|
I don't really see why the argument about leagues is relevant when talking about professional players. Even GM players suck compared to the pros. After all, the OP was mainly talking about why foreign terrans suck more than foreign protoss/zerg versus their Korean counterparts.
|
On September 13 2013 05:56 andrewlt wrote:
I don't really see why the argument about leagues is relevant when talking about professional players. Even GM players suck compared to the pros. After all, the OP was mainly talking about why foreign terrans suck more than foreign protoss/zerg versus their Korean counterparts.
Cause it's partially rooted in the fact that there are less Terrans in general. Pros don't spawn out of thin-air, they have to come from the bottom up. Less GMs mean less skilled players who are most likely able to reach that level. The ratio of Z/P/T in GM is pretty close to the pro scene as it stands now.
|
Someone a few pages ago said that foreign terrans are too "macro-oriented". There is much truth in that, and that can be a major factor in the under-performance we're speaking of. Innovation, MVP, Polt, and Bomber are not known for being merely macro players like Thorzain.
|
On September 13 2013 07:11 KJSharp wrote:
Someone a few pages ago said that foreign terrans are too "macro-oriented". There is much truth in that, and that can be a major factor in the under-performance we're speaking of. Innovation, MVP, Polt, and Bomber are not known for being merely macro players like Thorzain.
True and not just foreign terrans but everyone. Note that every player who went to Korea for training or whatever say how aggressive Koreans play.
|
On September 13 2013 05:05 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 04:32 krooked wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Regarding #s of players as race X in GM:
No, you can't say its clear proof. But it counts as evidence. Another thing I've been thinking about is the fact that most serious players try to play "macro games". Historically, terrans lategame army is just straight up weaker than P/Z's, and I think we all can agree that bio-play is simply more fragile than P/Z's armies. Terran needs to babysit etc.
But back to my point, since a lot of people play kinda turtley, T gets "punished" while P/Z thrives in lategame on multiple bases. There are also match up specific problems in playing a macro game as terran.
TvP:
Having to react to the different compositions P has - Know when to engage and how to do it. Protoss doesn't really need to change things up in a standard bio vs deathball game. I also think Terran is straight up harder to control. I think storming is basically the one very important thing P needs to remember, while terran needs to snipe, spread out, focus fire and kite while macroing mid battle. Protoss ofcourse gets to instantly remax with WG tech.
Protoss also has better harass options in DT's (cloak and huge dmg output), zealots (good dmg output, high HP). DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.
Medivac dropping simply isn't that good with cannons and HTs for feedback, with very fragile units inside the medivacs.
Another problem is the fact that Terran needs to tailor his build to account for a aggressive Protoss, neglecting upgrades in the process. Protoss on the other hand is so safe that they can get 2x forge and get an upgrade advantage which put T at a disadvantage.
TvZ:
Neglecting the fact that Terran is favored in this MU these days, and biomine being extremely cost efficient, there are some trouble here as well. Terran needs to be the aggressor and keep zerg at home while securing expands (and safeguarding them against mutas/runbys), and here too Terran needs to be vary of tech switches. Zerg doesn't really fear this from Terran. Oh you went shitloads of marauders? Luckily MLB crushes marauders. Again going back to the "turtle/macro"-mindset of a lot of people, this puts T at a disadvantage if you don't know how to be aggressive at the appropriate timings and having the mechanical strength to execute it.
I'm sure similar things can be said about the other races, but I look at the games objectively and this is what I see. I simply believe Terran is more unforgiving than P/Z, more mechanically demanding and that's why there are so few good foreigner Terrans. A lot of people just switch away from Terran or give up because the learning curve is simply too steep. Remember that the pro's used to just wish to reach masters. A lot of people just give up before that with Terran because of the sheer amount of losses where its not "what could I've done better" but "I just don't have the skill to do this".
The fuck? Your post defines the antonym of objectivity. The Protoss doesn't have to change things up in a standard bio vs colossus/ht game, and neither does the Terran. The openings vary, but the end-game composition is the same every single time. The only thing Protoss has to worry about is storming. Getting EMP'ed, landing feedbacks, spacing blink stalkers with ghosts and vikings, and spreading are nothing to worry about -- below diamond. Protoss gets to instantly remax with warpgates. Terran remaxes faster in an even game where he doesn't A) Lose an engagement horribly or B) Somehow fall behind in bases and income to a Protoss. DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.. Protoss players are not freaking out about winning the main engagement. They're probably leaning back in their chair smoking a cigar while their army follows the amove command towards the Terran main. Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 04:59 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 03:45 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Not sure where you get your numbers from, but its points shaved off of a percentage less terrans in masters compared to the overall race ratio. There are just a LITTLE less Terrans than the other races, and consequently, there is a SLIGHTLY less than a little less Terrans in masters. edit: infact, lets just settle this right now so that we're straight on the numbers. Where are you getting yours from? Cause I'm pulling them from SC2Ranks. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race - more Terrans than Zergs Also 30,24 % T in general with 8.75% random players 27,45% in Masters with 2,44% random players. So expected would be about 32% Terrans, instead of 27% Unless you want to assume the difference comes from the huge spike of Terrans in Bronze, the only league Terran has 32% players in is silver -- 38% in bronze. Everywhere else it's consistently 29%, barring masters, where it dips to 27%. GM is where it dips significantly. You'd have to be able to explain why Bronze has 38% Terrans, and why it dips from 38% in bronze to 29% in gold, before you can claim masters is a difference of 5% and not 2%.
Unsure if you are just blatantly ignoring my points just so you can call my post the "antom of objectivity"?
Where did I write that Protoss doesn't have to change it up? Like, I didn't even write that. edit: nvm I did write that, what I meant is that terran needs to look for colo count / HT count to have the correct composition, Protoss doesn't really need to see if terran has gone shitloads of X to counter it. How many times have a terran lost to a colossi tech switch ? How many times have a Protoss lost to a.. eh, marine tech switch?
The only thing Protoss has to worry about is storming - Why are you ignoring context? I'm talking about the importance of babysitting. Protoss deathball dishes out way more damage unmicroed than bio. AoE in colossus, superior rarnge, autocharging zealots.
