i want to understand why there are so few non-korean terran players that make a noticable impact in greater tournaments.
Its obvious that korean terrans can win tournaments and have no problem to compete with their fellow zerg and protoss korean-players. And there are a lot of korean terrans we all know and see all the time in big tournaments.
But i have the feeling that foreign terrans have dissapeared somewhat. In major tournaments i only remember : DeMuslim, Lucifron, Thorzain and Major. On the other hand there are planty of foreign protoss and zergs that i remember playing a significant role in major tournaments.
What are the reasons for this ?
Do the koreans like the terrans more as the foreigners do ? And therefore it is only natural that there are more good korean terrans ?
Is it just coincidence ? Maybe 2012 was just a bad year for foreign terrans ?
Or is it something in the game ? Is the terran race better suited for the korean style of practice ?
Or maybe i am wrong and i missed some notable foreign terrans in the tournaments ? Then please correct me.
Terran takes a lot of APM which a lot of foreigners don't have. That is kind of the reason korean terrans are so good is they have a lot of apm and thus can use terran in ways foreigners can't due to being to slow.
Even during the age of Terran a long time ago I dont think foreign terrans were that dominant either. They may win here and there but not dominating fashion like Zerg/toss.
I think a contributing reason is that the terran progamers have been more popular in korea (both historically in sc bw and sc2). SlayerSBoxer, NaDa, Flash etc.
Remember MarineKing for example? He even took boxers name for that reason! ^^
I agree that it's largely due to the fact that really famous Terran players have always been Korean, making it harder to really break into the scene as a foreigner Terran. I would disagree that there is some huge skill gap that makes it impossible, I mean...foreigners do have the potential to play against each other and do well as Terran as foreigners, without even getting Koreans into the picture.
this has been discussed like a million times, but this topic makes no sense in this particular time period anyway because terran is doing absolutely awfully for several months now, even for koreans
Lucifron beat the hell out of Stephano in that series, also check race distribution x)
and yeah what people are saying, what T requires skillwise, is what really differ foreigners from Koreans (apm).
But, dont forget the Empire terrans; Beasty, Bratok, Kas and Happy are all great Terrans!
Edit: Yes, I do realise the race distribution in 'Stim to the Win' is on purpose
Edit2: Come to think of it; Zerg and protoss pros often have the same incredibly high apm as T pros, so its not like the APM of Terran players excels the APM of other races.
For example, the highest APM Ive ever seen on zerg players are DRG and Leenock, which might be the reason they are among the few Zerg players who are able to compete with muta ling bling. And that might be the reason as to why foreign zergs are less likely to go for muta ling bling in zvt?
On December 19 2012 18:01 wingless666 wrote: Hello everyone,
i want to understand why there are so few non-korean terran players that make a noticable impact in greater tournaments.
Its obvious that korean terrans can win tournaments and have no problem to compete with their fellow zerg and protoss korean-players. And there are a lot of korean terrans we all know and see all the time in big tournaments.
But i have the feeling that foreign terrans have dissapeared somewhat. In major tournaments i only remember : DeMuslim, Lucifron, Thorzain and Major. On the other hand there are planty of foreign protoss and zergs that i remember playing a significant role in major tournaments.
What are the reasons for this ?
Do the koreans like the terrans more as the foreigners do ? And therefore it is only natural that there are more good korean terrans ?
Is it just coincidence ? Maybe 2012 was just a bad year for foreign terrans ?
Or is it something in the game ? Is the terran race better suited for the korean style of practice ?
Or maybe i am wrong and i missed some notable foreign terrans in the tournaments ? Then please correct me.
PS : sorry for my bad english
The same reason there were so few really good foreign bw terran players? O; The game just isn't friendly towards Terran players atm.
On December 19 2012 18:28 rafaliusz wrote: "Why are there so few foreign terran players ?"
Fungal.
Not only foreign terrans tho, koreans are struggling as well.
Yeah, there aren't 10 Terrans in the next season of Code S or anything.
As for foreign Terrans, Terran requires the most APM of the three races to play at the highest level. Foreign players usually don't have as much high APM.
Terran is the hardest race to use, and you need crazy APM and multitasking skills to use Terran to its full potential. This is why only Koreans can do it, whereas for Z and P, you know there are well-known foreign Z and P such as Naniwa, Huk, Stephano, Scarlett. On the other hand, for Terrans to excel, it needs APM and multitasking, something which Korean Terrans are generally better at compared to foreign terrans. Having said this, there are some really decent foreign terrans like Thorzain
Just this fact alone shows how difficult it is to play as T.
All the famous foreigners are protoss or zerg. It's too hard to play terran right now. With other races having so much AOE, it's much more difficult to come back from a mistake. Korean terrans > Foreigner terrans = they're better at coming back but still.... I miss 2010...
On December 19 2012 18:04 blade55555 wrote: Terran takes a lot of APM which a lot of foreigners don't have. That is kind of the reason korean terrans are so good is they have a lot of apm and thus can use terran in ways foreigners can't due to being to slow.
On December 19 2012 18:13 kckkryptonite wrote: Because Terran is the hardest race to play well and generally requires the most micro/multitask.
And thats the point i dont understand. (Yes i am a noob). Why is terran so "hard" ? I mean zerg have to inject, protoss need to chrono boost and must warp in units. And all three races have their casters. And for all three races positioning is a key element in every fight. So please can you explain what i am not seeing ?
And why cant the foreignes train to have the required apm ?
PS : i am very sorry that i forgot about Kas, and Happy did well in the euro finals i think but i didnt saw much from strelok or bratok
It was the same way in BW. Even then, a lot of people would talk about "omg it takes so much more apm and the micro is so much harder." So much hyperbole. If it weren't that true in BW, I would give it even less credence in SC 2. I can't speak so much for SC 2 since I don't play Terran, but for BW, I think the biggest thing was how dependent Terran was on the terrain. It created a larger variability in skill level. Ie., on a map you practice a lot, you could be A-, but on a map you haven't practiced as much, or one that doesn't have as favorable of a terrain for Terran, you could play like you were C rank or something. Playing with Toss didn't really require nearly as much thought/practice.
Besides the terrain factor, Terran is simply a less forgiving race (although much kinder in SC 2. Calling down supplies and easy, easy macro...). With Terran, your mistakes simply seem to be magnified or at least have a higher chance of quickly snowballing into defeat. And as long as z vs t is imbalanced in SC 2, more so than other mu's, that's only going to further skew things. Also, when a game is new and imbalanced, you're free to simply change races as being worried about having to "start over" is pretty silly. SC 2 needs to be bigger in Russia or something, as they seemed to have a larger amount of Terran talent, relative to other countries.
On December 19 2012 18:33 dynwar7 wrote: Terran is the hardest race to use, and you need crazy APM and multitasking skills to use Terran to its full potential. This is why only Koreans can do it, whereas for Z and P, you know there are well-known foreign Z and P such as Naniwa, Huk, Stephano, Scarlett. On the other hand, for Terrans to excel, it needs APM and multitasking, something which Korean Terrans are generally better at compared to foreign terrans. Having said this, there are some really decent foreign terrans like Thorzain
Just this fact alone shows how difficult it is to play as T.
Crazy APM and multitasking is highly overrated by the general community. Terran actually doesn't take that. Sure you can have crazy harass as terran, but you don't need it. Goody has beaten MMA and loads of top players, and Destiny plays LOL faster than he plays SC2. Thorzain and Polt don't have insane apm or multitask either. Reading the forums you'd think that every successful terran player is this sick crazy fast beast and every successful zerg/protoss is slow and bad compared to them, only winning from imba shit like infestor and forcefield. Stephano, Scarlett, Dongraegu, Life, and other top zergs are just as fast(and in many cases much faster) than top terran players.
Honestly, this sounds stupid, but a bunch of korean Terran progamers chose Terran because they're humans and it was cool to be defending from the invaders. It has nothing to do with how strong a certain race is. At least I've read from a lot of interviews and fan cafes.
And of course, the vast majority of bonjwas were Terran in Broodwar. That helps too.
On December 19 2012 19:00 CYFAWS wrote: well t is the only race that doesn't get free base defense, maphack and 1a armies ::DDDD :Dd :DDD:D:D:D :D
Ah you are wrong. PF's are pretty much free base defense. Zerg doesn't get free base defense.
Also the common misconception from terrans is they think zergs/tosses just A move. If they just a moved then their army would be obliterated (unless they are just so far ahead they can A move, but terran can do that to ^^).
Aka if I A move my ling/bane army guess what? All my banes will hit whatever is closest so like tanks which is bad bad, or they might attack in the most retarded way possible allowing tank shots to do more damage or certain marines to do more damage then they should.
On December 19 2012 18:04 blade55555 wrote: Terran takes a lot of APM which a lot of foreigners don't have. That is kind of the reason korean terrans are so good is they have a lot of apm and thus can use terran in ways foreigners can't due to being to slow.
On December 19 2012 18:13 kckkryptonite wrote: Because Terran is the hardest race to play well and generally requires the most micro/multitask.
And thats the point i dont understand. (Yes i am a noob). Why is terran so "hard" ? I mean zerg have to inject, protoss need to chrono boost and must warp in units. And all three races have their casters. And for all three races positioning is a key element in every fight. So please can you explain what i am not seeing ?
And why cant the foreignes train to have the required apm ?
PS : i am very sorry that i forgot about Kas, and Happy did well in the euro finals i think but i didnt saw much from strelok or bratok
Because when you're terran, looking away from your army for two seconds could mean that everything is dead.
On December 19 2012 18:30 GolemMadness wrote: Terran is the hardest and least forgiving race.
This is pretty much it imo. Foreigners don't have the skill level of top Koreans (which the race is balanced around) and therefore suffer because the race is so unforgiving.
Terran is not the "least forgiving" race... if anything they are the MOST forgiving. Mules, supply drops, lifting buildings... many tools allow people to make macro mistakes and be ok. However, miss an inject, a chrono, a warp in, or creep spread and you are behind.
The real reason why there aren't as many successful foreign terrans is simply because terran requires the best mechanics to win.
On December 19 2012 19:11 seffer wrote: Terran is not the "least forgiving" race... if anything they are the MOST forgiving. Mules, supply drops, lifting buildings... many tools allow people to make macro mistakes and be ok. However, miss an inject, a chrono, a warp in, or creep spread and you are behind.
The real reason why there aren't as many successful foreign terrans is simply because terran requires the best mechanics to win.
In terms of macro, it is the least forgiving. Mules offer a tremendous economic utility, but they have to. Protoss is the most forgiving. They can speed up their production of tech, army or harvesters. Zerg can speed up their production of army or harvesters. Terran can only speed up economy. This makes Terran macro very unforgiving.
But I think this view agrees with what you are saying, since mechanics is the way Terran fill that gap. Which is something Koreans in general are superior to compared to Foreigners. This is why I believe we see a greater ratio of successful Korean Terrans (relative to Korean zerg and protoss) to foreign Terrans (relative to foreign zerg and protoss)
On December 19 2012 19:11 seffer wrote: Terran is not the "least forgiving" race... if anything they are the MOST forgiving. Mules, supply drops, lifting buildings... many tools allow people to make macro mistakes and be ok. However, miss an inject, a chrono, a warp in, or creep spread and you are behind.
The real reason why there aren't as many successful foreign terrans is simply because terran requires the best mechanics to win.
You aren't really behind if you miss any of those things. Incidentally, nobody's talking about small macro mistakes when they say that the race is unforgiving. They're talking about your entire army can die in a couple of seconds if you aren't paying attention, or how difficult it is to make comebacks compared to zerg.
On December 19 2012 19:11 seffer wrote: Terran is not the "least forgiving" race... if anything they are the MOST forgiving. Mules, supply drops, lifting buildings... many tools allow people to make macro mistakes and be ok. However, miss an inject, a chrono, a warp in, or creep spread and you are behind.
The real reason why there aren't as many successful foreign terrans is simply because terran requires the best mechanics to win.
Macro mechanics wise, you are probably right. But think of this, Terran's DPS is for the most part from high DPS low HP units which also makes them the least forgiving in battles due to AOE damage. The idea of forgiving is not simply limited to one aspect of the game. All races are least forgiving in one way or another. Z in terms of macro, T in terms of micro, P in terms of spell caster usage and composition (my thoughts only for the last statement).
On December 19 2012 19:16 battleboy wrote: because blizzard balanced the game so badly that terran isnt playable anymore...
Shit.. if battleboy said it it must be true!
Seriously, Terran is playable, none of the decisions blizzard make will affect you until a decent masters level and even then Terrans still are fearsome: Mvp, Bogus, Fantasy etc. all succeeding in recent months.
On December 19 2012 19:16 battleboy wrote: because blizzard balanced the game so badly that terran isnt playable anymore...
Shit.. if battleboy said it it must be true!
Seriously, Terran is playable, none of the decisions blizzard make will affect you until a decent masters level and even then Terrans still are fearsome: Mvp, Bogus, Fantasy etc. all succeeding in recent months.
No one is even mentioning leagues, and you still pull out the league card. You can have your masters league, I'm off to Dota... have fun in HoTS you obsessive compulsive losers.
While he's moving out, Flash has to deal with some muta harass. Time from when banelings are in his sight range to when half his army is dead and he's basically lost the game? 3 seconds. People go "Omg what a noob split gold league can do better than that," but that's just not how the game works. You need to often be looking at multiple places at the same time, and sometimes you don't look at the right place for a couple of seconds and you lose the game.
While he's moving out, Flash has to deal with some muta harass. Time from when banelings are in his sight range to when half his army is dead and he's basically lost the game? 3 seconds. People go "Omg what a noob split gold league can do better than that," but that's just not how the game works. You need to often be looking at multiple places at the same time, and sometimes you don't look at the right place for a couple of seconds and you lose the game.
I'm not going to say that this isn't necessarily true, but that doesn't mean that his opponent doesn't have to multitask in every place the Terran does as well. The zerg has to control the mutas, set up defenses, rally units, inject, spread creep, etc. This just doesn't seem like the best example of why Terran is least forgiving.
While he's moving out, Flash has to deal with some muta harass. Time from when banelings are in his sight range to when half his army is dead and he's basically lost the game? 3 seconds. People go "Omg what a noob split gold league can do better than that," but that's just not how the game works. You need to often be looking at multiple places at the same time, and sometimes you don't look at the right place for a couple of seconds and you lose the game.
I'm not going to say that this isn't necessarily true, but that doesn't mean that his opponent doesn't have to multitask in every place the Terran does as well. The zerg has to control the mutas, set up defenses, rally units, inject, spread creep, etc. This just doesn't seem like the best example of why Terran is least forgiving.
You're comparing losing the game because you don't look at your army for three seconds to spreading creep? Seriously? Here's what happens if you don't spread creep at the absolute optimal rate: you'll have a slight disadvantage under some circumstances. How is that the same thing at all as LOSING THE GAME over the span of THREE SECONDS?
While he's moving out, Flash has to deal with some muta harass. Time from when banelings are in his sight range to when half his army is dead and he's basically lost the game? 3 seconds. People go "Omg what a noob split gold league can do better than that," but that's just not how the game works. You need to often be looking at multiple places at the same time, and sometimes you don't look at the right place for a couple of seconds and you lose the game.
also note that with infestors, who can AoE at a distance while banelings have to actually roll to the army, your margin of error drops to about 1 second instead.
On December 19 2012 19:11 seffer wrote: Terran is not the "least forgiving" race... if anything they are the MOST forgiving. Mules, supply drops, lifting buildings... many tools allow people to make macro mistakes and be ok. However, miss an inject, a chrono, a warp in, or creep spread and you are behind.
The real reason why there aren't as many successful foreign terrans is simply because terran requires the best mechanics to win.
You aren't really behind if you miss any of those things. Incidentally, nobody's talking about small macro mistakes when they say that the race is unforgiving. They're talking about your entire army can die in a couple of seconds if you aren't paying attention, or how difficult it is to make comebacks compared to zerg.
Not just a weak easy to lose army... but one that's very hard to rebuild. Terran production is the slowest AND most expensive.
On December 19 2012 19:11 seffer wrote: Terran is not the "least forgiving" race... if anything they are the MOST forgiving. Mules, supply drops, lifting buildings... many tools allow people to make macro mistakes and be ok. However, miss an inject, a chrono, a warp in, or creep spread and you are behind.
The real reason why there aren't as many successful foreign terrans is simply because terran requires the best mechanics to win.
Macro mechanics wise, you are probably right. But think of this, Terran's DPS is for the most part from high DPS low HP units which also makes them the least forgiving in battles due to AOE damage. The idea of forgiving is not simply limited to one aspect of the game. All races are least forgiving in one way or another. Z in terms of macro, T in terms of micro, P in terms of spell caster usage and composition (my thoughts only for the last statement).
Then I think terran is the most forgiving race macro wise, but micro wise they are the least forgiving.
To play Terran on a high level you must use bio, not everyone is willing to give up their self-respect.
Terran early game is really volatile too, risky openings are way more rewarding than safer plays. Maybe Korean Terrans can compensate for some of that with superior micro.
There are alot of terrans in the foreign scene, but they aren't winning the biggest tournaments atm. If you look at the european scene, there is quite a decent amount. I don't know too much about the American scene, but if you dig down a bit i guess you will find a decent amount aswell.
If you only look at the biggest leagues you will only see korean terrans, korean protosses, korean zergs and a few foreign protosses and zergs. I guess the foreign terrans are having a hard time in the current metagame.
in addition to everything that has been said, i think Terran gains the biggest advantage out of the GSL format because being able to prepare specific builds is more important for terran than it is for Protoss and especially Zerg, hence making the Korean GSL Terrans more successful than the foreign terrans that only play weekend tournaments.
I also think it's just unfortunate that the best foreigners mostly play Zerg.
Looking at it from a video game perspective, most gamers would rather play Zerg and Protoss. Why? Because it's a fucking video game. You don't want to be in a video game and be playing as boring old humans. You want to be ancient aliens with super sick technology, or sick, infested aliens with swarming ferocity.
If you look at them mechanics wise, you'd be quite silly to think the best Zerg/Protoss foreigners couldn't play Terran at a high level (whether they'd be as successful as they are, I cannot say). However, IdrA played Terran in BW, and Stephano/Scarlett/Naniwa are really fast. So speed isn't really the issue. Even Flash only has around 200+ APM, it's just that he doesn't mess up his macro.
Terran macro is unforgiving as hell, and foreigners have never really got the hang of it, is what I think it comes down to.
On December 19 2012 20:05 Flonomenalz wrote: I also think it's just unfortunate that the best foreigners mostly play Zerg.
Looking at it from a video game perspective, most gamers would rather play Zerg and Protoss. Why? Because it's a fucking video game. You don't want to be in a video game and be playing as boring old humans. You want to be ancient aliens with super sick technology, or sick, infested aliens with swarming ferocity.
If you look at them mechanics wise, you'd be quite silly to think the best Zerg/Protoss foreigners couldn't play Terran at a high level (whether they'd be as successful as they are, I cannot say). However, IdrA played Terran in BW, and Stephano/Scarlett/Naniwa are really fast. So speed isn't really the issue. Even Flash only has around 200+ APM, it's just that he doesn't mess up his macro.
Terran macro is unforgiving as hell, and foreigners have never really got the hang of it, is what I think it comes down to.
Flash had 400ish apm in wcg 2010 with 240eapm to boot. The myth of flash being "slow" is kind of wierd.
I think if they buffed mech and mech became standard like in BW you would see more foreigner success. Bio requires more apm and constant control that only korean terrans are taking advantage of. foreigner bio 200/200 is just weaker than the the other races aoe shenanigans. I think the reason foreigner zergs are having success is spells like fungal, there's not much difference between a korean player using infestor and a foreigner player using infestor.
The Terran ratio was fine during beta/release and even foreign Terrans dominated the weekly tournaments (not sure about America though). It was actually like now with Zerg, mostly TvT starting with the semi-finals. Terran was probably also the easiest race to optimize at first.
Then, the other races slowly figured out how to play and the patches came. Korean Terrans still dominated GSL, but the pool of Foreign Terrans that can win tournaments faded away. Now that the Korean Terrans struggle, too, there is no surprise that there are hardly any Foreign Terrans left.
On December 19 2012 19:16 battleboy wrote: because blizzard balanced the game so badly that terran isnt playable anymore...
