EPTWhere did all of the terrans go? - Page 157
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Supah
708 Posts
| ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
Anyway, I just felt like injecting some positivity into this thread. I think if anything, the recent nerfs are at least sparking some ingenuity. I see a lot of new ideas vs toss being kicked around, such as mech and mass ghost. There was even that 'pure air' idea, though I think that one is doomed by psi storm/feedback. I think with the season 6 lock, I'm going to stop focusing on my rec for a while and experiment with some builds, try to achieve a mass ghost+siege tank late game comp. | ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On March 28 2012 18:19 Zahir wrote: Did anyone see that very recent Thorzain (I think that's who it was) match where he pushed out with mass (like 7+) thor and combat shielded marines + a few banshee and demolished a toss who was attempting to three base with zealot/archon? Would be very interested to try to glean some timings, maybe incorporate that as a go-to build against that composition. Anyway, I just felt like injecting some positivity into this thread. I think if anything, the recent nerfs are at least sparking some ingenuity. I see a lot of new ideas vs toss being kicked around, such as mech and mass ghost. There was even that 'pure air' idea, though I think that one is doomed by psi storm/feedback. I think with the season 6 lock, I'm going to stop focusing on my rec for a while and experiment with some builds, try to achieve a mass ghost+siege tank late game comp. That build you're describing sounds like the 2 base thor all in that was popular in KR a month or so ago. ThorZain may have made his own modifications to the build but I don't think it's anything novel. It relies on doing good damage with your cloaked banshees while retaining as many as possible for your all in push. It a strong 2 base timing, I've actually been doing something very similar off 3 base, but nothing to base your TvP around. If the Protoss sees what you're doing and reacts accordingly it is very hard to pull off. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On March 28 2012 18:09 pedduck wrote: I think a lot of player left SC2, it is just majority of player use to be terran so you might feel there is less terran. Balance issue aside, terran has lost it feeling from SCBW. Deadball vs Deadball doesn't give the same pleasure as TVP in the old day. There have been more P than T in any league aside Bronze from the start of the game. So, no, majority did not use to be T. This drop has to be T specific. If anything, one can ask why Randoms are disappearing as well. | ||
|
scypio
Poland2127 Posts
On March 28 2012 18:08 Type|NarutO wrote: a) Custom game vs Protoss b) Cloak your ghosts so they don't die in the engagement T.T Well. they have obs so cloak does not work out for me... but hey, the custom game might do the trick. So guys... is there someone who would like to improve late-game battle micro TvP? I'm thinking about something like: 1. build 4 bases, 16 gateways or so 2. build an army worth 100+ supply 3. go into battle 4. see who wins ... same for the terran player. repeat steps 2-4 until map gets mined out. It does not require sick toss micro skills so even halfway decent off-racer will do. I can play toss too if someone would like to be the good guy for a change  Im currently plat on EU server, I can play SC2 22:00 to 02:00 CET (scp.978). | ||
|
Mongolbonjwa
Finland376 Posts
Terran also has issues in design, in a way that makes specially a tvz very hard to deal with it, even more than against protos. Terran just lacks proper board control and tanks are not as good as they were in brood war. In order to win tvz against skilled zerg, terran has to rely on cute early mkp-like aggression special tactics. Same thing applies to tvp also, but tvp is easier match up just because board control is not as important against protos, just need to worry about your upgrades and getting as much bio as possible and some ghosts to get good emp's or vikings. Also like I mentioned, tanks are inferior compared to brood war-tanks, it is one of the major reasons why tvp is currently in this state that bio is only viable option. In heart of the swarm I really hope, that tanks will be viable unit again in tvp. Warhound and battlehellion sounds promising, but I am a bit skeptic about shredders, that how good they really are in zone control. