|
On September 14 2013 03:49 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 03:38 Mzimzim wrote:On September 14 2013 03:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 02:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 14 2013 02:49 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 14 2013 01:30 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 01:27 9-BiT wrote:
I don't know what race is the hardest but I know and a lot of pros admit that Terran has the highest skill ceiling. I think after a certain level Terran starts paying back in dividends but foreign terrans just haven't hit that level yet. Can you please provide citations of pros admitting to this? I have never seen an interview or any pro admit that terran has the most difficult or has the highest skill ceiling(with the exception of some well known balance whiners). I believe there was an interview with Mvp after he won GSL World Champ, where he said that T is UP, so i would not wonder at all if we were to find such a statement from terran. both Flash and IMMVP have made these statements if you're looking for multiple reputable sources both of longstanding players and recent entries into the meta. There's also the hilarious Ryung moment, but that shouldn't count. Can we count Nani'wi as one for the side of protoss, or are we only taking Korea pros? What about MCs hilarious interview Incontrol and Stephano where Stephano asks if MC thought that protoss was the most powerful and MC replied "Are you kidding me?" I am sure we can find amazing quote from all pros about the challenges of each race. He wasn't commenting on the difficulty of the race, he was merely suggesting that terran had the highest skill ceiling. While MC's comment might suggest that he thinks protoss is weak, that comment says nothing about each races skill ceiling. MC might even argue that protoss is weak because of a lower skill ceiling, but that quote nor Naniwa's and Ryungs say anything about skill ceiling. The point is that the quotes prove nothing beyond the personal opinion of a professional gamer. I could find quotes from anyone saying their specific position in football or their role in Dota 2 is the hardest position/role. Just because they are a professional gamer does not make their opinion valid or based on anything except for personal bias. So why did you ask for quotes few posts earlier if they dont matter?
It doesn't matter because its a logical fallacy to appeal to authority
He was asking for a pro-player to dictate, specifically, with empirical evidence that Terran is the hardest race to play.
|
On September 14 2013 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 03:49 keglu wrote:On September 14 2013 03:41 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 03:38 Mzimzim wrote:On September 14 2013 03:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 02:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 14 2013 02:49 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 14 2013 01:30 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 01:27 9-BiT wrote:
I don't know what race is the hardest but I know and a lot of pros admit that Terran has the highest skill ceiling. I think after a certain level Terran starts paying back in dividends but foreign terrans just haven't hit that level yet. Can you please provide citations of pros admitting to this? I have never seen an interview or any pro admit that terran has the most difficult or has the highest skill ceiling(with the exception of some well known balance whiners). I believe there was an interview with Mvp after he won GSL World Champ, where he said that T is UP, so i would not wonder at all if we were to find such a statement from terran. both Flash and IMMVP have made these statements if you're looking for multiple reputable sources both of longstanding players and recent entries into the meta. There's also the hilarious Ryung moment, but that shouldn't count. Can we count Nani'wi as one for the side of protoss, or are we only taking Korea pros? What about MCs hilarious interview Incontrol and Stephano where Stephano asks if MC thought that protoss was the most powerful and MC replied "Are you kidding me?" I am sure we can find amazing quote from all pros about the challenges of each race. He wasn't commenting on the difficulty of the race, he was merely suggesting that terran had the highest skill ceiling. While MC's comment might suggest that he thinks protoss is weak, that comment says nothing about each races skill ceiling. MC might even argue that protoss is weak because of a lower skill ceiling, but that quote nor Naniwa's and Ryungs say anything about skill ceiling. The point is that the quotes prove nothing beyond the personal opinion of a professional gamer. I could find quotes from anyone saying their specific position in football or their role in Dota 2 is the hardest position/role. Just because they are a professional gamer does not make their opinion valid or based on anything except for personal bias. So why did you ask for quotes few posts earlier if they dont matter? It doesn't matter because its a logical fallacy to appeal to authority He was asking for a pro-player to dictate, specifically, with empirical evidence that Terran is the hardest race to play.
