|
On March 13 2012 04:29 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 03:27 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On March 11 2012 21:03 Zeetox wrote:My stats for this season (I'm high diamond T): ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/trw28.jpg) Also, I think it's worth to say, that out of those 7 wins vsP, 4 are 1/1/1 all-ins with pulling all the scvs, and 3 wins are pure mech, containing opponent on 2 bases and waiting for him to all-in (quite a TvT style). When I was trying to play "standard" I was getting a-moved by deathballs with like 80-90 APM, while I had ~180 APM, and was dropping as much as I could, denying bases etc. during the whole game. When it was coming to the final engagements, the score was pretty even, but then P was just warping in like 20 Zealots in the middle of the battle and I was screwed. And for those who say, that I should micro better - 75% win ratio in TvZ didn't came from nowhere, it requires as much if not more micro than other matchups. Therefore, I consider TvP as a retarded and imbalanced matchup and a reason for lack of Terran players on the higher levels. Thanks for attention and to all the Terrans out there - pray for HotS to come out ASAP. So if I understand correctly: 63.2% PvT winrate proves that Protoss is imba, 75% TvZ winrate does not prove that Terran is imba, It simply proves how good Terrans are. Though I admit that's the kind of reasoning I expect in these threads. EDIT: Actually, that reminds me of a funny experience. The hardest rage I've experienced in a ladder game was when I got matched up against an ex-Protoss Terran player, who claimed to have switched to Terran because Protoss was unwinnable. His constant attacks on my race made me defensive, and I tried defending Protoss. This lead to the inverse balance thread scenario, with a Terran player claiming that Terran was OP and Protoss couldn't win, and a Protoss player who argued that Protoss could very well beat a Terran without superhuman efforts. Then he completely massacred me. Still a funny experience. I'm going to have a thought process here, stick with me. Assume TvP is imbalanced for the protosses side. You lose to protosses because the race is to hard to play against, so you face off against zergs who don't struggle with the same level protosses, because that matchup isn't as borked up. The end result is you playing against zergs who are below your actual skill level because tvz is balanced, thus 70% winrate. I could see tvz being imbalanced towards the terrans side, with tvp being imbalanced towards protoss side, but if that made sense zergs would be complaining about terrans. However most complaints right now are pvz from both protosses and zergs. I can see some arguments for and against this, but I'll throw the theory out there to see what other people think.
Good luck trying to make sense with some Protoss players here. What you just explained is actually quite simple to understand, if you actually want to. Not that they do.
|
On March 13 2012 04:29 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 03:27 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On March 11 2012 21:03 Zeetox wrote:My stats for this season (I'm high diamond T): Also, I think it's worth to say, that out of those 7 wins vsP, 4 are 1/1/1 all-ins with pulling all the scvs, and 3 wins are pure mech, containing opponent on 2 bases and waiting for him to all-in (quite a TvT style). When I was trying to play "standard" I was getting a-moved by deathballs with like 80-90 APM, while I had ~180 APM, and was dropping as much as I could, denying bases etc. during the whole game. When it was coming to the final engagements, the score was pretty even, but then P was just warping in like 20 Zealots in the middle of the battle and I was screwed. And for those who say, that I should micro better - 75% win ratio in TvZ didn't came from nowhere, it requires as much if not more micro than other matchups. Therefore, I consider TvP as a retarded and imbalanced matchup and a reason for lack of Terran players on the higher levels. Thanks for attention and to all the Terrans out there - pray for HotS to come out ASAP. So if I understand correctly: 63.2% PvT winrate proves that Protoss is imba, 75% TvZ winrate does not prove that Terran is imba, It simply proves how good Terrans are. Though I admit that's the kind of reasoning I expect in these threads. EDIT: Actually, that reminds me of a funny experience. The hardest rage I've experienced in a ladder game was when I got matched up against an ex-Protoss Terran player, who claimed to have switched to Terran because Protoss was unwinnable. His constant attacks on my race made me defensive, and I tried defending Protoss. This lead to the inverse balance thread scenario, with a Terran player claiming that Terran was OP and Protoss couldn't win, and a Protoss player who argued that Protoss could very well beat a Terran without superhuman efforts. Then he completely massacred me. Still a funny experience. I'm going to have a thought process here, stick with me. Assume TvP is imbalanced for the protosses side. You lose to protosses because the race is to hard to play against, so you face off against zergs who don't struggle with the same level protosses, because that matchup isn't as borked up. The end result is you playing against zergs who are below your actual skill level because tvz is balanced, thus 70% winrate. I could see tvz being imbalanced towards the terrans side, with tvp being imbalanced towards protoss side, but if that made sense zergs would be complaining about terrans. However most complaints right now are pvz from both protosses and zergs. I can see some arguments for and against this, but I'll throw the theory out there to see what other people think.
