|
On December 10 2011 02:40 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 01:43 Xalorian wrote:
I was talking about lower league. No, in lower league, terran is not reactive at all. Every terran is actually just going for the same build every single game no matter what, with the same army composition, and can do fairly well against anything, since noobies don't have the apm and the control to use infestor, storm or nice FF.
There is no such thing as Warp Prism play in lower league. It's so rare that noobs don't even have to care about it, since even if they don't pay attention and go for 3 racks expand every single game, they will lose maybe once or twice to warp prism, in 300 games.
Terran may be the hardest race to play at higher level, i'm not even arguing about that. But it's the easiest in the lower league.
Race distribution show that Teeran is underepresented in middle leagues and doing quite ok in highest leagues
uuuuuh... exactly? There is more Terran in highest league and more Zerg in lowest league... simply because they are getting promoted more. That's exactly how the MMR is working. There is no more Zerg than Terran in total, but there is more Diamond-Plat Terran than Diamond-Plat level Zerg and vice versa for Bronze-Silver... because it's easier to get a grasp of the race and to get promoted into gold-plat when you play terran.
Look at Zerg-Protoss players in gold-plat-diamond and look at how many games they have won. Then, look at some terran in the same leagues... Terran have less win than Zerg-Protoss, because they were promoted faster.
On my platinum zerg account, there is like 18 terran in the top 25... and on my noob friend account (Silver) there is like 6 terran or so in the top 25, some protoss but mostly Zerg.
Most of the terran in the top 25 have less win in total than every zerg, on the silver and on the platinum account. Most of the time, Plat terran in the top 25 in my league on my platinum account, have a worst unspent ressource average than the Protoss and the Zerg. Protoss are kinda between Zerg and Terran on that, not a lot behind Zerg.
|
On December 10 2011 02:33 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Your post just further proves our point. There's no argument that Protoss players could provide that would convince Terran players that it's the case, that PvT is harder micro wise for Protoss. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer : what would it take for Terran players to even consider the possibility that Protoss is harder micro wise in PvT? You funny.
You're funnier xD. Now back to what matters. The hypothesis here is that TvP is harder on T micro wise. If the hypothesis was the opposite, I would happily refute it with actual arguments. Isn't it funny that the opposite hypothesis never came up? I've never seen any Protoss come here to say that TvP is harder on the P side micro wise.
|
On December 10 2011 02:42 petro1987 wrote:
The experiment you propose would measure the apm needed to reach the skill ceiling. I think a better experiment in order to assess our hypothesis is to make AI programs that are limited to use a reasonable amount of apm in a micro battle and see who would come up on top.
Let's say you make a program that can only use 150 APM (in the best way possible - it's up to the heuristics to decide where such apm would be spent) for both (T and P) in a battle (feel free to propose another number). Whoever comes up on top of such battle is certainly the easier race micro wise. What do you guys think of this experiment?
I don't think that is a fair or a feasable experiment, the AI you would need to do something like that is too advanced for someone to design just for people to ignore the results if they dont turn out in their favour, not to mention AI are not people and sometimes creative decision making in a battle can win it for you. The main problem with people complaining about PvT is that each race thinks the other is easier to play, if everyone would just try to play the other race they would realize that it's not as easy as it looks from either side. The biggest factor in deciding those big maxed army battles is not which race has an easier time microing, its positioning. If you engage in the right position you don't even need to micro very much sometimes and you will roll the other army over, if you watch very high level PvT's you will notice that there is a lot of moving around in the middle of the map for position before an engagement happens, and the person that engages in a better position will almost always win (unless there is a huge upgrade discrepency or hard unit counter).
People need to stop looking for excuses for losing and examine their own play for ways to improve.