Also people like to make vague, overreaching statements like "I know tons of high level pros say that terran is the hardest race to play" without backing it up in any way. The same trick is used in politics when they claim that "studies prove that my plan will help the economy and save jobs" without citing any of their studies or backing up their claim. Its appealing to authority without having any evidence, hoping that that we would just accept it as fact that high level pros made those statements.
|
On September 14 2013 02:55 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 23:56 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 14:31 keglu 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%. I dont know where you get your data from but on my screen there i see 34% Terrans in bronze, Foreign = EU + NA = 38% Terrans in bronze. Actually its still around 34% in EU and AM but i was talking about ladder in general.
No, it's 38%. You're probably counting random which is either split among all three, or not counted at all.
|
This thread is so pointless. Even people making reasonable arguments are immediately refuted due to lack of data or fallacious arguments. Believe it or not, Starcraft 2 doesn't have an immense collection of research or data to back up most assertions that are made about topics such as these or balance. Some people here just want to have a fun discussion, whether we're "appealing to authority" or not.
The truth of the matter is, if Artosis or Mvp says something about the game, people are going to give credibility to that as long as they don't have a long history of being super biased. And as long as people here aren't making outrageous claims and being somewhat reasonable, it's really annoying for some of you to just keep discrediting everyone without actually adding to the discussion at all. If you want to insistently call people out on their thought processes and faulty logic, go join debate club or become a politician.
|
On September 14 2013 04:26 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 02:55 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 23:56 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 14:31 keglu 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%. I dont know where you get your data from but on my screen there i see 34% Terrans in bronze, Foreign = EU + NA = 38% Terrans in bronze. Actually its still around 34% in EU and AM but i was talking about ladder in general. No, it's 38%. You're probably counting random which is either split among all three, or not counted at all.
Im not counting anything i just look at numbers that are saying 34% in coulmn named Terran
http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race/hots/eu/1v1/bronze
http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race/hots/am/1v1/bronze
|
On September 14 2013 04:34 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:26 rd wrote:On September 14 2013 02:55 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 23:56 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 14:31 keglu 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:
[quote]
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, Foreign = EU + NA = 38% Terrans in bronze. Actually its still around 34% in EU and AM but i was talking about ladder in general. No, it's 38%. You're probably counting random which is either split among all three, or not counted at all. Im not counting anything i just look at numbers that are saying 34% in coulmn named Terran http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race/hots/eu/1v1/bronzehttp://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race/hots/am/1v1/bronze
As of today, 15278 Terran / (15278 Terran + 14061 Protoss + 10546 Zerg) * 100 = 38.3%
On September 14 2013 04:31 Mzimzim wrote:
This thread is so pointless. Even people making reasonable arguments are immediately refuted due to lack of data or fallacious arguments. Believe it or not, Starcraft 2 doesn't have an immense collection of research or data to back up most assertions that are made about topics such as these or balance. Some people here just want to have a fun discussion, whether we're "appealing to authority" or not.
The truth of the matter is, if Artosis or Mvp says something about the game, people are going to give credibility to that as long as they don't have a long history of being super biased. And as long as people here aren't making outrageous claims and being somewhat reasonable, it's really annoying for some of you to just keep discrediting everyone without actually adding to the discussion at all. If you want to insistently call people out on their thought processes and faulty logic, go join debate club or become a politician.
The problem isn't that there is a lack of data. There is data, and there are conclusions that can be made when used in conjunction with other evidence. Problem is that some people have a biased interest in proposing a conclusion without the relevant evidence to support it.
|
On September 14 2013 04:31 Mzimzim wrote:
This thread is so pointless. Even people making reasonable arguments are immediately refuted due to lack of data or fallacious arguments. Believe it or not, Starcraft 2 doesn't have an immense collection of research or data to back up most assertions that are made about topics such as these or balance. Some people here just want to have a fun discussion, whether we're "appealing to authority" or not.
The truth of the matter is, if Artosis or Mvp says something about the game, people are going to give credibility to that as long as they don't have a long history of being super biased. And as long as people here aren't making outrageous claims and being somewhat reasonable, it's really annoying for some of you to just keep discrediting everyone without actually adding to the discussion at all. If you want to insistently call people out on their thought processes and faulty logic, go join debate club or become a politician.