That sounds reasonable, however, here's how I understand this reasoning goes if you follow it through:
If this were really due to imbalance, then this would have to generally be applied across the race - this is not just one guy with a 36% winrate vs Protoss and 75% winrate vs Zerg, this would be something that applies to all Terrans.
As such, this also means that Zerg in general would have a 25% winrate vs Terran because they're playing Terrans above their level. If 36% TvP means you're playing Zergs below your level, a 25% ZvT winrate would mean they're playing Protosses far below their level. And since we need to get it up to about 50% overall, then that means Zergs would have a ridiculously high winrate vs. Protoss.
And since Protoss have such a terrible winrate vs Zerg, the system balances out by giving them Terran players below their level.
You see where this is going.
I imagine the alterrnative is that Zergs have a 25% vs. Terran matchup and a terrible (or balanced, or whatever) Protoss matchup and have something like a 90% winrate vs Zerg, though how that would work I have no idea.
|
On March 13 2012 04:40 Fanatic-Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 04:29 Dalavita wrote:On March 13 2012 03:27 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On March 11 2012 21:03 Zeetox wrote:My stats for this season (I'm high diamond T): Also, I think it's worth to say, that out of those 7 wins vsP, 4 are 1/1/1 all-ins with pulling all the scvs, and 3 wins are pure mech, containing opponent on 2 bases and waiting for him to all-in (quite a TvT style). When I was trying to play "standard" I was getting a-moved by deathballs with like 80-90 APM, while I had ~180 APM, and was dropping as much as I could, denying bases etc. during the whole game. When it was coming to the final engagements, the score was pretty even, but then P was just warping in like 20 Zealots in the middle of the battle and I was screwed. And for those who say, that I should micro better - 75% win ratio in TvZ didn't came from nowhere, it requires as much if not more micro than other matchups. Therefore, I consider TvP as a retarded and imbalanced matchup and a reason for lack of Terran players on the higher levels. Thanks for attention and to all the Terrans out there - pray for HotS to come out ASAP. So if I understand correctly: 63.2% PvT winrate proves that Protoss is imba, 75% TvZ winrate does not prove that Terran is imba, It simply proves how good Terrans are. Though I admit that's the kind of reasoning I expect in these threads. EDIT: Actually, that reminds me of a funny experience. The hardest rage I've experienced in a ladder game was when I got matched up against an ex-Protoss Terran player, who claimed to have switched to Terran because Protoss was unwinnable. His constant attacks on my race made me defensive, and I tried defending Protoss. This lead to the inverse balance thread scenario, with a Terran player claiming that Terran was OP and Protoss couldn't win, and a Protoss player who argued that Protoss could very well beat a Terran without superhuman efforts. Then he completely massacred me. Still a funny experience. I'm going to have a thought process here, stick with me. Assume TvP is imbalanced for the protosses side. You lose to protosses because the race is to hard to play against, so you face off against zergs who don't struggle with the same level protosses, because that matchup isn't as borked up. The end result is you playing against zergs who are below your actual skill level because tvz is balanced, thus 70% winrate. I could see tvz being imbalanced towards the terrans side, with tvp being imbalanced towards protoss side, but if that made sense zergs would be complaining about terrans. However most complaints right now are pvz from both protosses and zergs. I can see some arguments for and against this, but I'll throw the theory out there to see what other people think. That sounds reasonable, however, here's how I understand this reasoning goes if you follow it through: If this were really due to imbalance, then this would have to generally be applied