas at home to help deal with the push. If a terran has no defensives for his production he should lose. But normally, as a I said, what terran just blindly sends everything they have at a zerg knowing there are mutas out and unaccounted for? Unless he feels safe with the amount of turrets he has, which is unlikely. Camping terran production happens when the terran is bad or really fucks up. If ANYONE leaves there base and production open ANY of the races can do the same thing. What if a toss has nothing at his main and you drop and take out his gateways and gtfo? Sure he can try and warp-in units to defend but 2 medis with marine/maraurder stimmed can take out buildings pretty effin fast. So it's possible there. What about all the constant drops terrans do to the production of a zerg? Sniping queens and killing drones, the 2 most important parts of the zerg strengths? See what im getting at here? It's not like everytime a terran loses a fight, there production is camped and they lose. because terrans know that defensive play can be offensive play. Leaving your rally point for your units at your natural allows to stop ling runbys, prevent muta production camping, deal with warp prism harass, all the while moving out and setting up your position. Toss loses out at 200/200 just as much as terran. Zerg is the only one who can somewhat benefit from waiting a bit after hitting 200/200 because they tend to hit max first and want some banked money for remaxing there armies. But toss can't just remax a huge Col. ball. Just as meching terrans can't remax an army with 20 tanks.
Maybe supply costs for units is something needing work, not sure about that, haven't really done that much research into it.
There is nothing wrong with Terran being the hardest race.
But it does make racial diversity rather awful for foreign tournaments. Foreign TvT is laughably bad, and the other match ups are very timing based on the Terran's part. Thorzain and Select seem to be the only foreigners who have had a decent amount of success.
Of course, Blizzard should patch according to the top level of play, or GSL will be completely imbalanced.
On December 09 2011 03:28 windsupernova wrote: I wish people just accepted that they need to play better to win. Thats the only thing that matters.
Blizzard should announce they won't patch anymore so that people stop being concerned on [How I would design the game] and start being concerned in [What do I need to improve to win]
All races need Micro, I don't even know why people say that P and Z just A move, yeah the micro may not be flashy, but it is definitively there.
Welp, I guess I am a happy player because now that T is a hard race I can feel cooler when I win ^_^
Yes they sohuld have stopped patching the game when tanks did 60 dmg to everyything.
Imo both of your points are right. They need to patch the game, that's what makes sc and blizzard the shiznit. But at the same time, EVERYONE, all players, should the mindset that they just need to play better to win. Nothing else should matter to players, because that's all they can control. David Kim, and others at blizz, should be patching the game balance wise from ONLY a pro level, and that is it. Because we as the majority of online players don't actually lose to imbalance shit because Us AND the people we play aren't doing things 100 percent correct anyway. we miss injects, we miss timings, we aren't near perfect. So naturally that is the only thing we can control, so that is the only thing we should be focusing on. All balance threads that aren't just talking about things on a pro level, should just be replaced by threads on ways to better improve your play.
Because this makes Terran units theoretically 'stronger' than the other races, Blizzard has implemented many nerfs to the Terran race to compensate for this micro potential. The way Blizzard appears to view the race is that, in head on battles, Terrans will always lose the fights to storms/colossus/fungals/banelings, etc. However, with good micro, Terran is able to win fights that it theoretically should lose based on raw battle power.
This made me stop taking it serrios. It is true that terrans has gotten many nerfs over the year but really the vast majority of them is because of terrans ability to apply early aggression. But they have only been targeted towards early aggression. No direct nerfs to marines, No direct nerfs to maruaders. The only really big late game nerfs to terran has been to the most immobile units in terrans arsenal, The Siege tank and the Battlecruiser. Only recently has there been nerfs to the ghosts but asside from that no terran nerfs has been towards the microable units in the terran arsenal. Only thing nerfed is the terran Rushes.
On December 09 2011 03:28 windsupernova wrote: I wish people just accepted that they need to play better to win. Thats the only thing that matters.
Blizzard should announce they won't patch anymore so that people stop being concerned on [How I would design the game] and start being concerned in [What do I need to improve to win]
All races need Micro, I don't even know why people say that P and Z just A move, yeah the micro may not be flashy, but it is definitively there.
Welp, I guess I am a happy player because now that T is a hard race I can feel cooler when I win ^_^
Yes they sohuld have stopped patching the game when tanks did 60 dmg to everyything.
Imo both of your points are right. They need to patch the game, that's what makes sc and blizzard the shiznit. But at the same time, EVERYONE, all players, should the mindset that they just need to play better to win. Nothing else should matter to players, because that's all they can control. David Kim, and others at blizz, should be patching the game balance wise from ONLY a pro level, and that is it. Because we as the majority of online players don't actually lose to imbalance shit because Us AND the people we play aren't doing things 100 percent correct anyway. we miss injects, we miss timings, we aren't near perfect. So naturally that is the only thing we can control, so that is the only thing we should be focusing on. All balance threads that aren't just talking about things on a pro level, should just be replaced by threads on ways to better improve your play.
Off-topic ...dude please learn to use paragraph breaks ...