Your right that the thread is pointless, and its also from 2012. That is how old this thread is, I remember when it first came along. It followed another thread called "where have all the terrans gone?" which reported that terrans were being crushed off the ladder due to being the hardest race to play in the game. This thread just became "terran is the hardest race" thread. It is a theory that people have discussed for ages and pushed the idea that terran is the hardest race of them all.
Opinions are fine, but when people act like that opinion is fact, someone is going to object or request proof of that claim. I think terran is a hard race to plan and does not fit my style, but I also feel the same way about zerg. But I don't act like zerg and terran are harder than protoss.
|
On September 14 2013 04:47 Plansix wrote:
Your right that the thread is pointless, and its also from 2012. That is how old this thread is, I remember when it first came along. It followed another thread called "where have all the terrans gone?" which reported that terrans were being crushed off the ladder due to being the hardest race to play in the game. This thread just became "terran is the hardest race" thread. It is a theory that people have discussed for ages and pushed the idea that terran is the hardest race of them all.
Opinions are fine, but when people act like that opinion is fact, someone is going to object or request proof of that claim. I think terran is a hard race to plan and does not fit my style, but I also feel the same way about zerg. But I don't act like zerg and terran are harder than protoss.
Well the fact that there are almost 2x the amount of protoss than terran and around 50% more zerg than terran in GM league globally are basically stats pointing to the fact that terran is the worst race to play if you are aiming to get a good ladder ranking. Not to mention are least in Masters by a good margin.
You could say "o well terran is just less popular" but the fact that overall the number of players of each race is almost an even split it's just that terrans are concentrated down in the lower leagues for some reason. And saying that "only noobs pick terran" doesn't really seem like a valid counter point.
|
On September 14 2013 04:41 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:34 keglu wrote:On September 14 2013 04:26 rd wrote:On September 14 2013 02:55 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 23:56 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 14:31 keglu 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:
[quote]
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, Foreign = EU + NA = 38% Terrans in bronze. Actually its still around 34% in EU and AM but i was talking about ladder in general. No, it's 38%. You're probably counting random which is either split among all three, or not counted at all. Im not counting anything i just look at numbers that are saying 34% in coulmn named Terran http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race/hots/eu/1v1/bronzehttp://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race/hots/am/1v1/bronze As of today, 15278 Terran / (15278 Terran + 14061 Protoss + 10546 Zerg) * 100 = 38.3% Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:31 Mzimzim wrote:
This thread is so pointless. Even people making reasonable arguments are immediately refuted due to lack of data or fallacious arguments. Believe it or not, Starcraft 2 doesn't have an immense collection of research or data to back up most assertions that are made about topics such as these or balance. Some people here just want to have a fun discussion, whether we're "appealing to authority" or not.
The truth of the matter is, if Artosis or Mvp says something about the game, people are going to give credibility to that as long as they don't have a long history of being super biased. And as long as people here aren't making outrageous claims and being somewhat reasonable, it's really annoying for some of you to just keep discrediting everyone without actually adding to the discussion at all. If you want to insistently call people out on their thought processes and faulty logic, go join debate club or become a politician. The problem isn't that there is a lack of data. There is data, and there are conclusions that can be made when used in conjunction with other evidence. Problem is that some people have a biased interest in proposing a conclusion without the relevant evidence to support it.
Next time add 'excluding randoms'. It will save us both time.
|
On September 14 2013 04:55 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:41 rd wrote:On September 14 2013 04:34 keglu wrote:On September 14 2013 04:26 rd wrote:On September 14 2013 02:55 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 23:56 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 14:31 keglu 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:
[quote]
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, Foreign = EU + NA = 38% Terrans in bronze. Actually its still around 34% in EU and AM but i was talking about ladder in general. No, it's 38%. You're probably counting random which is either split among all three, or not counted at all. Im not counting anything i just look at numbers that are saying 34% in coulmn named Terran http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race/hots/eu/1v1/bronzehttp://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race/hots/am/1v1/bronze As of today, 15278 Terran / (15278 Terran + 14061 Protoss + 10546 Zerg) * 100 = 38.3% On September 14 2013 04:31 Mzimzim wrote:
This thread is so pointless. Even people making reasonable arguments are immediately refuted due to lack of data or fallacious arguments. Believe it or not, Starcraft 2 doesn't have an immense collection of research or data to back up most assertions that are made about topics such as these or balance. Some people here just want to have a fun discussion, whether we're "appealing to authority" or not.