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 28 2012 03:23 petro1987 wrote: BigJ mentioned that the average points is almost the same for every race and that is an indication that every race is equally active in the ladder. That's not necessarily true. The bonus pool plays a big role in this situation. You can have 200 points having played 1000 games and having played 30 games. We would only know that for sure if sc2ranks had "average number of games per race" data. This is right, though I think the only way to somehow work based upon data is to assume that the data we get is somewhat representative. But for the sake of the argument, let's say for a moment that the "odd" case is true, that Terrans play less, but still have somewhat similar points on average with the other races: This can only happen, if Terrans make more points per game, which means that they are either playing a lot vs "favored" opponents (getting more points for winning, less points for losing) or they simply have very high win/lose ratios. In any case, Terrans are not lurking around because they do badly. Furthermore, sc2ranks gives you the absolute games won per race and though I'm too lazy to calculate them through exactly, they seem to correspond very well with the percentages of players per race. There are also "odd" cases here that could be deceiving for the overall games that Terrans play, as we can only see the won games, but they come down to Terran playing very few games but having high winrates (so the games overall are few) and Terran having low winrates with a lot of games. Both of those are not consistent with: "Placed Terrans play less games per season because they don't do well". On March 28 2012 03:02 slane04 wrote: Since we are mainly talking about foreign Terrans, I don't think that looking at global race distributions is all that helpful. We all know Korean Terrans are doing fine. Aggregating with Korean stats masks the trend occuring in Europe and the Americas. Let's look at Europe and America from 1.2 to 1.4.2 then America Terran Masters: 30.2 --> 28.8 = -1.4 Diamond: 28.0 --> 24.9 = -3.1 Platinum: 30.2 --> 24.3 = -5.9 Gold: 30.9 --> 26.8 = -4.1 Silver: 31.6 --> 30.2 = -1.4 Europe Terran Masters: 29.8 --> 28.3 = -1.5 Diamond: 27.7 --> 25.8 = -1.9 Platinum: 30.4 --> 24.9 = -5.5 Gold: 32.3 --> 26.7 = -5.6 Silver: 34.0 --> 30.9 = -3.1 Still I want to point out, that there is a drop out in Protoss players as well, especially at the levels below Diamond, for those servers. Again it's not as high as Terrans drop out, but still around 1-3 percent. (also Randoms are decreasing) With the observation, that Zergs are growing (for some reason), we can now roughly approximate a "Terran specific" drop out, which should be 1-3percent (so somewhat according to the random/protoss drop outs; to do it right we would have to weight the exact Protoss drop rate with the amounts of Protoss players and do the same for randoms, then use a model that combines those to numbers... the result should be like 80% of the Protoss drop out, so still in the magnitude of 1-3%) Based upon this, the result should mostly show a big drop out at Gold/Platinum and a small drop out at Masters (where Protoss don't drop out that much) that is because of "Terran reasons" and not because of Zerg growth. (though of course there are odd cases, when for example only Protoss switch to Zerg and Zergs grow overall while Terrans only drop out and therefore there is no "Zerg effect" that affects Terran. But to make this a somewhat databased discussion, we should assume that we are not in the most extreme cases) Also on another note, the Korean Server holds roughly 10% of all the players. As the global charts are weighted, the Korean trends should not influence the global trends too much, especially as they don't point in the opposite direction. (note here, that you did 1.2.0-->1.4.2 for America/Europe, I did 1.3.0-->1.4.2 globally; your data is more dramatic, because it is over a bigger timeframe) In conclusion the questions those results produce are: Why do Terrans drop in such big numbers in Gold/Platinum and why is it generally the least played race? Why is Zerg increasing? And related to that: Will those trends continue? | ||
|
jax1
Sweden35 Posts
On March 28 2012 18:34 Ghanburighan wrote: There have been more P than T in any league aside Bronze from the start of the game. So, no, majority did not use to be T. This drop has to be T specific. If anything, one can ask why Randoms are disappearing as well. how do you know this? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all/0/103 shows you the race distribution of patch 1.0.3 | ||
|
XquisiteWretch
United States77 Posts
On March 28 2012 18:34 Ghanburighan wrote: Show nested quote + There have been more P than T in any league aside Bronze from the start of the game. So, no, majority did not use to be T. This drop has to be T specific. If anything, one can ask why Randoms are disappearing as well. because no one wants to play terran lol, even if it is only 1/3 games | ||