Shit.. if battleboy said it it must be true!
Seriously, Terran is playable, none of the decisions blizzard make will affect you until a decent masters level and even then Terrans still are fearsome: Mvp, Bogus, Fantasy etc. all succeeding in recent months.
No one is even mentioning leagues, and you still pull out the league card. You can have your masters league, I'm off to Dota... have fun in HoTS you obsessive compulsive losers.
I'm in gold league, leagues have nothing to do with this. What I was stating was: 1. Balance doesn't affect people below masters 2. People who have the skills to play Terran can compete with the other races on even footing.
On December 19 2012 18:02 BlackGosu wrote: its a bad time for terran in general. look at the recent big tournament results, and now the blizzard cup
It's been like this for the entirety of SC2's lifespan. People can list names of foreign Terrans they consider good all they want, but what have they actually won?
At the end of the day, Terran is more difficult because it's more unforgiving in the ways that matter most in SC2. The snowball effect is much more pronounced than it was in BW, with comebacks being nearly impossible to pull off in most instances. When you're playing the race the produces the slowest and generally fields the squishiest armies with the highest vulnerability to AOE attacks and spells, it causes any mistake you make in an engagement to hurt you much more than if you weren't playing Terran. There's no 20 chargelot warp-in or instant remax on whatever unit you want, and there's nothing in Terran's arsenal that has the same instantaneous, devastating impact on a Zerg or Protoss army that fungal or storm have on Terran.
On December 19 2012 19:16 battleboy wrote: because blizzard balanced the game so badly that terran isnt playable anymore...
Shit.. if battleboy said it it must be true!
Seriously, Terran is playable, none of the decisions blizzard make will affect you until a decent masters level and even then Terrans still are fearsome: Mvp, Bogus, Fantasy etc. all succeeding in recent months.
No one is even mentioning leagues, and you still pull out the league card. You can have your masters league, I'm off to Dota... have fun in HoTS you obsessive compulsive losers.
I'm in gold league, leagues have nothing to do with this. What I was stating was: 1. Balance doesn't affect people below masters 2. People who have the skills to play Terran can compete with the other races on even footing.
I'm of the strong opinion that you cannot even really begin to fathom the way the game works at a high, competitive level, unless you are at least masters. Hell, I'll drop to diamond. I worked my way up from bronze, and as I got into diamond, I began to realize that I really didn't know shit about the game prior to diamond. In masters, this realization was increased even more, about how little I really knew. The problem is, you won't ever realize this, unless you get there yourself. Otherwise, you'll just keep thinking you know everything.
On December 19 2012 19:16 battleboy wrote: because blizzard balanced the game so badly that terran isnt playable anymore...
Shit.. if battleboy said it it must be true!
Seriously, Terran is playable, none of the decisions blizzard make will affect you until a decent masters level and even then Terrans still are fearsome: Mvp, Bogus, Fantasy etc. all succeeding in recent months.
No one is even mentioning leagues, and you still pull out the league card. You can have your masters league, I'm off to Dota... have fun in HoTS you obsessive compulsive losers.
I'm in gold league, leagues have nothing to do with this. What I was stating was: 1. Balance doesn't affect people below masters 2. People who have the skills to play Terran can compete with the other races on even footing.
I'm of the strong opinion that you cannot even really begin to fathom the way the game works at a high, competitive level, unless you are at least masters. Hell, I'll drop to diamond. I worked my way up from bronze, and as I got into diamond, I began to realize that I really didn't know shit about the game prior to diamond. In masters, this realization was increased even more, about how little I really knew. The problem is, you won't ever realize this, unless you get there yourself. Otherwise, you'll just keep thinking you know everything.
quoted for fucking truth
darkforce said this quite often: the better you get, the more you realize you are a terrible noob.
On December 19 2012 19:16 battleboy wrote: because blizzard balanced the game so badly that terran isnt playable anymore...
Shit.. if battleboy said it it must be true!
Seriously, Terran is playable, none of the decisions blizzard make will affect you until a decent masters level and even then Terrans still are fearsome: Mvp, Bogus, Fantasy etc. all succeeding in recent months.
No one is even mentioning leagues, and you still pull out the league card. You can have your masters league, I'm off to Dota... have fun in HoTS you obsessive compulsive losers.
I'm in gold league, leagues have nothing to do with this. What I was stating was: 1. Balance doesn't affect people below masters 2. People who have the skills to play Terran can compete with the other races on even footing.
I'm of the strong opinion that you cannot even really begin to fathom the way the game works at a high, competitive level, unless you are at least masters. Hell, I'll drop to diamond. I worked my way up from bronze, and as I got into diamond, I began to realize that I really didn't know shit about the game prior to diamond. In masters, this realization was increased even more, about how little I really knew. The problem is, you won't ever realize this, unless you get there yourself. Otherwise, you'll just keep thinking you know everything.
quoted for fucking truth
darkforce said this quite often: the better you get, the more you realize you are a terrible noob.
yup yup, im only a lowly plat and once i joined my schools starcraft teamthey're all masters), it made me realize how much i dont know and suck at the game
On December 19 2012 19:00 CYFAWS wrote: well t is the only race that doesn't get free base defense, maphack and 1a armies ::DDDD :Dd :DDD:D:D:D :D
Ah you are wrong. PF's are pretty much free base defense. Zerg doesn't get free base defense.
Also the common misconception from terrans is they think zergs/tosses just A move. If they just a moved then their army would be obliterated (unless they are just so far ahead they can A move, but terran can do that to ^^).
Aka if I A move my ling/bane army guess what? All my banes will hit whatever is closest so like tanks which is bad bad, or they might attack in the most retarded way possible allowing tank shots to do more damage or certain marines to do more damage then they should.
i was kinda making fun of whiny T there
but the base defense. PF's are free exactly how now? queens on the other hand are great def units while also being necessary for z macro and map control. you'd get them even if they had no attack (kind of).
Because Terran is way harder compared to the other two races.
There is a reason you dont see people like Nerchio(who is going to Uni and playing sc2 on the side) or Stephano(who is a known slacker) doing well with Terran. Terran mechanics are harder, and unless you have the work ethic of a Korean, you will not do well with T.
Foreigner mechanics just aren't as refined and excellent mechanics is basically a requirement for top level terrans (have nfi how Goody remained competitive for so long).
There is a reason why top foreigners are zerg and protoss, not terran. Doing well with terran requires insane mechanics and foreigners simply don't have that. I think that you can't be as creative with terran as you can with the other races.
If I recall correctly someone said that Korea has a big terran player pool inspired by the likes of boxer, nada, flash etc. So it would make sense for that pool to give out a lot of top code S terrans, therefore dominating the other races in the GSL.
On December 19 2012 18:04 blade55555 wrote: Terran takes a lot of APM which a lot of foreigners don't have. That is kind of the reason korean terrans are so good is they have a lot of apm and thus can use terran in ways foreigners can't due to being to slow.
On December 19 2012 18:13 kckkryptonite wrote: Because Terran is the hardest race to play well and generally requires the most micro/multitask.
And thats the point i dont understand. (Yes i am a noob). Why is terran so "hard" ? I mean zerg have to inject, protoss need to chrono boost and must warp in units. And all three races have their casters. And for all three races positioning is a key element in every fight. So please can you explain what i am not seeing ?
And why cant the foreignes train to have the required apm ?
PS : i am very sorry that i forgot about Kas, and Happy did well in the euro finals i think but i didnt saw much from strelok or bratok
Look at your base to drop a mule. Look back to your marines. They are all fungaled. They are all dead.
Another reason is that the dominate terran unit, the marine is probably the unit that has the biggest difference when micro'ed well vs not micro well (split, stim, stutter step). Of course, other units from other races also require micro(blink, target fire, banes), but not to the extent of marines. Since blizzard balances for the top level, the current balance assumes you micro your marines well. And if you can't do that, it already puts you get a disadvantage.
Most micro....most APM.....like others said, one second you look away to your base, the next second your marines are all fungaled or you see only banelings..happened to me so many times.
Also, in late game, P can spam cannons, Z can spam spine, what can T do? Dont say PF because it is pretty expensive and big.....cannot be spammed
It really comes down to the micro aspect of the races, with Terran you can never just 1a your marines/tanks into a zerg ball otherwise you will become clumped and die instantly to fungal/banling combination, you have to keep spreading your units as you move across the map while zerg and toss really don't need to do this. This means that it is easier to macro with toss and zerg while moving across the map as you don't have to worry about your army becoming instantly killed.
In battle micro is also very hard with Terran, for example look at marine/tank vs ling/infestor. The Terran needs to siege up, shift click focus fire the infestors, stim, split his marines into a concave, make sure his medivacs don't get selected and moved otherwise they wont heal, keep the medivacs split, ect, ect. What does the Zerg have to do? Basically just split their lings a little before 1a for a better surround and then follow it with 2 F + TTTTTT, much much easier control for the zerg player.
This article explains it pretty well imo, aside from the satire, terran has a higher mechanics requirement then the other races for top tier play (mainly, zerg). Whenever I see a foreign terran these days they are usually destroyed by fungals/broodlords, or the subsequent tech switch to ultras. I was pulling for thorzain but he has yet to prove himself in the proleague against kespa koreans. Time will tell. And if it doesn't, then oh well, in 3 months we will have another meta that will be imbalanced all to hell.
On December 19 2012 20:05 Flonomenalz wrote: I also think it's just unfortunate that the best foreigners mostly play Zerg.
Looking at it from a video game perspective, most gamers would rather play Zerg and Protoss. Why? Because it's a fucking video game. You don't want to be in a video game and be playing as boring old humans. You want to be ancient aliens with super sick technology, or sick, infested aliens with swarming ferocity.
If you look at them mechanics wise, you'd be quite silly to think the best Zerg/Protoss foreigners couldn't play Terran at a high level (whether they'd be as successful as they are, I cannot say). However, IdrA played Terran in BW, and Stephano/Scarlett/Naniwa are really fast. So speed isn't really the issue. Even Flash only has around 200+ APM, it's just that he doesn't mess up his macro.
Terran macro is unforgiving as hell, and foreigners have never really got the hang of it, is what I think it comes down to.
Flash had 400ish apm in wcg 2010 with 240eapm to boot. The myth of flash being "slow" is kind of wierd.
I didn't say he was slow, but he's not the fastest of the fast, and he's the best Starcraft player ever.
What I'm trying to say is (EDIT actually, I'll use foreign Terrans) seeing as DeMuslim, Kas, illusion, etc, play with 300+ APM and around 200+ EAPM, if it was just a "Terran takes more APM" argument, then they could be great Terrans as well. It's obviously much more than that, Korean Terrans simply multitask better than foreign ones. They do more things at the same time more efficiently than foreign Terrans do. So do Korean Zergs and Protosses, but it shows more with Terran because of how much more micro oriented their units are compared to Zerg and Protoss, and that's just a design thing.
As a comparison, look at a ling/bling war between Life and Soulkey, and then look at a ling/bling war between say, Vortix and Suppy. The differences in efficiency due to multitasking ability is quite evident. It's not just micro, it's micro with macro. Life will be micro'ing his lings perfectly against bane hits while hitting his injects, but Vortix maybe misses his inject by a few seconds. Not a knock on Vortix, he's a great player, but to not admit such things is folly.
Terran benefits the most from better multitasking, which Korean Terrans have over their foreigner counterparts. I'd say that's probably because of how much they practice.
This thread suspiciously resembles: Where did all the Terrans go.
The answer for creating the previous thread was simple: terran requires far much more skill to play successfully than zerg and toss, and is that much more volatile, that it turns off even hardcore players. It is not nice your opponent to show much less effort than you and still win.
Now, almost a year after, another thread like that pops up. The answer is still the same: terran is harder to play, and is turrining off for new players, and even hardcore players can't cope with the apm requirements. Combine that with the incessive need of blizzard to buff zerg and nerf terran, and there you go.
I don't play sc2 much any more, however i always thought one of reasons is because tournaments and map designers killed what terran were good at which is?
Early game pressure.. , Tournaments now are almost 90% late game because of the giant maps.. Terran did great in the earlier seasons when you could put pressure on early and if the Z didn't have tight d they would lose, now the Z can drone up like mad get 3 bases and still be ok..
I think it's also just not a very appealing play style. It was designed from the ground up to fit slayers boxer's style of gameplay, and now that they've nerfed all the rushes it's just not a good race. I think that is the only reason it's so much "harder" than zerg and protoss. It's not being played the way it was originally intended to be played (lots of rushes).
In short, people prefer to have the option of playing passive if they want, which is just not possible with Terran.
The answer is quite simple and many people in this thread have already mentioned it.
The reason why there are no and never have been foreign terrans at the level of Stephano/Scarlett/Nerchio/Naniwa is because of terrans cost of production.
Starcraft was designed around the 3 races having distinct styles. Zergs produce swarms of inexpensive units, Protoss produce advanced high tech units that are strong, and Terrans produce units in the middle ground between Protoss and Zerg.
So if you look at how a terran creates his army you will see that this cost of production problem has 3 causes:
1. Terran production buildings take the longest time to build and produce mid supply/mid strength units. 2. Terran production buildings are the most expensive (takes an scv to build and every building requires an add-on for optimal production). 3. Terran unit upgrades are spread over 3 unit types (bio, mech, air). Compare that to protoss that only has 2, ground and air.
So for a terran at the highest level has to think ahead and first identify what units to make (3) based on what the enemy is doing. Then forecast how many units he can afford to build in 3-5 minutes based on the current state of the game (2&3).
So how does that make terran unforgiving? Well if you happen to miss supply depots, let a ling run by past your army, have your expansions blocked by creep, lose scvs/addons/buildings to mutas etc then you have to completely reassess your current production and position in the game.
Well the other 2 races also have to deal with this. The difference is that protoss have high supply units so they need fewer production buildings (lower infrastructure cost). Zergs have the most cost efficient production (lowest infrastructure cost) and fastest production time of their units. The larvae mechanic also lets them quickly adapt to events happening in the game such as rebuilding drones, or quickly changing their army composition.
These production mechanics are the fundamentals of starcraft, which is something that blizzard will never patch (they only patch units/upgrades).
On December 19 2012 18:04 blade55555 wrote: Terran takes a lot of APM which a lot of foreigners don't have. That is kind of the reason korean terrans are so good is they have a lot of apm and thus can use terran in ways foreigners can't due to being to slow.
Is that still true? Do pros still get away with sub 150 apm? I'm a fairly typical high master zerg but I still maintain 260~ apm per game.
Terran is much more mechanically demanding than the other two races, so it's always been the least-played race at the pro level. I believe that it was in BW as well (don't have any official stats on that), even if it was the most successful race.
I think it is because Terran gets punished the most if mis-microed. I mean just compare the units each race has.. Zerg can pretty much attack you with a full army of cheap units and have another full army in the form of larva while Protoss has forcefields, storm, shields and blink, that can all be used defensively. If Terran gets multi-pronged ambushed or just sieges late, or even when he loses the HT/infestor vs ghost battle, it is pretty much game over right there.
On December 19 2012 18:04 blade55555 wrote: Terran takes a lot of APM which a lot of foreigners don't have. That is kind of the reason korean terrans are so good is they have a lot of apm and thus can use terran in ways foreigners can't due to being to slow.
Is that still true? Do pros still get away with sub 150 apm? I'm a fairly typical high master zerg but I still maintain 260~ apm per game.
I'm not sure thats a good measure for comparisson, as a random player my APM reports much higher when playing zerg. I'm definitely not playing any faster or doing more than when I'm terran but more "actions" happen.
On December 19 2012 23:04 Clazziquai10 wrote: Yet another thinly veiled balance whine thread lololol.......
Shut up
Everyone is responding by giving answers to this thread, why should you think this is another balance whine thread?
Contribute, instead of saying useless things like that.
Cause you have people posting things like this
Most micro....most APM.....like others said, one second you look away to your base, the next second your marines are all fungaled or you see only banelings..happened to me so many times.
Also, in late game, P can spam cannons, Z can spam spine, what can T do? Dont say PF because it is pretty expensive and big.....cannot be spammed
On December 19 2012 23:04 Clazziquai10 wrote: Yet another thinly veiled balance whine thread lololol.......
The thread asks why there are so few foreign terran players. A poorly designed and balanced race is a pretty good reason for foreigners to avoid it, no?
TvP is hard lategame but not unwinnable by any means. About zerg, well. I think everybody knows and the results are speaking for themselves.
For foreigners, here's why. Korean players, no matter what race, have always been more aggressive and more cutthroat. And currently terran is kinda supposed to be the aggressive race. That's exactly where foreigners have never excelled and that's why I feel like terran is underrepresented. That and unit control + basic decisionmaking. I really don't know why these are factors though but it just shows. The way korean terrans play positional games, take good fights, make good decisions is just better.
Watch Thorzain vs HerO from Dreamhack. Thorzain just sits back until HerO kills him, the only time he actually looked good was when he opened aggressively.
The last Premier Tournament won by a Foreign Terran was 8 months ago, with ThorZaIN's win in DreamHack Stockholm. The second-last Premier Tournament won by a Foreign Terran was ~19 months ago, again with ThorZaiIN's victory in TSL3. Foreign Terrans have taken home only 2 major tournaments in more than 2 years, with both of them being won by the King in the North.
Knowing this is pretty depressing for a Terran on ladder to see, or at least it is for me. It feels like I have to do so much more to accomplish anything.
I think a big issue, aside the queen buff, is the fact that Blizzard has been actively promoting longer games since the game's release. We have seen build time nerfs, constantly growing map sizes, and buffs to early defence for the other races. The problem with this is that Terran is fundamentally designed to be weaker in the late-game, and superior in the early/mid game. If you are constantly promoting more late-game play, the race with the weakest late-game is going to suffer.
And I mean, ThorZaIN, the only foreign Terran who has managed to take a premier tournament in the last 19 months, is by a long margin the best late-game Terran outside of Korea. Arguments could even be made that he is one of the best late-game Terrans period.
I don't feel like Blizzards balance decisions and the state of foreign Terran with regards to ThorZaIN being the only 'successful' one is a coincidence.
On December 19 2012 23:23 Philozovic wrote: Terran is by far the greatest designed race (not talking about balance). Just look at TvT ...
I think Destiny (and don't hate me for bringing him up) said it really well on a show once. He said something like it seems that for WoL, blizzard was throwing around tons of ideas and cool stuff for terran with tons of possibilities and stuff... and then they took 2 days to create protoss and zerg because they realized there were other races too.
in the few games i played as terran i noticed it was mechanically much more demanding then either zerg or protoss. This is very low level, so probably not representative. Suppose this is a significant factor. At a professional level this should show an overall decline in terran players, i think. So it doesn't really explain the foreigner vs korean part. I refuse to believe foreigner terrans are lazier then their korean counterparts, so i don't really know. It could be that koreans in general focus more on mechanics. This, in combination with the assumption that terran scales better with mechanics than zerg or protoss, can explain why the difference between korean terrans and foreign terrans is much larger than zerg and protoss differences.
But, of course, this is all speculation.
Also, i don't think balance gives a clear answer to this. Significant part of the question is the difference between korean terrans and foreigner terrans compared to the other races, which cannot only be explained by balance only.
On December 19 2012 23:34 DarkLordOlli wrote: Just to mention this, I don't really find it more challenging to macro + control with terran when I offrace. Do note that I only offrace for fun.
There goes my theory... ): (assuming you're of a higher level then i am, but that chance is quite high)
Bigger and bigger maps, maps with guaranteed third. Look at maps we have in tournaments: Cloud Kingdom, Family, Entomb Valley....etc. means that all races can sit back, relax and take fast 3 bases. And Zergs learned that you don't have to continuously throw waves and waves of ling bling mutas at Terran, you can just make use of the cost efficient infestors.
On December 19 2012 18:04 blade55555 wrote: Terran takes a lot of APM which a lot of foreigners don't have. That is kind of the reason korean terrans are so good is they have a lot of apm and thus can use terran in ways foreigners can't due to being to slow.
Not entirely correct. Zerg actually kinda needs more apm but less diverse apm. To macro zerg you have to have a lot of apm, but the actions you do are always exactly the same, which means it is really easy to get high apm through practice. Terran on the other hand requires overall less apm. But what makes Terran so difficult to play is that you spend your apm mostly reacting, not acting. Your opponents interferes with your moves. Thus having a high apm is much much harder.