- Maybe I used the wrong word. I mean reinforce, not remax. Protoss can reinforce faster with warpgate since they instantly get the units out.
- Why are you writing about a-moving protoss? I'm writing about the problems lower level terran players face and why they shy away from the race. I think the need for babysitting Terran is greater than Protoss, if you can't see that then I can't really give you empirical data on it, its just common sense.
|
On September 13 2013 03:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:39 JustPassingBy wrote:On September 13 2013 03:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 13 2013 03:16 Swift118 wrote:On September 13 2013 03:00 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Once again: correlation =/= causation There is no proof that the number of players playing terran is related to their difficulty compared to the other two races. None. People keep citing it, like a broken record and people keep pointing out that the two are not directly linked. A lot of people think that Terran requires more refined mechanics to reach the higher levels with. No amount of harassing other posters (which you do a lot of on this forum tbh) and thinking your opinion is the truth and nothing but the truth is going to change what a lot of people happen to think about this matter. He's telling the truth though. People are assuming causation without evidence, which is ridiculous. The evidence on this thread is race ratios, which is absurd because that assumes that everyone switches races all the time to specifically match game difficulty. The ratios on the races are what they are because of player preference, stubborness, difficulty, admiration, etc... Some people play it because of graphics, some want to be their favorite player, others do it because it fits them, others because they liked the story, others because they hated the story, etc... To create the direct causal relationship of race ratios and race difficulty is logically problematic. I don't see the problem with the race ratios, aren't 65k players per race enough to assume that the skill is at least somewhat equally distributed amongst all three races? edit: On September 13 2013 03:34 Big J wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Yes, and where are those Terrans? In bronze (34%). Silver to Master, Terran has a very constant 27-29.5 percentage (GM being only a tiny bit lower with 25%). So what's more likely: a) There is a/multiple) reason/s why bronzies pick Terran more often than on average... like (example), I don't know, maybe the SC2 campaign making it so that when you hit that "search game" button for the first 5times you rather take Terran (and get placed into bronze because you are a noob), which does not represent the players that actually put time into playing the game. b) Players switching away from Terran in bronze and masters AND IN THESE LEAGUES ONLY, because those are the only (small) bumps in Terran distribution, because it is too hard for them. In my opinion it's a) (even if the example may be wrong), and therefore the Terran distribution is simply lower, which of course leads to less Terran progamers as well. With Korea being the exception because of fanboyism (Boxer, etc) So in your opinion terrans are picked more often by casual players and less often by players who want to play the game competitive? But... isn't that also something that would support the theory of the people here who claim that terran is the harder race to play successfully (or at least looks like the harder race to play successfully)...? It could be any number of things that cause the drop off which are not related to the difficulty of the race. Maybe more players start with terran in bronze, but then switch over or the other two races are simply more popular other reasons that are not difficulty. The point is that although it might be a factor, the difficult of a specific race does not dictate the number of people playing that race.
Well spoken like a true theory crafter.
Your last few posts positively expose your lack of experience in even playing Terran at a decent level of Masters.
Notice how only two posters other than yourself challenged my post on the average mechanical, tactical and strategic requirements to be a GM Terran.
If I was wrong TheDwf or NarutO would have jumped at me faster than you can say Terran imba.
Please spend some time on YouTube or download replays with flash or Innovation and have a ticker each time a mechanical item (e.g. Swapping to preset map position) on my list appears. Compare that with their P or Z opponent.
Do the same for a foriegn Terran and their opponent.
Enough theory crafting about the supposed equality between the races and collect REAL DATA. I collected my own back in '12 which confirms, Terran is the most mechanically and tactically demanding race in the current meta of 4M.
|
On September 13 2013 05:05 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 04:32 krooked wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Regarding #s of players as race X in GM:
No, you can't say its clear proof. But it counts as evidence. Another thing I've been thinking about is the fact that most serious players try to play "macro games". Historically, terrans lategame army is just straight up weaker than P/Z's, and I think we all can agree that bio-play is simply more fragile than P/Z's armies. Terran needs to babysit etc.
But back to my point, since a lot of people play kinda turtley, T gets "punished" while P/Z thrives in lategame on multiple bases. There are also match up specific problems in playing a macro game as terran.
TvP:
Having to react to the different compositions P has - Know when to engage and how to do it. Protoss doesn't really need to change things up in a standard bio vs deathball game. I also think Terran is straight up harder to control. I think storming is basically the one very important thing P needs to remember, while terran needs to snipe, spread out, focus fire and kite while macroing mid battle. Protoss ofcourse gets to instantly remax with WG tech.
Protoss also has better harass options in DT's (cloak and huge dmg output), zealots (good dmg output, high HP). DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.
Medivac dropping simply isn't that good with cannons and HTs for feedback, with very fragile units inside the medivacs.
Another problem is the fact that Terran needs to tailor his build to account for a aggressive Protoss, neglecting upgrades in the process. Protoss on the other hand is so safe that they can get 2x forge and get an upgrade advantage which put T at a disadvantage.
TvZ:
Neglecting the fact that Terran is favored in this MU these days, and biomine being extremely cost efficient, there are some trouble here as well. Terran needs to be the aggressor and keep zerg at home while securing expands (and safeguarding them against mutas/runbys), and here too Terran needs to be vary of tech switches. Zerg doesn't really fear this from Terran. Oh you went shitloads of marauders? Luckily MLB crushes marauders. Again going back to the "turtle/macro"-mindset of a lot of people, this puts T at a disadvantage if you don't know how to be aggressive at the appropriate timings and having the mechanical strength to execute it.
I'm sure similar things can be said about the other races, but I look at the games objectively and this is what I see. I simply believe Terran is more unforgiving than P/Z, more mechanically demanding and that's why there are so few good foreigner Terrans. A lot of people just switch away from Terran or give up because the learning curve is simply too steep. Remember that the pro's used to just wish to reach masters. A lot of people just give up before that with Terran because of the sheer amount of losses where its not "what could I've done better" but "I just don't have the skill to do this".
