|
On March 02 2012 17:47 Ctuchik wrote:Hey Guys, My charts with TLPD results for February are done: http://imgur.com/a/1aAfuNote that the y-axis is now consistent between regions (30-70). Versions for R/G color blind are in the gallery. Edit: Thanks Mods!
I don't know if this is an the FAQ somewhere, but do the "Korean statistics" include only tournaments that are mostly/entirely Korean? Any game with two Koreans? Any game with one Korean?
|
On March 04 2012 08:46 ZeroTalent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 17:47 Ctuchik wrote:Hey Guys, My charts with TLPD results for February are done: http://imgur.com/a/1aAfuNote that the y-axis is now consistent between regions (30-70). Versions for R/G color blind are in the gallery. Edit: Thanks Mods! I don't know if this is an the FAQ somewhere, but do the "Korean statistics" include only tournaments that are mostly/entirely Korean? Any game with two Koreans? Any game with one Korean?
It's just games played in Korean tournaments, so the only foreigners you are likely to get are ones like Huk, Jinro etc playing in Korea.
That's unlikely to affect the sample too much.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On March 04 2012 08:46 ZeroTalent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 17:47 Ctuchik wrote:Hey Guys, My charts with TLPD results for February are done: http://imgur.com/a/1aAfuNote that the y-axis is now consistent between regions (30-70). Versions for R/G color blind are in the gallery. Edit: Thanks Mods! I don't know if this is an the FAQ somewhere, but do the "Korean statistics" include only tournaments that are mostly/entirely Korean? Any game with two Koreans? Any game with one Korean?
I think it means games from Korean tournaments, so things like GSL, KSL or Korean Weekly
|
On March 03 2012 03:55 Ktk wrote:
Dat protoss.
Aligns with my personal experience in watching pro streams, replays, tournaments... Terrans are doing better than they appear? Kind of?
Part of what's going on here is what people tend to count as a "real game". Somehow, holding off an all-in doesn't count, even though it does happen (P win rate before 10:00 is about 60%; strong but not great, and of course there are failed allins that result in long games so the success rate is probably much closer to 50).
And then there's the human tendency to judge how things went by the amount of time spent on them. If you watch 10 non-allin TvPs, odds are you'll see 5 wins and 5 losses for each h. But the 5 Terran wins took about 18 game minutes while the 5 Protoss wins will take 22 games minutes. So even though Protoss won 50% of the games, observing those wins consumed 60% of your time.
|
On March 03 2012 04:01 SolidMoose wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote:
Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope.
It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense.
PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? Probably buff terran lategame units or undo the archon buffs. Bigger EMP (maybe 1.75 radius) or putting archon range back to 2 would help a lot to fix lategame.
At the risk of getting a balance/theorycraft warning, I think the right change here would be to reduce Archon shields from 350 to 290 or increase EMP shield damage to 125 (EDIT: the first is a harder nerf, since it means marines are closer to cost effective on their own vs archons). The Protoss lategame army has approximately 50% more hitpoints than the Terran Army, and while that's sometimes true in TvZ, Zerg has a much harder time getting their army into the fight properly. T must land a lot EMPs to have a prayer, and that sucks up APM that could be used to stutter step & spread the bio army away from Zealots and Archons. Dropping down from 4 EMPs to 3 to kill an Archon would make a big difference.
The alternative is for Terrans to think about how to get additional AoE besides ghosts into their TvP lategame army, in the form of Tanks, Hellions, and/or Ravens. I know even Goody's given up on mech, but maybe it's time to rethink the issue.
I have no idea how you would fix the TvP [strike]early game[/strike] midgame. Stim already takes a billion years to research. You could increase the marine cooldown to lower their DPS from 7 to 6.5 ...
|
On March 04 2012 07:06 Avril_Lavigne wrote:Is it just me or does this seem like the truth? + Show Spoiler +:p
Yeah, two shown months of Protoss doing well against Terran, when an irrelevant Terran nerf is given. That's totally a telling tale o.O What the heck are you talking about?
The bunker timing is only relevant in TvZ (think: bunkers going up at natural hatcheries), not TvP. Protoss doing okay against Terran for a short period of time had nothing to do with that bunker change.
|
United States13143 Posts
On March 04 2012 09:11 ZeroTalent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 04:01 SolidMoose wrote:On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote:
Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope.
It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense.
PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? Probably buff terran lategame units or undo the archon buffs. Bigger EMP (maybe 1.75 radius) or putting archon range back to 2 would help a lot to fix lategame. At the risk of getting a balance/theorycraft warning, I think the right change here would be to reduce Archon shields from 350 to 290 or increase EMP shield damage to 125. The Protoss lategame army has approximately 50% more hitpoints than the Terran Army, and while that's sometimes true in TvZ, Zerg has a much harder time getting their army into the fight properly. T must land a lot EMPs to have a prayer, and that sucks up APM that could be used to stutter step & spread the bio army away from Zealots and Archons. Dropping down from 4 EMPs to 3 to kill an Archon would make a big difference. The alternative is for Terrans to think about how to get additional AoE besides ghosts into their TvP lategame army, in the form of Tanks, Hellions, and/or Ravens. I know even Goody's given up on mech, but maybe it's time to rethink the issue. I have no idea how you would fix the TvP early game. Stim already takes a billion years to research. You could increase the marine cooldown to lower their DPS from 7 to 6.5 ...