|
On December 10 2011 02:29 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 02:04 Superneenja wrote:On December 10 2011 01:43 Xalorian wrote:On December 10 2011 01:23 Recognizable wrote:On December 10 2011 01:19 Xalorian wrote:On December 10 2011 00:55 Superneenja wrote:
I don't care if I lose, but its just sad when you go watch a replay vs P and you see yourself having to micro crazy in an engagement and you switch to P camera view and they just a move their chargelots and archons. Sadly the only micro I see P doing is moving their lots back to not get kited...its even more stupid to watch when they have a few storms in there. Looking at everything else we are pretty even yet somehow they come out ahead with very minimal micro involved. And if i do majority of the engagement all they have to do is fall back to a pylon while my units are walking across the screen... Personally I'd be a little embarrassed playing toss and in MY OPINION the lack of skill it takes to get wins. Before playing seriously I randomed played P and Z quite a bit in 1s and 2s, and even back then i didn't think either took as much skill as T, seems like any little mistake would cost you the game, regardless of mules, because mules dont make you build units faster. It's arguably true that Terran is mechanically harder than protoss at lower level when you basically have a harder time with your hotkeys and with your hand speeds, but that's pretty much it, in my opinion It's actually easier, at least under master league, to get win as terran, since you can just choose a build and execute the same build every single game without going away from that. If toss don't want to all in, they have to adapt and be reactive. Zerg even more. And it's always the terran that dictate the speed of the game. No matter what league you actually are, if you are not GM, you will have a 50% win rate, since it's the way that the ladder is working. So, actually, there's no way to know if races are balance or not under GM. There's easier and harder race to play at lower level, but it has nothing to do with balance. But this thread is about tournament level stats, and in pretty much every replay I watched recently, almost all Protoss who had success, had higher APM than their Terran opponent. Sometime WAY HIGHER. Your first statement is completely false, terran is the reactive race in Terran vs Protoss if you play bio. You need to watch out for 1 base and 2 base all ins wich there are about 10 off(4 gate, 5 gate, 3 gate star, 3 gate robo, 6 gate, 6 gate robo, warp prism all in, 2 base collosus) You need to react perfectly to all of these, there are probably more and each has it's own veration. Then when you get into the mid game you have to choose the right tech, ghosts or vikings. And you have to react properly to a double forge build. Defending against drops is where protoss is being reactive, but with the warp prism being really good right now terran has to do that aswell. You also have to react good against dt's, early and lategame. Also because late game is such a bitch for terran it's really easy for a low level toss to just do a build that's safe against everything whilst sacrificing some eco and just get into the lategame where the terran has to do alot more tasks then the protoss. Ofcourse this goes the same way for toss, but it's just a little bit easier for a low level toss to just say, well i'm going to sac some eco for safety and get into the lategame and in your tech choice you don't have to react to the terran tech. Reading comprehension, please. I was talking about lower league. No, in lower league, terran is not reactive at all. Every terran is actually just going for the same build every single game no matter what, with the same army composition, and can do fairly well against anything, since noobies don't have the apm and the control to use infestor, storm or nice FF. There is no such thing as Warp Prism play in lower league. It's so rare that noobs don't even have to care about it, since even if they don't pay attention and go for 3 racks expand every single game, they will lose maybe once or twice to warp prism, in 300 games. Terran may be the hardest race to play at higher level, i'm not even arguing about that. But it's the easiest in the lower league. Not sure I agree 100% with this. I think it scales down even more. It doesnt take that much apm to use infestors,storm of FF and even using these things half ass-edly* gives a huge advantage in lower leagues especially if the terran player has just as low apm as you. I have another account i use to offrace, and I find it much easier to play the other races, they seem a lot more forgiving to me. Top 20 diamond as T, got to Diamond playing P and Z playing less than half the games. Don't know if thats just in general my play is better, or because of having to deal with mechanics and gameplay of terran. It doesn't take that much APM, but it does take better control and decision making than what < diamond-master have. And saying that Zerg is more forgiving than Terran < Diamond is completly ludicrous. Micro is not even a factor in those league, and Terran macro is WAY more forgivin than Zerg. Zerg have to choose between drone and units production, while having a hard time scouting (don't tell me that Zerg scouting is easier than Terran...) the opponent, not missing an inject and not missing an overlord, while expanding at a decent time and teching thoroughly. And Zerg HAVE to be reactive, even at low level, there is no way that you can play blindly and win 50% of your games. Until High diamond-master, Terran can just go for one of the many viable opening and do it every single games, and still win enough to get promoted at the end... what Zerg can not. Protoss can, but will have an harder time... except if they go for a cheese, but that's not the point here, since Terran even have more and harder to defend cheese.
You're talking about the macro capabilities of zerg? And its harder than terran? Sure you have to choose between drones and units, but really after the 9 min mark is zerg hard to macro with... I certainly don't think so. I think being able to make 12+ units at 1 time is forgiving. Zerg can lose a battle inefficiently and still be able to hold or overpower their opponent in most cases, somewhat similar to P when they get 12-15 gateways mid/late game. I consider that pretty forgiving, as T you have to win every battle cost efficiently and if not you have to do some gimmicks to get back into the game. And i think the whole lower league comparison doesn't work, because it all scales. ie. a P with less micro skills will have it easier than a T with the same if not more and that could be to many factors such as race mechanics etc.
|
On December 10 2011 02:47 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 02:40 keglu wrote:On December 10 2011 01:43 Xalorian wrote:
I was talking about lower league. No, in lower league, terran is not reactive at all. Every terran is actually just going for the same build every single game no matter what, with the same army composition, and can do fairly well against anything, since noobies don't have the apm and the control to use infestor, storm or nice FF.
There is no such thing as Warp Prism play in lower league. It's so rare that noobs don't even have to care about it, since even if they don't pay attention and go for 3 racks expand every single game, they will lose maybe once or twice to warp prism, in 300 games.
Terran may be the hardest race to play at higher level, i'm not even arguing about that. But it's the easiest in the lower league.