across the race - this is not just one guy with a 36% winrate vs Protoss and 75% winrate vs Zerg, this would be something that applies to all Terrans. As such, this also means that Zerg in general would have a 25% winrate vs Terran because they're playing Terrans above their level. If 36% TvP means you're playing Zergs below your level, a 25% ZvT winrate would mean they're playing Protosses far below their level. And since we need to get it up to about 50% overall, then that means Zergs would have a ridiculously high winrate vs. Protoss. And since Protoss have such a terrible winrate vs Zerg, the system balances out by giving them Terran players below their level. You see where this is going. I imagine the alterrnative is that Zergs have a 25% vs. Terran matchup and a terrible (or balanced, or whatever) Protoss matchup and have something like a 90% winrate vs Zerg, though how that would work I have no idea.
You need to consider that there are less terrans on the ladder, which would make the tvz less important for the overall win percentage which generally lands at 50%.
There's also the consideration that my situation is specific for certain leagues, maybe platinum-diamond league has enough of a skill variation where you can end up being matched against people a lot worse than you who are still within the same league.
I'm going to keep thinking about it. Maybe I can reach a revelation...
There's also the consideration that the terrans who land in the 30% ratio vs protoss don't all-in or 1-1-1 at all, since they want to practice the matchup/economical builds. We have no evidence that the tvp matchup overall is at 30/70, only that a lot of terrans (including mine) have tvps in their 30-40%s where the other matchups are a lot higher.
Basically, if all-ins are considered, the tvp matchup ends up being overall balanced, which'd make the overall tvz matchup balanced.
The people who posts their statistics showing off 30% win rate vs protoss but 70% win rate vs zergs also have high win rates against tvt, which personally is my best matchup. the win rates for tvt might be the key for this analysis, since they should be 50% regardless, however a lot of the statistics I've seen where people link overall win rates they have unnaturally high win rates against both T and Z, while P keeps them down at the 50% mark.
The reason for this could be since those terrans focus on macro games more end up losing the stupidly harsh tvp, but dominate the lesser ranked terrans and zergs as a result, but the ladder overall remains balanced because they're a minority, and most terrans end up cheesing the protosses out to achieve normal win rates.
So the conclusion is that those terrans are stupid for trying to play macro games at that level.
Edit: I could see this being the case since the people who post here are generally more concerned with improving over the random ladder hero, and they actually focus on improving and long term games, and everyone arguing about TvP argue about the endgame.
Although this is just guesswork from me. For this to make sense everyone who post TvP results in the 30%s need to give info on how much they cheese in the matchup or if they only try playing for the endgame.
|
I think the guy above me summarized it pretty well, but to elaborate I personally know of a lot of Terrans who have swapped to protoss, I play against them on ladder all the time with their terran portraits (Bc, Vilenova etc) so its pretty easy to tell they've swapped. The ones that dont that I talk to generally do some sort of all in every game because its not good for your mental health play TVP macro games, which in my case would be about 50% of all the games I would play since I que into protoss so much.
The fact is, some of these all ins do work and it boosts the overall TVP winrate far higher than it would be if their were just macro games played. People need to understand this when they watch the GSL.
For example IMMVP almost never plays a macro game tvp, and ALMOST ALWAYS does some sort of marine tank all in, and usually he ends up winning because he executes it without any mistakes.
