|
On April 29 2012 19:55 noidontthinkso wrote:
cloud aftermatch statement from one minute ago from the EPS finals, quarterfinal match vs bigs
Carni: cloud what do u have to do to better next time?
Cloud: change race
if even cloud complains there must be something wrong
Are you serious? Cloud is complaining aaaaall the time.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On April 29 2012 19:42 sieksdekciw wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 19:22 DarkLordOlli wrote:
Mang, I love how terrans keep complaining about balance while Zerg is quite obviously having the toughest time out of the three races.
The real balance question that should be addressed is - why is this the case? Why do you think zergs have the toughest time? They are 3 to 5% more represented in each league but bronze worldwide than terran.
Well, you COULD start with there being no zergs left in the GSL. Or the bad tournament results overall, if you don't count the one man show that is DRG.
Also quit your terran balance whining. Korean GM and Masters have terran as the most used race. GSL has 15 terrans in its lineup. You just whine because Terran's not winning every tournament anymore.
Tell me, which zerg aside from DRG has shown impressive results in the last months?
|
On April 29 2012 19:55 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 19:42 Big J wrote:On April 29 2012 19:33 Creager wrote:
lol what's up with the flame now, boy? don't make a "you" from a "we"... The only person that is included in your "we" for sure is you. I don't know who else you know that has a small brain and uses it to draw the same conclusions as you do and as this person is clearly not posting, I'm not gonna discuss with him/her. Also once again, I'm finding myself talking with a person that does not respond on topic and rather hides behind childish "boy" language. One that has <100posts, makes one think if it is really worth 'spending' time 'discussing' with a such... how do I not respond on the topic when I'm trying to point out that in lower leagues Terran multitasking and overall skill has to exceed that of similar ranked Protosses?! And reducing the importance of my opinion to the actual number of my posts seems to be rather immature and childish from you in return... Furthermore the mindset of going the easiest way surely does not come from me alone, but rather seems to be human nature... so does your arrogance!
There is no proof of that.
I could just as well argue that more people play protoss, because sc2 nerds in general like a challenge...
|
On April 29 2012 19:55 noidontthinkso wrote:
cloud aftermatch statement from one minute ago from the EPS finals, quarterfinal match vs bigs
Carni: cloud what do u have to do to better next time?
Cloud: change race
if even cloud complains there must be something wrong
Zerg must be under powered, even IdrA says so!
|
On April 29 2012 19:55 noidontthinkso wrote:
cloud aftermatch statement from one minute ago from the EPS finals, quarterfinal match vs bigs
Carni: cloud what do u have to do to better next time?
Cloud: change race
if even cloud complains there must be something wrong
LOL, this has to be one of the funniest things I've read on here. Cloud has been whining and threatening to switch races for ages.
Oh and by the way, Cloud beat Socke in the quarters and lost to a zerg in the semis so that doesn't really support all the TvP balance whining very well, does it?
|
On April 29 2012 20:07 PureBalls wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 19:55 Creager wrote:On April 29 2012 19:42 Big J wrote:On April 29 2012 19:33 Creager wrote:
lol what's up with the flame now, boy? don't make a "you" from a "we"... The only person that is included in your "we" for sure is you. I don't know who else you know that has a small brain and uses it to draw the same conclusions as you do and as this person is clearly not posting, I'm not gonna discuss with him/her. Also once again, I'm finding myself talking with a person that does not respond on topic and rather hides behind childish "boy" language. One that has <100posts, makes one think if it is really worth 'spending' time 'discussing' with a such... how do I not respond on the topic when I'm trying to point out that in lower leagues Terran multitasking and overall skill has to exceed that of similar ranked Protosses?! And reducing the importance of my opinion to the actual number of my posts seems to be rather immature and childish from you in return... Furthermore the mindset of going the easiest way surely does not come from me alone, but rather seems to be human nature... so does your arrogance! There is no proof of that. I could just as well argue that more people play protoss, because sc2 nerds in general like a challenge...