On December 09 2011 03:28 windsupernova wrote: I wish people just accepted that they need to play better to win. Thats the only thing that matters.
Blizzard should announce they won't patch anymore so that people stop being concerned on [How I would design the game] and start being concerned in [What do I need to improve to win]
All races need Micro, I don't even know why people say that P and Z just A move, yeah the micro may not be flashy, but it is definitively there.
Welp, I guess I am a happy player because now that T is a hard race I can feel cooler when I win ^_^
Yes they sohuld have stopped patching the game when tanks did 60 dmg to everyything.
Imo both of your points are right. They need to patch the game, that's what makes sc and blizzard the shiznit. But at the same time, EVERYONE, all players, should the mindset that they just need to play better to win. Nothing else should matter to players, because that's all they can control. David Kim, and others at blizz, should be patching the game balance wise from ONLY a pro level, and that is it. Because we as the majority of online players don't actually lose to imbalance shit because Us AND the people we play aren't doing things 100 percent correct anyway. we miss injects, we miss timings, we aren't near perfect. So naturally that is the only thing we can control, so that is the only thing we should be focusing on. All balance threads that aren't just talking about things on a pro level, should just be replaced by threads on ways to better improve your play.
Off-topic ...dude please learn to use paragraph breaks ...
Yah was a bit off-topic just responding so what they were talking about. My apologies if you have an issue reading my blocks of text lol. I will try to remember to use more paragraph breaks in my posts.
On December 09 2011 03:00 bubblegumbo wrote: Remove marauders, return vultures+mine. Game fixed.
Right, because an obs and a single colossus wouldn't be able to clear up every minefield ever with no risk to the Protoss army or anything...
Hell, you could even walk around triggering mines with a blink stalker and then get away before they blow up.
Uhh go take a look at BW PvT and.. mines don't blow up unless they get in contact with something.
what? what?
have you seen bw pvt?
goons with hold position micro can already take it out goons with an obs flying over the mine field easily clear it out. The key factor is that it still slows down the eventual attack giving mech based terran armies time to position themselves with tanks. THATs what made vultures/mines so good. that + cheap and harassment viable is the GG.
But there's nothing wrong with what forsooth said, 1 obs and a single colo would clear up mines pretty fast, BUT, that means he'd be exposed from the front to get sniped by vikings.
On December 09 2011 03:00 bubblegumbo wrote: Remove marauders, return vultures+mine. Game fixed.
Right, because an obs and a single colossus wouldn't be able to clear up every minefield ever with no risk to the Protoss army or anything...
Hell, you could even walk around triggering mines with a blink stalker and then get away before they blow up.
Uhh go take a look at BW PvT and.. mines don't blow up unless they get in contact with something.
what? what?
have you seen bw pvt?
goons with hold position micro can already take it out goons with an obs flying over the mine field easily clear it out. The key factor is that it still slows down the eventual attack giving mech based terran armies time to position themselves with tanks. THATs what made vultures/mines so good. that + cheap and harassment viable is the GG.
But there's nothing wrong with what forsooth said, 1 obs and a single colo would clear up mines pretty fast, BUT, that means he'd be exposed from the front to get sniped by vikings.
He's right.... unlike action movies the explosions aren't the most important part of that situation. It's the same way toss use DT's to slow down pushes. The damage done isn't the point, it's nice if it happens, but it's not why your doing it.
On December 09 2011 03:28 windsupernova wrote: I wish people just accepted that they need to play better to win. Thats the only thing that matters.
Blizzard should announce they won't patch anymore so that people stop being concerned on [How I would design the game] and start being concerned in [What do I need to improve to win]
All races need Micro, I don't even know why people say that P and Z just A move, yeah the micro may not be flashy, but it is definitively there.
Welp, I guess I am a happy player because now that T is a hard race I can feel cooler when I win ^_^
Yes they sohuld have stopped patching the game when tanks did 60 dmg to everyything.
They should make Spawning pool cost 150 mins again ^_^
Stuff obviously will need to be patched if its proving too dominant, my point is that we as players should stop with the "Blizzard should solve all my problems" mentality.
I can't really blame Blizzard, it is their job to please their customers after all, but I just wish that every time a strategy is looking strong people wouldn't start thinking ways of getting it nerfed. Personally I loved the imbalances in BW, I loved how stuff actually looked so strong, I loved to know how a certain race would have to work for their win in some MUs. I guess I like working hard for my wins, I don't really care much how much the other guy has to work to beat me, I care more about how hard the game is for me and as long as I can beat the other dude by playing better I don't really care much about everything else
On December 09 2011 03:28 windsupernova wrote: I wish people just accepted that they need to play better to win. Thats the only thing that matters.
Blizzard should announce they won't patch anymore so that people stop being concerned on [How I would design the game] and start being concerned in [What do I need to improve to win]
All races need Micro, I don't even know why people say that P and Z just A move, yeah the micro may not be flashy, but it is definitively there.
Welp, I guess I am a happy player because now that T is a hard race I can feel cooler when I win ^_^
Completely agree, there was some dude that told me that it is not feasible to get better with terran without playing 10h a day like a korean haha.
