|
On February 22 2012 08:47 dgwow wrote:
Must have been said a thousand times in the forum but I'll say it again:
Koreans have the required multitasking proficiency to use terran to its potential, whereas foreigners do not. While varied builds also matter, as in the case of ThorZaIN who makes amazing builds, the koreans who can multitask the best (MMA, MVP, Jjakji) are exceptionally good terrans.
I didn't follow BW but I hear that besides the few top terrans that terran does badly ? I suppose that supports this theory since terran is relatively unchanged from BW in essence.
I have my own pet theory for why foreign T struggles against Zerg. Which is kind of from the same multi-task angle.
I think everyone accepts that Zerg for instance will have a supply lead going into 3 bases (especially since they're supposed to take that 3rd earlier).
The solution to this has roughly been:
* all-in (4 gate, marine - scv)
* timing attack (3 tank push, ect)
* harass the hell out of them (reactored hellions, cloaked banshees, drops)
* macro like your life depends on it
I feel that for the 4th one; Protoss could get away with turtled into a max-ed out deathball, while only Korean Terran makes a concerted attempt to keep that supply gap from getting out of control just with macro (as opposed to relying on slowing down the Zerg economy). This is while doing all the other things people in the thread have mentioned (being active on the map, clearing towers, map control, not being caught out of position, ect).
I'll admit I don't watch a lot of the European / NA scene, but when I do; I feel that foreign Terrans really concede a big supply deficit against Zerg. I've seen some IPL games where the Terran was 40 supply behind the Zerg on 3 bases, and that was considered 'ok'. When I watch GSL / GSTL it seems like Korean Terrans by contrast are much more capable of keeping up with Zerg supply (not saying Korean Terrans stay even; but that if they fall behind 30+ supply without anything happening they are considered to have been outplayed and in an unwinnable situation).
While it's easy to focus on MMA or even Gumiho's aggressive drop play; I'm more impressed by how little it effects their ability to defend a counterattack. I mean if you keep donating 10, 20 supply each drop you better be macro-ing well back home or you will be pretty opening your front door to a counter attack.
Of course advantages at micro help with this a lot too. Being able to split makes banelings less effective obviously; but if you do it really well, it means you can force the trade to be in your favor resource wise. Likewise, being good with drops will allow you to harass the Zerg economy, which means you have less macro-ing to do to keep up.
I'm not sure how to quantify the Korean micro advantage; but I do know that watching IPL I've seen Korean Terrans keep a constant supply lead against Foreign Zergs; so it's easy to say that Korean Terrans are just leaps and bounds ahead of Foreign Terrans macro wise.
Then again, this is just my observations; not actual analysis of replays and all.
|
Lalush's post really opened my eyes to something I can try to fix as well. Great posts!
|
there is a lot more potential for terran units compared with, say protoss
|
C C C C C Combo breaker.
I think this is a good thread to ask you (lot of high level players gathered in this thread).
I play on low level (gold) and most of this discussion doesn't even apply to me since games are decided in one big 1-A battle in gold league.
But my question is:
Mech "seems" like a non-micro alternative playstyle to terran. Why doesn't mech work on high level play vs zerg (or does it?) and specially vs protoss.
Looking from the low level perspective, there are so much aoe spellcasters from protoss an immidiate observation from my pov is "why not go mech where all the spellcaster would be useless to thors/tanks/hellions"?
I haven't really come to the point where mech doesn't work. In gold level mech always work 
|
On February 22 2012 16:44 papaz wrote:C C C C C Combo breaker. I think this is a good thread to ask you (lot of high level players gathered in this thread). I play on low level (gold) and most of this discussion doesn't even apply to me since games are decided in one big 1-A battle in gold league. But my question is:Mech "seems" like a non-micro alternative playstyle to terran. Why doesn't mech work on high level play vs zerg (or does it?) and specially vs protoss. Looking from the low level perspective, there are so much aoe spellcasters from protoss an immidiate observation from my pov is "why not go mech where all the spellcaster would be useless to thors/tanks/hellions"? I haven't really come to the point where mech doesn't work. In gold level mech always work
Mech is immobile, so good players can exploit that fairly easily and also they are way better at getting the right unit compositions. And against protoss zealot/archon/immortal wrecks mech.