Dude, seriously, denying the FACT that terran has a higher skill cap at least micro-wise just makes you a troll, sir!
|
On April 29 2012 19:22 DarkLordOlli wrote:
Mang, I love how terrans keep complaining about balance while Zerg is quite obviously having the toughest time out of the three races.
The real balance question that should be addressed is - why is this the case?
Zerg had highest winration in torunamets last month for the first time in sc2 history, They had over 30% representation in higher leagues with 28% share in general population. Only place where they doing poorly is GSL right now.
So if you dont wanna restrict race to TOP10 best players they dont have toughest time of all races.
|
On April 29 2012 20:19 Creager wrote:
Dude, seriously, denying the FACT that terran has a higher skill cap at least micro-wise just makes you a troll, sir!
I don't see that, terran can do everything in the first 15mins to outright kill or give a critical blow to protoss or zerg.
The only downside of terran ofcourse is that bio has low hp in exchange, but sorry if that wasn't in the game, terran would be ridiculously broken.
Terran is forced to reduce splash damage and that is perfectly fine.
in the end:
Protoss needs splash to deal with Bio, Terran needs to negate that splash to win. (early game shenaningans aside)
It is as simple as that, we have seen that time and time again in the last weeks tourneys.
Even 3-3 Gateway units evaporate in front of Medivac supported bio, as long as terran has enough ghost to negate high templar. People have to realise, that if they say that i.e. Storm is imba, that Medivac is actually exactly the same, it is like a healing "storm".
as protoss you need very high initial dps to negate to outbalance medivac healing. If terran can prevent this initial dmg, by good micro, or scouting (ghosts, scans, splits) they come out ahead in any engagement.
But if you fuck up, you will eat alot of AoE.
Why is protoss even going into a lategame? Winning against a good Terran (that knows how to scout) during early game / midgame is nearly impossible. (how is that not making terran easy?)
It is myth that either side has to micro more, yes terran has to be care to prevent AoE, but that is the only weakness Bio plays has currently. If that wasn't in the game, Bio would be invincible.
You have to wonder how Terrans winned any games when KA was in the game...Just because you have AoE Units as Protoss does not indicate that you have an advantage, you just have the tools that give you a viable chance.
Is this chance becoming a win? that is determined by your and your opponents skill and decision making.
|
On April 29 2012 20:21 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 19:22 DarkLordOlli wrote:
Mang, I love how terrans keep complaining about balance while Zerg is quite obviously having the toughest time out of the three races.
The real balance question that should be addressed is - why is this the case? Zerg had highest winration in torunamets last month for the first time in sc2 history, They had over 30% representation in higher leagues with 28% share in general population. Only place where they doing poorly is GSL right now. So if you dont wanna restrict race to TOP10 best players they dont have toughest time of all races.
Zerg has won 5/10 in the last tourneys but THREE were DRG who arguably the best player in the world right now. Last GSL there was 1 Zerg in ro8 GSL , this GSL 0 in ro8 and 2 in ro16. That isnt balance, name me a Zerg other than DRG who's had really good results recently.
And If you actually go to page1 and look at the stats, you'll see that there no matchup in any region on ladder which favours Zerg.
|
On April 28 2012 16:22 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 10:53 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2012 10:39 aksfjh wrote:On April 28 2012 10:28 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2012 10:20 Berk wrote:On April 28 2012 09:51 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2012 09:43 Berk wrote:On April 28 2012 06:33 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2012 06:20 coverpunch wrote:
It would be nice if Blizzard released the data sets along with the results so people could look for themselves. I think it's just whining to insist the data must be wrong without having any data of your own, but I'm curious about how or where they got their numbers. It wouldnt help. They informed people on Bnet that terrans were, in fact, not disappearing from the ladder. The response was people freaking out and challenging them, posting links of SCranks. Blizzard can't win no matter what they say or what data they release. So what you are saying is that the community brought more statisical data to the table than blizzard. I find it funny that you think it's a bad thing that players are using facts and blizzard are bring unquantifiable statements.... apart from the matchmaking system thats based around forcing players to have a 50% win ratio is delivery that. And yeah.... where did all the terrans go? I am saying the information they provided is mostly bull shit or just stuff they pulled because they want the myth of the disappearing terrans to be true. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/4254523958?page=16#314The quotes are: "There seems to be this perception that terran players are fleeing the ladder, when that's not true at all.