I can't prove it but I'm sure the TVP winrate even in GSL would be abysmal were all the games macro games. You might say, well as long as the winrate is close to 50% it doesn't matter, but in my opinion it hurts the game. I don't like cheesing every game, and although I used to do it TVP I hate doing the same thing over and over, this is a game and if its not fun why should I do it. Then its up to me to decide whether winning more while doing timing attacks is more fun than losing playing macro games, and sadly that is seriously the decision I have to make.
I just talked to someone the other day who couldn't win a TVP (high master) so he just went and played Protoss and now hes still high master. I'm pretty sure he liked terran, but since their are so many P on ladder having to play TVP so often just wasn't fun, and I know a lot of other T feel this way.
|
Where did all the terrans go? Answer is simple, they're in Code S, not on ladder.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 13 2012 04:45 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 04:40 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On March 13 2012 04:29 Dalavita wrote:On March 13 2012 03:27 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On March 11 2012 21:03 Zeetox wrote:My stats for this season (I'm high diamond T): Also, I think it's worth to say, that out of those 7 wins vsP, 4 are 1/1/1 all-ins with pulling all the scvs, and 3 wins are pure mech, containing opponent on 2 bases and waiting for him to all-in (quite a TvT style). When I was trying to play "standard" I was getting a-moved by deathballs with like 80-90 APM, while I had ~180 APM, and was dropping as much as I could, denying bases etc. during the whole game. When it was coming to the final engagements, the score was pretty even, but then P was just warping in like 20 Zealots in the middle of the battle and I was screwed. And for those who say, that I should micro better - 75% win ratio in TvZ didn't came from nowhere, it requires as much if not more micro than other matchups. Therefore, I consider TvP as a retarded and imbalanced matchup and a reason for lack of Terran players on the higher levels. Thanks for attention and to all the Terrans out there - pray for HotS to come out ASAP. So if I understand correctly: 63.2% PvT winrate proves that Protoss is imba, 75% TvZ winrate does not prove that Terran is imba, It simply proves how good Terrans are. Though I admit that's the kind of reasoning I expect in these threads. EDIT: Actually, that reminds me of a funny experience. The hardest rage I've experienced in a ladder game was when I got matched up against an ex-Protoss Terran player, who claimed to have switched to Terran because Protoss was unwinnable. His constant attacks on my race made me defensive, and I tried defending Protoss. This lead to the inverse balance thread scenario, with a Terran player claiming that Terran was OP and Protoss couldn't win, and a Protoss player who argued that Protoss could very well beat a Terran without superhuman efforts. Then he completely massacred me. Still a funny experience. I'm going to have a thought process here, stick with me. Assume TvP is imbalanced for the protosses side. You lose to protosses because the race is to hard to play against, so you face off against zergs who don't struggle with the same level protosses, because that matchup isn't as borked up. The end result is you playing against zergs who are below your actual skill level because tvz is balanced, thus 70% winrate. I could see tvz being imbalanced towards the terrans side, with tvp being imbalanced towards protoss side, but if that made sense zergs would be complaining about terrans. However most complaints right now are pvz from both protosses and zergs. I can see some arguments for and against this, but I'll throw the theory out there to see what other people think. That sounds reasonable, however, here's how I understand this reasoning goes if you follow it through: If this were really due to imbalance, then this would have to generally be applied across the race - this is not just one guy with a 36% winrate vs Protoss and 75% winrate vs Zerg, this would be something that applies to all Terrans. As such, this also means that Zerg in general would have a 25% winrate vs Terran because they're playing Terrans above their level. If 36% TvP means you're playing Zergs below your level, a 25% ZvT winrate would mean they're playing Protosses far below their level. And since we need to get it up to about 50% overall, then that means Zergs would have a ridiculously high winrate vs. Protoss. And since Protoss have such a terrible winrate vs Zerg, the system balances out by giving them Terran players below their level. You see where this is going. I imagine the alterrnative is that Zergs have a 25% vs. Terran