On December 19 2012 18:04 blade55555 wrote: Terran takes a lot of APM which a lot of foreigners don't have. That is kind of the reason korean terrans are so good is they have a lot of apm and thus can use terran in ways foreigners can't due to being to slow.
Not entirely correct. Zerg actually kinda needs more apm but less diverse apm. To macro zerg you have to have a lot of apm, but the actions you do are always exactly the same, which means it is really easy to get high apm through practice. Terran on the other hand requires overall less apm. But what makes Terran so difficult to play is that you spend your apm mostly reacting, not acting. Your opponents interferes with your moves. Thus having a high apm is much much harder.
Space bar, º button v click click click ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff profit?
On December 19 2012 18:04 blade55555 wrote: Terran takes a lot of APM which a lot of foreigners don't have. That is kind of the reason korean terrans are so good is they have a lot of apm and thus can use terran in ways foreigners can't due to being to slow.
Is that still true? Do pros still get away with sub 150 apm? I'm a fairly typical high master zerg but I still maintain 260~ apm per game.
I'm not sure thats a good measure for comparisson, as a random player my APM reports much higher when playing zerg. I'm definitely not playing any faster or doing more than when I'm terran but more "actions" happen.
Korean terrans play a more action oriented style of play. Drop everywhere, constantly harass. This style takes a lot more multitasking ability. The foreign style is often a lot slower (see: Thorzain, Goody) but still works.
Terran is way too easy, and foreign players want a challenge, thats why so less play Terran. Look at TLO, didnt he say T to easy, he wants to play zerg because perfection is close to unreachable? :O
Sure, there's a difference, but a few things to note here:
1. This is only 9 people. If these 9 people are the only ones who can compete against koreans on the big stage (not that that's true, but it could be), their random race selections needn't be even with such a low number of people. For reference, the same list of koreans is (by my count) 31 people long. Maybe the reason there are few terran foreigners is because there are very few competitive foreigners - and of those most happened to not play terran.
2. The disparity between Terran and Protoss is just as much as the disparity between Protoss and Zerg. I see little reason to see Terran as being "way below" the other races - unless Protoss is also "way below" Zerg. I don't find this particularly convincing, especially given the race distribution in the GSL.
3. It has only been 3 GSLs since a Terran won the whole thing. This isn't a terribly noteworthy distinction.
4. I hate to bring this up, but they told us they'd have trouble balancing zerg if we made bigger maps. We're now playing on bigger maps - and at our request, so....
As a Protoss player I hate to admit it but Terran really does get the short end of the stick sometimes. This is mainly due to AOE. Terran reliance on bio (mech being trash in WoL) makes AOE so much more powerful. Storms, Colossi, Fungal, Ultralisks, Banelings, all decimate bio.
You need excellent micro to mitigate the effects of said AOE, which may not even make sense for a lower leagued player to comprehend. i.e way back in silver when I was still Terran, I couldn't swallow the fact that banelings could just a+move at my army while I had to use tons of apm to split split split.
While you may say "then just learn2split", terran also happens to be very very mechanically demanding in terms of base-management. Yes, it is harder than protoss. One of the reasons is that you can't use 1 worker to build your entire base for you. Besides that, due to how constant army management and micro is needed, you have to be really fast and efficient with time spent macroing, which can be annoying due to how you need to have lots of terran buildings, but tend to run out of space fast.
TL'DR Terran is extremely mechanically demanding, making it hard for foreigners to get past the skill gate
actually, I think it is more of a flavour thing than anything else. At least at the start (and even right now), Terran was considered the "easy to learn" race in the foreign community. Wall ins, tanks, only ranged units, not even medics to micro (Medivacs take care of that), biggest range in the game, OP reapers (in the beta) etc made it appealing for players who didn't want to work hard for their victory or get the easy entrance into the game (please note I'm not saying Terran isn't hard at the top, but if you show the game to someone interested in the game and he asks for the easy race to start with you will most probably tell him it would be Terran). Players with good micro chose Protoss to make use of all those fancy abilities, players with macro chose Zerg, and both races got selected by a ton of western players who just had enough of playing the earth race over and over again. So it was to be expected that there are much less ambitioned western terran players, thus less of them on the top of the pyramid.
On December 20 2012 01:17 Cirqueenflex wrote: actually, I think it is more of a flavour thing than anything else. At least at the start (and even right now), Terran was considered the "easy to learn" race in the foreign community. Wall ins, tanks, only ranged units, not even medics to micro (Medivacs take care of that), biggest range in the game, OP reapers (in the beta) etc made it appealing for players who didn't want to work hard for their victory or get the easy entrance into the game (please note I'm not saying Terran isn't hard at the top, but if you show the game to someone interested in the game and he asks for the easy race to start with you will most probably tell him it would be Terran). Players with good micro chose Protoss to make use of all those fancy abilities, players with macro chose Zerg, and both races got selected by a ton of western players who just had enough of playing the earth race over and over again. So it was to be expected that there are much less ambitioned western terran players, thus less of them on the top of the pyramid.
On December 20 2012 01:17 Cirqueenflex wrote: actually, I think it is more of a flavour thing than anything else. At least at the start (and even right now), Terran was considered the "easy to learn" race in the foreign community. Wall ins, tanks, only ranged units, not even medics to micro (Medivacs take care of that), biggest range in the game, OP reapers (in the beta) etc made it appealing for players who didn't want to work hard for their victory or get the easy entrance into the game (please note I'm not saying Terran isn't hard at the top, but if you show the game to someone interested in the game and he asks for the easy race to start with you will most probably tell him it would be Terran). Players with good micro chose Protoss to make use of all those fancy abilities, players with macro chose Zerg, and both races got selected by a ton of western players who just had enough of playing the earth race over and over again. So it was to be expected that there are much less ambitioned western terran players, thus less of them on the top of the pyramid.
A lot of people play Terran because WoL is Terran campaign. People just play the race they already know how to play, which is Terran and some Protoss. It's easy to learn, sure, because they only need to apply what they know from the campaign (building stuffs, building units, wall off, a click). People start to switch races after they get used to the game. Right now, I don't think anybody in the right mind still think Terran is the "easy to play" race anymore.
Would love an old school tournament now see how the pro's do in a match up with jungle basin, steps of war and other tiny maps! some of those were amazing to watch
that was when single units were important and you had to make the best of everything.. now its 200+ wave Amove everything dies, insta remax and go again >.>
End game management has never been a strong suit of any foreigner compared to Koreans so with the game moving into drawn out games where Terran is weakest, foreigners struggle.
If the late game composition of Terran was as easy to replace and sturdy as Zerg and Protoss, I think we would see much more even numbers.
On December 19 2012 19:16 battleboy wrote: because blizzard balanced the game so badly that terran isnt playable anymore...
Shit.. if battleboy said it it must be true!
Seriously, Terran is playable, none of the decisions blizzard make will affect you until a decent masters level and even then Terrans still are fearsome: Mvp, Bogus, Fantasy etc. all succeeding in recent months.
No one is even mentioning leagues, and you still pull out the league card. You can have your masters league, I'm off to Dota... have fun in HoTS you obsessive compulsive losers.
I'm in gold league, leagues have nothing to do with this. What I was stating was: 1. Balance doesn't affect people below masters 2. People who have the skills to play Terran can compete with the other races on even footing.
I'm of the strong opinion that you cannot even really begin to fathom the way the game works at a high, competitive level, unless you are at least masters. Hell, I'll drop to diamond. I worked my way up from bronze, and as I got into diamond, I began to realize that I really didn't know shit about the game prior to diamond. In masters, this realization was increased even more, about how little I really knew. The problem is, you won't ever realize this, unless you get there yourself. Otherwise, you'll just keep thinking you know everything.
quoted for fucking truth
darkforce said this quite often: the better you get, the more you realize you are a terrible noob.
This is actually totally true, I can't remember its name but there is rule that the better you are at something the more you realise you can improve.
On December 20 2012 01:21 Dosey wrote: Because IdrA.
He insulted all the good Terrans until they finally wanted to not have to apologize for playing their race every time they won and switched to Zerg.
I believe most people will take that as a joke but he did have a pretty large effect on Terran and just SC2 in general. I believe that Terran was always meant to open with rushes, the race very much felt designed for Slayers Boxer's playstyle in sc2. As we all know, Idra (and Artosis) have both spread this belief that cheese and anything not super passive macro style is bad and takes no skill. Then there was of course the infamous "apologize for playing that race" line. And it didn't help that Idra was on CNN and was hugely popular with NA players, of course people would all rather play Zerg and hold the same beliefs as him.
On December 19 2012 19:11 seffer wrote: Terran is not the "least forgiving" race... if anything they are the MOST forgiving. Mules, supply drops, lifting buildings... many tools allow people to make macro mistakes and be ok. However, miss an inject, a chrono, a warp in, or creep spread and you are behind.
The real reason why there aren't as many successful foreign terrans is simply because terran requires the best mechanics to win.
Miss a production cycle and you are behind. What's your point?
On December 19 2012 19:00 CYFAWS wrote: well t is the only race that doesn't get free base defense, maphack and 1a armies ::DDDD :Dd :DDD:D:D:D :D
pretty accurate
It's funny because there is some truth there which some people seem to be missing. Sure, the terran players might not be as fast as some of the other players but having that extra apm to do spreads instead of frigging clumping all the time due to the A.I. would certainly help ten fold for Terran players. If you aren't good at spreads chances are you're going to have a really hard time playing terran. In terms of movement around the map with frog hoping your tanks and managing your bio units let alone the clunkiness of mech. The options for crowd control are quite limited especially when you are coming onto creep. You really have to manage your units effectively and need to make sure your tanks are in proper position. If they aren't that's one dead army. I would love to see how Terrans fair if Blizzard were to change the stupid pathing. We've said it so many times.
On December 20 2012 02:05 Chylo wrote: Are people forgetting Jinro's Code S runs? Still the highest placing foreigner in Code S and as terran.
That was before they nerfed every single terran opener.
Nah reaper bullshit was nerfed at that point
That's true, but we still had the bunker!!! And 11/11 :D
But I think my point is, those types of openers were all nerfed and you can trace some of that back to Idra being so popular and spreading his negative opinions on early game aggression. Terran by FAR has suffered the most from having all the rushes nerfed.
That one is pretty simple - terran skill ceiling is simply too high compared to other races. This means that they cannot be balanced properly and will get either too strong or too weak at certain skill levels. It just so happens the race got balanced around the top level and so the lower and mid tier terran players get screwed compared to other races. Since you can't expect people to start playing the race at the top level terran will slowly diminish in number. Would be pros won't get the same results with terran that they could with protoss or zerg and so won't transition into playing full-time.
On December 19 2012 18:28 rafaliusz wrote: "Why are there so few foreign terran players ?"
Fungal.
Not only foreign terrans tho, koreans are struggling as well.
Yeah, there aren't 10 Terrans in the next season of Code S or anything.
As for foreign Terrans, Terran requires the most APM of the three races to play at the highest level. Foreign players usually don't have as much high APM.
Well... There were only 1 Terran in Code S this season
On December 19 2012 18:28 rafaliusz wrote: "Why are there so few foreign terran players ?"
Fungal.
Not only foreign terrans tho, koreans are struggling as well.
Yeah, there aren't 10 Terrans in the next season of Code S or anything.
As for foreign Terrans, Terran requires the most APM of the three races to play at the highest level. Foreign players usually don't have as much high APM.
Well... There were only 1 Terran in Code S this season
I also find it a bit strange how everyone keeps saying Terran requires more APM, which is something I link to macro and multitasking, but then it seems the general consensus is that Terran has much harder micro to contend with (splitting bio up).
Micro is all mouse hand speed/accuracy, macro is mostly keyboard related.
On December 19 2012 18:28 rafaliusz wrote: "Why are there so few foreign terran players ?"
Fungal.
Not only foreign terrans tho, koreans are struggling as well.
Yeah, there aren't 10 Terrans in the next season of Code S or anything.
As for foreign Terrans, Terran requires the most APM of the three races to play at the highest level. Foreign players usually don't have as much high APM.
Well... There were only 1 Terran in Code S this season
I also find it a bit strange how everyone keeps saying Terran requires more APM, which is something I link to macro and multitasking, but then it seems the general consensus is that Terran has much harder micro to contend with (splitting bio up).
Micro is all mouse hand speed/accuracy, macro is mostly keyboard related.
I think zergs require a more 'sustained' APM in terms of injects, creep spread and army movement. However, during engagements, terrans require most 'burst' APM to micro.
I guess the biggest issue was the Beta / Launch period, where Terran was considered overpowered and alot of Koreans thought it was the only competitive race. It resulted in heavy Terran play in Korea, followed by Terran heavy GSL. Where still other races few in numbers plowed through the mass of Terrans. And not only Blizzard went into nerfing Terrans, but tournament maps as well. This map design now kinda became standard due to Protoss having a problem against Zerg on those anti Terran maps.
Now here is the fun bit of it. Terran was actually designed pretty well, so they could play on open and on choke heavy maps. Making this whole anti Terran map movement pointless and just buffed the Bio part. Meanwhile TvT on the old maps lead to the Tank nerf, making them terrible against Toss. Now with the "everything has to be open" map Blue Flame Hellions became a problem in TvT resulting in another nerf to mech. The end result was that in TvT you could now use Marines and well no more Mech in other matchups (unless the Zerg doesn't upgrade air armor).
The positional play was something that worked really well for Foreign Terrans, while this Bio and being everywhere was more the Korean Terran style. But tbh Foreigner Toss and Zerg were better at defending this Bio style. So yeah all those nerfs didn't really affected Korean Terrans that much, while it really hit Foreigners hard.
On December 20 2012 02:05 Chylo wrote: Are people forgetting Jinro's Code S runs? Still the highest placing foreigner in Code S and as terran.
That was before they nerfed every single terran opener.
Nah reaper bullshit was nerfed at that point
That's true, but we still had the bunker!!! And 11/11 :D
But I think my point is, those types of openers were all nerfed and you can trace some of that back to Idra being so popular and spreading his negative opinions on early game aggression. Terran by FAR has suffered the most from having all the rushes nerfed.
Yeah, because 7 rax reaper bunker rush was so balanced oh no wait 2 depot wall off at ramps was really balanced as well and so was bbs
probably has to do with the outrageously high skill ceiling Terran have which makes them perform amazingly at the top but deterioriate more then the others with low skill
On December 20 2012 02:05 Chylo wrote: Are people forgetting Jinro's Code S runs? Still the highest placing foreigner in Code S and as terran.
That was before they nerfed every single terran opener.
Nah reaper bullshit was nerfed at that point
That's true, but we still had the bunker!!! And 11/11 :D
But I think my point is, those types of openers were all nerfed and you can trace some of that back to Idra being so popular and spreading his negative opinions on early game aggression. Terran by FAR has suffered the most from having all the rushes nerfed.
Yeah, because 7 rax reaper bunker rush was so balanced oh no wait 2 depot wall off at ramps was really balanced as well and so was bbs
Bunker depot still walls many ramps for the same cost. No neutral blockers on Blizz. maps, so it's still doable on ladder. Everyone knows reaper cheese was too strong back in 2010, but the nerfs rendered not only reapers, but pretty much everything early game impotent.
As for foreign terrans, I'm sure their representation in the pro scene is about the same as their representation on the BNet ladder for their respective regions. Now is just not the best time for Terran. The metagame and map pool for WoL favours Zerg, atm.
On December 19 2012 18:04 blade55555 wrote: Terran takes a lot of APM which a lot of foreigners don't have. That is kind of the reason korean terrans are so good is they have a lot of apm and thus can use terran in ways foreigners can't due to being to slow.
On December 20 2012 02:05 Chylo wrote: Are people forgetting Jinro's Code S runs? Still the highest placing foreigner in Code S and as terran.
That was back when very few players could macro. All they did were all-in's and Bit-by-Bit, plus the maps were waaaaay smaller and impossible to get a 3rd base, hence Terrans had an extremely good time vs. Protoss and Zergs. Jinro was probably one of the few earliest macro Terran (i.e. "standard"), and back in an era dominated by rushes and cheeses, if you hold off your opponent's cheese/rush then you basically win (much like now). But now everybody and their mothers can macro so the "macro terran" is not as strong anymore (see Bomber). Now to succeed as a Terran you need to be incredibly smart (Mvp), incredibly fast (Taeja) and/or just plain incredible (Flash), along with flawless macro.
On December 20 2012 02:05 Chylo wrote: Are people forgetting Jinro's Code S runs? Still the highest placing foreigner in Code S and as terran.
That was before they nerfed every single terran opener.
Nah reaper bullshit was nerfed at that point
That's true, but we still had the bunker!!! And 11/11 :D
But I think my point is, those types of openers were all nerfed and you can trace some of that back to Idra being so popular and spreading his negative opinions on early game aggression. Terran by FAR has suffered the most from having all the rushes nerfed.
Yeah, because 7 rax reaper bunker rush was so balanced oh no wait 2 depot wall off at ramps was really balanced as well and so was bbs
It was only OP because Zergs were hatching first every single game. That was never intended (imo). That is also the reason virtually every other opener has been nerfed. I really don't think Blizzard wanted players fast expanding every single game. I think Idra and Artosis played a large role as to why this style spread like wildfire. You have Idra on CNN, winning tournaments, and constantly trash talking everyone else. Then you have Artosis, the most popular and charismatic caster in esports, constantly agreeing with Idra's passive macro views and hating on anything "cheesy" or aggressive. Just my opinion of course.
Just to reiterate what this even has to do with the topic at hand. I feel that Terran in sc2 was always meant to open with some sort of aggressive opener, but all the constant nerfs done to this style (and the popular belief that you should play passively) has really killed the appeal of Terran.
On December 19 2012 18:04 blade55555 wrote: Terran takes a lot of APM which a lot of foreigners don't have. That is kind of the reason korean terrans are so good is they have a lot of apm and thus can use terran in ways foreigners can't due to being to slow.
On December 20 2012 02:05 Chylo wrote: Are people forgetting Jinro's Code S runs? Still the highest placing foreigner in Code S and as terran.
That was back when very few players could macro. All they did were all-in's and Bit-by-Bit, plus the maps were waaaaay smaller and impossible to get a 3rd base, hence Terrans had an extremely good time vs. Protoss and Zergs. Jinro was probably one of the few earliest macro Terran (i.e. "standard"), and back in an era dominated by rushes and cheeses, if you hold off your opponent's cheese/rush then you basically win (much like now). But now everybody and their mothers can macro so the "macro terran" is not as strong anymore (see Bomber). Now to succeed as a Terran you need to be incredibly smart (Mvp), incredibly fast (Taeja) and/or just plain incredible (Flash), along with flawless macro.
A bit fanboyish about Flash, don't you think? If he was "plain incredible" in this game sure he'd be at least the OSL champ right now...
The difficulty in playing terran is that its units only work when one babysits them all the time. Without supervision they kinda suck. In the highest levels only complete control makes them get on equal footing with the other races' units.
If you watch pro games, the answer should be obvious. There isn't a lack of foreign terran players, there is a lack of winning foreign terran players. Terran has higher skill ceiling and lower skill floor, so there is a much bigger skill difference between Flash and Lucifron than Life and Stephano. There are easily accessible stats on foreign wins based on race in 2012, and foreign terran wins over koreans are a small fraction of total foreign wins over koreans.
I've mained zerg since BW but facts are facts and it is hilarious to see insecure z/p fanboys trying to come up with alternate reasons why foreign terrans have such a minimal presence compared to foreign zerg and toss.
I really think, at least at the levels underneath grandmaster, the reason is that Terran is the most UNFORGIVING race. Units wise, bio and mech are strong but both have blatant weaknesses.
In TVP, a couple of good storms, the Terran is dead. Terran is always playing a reactionary game to the high templar/colossi army. With extremely difficult to micro ghosts and vikings, a 200/200 protoss army almost always beats a 200/200 terran army. Same thing goes with fungal. Bad positioning and the immobility of tanks make it hard for terrans against the highly mobile units of zerg.
I feel that foreign terrans are having trouble because everything listed above to be done effectively requires the highest level of multitasking, apm, and decision making. To be dropping and harassing while maintaining macro is extremely difficult. If I'm trying to control banshees and hellions, its really hard to keep up macro. If I'm microing ghosts with a different hotkey and trying to spread vs storm, same thing, my macro starts getting affected.