The fuck? Your post defines the antonym of objectivity. The Protoss doesn't have to change things up in a standard bio vs colossus/ht game, and neither does the Terran. The openings vary, but the end-game composition is the same every single time. The only thing Protoss has to worry about is storming. Getting EMP'ed, landing feedbacks, spacing blink stalkers with ghosts and vikings, and spreading are nothing to worry about -- below diamond. Protoss gets to instantly remax with warpgates. Terran remaxes faster in an even game where he doesn't A) Lose an engagement horribly or B) Somehow fall behind in bases and income to a Protoss. DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.. Protoss players are not freaking out about winning the main engagement. They're probably leaning back in their chair smoking a cigar while their army follows the amove command towards the Terran main. Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 04:59 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 03:45 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Not sure where you get your numbers from, but its points shaved off of a percentage less terrans in masters compared to the overall race ratio. There are just a LITTLE less Terrans than the other races, and consequently, there is a SLIGHTLY less than a little less Terrans in masters. edit: infact, lets just settle this right now so that we're straight on the numbers. Where are you getting yours from? Cause I'm pulling them from SC2Ranks. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race - more Terrans than Zergs Also 30,24 % T in general with 8.75% random players 27,45% in Masters with 2,44% random players. So expected would be about 32% Terrans, instead of 27% Unless you want to assume the difference comes from the huge spike of Terrans in Bronze, the only league Terran has 32% players in is silver -- 38% in bronze. Everywhere else it's consistently 29%, barring masters, where it dips to 27%. GM is where it dips significantly. You'd have to be able to explain why Bronze has 38% Terrans, and why it dips from 38% in bronze to 29% in gold, before you can claim masters is a difference of 5% and not 2%.
I dont know where you get your data from but on my screen there i see 34% Terrans in bronze,
|
i played terran for a week and im high diamond already, took me forever to get anywhere with protoss. the race is so easy and forgiving.
|
On September 13 2013 14:23 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 03:39 JustPassingBy wrote:On September 13 2013 03:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 13 2013 03:16 Swift118 wrote:On September 13 2013 03:00 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Once again: correlation =/= causation There is no proof that the number of players playing terran is related to their difficulty compared to the other two races. None. People keep citing it, like a broken record and people keep pointing out that the two are not directly linked. A lot of people think that Terran requires more refined mechanics to reach the higher levels with. No amount of harassing other posters (which you do a lot of on this forum tbh) and thinking your opinion is the truth and nothing but the truth is going to change what a lot of people happen to think about this matter. He's telling the truth though. People are assuming causation without evidence, which is ridiculous. The evidence on this thread is race ratios, which is absurd because that assumes that everyone switches races all the time to specifically match game difficulty. The ratios on the races are what they are because of player preference, stubborness, difficulty, admiration, etc... Some people play it because of graphics, some want to be their favorite player, others do it because it fits them, others because they liked the story, others because they hated the story, etc... To create the direct causal relationship of race ratios and race difficulty is logically problematic. I don't see the problem with the race ratios, aren't 65k players per race enough to assume that the skill is at least somewhat equally distributed amongst all three races? edit: On September 13 2013 03:34 Big J wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Yes, and where are those Terrans? In bronze (34%). Silver to Master, Terran has a very constant 27-29.5 percentage (GM being only a tiny bit lower with 25%). So what's more likely: a) There is a/multiple) reason/s why bronzies pick Terran more often than on average... like (example), I don't know, maybe the SC2 campaign making it so that when you hit that "search game" button for the first 5times you rather take Terran (and get placed into bronze because you are a noob), which does not represent the players that actually put time into playing the game. b) Players switching away from Terran in bronze and masters AND IN THESE LEAGUES ONLY, because those are the only (small) bumps in Terran distribution, because it is too hard for them. In my opinion it's a) (even if the example may be wrong), and therefore the Terran distribution is simply lower, which of course leads to less Terran progamers as well. With Korea being the exception because of fanboyism (Boxer, etc) So in your opinion terrans are picked more often by casual players and less often by players who want to play the game competitive? But... isn't that also something that would support the theory of the people here who claim that terran is the harder race to play successfully (or at least looks like the harder race to play successfully)...? It could be any number of things that cause the drop off which are not related to the difficulty of the race. Maybe more players start with terran in bronze, but then switch over or the other two races are simply more popular other reasons that are not difficulty. The point is that although it might be a factor, the difficult of a specific race does not dictate the number of people playing that race. Notice how only two posters other than yourself challenged my post on the average mechanical, tactical and strategic requirements to be a GM Terran.
I'm still searching for what you were expecting to get challenged on, honestly. You just listed a few of the things that you need to do to play terran (it's not extensive btw). There's no claim attached.
|
There are almost 2x the amount of toss in GM globally than terran and almost 50% more zerg than there are terran globally so people saying that GM representation is even remotely close I don't know where you are getting your information. I am using sc2ranks which pulls directly from blizzard online info and updates like every few hours.
Personally I stopped playing because as master terran because ya terran might be even or even OP at the top korean level pro however on ladder it is by far the most frustrating and worst to play.....the stats don't lie. Toss seems by far the best race to ladder with if you want to make GM or masters the easiest just from the numbers. When blizz balances their game around innovation and mvp and left of normal players just get to deal with it it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
|
Plansix is literally on a crusade in this thread, he will let people believe that the Terran is the hardest race but only over his cold dead E-Body!
Well in my opinion the problem with being a foreign Terran is no random thing. It quite simply is a bit harder to play Terran, it's actually not anything to whine about. When people play games some play on easy, medium, hard, brutal etc. It does not mean the game is broken or anything. The foreign Ts can still win if they play good enough, it's not "broken".
|
On September 13 2013 13:24 krooked wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 05:05 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 04:32 krooked wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Regarding #s of players as race X in GM:
No, you can't say its clear proof. But it counts as evidence. Another thing I've been thinking about is the fact that most serious players try to play "macro games". Historically, terrans lategame army is just straight up weaker than P/Z's, and I think we all can agree that bio-play is simply more fragile than P/Z's armies. Terran needs to babysit etc.