Race distribution show that Teeran is underepresented in middle leagues and doing quite ok in highest leagues uuuuuh... exactly? There is more Terran in highest league and more Zerg in lowest league... simply because they are getting promoted more. That's exactly how the MMR is working. There is no more Zerg than Terran in total, but there is more Diamond-Plat Terran than Diamond-Plat level Zerg and vice versa for Bronze-Silver... because it's easier to get a grasp of the race and to get promoted into gold-plat when you play terran. Look at Zerg-Protoss players in gold-plat-diamond and look at how many games they have won. Then, look at some terran in the same leagues... Terran have less win than Zerg-Protoss, because they were promoted faster. On my platinum zerg account, there is like 18 terran in the top 25... and on my noob friend account (Silver) there is like 6 terran or so in the top 25, some protoss but mostly Zerg. Most of the terran in the top 25 have less win in total than every zerg, on the silver and on the platinum account. Most of the time, Plat terran in the top 25 in my league on my platinum account, have a worst unspent ressource average than the Protoss and the Zerg. Protoss are kinda between Zerg and Terran on that, not a lot behind Zerg.
Seriously i have no idea where you get your data from. I mean if you change Zerg and Terran in quoted text it would be truth
http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all
|
On December 10 2011 02:51 Shyft wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 02:42 petro1987 wrote:
The experiment you propose would measure the apm needed to reach the skill ceiling. I think a better experiment in order to assess our hypothesis is to make AI programs that are limited to use a reasonable amount of apm in a micro battle and see who would come up on top.
Let's say you make a program that can only use 150 APM (in the best way possible - it's up to the heuristics to decide where such apm would be spent) for both (T and P) in a battle (feel free to propose another number). Whoever comes up on top of such battle is certainly the easier race micro wise. What do you guys think of this experiment?
I don't think that is a fair or a feasable experiment, the AI you would need to do something like that is too advanced for someone to design just for people to ignore the results if they dont turn out in their favour, not to mention AI are not people and sometimes creative decision making in a battle can win it for you. The main problem with people complaining about PvT is that each race thinks the other is easier to play, if everyone would just try to play the other race they would realize that it's not as easy as it looks from either side. The biggest factor in deciding those big maxed army battles is not which race has an easier time microing, its positioning. If you engage in the right position you don't even need to micro very much sometimes and you will roll the other army over, if you watch very high level PvT's you will notice that there is a lot of moving around in the middle of the map for position before an engagement happens, and the person that engages in a better position will almost always win (unless there is a huge upgrade discrepency or hard unit counter). People need to stop looking for excuses for losing and examine their own play for ways to improve.
I think the experiment is feasible. Of course we would have to come up with simplifications like: a) the battle must happen in an open field; and so on.
Also, it's kinda obvious that if you get yourself a really nice engagement you are likely to win. The real question would be: what if the engagement is almost equal? What if they both have the units well positioned and a good concave? That's what we are talking about here.
|
On December 10 2011 02:42 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 02:32 Ravnemesteren wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. You are pretty much right. Its a pointless discussion in most cases. The only way you could get data was if you could in some way calculate the best way to move/cast spells/target fire and program and ai to play out different scenarios. Then you could look at the difference in apm for the two sides and look at which side needed the most apm for perfect micro. Because the skill ceiling for marine/marauder micro and blink stalker micro etc is soooo high, so its pretty pointless to discuss which is the most micro intensive... I dont think any players is even close to reaching any skill ceiling, so how can we discuss which side is more micro intensive? The experiment you propose would measure the apm needed to reach the skill ceiling. I think a better experiment in order to assess our hypothesis is to make AI programs that are limited to use a reasonable amount of apm in a micro battle and see who would come up on top. Let's say you make a program that can only use 150 APM (in the best way possible - it's up to the heuristics to decide where such apm would be spent) for both (T and P) in a battle (feel free to propose another number). Whoever comes up on top of such battle is certainly the easier race micro wise. What do you guys think of this experiment?
In some ways I like your idea. I think the APM of the AI should be set a little bit above the average of top pro's, so you could see who would win if you just raised the bar a bit (also the AI would need to macro while microing). But I also like the idea of seeing which race gets the most out of reaching the skill ceiling. People always get a little better over time, and the skill ceiling is raised. You could also see if a certain race won at X number apm even though the other race had perfect micro and alot higher apm. If perfect micro wins with less apm it would be feasable to discuss if the other race had to micro more to win.