There's also the problem that the protoss is actually favored in the early game; in small numbers, unupgraded warpgate units(with immortal support, sometimes) beat unupgraded barracks units. It's in the midgame, when medivacs and techlab upgrades come out(or, if terran is 1-1-1ing/certain 2 base pushes, multiple tanks/banshees), that terran is favored. If you want to play with balance(may or may not be a good idea), you have to worry about that.
|
On March 04 2012 09:17 Elyvilon wrote:There's also the problem that the protoss is actually favored in the early game; in small numbers, unupgraded warpgate units(with immortal support, sometimes) beat unupgraded barracks units. It's in the midgame, when medivacs and techlab upgrades come out(or, if terran is 1-1-1ing/certain 2 base pushes, multiple tanks/banshees), that terran is favored. If you want to play with balance(may or may not be a good idea), you have to worry about that.
With good scouting T can hold against one-base all-ins no sweat. The two-base all-ins are tougher, especially since it's easier for P to deny scouting at that phase of the game. From the Playhem Data, the TvP winrate in Pro v Pro matches in the 5-10 minute window Playhem is 40% for T; though surely failed allins are part of what contributes to the high T win rate in the 10-15 minute and 15-20 minute bucket. Also, unlike ZvP and TvZ, where we see more allins from top players than the hoi polloi, in TvP the Protoss players don't seem interested in ending the game early.
|
On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: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.
1. faster units, you need to be more active with them.
2. touching on the unit speed, it also enables you to more safely split your army into seperate smaller groups to scout/harrass
3. mutalisks
4. larva mechanic (presuming any queued units at CC/production buildings etc don't count as actions, even in perfect macro mode you'll queue an extra unit when your previous unit is 50-99% completed to prevent idle buildings)
5. overlord positioning
i find it kind of frustrating as a terran player though, i spam quite a lot and my average APM is only ~70... it makes me feel like i'm doing something wrong.
stopped playing 1v1 after a break where i became so rusty it was just humiliating... so i'm tuning up in random team games. but watching replays of my random 3v3 and 4v3 matches.... i seem to have way above average reaction time, macro, micro, actively scout and keep army semi mobile (as much as a terran can). not to mention my camera is jumping from place to place a lot faster than average players my 'level'.... yet i switch point of view to 'mr. average >100 apm' he's being completely standard with no great speed or multitasking...
it's weird and annoying.
|
On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: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.
It differs based on players, och which there are a ton. You can't generalize APM levels of races based on your subjective experiences and try to interpret them as meaning anything.
|
On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: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.
Zergs increase their APM by spaming right-clic move with their zerglings for exemple, they need to be more active with their population where Terran and Protoss need to be more passive and camp. But when you look at the APM in fight, like TvZ, you will see the terran with a lot more APM than the Zerg, because the zerg doesn't need to micro his units, it's more based on positioning where the terran needs to spit his marines, kites, etc. And I'm not saying that zerg his easier than terran, it's just the game design. After the fight, you will see the zerg rockets with his APM due to the repop.
|
I am having such a hard time beating protoss in the late game... Blizzard needs to address the issue of terran being overpowered in the early game and protoss being overpowered in the lategame
|
Weird, I prefer PvZ because I hardly win any PvT's O-o
|
On March 03 2012 23:43 Greenei wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote:On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote:On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote:On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote:
Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account.
As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below high masters/GM. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below high masters/GM where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. so assuming we would give for example marines 10 damage/shot, you are saying that it would not affect the ladder at all? or any patch until now had no affect at all at the ladder? that would be an incredibly stupid opinion.
No. What he is saying is that at the current level of balance in the game there is no imbalance at low levels. There is nothing in the game that is fundamentally broken such as 10 shot marines, etc.
|
On March 04 2012 09:52 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote:On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: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. Zergs increase their APM by spaming right-clic move with their zerglings for exemple, they need to be more active with their population where Terran and Protoss need to be more passive and camp. But when you look at the APM in fight, like TvZ, you will see the terran with a lot more APM than the Zerg, because the zerg doesn't need to micro his units, it's more based on positioning where the terran needs to spit his marines, kites, etc. And I'm not saying that zerg his easier than terran, it's just the game design. After the fight, you will see the zerg rockets with his APM due to the repop.