|
I actually didn't notice it till you said it. I think thorzain has always been pretty solid and naama is improving a lot but I don't think up to korean standard since they are without a doubt the best. Personally I think the best concentration of great zergs are in Europe and the best concentration of good protoss players are in NA and the best concentration of terrans are in korea. Its an interesting thing about play styles between contenents. It would be an interesting study to do on race success from people from different regions.
|
On February 22 2012 16:44 papaz wrote:C C C C C Combo breaker. I think this is a good thread to ask you (lot of high level players gathered in this thread). I play on low level (gold) and most of this discussion doesn't even apply to me since games are decided in one big 1-A battle in gold league. But my question is:Mech "seems" like a non-micro alternative playstyle to terran. Why doesn't mech work on high level play vs zerg (or does it?) and specially vs protoss. Looking from the low level perspective, there are so much aoe spellcasters from protoss an immidiate observation from my pov is "why not go mech where all the spellcaster would be useless to thors/tanks/hellions"? I haven't really come to the point where mech doesn't work. In gold level mech always work
It works against Zerg, but it's map specific, and far less forgiving than a normal marine-tank army, so it's perceived as being less robust when you play against strong players. Protoss has too many units that do incredibly well against mech in general, so bio is still the only viable style at a high level of play.
--
Also, on the topic at hand, I think the main distinguishing factor between most korean terrans (minus Mvp, he's kind of an exception - what with the whole 'several levels above everyone' thing) and foreign terrans is to do with style.
The best comparison that crystallises this IMO is between sC, from team MVP, and Thorzain. It's not just that sC's more aggressive - he's more EVERYTHING. Never letting up on the pressure and forcing mistakes is what has worked the best for Terran thus far in SC2, and koreans have been the first to realise this.
Playing a slow, chess-like macro game as Terran gives the opponent more room to breathe because he's not constantly under pressure, which is not what wins games most often.
So the statement is basically that Korean terrans excel because of aggression, and their superior mechanics for multitasking.
But that raises the question: What about Mvp? Or Bomber? Neither of these guys play hyper-aggressive styles. (Mvp might not be a good example because he tends to play solid and safe in the early-midgame then go bonkers aggressive with multitasking in the lategame - but let's just assume he's playing his usual safe style) Yet, at their peaks, they were so far above the competition (excluding each other, obviously) that they would go on absurd winning streaks against other top koreans and make it look easy. What are they doing so different?
I dunno. Thoughts?
|
On February 22 2012 17:02 FlukyS wrote:
I actually didn't notice it till you said it. I think thorzain has always been pretty solid and naama is improving a lot but I don't think up to korean standard since they are without a doubt the best. Personally I think the best concentration of great zergs are in Europe and the best concentration of good protoss players are in NA and the best concentration of terrans are in korea. Its an interesting thing about play styles between contenents. It would be an interesting study to do on race success from people from different regions.
The best concentration of all races are in Korea, and it's not even close.
|
On February 22 2012 12:51 LaLuSh wrote:
For me the biggest difference is army movement and aggressiveness. Koreans constantly move armies in a better and more intense way and attain better map control. They fight for xelnaga 5x as much as foreigners. They constantly use medivacs with a purpose, as a distraction to gain position with their main army, while foreigners send them more randomly and uncoordinated.
But since ukrainian terrans are #2 in the world after Korea, I should focus on what I think is the difference between you and the best korean terrans. And I think the difference is contained in army movement.
Top koreans move their armies in a much braver manner than foreigners. More intense. They fight for map control by being in your face with intensive army movement. I take west xelnaga tower? They stim 5 marine and send there. But at the same time they think about my reaction (with my main army) and move to east xelnaga tower with their main army to create another threat. They take east tower but back off again instantly and move again to another tower. Then they drop, 1-2 places, BAM main army moves forward where vision is secured, marines picked up again by medivac perfectly and are on standby for another drop. Zerg sees main army outside his base or expos and panics. Now I need to divide my army to defend 2 drops and do giant attack on terran main army.