But back to my point, since a lot of people play kinda turtley, T gets "punished" while P/Z thrives in lategame on multiple bases. There are also match up specific problems in playing a macro game as terran.
TvP:
Having to react to the different compositions P has - Know when to engage and how to do it. Protoss doesn't really need to change things up in a standard bio vs deathball game. I also think Terran is straight up harder to control. I think storming is basically the one very important thing P needs to remember, while terran needs to snipe, spread out, focus fire and kite while macroing mid battle. Protoss ofcourse gets to instantly remax with WG tech.
Protoss also has better harass options in DT's (cloak and huge dmg output), zealots (good dmg output, high HP). DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.
Medivac dropping simply isn't that good with cannons and HTs for feedback, with very fragile units inside the medivacs.
Another problem is the fact that Terran needs to tailor his build to account for a aggressive Protoss, neglecting upgrades in the process. Protoss on the other hand is so safe that they can get 2x forge and get an upgrade advantage which put T at a disadvantage.
TvZ:
Neglecting the fact that Terran is favored in this MU these days, and biomine being extremely cost efficient, there are some trouble here as well. Terran needs to be the aggressor and keep zerg at home while securing expands (and safeguarding them against mutas/runbys), and here too Terran needs to be vary of tech switches. Zerg doesn't really fear this from Terran. Oh you went shitloads of marauders? Luckily MLB crushes marauders. Again going back to the "turtle/macro"-mindset of a lot of people, this puts T at a disadvantage if you don't know how to be aggressive at the appropriate timings and having the mechanical strength to execute it.
I'm sure similar things can be said about the other races, but I look at the games objectively and this is what I see. I simply believe Terran is more unforgiving than P/Z, more mechanically demanding and that's why there are so few good foreigner Terrans. A lot of people just switch away from Terran or give up because the learning curve is simply too steep. Remember that the pro's used to just wish to reach masters. A lot of people just give up before that with Terran because of the sheer amount of losses where its not "what could I've done better" but "I just don't have the skill to do this".
The fuck? Your post defines the antonym of objectivity. The Protoss doesn't have to change things up in a standard bio vs colossus/ht game, and neither does the Terran. The openings vary, but the end-game composition is the same every single time. The only thing Protoss has to worry about is storming. Getting EMP'ed, landing feedbacks, spacing blink stalkers with ghosts and vikings, and spreading are nothing to worry about -- below diamond. Protoss gets to instantly remax with warpgates. Terran remaxes faster in an even game where he doesn't A) Lose an engagement horribly or B) Somehow fall behind in bases and income to a Protoss. DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.. Protoss players are not freaking out about winning the main engagement. They're probably leaning back in their chair smoking a cigar while their army follows the amove command towards the Terran main. On September 13 2013 04:59 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 03:45 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Not sure where you get your numbers from, but its points shaved off of a percentage less terrans in masters compared to the overall race ratio. There are just a LITTLE less Terrans than the other races, and consequently, there is a SLIGHTLY less than a little less Terrans in masters. edit: infact, lets just settle this right now so that we're straight on the numbers. Where are you getting yours from? Cause I'm pulling them from SC2Ranks. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race - more Terrans than Zergs Also 30,24 % T in general with 8.75% random players 27,45% in Masters with 2,44% random players. So expected would be about 32% Terrans, instead of 27% Unless you want to assume the difference comes from the huge spike of Terrans in Bronze, the only league Terran has 32% players in is silver -- 38% in bronze. Everywhere else it's consistently 29%, barring masters, where it dips to 27%. GM is where it dips significantly. You'd have to be able to explain why Bronze has 38% Terrans, and why it dips from 38% in bronze to 29% in gold, before you can claim masters is a difference of 5% and not 2%. Unsure if you are just blatantly ignoring my points just so you can call my post the "antom of objectivity"? Where did I write that Protoss doesn't have to change it up? Like, I didn't even write that. edit: nvm I did write that, what I meant is that terran needs to look for colo count / HT count to have the correct composition, Protoss doesn't really need to see if terran has gone shitloads of X to counter it. How many times have a terran lost to a colossi tech switch ? How many times have a Protoss lost to a.. eh, marine tech switch? The only thing Protoss has to worry about is storming - Why are you ignoring context? I'm talking about the importance of babysitting. Protoss deathball dishes out way more damage unmicroed than bio. AoE in colossus, superior rarnge, autocharging zealots. - Maybe I used the wrong word. I mean reinforce, not remax. Protoss can reinforce faster with warpgate since they instantly get the units out. - Why are you writing about a-moving protoss? I'm writing about the problems lower level terran players face and why they shy away from the race. I think the need for babysitting Terran is greater than Protoss, if you can't see that then I can't really give you empirical data on it, its just common sense.
Sorry, but I have to agree that your opinions are far from objective. As a player who primarily plays random, it is really clear that your assertions are highly affected by the fact that you play Terran.
If you think that Terran armies by default require more babysitting than Protoss, you clearly haven't played Protoss and lost your whole army because you were too slow to forcefield or had your High Templars EMPed and lost an engagement horribly.
If you think that Terran is less forgiving, you clearly haven't played Zerg and lost a game because you spawned 5 drones instead of 5 sets of lings, or because you forgot to inject. Or you haven't lost a really close game against a Terran because mules are amazing when neither player has any workers left.
If you think that Dark Templars are good harassing units then you haven't played/don't understand Protoss at a level higher than silver, and if you think Protoss has better harass options than Terran then you haven't watched enough pro games.
If you are wondering why Zerg doesn't need to worry about Terran tech switching, it's because Terran doesn't really need to tech switch to win.
I'm not saying these things to try to put you down, but just that I feel that your limited experience is hindering your ability to make judgements about relative difficulty of playing each race.
|
On September 13 2013 15:16 ImperialFist wrote:
Well in my opinion the problem with being a foreign Terran is no random thing. It quite simply is a bit harder to play Terran, it's actually not anything to whine about. When people play games some play on easy, medium, hard, brutal etc. It does not mean the game is broken or anything. The foreign Ts can still win if they play good enough, it's not "broken".