|
jax1
Sweden35 Posts
On March 28 2012 19:59 Big J wrote: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all/0/103 shows you the race distribution of patch 1.0.3 okej but thats old news i think now its back to where it always was. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 28 2012 20:54 jax1 wrote: okej but thats old news i think now its back to where it always was. Of course it's old news. That's somewhat implied if you talk about old news. And what do you mean with "where it always was?" Terrans have never been that low, Zergs have never been that high before; Even Protoss seem to have decreased slightly. Randoms are dying out hardcore. The situation right now is different for nearly every race, compared to any point in time. | ||
|
jax1
Sweden35 Posts
On March 28 2012 21:03 Big J wrote: Of course it's old news. That's somewhat implied if you talk about old news. And what do you mean with "where it always was?" Terrans have never been that low, Zergs have never been that high before; Even Protoss seem to have decreased slightly. Randoms are dying out hardcore. The situation right now is different for nearly every race, compared to any point in time. Never cared about how many plays what race but what i mean is when i play now i see more terrans then i did at the beginning of the patch. So more are coming back when they realise that terran is still good. And learn to make vikings instead of mass ghost. | ||
|
jax1
Sweden35 Posts
| ||
|
plouer
France32 Posts
On March 28 2012 18:49 Mongolbonjwa wrote: Terran is the hardest race to play, the macro and micro is hardest. This is an undeniable fact. Terran also has issues in design, in a way that makes specially a tvz very hard to deal with it, even more than against protos. Terran just lacks proper board control and tanks are not as good as they were in brood war. In order to win tvz against skilled zerg, terran has to rely on cute early mkp-like aggression special tactics. Same thing applies to tvp also, but tvp is easier match up just because board control is not as important against protos, just need to worry about your upgrades and getting as much bio as possible and some ghosts to get good emp's or vikings. Also like I mentioned, tanks are inferior compared to brood war-tanks, it is one of the major reasons why tvp is currently in this state that bio is only viable option. In heart of the swarm I really hope, that tanks will be viable unit again in tvp. Warhound and battlehellion sounds promising, but I am a bit skeptic about shredders, that how good they really are in zone control. what a joke!!!! terran can reach 200 energy on their CC and lose 0 mineral. if a zerg loose a few second of an early injection , he lost 4*number of second in mining time and there is no need at all to move ur screen to macro while toss has to move back o his pylone for ever warp. which is clearly harder to do in a fight to use all these advantage terran can harrass with so many different unit like reaper helion banshee or drop.(even raven later but ok it's really unsuall and expensive). i read this post and i saw a lot of player who abused protoss with 1-1-1 for month and can't get anythings done now they triple orbital without any defense and cry 2 base all-in crush them. i agree terran late game is a bit hard to play against deathball protoss( but a 200/200 bio army is half the cost of a zealot/collossus/templar/archon mix) (and it's soooooOOOO faster it's insanely hard to counter a drop when map is splitted.) the real question is : what do terran offer for the early games ??? i keep reading they are mby OP in early and weak later. but the only things i read is nerf late game toss or up late game terran. if there is a nerf one day i really hope toss will buffed in early game. cause now it is close to impossible to won in the early game if the terran play just a little bit safe | ||
|
Bliks
United Kingdom3 Posts
| ||
|
CyDe
United States1010 Posts
On March 28 2012 21:03 Big J wrote: Of course it's old news. That's somewhat implied if you talk about old news. And what do you mean with "where it always was?" Terrans have never been that low, Zergs have never been that high before; Even Protoss seem to have decreased slightly. Randoms are dying out hardcore. The situation right now is different for nearly every race, compared to any point in time. Huh. Funnily enough, I seem to be going up against more and more randoms on my Gold NA account (yes I know, I am terrible  ). Almost stopped playing on that account for a while since I goddamn HATE playing against random. | ||