On December 09 2011 03:28 windsupernova wrote: I wish people just accepted that they need to play better to win. Thats the only thing that matters.
Blizzard should announce they won't patch anymore so that people stop being concerned on [How I would design the game] and start being concerned in [What do I need to improve to win]
All races need Micro, I don't even know why people say that P and Z just A move, yeah the micro may not be flashy, but it is definitively there.
Welp, I guess I am a happy player because now that T is a hard race I can feel cooler when I win ^_^
Yes they sohuld have stopped patching the game when tanks did 60 dmg to everyything.
They should make Spawning pool cost 150 mins again ^_^
Stuff obviously will need to be patched if its proving too dominant, my point is that we as players should stop with the "Blizzard should solve all my problems" mentality.
I can't really blame Blizzard, it is their job to please their customers after all, but I just wish that every time a strategy is looking strong people wouldn't start thinking ways of getting it nerfed. Personally I loved the imbalances in BW, I loved how stuff actually looked so strong, I loved to know how a certain race would have to work for their win in some MUs. I guess I like working hard for my wins, I don't really care much how much the other guy has to work to beat me, I care more about how hard the game is for me and as long as I can beat the other dude by playing better I don't really care much about everything else
I love you for this response. Truly. I agree 110%. If the option if playing a perfect game is still there, that's all I care about. Working to figure out ways to win in hard as hell metagame times/map pools etc is what makes starcraft effin starcraft
On December 09 2011 03:28 windsupernova wrote: I wish people just accepted that they need to play better to win. Thats the only thing that matters.
Blizzard should announce they won't patch anymore so that people stop being concerned on [How I would design the game] and start being concerned in [What do I need to improve to win]
All races need Micro, I don't even know why people say that P and Z just A move, yeah the micro may not be flashy, but it is definitively there.
Welp, I guess I am a happy player because now that T is a hard race I can feel cooler when I win ^_^
Completely agree, there was some dude that told me that it is not feasible to get better with terran without playing 10h a day like a korean haha.
Wow... some people man haha. It wasn't feasible to have lighting in your homes besides candles but edison didn't think so.
On December 09 2011 03:28 windsupernova wrote: I wish people just accepted that they need to play better to win. Thats the only thing that matters.
Blizzard should announce they won't patch anymore so that people stop being concerned on [How I would design the game] and start being concerned in [What do I need to improve to win]
All races need Micro, I don't even know why people say that P and Z just A move, yeah the micro may not be flashy, but it is definitively there.
Welp, I guess I am a happy player because now that T is a hard race I can feel cooler when I win ^_^
Completely agree, there was some dude that told me that it is not feasible to get better with terran without playing 10h a day like a korean haha.
Yeah i know aye! Some korean guy told me it's not feasible to even try playing Protoss at the pro level if you don't put in 10 hours a day. And then another guy walked up to me and said that it's not even remotely feasible to play Zerg at the pro level unless your putting in 10 hours a day. It's hard for every race, Jesus. Fuck me this thread is awful for Terran QQ. Just play the damn game. You lost cause you suck. STFU and go practice.
On December 09 2011 03:28 windsupernova wrote: I wish people just accepted that they need to play better to win. Thats the only thing that matters.
Blizzard should announce they won't patch anymore so that people stop being concerned on [How I would design the game] and start being concerned in [What do I need to improve to win]
All races need Micro, I don't even know why people say that P and Z just A move, yeah the micro may not be flashy, but it is definitively there.
Welp, I guess I am a happy player because now that T is a hard race I can feel cooler when I win ^_^
Completely agree, there was some dude that told me that it is not feasible to get better with terran without playing 10h a day like a korean haha.
Yeah i know aye! Some korean guy told me it's not feasible to even try playing Protoss at the pro level if you don't put in 10 hours a day. And then another guy walked up to me and said that it's not even remotely feasible to play Zerg at the pro level unless your putting in 10 hours a day. It's hard for every race, Jesus. Fuck me this thread is awful for Terran QQ. Just play the damn game. You lost cause you suck. STFU and go practice.
hell yes. Practice should be the only thing on a players mind after he loses.
2.5: Robotics Bay, Fleet Beacon, Dark Shrine and Templar Archives
Rather amusing how you just completely ignore the twilight council here.
Going by your "tier" listings the TC should be T2 (1 - Gateway, 1.5 - Cyber core, 2 - Twilight). Therefore Chargalots and Blink Stalkers are T2 by your definition, not 1.5.
Though frankly its a terrible way to measure things imo. Because it makes something like the Mothership or Carrier (technically T2.5 by your listing) "equivalent" to a Siege Tank. Which is just absurd.
Better way to do it is by costs in terms of both minerals/gas and time cost.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.thinkdigit.com/FCKeditor/uploads/Brood%20Wars%20-%20Terran%20Siege%20Tanks%20get%20to%20see%20what%20a%20Zealot%20dropped%20on%20them%20feels%20like.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2nQxN.jpg)
. 