I can tell you that the percentage of terran players (in terms of number of players choosing the race) is actually slightly higher this year than it was at the same time last year. The top 500 is also very close to evenly split between the three races as well.
Just some food for thought!"and "The stereotype of terran players populating bronze and then falling off in representation isn't reflected by reality, and the anecdotal reports I've seen regarding opponents encountered on the ladder are just that - anecdotal.
Those experiences aren't a comprehensive snapshot of the whole, they're a thin slice of the cookie. Even if the chocolate chips are evenly distributed, you might not get as many in your particular slice.
Mmmm, cookies.
I know what I'm doing for lunch"Blizzard stated that their information is incorrect. They own the ladder and would have better information that any forum poster in any community. I see no reason to believe people who just go on SC2 ranks and pull out a bunch of questionable numbers and then say that it somehow is better than the information provided by the people who own the ladder. There is no reason for Blizzard to mislead people about this. So ask yourself, why won't blizzard release the figures. Plus the sample size of sc2ranks makes it a data source you shouldn't discount entirely. There are on 2 way to judge this correctly. Firstly quantifiable data, blizzard in fact have told us nothing, nada. We have heard their conclusions only. You can't trust data interpretations from a bias source because the stats can be spun anyway you like. For (an extreme) example if TvP is 50% win rate but 100% terran wins were in the first 15 min and protoss 100% after that, the only stat blizzard will give you is the overall win rate. It make them look like they've done thing right. The matchup would be broken but hey they wouldn't wanna look bad now, would they... Secondly, real world experience. Well that side is well documented here in the forums. I'm not saying bnet players are right, however they would be very correct in trusting in data rather than an interpretation of data. What I am saying is that if the data was released then real conclusions can be drawn. With most computer games this isn't an issue, however blizzard have pitched this as an esport. I find this shocking when we cannot get our hands on basic numbers. No other competitive game (in the larger sense of the word, not just pc games) I can think of hides the data in such a way. I don't have to ask myself why they won't release the data. People would just pick it apart and call it bull shit anyways. They would say things like "Well maybe terran players just qualify for the seasons and see how broken the match ups are and quit." The data is likely just this anyways, "Hey look, there are the same number of terrans as last month on the ladder. No wait, slightly more." I am going to go with Occam's razor on this issue and not buy into the wild theories as to why Blizzard is hiding the real data about the population of terrans on the ladder. They don't have to be "hiding" the data. The analysis that shows what the community sees at the ground level could very well be outside the scope of their data. It's very possible that they don't see a need to collect a bunch of race statistics outside of winning, and within that lies the possibility that population/race stats really don't matter in the big picture. The only thing you can apply Occam's razor to in this situation is that the 3rd party data conflicts with the Blizzard data, and they aren't in a hurry to find out why. Or what people are "seeing at the ground level" is not correct. I personally have seen no lack of terrans on the ladder. Blizzard's information matches my own experience, so I believe it is correct. I don't believe what people are seeing is outside of the scope of their data, only that people have selective memories and the ability to cherry pick "community data" to make their point. Whoa, that's so many ways in which Plansix said that he believes Terrans are not disappearing on the ladder because one bnet mod said so. Yet, that's all there is, an ambiguous statement, a joking one at that, which only fueled more discussion on the topic because of it insufficient clarity. Plansix, on the other hand, cannot be taken as a neutral judge, considering how often you frequented the "Where did all the terrans go?" thread with a plethora of jabs and little distracting comments. You, for some reason, really dislike this line of thinking to the extent that you're willing to post a bazillion times in this thread to stamp down on reasonable doubts that people have. At the very least people are not informed on the current situation of different ladder populations, and it's perfectly valid to ask for this information. Regarding that particular mod comment, he does seem to say that there are "an equal amount of people choosing terran" which leads to three interpretations: a) There are an equal number of people choosing terran when they sc2 for the first time (ie. terran as main race players, b) There are an equal number of people choosing terran at the start of the season, c) i) There an equal number of people choosing terran before 1v1 matches, c) ii) There are an equal number of people choosing terran before 1v1 matchs at platinum/diamond level. You would like people to take (c) (ii) as the interpretation, but all the other ones are equally salient. So, stop trying steamroll people by out-posting them and find actual data to back up your belief that (c) (ii) is true.