That's exactly what broken means.
Since people play this game for their living you should not be able to tell foreign terrans that they picked the wrong race.
Otherwise success in RTS e-sport is all about a race pick lottery.
Either that or players should switch races immediately when winds of balance shift.
|
Terran is the least forgiving race to play and is high in APM-multitask to be at the same relative skill level of the other 2 races
There are no colossi or fungal growth to easy win every unit must be microed to be saved from certain death
Either squishy bio or lumbering mech it's not that Terran is nerfed it simply has higher entry level requirements which obviously scale with the overall competition
Simply: Terran played well is amazing, it's just harder to play well and is the hardest race to recover with
The foreigner scene just has a smaller pro-player base than the Koreans so that means fewer really good terrans
like those that win tournaments
 qxc just was in IEM shanghai and got screwed with a group of death he may have gotten to quarters or semis had he played slightly easier opponents
|
On September 13 2013 15:17 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:24 krooked wrote:On September 13 2013 05:05 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 04:32 krooked wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Regarding #s of players as race X in GM:
No, you can't say its clear proof. But it counts as evidence. Another thing I've been thinking about is the fact that most serious players try to play "macro games". Historically, terrans lategame army is just straight up weaker than P/Z's, and I think we all can agree that bio-play is simply more fragile than P/Z's armies. Terran needs to babysit etc.
But back to my point, since a lot of people play kinda turtley, T gets "punished" while P/Z thrives in lategame on multiple bases. There are also match up specific problems in playing a macro game as terran.
TvP:
Having to react to the different compositions P has - Know when to engage and how to do it. Protoss doesn't really need to change things up in a standard bio vs deathball game. I also think Terran is straight up harder to control. I think storming is basically the one very important thing P needs to remember, while terran needs to snipe, spread out, focus fire and kite while macroing mid battle. Protoss ofcourse gets to instantly remax with WG tech.
Protoss also has better harass options in DT's (cloak and huge dmg output), zealots (good dmg output, high HP). DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.
Medivac dropping simply isn't that good with cannons and HTs for feedback, with very fragile units inside the medivacs.
Another problem is the fact that Terran needs to tailor his build to account for a aggressive Protoss, neglecting upgrades in the process. Protoss on the other hand is so safe that they can get 2x forge and get an upgrade advantage which put T at a disadvantage.
TvZ:
Neglecting the fact that Terran is favored in this MU these days, and biomine being extremely cost efficient, there are some trouble here as well. Terran needs to be the aggressor and keep zerg at home while securing expands (and safeguarding them against mutas/runbys), and here too Terran needs to be vary of tech switches. Zerg doesn't really fear this from Terran. Oh you went shitloads of marauders? Luckily MLB crushes marauders. Again going back to the "turtle/macro"-mindset of a lot of people, this puts T at a disadvantage if you don't know how to be aggressive at the appropriate timings and having the mechanical strength to execute it.
I'm sure similar things can be said about the other races, but I look at the games objectively and this is what I see. I simply believe Terran is more unforgiving than P/Z, more mechanically demanding and that's why there are so few good foreigner Terrans. A lot of people just switch away from Terran or give up because the learning curve is simply too steep. Remember that the pro's used to just wish to reach masters. A lot of people just give up before that with Terran because of the sheer amount of losses where its not "what could I've done better" but "I just don't have the skill to do this".
The fuck? Your post defines the antonym of objectivity. The Protoss doesn't have to change things up in a standard bio vs colossus/ht game, and neither does the Terran. The openings vary, but the end-game composition is the same every single time. The only thing Protoss has to worry about is storming. Getting EMP'ed, landing feedbacks, spacing blink stalkers with ghosts and vikings, and spreading are nothing to worry about -- below diamond. Protoss gets to instantly remax with warpgates. Terran remaxes faster in an even game where he doesn't A) Lose an engagement horribly or B) Somehow fall behind in bases and income to a Protoss. DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.. Protoss players are not freaking out about winning the main engagement. They're probably leaning back in their chair smoking a cigar while their army follows the amove command towards the Terran main. On September 13 2013 04:59 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 03:45 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Not sure where you get your numbers from, but its points shaved off of a percentage less terrans in masters compared to the overall race ratio. There are just a LITTLE less Terrans than the other races, and consequently, there is a SLIGHTLY less than a little less Terrans in masters. edit: infact, lets just settle this right now so that we're straight on the numbers. Where are you getting yours from? Cause I'm pulling them from SC2Ranks. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race - more Terrans than Zergs Also 30,24 % T in general with 8.75% random players 27,45% in Masters with 2,44% random players. So expected would be about 32% Terrans, instead of 27% Unless you want to assume the difference comes from the huge spike of Terrans in Bronze, the only league Terran has 32% players in is silver -- 38% in bronze. Everywhere else it's consistently 29%, barring masters, where it dips to 27%. GM is where it dips significantly. You'd have to be able to explain why Bronze has 38% Terrans, and why it dips from 38% in bronze to 29% in gold, before you can claim masters is a difference of 5% and not 2%. Unsure if you are just blatantly ignoring my points just so you can call my post the "antom of objectivity"? Where did I write that Protoss doesn't have to change it up? Like, I didn't even write that. edit: nvm I did write that, what I meant is that terran needs to look for colo count / HT count to have the correct composition, Protoss doesn't really need to see if terran has gone shitloads of X to counter it. How many times have a terran lost to a colossi tech switch ? How many times have a Protoss lost to a.. eh, marine tech switch? The only thing Protoss has to worry about is storming - Why are you ignoring context? I'm talking about the importance of babysitting. Protoss deathball dishes out way more damage unmicroed than bio. AoE in colossus, superior rarnge, autocharging zealots. - Maybe I used the wrong word. I mean reinforce, not remax. Protoss can reinforce faster with warpgate since they instantly get the units out. - Why are you writing about a-moving protoss? I'm writing about the problems lower level terran players face and why they shy away from the race. I think the need for babysitting Terran is greater than Protoss, if you can't see that then I can't really give you empirical data on it, its just common sense. Sorry, but I have to agree that your opinions are far from objective. As a player who primarily plays random, it is really clear that your assertions are highly affected by the fact that you play Terran. If you think that Terran armies by default require more babysitting than Protoss, you clearly haven't played Protoss and lost your whole army because you were too slow to forcefield or had your High Templars EMPed and lost an engagement horribly. If you think that Terran is less forgiving, you clearly haven't played Zerg and lost a game because you spawned 5 drones instead of 5 sets of lings, or because you forgot to inject. Or you haven't lost a really close game against a Terran because mules are amazing when neither player has any workers left. If you think that Dark Templars are good harassing units then you haven't played/don't understand Protoss at a level higher than silver, and if you think Protoss has better harass options than Terran then you haven't watched enough pro games. If you are wondering why Zerg doesn't need to worry about Terran tech switching, it's because Terran doesn't really need to tech switch to win. I'm not saying these things to try to put you down, but just that I feel that your limited experience is hindering your ability to make judgements about relative difficulty of playing each race.