matchup and a terrible (or balanced, or whatever) Protoss matchup and have something like a 90% winrate vs Zerg, though how that would work I have no idea. You need to consider that there are less terrans on the ladder, which would make the tvz less important for the overall win percentage which generally lands at 50%. There's also the consideration that my situation is specific for certain leagues, maybe platinum-diamond league has enough of a skill variation where you can end up being matched against people a lot worse than you who are still within the same league. I'm going to keep thinking about it. Maybe I can reach a revelation... There's also the consideration that the terrans who land in the 30% ratio vs protoss don't all-in or 1-1-1 at all, since they want to practice the matchup. We have no evidence that the tvp matchup overall is at 30/70, only that a lot of terrans (including mine) have tvps in their 30%s where the other matchups are a lot higher. Basically, if all-ins are considered, the tvp matchup ends up being overall balanced, which'd make the overall tvz matchup balanced. The people who posts their statistics showing off 30% win rate vs protoss but 70% win rate vs zergs also have high win rates against tvt, which personally is my best matchup. The reason for this could be since those terrans focus on macro games more end up losing the stupidly harsh tvp, but dominate the lesser ranked terrans and zergs as a result, but the ladder overall remains balanced because they're a minority. So the conclusion is that those terrans are stupid for trying to play macro games at that level.
Maybe you're correct, but while there are certainly fewer Terrans in most leagues, I don't think the difference is enough that it would diminish the impact the Terran matchup on an individual player. An 8% difference between the number of Zerg and Terrans in Diamond is significant for determining general trends, but it still means there are hundreds of Terrans playing, I expect those hypothetical Zerg players are still able to find Terran opponents.
As for your conclusion about Terrans having trouble with macro games, that's something my own experience would find more plausible. Colossi in particular are terrible units, capable of incredible damage and taking little to no skill to control (in a humble Diamond player's perspective, at least). Certainly, what I feel to be the easiest way to kill a Diamond Protoss is to stim rush Marauders up his ramp GSL Open Season 1 style, because many will simply not have the awareness and reaction time to forcefield in time. And in these circumstances, missing a single forcefield is a death sentence.
|
Because late game is pure hell, most ppl quited or rerolled. 1basing/2basing its only fun for a while (never is for some players)
TvT is where i trully have fun playing this game.
|
To apply terran logic from when there were 20 terrans in code S, terran players are just worse than P/Z players.
How long could terran do stupid all-ins and get free wins? maybe terran players were promoted into leagues that they have no buisness being in since they could do X build, and there was nothing the Z/P player could do about it, even if it was scouted. Now that most of those have been nerfed, and terrans actually have to do things like macro, we get these types of threads where terran players cry about how hard it is.
Also, its kinda funny that as soon as I see a marauder in PvT, I know exactly how the rest of the game is going to go, including the general times when drops will come. Its pretty great always play the same player whenever you play a terran. Zergs normally have their own flair in their games, Protoss's normally have their own little quirks, but terrans all do the same thing, every freaking game. Personally I don't really like playing terrans because its pretty boring, knowing what they're going to do 10 minutes before they do it.
As for the "win rate" argument- I have an 85% winrate this season, does that mean I am OP? maybe you should look at the TLPD winrate charts, considering those are pro games and a larger sample size, you know, everything that makes the statistics significant.
|
http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all
LOL math, how can ppl be saying that this is made up or you cant expect everything to be 30-30-30-10? The figures are ABSOLUTELY statistically significant and the variation is large. There are indeed less(far less even) Terran players from GM-through gold. Thats just a fact. I for one was kind of shocked by how big the disparity is..
|
Same way it was with brood war really: The terran's are the least plentiful because they are harder to play at a lower level. That being said, a higher level player can destroy as terran but is generally too comfortable with protoss or zerg to switch xD.