I saw someone saying this AI would be too hard to program. Sure it would be nearly impossible. I was just coming up with an example... you actually need data like that to prove if one race needs more micro than the other.
|
On December 10 2011 03:03 Ravnemesteren wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 02:42 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:32 Ravnemesteren wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. You are pretty much right. Its a pointless discussion in most cases. The only way you could get data was if you could in some way calculate the best way to move/cast spells/target fire and program and ai to play out different scenarios. Then you could look at the difference in apm for the two sides and look at which side needed the most apm for perfect micro. Because the skill ceiling for marine/marauder micro and blink stalker micro etc is soooo high, so its pretty pointless to discuss which is the most micro intensive... I dont think any players is even close to reaching any skill ceiling, so how can we discuss which side is more micro intensive? The experiment you propose would measure the apm needed to reach the skill ceiling. I think a better experiment in order to assess our hypothesis is to make AI programs that are limited to use a reasonable amount of apm in a micro battle and see who would come up on top. Let's say you make a program that can only use 150 APM (in the best way possible - it's up to the heuristics to decide where such apm would be spent) for both (T and P) in a battle (feel free to propose another number). Whoever comes up on top of such battle is certainly the easier race micro wise. What do you guys think of this experiment? In some ways I like your idea. I think the APM of the AI should be set a little bit above the average of top pro's, so you could see who would win if you just raised the bar a bit (also the AI would need to macro while microing). But I also like the idea of seeing which race gets the most out of reaching the skill ceiling. People always get a little better over time, and the skill ceiling is raised. You could also see if a certain race won at X number apm even though the other race had perfect micro and alot higher apm. If perfect micro wins with less apm it would be feasable to discuss if the other race had to micro more to win. I saw someone saying this AI would be too hard to program. Sure it would be nearly impossible. I was just coming up with an example... you actually need data like that to prove if one race needs more micro than the other.
The problem I have with this argument is that at a professional level APM is not a limiting factor, players may play at 150ish apm but that is because that is all they feel like they need to use, they are capable of playing much faster there is just not anything to do with that extra apm. You have ex broodwar pros who are capable of insane apm but in sc2 you dont see it because they dont need it. Maybe one race does take less apm to micro correctly than another but at the highest level both players are capable of capping out so it doesnt really matter.
|
On December 10 2011 03:03 Ravnemesteren wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 02:42 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:32 Ravnemesteren wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. You are pretty much right. Its a pointless discussion in most cases. The only way you could get data was if you could in some way calculate the best way to move/cast spells/target fire and program and ai to play out different scenarios. Then you could look at the difference in apm for the two sides and look at which side needed the most apm for perfect micro. Because the skill ceiling for marine/marauder micro and blink stalker micro etc is soooo high, so its pretty pointless to discuss which is the most micro intensive... I dont think any players is even close to reaching any skill ceiling, so how can we discuss which side is more micro intensive? The experiment you propose would measure the apm needed to reach the skill ceiling. I think a better experiment in order to assess our hypothesis is to make AI programs that are limited to use a reasonable amount of apm in a micro battle and see who would come up on top. Let's say you make a program that can only use 150 APM (in the best way possible - it's up to the heuristics to decide where such apm would be spent) for both (T and P) in a battle (feel free to propose another number). Whoever comes up on top of such battle is certainly the easier race micro wise. What do you guys think of this experiment? In some ways I like your idea. I think the APM of the AI should be set a little bit above the average of top pro's, so you could see who would win if you just raised the bar a bit (also the AI would need to macro while microing). But I also like the idea of seeing which race gets the most out of reaching the skill ceiling. People always get a little better over time, and the skill ceiling is raised. You could also see if a certain race won at X number apm even though the other race had perfect micro and alot higher apm. If perfect micro wins with less apm it would be feasable to discuss if the other race had to micro more to win. I saw someone saying this AI would be too hard to program. Sure it would be nearly impossible. I was just coming up with an example... you actually need data like that to prove if one race needs more micro than the other.
I agree that it would be hard to write such a program. But I think it would be the only way people would actually agree on something around here. I like your points too.
|
On December 10 2011 03:01 petro1987 wrote:
I think the experiment is feasible. Of course we would have to come up with simplifications like: a) the battle must happen in an open field; and so on.
Also, it's kinda obvious that if you get yourself a really nice engagement you are likely to win. The real question would be: what if the engagement is almost equal? What if they both have the units well positioned and a good concave? That's what we are talking about here.
Well that's a problem in itself, in an open field engagement if both armies are perfectly spread out, the terran will have an advantage because their units are all ranged while zealots and archons need to get into range and terran would always get a strong first hit in with every one of their units.