|
jax1
Sweden35 Posts
On March 28 2012 19:25 Big J wrote: This is right, though I think the only way to somehow work based upon data is to assume that the data we get is somewhat representative. But for the sake of the argument, let's say for a moment that the "odd" case is true, that Terrans play less, but still have somewhat similar points on average with the other races: This can only happen, if Terrans make more points per game, which means that they are either playing a lot vs "favored" opponents (getting more points for winning, less points for losing) or they simply have very high win/lose ratios. In any case, Terrans are not lurking around because they do badly. Furthermore, sc2ranks gives you the absolute games won per race and though I'm too lazy to calculate them through exactly, they seem to correspond very well with the percentages of players per race. There are also "odd" cases here that could be deceiving for the overall games that Terrans play, as we can only see the won games, but they come down to Terran playing very few games but having high winrates (so the games overall are few) and Terran having low winrates with a lot of games. Both of those are not consistent with: "Placed Terrans play less games per season because they don't do well". Still I want to point out, that there is a drop out in Protoss players as well, especially at the levels below Diamond, for those servers. Again it's not as high as Terrans drop out, but still around 1-3 percent. (also Randoms are decreasing) With the observation, that Zergs are growing (for some reason), we can now roughly approximate a "Terran specific" drop out, which should be 1-3percent (so somewhat according to the random/protoss drop outs; to do it right we would have to weight the exact Protoss drop rate with the amounts of Protoss players and do the same for randoms, then use a model that combines those to numbers... the result should be like 80% of the Protoss drop out, so still in the magnitude of 1-3%) Based upon this, the result should mostly show a big drop out at Gold/Platinum and a small drop out at Masters (where Protoss don't drop out that much) that is because of "Terran reasons" and not because of Zerg growth. (though of course there are odd cases, when for example only Protoss switch to Zerg and Zergs grow overall while Terrans only drop out and therefore there is no "Zerg effect" that affects Terran. But to make this a somewhat databased discussion, we should assume that we are not in the most extreme cases) Also on another note, the Korean Server holds roughly 10% of all the players. As the global charts are weighted, the Korean trends should not influence the global trends too much, especially as they don't point in the opposite direction. (note here, that you did 1.2.0-->1.4.2 for America/Europe, I did 1.3.0-->1.4.2 globally; your data is more dramatic, because it is over a bigger timeframe) In conclusion the questions those results produce are: Why do Terrans drop in such big numbers in Gold/Platinum and why is it generally the least played race? Why is Zerg increasing? And related to that: Will those trends continue? Didnt see this but i think zerg has been increasing because people like playing it and the drop dont have to do with terran being up. In a month i dont think its gonna be the same. | ||
|
tronix
United States95 Posts
that being said here is my perspective on terran: -terran is not the hardest race by any means. strengths and weaknesses; cliche yet true. -micro can be perceived to be harder with a higher emphasis on range units, but i consider unit/army position as micro so the gap closes when melee units benefit from proper terrain much more than range. however the time during an actual engagement is more micro intensive. -good army rallying makes worlds of difference. -terran is a race where you only build what you plan to build. the least reactive of the three; therefore, leaving it to be the most proactive. setting the tech pace and tempo of the game is a strength. -army production is a constant not a chosen variable; which lends itself to a perception of more difficulty. there is no ramp up of units on a whim. unit queuing is huge as it is resources gone with absolutely no gain. -proper production infrastructure is a necessity at all points in the game (moreso than other races). buildings, buildings, and more buildings. -cost efficiency is the name of the game. units have to pay for themselves because you can't get them any quicker. now i'll outline some things that i believe that pros and most players do incorrectly or don't do at all: -improper gas timing. see too many pros floating