At first i think PvT is slightly P favorite right now because the MSC limits the early pressure options so much for almost no costs but not by a lot more like 53-47%.
The thing is that PvT might not be imbalanced but it can be the most frustrating matchup. The reason behind this is that as Terran you have quite often the situation that the Protoss is just sitting there and just leave 1 time his side of the map. You can (and need) to be active as Terran and you have the tools to do that! But quite often you can have the situation that you killed 50 Probes, denied bases, killed tech but at some point you have to kill the 200/200 Army with HT´s and Colossie. And if you loose this fight du to misscontrole against the hts and 2 or 3 stroms hit the game is over due to warp ins and the fact that colossie/ht´s are unkillable without the right unit mix that you usually dont have because Vikings and Ghosts work like Hydras they just cant retreat without dying.
It´s not a balance thing its more of a frustration thing why so many Terrans are complaining.
|
On September 13 2013 15:16 ImperialFist wrote:
Plansix is literally on a crusade in this thread, he will let people believe that the Terran is the hardest race but only over his cold dead E-Body!
Well in my opinion the problem with being a foreign Terran is no random thing. It quite simply is a bit harder to play Terran, it's actually not anything to whine about. When people play games some play on easy, medium, hard, brutal etc. It does not mean the game is broken or anything. The foreign Ts can still win if they play good enough, it's not "broken".
I'm pretty sure he will let everybody his belief.
But he is very surely asking why people believe bullshit and pointing out what's wrong with the made up arguments that people vomit afterwards (the few ones that actually have an argument for it).
|
It's probably partially due to carry over from Brood War and War3 in the foreigner scene.
T was the least represented race in TSL1 and TSL2. Also, many War3 players chose P because the unit control is more closely related.
|
On September 13 2013 15:17 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:24 krooked wrote:On September 13 2013 05:05 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 04:32 krooked wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Regarding #s of players as race X in GM:
No, you can't say its clear proof. But it counts as evidence. Another thing I've been thinking about is the fact that most serious players try to play "macro games". Historically, terrans lategame army is just straight up weaker than P/Z's, and I think we all can agree that bio-play is simply more fragile than P/Z's armies. Terran needs to babysit etc.
But back to my point, since a lot of people play kinda turtley, T gets "punished" while P/Z thrives in lategame on multiple bases. There are also match up specific problems in playing a macro game as terran.
TvP:
Having to react to the different compositions P has - Know when to engage and how to do it. Protoss doesn't really need to change things up in a standard bio vs deathball game. I also think Terran is straight up harder to control. I think storming is basically the one very important thing P needs to remember, while terran needs to snipe, spread out, focus fire and kite while macroing mid battle. Protoss ofcourse gets to instantly remax with WG tech.
Protoss also has better harass options in DT's (cloak and huge dmg output), zealots (good dmg output, high HP). DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.
Medivac dropping simply isn't that good with cannons and HTs for feedback, with very fragile units inside the medivacs.
Another problem is the fact that Terran needs to tailor his build to account for a aggressive Protoss, neglecting upgrades in the process. Protoss on the other hand is so safe that they can get 2x forge and get an upgrade advantage which put T at a disadvantage.
TvZ:
Neglecting the fact that Terran is favored in this MU these days, and biomine being extremely cost efficient, there are some trouble here as well. Terran needs to be the aggressor and keep zerg at home while securing expands (and safeguarding them against mutas/runbys), and here too Terran needs to be vary of tech switches. Zerg doesn't really fear this from Terran. Oh you went shitloads of marauders? Luckily MLB crushes marauders. Again going back to the "turtle/macro"-mindset of a lot of people, this puts T at a disadvantage if you don't know how to be aggressive at the appropriate timings and having the mechanical strength to execute it.
I'm sure similar things can be said about the other races, but I look at the games objectively and this is what I see. I simply believe Terran is more unforgiving than P/Z, more mechanically demanding and that's why there are so few good foreigner Terrans. A lot of people just switch away from Terran or give up because the learning curve is simply too steep. Remember that the pro's used to just wish to reach masters. A lot of people just give up before that with Terran because of the sheer amount of losses where its not "what could I've done better" but "I just don't have the skill to do this".