|
On December 10 2011 03:09 Shyft wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 03:03 Ravnemesteren wrote:On December 10 2011 02:42 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:32 Ravnemesteren wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. You are pretty much right. Its a pointless discussion in most cases. The only way you could get data was if you could in some way calculate the best way to move/cast spells/target fire and program and ai to play out different scenarios. Then you could look at the difference in apm for the two sides and look at which side needed the most apm for perfect micro. Because the skill ceiling for marine/marauder micro and blink stalker micro etc is soooo high, so its pretty pointless to discuss which is the most micro intensive... I dont think any players is even close to reaching any skill ceiling, so how can we discuss which side is more micro intensive? The experiment you propose would measure the apm needed to reach the skill ceiling. I think a better experiment in order to assess our hypothesis is to make AI programs that are limited to use a reasonable amount of apm in a micro battle and see who would come up on top. Let's say you make a program that can only use 150 APM (in the best way possible - it's up to the heuristics to decide where such apm would be spent) for both (T and P) in a battle (feel free to propose another number). Whoever comes up on top of such battle is certainly the easier race micro wise. What do you guys think of this experiment? In some ways I like your idea. I think the APM of the AI should be set a little bit above the average of top pro's, so you could see who would win if you just raised the bar a bit (also the AI would need to macro while microing). But I also like the idea of seeing which race gets the most out of reaching the skill ceiling. People always get a little better over time, and the skill ceiling is raised. You could also see if a certain race won at X number apm even though the other race had perfect micro and alot higher apm. If perfect micro wins with less apm it would be feasable to discuss if the other race had to micro more to win. I saw someone saying this AI would be too hard to program. Sure it would be nearly impossible. I was just coming up with an example... you actually need data like that to prove if one race needs more micro than the other. The problem I have with this argument is that at a professional level APM is not a limiting factor, players may play at 150ish apm but that is because that is all they feel like they need to use, they are capable of playing much faster there is just not anything to do with that extra apm. You have ex broodwar pros who are capable of insane apm but in sc2 you dont see it because they dont need it. Maybe one race does take less apm to micro correctly than another but at the highest level both players are capable of capping out so it doesnt really matter.
I understand what you're saying. It might even be the case that a pro player just doesn't use all his possible APM because he doesn't need to. But what we are trying to discuss here is what would happen if both players could use the same amount of APM. That way we could repeat this experiment with different settings like 50 APM, 100 APM, 150 APM, 200 APM, 250 APM, and so on. I think only with this kind of data we could actually prove a point here.
|
On December 10 2011 02:56 Superneenja wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 02:29 Xalorian wrote:On December 10 2011 02:04 Superneenja wrote:On December 10 2011 01:43 Xalorian wrote:On December 10 2011 01:23 Recognizable wrote:On December 10 2011 01:19 Xalorian wrote:On December 10 2011 00:55 Superneenja wrote:
I don't care if I lose, but its just sad when you go watch a replay vs P and you see yourself having to micro crazy in an engagement and you switch to P camera view and they just a move their chargelots and archons. Sadly the only micro I see P doing is moving their lots back to not get kited...its even more stupid to watch when they have a few storms in there. Looking at everything else we are pretty even yet somehow they come out ahead with very minimal micro involved. And if i do majority of the engagement all they have to do is fall back to a pylon while my units are walking across the screen... Personally I'd be a little embarrassed playing toss and in MY OPINION the lack of skill it takes to get wins. Before playing seriously I randomed played P and Z quite a bit in 1s and 2s, and even back then i didn't think either took as much skill as T, seems like any little mistake would cost you the game, regardless of mules, because mules dont make you build units faster. It's arguably true that Terran is mechanically harder than protoss at lower level when you basically have a harder time with your hotkeys and with your hand speeds, but that's pretty much it, in my opinion It's actually easier, at least under master league, to get win as terran, since you can just choose a build and execute the same build every single game without going away from that. If toss don't want to all in, they have to adapt and be reactive. Zerg even more. And it's always the terran that dictate the speed of the game. No matter what league you actually are, if you are not GM, you will have a 50% win rate, since it's the way that the ladder is working. So, actually, there's no way to know if races are balance or not under GM. There's easier and harder race to play at lower level, but it has nothing to do with balance. But this thread is about tournament level stats, and in pretty much every replay I watched recently, almost all Protoss who had success, had higher APM than their Terran opponent. Sometime WAY HIGHER. Your first statement is completely false, terran is the reactive race in Terran vs Protoss if you play bio. You need to watch out for 1 base and 2 base all ins wich there are about 10 off(4 gate, 5 gate, 3 gate star, 3 gate robo, 6 gate, 6 gate robo, warp prism all in, 2 base collosus) You need to react perfectly to all of these, there are probably more and each has it's own veration. Then when you get into the mid game you have to choose the right tech, ghosts or vikings. And you have to react properly to a double forge build. Defending against drops is where protoss is being reactive, but with the warp prism being really good right now terran has to do that aswell. You also have to react good against dt's, early and lategame. Also because late game is such a bitch for terran it's really easy for a low level toss to just do a build that's safe against everything whilst sacrificing some eco and just get into the lategame where the terran has to do alot more tasks then the protoss. Ofcourse this goes the same way for toss, but it's just a little bit easier for a low level toss to just say, well i'm going to sac some eco for safety and get into the lategame and in your tech choice you don't have to react to the terran tech. Reading comprehension, please. I was talking about lower league. No, in lower league, terran is not reactive at all. Every terran is actually just going for the same build every single game no matter what, with the same army composition, and can do fairly well against