Most brilliant statement I've heard on here in a long while. Not like Plansix would listen. You want to know what paralegal means.... couldn't get into law school.
|
On April 29 2012 20:07 DarkLordOlli wrote:
Tell me, which zerg aside from DRG has shown impressive results in the last months?
I heard there's a french dude who wins a lot games
|
Austria24417 Posts
On April 29 2012 20:34 zezamer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 20:07 DarkLordOlli wrote:
Tell me, which zerg aside from DRG has shown impressive results in the last months? I heard there's a french dude who wins a lot games
I heard he never played in Code S to prove himself. Nestea placed higher at IPL than Stephano and also beat him. Nestea then got eliminated in the first round of Code S.
So, again. Where are the big zerg achievements compared to Protoss and Terran?
|
On April 29 2012 20:31 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 20:19 Creager wrote:
Dude, seriously, denying the FACT that terran has a higher skill cap at least micro-wise just makes you a troll, sir! nope, you just have to reduce splash damage, as you should with a low hp bio style. Protoss needs splash to deal with Bio, Terran needs to negate that splash to win. It is as simple as that, we have seen that time and time again in the last weeks tourneys. Even 3-3 Gateway units evaporate in front of Medivac supported bio, as long as terran has enough ghost to negate high templar. People have to realise, that if they say that i.e. Storm is imba, that Medivac is actually exactly the same, it is like a healing "storm". as protoss you need very high initial dps to negate to outbalance medivac healing. If terran can prevent this initial dmg, by good micro, or scouting (ghosts, scans, splits) they come out ahead in any engagement. But if you fuck up, you will eat alot of AoE. But you play until lategame with an army superior (more dps/ more mobile) and easier to transition into than protoss. Why is protoss even going into a lategame? Winning against a good Terran (that knows how to scout) during early game / midgame is nearly impossible. It is myth that either side has to micro more, yes terran has to be care to prevent AoE, but that the only weakness Bio plays has currently if that wasn't in the game, Bio would be invincible. You have to wonder how Terrans winned any games when KA was in the game...Just because you have AoE Units as Protoss does not indicate that you have an advantage, you just have the tools that give you a chances. Is this chance becoming a win? that is determined by your and your opponents skill and decision making.
Yeah, I admit you have a point there... During early to midgame bio is way more cost efficient than gateway units, but you did not take into consideration that just relying on medivacs will not suffice in a mid/lategame engagement. Also I don't really get the point of transitioning you mentioned...
In a standard TvP one starts with bio and never transitions out of it, except of adding vikings (if scouting a robo bay) and ghosts. And dodging/preventing storms is actually harder than placing an AoE spell IMO since it requires more APM. Also having HT's to deny drops by "feedbacking the minimap" seems a bit too easy to me, if a Protoss gets used to this.
There are too many viable options for Protoss to apply massive AoE damage to a Terran bio army IMO and in return too few alternatives for Terran to circumvent/counter this regarding the same effort by both players (maybe remove energybar from thors once again, since there are already more Terran units that are feedback-able than the other way round).