The truth of the matter is, if Artosis or Mvp says something about the game, people are going to give credibility to that as long as they don't have a long history of being super biased. And as long as people here aren't making outrageous claims and being somewhat reasonable, it's really annoying for some of you to just keep discrediting everyone without actually adding to the discussion at all. If you want to insistently call people out on their thought processes and faulty logic, go join debate club or become a politician. The problem isn't that there is a lack of data. There is data, and there are conclusions that can be made when used in conjunction with other evidence. Problem is that some people have a biased interest in proposing a conclusion without the relevant evidence to support it. Next time add 'excluding randoms'. It will save us both time.
Random is not a race. It makes no difference statistically to the other three races anyways, so it doesn't even matter. I guess we go back to the start now where I ask you to explain why bronze has such a disproportionate amount of Terrans before you try and draw a connection between Terran as a race and master league being an outlier statistically -- because Terran numbers are fairly consistent up TO Masters, where bronze league is the outlier league with the crazy numbers.
|
On September 14 2013 04:58 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:55 keglu wrote:On September 14 2013 04:41 rd wrote:On September 14 2013 04:34 keglu wrote:On September 14 2013 04:26 rd wrote:On September 14 2013 02:55 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 23:56 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 14:31 keglu 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:[quote] 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, Foreign = EU + NA = 38% Terrans in bronze. Actually its still around 34% in EU and AM but i was talking about ladder in general. No, it's 38%. You're probably counting random which is either split among all three, or not counted at all. Im not counting anything i just look at numbers that are saying 34% in coulmn named Terran http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race/hots/eu/1v1/bronzehttp://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race/hots/am/1v1/bronze As of today, 15278 Terran / (15278 Terran + 14061 Protoss + 10546 Zerg) * 100 = 38.3% On September 14 2013 04:31 Mzimzim wrote:
This thread is so pointless. Even people making reasonable arguments are immediately refuted due to lack of data or fallacious arguments. Believe it or not, Starcraft 2 doesn't have an immense collection of research or data to back up most assertions that are made about topics such as these or balance. Some people here just want to have a fun discussion, whether we're "appealing to authority" or not.
The truth of the matter is, if Artosis or Mvp says something about the game, people are going to give credibility to that as long as they don't have a long history of being super biased. And as long as people here aren't making outrageous claims and being somewhat reasonable, it's really annoying for some of you to just keep discrediting everyone without actually adding to the discussion at all. If you want to insistently call people out on their thought processes and faulty logic, go join debate club or become a politician. The problem isn't that there is a lack of data. There is data, and there are conclusions that can be made when used in conjunction with other evidence. Problem is that some people have a biased interest in proposing a conclusion without the relevant evidence to support it. Next time add 'excluding randoms'. It will save us both time. Random is not a race. Save your own time.
I will thanks, people learn from mistakes.
|
On September 14 2013 04:53 JIJI_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:47 Plansix wrote:
Your right that the thread is pointless, and its also from 2012. That is how old this thread is, I remember when it first came along. It followed another thread called "where have all the terrans gone?" which reported that terrans were being crushed off the ladder due to being the hardest race to play in the game. This thread just became "terran is the hardest race" thread. It is a theory that people have discussed for ages and pushed the idea that terran is the hardest race of them all.
Opinions are fine, but when people act like that opinion is fact, someone is going to object or request proof of that claim. I think terran is a hard race to plan and does not fit my style, but I also feel the same way about zerg. But I don't act like zerg and terran are harder than protoss. Well the fact that there are almost 2x the amount of protoss than terran and around 50% more zerg than terran in GM league globally are basically stats pointing to the fact that terran is the worst race to play if you are aiming to get a good ladder ranking. Not to mention are least in Masters by a good margin. You could say "o well terran is just less popular" but the fact that overall the number of players of each race is almost an even split it's just that terrans are concentrated down in the lower leagues for some reason. And saying that "only noobs pick terran" doesn't really seem like a valid counter point.