anything, since noobies don't have the apm and the control to use infestor, storm or nice FF. There is no such thing as Warp Prism play in lower league. It's so rare that noobs don't even have to care about it, since even if they don't pay attention and go for 3 racks expand every single game, they will lose maybe once or twice to warp prism, in 300 games. Terran may be the hardest race to play at higher level, i'm not even arguing about that. But it's the easiest in the lower league. Not sure I agree 100% with this. I think it scales down even more. It doesnt take that much apm to use infestors,storm of FF and even using these things half ass-edly* gives a huge advantage in lower leagues especially if the terran player has just as low apm as you. I have another account i use to offrace, and I find it much easier to play the other races, they seem a lot more forgiving to me. Top 20 diamond as T, got to Diamond playing P and Z playing less than half the games. Don't know if thats just in general my play is better, or because of having to deal with mechanics and gameplay of terran. It doesn't take that much APM, but it does take better control and decision making than what < diamond-master have. And saying that Zerg is more forgiving than Terran < Diamond is completly ludicrous. Micro is not even a factor in those league, and Terran macro is WAY more forgivin than Zerg. Zerg have to choose between drone and units production, while having a hard time scouting (don't tell me that Zerg scouting is easier than Terran...) the opponent, not missing an inject and not missing an overlord, while expanding at a decent time and teching thoroughly. And Zerg HAVE to be reactive, even at low level, there is no way that you can play blindly and win 50% of your games. Until High diamond-master, Terran can just go for one of the many viable opening and do it every single games, and still win enough to get promoted at the end... what Zerg can not. Protoss can, but will have an harder time... except if they go for a cheese, but that's not the point here, since Terran even have more and harder to defend cheese. You're talking about the macro capabilities of zerg? And its harder than terran? Sure you have to choose between drones and units, but really after the 9 min mark is zerg hard to macro with... I certainly don't think so. I think being able to make 12+ units at 1 time is forgiving. Zerg can lose a battle inefficiently and still be able to hold or overpower their opponent in most cases, somewhat similar to P when they get 12-15 gateways mid/late game. I consider that pretty forgiving, as T you have to win every battle cost efficiently and if not you have to do some gimmicks to get back into the game. And i think the whole lower league comparison doesn't work, because it all scales. ie. a P with less micro skills will have it easier than a T with the same if not more and that could be to many factors such as race mechanics etc.
Or ? I have the choice ?
|
On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP?
Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production.
I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up?
|
On December 10 2011 03:14 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 03:09 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 03:03 Ravnemesteren wrote:On December 10 2011 02:42 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:32 Ravnemesteren wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. You are pretty much right. Its a pointless discussion in most cases. The only way you could get data was if you could in some way calculate the best way to move/cast spells/target fire and program and ai to play out different scenarios. Then you could look at the difference in apm for the two sides and look at which side needed the most apm for perfect micro. Because the skill ceiling for marine/marauder micro and blink stalker micro etc is soooo high, so its pretty pointless to discuss which is the most micro intensive... I dont think any players is even close to reaching any skill ceiling, so how can we discuss which side is more micro intensive? The experiment you propose would measure the apm needed to reach the skill ceiling. I think a better experiment in order to assess our hypothesis is to make AI programs that are limited to use a reasonable amount of apm in a micro battle and see who would come up on top. Let's say you make a program that can only use 150 APM (in the best way possible - it's up to the heuristics to decide where such apm would be spent) for both (T and P) in a battle (feel free to propose another number). Whoever comes up on top of such battle is certainly the easier race micro wise. What do you guys think of this experiment? In some ways I like your idea. I think the APM of the AI should be set a little bit above the average of top pro's, so you could see who would win if you just raised the bar a bit (also the AI would need to macro while microing). But I also like the idea of seeing which race gets the most out of reaching the skill ceiling. People always get a little better over time, and the skill ceiling is raised. You could also see if a certain race won at X number apm even though the other race had perfect micro and alot higher apm. If perfect micro wins with less apm it would be feasable to discuss if the other race had to micro more to win. I saw someone saying this AI would be too hard to program. Sure it would be nearly impossible. I was just coming up with an example... you actually need data like that to prove if one race needs more micro than the other. The problem I have with this argument is that at a professional level APM is not a limiting factor, players may play at 150ish apm but that is because that is all they feel like they need to use, they are capable of playing much faster there is just not anything to do with that extra apm. You have ex broodwar pros who are capable of insane apm but in sc2 you dont see it because they dont need it. Maybe one race does take less apm to micro correctly than another but at the highest level both players are capable of capping out so it doesnt really matter. I understand what you're saying. It might even be the case that a pro player just doesn't use all his possible APM because he doesn't need to. But what we are trying to discuss here is what would happen if both players could use the same amount of APM. That way we could repeat this experiment with different settings like 50 APM, 100 APM, 150 APM, 200 APM, 250 APM, and so on. I think only with this kind of data we could actually prove a point here.
Okay but the data that the statistics that this thread is based on came from professional games, we have no idea what the win rates look like at lower levels of play or even on the ladder, I agree that your expierment might prove which race is easier to play for a lower level player but that doesn't really matter in this thread. For all we know lower levels could be far more imbalanced or even completely even but since we don't have any data on it we don't really have a basis for an argument.
|
On December 10 2011 03:22 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production. I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up?