My main concern to the current meta game still is, that I find it uncomforting to rely solely on early timing attacks or all-ins (like 1-1-1 or 3 rax stim timing e.g.). To point out again: It's frustrating to watch replays and actually see how the Protoss a-moves while you are trying to EMP, get your vikings into position, spread your army and dodge storms while kiting immortalots (little pun ;>) and he still wins... Sure, in my case this is concerning the lower leagues (still plat) in the first place.
|
On April 29 2012 21:03 Creager wrote:
My main concern to the current meta game still is, that I find it uncomforting to rely solely on early timing attacks or all-ins (like 1-1-1 or 3 rax stim timing e.g.). To point out again: It's frustrating to watch replays and actually see how the Protoss a-moves while you are trying to EMP, get your vikings into position, spread your army and dodge storms while kiting immortalots (little pun ;>) and he still wins... Sure, in my case this is concerning the lower leagues (still plat) in the first place.
Masters T here. APM-wise, toss has almost nothing to do in late game engagements, regardless of what PureBalls is trying to convince you. As for terran, there is no perfect spreading really but the better you are at it, the less stuff you will lose to a point where you can actually win an engagement against toss. The problem here is almost nothing is on the toss, if you leave the two armies clash with little to no control, the toss will win always. It is up to the terran to have godlike splits and stutter and emp to avoid the massive damage. The toss doesn't (can't) do almost nothing to change the outcome of the battle. Don't get me wrong, this is a two-fold problem.
The one side of the problem is that terran requires titanic efforts to win an engagement in late game while toss just a moves.
The other side of the problem is that the toss can't really influence much the outcome of the battle rather than executing a few tricks here and there, so if an engagement happens when both players control everything perfectly, the terran will always win. Unfortunately, controlling perfectly is beyond human possibilities and thus Blizzard have decided to force terran to control almost perfectly to win an engagement which is fine, but still doesn't solve the problem with toss having little chance to change the turn of the battle.
What has to happen is to make toss benefit more from micro but having weaker units, like the colosus having -10 damage but +1 broader arc, or terran to benefit less from micro but with beefier units, like the marine having 80 health and less movement / attack speed bonus from stim. Unfortunately, if toss benefits more from micro, current diamond to masters tosses will have to go down one or two leagues down than their current ranking cause they will just not be used to the pressure. But they will get it...eventually. After all it took 6 months to the collective zerg minds to not send banelings on attack move.
|
On April 29 2012 19:57 IMoperator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 19:55 noidontthinkso wrote:
cloud aftermatch statement from one minute ago from the EPS finals, quarterfinal match vs bigs
Carni: cloud what do u have to do to better next time?
Cloud: change race
if even cloud complains there must be something wrong I thought this was funny because Cloud has spoken out about balance for a while now lol.
He has, it is nothing new. There are plenty of pro-terrans who have complained about balance against protoss, which was the same when zerg and protoss had issues in the meta game.
|
On April 29 2012 21:03 Creager wrote:
There are too many viable options for Protoss to apply massive AoE damage to a Terran bio army IMO and in return too few alternatives for Terran to circumvent/counter this regarding the same effort by both players (maybe remove energybar from thors once again, since there are already more Terran units that are feedback-able than the other way round).
My main concern to the current meta game still is, that I find it uncomforting to rely solely on early timing attacks or all-ins (like 1-1-1 or 3 rax stim timing e.g.). To point out again: It's frustrating to watch replays and actually see how the Protoss a-moves while you are trying to EMP, get your vikings into position, spread your army and dodge storms while kiting immortalots (little pun ;>) and he still wins... Sure, in my case this is concerning the lower leagues (still plat) in the first place.
As a P player, two considerations:
a) I agree with you that it's frustrating, as a player, to feel like the only/best way to be competitive in a matchup is rely on early pushes and all in. I feel the exact same way in PvZ right now, where I feel I *have* to go 6 or 7 gate or just die of mass roach if the zerg player has half a brain. This is why I believe that David Kim's report on the game balance is a truckload of bullshit. I don't give a shit about statistics and I don't give a shit about race representation in the tournaments, it's a friggin game and I want it to be fun. Playing lategame PvT where the game is decided but whoever gets the luckiest emp or storm is just as bad for you as it is for me, in terms of fun.