The fuck? Your post defines the antonym of objectivity. The Protoss doesn't have to change things up in a standard bio vs colossus/ht game, and neither does the Terran. The openings vary, but the end-game composition is the same every single time. The only thing Protoss has to worry about is storming. Getting EMP'ed, landing feedbacks, spacing blink stalkers with ghosts and vikings, and spreading are nothing to worry about -- below diamond. Protoss gets to instantly remax with warpgates. Terran remaxes faster in an even game where he doesn't A) Lose an engagement horribly or B) Somehow fall behind in bases and income to a Protoss. DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.. Protoss players are not freaking out about winning the main engagement. They're probably leaning back in their chair smoking a cigar while their army follows the amove command towards the Terran main. On September 13 2013 04:59 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 03:45 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Not sure where you get your numbers from, but its points shaved off of a percentage less terrans in masters compared to the overall race ratio. There are just a LITTLE less Terrans than the other races, and consequently, there is a SLIGHTLY less than a little less Terrans in masters. edit: infact, lets just settle this right now so that we're straight on the numbers. Where are you getting yours from? Cause I'm pulling them from SC2Ranks. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race - more Terrans than Zergs Also 30,24 % T in general with 8.75% random players 27,45% in Masters with 2,44% random players. So expected would be about 32% Terrans, instead of 27% Unless you want to assume the difference comes from the huge spike of Terrans in Bronze, the only league Terran has 32% players in is silver -- 38% in bronze. Everywhere else it's consistently 29%, barring masters, where it dips to 27%. GM is where it dips significantly. You'd have to be able to explain why Bronze has 38% Terrans, and why it dips from 38% in bronze to 29% in gold, before you can claim masters is a difference of 5% and not 2%. Unsure if you are just blatantly ignoring my points just so you can call my post the "antom of objectivity"? Where did I write that Protoss doesn't have to change it up? Like, I didn't even write that. edit: nvm I did write that, what I meant is that terran needs to look for colo count / HT count to have the correct composition, Protoss doesn't really need to see if terran has gone shitloads of X to counter it. How many times have a terran lost to a colossi tech switch ? How many times have a Protoss lost to a.. eh, marine tech switch? The only thing Protoss has to worry about is storming - Why are you ignoring context? I'm talking about the importance of babysitting. Protoss deathball dishes out way more damage unmicroed than bio. AoE in colossus, superior rarnge, autocharging zealots. - Maybe I used the wrong word. I mean reinforce, not remax. Protoss can reinforce faster with warpgate since they instantly get the units out. - Why are you writing about a-moving protoss? I'm writing about the problems lower level terran players face and why they shy away from the race. I think the need for babysitting Terran is greater than Protoss, if you can't see that then I can't really give you empirical data on it, its just common sense. Sorry, but I have to agree that your opinions are far from objective. As a player who primarily plays random, it is really clear that your assertions are highly affected by the fact that you play Terran. If you think that Terran armies by default require more babysitting than Protoss, you clearly haven't played Protoss and lost your whole army because you were too slow to forcefield or had your High Templars EMPed and lost an engagement horribly. If you think that Terran is less forgiving, you clearly haven't played Zerg and lost a game because you spawned 5 drones instead of 5 sets of lings, or because you forgot to inject. Or you haven't lost a really close game against a Terran because mules are amazing when neither player has any workers left. If you think that Dark Templars are good harassing units then you haven't played/don't understand Protoss at a level higher than silver, and if you think Protoss has better harass options than Terran then you haven't watched enough pro games. If you are wondering why Zerg doesn't need to worry about Terran tech switching, it's because Terran doesn't really need to tech switch to win. I'm not saying these things to try to put you down, but just that I feel that your limited experience is hindering your ability to make judgements about relative difficulty of playing each race.
Ive played both P and Z as my main.
You make it sound like I don't think there are obstacles playing P/Z? That's of course because you automatically assume that since I am only talking about it from the Terran perspectiev (the thread topic remember), I also think that P/Z is just brainless turtling into A-move. That's not what I said and that's not what I mean.
Now to your specific scenarios:
In lategame scenarios (which, for clarification, is what I am talking about as I wrote in my OP), forcefielding a Terran army isnt nearly as important as stimming. That's just fact. Its more important to avoid being EMPed yes, but even that isnt as bad as say getting your whole army bumrushed and stormed. You can easily avoid clumping up your HTs to avoid getting them all EMPed. P doesn't need to storm ASAP. In many progames the storms are "late" and its not that big of a deal. Colo zealot archon does fine for itself for a while.
Regarding your Zerg argument: Again, Im talking about lategame. I know very well that Zerg is fragile, especially earlygame. Whats your point?
In lategame Protoss has better harass weapons than Terran. Zealots/DTs are way better at diverting attention than a clump of marines that gets killed by a single HT and cannons. Takes about 5 seconds to clean up at most. Also remember that a pylon = you warp in units in the position the harass is happening. Not possible for Terran.
|
On September 13 2013 16:44 krooked wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 15:17 Myrddraal wrote:On September 13 2013 13:24 krooked wrote:On September 13 2013 05:05 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 04:32 krooked wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Regarding #s of players as race X in GM:
No, you can't say its clear proof. But it counts as evidence. Another thing I've been thinking about is the fact that most serious players try to play "macro games". Historically, terrans lategame army is just straight up weaker than P/Z's, and I think we all can agree that bio-play is simply more fragile than P/Z's armies. Terran needs to babysit etc.
But back to my point, since a lot of people play kinda turtley, T gets "punished" while P/Z thrives in lategame on multiple bases. There are also match up specific problems in playing a macro game as terran.
TvP:
Having to react to the different compositions P has - Know when to engage and how to do it. Protoss doesn't really need to change things up in a standard bio vs deathball game. I also think Terran is straight up harder to control. I think storming is basically the one very important thing P needs to remember, while terran needs to snipe, spread out, focus fire and kite while macroing mid battle. Protoss ofcourse gets to instantly remax with WG tech.
Protoss also has better harass options in DT's (cloak and huge dmg output), zealots (good dmg output, high HP). DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.
Medivac dropping simply isn't that good with cannons and HTs for feedback, with very fragile units inside the medivacs.
Another problem is the fact that Terran needs to tailor his build to account for a aggressive Protoss, neglecting upgrades in the process. Protoss on the other hand is so safe that they can get 2x forge and get an upgrade advantage which put T at a disadvantage.
TvZ:
Neglecting the fact that Terran is favored in this MU these days, and biomine being extremely cost efficient, there are some trouble here as well. Terran needs to be the aggressor and keep zerg at home while securing expands (and safeguarding them against mutas/runbys), and here too Terran needs to be vary of tech switches. Zerg doesn't really fear this from Terran. Oh you went shitloads of marauders? Luckily MLB crushes marauders. Again going back to the "turtle/macro"-mindset of a lot of people, this puts T at a disadvantage if you don't know how to be aggressive at the appropriate timings and having the mechanical strength to execute it.