I agree with this as well, there isnt really very much micro you can do with zealots versus bio so you kind of have to just a-move them, however the luxury that terran has is that during a battle they can hit their production hotkey and queue up a bunch of units while a protoss player needs to divert their attention away from the battle to warp in units at a proxy pylon. The amount of micro that goes into a single battle is not the defining characteristic of which race is easier to play.
|
On December 10 2011 03:18 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 02:56 Superneenja wrote:On December 10 2011 02:29 Xalorian wrote:On December 10 2011 02:04 Superneenja wrote:On December 10 2011 01:43 Xalorian wrote:On December 10 2011 01:23 Recognizable wrote:On December 10 2011 01:19 Xalorian wrote:On December 10 2011 00:55 Superneenja wrote:
I don't care if I lose, but its just sad when you go watch a replay vs P and you see yourself having to micro crazy in an engagement and you switch to P camera view and they just a move their chargelots and archons. Sadly the only micro I see P doing is moving their lots back to not get kited...its even more stupid to watch when they have a few storms in there. Looking at everything else we are pretty even yet somehow they come out ahead with very minimal micro involved. And if i do majority of the engagement all they have to do is fall back to a pylon while my units are walking across the screen... Personally I'd be a little embarrassed playing toss and in MY OPINION the lack of skill it takes to get wins. Before playing seriously I randomed played P and Z quite a bit in 1s and 2s, and even back then i didn't think either took as much skill as T, seems like any little mistake would cost you the game, regardless of mules, because mules dont make you build units faster. It's arguably true that Terran is mechanically harder than protoss at lower level when you basically have a harder time with your hotkeys and with your hand speeds, but that's pretty much it, in my opinion It's actually easier, at least under master league, to get win as terran, since you can just choose a build and execute the same build every single game without going away from that. If toss don't want to all in, they have to adapt and be reactive. Zerg even more. And it's always the terran that dictate the speed of the game. No matter what league you actually are, if you are not GM, you will have a 50% win rate, since it's the way that the ladder is working. So, actually, there's no way to know if races are balance or not under GM. There's easier and harder race to play at lower level, but it has nothing to do with balance. But this thread is about tournament level stats, and in pretty much every replay I watched recently, almost all Protoss who had success, had higher APM than their Terran opponent. Sometime WAY HIGHER. Your first statement is completely false, terran is the reactive race in Terran vs Protoss if you play bio. You need to watch out for 1 base and 2 base all ins wich there are about 10 off(4 gate, 5 gate, 3 gate star, 3 gate robo, 6 gate, 6 gate robo, warp prism all in, 2 base collosus) You need to react perfectly to all of these, there are probably more and each has it's own veration. Then when you get into the mid game you have to choose the right tech, ghosts or vikings. And you have to react properly to a double forge build. Defending against drops is where protoss is being reactive, but with the warp prism being really good right now terran has to do that aswell. You also have to react good against dt's, early and lategame. Also because late game is such a bitch for terran it's really easy for a low level toss to just do a build that's safe against everything whilst sacrificing some eco and just get into the lategame where the terran has to do alot more tasks then the protoss. Ofcourse this goes the same way for toss, but it's just a little bit easier for a low level toss to just say, well i'm going to sac some eco for safety and get into the lategame and in your tech choice you don't have to react to the terran tech. Reading comprehension, please. I was talking about lower league. No, in lower league, terran is not reactive at all. Every terran is actually just going for the same build every single game no matter what, with the same army composition, and can do fairly well against anything, since noobies don't have the apm and the control to use infestor, storm or nice FF. There is no such thing as Warp Prism play in lower league. It's so rare that noobs don't even have to care about it, since even if they don't pay attention and go for 3 racks expand every single game, they will lose maybe once or twice to warp prism, in 300 games. Terran may be the hardest race to play at higher level, i'm not even arguing about that. But it's the easiest in the lower league. Not sure I agree 100% with this. I think it scales down even more. It doesnt take that much apm to use infestors,storm of FF and even using these things half ass-edly* gives a huge advantage in lower leagues especially if the terran player has just as low apm as you. I have another account i use to offrace, and I find it much easier to play the other races, they seem a lot more forgiving to me. Top 20 diamond as T, got to Diamond playing P and Z playing less than half the games. Don't know if thats just in general my play is better, or because of having to deal with mechanics and gameplay of terran. It doesn't take that much APM, but it does take better control and decision making than what < diamond-master have. And saying that Zerg is more forgiving than Terran < Diamond is completly ludicrous. Micro is not even a factor in those league, and Terran macro is WAY more forgivin than Zerg. Zerg have to choose between drone and units production, while having a hard time scouting (don't tell me that Zerg scouting is easier than Terran...) the opponent, not missing an inject and not missing an overlord, while expanding at a decent time and teching thoroughly. And Zerg HAVE to be reactive, even at low level, there is no way that you can play blindly and win 50% of your games. Until High diamond-master, Terran can just go for one of the many viable opening and do it every single games, and still win enough to get promoted at the end... what Zerg can not. Protoss can, but will have an harder time... except if they go for a cheese, but that's not the point here, since Terran even have more and harder to defend cheese. You're talking about the macro capabilities of zerg? And its harder than terran? Sure you have to choose between drones and units, but really after the 9 min mark is zerg hard to macro with... I certainly don't think so. I think being able to make 12+ units at 1 time is forgiving. Zerg can lose a battle inefficiently and still be able to hold or overpower their opponent in most cases, somewhat similar to P when they get 12-15 gateways mid/late game. I consider that pretty forgiving, as T you have to win every battle cost efficiently and if not you have to do some gimmicks to get back into the game. And i think the whole lower league comparison doesn't work, because it all scales. ie. a P with less micro skills will have it easier than a T with the same if not more and that could be to many factors such as race mechanics etc. Or ? I have the choice ?