My point is not that foreigners can't play like I explain above. But that a top korean moves his army 2x as much as a foreigner. A top korean fights for xelnaga maybe 5x as much as a foreigner terran. That's at least what it feels like when I played them.
Best army movement in a foreigner terran is Kas. He is a very "in your face"-style player with strange unexpected army movements. Sometimes they are idiotic but they are at the same time very intensive in their frequency. This high frequency and instensity eventually forces a mistake from the zerg. A player like Kas who is top foreigner when it comes to army movement has maybe 15-20 chances in a TvZ game to force a critical mistake from the zerg player. If you compare to most other top foreigners with passive movements and huge attacks at mostly predictable timings, they will perhaps only have half the chances Kas has to find a good opportunity, opening or timing to break the zerg.
A lot of the stuff Kas does (talking about the way he sends attacks) seems stupid and risky to me when watching replays. But it works because there is such a high intensity in the attacks and because he thinks a lot about vision and smart army movements. Only problem with Kas is he dies too much vs. stupid zergs who do random unexplicable shit back to him. But I didn't play him in many months, so perhaps he morphed into a korean by now.
This post needs more love.
Even as a spectator who hardly knows all the subtle purposes of army movement I notice Koreans (of all races) actively being on the map a lot more than foreigners. Foreigners often seem very content with giving up map control, sit in their base, do their build and (hopefully) reacting in time to any attack/harass the opponent does, only to eventually move out at some certain timing. Koreans seem to consantly be looking to take advantage wherever an opportunity opens, where foreigners mostly want to react and defend until their build is complete.
Or maybe put another nice way: Koreans play more to win, foreigners play more to not lose.
|
On February 22 2012 17:03 Slate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 16:44 papaz wrote:C C C C C Combo breaker. I think this is a good thread to ask you (lot of high level players gathered in this thread). I play on low level (gold) and most of this discussion doesn't even apply to me since games are decided in one big 1-A battle in gold league. But my question is:Mech "seems" like a non-micro alternative playstyle to terran. Why doesn't mech work on high level play vs zerg (or does it?) and specially vs protoss. Looking from the low level perspective, there are so much aoe spellcasters from protoss an immidiate observation from my pov is "why not go mech where all the spellcaster would be useless to thors/tanks/hellions"? I haven't really come to the point where mech doesn't work. In gold level mech always work It works against Zerg, but it's map specific, and far less forgiving than a normal marine-tank army, so it's perceived as being less robust when you play against strong players. Protoss has too many units that do incredibly well against mech in general, so bio is still the only viable style at a high level of play. -- Also, on the topic at hand, I think the main distinguishing factor between most korean terrans (minus Mvp, he's kind of an exception - what with the whole 'several levels above everyone' thing) and foreign terrans is to do with style. The best comparison that crystallises this IMO is between sC, from team MVP, and Thorzain. It's not just that sC's more aggressive - he's more EVERYTHING. Never letting up on the pressure and forcing mistakes is what has worked the best for Terran thus far in SC2, and koreans have been the first to realise this. Playing a slow, chess-like macro game as Terran gives the opponent more room to breathe because he's not constantly under pressure, which is not what wins games most often. So the statement is basically that Korean terrans excel because of aggression, and their superior mechanics for multitasking. But that raises the question: What about Mvp? Or Bomber? Neither of these guys play hyper-aggressive styles. (Mvp might not be a good example because he tends to play solid and safe in the early-midgame then go bonkers aggressive with multitasking in the lategame - but let's just assume he's playing his usual safe style) Yet, at their peaks, they were so far above the competition (excluding each other, obviously) that they would go on absurd winning streaks against other top koreans and make it look easy. What are they doing so different? I dunno. Thoughts?
That's actually a really good question...