I'm just a diamond player and I realize that masters and grandmasters are at a completely different level, but still, the point is: #1) a little mistake = game over for terran. Only top koreans can consistently avoid these little mistakes. #2) hard to control without high apm (ie microing ghosts, splitting vs banelings, seige unseige) while macroing.
i dont know about others terran is most fun to play i guess people dont like to split units but rather put down spells, i'm the opposite, i love dodging storms and banes, i hate putting down forcefields and fungal (i actually avoid sentry/colossus/infestor in my playstyle)
it does make sense, greater result with less effort with spells rather than micro.
Most Random players I know say that Terran is the least forgiving, when they do make a mistake as Terran they feel they are being punished more severly compared to when they do similar mistakes as Zerg or Protoss. This would indicate that Korean Terrans have better results because they simply do less mistakes than Foreign Terrans, way less mistakes. Sounds reasonable to me...
On December 20 2012 04:19 dUTtrOACh wrote: Also, since Jinro's retirement, we can't count him as a foreign Terran anymore. He's a foreign Terran (Ret.).
What? Jinro is not a foreign Terran but he is a foreign Terran? Im confused
They're mad because they aren't as overpowered as they were in 2010.
On a serious note, I feel like the Terran race, far more than any other race, has been dominated by Koreans so any kind of Foreigner Terran play is overshadowed by Koreans.
Terran doesn't allow any mistakes, especially in TvZ. Also micro is way more important for Terran than for the other two races, which makes it harder to play.
Terran macro is really easy to mess up, and most foreigners don't focus as much on perfecting their builds as Koreans do. One of the reasons LucifroN does so well (at least in TvZ) is that he almost exclusively goes for one rax expand into 4 hellions into banshee. Because he does it so religiously, it's as polished as a Korean build. Streamlining for Zerg is just getting to Hive as quickly as possible (see Scarlett).
terran is the least represented race because pro players play for money
koreans may pick racial pride and nostalgia over money (play terran == harder == i know myself that my korean friends who play T have a lot of pride to play as terran)
but foreigners never do. if stephano had the motivation to practice 8 hours per day, or nerchio wasn't also attending school I'm sure they could be competitive as terran, but the problem is that, even for some foreigner terrans, this still isn't enough to be successful in korea. think about how good the KR z and p are that play an equal amount of time? bomber practices 14 hours per day some days (i think during week) which is pretty much completely unhealthy and for me as a spectator worrying becuase i honestly care more for the players health than their results and that is basically giving himself 10 hours per day to sleep, eat, socialize, take care of committments. there is no foreigner in the world that will do this, so there is no foreigner in the world who will be successful as terran
On December 20 2012 06:03 DavoS wrote: Terran macro is really easy to mess up, and most foreigners don't focus as much on perfecting their builds as Koreans do. One of the reasons LucifroN does so well (at least in TvZ) is that he almost exclusively goes for one rax expand into 4 hellions into banshee. Because he does it so religiously, it's as polished as a Korean build. Streamlining for Zerg is just getting to Hive as quickly as possible (see Scarlett).
You know, when I switched races I did kind of feel the same way. My builds as terran were much harder to refine and perfect, but as zerg, everything just seemed to... flow? I think would be the way I'd describe it.
It's been discussed a million times already. The consensus is that Terran is the most mechanically demanding race, which plays into the Koreans' strengths and the foreigners' weakness.
ZvT is very Zerg favoured, hence Terrans cannot perform. Some of them changed race to Zerg, some cannot perform at the pro level anymore, because of it.
Terran is the most mechanically demanding race, the least forgiving, has the steepest learning curve, takes the most effort and practice and has been getting progressively boned by maps and patches.
There are just so few terran players in general because its hard. Battle.net at least US side I play more Zergs and Toss than terrans. I think the patch zerg thing also made a lot of terrans get infested.
Every competitive game has a character/race like this, as good as you are at that character/race is as good as you are at the game. Protoss and Zerg both have mechanics that allow you to cover up weakness, but Terran really doesn't.
On December 20 2012 06:39 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: It's been discussed a million times already. The consensus is that Terran is the most mechanically demanding race, which plays into the Koreans' strengths and the foreigners' weakness.
I don't think that's really the problem. I think Terran gets screwed over purely from a build order PoV. They've nerfed all of Terran's tools that are supposed to kill greedy play. Now players are allowed to be as greedy as they want without any fear and this has caused the metagame to develop unnaturally.
None of the races in SC2 are nearly as mechanically demanding as they are in BW and yet we still see many of the BW legends not shine in SC2 (or quit outright. Like Nada, Sea, July, etc etc) so I don't think it's that Terran is simply too hard to play from a skill perspective. The race just starts games with a build order disadvantage.
Maybe some of you all haven't been around since sc2 beta/launch but Terran was considered to be incredibly faceroll early on. They haven't added in extra skills to the race or anything, all they've done is nerf Terran openers. So again, I think Terran just starts games off with a big disadvantage and that is why it seems so hard to play in the mid and late game, your opponents are getting away with greed they never were intended to have.
On December 20 2012 06:46 SupLilSon wrote: Terran is the most mechanically demanding race, the least forgiving, has the steepest learning curve, takes the most effort and practice and has been getting progressively boned by maps and patches.
This. I also think that Terran is inherently flawed in that its made the reactionary race in TvZ and TvP despite the fact that the production mechanics of Terran make it the hardest race to shift compositions. Zerg, for example, can go from brood lords into ultras which require dramatically different unit compositions and often Terrans die after that transition just because they don't time to properly shift their army compositions. In TvP it's similar but not as profound an issue as in TvZ just because Protoss has a weaker production mechanic than Zerg. It's still stupid how much ghosts cost though.
On December 20 2012 04:24 PiQLiQ wrote: People got bored playing Terran
Bored?? Terran is the most innovative and exciting race.
not really this used to be true now it's just 3 CC builds every TvZ, variations are baiscally "do i get cloak or start 1/1 earlier?" and 1 rax fe into +1, stim 4 marauders and 2 medivacs push every TvP
while yes terran has other options that are seen at a pro level, how many different forms of expand builds do you see out of zerg or protoss? Protoss can open 1gate fe into blink, into 6gate, into 3gate robotics and 2 forges, into a quick third nexus followed by a huge gate push. They can open 1 base blinkobs on virtually every map and it's effective against every terran opening, they can open expand into dark templar. Zerg can open 15h gasless up to 6 queens (or 8 if you are DRG), can do that early speedling attack, a roach push with no speed, 2 base mutalisks or infestors are both viable and common in code S, infestor burrow rush (9:30, byul, hyun, drg, ETC have all been able to take a third base and burrow infestors past terran lines because a 9min "front of the base" turret just doesn't exist in the current meta
there are a lot of people that feel this way, including myself which is why i play random now. terran just isn't fun. there is no variety to the race because it's infantry and medivacs are so good that everything else has been nerfed.
On December 20 2012 04:24 PiQLiQ wrote: People got bored playing Terran
Bored?? Terran is the most innovative and exciting race.
not really this used to be true now it's just 3 CC builds every TvZ, variations are baiscally "do i get cloak or start 1/1 earlier?" and 1 rax fe into +1, stim 4 marauders and 2 medivacs push every TvP
while yes terran has other options that are seen at a pro level, how many different forms of expand builds do you see out of zerg or protoss? Protoss can open 1gate fe into blink, into 6gate, into 3gate robotics and 2 forges, into a quick third nexus followed by a huge gate push. They can open 1 base blinkobs on virtually every map and it's effective against every terran opening, they can open expand into dark templar. Zerg can open 15h gasless up to 6 queens (or 8 if you are DRG), can do that early speedling attack, a roach push with no speed, 2 base mutalisks or infestors are both viable and common in code S, infestor burrow rush (9:30, byul, hyun, drg, ETC have all been able to take a third base and burrow infestors past terran lines because a 9min "front of the base" turret just doesn't exist in the current meta
there are a lot of people that feel this way, including myself which is why i play random now. terran just isn't fun. there is no variety to the race because it's infantry and medivacs are so good that everything else has been nerfed.
And who are these top foreign terrans that switched races because the race was boring?
Actually after watching HSC today, I think that a big problem lies in the fact that many of the foreign Terrans are even weaker mechanically than their Zerg/Toss counterparts. Kas, Thorzain and Lucifron (and maybe Demuslim) are pretty much the only players that have the micro/macro/multitasking to stay among the best, whereas there are roughly 10 Zergs who stand out in that area. Most foreign Terrans are more or less strategical players who aren`t really rewarded by the current metagame.
Terran has: worst lategame (before the mass orbitals and minimum scv stage) worst unit production worst tech switch capabilities worst static base defense worst mobility most squishy army
Still, it is not like Terran is impossibly difficult to play. Fact is toss and zerg are much easier to play (way too easy at top level imo). Progamers play for money, so it is not hard to understand why foreigners, who both suck at this game and are too lazy to really dedicate themselves, mostly pick toss and zerg.
Terran has always been the hardest race requiring the most APM and multitasking.
Koreans are the best at mechanics so they are the best at Terran.
Blizzard also kept nerfing Terran because of MVP despite not even other pros being able to do what he could. That made Terran even harder and people just gave up or got dominated and never qualified for anything.
On December 20 2012 08:41 vNmMasterT wrote: Terran has: worst lategame (before the mass orbitals and minimum scv stage) worst unit production worst tech switch capabilities worst static base defense worst mobility most squishy army
Still, it is not like Terran is impossibly difficult to play. Fact is toss and zerg are much easier to play (way too easy at top level imo). Progamers play for money, so it is not hard to understand why foreigners, who both suck at this game and are too lazy to really dedicate themselves, mostly pick toss and zerg.
Agree on everything except the worst static base defense.
On December 20 2012 08:41 vNmMasterT wrote: Terran has: worst lategame (before the mass orbitals and minimum scv stage) worst unit production worst tech switch capabilities worst static base defense worst mobility most squishy army
Still, it is not like Terran is impossibly difficult to play. Fact is toss and zerg are much easier to play (way too easy at top level imo). Progamers play for money, so it is not hard to understand why foreigners, who both suck at this game and are too lazy to really dedicate themselves, mostly pick toss and zerg.
I don't understand how shit like this isn't banned.
On December 19 2012 18:34 mikkmagro wrote: LucifroN MajOr Thorzain Illusion Kas Happy Beastyqt BratOK DeMusliM
Naama, GoOdy and ClouD to a lesser extent.
qxc and SjoW used to be pretty good as well.
Of those guy you listed, there have been 3 premiere tournament wins. 2 from thorzain and an old dreamhack by naama. Lets look at toss: Naniwa, White-ra, Huk and mana, combine for 8.
And for zerg: Stephano, Idra, Nerchio Dimaga and ret together have won 9.
It seems like it's because Terran is difficult to play? I only assume this since I don't face a lot of Terran in NA server, especially in Master's league. Maybe my MMR is really bad, but I always face Protoss and Zerg. I tried playing Terran since nobody plays Terran now days, and it was difficult to play when I hit Master with that. This is just my opinion, no troll intended.
On December 20 2012 04:24 PiQLiQ wrote: People got bored playing Terran
Bored?? Terran is the most innovative and exciting race.
Did you stop paying attention to the scene like a year and a half ago...or?
do you know why terran ppl go for fast 3 cc bos in tvz? cauz zerg got their queen buff and terran cant punish zerg anymore in the early game thats why terrans often go for fast 3 CCs, dont blame terrans blame blizz
JUst watched Major vs Scarless on Majors stream. Some of the most ridicilous shit I have ever seen. Major compltely outplays Scarlett, but Scarlett just wins every engagement by basically attack moving and clicking a bit with the infestors. Clearly there are some balance issue at any level below top top code S.
i hate when people post online tournaments to give a person credibility. 'offline' is the only thing that matters and it matters way more if the tourney is stacked with koreans. online you will never know if hacks are being used. with that being said, no terran foreigner except the mighty thorzain (once) has won anything worth mentioning.
also, a lot of you don't know much about the bw scene saying foreign z and p were the only ones who did anything and thats why theres no good foreign terrans cause its the same for sc2. the truth is foreigners zpt all did nothing, they were mostly measured on if they could take a game or more stunningly, a series off a korean.
remember, they all achieved nothing vs koreans but heres a make shift list of those that made a splash
zerg-sen, mondragon, cnstorm.......theres got to be more besides blackman protoss-Legend, pj, draco, white-ra, lefnaij, fisheye, grrrrrrrrr, legionarre terran-advokate, androide, strelok, bratok, super, phoenix66, assem, elky
i included some old-schoolers on there but to say foreigners couldn't play terrans is a lie. near the end of bw the russian/ukraine terrans and whatever region that is were the scariest foreigners. still couldnt believe advokate taking a game off prime jaedong.
edit :more fun facts- day9 played zerg was a top usa guy...bad mouth his casting and he'll settle it 1v1 artosis idra- played terran tasteless played toss
just my 2cents. Maybe terran is the most training intensive race? In order to be a top terran you need to practise more than anybody? Therefore Korean has the most numbers of top terrans because they are well known for their crazy training schedule. Foreign players has a more flexible training regime, so i doubt foreign terrans practise as much as the korean T's.
Proofs? JInro said he was training 50 games a day during his peak in GSL, after that he lost the passion and couldn't practise as much and his performance dropped. Korean T's like Puma and Ganzi went into slumps after switching to foreign teams. Top top terrans like MVP and Taeja are injured (my bet is because of too much practising as well)
But hell, like everyone said, even korean T's are collapsing now. All the Zergs seem breaming with confidence when their next matches are ZvT. The only Terran who is dominating now is Gumiho, but only in teamleagues so far.
Something a lot of people seemed to neglect is that a lot of the foreign terrans play in EU only cups; we don't have many US terrans, and the EU ones like Kas and Happy don't go to MLG's and the like.
Im terran myself, and i think that to play in high level you need alot of dedication (5+h per day ladder/cg). And i think some pro terrans might be not so motivated to play alot, like there zerg and toss counterparts, this then creates stagnation in eu/na terran playstyle/builds and weakens overall all terran players, since they are using old builds, which zerg/toss already figured out. While alot of foreign zerg/toss wins againts koreans comes, from foreigners using new builds that koreans never faced. So why are lot of terran players demotivated? Might be of blizzard just nerfing them for 2 years, "why practice and find new stuff, when blizz will nerf it 1month later?" Just my oppinion.
Pro players pick the race that can make them win the easiest because they have to make money. This might not apply to everyone. In the beginning, there were a lot of people playing terran because of how easy it was to win by cheesing, massing marines or doing other shenanigans. Now that the game is almost balanced, all the "easy" strategies that allowed terrans to win are gone and so are the players.
On December 20 2012 16:02 number01 wrote: Pro players pick the race that can make them win the easiest because they have to make money. This might not apply to everyone. In the beginning, there were a lot of people playing terran because of how easy it was to win by cheesing, massing marines or doing other shenanigans. Now that the game is almost balanced, all the "easy" strategies that allowed terrans to win are gone and so are the players.
not really, i still see korean terrans owning zerg/toss on kr gm ladder with 11/11, 1/1/1, eco cheeze and other pretty ez builds. And i doubt any pro actually picked race for ez winning..
DeMuslim, Lucifron, Thorzain and Major. ? if you dont know more its not about terran but about you ^^ they are way more superstrong terrans started with kas to naama...
On December 20 2012 16:02 number01 wrote: Pro players pick the race that can make them win the easiest because they have to make money. This might not apply to everyone. In the beginning, there were a lot of people playing terran because of how easy it was to win by cheesing, massing marines or doing other shenanigans. Now that the game is almost balanced, all the "easy" strategies that allowed terrans to win are gone and so are the players.
lol, do you know how long it takes to train to be a pro gamer? Do you think pro gamers will pick a race just because there is 1 or 2 builds that are easy to execute which can be nerfed next month? Slow ling all ins and roach all ins are easy to execute and effectively now. Yet I doubt aspiring progamer will say "Well, I am going to be zerg because I can use these all-ins".
1. The choice of race. Many good foreign players chose a non terran race. Maybe they played that race in BW or they thought terran had a boring design (they have the typical RTS - mechanics, that you find in every RTS since Dune 2 ). Or Zerg and Protoss had a more fancy / hip feeling to it. So one reason is chance and maybe cultural circumstances that only a few of the very good players chose Terran. (I dont think race switching is an issue, cause only Morrow switched from Terran to Zerg and TLO switched a lot till he decided for Zerg.)
2. The frust factor. I dont wanna talk about balance because i am to bad at the game to say something about balance. But maybe its not a balance issue in itselfe. Maybe its just that Terran feels harder or less forgiving or more frustrating than the other races. And the balance patches also frustrated some players. And with frustration starts a spiral of not training hard enough, not winning, loosing the passion to train hard and so on .... And the korean pro houses makes the koreans more disciplined so they dont fall into the frustration trap easily.
3. Maybe there is some kind of "skill - wall" that you have to master. And that hurdle is overcome only be a few foreign terrans. But the korean terrans have a havier focus on mechanics that allow them to overcome this hurlde easier. But i am sure the other races have equal "skill - walls " and had to work hard to overcome them. So maybe next year we will see more terrans, cause they overcame that wall ?
4. The metagame. In every sport there are highs and lows for different styles to play the game. And there are highs and lows for every style of play. And here we see that the terran style is in a low at the moment. Zerg and Protoss have worked hard to come up with good builds vs Terran. And now Terran has to work hard to create new builds. And this needs time.
So i hope for next year to see more TvX in major tournaments. A third of the time would be nice.
On December 20 2012 11:56 gengka wrote: just my 2cents. Maybe terran is the most training intensive race? In order to be a top terran you need to practise more than anybody? Therefore Korean has the most numbers of top terrans because they are well known for their crazy training schedule. Foreign players has a more flexible training regime, so i doubt foreign terrans practise as much as the korean T's.
Proofs? JInro said he was training 50 games a day during his peak in GSL, after that he lost the passion and couldn't practise as much and his performance dropped. Korean T's like Puma and Ganzi went into slumps after switching to foreign teams. Top top terrans like MVP and Taeja are injured (my bet is because of too much practising as well)
But hell, like everyone said, even korean T's are collapsing now. All the Zergs seem breaming with confidence when their next matches are ZvT. The only Terran who is dominating now is Gumiho, but only in teamleagues so far.
I think Terran is the most skill-up-keep intensive race, yeah. Zerg, to me, seems more about ground work preparation to make sure your game is tight at every stage (so a different type of skill), and Protoss it kinda depends on how you play --- i.e I think Hero's game is very practice dependent, but a more passive protoss style would be more similar to Zerg.
I really want to make it clear that this doesn't mean I'm saying protoss or zerg take less skill, just that what it takes to be good at the 3 races is not entirely the same across the board.
Terran's version of the above would probably be having a good balance between openers that can kinda win you the game outright... Something Puma did really, really, really well for a long time, and I think Demuslim kinda does as well.
Taeja and MVP also good examples... Maybe nobody more so than MVP actually.
On December 19 2012 19:00 CYFAWS wrote: well t is the only race that doesn't get free base defense, maphack and 1a armies ::DDDD :Dd :DDD:D:D:D :D
Also the common misconception from terrans is they think zergs/tosses just A move. If they just a moved then their army would be obliterated (unless they are just so far ahead they can A move, but terran can do that to ^^).
On December 19 2012 19:00 CYFAWS wrote: well t is the only race that doesn't get free base defense, maphack and 1a armies ::DDDD :Dd :DDD:D:D:D :D
Also the common misconception from terrans is they think zergs/tosses just A move. If they just a moved then their army would be obliterated (unless they are just so far ahead they can A move, but terran can do that to ^^).
On December 20 2012 15:40 Mia wrote: Im terran myself, and i think that to play in high level you need alot of dedication (5+h per day ladder/cg). And i think some pro terrans might be not so motivated to play alot, like there zerg and toss counterparts, this then creates stagnation in eu/na terran playstyle/builds and weakens overall all terran players, since they are using old builds, which zerg/toss already figured out. While alot of foreign zerg/toss wins againts koreans comes, from foreigners using new builds that koreans never faced. So why are lot of terran players demotivated? Might be of blizzard just nerfing them for 2 years, "why practice and find new stuff, when blizz will nerf it 1month later?" Just my oppinion.