Not you, maybe better players? 
|
Thanks a lot for the colorblind version, was having a hard time seeing a difference between P and Z.
All in all, it doesn't seem too bad.
|
On December 10 2011 02:47 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 02:40 keglu wrote:On December 10 2011 01:43 Xalorian wrote:
I was talking about lower league. No, in lower league, terran is not reactive at all. Every terran is actually just going for the same build every single game no matter what, with the same army composition, and can do fairly well against anything, since noobies don't have the apm and the control to use infestor, storm or nice FF.
There is no such thing as Warp Prism play in lower league. It's so rare that noobs don't even have to care about it, since even if they don't pay attention and go for 3 racks expand every single game, they will lose maybe once or twice to warp prism, in 300 games.
Terran may be the hardest race to play at higher level, i'm not even arguing about that. But it's the easiest in the lower league.
Race distribution show that Teeran is underepresented in middle leagues and doing quite ok in highest leagues uuuuuh... exactly? There is more Terran in highest league and more Zerg in lowest league... simply because they are getting promoted more. That's exactly how the MMR is working. There is no more Zerg than Terran in total, but there is more Diamond-Plat Terran than Diamond-Plat level Zerg and vice versa for Bronze-Silver... because it's easier to get a grasp of the race and to get promoted into gold-plat when you play terran. Look at Zerg-Protoss players in gold-plat-diamond and look at how many games they have won. Then, look at some terran in the same leagues... Terran have less win than Zerg-Protoss, because they were promoted faster. On my platinum zerg account, there is like 18 terran in the top 25... and on my noob friend account (Silver) there is like 6 terran or so in the top 25, some protoss but mostly Zerg. Most of the terran in the top 25 have less win in total than every zerg, on the silver and on the platinum account. Most of the time, Plat terran in the top 25 in my league on my platinum account, have a worst unspent ressource average than the Protoss and the Zerg. Protoss are kinda between Zerg and Terran on that, not a lot behind Zerg.
Dude, what the hell? More terrans in the higher leagues?
http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all
Terran is the least played race in grandmaster, master, diamond, platinum and gold league. But the most played race in silver and bronze, according to your pst it means they are underpowered, just saying.
You just made an argument in favor of zerg even though the argument actually favors terran. Really smart.
|
On December 10 2011 03:37 Shyft wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 03:22 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production. I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up? I agree with this as well, there isnt really very much micro you can do with zealots versus bio so you kind of have to just a-move them, however the luxury that terran has is that during a battle they can hit their production hotkey and queue up a bunch of units while a protoss player needs to divert their attention away from the battle to warp in units at a proxy pylon. The amount of micro that goes into a single battle is not the defining characteristic of which race is easier to play.
I don't agree with that line of thought since as protoss you can choose using either warpgates or gateways if you really care about being even ground with terran without going back to your nearest pylon and warp-in round of units.
|
On December 10 2011 04:08 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 03:37 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 03:22 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production. I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up? I agree with this as well, there isnt really very much micro you can do with zealots versus bio so you kind of have to just a-move them, however the luxury that terran has is that during a battle they can hit their production hotkey and queue up a bunch of units while a protoss player needs to divert their attention away from the battle to warp in units at a proxy pylon. The amount of micro that goes into a single battle is not the defining characteristic of which race is easier to play. I don't agree with that line of thought since as protoss you can choose using either warpgates or gateways if you really care about being even ground with terran without going back to your nearest pylon and warp-in round of units.
I think you need to think about what you just said.... telling protoss not to use warpgates..... I'm not saying that it is a disadvantage to have to look away to warp in units I'm saying that it is the nature of how protoss is played and how the matchup works. One race doesnt have it easier than the other I'm saying that your attention needs to be allocated to different things depending on the race you're playing and micro in a large battle is not the ultimate deciding factor in who is going to win a game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