Besides that I think the only reason Terrans were in a large number to begin with was because its what most people played in the campaign (And we were a little OP, I can admit it!) so most people probably went with it cause they played it most.
|
On March 13 2012 05:18 allerion wrote:
To apply terran logic from when there were 20 terrans in code S, terran players are just worse than P/Z players.
How long could terran do stupid all-ins and get free wins? maybe terran players were promoted into leagues that they have no buisness being in since they could do X build, and there was nothing the Z/P player could do about it, even if it was scouted. Now that most of those have been nerfed, and terrans actually have to do things like macro, we get these types of threads where terran players cry about how hard it is.
Also, its kinda funny that as soon as I see a marauder in PvT, I know exactly how the rest of the game is going to go, including the general times when drops will come. Its pretty great always play the same player whenever you play a terran. Zergs normally have their own flair in their games, Protoss's normally have their own little quirks, but terrans all do the same thing, every freaking game. Personally I don't really like playing terrans because its pretty boring, knowing what they're going to do 10 minutes before they do it.
As for the "win rate" argument- I have an 85% winrate this season, does that mean I am OP? maybe you should look at the TLPD winrate charts, considering those are pro games and a larger sample size, you know, everything that makes the statistics significant.
You can say terran players are worse than P/Z players if it's reflected in tournaments, which it's not.
When it's on a massive scale such as the ladder, anything outside of a perfect three way split is a deviation, because the player base is simply to varied for the players of x race to be universally worse.
The playhem statistics that had 30k games as a sample size is a good indication that the terran lategame is screwed up.
The rest of your post is your subjective drivel and has no bearing on anything.
|
TO be frankly honest, TVP sucks. It seems like macro game vs toss just isnt viable right now. Top players are either all inning toss by 15 mins or just not winning at all. As a high masters player, I dont TVP anymore, I switch to Z vs P in practice and it seems much more balanced.
|
Most Terrans have switched to Zerg or Protoss to have an overall easier time. The game isn't fun where you have to 1/1/1, some other one base strat, or lose.
|
On March 13 2012 05:22 Dalavita wrote:
You can say terran players are worse than P/Z players if it's reflected in tournaments, which it's not.
When it's on a massive scale such as the ladder, anything outside of a perfect three way split is a deviation, because the player base is simply to varied for the players of x race to be universally worse.
The playhem statistics that had 30k games as a sample size is a good indication that the terran lategame is screwed up.
The rest of your post is your subjective drivel and has no bearing on anything.
Youre right, referencing TLPD win rates, TvX is within a range that can be attributed to metagame shifts.
So TvX is balanced.
ladder is silly to base balance claims off of, since scrubs like you and me are inclulded.
Well, I guess if you understood competition at a basic level, you would understand why a large group of people doing something the exact same way made it very easy for the competition.
|
On March 13 2012 05:31 allerion wrote:
Well, I guess if you understood competition at a basic level, you would understand why a large group of people doing something the exact same way made it very easy for the competition.
Using this logic I could say that it was simply P/Z back in the day who sucked and did the same thing which mad them easy to read and not terran being overpowered being able to get away with whatever, but rather them having their little quirks.
On top of that, you're invalidating the ladder which is what this entire topic is about.
Also, TLPD doesn't take into account win rates of the races in the different stages of the games, only the win rates overall, which is yet again, what this thread is about.
I suggest you post with something that has some bearing on the topic the next time.
|
remember tho, T looks strong cuz even pros are imbalanced. players like MVP are better enough players that they can still beat toss and make us look good
in reality, all i want is orcs in sc2
|
As a mid master terran I rarely seen any other terrans on ladder with most terran i know having either stopped playing or swapped to toss or zerg.
I dont think the issue has much to do with balance, but with just how difficult it is to play terran in the late game versus good players of the other race.