If someone wanted to make a thread about how Terran was really terrible on the ladder, but much does much better in a bo3 or bo5, that would be a discussion worth having. I personally think that would be an interesting discussion to have. It could lead to a more interesting discussion about the ladder itself being made up of bo3 and bo5, rather than one off matches. It is way more interesting than a discussion about terran being the harder race.
|
On September 13 2013 22:06 krooked wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 20:54 darkscream wrote:
terran is the race with almost no thoughts towards strategy and composition, super easy forgiving macro, but demands the highest levels of army management, multitasking and aggression.
there is no shortage of foreign terrans, just a shortage of ones who penetrate deeply into WCS. I suspect it's because, from all my years watching, foreigner terrans try too hard to be creative and strategic, and not enough to be boring and effective like korean terrans do. Take QXC for example - love that guy. Is he really training himself to have 400apm and perfect micro though? Nah, QXC is the kind of guy who will proxy thor rush you. Now consider all the EU terrans - so many of them try so hard to force mech play when that's just not optimal.
There have been builds/strategies/tactics made by foreign protoss and zerg that catch on in korea. But never so for terran. This is because zerg/protoss actually have room for creativity and innovation. Catz's proxy hatch at the enemy natural is a good example, it's been used a few times by players in GSL/GSTL now. Naniwa's pvz style also really caught on, although i'm sure the meta was headed in that direction anyways. Point is though, terran is a race with almost no creativity or innovation at all, its literally just repetitive mechanical army control, poke and prod, stim and split, drop and boost, with the same 3-4 units in every matchup. Doing anything BUT standard bio is just asking to lose.
So I wonder why foreign terrans don't spent more time in marine split challenge, really. When you actually have to put 50-75% of your APM into microing all the time, and that's all that is relevant to your success, I just can't understand why any of them waste their time doing anything but the most pure carbon copy of aggressive bio builds from flash, innovation, bomber etc. Sure, they might bring those builds to the tournament, but are they actually doing those builds 12 hours a day every day before the tournament?
I think it comes down to foreigners getting bored easier. They just want to play to have fun sometimes and try different stuff. But trying different stuff as terran is a waste of time whereas that is not true for protoss and zerg. unfortunately this will always be the case until they buff literally every terran unit that isn't MMM, and nerf MMM. Terran is actually the race that needs to pay the most attention to composition in its respective match ups.
That's just not the case. That's protoss. By a large margin.
|
On September 14 2013 09:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 22:06 krooked wrote:On September 13 2013 20:54 darkscream wrote:
terran is the race with almost no thoughts towards strategy and composition, super easy forgiving macro, but demands the highest levels of army management, multitasking and aggression.
there is no shortage of foreign terrans, just a shortage of ones who penetrate deeply into WCS. I suspect it's because, from all my years watching, foreigner terrans try too hard to be creative and strategic, and not enough to be boring and effective like korean terrans do. Take QXC for example - love that guy. Is he really training himself to have 400apm and perfect micro though? Nah, QXC is the kind of guy who will proxy thor rush you. Now consider all the EU terrans - so many of them try so hard to force mech play when that's just not optimal.
There have been builds/strategies/tactics made by foreign protoss and zerg that catch on in korea. But never so for terran. This is because zerg/protoss actually have room for creativity and innovation. Catz's proxy hatch at the enemy natural is a good example, it's been used a few times by players in GSL/GSTL now. Naniwa's pvz style also really caught on, although i'm sure the meta was headed in that direction anyways. Point is though, terran is a race with almost no creativity or innovation at all, its literally just repetitive mechanical army control, poke and prod, stim and split, drop and boost, with the same 3-4 units in every matchup. Doing anything BUT standard bio is just asking to lose.
So I wonder why foreign terrans don't spent more time in marine split challenge, really. When you actually have to put 50-75% of your APM into microing all the time, and that's all that is relevant to your success, I just can't understand why any of them waste their time doing anything but the most pure carbon copy of aggressive bio builds from flash, innovation, bomber etc. Sure, they might bring those builds to the tournament, but are they actually doing those builds 12 hours a day every day before the tournament?