I think you need 5h+ day if you want to take the step to GM. I probably averaged 4h training a day (laddering, not counting watching streams or doing other shit) over a couple of months and got nowhere. I had a goal to get from mid/high master to GM; and early on in my sc2 carreer eerything went pretty well. I didn't have to practice that much to stay in masters, but over time i lost my ladder anxiety and began playing much more. Even though I felt I became a much better player, I got nowhere resultwise. I wasn't getting any closer to GM. Then I stopped playing roughly a year ago. Maybe I would have been GM today had I kept practicing 4 hours a day. Not sure. But as a general rule, if you want to improve relatively as a terran you probably need to play 1on1's at least 5+hours a day. Those you probably need to dedicate all your free time if you want to get into grandmaster as a terran.
Not sure how this applies to other races. Also, have other people had similar stories, where they felt like they got nowhere despite quite a lot of practice?
In the last year very few Terrans won tournaments in Korea so yeah...End of story! Teamliquid's best 5 Korean players: 3 Zergs, 2 Protoss. Do I need to say more? Let's not be hypocrites.
Speaking of foreign terrans, I just can't play the race myself.
Unit production is a lot harder than zerg / protoss. 4 aa 5 ee 6 dd, ect. Zerg can press 4 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz and protoss w ssssssseee and have 1 key for sg/robo.
Not to mention marines are easily countered in lower leagues. You have slow reaction, bad micro, or just not paying attention and you just lost all your marines to a fungal.
Very intimidating for a lower league player to actually switch to terran.
Everything is PvZ and ZvZ... korean terrans get beat by foreign zerg (and toss more rarely) like 15 times more than a foreign terran will beat any kind of Korean.... all Terrans are doing awful. Terran gets raped by Zerg... that's about it.
I think it is about risk. Foreign players generally play less risky than their Korean counterparts. This is rewarded much stronger with Protoss and Zerg (which in the early game are generally about securing expansions and tech) compared to Terran, who is greatly rewarded for taking space and knocking out expansions.
There are very few players who can pull off a build like MVP or Thorzain does, but MVP has that other, nastier, trickier dimension to his play that most foreign players lack. I don't think it's a skill thing, I just think it's a mindset.
There are few foreign terrans because there are few terrans altogether. That in turn, is because Blizzard have forsaken anything resembling their balancing duties. When anything T was OP, my god did they act quickly. Just an example that showcases the problem on a global scale: Look at the last five games casted on GOMTV. Three ZvPs and two ZvZs. Seven Zs and three Ps in a control group of 10.
Why Blizzard all of a sudden decided to stop caring about their product remains a mystery however. One thing that is for sure is that I, sadly, stopped caring about the game myself as a result of the above.
On December 21 2012 03:16 Suzido wrote: There are few foreign terrans because there are few terrans altogether. That in turn, is because Blizzard have forsaken anything resembling their balancing duties. When anything T was OP, my god did they act quickly. Just an example that showcases the problem on a global scale: Look at the last five games casted on GOMTV. Three ZvPs and two ZvZs. Seven Zs and three Ps in a control group of 10.
Why Blizzard all of a sudden decided to stop caring about their product remains a mystery however. One thing that is for sure is that I, sadly, stopped caring about the game myself as a result of the above.
I think its a combination of terrans quitting to imbalances and terran being pressed down in leagues they don't deserve. As of now there are currently more active terran players than active toss's + zergs. Most of them are in bronze, however.
On December 20 2012 16:02 number01 wrote: Pro players pick the race that can make them win the easiest because they have to make money. This might not apply to everyone. In the beginning, there were a lot of people playing terran because of how easy it was to win by cheesing, massing marines or doing other shenanigans. Now that the game is almost balanced, all the "easy" strategies that allowed terrans to win are gone and so are the players.
Dumb post ever. Let me see " i was a pro gamer for X years training a X race 8hours/day in bw, now i will change to sc2 and choose Y race just to execute some cheese strat the are strong and easy NOW and will never be nerfed by blizzard" lol
On December 21 2012 03:16 Suzido wrote: There are few foreign terrans because there are few terrans altogether. That in turn, is because Blizzard have forsaken anything resembling their balancing duties. When anything T was OP, my god did they act quickly. Just an example that showcases the problem on a global scale: Look at the last five games casted on GOMTV. Three ZvPs and two ZvZs. Seven Zs and three Ps in a control group of 10.
Why Blizzard all of a sudden decided to stop caring about their product remains a mystery however. One thing that is for sure is that I, sadly, stopped caring about the game myself as a result of the above.
Wow, you sure are grumpy and biased. Terrans were dominating for a long time while the zergs were struggling. It took a infestor buff, a roach range buff, a queen range buff and overlord speed buff before zergs started winning. These changes were added in patches over a long period of time. It was only a few seasons ago when GSL was the global terran league.
Blizzard obviously don't want to screw this game up and that's why they make a few changes at a time. In the last patch they nerfed infestors and buffed ravens. If terrans continue to lose then they will do more tuning.
Weird enough Protoss is considered by a lot of SC2 players, the easiest race. However toss has won the least amount of GSL compared to Z and T. And protoss is difficult to win in very high levels.
Terran is considered the most difficult race, but in 2010 and 2011 Terrans dominated the pro scene (especially Koreans).
On December 21 2012 03:16 Suzido wrote: There are few foreign terrans because there are few terrans altogether. That in turn, is because Blizzard have forsaken anything resembling their balancing duties. When anything T was OP, my god did they act quickly. Just an example that showcases the problem on a global scale: Look at the last five games casted on GOMTV. Three ZvPs and two ZvZs. Seven Zs and three Ps in a control group of 10.
Why Blizzard all of a sudden decided to stop caring about their product remains a mystery however. One thing that is for sure is that I, sadly, stopped caring about the game myself as a result of the above.
Wow, you sure are grumpy and biased. Terrans were dominating for a long time while the zergs were struggling. It took a infestor buff, a roach range buff, a queen range buff and overlord speed buff before zergs started winning. These changes were added in patches over a long period of time. It was only a few seasons ago when GSL was the global terran league.
Blizzard obviously don't want to screw this game up and that's why they make a few changes at a time. In the last patch they nerfed infestors and buffed ravens. If terrans continue to lose then they will do more tuning.
Terrans dominated early largely due to the maps + the game was new. Some imbalance did play a part, but most of it was becuase of these two factors.
Game is new, no one knows squat about build orders or timings. Terran has the most 1 base openings, which are the easiest BOs and timings to figure out. Once an opening is revealed, it takes time to figure out how to counter it. Terrans benefit the most from a small map with a small rush distance. Terran wins with a rush that the toss or zerg isn't prepared to defend because of them not knowing what to scout for + don't have time to prepare for because the small rush distance means less time to react.
It's also been proven that blizzard quickly overreacts when it comes to terran. Many huge nerfs were applied after a unit or feature broke out in one or two big tournaments, before the pros could figure out whether or not it was actually an imbalance. Just ot name a few...
Reaper (nerfed within a month or two of release) hellion blue flame (nerfed immediately after that mlg where all the slayers terran surprised buttsex'd everyone) snipe (nerfed basically after that mvp vs nestea game) thor (nerfed after thorzain did some crazy opening with it)
How many kneejerk nerfs did toss or zerg receive in comparison?
Many changes are actually required. But it's the way that blizzard overreacts and/or doesn't know what they're doing that made me lose faith in them. For example, they nerfed reaper build time PLUS factory requirement for nitro packs PLUS made roaches 4 range which now don't get kited by reapers anymore (albeit the roach range affected way more than that). Although the queen range didn't happen until this year, 5range queens makes the idea of a reaper opening a total joke. Reapers needed a nerf (I would prefer a complete design overhaul of the reaper, but that's beside the point), but they went completely overboard. And now the reaper is a god awful unit that no one makes except when they want to dick around. Regardless of whatever changes they made to the reaper in hots, they royally screwed up the reaper in wol.
Another example; they nerfed snipe yet they went far beyond the "problem". Snipe was perceived to be a problem because it killed zerg tier 3 too quickly. Instead of trying to find a way to nerf snipe such that it actually hammers ONLY the problem, now it just sucks balls against anything not a spellcaster (and they have EMP for that, so their two abilities have a huge overlap, which is just stupid and bad design).
playing mech,bio mech and pure bio is almost like playing different races with different timings etc. imo terran has the most options out of all races so it should be the strongest race but needless to say that its damn hard to master all of those in comparison to a 3 base into broodlord zerg style
EDIT: forgot skyterran xD but thats rare to see, but still playable i think dont know for sure though
On December 21 2012 03:16 Suzido wrote: There are few foreign terrans because there are few terrans altogether. That in turn, is because Blizzard have forsaken anything resembling their balancing duties. When anything T was OP, my god did they act quickly. Just an example that showcases the problem on a global scale: Look at the last five games casted on GOMTV. Three ZvPs and two ZvZs. Seven Zs and three Ps in a control group of 10.
Why Blizzard all of a sudden decided to stop caring about their product remains a mystery however. One thing that is for sure is that I, sadly, stopped caring about the game myself as a result of the above.
Wow, you sure are grumpy and biased. Terrans were dominating for a long time while the zergs were struggling. It took a infestor buff, a roach range buff, a queen range buff and overlord speed buff before zergs started winning. These changes were added in patches over a long period of time. It was only a few seasons ago when GSL was the global terran league.
Blizzard obviously don't want to screw this game up and that's why they make a few changes at a time. In the last patch they nerfed infestors and buffed ravens. If terrans continue to lose then they will do more tuning.
Funny thing is that foreign terrans still sucked ass during the Terran domination era (with very few exceptions ofc, only Jinro comes to mind)
Terran control and macro mechanics are simply harder than any of the other races, I don't think this can really be argued?
Friend of mine started playing SC2 a few weeks ago for the first time, but he has a strong BW background (as a terran). He jumps in on my Masters account and drops about 40 games as terran and eventually levels out at gold.
He is beating his head against the wall for a while with terran and tells me how frustrating the control is and how much he feels he has to babysit his units. I told him to try Zerg. He switched over and within a week was mid Diamond.
On December 22 2012 22:07 kaNt- wrote: Weird enough Protoss is considered by a lot of SC2 players, the easiest race. However toss has won the least amount of GSL compared to Z and T. And protoss is difficult to win in very high levels.
Terran is considered the most difficult race, but in 2010 and 2011 Terrans dominated the pro scene (especially Koreans).
That isnt really weird. There is a fundamental difference between easy and good. Just because a race is easiest to play doesnt make it the best race (although there is a correlation).
On December 21 2012 03:16 Suzido wrote: There are few foreign terrans because there are few terrans altogether. That in turn, is because Blizzard have forsaken anything resembling their balancing duties. When anything T was OP, my god did they act quickly. Just an example that showcases the problem on a global scale: Look at the last five games casted on GOMTV. Three ZvPs and two ZvZs. Seven Zs and three Ps in a control group of 10.
Why Blizzard all of a sudden decided to stop caring about their product remains a mystery however. One thing that is for sure is that I, sadly, stopped caring about the game myself as a result of the above.
Wow, you sure are grumpy and biased. Terrans were dominating for a long time while the zergs were struggling. It took a infestor buff, a roach range buff, a queen range buff and overlord speed buff before zergs started winning. These changes were added in patches over a long period of time. It was only a few seasons ago when GSL was the global terran league.
Blizzard obviously don't want to screw this game up and that's why they make a few changes at a time. In the last patch they nerfed infestors and buffed ravens. If terrans continue to lose then they will do more tuning.
Funny thing is that foreign terrans still sucked ass during the Terran domination era (with very few exceptions ofc, only Jinro comes to mind)
Thorzain did really well and i think Select did a pretty decent job too.
i'm no pro gamer but i think from what i have seen .. terran is the hardest in the highest levels of play in sc2 .. maybe its too hard to keep up with high level players from other races as terran .. that might be the reason why foreigners do not really stand up much
On December 27 2012 03:10 RaYu wrote: playing mech,bio mech and pure bio is almost like playing different races with different timings etc. imo terran has the most options out of all races so it should be the strongest race but needless to say that its damn hard to master all of those in comparison to a 3 base into broodlord zerg style
EDIT: forgot skyterran xD but thats rare to see, but still playable i think dont know for sure though
uhhm not too sure .. i think toss has the most option .. and dont forget that mech terran doesnt really work well outside tvt .. bio-mech if im not mistaken are marine-tank or bio-mine right ? this only work on tvt and/or tvz ..
i think what makes terran insanely powerful in the right hands is because of highly cost efficient and microable t1 units ..
skyterran is also too costly and hard to transition .. since well most terrans die before they could transition
I think it's widely accepted that Terran is the hardest race because of the amount of micro that it takes to make your units cost-effective on top of all the macro.
On December 19 2012 18:33 dynwar7 wrote: Terran is the hardest race to use, and you need crazy APM and multitasking skills to use Terran to its full potential. This is why only Koreans can do it, whereas for Z and P, you know there are well-known foreign Z and P such as Naniwa, Huk, Stephano, Scarlett. On the other hand, for Terrans to excel, it needs APM and multitasking, something which Korean Terrans are generally better at compared to foreign terrans. Having said this, there are some really decent foreign terrans like Thorzain
Just this fact alone shows how difficult it is to play as T.
+1
i think you might be terran by yourself, am i right ?
OBVIOUSLY because terran is the hardest race to play!!1 like come on, 1 bane kills like 10 marines!! and 1 colossus also kills like 10 marines!!!!!! and 1 tank kills like 6 marines!!!!!!!!!!!! like Come On TERRAN IS SO WEAK
in case you're not aware, this post is sarcastic and it's for all those 'terran is underpowered and hard to play and so it makes me special for playing terran (etc)' folks
but i think the question should be more like, why do so many korean play terran rather than to question the lack of foreign terrans
On September 10 2013 06:00 B40 wrote: OBVIOUSLY because terran is the hardest race to play!!1 like come on, 1 bane kills like 10 marines!! and 1 colossus also kills like 10 marines!!!!!! and 1 tank kills like 6 marines!!!!!!!!!!!! like Come On TERRAN IS SO WEAK
in case you're not aware, this post is sarcastic and it's for all those 'terran is underpowered and hard to play and so it makes me special for playing terran (etc)' folks
but i think the question should be more like, why do so many korean play terran rather than to question the lack of foreign terrans
Because as has been discussed above, it's the hardest mechanically but has the highest skill ceiling. Top tier foreign Terrans are few and far between because they're mechanically inferior to Korean Terran's and handicapped against other foreign players.
On September 10 2013 06:00 B40 wrote: OBVIOUSLY because terran is the hardest race to play!!1 like come on, 1 bane kills like 10 marines!! and 1 colossus also kills like 10 marines!!!!!! and 1 tank kills like 6 marines!!!!!!!!!!!! like Come On TERRAN IS SO WEAK
in case you're not aware, this post is sarcastic and it's for all those 'terran is underpowered and hard to play and so it makes me special for playing terran (etc)' folks
but i think the question should be more like, why do so many korean play terran rather than to question the lack of foreign terrans
Because as has been discussed above, it's the hardest mechanically but has the highest skill ceiling. Top tier foreign Terrans are few and far between because they're mechanically inferior to Korean Terran's and handicapped against other foreign players.
I love all the terrans, because they are so "on message". They all keep to their talking points and make sure to hit all highs. Mechanical skill, skill ceiling and that Korean terrans are super human, which is why foreign terrans don't do well. So if they are losing, its because the other races are to easy to play. If a Korean wins or does well, its because they are better. With these simple, but well thought out arguments, they can be both under powered and over powered at the same time.
On September 10 2013 06:00 B40 wrote: OBVIOUSLY because terran is the hardest race to play!!1 like come on, 1 bane kills like 10 marines!! and 1 colossus also kills like 10 marines!!!!!! and 1 tank kills like 6 marines!!!!!!!!!!!! like Come On TERRAN IS SO WEAK
in case you're not aware, this post is sarcastic and it's for all those 'terran is underpowered and hard to play and so it makes me special for playing terran (etc)' folks
but i think the question should be more like, why do so many korean play terran rather than to question the lack of foreign terrans
Because as has been discussed above, it's the hardest mechanically but has the highest skill ceiling. Top tier foreign Terrans are few and far between because they're mechanically inferior to Korean Terran's and handicapped against other foreign players.
see, i'm a terran myself
I'd agree that terran mechanics is difficult...but not That more difficult than those of zerg and protoss I don't think there is particularly a lack of foreign terrans; race distribution is fine, it's just at the highest levels, there are less foreign terrans. but this mindset of 'koreans being able to handle terran; foreigners not being able to keep up' has to stop
your statements imply that 1) foreigners have worse mechanics than koreans 2) if you play terran, you are handicapped against other non terran players
what you should think about 1) i'm not sure if people would agree with this, like you think naniwa agrees with you?; are you saying genetically koreans are better at mechanics? 2) by that logic, if the all the top korean terrans switched races right now, they should win everything ever
"They can be both under powered and over powered at the same time."
Terran can be overpowered and underpowered at the same time. It comes with the territory. This isn't chess. This is an asymmetrical game.
Protoss and Zerg 1A are much stronger than Terran 1A. Terran also lacks easy to execute cheeses in the early game, when compared to the Protoss and Zerg counterparts.
In the current metagame/balance terran micro and multitask potential is much higher than for Protoss and Zerg.
Until you have the mechanical ability to "abuse" the micro/multitask potential of the Terran race, it's completely logical for most Terran players to feel that their race is underpowered. As long as we can accept that the balance design is for the best players in the world, and not for the average player we will do just fine. This is the way it is in Broodwar, and I see no reason to change it.
The stumbling block is not that people don't like Terran. It's that it's disproportionately more frustrating to lose as a Terran as it is as another race. This either discourages the growth of Terran players, or they switch to a more consistent race. The amount of cheeses that can kill a Terran is atleast twice the number of cheeses that can kill the other races.
On September 10 2013 06:35 HungrySC2 wrote: "They can be both under powered and over powered at the same time."
Terran can be overpowered and underpowered at the same time. It comes with the territory. This isn't chess. This is an asymmetrical game.
Protoss and Zerg 1A are much stronger than Terran 1A. Terran also lacks easy to execute cheeses in the early game, when compared to the Protoss and Zerg counterparts.
In the current metagame/balance terran micro and multitask potential is much higher than for Protoss and Zerg.
Until you have the mechanical ability to "abuse" the micro/multitask potential of the Terran race, it's completely logical for most Terran players to feel that their race is underpowered. As long as we can accept that the balance design is for the best players in the world, and not for the average player we will do just fine. This is the way it is in Broodwar, and I see no reason to change it.
Terrans, always on message. He hit the best points to, "balanced for the professionals" and "1-A units" for both Zerg and protoss. The best part about that reasoning is that you can lose games to other players on your "skill level" and still feel like your better than them, because your race is harder. Its the race of the professionals that you can only hope to one day master. Until then, those other races with their A-move units will beat you because they have taken the easier, darker path.
On September 10 2013 06:00 B40 wrote: OBVIOUSLY because terran is the hardest race to play!!1 like come on, 1 bane kills like 10 marines!! and 1 colossus also kills like 10 marines!!!!!! and 1 tank kills like 6 marines!!!!!!!!!!!! like Come On TERRAN IS SO WEAK
in case you're not aware, this post is sarcastic and it's for all those 'terran is underpowered and hard to play and so it makes me special for playing terran (etc)' folks
but i think the question should be more like, why do so many korean play terran rather than to question the lack of foreign terrans
Because as has been discussed above, it's the hardest mechanically but has the highest skill ceiling. Top tier foreign Terrans are few and far between because they're mechanically inferior to Korean Terran's and handicapped against other foreign players.
I love all the terrans, because they are so "on message". They all keep to their talking points and make sure to hit all highs. Mechanical skill, skill ceiling and that Korean terrans are super human, which is why foreign terrans don't do well. So if they are losing, its because the other races are to easy to play. If a Korean wins or does well, its because they are better. With these simple, but well thought out arguments, they can be both under powered and over powered at the same time.
Well, you gotta admit that it's a pretty clever plan. Huehuehue.
I am a terran, I find Protoss the hardest race to play. This does not mean that Protoss is the hardest race to play, nor does it mean that Terrans are easy to play. It means that I (Thieving Magpie) personally find Protoss more difficult than Terran.
