|
On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote:Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : Show nested quote +That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only.
That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument.
|
On March 04 2012 02:35 shizna wrote:
my ideal 'fix' for terran vs protoss would be something to make tanks good against protoss...
terran is sooooooo anti-terran without tanks... it's rediculous. tank is the terran poster boy, even more than the marine...
exactly how to fix tank without making it OP by messing with the cost, supply or base damage of tanks.... no idea.
then again, tanks would be good if terran had some kind of answer to mass chargelots.
I think it would be interesting if the mobile tank version would lose its "+10 vs armored" and got a "10 vs light" instead. So the ultimate (antiground) Mech army would revolve around unsieged tanks and hellions kiting in the front (though 7range is not really the front  ) and sieged tanks in the back.
It would even give a nice dynamic because of the range differences of those mech units: 5 range hellions, 7range tank/thor, 13range sieged tanks, so basically all your units should always be able to fire in a combat.
Also I think it would absolutly be OK vs Zerg, as zerglings should still be OK vs the tanks in the lower numbers in which you might want to use lings against mech, roaches should still be dealable, though a faster siege mode might be required if you go for a mech build with early tanks (which is rather rare imo; usually you see hellions --> thors --> tanks, due to mutalisks)
might not fix mech TvP, but I think it's an interesting thought.
|
On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote:Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument.
It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues.
In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad".
|
On March 04 2012 02:35 shizna wrote:
my ideal 'fix' for terran vs protoss would be something to make tanks good against protoss...
terran is sooooooo anti-terran without tanks... it's rediculous. tank is the terran poster boy, even more than the marine...
exactly how to fix tank without making it OP by messing with the cost, supply or base damage of tanks.... no idea.
then again, tanks would be good if terran had some kind of answer to mass chargelots.
yeah make 1-1-1 even stronger, good idea
|
On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote:On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote:Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad".
My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard.
|
On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote:On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote:On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote:Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard.
Yeah but I guess all us Zergs are just spamming APM while all Terrans are microing 3 drops while engaging fighting with a main army.
Actually, to whoever wrote that, please tell me the last time you saw a Terran micro 3 drops and an army. Most of the top pros I see just stim the drop, run to a good location behind mineral line, then a-move and afk it. Pick up marines if they have the time to. Acting like they micro the drop and while fighting, which just doesn't happen.
tldr - Metagame shift in TvP = Terran is now UP.
Terran still favored in ZvT = Terran is now UP.
Like when Protosses said Muta/Ling was imba. Then they got better at handling it, Protoss in Korea is dominating Zerg (small sample size, but still). International ZvP is even. I do not know why this thread has descended into a Terran whine fest when these are some of the most even international graphs I've seen.
Whatever.
|
On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote:On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote:Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues.In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad".
tvp outside of korea is a joke. In korea it is becoming a joke. I love how you arbitrarily set the standard as diamond level as if the problem of protoss being incredibly forgiving vs terran goes away at higher levels.
TvP is incredibly unforgiving for the terran due to the nature of protoss, (warpgate, storm, chargelots, archons merging basically instantly, and the occasional colossus).
|
On March 04 2012 03:08 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote:On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote:On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote:Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues.In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". tvp outside of korea is a joke. In korea it is becoming a joke. I love how you arbitrarily set the standard as diamond level as if the problem of protoss being incredibly forgiving vs terran goes away at higher levels. TvP is incredibly unforgiving for the terran due to the nature of protoss, (warpgate, storm, chargelots, archons merging basically instantly, and the occasional colossus).
Yea, a large number of Korean Terrans (Clide, MKP, MVP, Dragon, and many others) have already expressed their extreme difficulties in the TvP matchup. It has nothing to do with skill levels, Terrans are struggling in TvP all the way to the top Koreans.
|
On March 03 2012 08:21 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:17 Hakanfrog wrote:On March 03 2012 08:09 Recognizable wrote:On March 03 2012 08:03 Hakanfrog wrote:On March 03 2012 07:05 Recognizable wrote:On March 03 2012 07:00 xrapture wrote:On March 03 2012 05:46 Severedevil wrote:
I can only think of a few things I'm convinced really aren't OK in SC2 at the moment, and they're pretty minor:
-Carriers.
-Thor strike cannons.
-Raven Seeker Missile.
-Raven autoturret's attack not receiving upgrades from anything, to keep pace with armor.
-Hydras being weak, now that maps aren't teeny-tiny.