I'm sure similar things can be said about the other races, but I look at the games objectively and this is what I see. I simply believe Terran is more unforgiving than P/Z, more mechanically demanding and that's why there are so few good foreigner Terrans. A lot of people just switch away from Terran or give up because the learning curve is simply too steep. Remember that the pro's used to just wish to reach masters. A lot of people just give up before that with Terran because of the sheer amount of losses where its not "what could I've done better" but "I just don't have the skill to do this".
The fuck? Your post defines the antonym of objectivity. The Protoss doesn't have to change things up in a standard bio vs colossus/ht game, and neither does the Terran. The openings vary, but the end-game composition is the same every single time. The only thing Protoss has to worry about is storming. Getting EMP'ed, landing feedbacks, spacing blink stalkers with ghosts and vikings, and spreading are nothing to worry about -- below diamond. Protoss gets to instantly remax with warpgates. Terran remaxes faster in an even game where he doesn't A) Lose an engagement horribly or B) Somehow fall behind in bases and income to a Protoss. DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.. Protoss players are not freaking out about winning the main engagement. They're probably leaning back in their chair smoking a cigar while their army follows the amove command towards the Terran main. On September 13 2013 04:59 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 03:45 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Not sure where you get your numbers from, but its points shaved off of a percentage less terrans in masters compared to the overall race ratio. There are just a LITTLE less Terrans than the other races, and consequently, there is a SLIGHTLY less than a little less Terrans in masters. edit: infact, lets just settle this right now so that we're straight on the numbers. Where are you getting yours from? Cause I'm pulling them from SC2Ranks. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race - more Terrans than Zergs Also 30,24 % T in general with 8.75% random players 27,45% in Masters with 2,44% random players. So expected would be about 32% Terrans, instead of 27% Unless you want to assume the difference comes from the huge spike of Terrans in Bronze, the only league Terran has 32% players in is silver -- 38% in bronze. Everywhere else it's consistently 29%, barring masters, where it dips to 27%. GM is where it dips significantly. You'd have to be able to explain why Bronze has 38% Terrans, and why it dips from 38% in bronze to 29% in gold, before you can claim masters is a difference of 5% and not 2%. Unsure if you are just blatantly ignoring my points just so you can call my post the "antom of objectivity"? Where did I write that Protoss doesn't have to change it up? Like, I didn't even write that. edit: nvm I did write that, what I meant is that terran needs to look for colo count / HT count to have the correct composition, Protoss doesn't really need to see if terran has gone shitloads of X to counter it. How many times have a terran lost to a colossi tech switch ? How many times have a Protoss lost to a.. eh, marine tech switch? The only thing Protoss has to worry about is storming - Why are you ignoring context? I'm talking about the importance of babysitting. Protoss deathball dishes out way more damage unmicroed than bio. AoE in colossus, superior rarnge, autocharging zealots. - Maybe I used the wrong word. I mean reinforce, not remax. Protoss can reinforce faster with warpgate since they instantly get the units out. - Why are you writing about a-moving protoss? I'm writing about the problems lower level terran players face and why they shy away from the race. I think the need for babysitting Terran is greater than Protoss, if you can't see that then I can't really give you empirical data on it, its just common sense. Sorry, but I have to agree that your opinions are far from objective. As a player who primarily plays random, it is really clear that your assertions are highly affected by the fact that you play Terran. If you think that Terran armies by default require more babysitting than Protoss, you clearly haven't played Protoss and lost your whole army because you were too slow to forcefield or had your High Templars EMPed and lost an engagement horribly. If you think that Terran is less forgiving, you clearly haven't played Zerg and lost a game because you spawned 5 drones instead of 5 sets of lings, or because you forgot to inject. Or you haven't lost a really close game against a Terran because mules are amazing when neither player has any workers left. If you think that Dark Templars are good harassing units then you haven't played/don't understand Protoss at a level higher than silver, and if you think Protoss has better harass options than Terran then you haven't watched enough pro games. If you are wondering why Zerg doesn't need to worry about Terran tech switching, it's because Terran doesn't really need to tech switch to win. I'm not saying these things to try to put you down, but just that I feel that your limited experience is hindering your ability to make judgements about relative difficulty of playing each race. Ive played both P and Z as my main. You make it sound like I don't think there are obstacles playing P/Z? That's of course because you automatically assume that since I am only talking about it from the Terran perspectiev (the thread topic remember), I also think that P/Z is just brainless turtling into A-move. That's not what I said and that's not what I mean. Now to your specific scenarios: In lategame scenarios (which, for clarification, is what I am talking about as I wrote in my OP), forcefielding a Terran army isnt nearly as important as stimming. That's just fact. Its more important to avoid being EMPed yes, but even that isnt as bad as say getting your whole army bumrushed and stormed. You can easily avoid clumping up your HTs to avoid getting them all EMPed. P doesn't need to storm ASAP. In many progames the storms are "late" and its not that big of a deal. Colo zealot archon does fine for itself for a while. Regarding your Zerg argument: Again, Im talking about lategame. I know very well that Zerg is fragile, especially earlygame. Whats your point? In lategame Protoss has better harass weapons than Terran. Zealots/DTs are way better at diverting attention than a clump of marines that gets killed by a single HT and cannons. Takes about 5 seconds to clean up at most. Also remember that a pylon = you warp in units in the position the harass is happening. Not possible for Terran.
Yea the way Terran as a race works, the production of the army also affects its strength, have to build every single unit and its not as easy to max out the army unlike both zerg and protoss. Haing played all races, Terran is by far the most difficult and APM intensive. Also to aid your argument here, surely the lack of foreign Terrans shows how difficult the race is to play? I reckon it is the intensity of the KeSPA training regime and the quality of the other players they practice with. Also I think the team house environment helps them out a lot too, they seem to practice with each other and give each other tips, I dont know for sure, but it doesnt look like the playerrs at EG do that, they seem to just ladder all the time (I could easily be wrong)
|
jesus christ, terran oh damn so hard to play, its so bad for them omg stop the bullshit already ffs, every race got its own difficulties, just because you play one race doesnt mean its the hardest and are the most nerfed race and requires 1000 apm etc etc, wake up!! so damn biased!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