Take tvp late game for example: like zerg, a terran can only engage a toss army in very specific locations in order to hope for a decent trade. However, without the ability to collect production cycles such as with larva, anything but a fair trade for terran is game crippling. What a toss player should do, and do at higher levels, is identify these bad positions and avoid them whenever possible making it more difficult for terran. Also, when dealing with a good toss player, terrans methods of harass become less effective just because a good player doesnt over commit to defend. This makes it additionally difficult for terran to bait toss's army out of position. Eventually the game comes down to a cap toss army vs a capped terran army. Imo, late game toss have a much more rounded army with no unit dragging the group. What i mean by this is that no unit becomes useless. For example, vikings lose their usefullness when there no longer are colosi, ghosts are fairly ineffective when there are no templar. Yes emp is good vs all toss units and it cant be compared to storm, but the number of ghosts needed to deal with a no ht toss force is greatly less just because emp doesnt kill and using it after a fight has started is less effective.
Imo the game isnt really broken or anything major, it is just that evrything since release has been focused on making games longer, and players have gotten better leaving terran in a weird spot that is one, difficult to play, and two just not that fun to play. Toss have a strong lategame army, zerg have a strong late game economy, terran is a jack of all trades, master of none.
|
Came here expecting a new Temp0 song... was disappointed  .
Where is my Code S?
Where is my bonjwa son?
Where is my championship?
Where have all the terran gone?
|
Whenever I face Zerg or Protoss on ladder I always feel like the underdog in the late game.
Whatever the opponent throws at me it's me who has to respond or I lose the game.
Terran just lacks the ability for any tech switch in late game. Zerg can go for Broodlords or Ultralisks, which I've to respond with Vikings or Marauders. Protoss can tech switch to Colossus and HT's, which I've to respond with Vikings against. Now what terran does? Make more bio.
|
On March 13 2012 05:38 Rowrin wrote:
As a mid master terran I rarely seen any other terrans on ladder with most terran i know having either stopped playing or swapped to toss or zerg.
I dont think the issue has much to do with balance, but with just how difficult it is to play terran in the late game versus good players of the other race.
Take tvp late game for example: like zerg, a terran can only engage a toss army in very specific locations in order to hope for a decent trade. However, without the ability to collect production cycles such as with larva, anything but a fair trade for terran is game crippling. What a toss player should do, and do at higher levels, is identify these bad positions and avoid them whenever possible making it more difficult for terran. Also, when dealing with a good toss player, terrans methods of harass become less effective just because a good player doesnt over commit to defend. This makes it additionally difficult for terran to bait toss's army out of position. Eventually the game comes down to a cap toss army vs a capped terran army. Imo, late game toss have a much more rounded army with no unit dragging the group. What i mean by this is that no unit becomes useless. For example, vikings lose their usefullness when there no longer are colosi, ghosts are fairly ineffective when there are no templar. Yes emp is good vs all toss units and it cant be compared to storm, but the number of ghosts needed to deal with a no ht toss force is greatly less just because emp doesnt kill and using it after a fight has started is less effective.
Imo the game isnt really broken or anything major, it is just that evrything since release has been focused on making games longer, and players have gotten better leaving terran in a weird spot that is one, difficult to play, and two just not that fun to play. Toss have a strong lategame army, zerg have a strong late game economy, terran is a jack of all trades, master of none.
Best post I've seen so far, positioning is everything.
Why is it that drops are so good against Z throughout the game? You can use them to de-position mutas. You can use them to punish infestor/BL mobility. Because Z has to sacrifice mobility for strength.
P just becomes a bigger and bigger sledgehammer. GL dropping with less than 20 food late game, warpins mean instant responses. Nexus shields mean that you can't just whittle them down like hatches over multiple drops. So conventional late game T doesn't work.
A game that is always purely built on momentum is dull, because you will rarely end up exploring the entire problem space. You are forced purely into causal branches. In SC2, the first 3-4 major decisions you make in timing between 6-15m determine the game.
There are no ways to create your own positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