People associate their anecdotal experience with factual truth causing them to twist any evidence that supports their mindset as indisputable.
The truth is that there are less successful foreign Terrans than successful foreign Zergs/Toss. This does not mean Terran is harder for feeble foreigners and simply means exactly what it shows--that there are less players. People enjoy using this discrepancy as their excuse for not being as good as they could be; that is bullshit.
Because the best foreigners, mechanically at least, didn't play Terran. Players like Stephano, Scarlett, Suppy, are so good mechanically it's scary sometimes
On September 10 2013 06:35 HungrySC2 wrote: "They can be both under powered and over powered at the same time."
Terran can be overpowered and underpowered at the same time. It comes with the territory. This isn't chess. This is an asymmetrical game.
Protoss and Zerg 1A are much stronger than Terran 1A. Terran also lacks easy to execute cheeses in the early game, when compared to the Protoss and Zerg counterparts.
In the current metagame/balance terran micro and multitask potential is much higher than for Protoss and Zerg.
Until you have the mechanical ability to "abuse" the micro/multitask potential of the Terran race, it's completely logical for most Terran players to feel that their race is underpowered. As long as we can accept that the balance design is for the best players in the world, and not for the average player we will do just fine. This is the way it is in Broodwar, and I see no reason to change it.
Terrans, always on message. He hit the best points to, "balanced for the professionals" and "1-A units" for both Zerg and protoss. The best part about that reasoning is that you can lose games to other players on your "skill level" and still feel like your better than them, because your race is harder. Its the race of the professionals that you can only hope to one day master. Until then, those other races with their A-move units will beat you because they have taken the easier, darker path.
I didn't say that was the reason why you lose games to other players of your skill level. Matchmaking puts you in que with someone you should beat 50% of the time and lose the other 50% of the time. I don't feel better or worse than the people I'm que'd against. It's pretty widely accepted that Terran is the most frustrating and hardest race to play at low levels just because of the effectiveness of A move in comparison to the other races. I'm just pointing out that this game isn't balanced for the average player, and it is fair for a Terran player to feel frustrated with how hard it is to make their units work effectively.
On September 10 2013 06:14 Plansix wrote: [...] With these simple, but well thought out arguments, they can be both under powered and over powered at the same time.
On September 10 2013 06:33 B40 wrote: [...] 2) by that logic, if the all the top korean terrans switched races right now, they should win everything ever
I always see ^ these counter arguments, but they don't actually refute anything.
Let's first look at some facts: -Koreans are better than foreigners. (No, not genetically, but why they are better is not relevant to the issue at hand) -A small selection of Korean Terrans are the most successful players in SC2. -Foreign Terrans are nowhere to be found. -Races are not identical (thus have different skill curves).
I have illustrated a very simplified model that is both logical and plausible. Race Blue has difficult yet potentially powerful tools at their disposal which rely on extreme expertise. Race green has easy-to-use straightforward tools that benefit less from better use. Until a certain "skill level" one race has the advantage, after that the other. + Show Spoiler +
Now, without going into your passive-aggressive modes and desperately trying to defend your race, think about this for a little bit. Think about other games, different weapons in shooters, different classes in rpg's, etc. This is almost always how it works. The difference is that you are much more committed to your race in sc2/rts, which seems to make people a lot more emotional.
Plansix's underlying point is that this argument is a dead end as far as discussion goes. There's no argument that can be made for or against that rises above the level of contradiction. It may be theory that seems to fit the situation as far as you can tell, but that's all we can really say.
On September 10 2013 07:54 Jerubaal wrote: Plansix's underlying point is that this argument is a dead end as far as discussion goes. There's no argument that can be made for or against that rises above the level of contradiction. It may be theory that seems to fit the situation as far as you can tell, but that's all we can really say.
Its a purely anecdotal narrative, no different from "the earth is flat, because hey, I look outside and it looks flat"
Mostly its an outlet for angry player who want to shift blame of their inequities to race instead of to their own personal saga.
On September 10 2013 06:35 HungrySC2 wrote: "They can be both under powered and over powered at the same time."
Terran can be overpowered and underpowered at the same time. It comes with the territory. This isn't chess. This is an asymmetrical game.
Protoss and Zerg 1A are much stronger than Terran 1A. Terran also lacks easy to execute cheeses in the early game, when compared to the Protoss and Zerg counterparts.
In the current metagame/balance terran micro and multitask potential is much higher than for Protoss and Zerg.
Until you have the mechanical ability to "abuse" the micro/multitask potential of the Terran race, it's completely logical for most Terran players to feel that their race is underpowered. As long as we can accept that the balance design is for the best players in the world, and not for the average player we will do just fine. This is the way it is in Broodwar, and I see no reason to change it.
Terrans, always on message. He hit the best points to, "balanced for the professionals" and "1-A units" for both Zerg and protoss. The best part about that reasoning is that you can lose games to other players on your "skill level" and still feel like your better than them, because your race is harder. Its the race of the professionals that you can only hope to one day master. Until then, those other races with their A-move units will beat you because they have taken the easier, darker path.
I didn't say that was the reason why you lose games to other players of your skill level. Matchmaking puts you in que with someone you should beat 50% of the time and lost the other 50% of the time. I don't feel better or worse than the people I'm que'd against. It's pretty widely accepted that Terran is the most frustrating and hardest race to play at low levels just because of the effectiveness of A move in comparison to the other races. I'm just pointing out that this game isn't balanced for the average player, and it is fair for a Terran player to feel frustrated with how hard it is to make their units work effectively.
Oh man, lets go straight to the classic dota 2 argument of "Its the match making that made me lose the game! They are holding my glory back with their need to keep me at 50%" Seriously, that is what people do because they can't whine about the other races being imbalanced, because everyone can pick everything.(though the match making does get fucked up by smurf accounts)
And it is widely accepted that Terrans like to say their race is the hardest and required the highest mechanical skill at low levels. They also like to say the game isn't balanced for them, because they aren't top tier GSL players. It is the perfect argument. Your losses are never your fault and terran starts winning everything in Korea, you can just claim its because they are the perfect starcraft humans. You can never lose, because all the other players took the easy path and picked zerg or protoss.
On September 10 2013 07:54 Jerubaal wrote: Plansix's underlying point is that this argument is a dead end as far as discussion goes. There's no argument that can be made for or against that rises above the level of contradiction. It may be theory that seems to fit the situation as far as you can tell, but that's all we can really say.
Its a purely anecdotal narrative, no different from "the earth is flat, because hey, I look outside and it looks flat"
Mostly its an outlet for angry player who want to shift blame of their inequities to race instead of to their own personal saga.
Why blame yourself when you have a way to blame everything else? If its not balance, its because the map favored the race that isn't mine or some other BS. Seriously, I know I am bad at SC2 and Dota and I just take my lumps and move on.
On September 10 2013 06:35 HungrySC2 wrote: "They can be both under powered and over powered at the same time."
Terran can be overpowered and underpowered at the same time. It comes with the territory. This isn't chess. This is an asymmetrical game.
Protoss and Zerg 1A are much stronger than Terran 1A. Terran also lacks easy to execute cheeses in the early game, when compared to the Protoss and Zerg counterparts.
The amount of cheeses that can kill a Terran is atleast twice the number of cheeses that can kill the other races.
what a joke.. this post is so far off the mark I don't even know where to begin .
On September 10 2013 06:35 HungrySC2 wrote: "They can be both under powered and over powered at the same time."
Terran can be overpowered and underpowered at the same time. It comes with the territory. This isn't chess. This is an asymmetrical game.
Protoss and Zerg 1A are much stronger than Terran 1A. Terran also lacks easy to execute cheeses in the early game, when compared to the Protoss and Zerg counterparts.
In the current metagame/balance terran micro and multitask potential is much higher than for Protoss and Zerg.
Until you have the mechanical ability to "abuse" the micro/multitask potential of the Terran race, it's completely logical for most Terran players to feel that their race is underpowered. As long as we can accept that the balance design is for the best players in the world, and not for the average player we will do just fine. This is the way it is in Broodwar, and I see no reason to change it.
Terrans, always on message. He hit the best points to, "balanced for the professionals" and "1-A units" for both Zerg and protoss. The best part about that reasoning is that you can lose games to other players on your "skill level" and still feel like your better than them, because your race is harder. Its the race of the professionals that you can only hope to one day master. Until then, those other races with their A-move units will beat you because they have taken the easier, darker path.
I didn't say that was the reason why you lose games to other players of your skill level. Matchmaking puts you in que with someone you should beat 50% of the time and lost the other 50% of the time. I don't feel better or worse than the people I'm que'd against. It's pretty widely accepted that Terran is the most frustrating and hardest race to play at low levels just because of the effectiveness of A move in comparison to the other races. I'm just pointing out that this game isn't balanced for the average player, and it is fair for a Terran player to feel frustrated with how hard it is to make their units work effectively.
Oh man, lets go straight to the classic dota 2 argument of "Its the match making that made me lose the game! They are holding my glory back with their need to keep me at 50%" Seriously, that is what people do because they can't whine about the other races being imbalanced, because everyone can pick everything.(though the match making does get fucked up by smurf accounts)
And it is widely accepted that Terrans like to say their race is the hardest and required the highest mechanical skill at low levels. They also like to say the game isn't balanced for them, because they aren't top tier GSL players. It is the perfect argument. Your losses are never your fault and terran starts winning everything in Korea, you can just claim its because they are the perfect starcraft humans. You can never lose, because all the other players took the easy path and picked zerg or protoss.
On September 10 2013 07:54 Jerubaal wrote: Plansix's underlying point is that this argument is a dead end as far as discussion goes. There's no argument that can be made for or against that rises above the level of contradiction. It may be theory that seems to fit the situation as far as you can tell, but that's all we can really say.
Its a purely anecdotal narrative, no different from "the earth is flat, because hey, I look outside and it looks flat"
Mostly its an outlet for angry player who want to shift blame of their inequities to race instead of to their own personal saga.
Why blame yourself when you have a way to blame everything else? If its not balance, its because the map favored the race that isn't mine or some other BS. Seriously, I know I am bad at SC2 and Dota and I just take my lumps and move on.
Blaming the matchmaking system is the FUNNIEST excuse I've ever heard for a loss. I can't laugh like that too often at work since I'm in an office, but damn that's some funny ass shit.
As long as Korean terrans are still winning major tournaments this discussion won't change anything really...They clearly showed that terran can do well against zerg or protoss of roughly the same skill level, if foreigner terrans keep losing that just means they didn't make the cut.
On September 10 2013 08:49 SniXSniPe wrote: It's harder to be pro-level with Terran than the other two races.
I wonder what race you play..
When you can get GM as Random, or Terran, let me know.
I didn't mean it's harder to play at the highest of levels as Terran. I simply meant it's easier to reach a level capable of playing against other top foreigners/lower level Koreans as the other races compared to Terran.
On September 10 2013 06:35 HungrySC2 wrote: Protoss and Zerg 1A are much stronger than Terran 1A. Terran also lacks easy to execute cheeses in the early game, when compared to the Protoss and Zerg counterparts.
Weakest 1A depends on unit combo, and most of the time its Z.
let me change the pace here..... I atually blame artosis and Idra in 2011 for the lack of foreigner terrens. they went on every talk show discrasing terren as a pathetic cheese race that takes zero skill......that mentality lead to a lack of foreigner terrens as anybody that picked terren would feel hummilitated by the community which would bread the best protosses and zergs EU and AM could offer... however korea the more positive country stuck by there beliefs leading to some of the most dominating terrens in the game , that is my opinion. I just think its artosis and idras fault.
Dunno why. Maybe it is because most terran players decide to go for unit combositions, that requires more skill than they have? That would be my first thought, and that is kinda supported by the first few months of HotS. In the era of imbabat drops, there where change in the ammount of good foreing terrans. Instead, the already good got an unfair advantage, that they abused for a few months.
Now, most terran players nowadays go mmmw (marine maraduer medivavc widowmine), which is a very cheap but fragile unit combosition, until you get enough marauders and medivacs out. This unit combo, mmmw, emphazises mobility, while granting strong defensive options, and zoning(the ability to cut off portions of the map from the other player, aka a siege).
This requirethe user to have a few qualities, in order to play for maximum effect: - Speed (APM) - Attention. The ability to not tunnelvision(something like 95% of the entire gaming community suffers from tunnelvision, because they want to look at the pretty things on the screen. Zero tunnelvision means that you don't give a flying f!ck about how the units or graphics look, as long as they are simple to read). - Knowleagde of enemies timings and counters to your playstyle - Ability to confuse your enemy(mindgames)
___________________
TL;DR
If you go for the mmmw combosition, and is not already in masters league, then you are making it hard on yourself, and the rate at which you progress in skill will be alot slower, as you will have too many things to focus on at once.
I suggest starting with mech, or do a bunch of maraduer/hellion all ins.
... I know a lot of people will scorn me for suggesting these things, however doing maraduer/hellion all ins will force them to have good macro, atleast for the first 10 min, while alson teaching them about timings, harass, unit weakness/strenght.
While doing standard macro will force you to learn about all these things on an advanced level, the level where you have to actually read and calculate what your opponent can do/will do, which is not feasible under masters, if you want to not screw your own shizzle up meanwhile.
LAST TL;DR
Don't focus on macro oriented playstyles before you reach masters. It's a waste of your time, as it require a lot of skills before you can actually benefit from it.
Well this topics sounds like koreans are better then foreigners.. we all know this so... will not say nothing on this side. Now.. what can you say about foreigner terrans.. there are some, also up and coming T players. If you take Polt - you can count also them as foreigners. Now.. terran players which did good lately are Lucifron, Demuslim, QCX, Daishy (daishy is the new wave of terran). They are not that many... and yes.... all the ucranian/russian terrans kind of disappeared for one reason or another, but even if you go back 1-2years you will not find any good terrans expect Jinro in the foreigner scene. Also Thorzain is slacking. So i guess in general in the foreign scene are not that many terran players comapred to protoss or zerg.. they are like 10 good terrans compared to 15-20 protoss and like 15 zergs.. These numbers are made up... but it is somehow real.
We should be happy about Terran being how "hard" it is, the last time Blizzard did a patch for white people somthing called "Broodlord/Infestor" came out.
On September 11 2013 15:40 jarod wrote: Well this topics sounds like koreans are better then foreigners.. we all know this so... will not say nothing on this side. Now.. what can you say about foreigner terrans.. there are some, also up and coming T players. If you take Polt - you can count also them as foreigners. Now.. terran players which did good lately are Lucifron, Demuslim, QCX, Daishy (daishy is the new wave of terran). They are not that many... and yes.... all the ucranian/russian terrans kind of disappeared for one reason or another, but even if you go back 1-2years you will not find any good terrans expect Jinro in the foreigner scene. Also Thorzain is slacking. So i guess in general in the foreign scene are not that many terran players comapred to protoss or zerg.. they are like 10 good terrans compared to 15-20 protoss and like 15 zergs.. These numbers are made up... but it is somehow real.
We should be happy about Terran being how "hard" it is, the last time Blizzard did a patch for white people somthing called "Broodlord/Infestor" came out.
That would actually be the medivac speed boost patch @_@
On September 10 2013 07:06 teddyoojo wrote: cuz terran is shit of ur not korean
This... could've been said more eloquently to be more sensitive to the other races... All I know is I see foreign Z/P's beat Koreans every now and again, but foreigner T's beating Koreans is something that happens few and far between.
On September 10 2013 06:35 HungrySC2 wrote: Protoss and Zerg 1A are much stronger than Terran 1A. Terran also lacks easy to execute cheeses in the early game, when compared to the Protoss and Zerg counterparts.
Weakest 1A depends on unit combo, and most of the time its Z.
Not when Z survived the 2/2 phase and is building ultras, which are designed to just charge in followed by banes and lings. Also Z has hydra roach corrupter in vP, which is also very light in the micro department.
All in all i think its just the design of terran
1. units efficiency scales with micro invested 2. multitasking and harassing is necessary in some match ups to compensate for the weaker units in head on engagements.
Foreign terrans are not exactly strong in both things. Imo all foreigners should start playing mech and start hoping that blizz makes it viable against P and Z.
On September 11 2013 17:27 gingerfluffmuff wrote: Foreign terrans are not exactly strong in both things. Imo all foreigners should start playing mech and start hoping that blizz makes it viable against P and Z.
Even foreign terrans win much more with bio than mech. And mech in HotS is staying where it is. Bad skill scaling or not - it's pretty clear that Blizzard is not willing to make fundamental changes to terran.
On September 11 2013 17:27 gingerfluffmuff wrote: Foreign terrans are not exactly strong in both things. Imo all foreigners should start playing mech and start hoping that blizz makes it viable against P and Z.
Even foreign terrans win much more with bio than mech. And mech in HotS is staying where it is. Bad skill scaling or not - it's pretty clear that Blizzard is not willing to make fundamental changes to terran.
Nor are they willing to make any fundemental changes to any race.
Zerg is about as fun to watch and/play, as watching paint dry.
But maybe that is just me that lost the enjoyment.
Well I find Zerg usually pretty lame, but then I saw DRG beat Innovation the other day. Now the question is: Why are there so few foreign zerg players who play like DRG? :D
I guess all the good non korean players just picked protoss or zerg by coincidence. Things like this just happen in a big playerbase of several tenthousands of players - you can´t allways have an equal distribution, no matter how big your sample size is..... OH WAIT!
On September 11 2013 22:11 TeeTS wrote: I guess all the good non korean players just picked protoss or zerg by coincidence. Things like this just happen in a big playerbase of several tenthousands of players - you can´t allways have an equal distribution, no matter how big your sample size is..... OH WAIT!
IMHO Most good non-korean players have WC3 background so they picked races and playstyles according to the race they used to play in WC3 rather than coincidence.
On September 11 2013 22:11 TeeTS wrote: I guess all the good non korean players just picked protoss or zerg by coincidence. Things like this just happen in a big playerbase of several tenthousands of players - you can´t allways have an equal distribution, no matter how big your sample size is..... OH WAIT!
Are you implying that there are tens of thousands of good non korean players?
On September 11 2013 15:03 Whatson wrote: Well then plansix, why do you think there are so few successful foreigner Terrans?
...you're not seriously trying to pull off that argument are you? Because its the same argument that Terrans dismiss out of hand when everyone else brings up how riotously successful Korean Terrans tend to be.
Anyone who points out that Terran has more GSL medals than Protoss and Zerg put together gets "they were just better " (although certain patch changes indicated otherwise). Therefore there being so few successful foreigner Terrans is nothing to do with balance its just they're not as good.
Terran takes the most mechanics and execution out of all 3 races.
It doesn't make Terran underpowered or lacking in the game, but it makes it harder for players without the hand speed and keyboard skill to really bring out the full potential of the race.
lack of foreign terrans, looking at wcs i would rather call it lack of foreigners in general.
but oh well,.. it was like that since 2011 or so when we started to import koreans everywhere. (well some foreigners could/can hold themselfs but hey.. these 3 or so do not really help us out in general)
on topic: i don't really think its only the apm req. but also the why play human if i can play monsters/aliens thingy.. to an extend
well, in response to plansix' argument: lets have a look at bw in iccup in say 2008-2010. is there anybody who disagrees with the statement that terran was harder to play at low skill levels than toss or zerg in bw? is there anybody who refutes the statement that a terran who just got promoted to C rank has almost necessarily more mechanical skill (defined as the degree of perfection he achieves in all mechanical aspects of the game) than a toss who just got C?
the main difference is that, back in bw, no one blamed the game itself for this "issue". it was accepted.
imho the lack of successful foreign terrans has two underlying factors.
the first is what was already stated many times in this thread: the terran race scales better off apm, multitasking, micro and stuff like that than other races, but requires a higher degree of perfection with respect to these things to be effective. zerg, for example, is more taxing in the resource management and tactical area. but since mechanics require a more rigid practice regiment than strategical prowess, the skill-gap between foreigners and koreans tends to be larger for mechanics than for tactical thinking. thus, zerg and toss are more favorable to foreigners than terran, in comparison to koreans.
the second reason is randomness in the race choice. the amount of foreigners is large, yes. but the pool of foreigners who got the talent, the will and the practice environment (and rigidity) to have even the slightest potential of keeping up with koreans is very small. there are maybe 12-15 foreigners who belong to this pool. with such a small sample size of foreigners that are relevant to this discussion, it could very well be pure coincidence that there are almost no terrans among them. at the same time, the image of korean terrans as super-strong mainly stems from the success of a select few players like innovation and mvp. whose race choice could be explained by other factors than simply "terran UP at plat, OP at gsl, duh".