On a sidenote, I find this whole idea that race A should be able to beat race B "before getting into lategame". Eg Terran trying to win vs P before they get lategame deathball, or P should be able to beat Z before they get broodlords. It's idiotic. If both players manage to get into lategame, with good economy on both parts and highest tech on both parts, then the player with the best tactical decision and micro in engagements should win, not the one who has the army that just plain performs better in that stage of the game
b) This notion that P deathball is strong just because it a-moves into stuff is rather silly. Or rather, as that guy after you pointed out, notice the problem in that statement. Sure, Protoss don't have to micro a whole lot in his deathball. But why's that? Because Protoss can't micro shit even if he wanted to. I swear to you, I'd love to have an army that doesn't feel like i'm flipping a coin every time it engages, hoping that it's stats on paper are better than those of my opponent.
The problem with most terrans i find in ladder is that they just complain because they shut themselves in their base, go for 200/200, a move into my deathball and lose everything. As I said before I don't like this either, but that's just how the game is, I have the same problem against zerg, if I just let them do their stuff I'll never win.
|
On April 29 2012 21:26 sieksdekciw wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 21:03 Creager wrote:
My main concern to the current meta game still is, that I find it uncomforting to rely solely on early timing attacks or all-ins (like 1-1-1 or 3 rax stim timing e.g.). To point out again: It's frustrating to watch replays and actually see how the Protoss a-moves while you are trying to EMP, get your vikings into position, spread your army and dodge storms while kiting immortalots (little pun ;>) and he still wins... Sure, in my case this is concerning the lower leagues (still plat) in the first place.
Masters T here....
Someone who doesnt see protoss micro when watching Parting and other top protoss players play, should be in plat, instead of masters.
|
On April 29 2012 22:18 PureBalls wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 21:26 sieksdekciw wrote:On April 29 2012 21:03 Creager wrote:
My main concern to the current meta game still is, that I find it uncomforting to rely solely on early timing attacks or all-ins (like 1-1-1 or 3 rax stim timing e.g.). To point out again: It's frustrating to watch replays and actually see how the Protoss a-moves while you are trying to EMP, get your vikings into position, spread your army and dodge storms while kiting immortalots (little pun ;>) and he still wins... Sure, in my case this is concerning the lower leagues (still plat) in the first place.
Masters T here.... Someone who doesnt see protoss micro when watching Parting and other top protoss players play, should be in plat, instead of masters.
I often wonder how these players got to masters and if it was through some abusive non-sense that is now failing them because they have reached players of a sufficient skill level to stop it.
|
On April 29 2012 20:31 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 20:19 Creager wrote:
Dude, seriously, denying the FACT that terran has a higher skill cap at least micro-wise just makes you a troll, sir! I don't see that, terran can do everything in the first 15mins to outright kill or give a critical blow to protoss or zerg. The only downside of terran ofcourse is that bio has low hp in exchange, but sorry if that wasn't in the game, terran would be ridiculously broken. Terran is forced to reduce splash damage and that is perfectly fine. in the end: Protoss needs splash to deal with Bio, Terran needs to negate that splash to win. (early game shenaningans aside) It is as simple as that, we have seen that time and time again in the last weeks tourneys. Even 3-3 Gateway units evaporate in front of Medivac supported bio, as long as terran has enough ghost to negate high templar. People have to realise, that if they say that i.e. Storm is imba, that Medivac is actually exactly the same, it is like a healing "storm". as protoss you need very high initial dps to negate to outbalance medivac healing. If terran can prevent this initial dmg, by good micro, or scouting (ghosts, scans, splits) they come out ahead in any engagement. But if you fuck up, you will eat alot of AoE. Why is protoss even going into a lategame? Winning against a good Terran (that knows how to scout) during early game / midgame is nearly impossible. (how is that not making terran easy?) It is myth that either side has to micro more, yes terran has to be care to prevent AoE, but that is the only weakness Bio plays has currently. If that wasn't in the game, Bio would be invincible. You have to wonder how Terrans winned any games when KA was in the game...Just because you have AoE Units as Protoss does not indicate that you have an advantage, you just have the tools that give you a viable chance. Is this chance becoming a win? that is determined by your and your opponents skill and decision making.