I think it comes down to foreigners getting bored easier. They just want to play to have fun sometimes and try different stuff. But trying different stuff as terran is a waste of time whereas that is not true for protoss and zerg. unfortunately this will always be the case until they buff literally every terran unit that isn't MMM, and nerf MMM. Terran is actually the race that needs to pay the most attention to composition in its respective match ups. That's just not the case. That's protoss. By a large margin.
As a Protoss player, what scouting do you do to look at which tech terran is going for? And how do you change it up based on what you see? 
|
On September 14 2013 09:50 krooked wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 09:38 Nebuchad wrote:On September 13 2013 22:06 krooked wrote:On September 13 2013 20:54 darkscream wrote:
terran is the race with almost no thoughts towards strategy and composition, super easy forgiving macro, but demands the highest levels of army management, multitasking and aggression.
there is no shortage of foreign terrans, just a shortage of ones who penetrate deeply into WCS. I suspect it's because, from all my years watching, foreigner terrans try too hard to be creative and strategic, and not enough to be boring and effective like korean terrans do. Take QXC for example - love that guy. Is he really training himself to have 400apm and perfect micro though? Nah, QXC is the kind of guy who will proxy thor rush you. Now consider all the EU terrans - so many of them try so hard to force mech play when that's just not optimal.
There have been builds/strategies/tactics made by foreign protoss and zerg that catch on in korea. But never so for terran. This is because zerg/protoss actually have room for creativity and innovation. Catz's proxy hatch at the enemy natural is a good example, it's been used a few times by players in GSL/GSTL now. Naniwa's pvz style also really caught on, although i'm sure the meta was headed in that direction anyways. Point is though, terran is a race with almost no creativity or innovation at all, its literally just repetitive mechanical army control, poke and prod, stim and split, drop and boost, with the same 3-4 units in every matchup. Doing anything BUT standard bio is just asking to lose.
So I wonder why foreign terrans don't spent more time in marine split challenge, really. When you actually have to put 50-75% of your APM into microing all the time, and that's all that is relevant to your success, I just can't understand why any of them waste their time doing anything but the most pure carbon copy of aggressive bio builds from flash, innovation, bomber etc. Sure, they might bring those builds to the tournament, but are they actually doing those builds 12 hours a day every day before the tournament?
I think it comes down to foreigners getting bored easier. They just want to play to have fun sometimes and try different stuff. But trying different stuff as terran is a waste of time whereas that is not true for protoss and zerg. unfortunately this will always be the case until they buff literally every terran unit that isn't MMM, and nerf MMM. Terran is actually the race that needs to pay the most attention to composition in its respective match ups. That's just not the case. That's protoss. By a large margin. As a Protoss player, what scouting do you do to look at which tech terran is going for? And how do you change it up based on what you see?
None, because every terran does the same thing every game. That's a comment on the variety of terran openings, not on the importance of compositions.
|
Actually I think the reason that there are more terrans than zerg in bronze league is because zerg probably feels the hardest to play for new players, so they are more likely to play terran or protoss. I play zerg in diamond, however, but protoss feels almost as easy to play and terran definitely feels the most difficult to play.
|
Back in BW it was widely accepted that Terran requires the most mechanics to play while Protoss is the easiest race to play. It's strange that people (particularly protoss players) are so offended by this notion in SC2, where it still holds true. If anything, the difference between the mechanics required to play the two races have actually widened in SC2.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
To sum this thread up:
There are few foreign Terrans because it is very hard to play it, while Zerg and Protoss are a-move races.
Can we get a lock on this thread already?
|
On September 14 2013 10:14 vNmMasterT wrote:
Back in BW it was widely accepted that Terran requires the most mechanics to play while Protoss is the easiest race to play. It's strange that people (particularly protoss players) are so offended by this notion in SC2, where it still holds true. If anything, the difference between the mechanics required to play the two races have actually widened in SC2.
I'm annoyed by it because I played Terran in BW. It wasn't that hard then. The hardest thing (outside of t vs p being imbalanced) was the imbalance in learning maps. Terran was way more terrain dependent than other races: you simply had to have way more practice than the other races to play competently on all of the maps and to get up to speed.