Guys, let's not tip-toe around this topic and find silly reasons to "why there aren't any foreign Terrans in tournaments, but Zerg and protoss are.
We all know and seen that Terran is by far the hardest race mechanic wise as well as skill wise. If you are the "perfect player" and play Terran to it's optimal, you may win ALL the greatest tournaments. As we've seen a few times: Innovation, Polt, IMMvp, TaeJa etc.
Therefore the game design has made Terran this way. Either show full potential of Terran or just not make it at all. This does not apply to Zerg and Protoss. These two races could have there moments that are easier to control, therefore foreigners have easier time defeating koreans.
I have a few recent event examples of this: Naniwa defeating Innovation. ShowTime defeating IMMvp. Stephano/Ret and many other European players defeating some korean favorites as well as Korean Terran favorites.
But I'd like for some of you to name a foreign Terran who easily or even hardly, rather, defeating koreans.
Btw, I have this theory about why Protoss does so bad at tournaments even though they are by far balanced if not even stronger than the two other races. From early 2010, there have been SOOOOO many different Protoss/Zerg players falling out/coming into the scene, so many variations and different players from both Korea and foreigners.
This reason, that there are many different Protoss/Zerg players than there are Terran players coming into the scene, gives me the idea that most of them are way too nervious, or inexperienced in bigger tournaments, and couldn't show the full potential of their represented race.
For Terrans on the other hand, it's the other way around. We have seen the same Terrans we ALWAYS see in playoffs and quarter finals/grand finals. But we NEVER see new Terrans coming into the scene and choke like all these new Protoss/Zerg players do against players like Mvp, Polt, Innovation etc.
On September 11 2013 15:03 Whatson wrote: Well then plansix, why do you think there are so few successful foreigner Terrans?
...you're not seriously trying to pull off that argument are you? Because its the same argument that Terrans dismiss out of hand when everyone else brings up how riotously successful Korean Terrans tend to be.
Anyone who points out that Terran has more GSL medals than Protoss and Zerg put together gets "they were just better " (although certain patch changes indicated otherwise). Therefore there being so few successful foreigner Terrans is nothing to do with balance its just they're not as good.
And if you look at top 2 finishes it evens out quite well. Yeah in HotS terran got a bit of the better end in those finals, but aside from that statistics are fine. But if you look at the list of foreign players, that took games and series of top korean players, you´ll see that the lists for zerg and protoss are surprisingly much longer than for terran. how does this come?
Dunno why. Maybe it is because most terran players decide to go for unit combositions, that requires more skill than they have? That would be my first thought, and that is kinda supported by the first few months of HotS. In the era of imbabat drops, there where change in the ammount of good foreing terrans. Instead, the already good got an unfair advantage, that they abused for a few months.
Now, most terran players nowadays go mmmw (marine maraduer medivavc widowmine), which is a very cheap but fragile unit combosition, until you get enough marauders and medivacs out. This unit combo, mmmw, emphazises mobility, while granting strong defensive options, and zoning(the ability to cut off portions of the map from the other player, aka a siege).
This requirethe user to have a few qualities, in order to play for maximum effect: - Speed (APM) - Attention. The ability to not tunnelvision(something like 95% of the entire gaming community suffers from tunnelvision, because they want to look at the pretty things on the screen. Zero tunnelvision means that you don't give a flying f!ck about how the units or graphics look, as long as they are simple to read). - Knowleagde of enemies timings and counters to your playstyle - Ability to confuse your enemy(mindgames)
___________________
TL;DR
If you go for the mmmw combosition, and is not already in masters league, then you are making it hard on yourself, and the rate at which you progress in skill will be alot slower, as you will have too many things to focus on at once.
I suggest starting with mech, or do a bunch of maraduer/hellion all ins.
... I know a lot of people will scorn me for suggesting these things, however doing maraduer/hellion all ins will force them to have good macro, atleast for the first 10 min, while alson teaching them about timings, harass, unit weakness/strenght.
While doing standard macro will force you to learn about all these things on an advanced level, the level where you have to actually read and calculate what your opponent can do/will do, which is not feasible under masters, if you want to not screw your own shizzle up meanwhile.
LAST TL;DR
Don't focus on macro oriented playstyles before you reach masters. It's a waste of your time, as it require a lot of skills before you can actually benefit from it.
On September 11 2013 23:08 Gamegene wrote: good foreign terrans with mechanics exist. their names are chris pedro and juanito.
short list
Lucifron*, Happy*, Kas, Thorzain (Kas and Thorzain not as hot atm though). There you have it, the foreign Terrans who are worth mentioning when talking about top foreigners. Hope to see more in the future though.
This is a fun thread to read; lot's of interesting theories :D
What I find most interesting is this is the first season since... I started keeping track of any statistics (probably a year and a half) that I've had more than 20-25% Terran opponents (It's actually very close 30-35% on both EU and NA).
On September 11 2013 15:03 Whatson wrote: Well then plansix, why do you think there are so few successful foreigner Terrans?
Correlation =/= causation
lack of top foreign terrans not mean terrans are harder to play
for the same reason my never having seen africa with my own two eyes doesn't mean that africa does not really exist.
Exactly. There is no single specific reason that can be applied to the entire world that will prove why there are less foreign terrans. There is only one really high level protoss in Australia from what we learned on the last Meta. That does not mean that Australians have some disadvantage in the protoss department.
On September 11 2013 15:03 Whatson wrote: Well then plansix, why do you think there are so few successful foreigner Terrans?
Correlation =/= causation
lack of top foreign terrans not mean terrans are harder to play
for the same reason my never having seen africa with my own two eyes doesn't mean that africa does not really exist.
Exactly. There is no single specific reason that can be applied to the entire world that will prove why there are less foreign terrans. There is only one really high level protoss in Australia from what we learned on the last Meta. That does not mean that Australians have some disadvantage in the protoss department.
On September 11 2013 15:03 Whatson wrote: Well then plansix, why do you think there are so few successful foreigner Terrans?
Correlation =/= causation
lack of top foreign terrans not mean terrans are harder to play
for the same reason my never having seen africa with my own two eyes doesn't mean that africa does not really exist.
Exactly. There is no single specific reason that can be applied to the entire world that will prove why there are less foreign terrans. There is only one really high level protoss in Australia from what we learned on the last Meta. That does not mean that Australians have some disadvantage in the protoss department.
And here in Denmark, we have one of each:
Babyknight, Bunny and Sonder
And Australia is full of Zergs and a couple terrans. There is no real reason for it, it is just the way it is. It is really unlikely that all three races are going to get a 33/33/33 split across the board in the professional scene, since there are so many reasons to pick a race.
On September 11 2013 15:03 Whatson wrote: Well then plansix, why do you think there are so few successful foreigner Terrans?
Correlation =/= causation
lack of top foreign terrans not mean terrans are harder to play
for the same reason my never having seen africa with my own two eyes doesn't mean that africa does not really exist.
Exactly. There is no single specific reason that can be applied to the entire world that will prove why there are less foreign terrans. There is only one really high level protoss in Australia from what we learned on the last Meta. That does not mean that Australians have some disadvantage in the protoss department.
Completely right. The race choosing process alone is way to difficult to analyze. Like, there are probably a lot of people who played Terran (in BW and later in SC2) because of Boxer. Then there are probably people out there that just like races for their design/lore/visual appearence. Then there are influences like WoL having a long Terran, a short Protoss and no Zerg campaign, which for players that started playing Starcraft via Singleplayer means that they have a headstart with T/P because they at least know techtrees/units a little bit. (similar thing in HotS for Zerg) Then there are (pro-)players that picked a certain race because it was appealing to them from the background they were coming from (e.g. Stephano picking Zerg because he thought it was closest to WC3 human)
In the end you'd have to analyze race picking/switching trends over time to get a good overview of reasons why people pick what race. I picked zerg because it was swarmy and because my second choice (terran) was too generic for me (=Terran is very similar to CnC/Dune/SupCom/AoE races)
On September 11 2013 22:52 OneSpeed wrote: But I'd like for some of you to name a foreign Terran who easily or even hardly, rather, defeating koreans.
Major over Alicia, Sjow over Life, Theognis over Jaedong, Lucifron over Mvp, Lucifron over Hero. Dayshi probably did it somewhere around 5-10 times in last ATC.
Terran is the hardest race due to mechanical requirements and thus there are very few foreigners who can compete with it at the top level. If you just play all 3 races it's pretty clear T is the most difficult, shitloads of people have come to this conclusion without even watching or knowing about the professional scene. And idk why people are even discussing the Australian scene, Moonglade is really the only "top level" player there.
On September 12 2013 00:24 SupLilSon wrote: Terran is the hardest race due to mechanical requirements and thus there are very few foreigners who can compete with it at the top level. If you just play all 3 races it's pretty clear T is the most difficult, shitloads of people have come to this conclusion without even watching or knowing about the professional scene. And idk why people are even discussing the Australian scene, Moonglade is really the only "top level" player there.
A shit load of Terrans have said that it is true and then reinforced that by saying it over and over. Confirmation bias does not make something fact. Just because you get a lot of people saying something does not make it true, as history has proven. And people are discussing the Australian scene because it was on the last episode of META with Artotsis and it was a topic.
Even outside of proscene an only based on ladder: There is trend since beggining of sc2 where Terran population is low league heavy, Zerg opposite and Protoss in the middle. For me there are 2 possible reasons of that - either worse players in general chose to play Terran or it's harder to be successful as Terran (or combination of both) Take your pick.
On September 12 2013 00:33 keglu wrote: Even outside of proscene an only based on ladder: There is trend since beggining of sc2 where Terran population is low league heavy, Zerg opposite and Protoss in the middle. For me there are 2 possible reasons of that - either worse players in general chose to play Terran or it's harder to be successful as Terran (or combination of both) Take your pick.
Or people like space aliens, warping in units or think that zerg looks dope. People play elves all the time in D&D and WoW had more Alliance than Horde until they added Blood Elves to horde. That doesn't mean elves are OP in both table top RPGs and WoW. It just means people like elves.
When was the last time we saw some terran personalitys outside korea. I personally switched from terran to protoss when watching white-ra's games. But since TLO switched to zerg, drewbie stopped competing, jinro retired and select took that break there just arn't any terran personalitys. Compare that to White-ra, Incontrol, MC, Naniwa, Huk, grubby, Stephano, Idra, scarlett, nerchio, catz and snute.
Looking at active terrans; thorzain, lucifron, sjow, kas, major, bratok, demuslim, happy, goody, naama, illusion, qxc etc etc. We rarely ever see their personalitys unless we go looking for them.
Whether or not zerg or protoss players are performing well there is a strong personality base that attracts people to the various races. People that you see on the "talk shows" on the "community posts" in the tournaments are always the zergs and protoss.
So the people i hear about, the people i know, the commentators, the hosts, the fan favourites are all zerg and protoss players. All the players i'm intrested in dont play terran, why would i want to play terran?
On September 12 2013 00:33 keglu wrote: Even outside of proscene an only based on ladder: There is trend since beggining of sc2 where Terran population is low league heavy, Zerg opposite and Protoss in the middle. For me there are 2 possible reasons of that - either worse players in general chose to play Terran or it's harder to be successful as Terran (or combination of both) Take your pick.
Or people like space aliens, warping in units or think that zerg looks dope. People play elves all the time in D&D and WoW had more Alliance than Horde until they added Blood Elves to horde. That doesn't mean elves are OP in both table top RPGs and WoW. It just means people like elves.
Sorry but this is not about amount of players playing race but how sucessfull is average player of particular race Whole WoL there were more Terran players than Zerg players btw.
On September 12 2013 00:33 keglu wrote: Even outside of proscene an only based on ladder: There is trend since beggining of sc2 where Terran population is low league heavy, Zerg opposite and Protoss in the middle. For me there are 2 possible reasons of that - either worse players in general chose to play Terran or it's harder to be successful as Terran (or combination of both) Take your pick.
Or people like space aliens, warping in units or think that zerg looks dope. People play elves all the time in D&D and WoW had more Alliance than Horde until they added Blood Elves to horde. That doesn't mean elves are OP in both table top RPGs and WoW. It just means people like elves.
Sorry but this is not about amount of players playing race but how sucessfull is average player of particular race Whole WoL there were more Terran players than Zerg players btw.
Yes, I know that, but people keep following the reasoning that people gravitate away from terran because it is the "hardest race". I am pointing out that there are many other reasons why people might choose the other races over terran, professional player or otherwise. The success rate on the professional level falls under a similar line.
On September 12 2013 00:33 keglu wrote: Even outside of proscene an only based on ladder: There is trend since beggining of sc2 where Terran population is low league heavy, Zerg opposite and Protoss in the middle. For me there are 2 possible reasons of that - either worse players in general chose to play Terran or it's harder to be successful as Terran (or combination of both) Take your pick.
Or people like space aliens, warping in units or think that zerg looks dope.
Honestly it takes like 5 minutes on this forum to realize that terran is the most liked race...
I don't know why you cling on so much to this idea that all the races are equally hard to play mechanically, I've seen you do it in the past. All races are hard, that's a given. But they aren't hard in the same fashion, their strengths and weaknesses aren't the same (and weren't meant to be, imo).
I agree with those who argue that the hardship of terran is mechanics, but I don't think that reflects negatively on protoss or zerg, whose hardship lies elsewhere. If anything I think the biggest problem it caused is that it created the superiority complex that a ton of terran players have now, in that they think they should basically win every game because their race takes more skill.
On September 12 2013 00:33 keglu wrote: Even outside of proscene an only based on ladder: There is trend since beggining of sc2 where Terran population is low league heavy, Zerg opposite and Protoss in the middle. For me there are 2 possible reasons of that - either worse players in general chose to play Terran or it's harder to be successful as Terran (or combination of both) Take your pick.
Or people like space aliens, warping in units or think that zerg looks dope.
Honestly it takes like 5 minutes on this forum to realize that terran is the most liked race...
I don't know why you cling on so much to this idea that all the races are equally hard to play mechanically, I've seen you do it in the past. All races are hard, that's a given. But they aren't hard in the same fashion, their strengths and weaknesses aren't the same (and weren't meant to be, imo).
I agree with those who argue that the hardship of terran is mechanics, but I don't think that reflects negatively on protoss or zerg, whose hardship lies elsewhere. If anything I think the biggest problem it caused is that it created the superiority complex that a ton of terran players have now, in that they think they should basically win every game because their race takes more skill.
It also just takes 5mins to realize that Terran is overproportionally represented on Teamliquid. (I guess due to the BW background of Teamliquid)
Plansix is right, the logical assumption is to suppose that the races are equally hard if the game is balanced. I'd even go so far as to say that if that is not the case the game is imbalanced, as we will never reach the skill ceiling and therefore a race "being harder" means that with the same amount of skill a player of a different race would achieve more and therefore perform better on average.
On September 12 2013 00:33 keglu wrote: Even outside of proscene an only based on ladder: There is trend since beggining of sc2 where Terran population is low league heavy, Zerg opposite and Protoss in the middle. For me there are 2 possible reasons of that - either worse players in general chose to play Terran or it's harder to be successful as Terran (or combination of both) Take your pick.
Or people like space aliens, warping in units or think that zerg looks dope.
Honestly it takes like 5 minutes on this forum to realize that terran is the most liked race...
I don't know why you cling on so much to this idea that all the races are equally hard to play mechanically, I've seen you do it in the past. All races are hard, that's a given. But they aren't hard in the same fashion, their strengths and weaknesses aren't the same (and weren't meant to be, imo).
I agree with those who argue that the hardship of terran is mechanics, but I don't think that reflects negatively on protoss or zerg, whose hardship lies elsewhere. If anything I think the biggest problem it caused is that it created the superiority complex that a ton of terran players have now, in that they think they should basically win every game because their race takes more skill.
I agree with you that terrans has some of the most fast paced, micro required during largest engagements and the difficulties for the other race are in other parts of the battle or games. The problem is that people narrow their view on mechanics to exactly what they think is hardest about the game and neglect other areas that may be more difficult for the other races. They diminish what is difficult for others, while feeling superior about their own skills and assume they lost because their race is harder than the others. There is a difference between saying "this part of the game requires a lot of micro on the part of terran" and saying "there are fewer foreign terran pros because terran is harder than all the other races(except if your Korean, then it is fine)" The latter is the one I am arguing against.
On September 12 2013 00:33 keglu wrote: Even outside of proscene an only based on ladder: There is trend since beggining of sc2 where Terran population is low league heavy, Zerg opposite and Protoss in the middle. For me there are 2 possible reasons of that - either worse players in general chose to play Terran or it's harder to be successful as Terran (or combination of both) Take your pick.
Or people like space aliens, warping in units or think that zerg looks dope.
Honestly it takes like 5 minutes on this forum to realize that terran is the most liked race...
I don't know why you cling on so much to this idea that all the races are equally hard to play mechanically, I've seen you do it in the past. All races are hard, that's a given. But they aren't hard in the same fashion, their strengths and weaknesses aren't the same (and weren't meant to be, imo).
I agree with those who argue that the hardship of terran is mechanics, but I don't think that reflects negatively on protoss or zerg, whose hardship lies elsewhere. If anything I think the biggest problem it caused is that it created the superiority complex that a ton of terran players have now, in that they think they should basically win every game because their race takes more skill.
It also just takes 5mins to realize that Terran is overproportionally represented on Teamliquid. (I guess due to the BW background of Teamliquid)
Plansix is right, the logical assumption is to suppose that the races are equally hard if the game is balanced. I'd even go so far as to say that if that is not the case the game is imbalanced, as we will never reach the skill ceiling and therefore a race "being harder" means that with the same amount of skill a player of a different race would achieve more and therefore perform better on average.
Protoss is my hardest race to play.
Mechanically they are easy, but I have the toughest time getting timings, positioning, and starsense right when playing toss. Too often I make too many of one unit, not enough of another, and oh no there goes my colossus.
Terran I find the easiest, but that's because I find drop play intuitive.
Just because a race is harder mechanically to play does not mean that they are actually *harder* to play. They just require a different skillset.
I think because the reason why Terran more suits the Koreans is because they practice harder and as the others said coz of having higher APM which they got from years of years training BW hardcore. Also I remember NoNy said before that when he joined eSTRO that they forced him to change his hotkeys so I guess they also proficient on managing their hotkeys.
Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
Also, Terran was widely accepted to be the hardest race in BW (while still performing well at the top KeSPA level). SC2 Terran is the closest of the 3 races to it's BW counterpart while Protoss now has warpgates and Zerg has the Queen Inject mechanic. Logically it follows that Terran is still the hardest race.. no?
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
If the matchmaking system is working properly, and I am playing on the same account then yes, the opponents should be of "equal skill". And I urge the Random players out there that think P/Z are much harder than T to come forward and speak up. Maybe none of them post on TL though, crazy coincidence.
It is because foreigners like flashy aliens and oversized insectoids, because incontrol and Idra do not play Terran and becuase it's just that way god damn it. BRB just going to stick my head back in the sand.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
If the matchmaking system is working properly, and I am playing on the same account then yes, the opponents should be of "equal skill". And I urge the Random players out there that think P/Z are much harder than T to come forward and speak up. Maybe none of them post on TL though, crazy coincidence.
Have you ever considered that you just suck with zerg, are ok with terran and are pretty great with protoss? I mean, I am a terrible zerg and I don't like how their units control or the way their production works. People focus to much on "which race is harder" as opposed to "I am best with this race because it has BLANK feature or style."
The simple fact is that Korea players are not magic or have special APM powers that allow them to play better. Thorzain is not magic either and he is doing pretty well today.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
If the matchmaking system is working properly, and I am playing on the same account then yes, the opponents should be of "equal skill". And I urge the Random players out there that think P/Z are much harder than T to come forward and speak up. Maybe none of them post on TL though, crazy coincidence.
Have you ever considered that you just suck with zerg, are ok with terran and are pretty great with protoss? I mean, I am a terrible zerg and I don't like how their units control or the way their production works. People focus to much on "which race is harder" as opposed to "I am best with this race because it has BLANK feature or style."