Did you just say medivacs were a healing storm? Seriously dude? Ever played Brood War? Ever used medics? Bio doesn't regen.
The fact is, protoss can continue to pump out collossi, high templar, cheap zealots for buffering, and archons late game. Three of these units do massive splash damage and three of them share upgrades. If you don't get the perfect engagement against a protoss and stop their production facilities via pylons or what have you, you lose due to faster renforcement of better units.
At least one of our high-tier units (Thor, Battlecruiser) needs to have it's energy taken away and replaced with a cooldown. It's not a fair playing field when the high templar counters every high-tier unit we have.
|
On April 29 2012 21:26 sieksdekciw wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 21:03 Creager wrote:
My main concern to the current meta game still is, that I find it uncomforting to rely solely on early timing attacks or all-ins (like 1-1-1 or 3 rax stim timing e.g.). To point out again: It's frustrating to watch replays and actually see how the Protoss a-moves while you are trying to EMP, get your vikings into position, spread your army and dodge storms while kiting immortalots (little pun ;>) and he still wins... Sure, in my case this is concerning the lower leagues (still plat) in the first place.
Masters T here. APM-wise, toss has almost nothing to do in late game engagements, regardless of what PureBalls is trying to convince you. As for terran, there is no perfect spreading really but the better you are at it, the less stuff you will lose to a point where you can actually win an engagement against toss. The problem here is almost nothing is on the toss, if you leave the two armies clash with little to no control, the toss will win always. It is up to the terran to have godlike splits and stutter and emp to avoid the massive damage. The toss doesn't (can't) do almost nothing to change the outcome of the battle. Don't get me wrong, this is a two-fold problem. The one side of the problem is that terran requires titanic efforts to win an engagement in late game while toss just a moves. The other side of the problem is that the toss can't really influence much the outcome of the battle rather than executing a few tricks here and there, so if an engagement happens when both players control everything perfectly, the terran will always win. Unfortunately, controlling perfectly is beyond human possibilities and thus Blizzard have decided to force terran to control almost perfectly to win an engagement which is fine, but still doesn't solve the problem with toss having little chance to change the turn of the battle. What has to happen is to make toss benefit more from micro but having weaker units, like the colosus having -10 damage but +1 broader arc, or terran to benefit less from micro but with beefier units, like the marine having 80 health and less movement / attack speed bonus from stim. Unfortunately, if toss benefits more from micro, current diamond to masters tosses will have to go down one or two leagues down than their current ranking cause they will just not be used to the pressure. But they will get it...eventually. After all it took 6 months to the collective zerg minds to not send banelings on attack move.
While I agree that on average, throughout a final late game battle, a Terran may need to do more microing than Protoss, I still dislike when people say that Protosses merely a-move the entire time and hope that the Terran messes up. I do agree that the battle is indeed *more* decided by the Terran making (or not making) micro mistakes than many of the things that the Protoss can do, but I believe you're missing out on what a Protoss actually does, and where they're severely limited:
The thing is, most of the Protoss micro during the final battle happens earlier on in the engagement, when high templar (and other spellcasters) still have energy to use on vital spells like psi storm. As the Protoss pushes forwards and the Terran microes back (assuming they even win the first battle, a.k.a. ghosts not having any success), away from the chargelots, the Protoss needs to do some level of temporary a-moving because they need to leave their current screen to re-macro (and you'd be surprised how much of a burden this is during the heat of battle, despite warp gate tech being insanely useful in other areas, like to destroy defender's advantage in early and mid game pushes). Terran has their unit-producing structures hotkeyed, which makes it easier for them to immediately re-macro (or even queue units) while paying attention to the battle. Also, with the exception of occasional forward blinks to snipe medivacs, what is the Protoss's unit composition and micro capabilities going to be when the engagement has started to turn in favor of the Protoss? Probably mostly colossi, chargelots, and archons (which used to be the effective high templar). Not really capable of being microed effectively against units with stim. And then the continuous re-warping of more and more chargelots to keep the Terran player busy.
I think these are important points to consider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