Overall, I'm very pleased with the improvements in Protoss early-game PvT, and I suspect clever counterattacks will be the simplest solution. Protoss seems to rely upon their ability to put every single attacking unit in one place due to warp-ins, but a couple Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend. A medivac can do a similar job, but not until you've got stim and a decent bio force, which leaves the window that current Protoss seem to be exploiting... Toss deal with harrass easiest out of all the races. They have static defense that hits air and ground without costing supply, and they can warp in units in response to anything. "Reapers/Hellions/Banshees can cheaply force a disproportionate amount of units to stay home and defend" well 2 stalkers is enough for reapers (not to mention if the terran builds more than 1 the toss already won the game), warp in is enough for helions, and banshee openings are pretty common but only do damage if the toss isn't prepared. Zerg and terran preemptively get spore crawlers and missle turrets nearly every game, yet I never see toss place a single cannon. These past couple months toss have been hardcore greedy, and there aren't many timings that can punish them. When we see a Terran defeat toss from early timings it's because he is absurdly better than the toss, aka marineking vs Huk/naniwa, polt vs hero, puma vs titan. Evenely matched, like today Sjow vs Tod, or Thorzain vs Grubby at MLG toss has the advantage in nearly all aspects of the game besides super early. Indeed, another problem in the TvP matchup is how there are almost zero viable all ins for terran. I can think of 2, marine scv all in, which any non greedy build can stop without having to be scouted, and 1-1-1, which any 1 gate FE crushes. However, on the other hand protoss has about 8+ viable all ins I can think off, and any of them will basically kill you if not prepared. This allows protoss to be super greedy and they are already taking 3rd at minute 6 whilst pressuring with 8+ gateways. Really scary stuff. It´s a problem that terran doesn´t have many viable all-ins?I don´t really mind all-ins, but some of them are just straight out cheesy. One does not go for 1-1-1 because you reacted to what the protoss does, it´s just a mindless all in. I think you are exaggerating all the all-ins protoss has and the viability of them. Sure you can 4gate, but it rarely works, you may call them viable when they are actually not. Should I call 2port banshee a viable all in? I´d love for you to name those 8 viable all ins. 4 gate, 5 gate zealot sentry, 3 gate robo, 3 gate stargate, 3 gate DT, 1 base collosus all in, 6 gate, 6 gate robo immortal all in, 8 gate zealot sentry, 2 base collosus all in. I even had some protoss throw a 8 gate zealot archon all in at me from 2 bases. The 2 base all ins are very retarded in a special way, but you have to play Terran to understand how idiotic they are. Seeing as how it's not possible most of the times to now if it's an all in. I've had games where I see 6 gates, he makes pylons close to my base, I pull 10/15 scv's with 3/4 bunkers. Afer 30 seconds nothing happens, I scan and see a fully saturated 3rd. Fuck yeah. Almost non off these all ins are reactive. 4 gate is actually extremely potent and should be used more by protoss on ladder, if well executed you just die if you don't have some sort of a wall in at your main and are slow to lift your natural. Protoss actually don't all in enough but it's because their lategame is so potent it's not really needed. Just add in a fuckton off gates with chronoboost and you have an extremely powerfull all in. I´m speaking of pro play here, on ladder everything is viable. 3gate DT I never see as an all-in you use it to expand, 1 base collosus all in is not viable same goes for 3gate robo. 6gate and 8gate is same thing (It´s like saying 1-1-1 cloaked banshee and 1-1-1 without cloak and raven instead are different all ins, in which case your argument doesn´t hold). 2 base collosi is viable, but I can´t remember the last time I saw it work between two top players. I don't care about the top players, the game is just not fun for me at a high master/gm level. These all ins are very, very viable and potent, they just aren't used enough in the EU and NA scene, on the KOR ladder about half my games are all ins. Yes they aren't used much against the likes of MMA or MKP, agreed. Neither is a 1-1-1. Also when I watch Cloud's stream he is often bitching about how protoss all ins are too strong, so I am not the only one. Any DT opening fails so hard if prepared for, I treat it as an all in. Show nested quote +It´s like saying 1-1-1 cloaked banshee and 1-1-1 without cloak and raven instead are different all ins, in which case your argument doesn´t hold Because they are? You deal different with a cloak strategy then with a raven first. But it doesn't really matter, they both won't win you games anymore since patch.
terran all ins are more variable and strong then protoss ones...
|
Tank good against protoss, a new era of 1-1-1
|
I'm out of this thread, when I say something both sides attack me, both whiny Terrans and whiny Toss.