I guess I'll attempt to answer it based on my limited viewing of Bomber's games. I'll limit this to TvT. Both Bomber and MVP seem to excel at early defense. It's been said time and time again, but these two guys were the best of the original 'macro Terrans' in GSL. They didn't lose units for free and they always played safely. In a lot of MVP and Bomber's mid 2011 games, they would turtle for a large portion of the early game, putting down bunkers and not devote themselves to any major attacks. At most, they pressure with marines and tanks, while keeping the main portion of their army at home. Instead, they would harass, typically with dropships, banshees, or reapers, and try to get an economic advantage over their opponents, while defending well at home against opponents who would always use aggression to try to break the front.
Tastosis once said that MVP was so ridiculously largely because of his immaculate defense and his ability to hold any kind of attack his opponents threw at him in the early/mid game, which would only add on to his lead.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think MVP and Bomber knew that there were lots of aggressive players out there, so they decided to play it safe and let the opponents attack them. When they did, they would crush the attack, and then gain advantages there. Eventually, these small advantages would snowball and lead to aggressive mid/late game attacks when they felt that they had a sufficient lead. There dominance lies in the fact that their defense is so good and they can thus stave off any attacks with minimal losses.
Just my 2 cents, with most assumptions based off of MVP's games.
|
On February 22 2012 16:44 papaz wrote:C C C C C Combo breaker. I think this is a good thread to ask you (lot of high level players gathered in this thread). I play on low level (gold) and most of this discussion doesn't even apply to me since games are decided in one big 1-A battle in gold league. But my question is:Mech "seems" like a non-micro alternative playstyle to terran. Why doesn't mech work on high level play vs zerg (or does it?) and specially vs protoss. Looking from the low level perspective, there are so much aoe spellcasters from protoss an immidiate observation from my pov is "why not go mech where all the spellcaster would be useless to thors/tanks/hellions"? I haven't really come to the point where mech doesn't work. In gold level mech always work
The simple answer is Charge Zealots. HT's also work very well against Banshee, BC's & Thor. You can drop energy on banshee but it not perfect.
|
On February 22 2012 16:44 papaz wrote:Mech "seems" like a non-micro alternative playstyle to terran. Why doesn't mech work on high level play vs zerg (or does it?) and specially vs protoss. Looking from the low level perspective, there are so much aoe spellcasters from protoss an immidiate observation from my pov is "why not go mech where all the spellcaster would be useless to thors/tanks/hellions"? I haven't really come to the point where mech doesn't work. In gold level mech always work
Mech is arguably a style that foreigners could have more success with, because it requires lower APM and is more macro- and positioning-based than the extremely fast and multi-tasking based bio play. If you want proof, just look at Goody, one of the slowest players but still quite successful.
The thing about mech is that just less powerful than bio-based play, at least in WoL. Its hard to be safe with in TvT, sucks against air in TvZ and sucks against everything in TvP. The good part is that HOTS seems to be looking to fix all that, with all the new units coming out of the factory probably making mech a much better alternative. For all we know, this "problem" of terran being harder to play might not even exist in HOTS.
|
are you using ur location keys f2 f3 f4 f5? i see almost (90%) of the korean pros use them alot. alot of foreign pros dont use them alot, eventhough alot of them try but still they tend to click on the minimap alot.
why do i think its a good point? well i feel koreans are superior in their multitask. whenever i see koreans harass with units their money never gets up above 400mins while switching around buildings and stuff. watching alot of foreigners i feel like they are having some problems with it. when they are doing a medivac drop out of their 1-1-1 with hellion/marines against zerg i often see their minerals going above 800minerals, cuz they are so focust on their micro and they click much more often on the minimap what makes their game look very hectic.
so as a result foreign terran playser became very very passive.
overall i just feel like korean terrans are much better at harassing and controlling the game than foreigners due to their superior mechanics.