huge amounts of gas mid and late game. stockpiled gas is far more worse than stockpiled minerals. getting geysers just because is wrong, and a waste of scvs. this however lends itself to my next point. -tech stagnation. marine, marauder, medivac, vikings, and ghosts. zealot, stalker, sentry, colossus, templars, and archons. can you not see the gas disparity? too much of the same too far into the game is wrong. gas is rarely spent as it should be. imo as you split the map (4ish bases), siege tanks are a must. they are by far terrans best ground unit. a couple well placed tanks will outpace storm or fungals any day of the week. zeals and speedlings giving you butthurt? read the next point. -underused sim-city. so many buildings, and the majority of them can freaking fly around. depots are digglets, and bunkers can be salvaged and moved with little loss. walling attack paths and key positions is a must late game. this in turn makes said tanks from above shine like...something shiny. hell, there are upgrades for buildings, why can't they be used on the offensive. ill shit my pants when i see a meching player bring a fleet of buildings with their army to protect tanks. -max army mindset. if you are getting close or are max supply building 20 command centers to spend money is a waste. the concept of replacing scvs to get more army is good an all, but increasing income with the 10+ mule calldown will not make you able to resupply your army any quicker. 20 zealot warpins ruining your day? have 25 reactor-ed barracks ready to make 50 rines. (6 of which can fit into upgraded bunkers) -nukes, nukes, and more nukes. if you have ghosts in your build; you should have nukes in your build. amazing for harassment, and even better for position control. tactical nukes; emphasis on tactical. use them to protect flanks, thwart counterattacks, and to be a general badass. i do wish they were cheaper though, especially after the snipe nerf. | ||
|
Mehukannu
Finland421 Posts
On March 28 2012 21:25 plouer wrote: what a joke!!!! terran can reach 200 energy on their CC and lose 0 mineral. if a zerg loose a few second of an early injection , he lost 4*number of second in mining time and there is no need at all to move ur screen to macro while toss has to move back o his pylone for ever warp. which is clearly harder to do in a fight to use all these advantage terran can harrass with so many different unit like reaper helion banshee or drop.(even raven later but ok it's really unsuall and expensive). i read this post and i saw a lot of player who abused protoss with 1-1-1 for month and can't get anythings done now they triple orbital without any defense and cry 2 base all-in crush them. i agree terran late game is a bit hard to play against deathball protoss( but a 200/200 bio army is half the cost of a zealot/collossus/templar/archon mix) (and it's soooooOOOO faster it's insanely hard to counter a drop when map is splitted.) the real question is : what do terran offer for the early games ??? i keep reading they are mby OP in early and weak later. but the only things i read is nerf late game toss or up late game terran. if there is a nerf one day i really hope toss will buffed in early game. cause now it is close to impossible to won in the early game if the terran play just a little bit safe Terran can afford to have 200 energy on OC because it doesn't have any abilities that would directly affect your production like larva inject and chrono boost. 4 seconds of missing an early inject isn't that huge at all and most of the time won't happen anyway since most players can afford the APM to keep close watch on injects early in the game. Moving screen to warp in isn't a big deal at all, especially when most protoss players almost always make a forward pylon when they plan to engage somewhere. Not only that, if it would be a big problem people should change their warp gates back to gateways to allow them to macro as easily as terran. Not saying it is ideal, but if you consider it hard to warp in units while fighting it can be a good option to get to the same level of easy macro as terrans. There definitely isn't any need to make hellions or reapers for harass if terrans main composition can do it as well. It is also possible that you will make your army weaker by adding harass units you don't need. Map splitting in TvP is very rare and is limited on few maps where you can do it versus protoss. Also there is nothing saying that protoss can't harass terran, especially with zealots and/or DT. Thus abusing the fact that terran can't really afford to leave units at every single base and terran really doesn't have any cheap ground attacking building. | ||
| ||