I'm playing Toss in SC 2 and I'm struggling way, way more with Toss micro in SC 2 than I ever did with anything Terran related in BW. I'm tired of terrans looking for an excuse when they would suck just as bad if they played toss. FYI, I played p vs t in BW and Toss was easy. It's just not the same now. Every fucking unit is a spell caster. There's 0 margin for error. If I lose something, it's not some freebie marines -- it's stuff that actually costs minerals and time to remake.
I think part of their problem is SC 2 mechanics. I was able to control, terran, fine, with 3 plus control groups of marines. I imagine it's harder to play now given "new rules" that allow you to have all of your units (that just need stim.. which is everything) to be on 1 hotkey. It's just too convenient for people to pass up, and maybe in the end it does hurt them.
Kiting with Terran units is the biggest joke ever. If you think that is hard and that's what is holding you back, find a new game. Period.
No one plays terran in the first place. It's boring as fuck. A robot would be bored of playing with Terran. I miss Terran micro, every day, because I miss how easy it is and how 1 ta it is.
|
On September 14 2013 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 09:50 krooked wrote:On September 14 2013 09:38 Nebuchad wrote:On September 13 2013 22:06 krooked wrote:On September 13 2013 20:54 darkscream wrote:
terran is the race with almost no thoughts towards strategy and composition, super easy forgiving macro, but demands the highest levels of army management, multitasking and aggression.
there is no shortage of foreign terrans, just a shortage of ones who penetrate deeply into WCS. I suspect it's because, from all my years watching, foreigner terrans try too hard to be creative and strategic, and not enough to be boring and effective like korean terrans do. Take QXC for example - love that guy. Is he really training himself to have 400apm and perfect micro though? Nah, QXC is the kind of guy who will proxy thor rush you. Now consider all the EU terrans - so many of them try so hard to force mech play when that's just not optimal.
There have been builds/strategies/tactics made by foreign protoss and zerg that catch on in korea. But never so for terran. This is because zerg/protoss actually have room for creativity and innovation. Catz's proxy hatch at the enemy natural is a good example, it's been used a few times by players in GSL/GSTL now. Naniwa's pvz style also really caught on, although i'm sure the meta was headed in that direction anyways. Point is though, terran is a race with almost no creativity or innovation at all, its literally just repetitive mechanical army control, poke and prod, stim and split, drop and boost, with the same 3-4 units in every matchup. Doing anything BUT standard bio is just asking to lose.
So I wonder why foreign terrans don't spent more time in marine split challenge, really. When you actually have to put 50-75% of your APM into microing all the time, and that's all that is relevant to your success, I just can't understand why any of them waste their time doing anything but the most pure carbon copy of aggressive bio builds from flash, innovation, bomber etc. Sure, they might bring those builds to the tournament, but are they actually doing those builds 12 hours a day every day before the tournament?
I think it comes down to foreigners getting bored easier. They just want to play to have fun sometimes and try different stuff. But trying different stuff as terran is a waste of time whereas that is not true for protoss and zerg. unfortunately this will always be the case until they buff literally every terran unit that isn't MMM, and nerf MMM. Terran is actually the race that needs to pay the most attention to composition in its respective match ups. That's just not the case. That's protoss. By a large margin. As a Protoss player, what scouting do you do to look at which tech terran is going for? And how do you change it up based on what you see? None, because every terran does the same thing every game. That's a comment on the variety of terran openings, not on the importance of compositions.
Yea, the rough composition is almost the same, and openings are limited. I agree with this. But Terran needs to react to Protoss and Zerg, while its "never" the other way around.
@ Playa
I dislike the argument that terran was hard / easy whatever in BW, because it doesn't matter at all for SC2.
But terran being the "a-move" race is so ridiculous that I wonder if I should even bother writing this.
Nobody says kiting is hard, literally nobody. What we are saying is that since we can only do one thing at a time, its hard to kite and do everything else at the same time. It requires attention for an extended period of time. I've watched so many protoss streams where they aren't even looking at their army when engaging. A terran simply can't do this.
Citing that terran is "boring" isn't really an argument, but sure. If you think its boring to play Terran that's fine. Personally I left Protoss for the same reason - too boring. But it has nothing to do with this discussion at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