|
On February 22 2012 17:20 Whatson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 17:03 Slate wrote:On February 22 2012 16:44 papaz wrote:C C C C C Combo breaker. I think this is a good thread to ask you (lot of high level players gathered in this thread). I play on low level (gold) and most of this discussion doesn't even apply to me since games are decided in one big 1-A battle in gold league. But my question is:Mech "seems" like a non-micro alternative playstyle to terran. Why doesn't mech work on high level play vs zerg (or does it?) and specially vs protoss. Looking from the low level perspective, there are so much aoe spellcasters from protoss an immidiate observation from my pov is "why not go mech where all the spellcaster would be useless to thors/tanks/hellions"? I haven't really come to the point where mech doesn't work. In gold level mech always work It works against Zerg, but it's map specific, and far less forgiving than a normal marine-tank army, so it's perceived as being less robust when you play against strong players. Protoss has too many units that do incredibly well against mech in general, so bio is still the only viable style at a high level of play. -- Also, on the topic at hand, I think the main distinguishing factor between most korean terrans (minus Mvp, he's kind of an exception - what with the whole 'several levels above everyone' thing) and foreign terrans is to do with style. The best comparison that crystallises this IMO is between sC, from team MVP, and Thorzain. It's not just that sC's more aggressive - he's more EVERYTHING. Never letting up on the pressure and forcing mistakes is what has worked the best for Terran thus far in SC2, and koreans have been the first to realise this. Playing a slow, chess-like macro game as Terran gives the opponent more room to breathe because he's not constantly under pressure, which is not what wins games most often. So the statement is basically that Korean terrans excel because of aggression, and their superior mechanics for multitasking. But that raises the question: What about Mvp? Or Bomber? Neither of these guys play hyper-aggressive styles. (Mvp might not be a good example because he tends to play solid and safe in the early-midgame then go bonkers aggressive with multitasking in the lategame - but let's just assume he's playing his usual safe style) Yet, at their peaks, they were so far above the competition (excluding each other, obviously) that they would go on absurd winning streaks against other top koreans and make it look easy. What are they doing so different? I dunno. Thoughts? That's actually a really good question... I guess I'll attempt to answer it based on my limited viewing of Bomber's games. I'll limit this to TvT. Both Bomber and MVP seem to excel at early defense. It's been said time and time again, but these two guys were the best of the original 'macro Terrans' in GSL. They didn't lose units for free and they always played safely. In a lot of MVP and Bomber's mid 2011 games, they would turtle for a large portion of the early game, putting down bunkers and not devote themselves to any major attacks. At most, they pressure with marines and tanks, while keeping the main portion of their army at home. Instead, they would harass, typically with dropships, banshees, or reapers, and try to get an economic advantage over their opponents, while defending well at home against opponents who would always use aggression to try to break the front. Tastosis once said that MVP was so ridiculously largely because of his immaculate defense and his ability to hold any kind of attack his opponents threw at him in the early/mid game, which would only add on to his lead. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think MVP and Bomber knew that there were lots of aggressive players out there, so they decided to play it safe and let the opponents attack them. When they did, they would crush the attack, and then gain advantages there. Eventually, these small advantages would snowball and lead to aggressive mid/late game attacks when they felt that they had a sufficient lead. There dominance lies in the fact that their defense is so good and they can thus stave off any attacks with minimal losses. Just my 2 cents, with most assumptions based off of MVP's games.
That's actually a great point - their TvT success is based in large part on their response to the style they were playing against - very aggressive korean terrans. Defending well gives you the automatic edge in these situations.
TvZ and TvP, though? TvP for Bomber, in particular, was always kinda incomprehensible for me - he would stay passive and play a lategame-oriented style straight up, without even trying to commit to any big damage early. Looking at today's situation, though (Terran whine about protoss lategame imba, etc) - how did he do that?
As for Mvp, his TvP was actually really special and unique. He virtually used marine/tank as a composition in the early-midgame, often building up to a crippling timing to get a significant lead (all too often straight up killing the opponent) and would then transition into a 'normal' macro game - except he was ahead because of the timing push he did. That always fascinated me, because it was as though he knew something no one else did - Terran doesn't have to deal with crazy protoss lategame potential as long as you move into the lategame with a lead and leverage that lead. And that marine/tank attacks off of 2 base were a great way to get that lead.