I was simply quoting David Kim who as, IMO, a good view at the game statistics.
|
On March 04 2012 04:05 Darksoldierr wrote:
Tank good against protoss, a new era of 1-1-1
simple solution, nerf 1base all-ins. almost everyone agrees that 1base all-ins are stupidly broken atm... RTS fundamentals usually dictate that if you scout an all-in you should always have the upper hand - in sc2 vs a good cheese you still have your ass to the wall and almost lose even with a perfect response...
this cheese defense that requires pulling half of your scvs to repair 3 bunkers *sigh*... is becoming rediculous.
then with 1base stuff gimped, blizz could tweak tanks (as well as other stuff)... something like changing unsieged damage to 25 instead of 15(+10 vs armoured).
|
On March 04 2012 05:16 shizna wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 04:05 Darksoldierr wrote:
Tank good against protoss, a new era of 1-1-1 simple solution, nerf 1base all-ins. almost everyone agrees that 1base all-ins are stupidly broken atm... RTS fundamentals usually dictate that if you scout an all-in you should always have the upper hand - in sc2 vs a good cheese you still have your ass to the wall and almost lose even with a perfect response... this cheese defense that requires pulling half of your scvs to repair 3 bunkers *sigh*... is becoming rediculous. then with 1base stuff gimped, blizz could tweak tanks (as well as other stuff)... something like changing unsieged damage to 25 instead of 15(+10 vs armoured).
How exactly do you propose nerfing 1 base all ins?
Outside of the 1/1/1, I think 2 base all ins are a lot deadlier than 1 base all ins...
|
On March 02 2012 17:51 Peleus wrote:
As a Zerg, I prefer to argue that we need a buff due to the Korean statistics.
Seriously though, it just goes its hard to even define balance let alone measure it reliably. International says balanced, Korea says otherwise.
It's nice to see the international as balanced as it ever has been though.
That has more to do with style more than anything else. We've had that issue in BW as well.
|
On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote:On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote:On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote:Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard.
I think that could be because of the zergs production mechanic that shows that zergs would appear to have by far highest APM.
Think about it. When you select all your larvae to build some units, you hold the hotkey to build something like drones very fast and that could potentially be counted as a lot of button hits in short amount of time depending from your keyboard repeat rate by the SC2Gears. This is of course something that other races are not able replicate in any way.
I could be wrong though, but it would make sense, no? If someone can confirm it that would be great. 
|
On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote:On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote:On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote:Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard.
Playing all races as Diamond/Master and Terran as High/GM I have a consistent APM with Zerg but higher APM spikes with Terran. I guess it is a personal thing but Zerg Macro is far easier for me than Terran macro since I can concentrate on macro with Zerg and with Terran I have very micro intensive units. Furthermore I think you shouldn't choose this argument since almost no Protoss in Master have above 80 APM which doesn't allow a conclusion about their overall skill.
|
|
|
For what it's worth, in the ChaosTerran vs Flonomenalz debate on the last page, I find Chaos' argument more compelling that Flonomenalz.
|
On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:54 Kukaracha wrote:On March 04 2012 02:42 Doublemint wrote:On March 04 2012 01:55 Kukaracha wrote:Still, David Kim agrees with ChaosTerran : That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss. We suspect that the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor to this, so internally, we’re experimenting with moving some of the new terran units around to make terran slightly more intuitive to play — at lower levels only. That is quite some stretch, going from "the initial complexity of the terran race may be a contributing factor" to "terran is the hardest race to play"... I mean it´s definitely not easy, but the other races are way easier? Give me a break. Blob vs Blob I agree that terran is more likely to lose at lower levels, since what happens - stimpack and at best focus important units, the one who ,willingly or not, got the better position/more or better stuff will win, but up to this point many things can and should happen in my opinion, I don´t think some silver guys(Z or P) will be able to defend 1 drop + an attack at the front - same very standard game situation yet that´s where the strenght of T lies. I don´t fully buy that argument. It's not really that it's harder, but that it's less intuitive and more APM dependant than the other two races. Which isn't a problem past Diamond level, but is a problem in the lower leagues. In any way, David Kim himself is more on the side of "Terran is difficult to use" than the side of "lower-league Terrans are bad". My SC2Gears sows that Zerg players have by far the highest APM, followed by terran and then protoss. I really wish people would stop saying that terran is the hardest race to play with no evidence to back it up. Also, APM/mechanics are not the only thing that makes a race hard.
Same for me. I'm plat and at an average of 150apm with 110eapm in sc2gears. My ZvZ opponents usually have 100-150apm with decent eapm while in ZvP and ZvT I face 99% people with 50-90apm and up to 50 eapm. The difference is quite huge, and I'm not sure why that is. I bring up eapm just to point out it's not spamming.
|
On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote:
Same for me. I'm plat and at an average of 150apm with 110eapm in sc2gears. My ZvZ opponents usually have 100-150apm with decent eapm while in ZvP and ZvT I face 99% people with 50-90apm and up to 50 eapm. The difference is quite huge, and I'm not sure why that is. I bring up eapm just to point out it's not spamming.
Terran and zerg generate more apm by macroing than toss. When I was playing toss I had like 80 apm when I was trying really hard and as terran always around 100 without trying to play fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/417009_10151353496185710_544185709_23341740_1757300277_n.jpg)