Well, you still need to micro your units forward / make sure units are spread and dont clump in one place. But good zergs are remaxing DURING the battle, not after. Same thing with terran while they micro. And no, spamming right click is not going to increase your apm by much. Mainly macro will increase your apm.
|
On March 04 2012 09:17 Elyvilon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 09:11 ZeroTalent wrote:On March 03 2012 04:01 SolidMoose wrote:On March 03 2012 01:36 Twistacles wrote:
Maybe they'll stop nerfing terran now? One can hope.
It shows that with a small sample size the results are completely wonky, in KOR, but with 30k replays it makes a lot more sense.
PvT just seems off. P's early pressure can be just as good as early T pressure, but their lategame is much better. Kind of frustrating, but there's no simple answer. We can't nerf them without affecting top level or other MUs, and we can't just 'make them harder to play'. How would we do that? Probably buff terran lategame units or undo the archon buffs. Bigger EMP (maybe 1.75 radius) or putting archon range back to 2 would help a lot to fix lategame. At the risk of getting a balance/theorycraft warning, I think the right change here would be to reduce Archon shields from 350 to 290 or increase EMP shield damage to 125. The Protoss lategame army has approximately 50% more hitpoints than the Terran Army, and while that's sometimes true in TvZ, Zerg has a much harder time getting their army into the fight properly. T must land a lot EMPs to have a prayer, and that sucks up APM that could be used to stutter step & spread the bio army away from Zealots and Archons. Dropping down from 4 EMPs to 3 to kill an Archon would make a big difference. The alternative is for Terrans to think about how to get additional AoE besides ghosts into their TvP lategame army, in the form of Tanks, Hellions, and/or Ravens. I know even Goody's given up on mech, but maybe it's time to rethink the issue. I have no idea how you would fix the TvP early game. Stim already takes a billion years to research. You could increase the marine cooldown to lower their DPS from 7 to 6.5 ... There's also the problem that the protoss is actually favored in the early game; in small numbers, unupgraded warpgate units(with immortal support, sometimes) beat unupgraded barracks units. It's in the midgame, when medivacs and techlab upgrades come out(or, if terran is 1-1-1ing/certain 2 base pushes, multiple tanks/banshees), that terran is favored. If you want to play with balance(may or may not be a good idea), you have to worry about that.
If that's really the problem simply make colossi come out faster/better and be slightly worse. For example, give them +1 base range or slightly lower movement speed or slightly lower build time and decrease the thermal lance upgrade to 8 or 8.5 final range instead of 9.
Such a slight nerf would also improve PvP colossi wars into something more varied.
|
On March 02 2012 17:58 Megaman_X wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 17:55 HaiFiSCH26 wrote:
I hope that people on ladder will stop whining now taht zerg is up,difference in ZvP is only 1% and as a whole it looks faitly balanced. or difference is ~18% in korea
International n=2208 games, korean n=363 games.... just saying mate....i wonder what the korean statistics would look like if you would include the same amout of games though.
|
Wow...seems incredibly hard to play as Zerg in Korea.
I freaking love DRG....
somebody go buy him a brothel now!
|
On March 04 2012 20:00 Biggun69 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 09:52 Faust852 wrote:On March 04 2012 08:17 Vond wrote:On March 04 2012 02:57 hzflank wrote: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. Zergs increase their APM by spaming right-clic move with their zerglings for exemple, they need to be more active with their population where Terran and Protoss need to be more passive and camp. But when you look at the APM in fight, like TvZ, you will see the terran with a lot more APM than the Zerg, because the zerg doesn't need to micro his units, it's more based on positioning where the terran needs to spit his marines, kites, etc. And I'm not saying that zerg his easier than terran, it's just the game design. After the fight, you will see the zerg rockets with his APM due to the repop. Well, you still need to micro your units forward / make sure units are spread and dont clump in one place. But good zergs are remaxing DURING the battle, not after. Same thing with terran while they micro. And no, spamming right click is not going to increase your apm by much. Mainly macro will increase your apm.
No, spamming right click is the best way to inflate your APM.
|
I do love some of these comments, Protoss finally overtakes Terran (and Zerg internationally) for 1month! just 1! That means March, April, May, June, July, August, September October, November(ish) December and January having the lowest winrate.
Then Feb they just nick it and its:
"Shit something needs to be done about protoss" "This has been happening for too long" "Can anyone say protoss isn't overpowered!?" "Hopefully Blizzard does something soon" "Protoss has always been overpowered, its just taken this long for them to figure it out".
I truly believe this game is as balanced as its ever been, and it is a lot more balanced than a lot of other games. Can anyone genuinely say a pro player won a match because of the race they play?
Protoss' refine their playstyle, work out builds, study the matchups and win more of their matches so they finally get an edge that Z+T haven't worked out yet (for one month); and people instantly call foul play? Bit unfair on the Protoss pro's isn't it?
If Protoss remain top of winrates for 11 months I will take back everything I say of course
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/417009_10151353496185710_544185709_23341740_1757300277_n.jpg)