Meh. Just some thoughts. TvZ especially is the tough nut to crack, but since these macro terrans demonstrated that T can absolutely stay even - in fact, slightly ahead - of Z in supply while on even economy, even while being aggressive (see:MMA).
|
United States13143 Posts
On February 22 2012 17:33 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 16:44 papaz wrote:Mech "seems" like a non-micro alternative playstyle to terran. Why doesn't mech work on high level play vs zerg (or does it?) and specially vs protoss. Looking from the low level perspective, there are so much aoe spellcasters from protoss an immidiate observation from my pov is "why not go mech where all the spellcaster would be useless to thors/tanks/hellions"? I haven't really come to the point where mech doesn't work. In gold level mech always work Mech is arguably a style that foreigners could have more success with, because it requires lower APM and is more macro- and positioning-based than the extremely fast and multi-tasking based bio play. If you want proof, just look at Goody, one of the slowest players but still quite successful.
Goody, by the way, doesn't play mech in TvP anymore. He's said that it's just not good enough and plays bio in TvP these days.
|
Personally I think its just mechanics, yes their is Polt who is very slow, but he is somewhat of an exception because he understands the game so clearly. If you look however, he has been doing very poorly lately and I cant help but wonder if his slow speed finally caught up to him as everyone continually gets faster.
Just the other day I watched Taeja hold off like 50 banelings with a few marines, his micro and multitasking blew me away. I think as Terran those two things, micro and multitask really determine how good you can get. You can be super smart like Polt, but to be MVP and win every tournament, you need to be smart AND you need stupid good mechanics.
Frankly I do think that Terran has a much much higher skillcap than the other two races (just IMO) and so because of this Korean zergs and Protosses are much closer in "skill" to their foreign counterparts. You'll see people like Sheth take out Koreans like JYP and people like Naniwa take out koreans all the time, but you rarely see foreign Terrans (except maybe Kas/thorzain) take out top koreans.
|
On February 22 2012 16:44 papaz wrote:C C C C C Combo breaker. I think this is a good thread to ask you (lot of high level players gathered in this thread). I play on low level (gold) and most of this discussion doesn't even apply to me since games are decided in one big 1-A battle in gold league. But my question is:Mech "seems" like a non-micro alternative playstyle to terran. Why doesn't mech work on high level play vs zerg (or does it?) and specially vs protoss. Looking from the low level perspective, there are so much aoe spellcasters from protoss an immidiate observation from my pov is "why not go mech where all the spellcaster would be useless to thors/tanks/hellions"? I haven't really come to the point where mech doesn't work. In gold level mech always work
Mech has a bunch of problems vs Protoss that either have not been solved, or are not solveable. Goody played Mech vs Protoss and he switched to MMM because he thinks it is better, but he still says that Mech is doable, but you have to play very slow and methodical and slowpush with a maxed army and PFs...
unless some Pros show some solid macro games, I don't think it is viable for anything else but some mixed in 2base cheeses. (though it is possible that a 2base cheese develops into a long game)
And if you play it vs good zergs, you will find out that just because it doesn't look impressivly difficult, getting out everything in time and matching an opponents economy and composition with such a defensive style is pretty hard.
Just think about that: it took high level Zs and Ps a lot of time (and some balance changes) to figure their turtle styles out and get them to ~50% winrate vs T.
So if you want to play Mech vs (good) Zergs, you will have like 5 people worldwide from which you can copy it... Also Mech being passive is not really true. Just like mutas you should always be on the map with hellions. Just because you don't win the game with those moves, doesn't mean that they are not important or demanding 
|
I've also noticed the diff between korean T and NA T. good thread
|
On February 22 2012 18:18 SpooN04 wrote:
I've also noticed the diff between korean T and NA T. good thread
Foreign terrans as in EU and NA, not NA terrans. Or is ukraine in NA now?
|
Foreigners all suck dick because there's no incentive not to. This isn't unique to terran, terran just happens to be the one race that you wouldn't win 1/100 tourneys 1aing every time.
Also someone should take stats from a couple MLGs and GSLs about win %s of TvZ/TvP after 20, 30, 40 minutes, which just reinforces what I said about 1aing. I know there was a thread awhile back with this for a single MLG, but it'd be nice to have more so it's obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