The simple fact is that Korea players are not magic or have special APM powers that allow them to play better. Thorzain is not magic either and he is doing pretty well today.
Well my ZvZ definitely sucked, it was literally 10% while my ZvT was amazing and ZvP was like 40-45%.
Also it goes beyond just winrates... just play the 3 races back to back and you can tell lol..
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
If the matchmaking system is working properly, and I am playing on the same account then yes, the opponents should be of "equal skill". And I urge the Random players out there that think P/Z are much harder than T to come forward and speak up. Maybe none of them post on TL though, crazy coincidence.
Have you ever considered that you just suck with zerg, are ok with terran and are pretty great with protoss? I mean, I am a terrible zerg and I don't like how their units control or the way their production works. People focus to much on "which race is harder" as opposed to "I am best with this race because it has BLANK feature or style."
The simple fact is that Korea players are not magic or have special APM powers that allow them to play better. Thorzain is not magic either and he is doing pretty well today.
Well my ZvZ definitely sucked, it was literally 10% while my ZvT was amazing and ZvP was like 40-45%.
Also it goes beyond just winrates... just play the 3 races back to back and you can tell lol..
My ZvZ sucks, my TvZ sucks, and my PvAll sucks
What does that tell you?
The answer is nothing, because its anecdotal evidence.
On September 12 2013 03:51 Swift118 wrote: It is because foreigners like flashy aliens and oversized insectoids, because incontrol and Idra do not play Terran and becuase it's just that way god damn it. BRB just going to stick my head back in the sand.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm sure there are quite a few players out there whose race of choice is due to their favorite players and wanting to emulate them. Or based on lore or some other aesthetic preference. After all, when people create threads on "What race should I choose to start", many people reply with "Choose the one that you like the best; play to have fun- not just to win". And rightly so. And you can certainly be master or GM level and still be playing to have fun.
Obviously, many players also choose the race they're best with, but that's not the only criterion that many people consider.
And what if Terran truly is harder to play? We real men (real Terran players, that is) wouldn't have it any other way.
Edit: I guess that it's really weird to me that Zerg and Protoss would be bothered by us thinking Terran is harder. I'm sure they think their race is harder too, and that's all good. Keeps the competitive spirit alive, even out of the game :D
All those skill-level blah blah arguments just don't have evidence. As far as I remember, foreign T's did not perform well even during the early WoL period when T was objectively OP and every T would pick up easy wins over Z/P in Korea. Watch games from that era and how silly they look.
On September 12 2013 07:47 ZenithM wrote: And what if Terran truly is harder to play? We real men (real Terran players, that is) wouldn't have it any other way.
Edit: I guess that it's really weird to me that Zerg and Protoss would be bothered by us thinking Terran is harder. I'm sure they think their race is harder too, and that's all good. Keeps the competitive spirit alive, even out of the game :D
I assume it would be because some players (regardless of the race) prefer to attribute their losses and failure to their race being more difficult, rather than actually being outplayed. External factors, rather than internal ones. I'm not particularly surprised either; many people use defense mechanisms like that to deal with problems.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
If the matchmaking system is working properly, and I am playing on the same account then yes, the opponents should be of "equal skill". And I urge the Random players out there that think P/Z are much harder than T to come forward and speak up. Maybe none of them post on TL though, crazy coincidence.
You're not going to find many of them arguing that Protoss is harder. Even Artosis said on meta that Protoss is less about mechanics, more about timings, nailing down your builds. Zerg is pretty hard, at least harder than WoL Zerg..
I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
If the matchmaking system is working properly, and I am playing on the same account then yes, the opponents should be of "equal skill". And I urge the Random players out there that think P/Z are much harder than T to come forward and speak up. Maybe none of them post on TL though, crazy coincidence.
You're not going to find many of them arguing that Protoss is harder. Even Artosis said on meta that Protoss is less about mechanics, more about timings, nailing down your builds. Zerg is pretty hard, at least harder than WoL Zerg..
I dont understand this idea at all. People also say Protoss is the 1a race, when in reality ANYONE who has played P even at a low Master level knows that P requires just as much or even more micro. If your sentries and stalkers get caught out for even a second by either a stimmed M/M or speedlings you actually just lose your entire army. Protoss requires a different kind of control that is centered around planning before and just as the fight is starting. Things like FFs and Guardian shield are so gimmicky that an army could either smash the other or simply evaporate due to poor positioning. I could easily make the argument that P has the most micro, which could also be said by all three races. The fact is all three races are played differently and shouldnt try to be clumped into one debate.
Just an fyi anyone who has played the game long enough knows how broken the game used to be post launch. Everyone with an objective view of the game could tell Terran was actually broken and were given free wins with bunkers and reapers even in korea. GSL was only TVT. But guess what? Foreign Ts still werent winning the way they should have. Idk why that is for sure but i can tell you that its not because T is harder because it wasnt very hard early WoL and there still werent any results.
On September 12 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote: I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
If the matchmaking system is working properly, and I am playing on the same account then yes, the opponents should be of "equal skill". And I urge the Random players out there that think P/Z are much harder than T to come forward and speak up. Maybe none of them post on TL though, crazy coincidence.
You're not going to find many of them arguing that Protoss is harder. Even Artosis said on meta that Protoss is less about mechanics, more about timings, nailing down your builds. Zerg is pretty hard, at least harder than WoL Zerg..
I dont understand this idea at all. People also say Protoss is the 1a race, when in reality ANYONE who has played P even at a low Master level knows that P requires just as much or even more micro. If your sentries and stalkers get caught out for even a second by either a stimmed M/M or speedlings you actually just lose your entire army. Protoss requires a different kind of control that is centered around planning before and just as the fight is starting. Things like FFs and Guardian shield are so gimmicky that an army could either smash the other or simply evaporate due to poor positioning. I could easily make the argument that P has the most micro, which could also be said by all three races. The fact is all three races are played differently and shouldnt try to be clumped into one debate.
Just an fyi anyone who has played the game long enough knows how broken the game used to be post launch. Everyone with an objective view of the game could tell Terran was actually broken and were given free wins with bunkers and reapers even in korea. GSL was only TVT. But guess what? Foreign Ts still werent winning the way they should have. Idk why that is for sure but i can tell you that its not because T is harder because it wasnt very hard early WoL and there still werent any results.
That's just wrong. In 2010 and early 2011 Terran was by far the most successful foreigner race. Just check the Tournaments. Same as now that the game is more balanced again. Foreign Terrans are keeping up with their foreign P/Z counterparts, but just like the foreign Z/Ps, they are not going to win a tournament anytime soon.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
If the matchmaking system is working properly, and I am playing on the same account then yes, the opponents should be of "equal skill". And I urge the Random players out there that think P/Z are much harder than T to come forward and speak up. Maybe none of them post on TL though, crazy coincidence.
You're not going to find many of them arguing that Protoss is harder. Even Artosis said on meta that Protoss is less about mechanics, more about timings, nailing down your builds. Zerg is pretty hard, at least harder than WoL Zerg..
I dont understand this idea at all. People also say Protoss is the 1a race, when in reality ANYONE who has played P even at a low Master level knows that P requires just as much or even more micro. If your sentries and stalkers get caught out for even a second by either a stimmed M/M or speedlings you actually just lose your entire army. Protoss requires a different kind of control that is centered around planning before and just as the fight is starting. Things like FFs and Guardian shield are so gimmicky that an army could either smash the other or simply evaporate due to poor positioning. I could easily make the argument that P has the most micro, which could also be said by all three races. The fact is all three races are played differently and shouldnt try to be clumped into one debate.
Just an fyi anyone who has played the game long enough knows how broken the game used to be post launch. Everyone with an objective view of the game could tell Terran was actually broken and were given free wins with bunkers and reapers even in korea. GSL was only TVT. But guess what? Foreign Ts still werent winning the way they should have. Idk why that is for sure but i can tell you that its not because T is harder because it wasnt very hard early WoL and there still werent any results.
people call it the 1a move race is because toss style rarely needs to harass and you just turtle nicely until you have the deathball up, then you do those micro you mentioned. compare to T for example, T needs to drop, run bys etc AND also need to do the late game micro. both armies also largely dependent on positioning as well. In late game PvZ on the other hand, a void ray deathball is the prime example of a move deathball
On September 12 2013 16:01 Big J wrote: Foreign Terrans are keeping up with their foreign P/Z counterparts
Even in HotS there are no foreign terrans that come even close to accomplishments of Snute/Scarlett/Naniwa and there never will be. And most of their (few) recent results have been from before hellbat nerf and buffs to other races.
uhm Thorzain, G0ody, Heromarine, Kas, Happy, Lucifron,.... One could agree that foreign Terran never reaches the hights of Korean Terran, but in the other Races you see some being even.
On September 12 2013 16:26 plgElwood wrote: uhm Thorzain, G0ody, Heromarine, Kas, Happy, Lucifron,.... One could agree that foreign Terran never reaches the hights of Korean Terran, but in the other Races you see some being even.
Not saying I am agreeing with the opinion in this thread, but the issue of discussion are not well-known terran players, but terran players who are amongst the best foreign players.
For example if you look at the results of WCS EU Premier league, of the 25 foreign players who managed to score points, only 6 are terrans and 4 of those terrans are sharing the last two places in the ranking. Or in another perspective, there have been 6100 points handed out to foreigners in EU Premier league, 1000 of them went to terran players.
On September 12 2013 16:01 Big J wrote: Foreign Terrans are keeping up with their foreign P/Z counterparts
Even in HotS there are no foreign terrans that come even close to accomplishments of Snute/Scarlett/Naniwa and there never will be. And most of their (few) recent results have been from before hellbat nerf and buffs to other races.
Sjow got 3rd at Dreamhack: Summer, Lucifron 5th at same tournament. Lucifron got 5th at Dreamhack: Valencia. Happy got 5th at ASUS ROG Summer.
Which I would call coming close to the best performances of foreigner Z/Ps: Stephano, Naniwa and Snute achieving second place finishes. And even those are just second places, it's not like there were any foreigners that are really competing with Koreans at the moment. They get a good run from time to time.
And those buffs you are talking about are just laughable. The hellbat nerf was the only real balance change we had since the HotS beta, everything else were tiny adjustments to harassment tools. JUST WATCH FOREIGNERS PLAY EACH OTHER and you will see that foreign Terrans have no problems beating Z/Ps.
To be fair, foreign terran are historically underperforming, it is not something that was introduced with HotS. I remember the huge playhem statistics, which said that foreign Terrans rarely beat Koreans, while that is not the case with foreign Protoss and foreign Zerg. Though I think the aim of that statistic was to show that PvP and ZvZ is more volatile that TvT,
edit: talking about foreign terran, does anybody remember stim to the win?
Terran is a purely mechanical race. The better a players mechanics the more they can make Terran shine. The other two races are not that way. Protoss and Zerg both require high mechanical skill at the top. However when playing those races one can make up for weaknesses in mechanical skill with guile and cunning something that you can't do with Terran.
Hence why in the foreigner scene Zerg and Protoss players do better than there Terran counterparts. In general foreigners mechanics are not on par with the Korean players therefore they must rely on things like cunning and guile to win. For this reason as a foreigner Terran is the worst race to play as if you are relying on things other than mechanics to win.
On September 12 2013 21:15 VieuxSinge wrote: Lucrifron, the best Terran foreigner, was kicked off of the EU WCS by a non-pro Zerg player. This is how hard it is for Terran foreigners today.
New and upcoming players exist and they are able to win games. Lucirfron has a lot of competition for the top foreign terran slot. Also, Thorzain made it through several protoss and zergs to with style and flair. The races has nothing do do with why Lucifron lost.
Let's break it down. AT CURRENT META, a Terran GM has mastery of:
- build workers - build production - fend off attacks - timing attacks to counter opponent's timings - pick drop micro, - timing attack with workers - manage slow speed flying casters into main army - integrate flying transport into main army, only this year used by Protoss pros. - maintain ratios of different units to beat opposing composition - multi prong. - spread units for optimum efficency - remember timings for upgrades while maintaining the above.
Some of the above are only recently being exploited by their respective race, e.g. Maintaining a warp prism with main army for both harass, multiprong and resuppling the army.
Edit: managing a detector with the army which includes having enough OCs for multiple scans and/or babysitting slow ravens with an army of stimmed marauder marine boosted medivacs and mines.
No, Terran scales equally with the other races with mechanical requirements. *sarcasm*
On September 12 2013 22:24 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Let's break it down. AT CURRENT META, a Terran GM has mastery of:
- timing attacks - pick drop micro, - timing attack with workers - manage slow speed flying casters into main army - integrate flying transport into main army, only this year used by Protoss pros. - maintain ratios of different units to beat opposing composition - multi prong. - spread units for optimum efficency - remember timings for upgrades while maintaining the above.
Some of the above are only recently being exploited by their respective race, e.g. Maintaining a warp prism with main army for both harass, multiprong and resuppling the army.
Edit: managing a detector with the army which includes having enough OCs for multiple scans.
Flying transport into main army is fucking ranged medic that has capability of dropship with ability to have short time phoenix speed. Managing slow speed flying casters.... GM terrans make ravens? Timings for upgrades... ehm, i believe with traditional hotkey spam all game long, you can easily catch moment they complete and only real timing you need is timing for armory (around 50% of +1 IIRC). Sorry for being rude, i just wonder about those 3. Also, multi prong is not really hard, if you have game sense and have an idea when enemies army is in other place. After all i am yet to find a terran microing on 2 fronts. timing attacks with workers.... 'Damn, he has storm in research, brb killing him' spread of units for max efficiency is common thing in mirrors too, especially roach wars. pick drop micro is just fancy thing, that is not really used often.
On September 12 2013 22:24 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Let's break it down. AT CURRENT META, a Terran GM has mastery of:
- timing attacks - pick drop micro, - timing attack with workers - manage slow speed flying casters into main army - integrate flying transport into main army, only this year used by Protoss pros. - maintain ratios of different units to beat opposing composition - multi prong. - spread units for optimum efficency - remember timings for upgrades while maintaining the above.
Some of the above are only recently being exploited by their respective race, e.g. Maintaining a warp prism with main army for both harass, multiprong and resuppling the army.
Edit: managing a detector with the army which includes having enough OCs for multiple scans.
Flying transport into main army is fucking ranged medic that has capability of dropship with ability to have short time phoenix speed. Managing slow speed flying casters.... GM terrans make ravens? Timings for upgrades... ehm, i believe with traditional hotkey spam all game long, you can easily catch moment they complete and only real timing you need is timing for armory (around 50% of +1 IIRC). Sorry for being rude, i just wonder about those 3. Also, multi prong is not really hard, if you have game sense and have an idea when enemies army is in other place. After all i am yet to find a terran microing on 2 fronts. timing attacks with workers.... 'Damn, he has storm in research, brb killing him' spread of units for max efficiency is common thing in mirrors too, especially roach wars. pick drop micro is just fancy thing, that is not really used often.
Terran does not have the luxury of producing 18 ultralisks in a single button spam by being on top of their injects,no, a Terran has to actually PLAN their transition.
On September 12 2013 21:13 Syn Harvest wrote: Terran is a purely mechanical race. The better a players mechanics the more they can make Terran shine. The other two races are not that way. Protoss and Zerg both require high mechanical skill at the top. However when playing those races one can make up for weaknesses in mechanical skill with guile and cunning something that you can't do with Terran.
Hence why in the foreigner scene Zerg and Protoss players do better than there Terran counterparts. In general foreigners mechanics are not on par with the Korean players therefore they must rely on things like cunning and guile to win. For this reason as a foreigner Terran is the worst race to play as if you are relying on things other than mechanics to win.
One thing that might be is that the gun is - at first - only on the terran to micro engagements. An a-moving terran will never be as strong as an a-moving protoss or zerg. Therefore, even down to the smallest engagements, a terran has to micro his units. Of course once he does that well, then the gun is on the opposing player to do the same or else he/she has no chance of winning.
On September 12 2013 22:24 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Let's break it down. AT CURRENT META, a Terran GM has mastery of:
- build workers - build production - fend off attacks - timing attacks to counter opponent's timings - pick drop micro, - timing attack with workers - manage slow speed flying casters into main army - integrate flying transport into main army, only this year used by Protoss pros. - maintain ratios of different units to beat opposing composition - multi prong. - spread units for optimum efficency - remember timings for upgrades while maintaining the above.
Some of the above are only recently being exploited by their respective race, e.g. Maintaining a warp prism with main army for both harass, multiprong and resuppling the army.
Edit: managing a detector with the army which includes having enough OCs for multiple scans and/or babysitting slow ravens with an army of stimmed marauder marine boosted medivacs and mines.
No, Terran scales equally with the other races with mechanical requirements. *sarcasm*
I am confused Hattori. Do you mean all of that at once or each of that in itself? Because some of that stuff is mechanics, other of that stuff is strategy. So I guess I can assume it's not meant as an "at once" and therefore you want to tell us how each of those is an amazing skill in itself, right? No more comment needed...
On September 12 2013 22:24 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Let's break it down. AT CURRENT META, a Terran GM has mastery of:
- timing attacks - pick drop micro, - timing attack with workers - manage slow speed flying casters into main army - integrate flying transport into main army, only this year used by Protoss pros. - maintain ratios of different units to beat opposing composition - multi prong. - spread units for optimum efficency - remember timings for upgrades while maintaining the above.
Some of the above are only recently being exploited by their respective race, e.g. Maintaining a warp prism with main army for both harass, multiprong and resuppling the army.
Edit: managing a detector with the army which includes having enough OCs for multiple scans.
Flying transport into main army is fucking ranged medic that has capability of dropship with ability to have short time phoenix speed. Managing slow speed flying casters.... GM terrans make ravens? Timings for upgrades... ehm, i believe with traditional hotkey spam all game long, you can easily catch moment they complete and only real timing you need is timing for armory (around 50% of +1 IIRC). Sorry for being rude, i just wonder about those 3. Also, multi prong is not really hard, if you have game sense and have an idea when enemies army is in other place. After all i am yet to find a terran microing on 2 fronts. timing attacks with workers.... 'Damn, he has storm in research, brb killing him' spread of units for max efficiency is common thing in mirrors too, especially roach wars. pick drop micro is just fancy thing, that is not really used often.
Terran does not have the luxury of producing 18 ultralisks in a single button spam by being on top of their injects,no, a Terran has to actually PLAN their transition.
which has mostly something to do with Ultralisks not being a Terran unit, you know Edit: ohohohohohohoh. I have an even funnier one: what transition? :D
On September 12 2013 22:24 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Let's break it down. AT CURRENT META, a Terran GM has mastery of:
- timing attacks - pick drop micro, - timing attack with workers - manage slow speed flying casters into main army - integrate flying transport into main army, only this year used by Protoss pros. - maintain ratios of different units to beat opposing composition - multi prong. - spread units for optimum efficency - remember timings for upgrades while maintaining the above.
Some of the above are only recently being exploited by their respective race, e.g. Maintaining a warp prism with main army for both harass, multiprong and resuppling the army.
Edit: managing a detector with the army which includes having enough OCs for multiple scans.
Flying transport into main army is fucking ranged medic that has capability of dropship with ability to have short time phoenix speed. Managing slow speed flying casters.... GM terrans make ravens? Timings for upgrades... ehm, i believe with traditional hotkey spam all game long, you can easily catch moment they complete and only real timing you need is timing for armory (around 50% of +1 IIRC). Sorry for being rude, i just wonder about those 3. Also, multi prong is not really hard, if you have game sense and have an idea when enemies army is in other place. After all i am yet to find a terran microing on 2 fronts. timing attacks with workers.... 'Damn, he has storm in research, brb killing him' spread of units for max efficiency is common thing in mirrors too, especially roach wars. pick drop micro is just fancy thing, that is not really used often.
Terran does not have the luxury of producing 18 ultralisks in a single button spam by being on top of their injects,no, a Terran has to actually PLAN their transition.
Zerg does not have a luxury of producing 18 useful ultralisks either.
On September 12 2013 22:24 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Let's break it down. AT CURRENT META, a Terran GM has mastery of:
- timing attacks - pick drop micro, - timing attack with workers - manage slow speed flying casters into main army - integrate flying transport into main army, only this year used by Protoss pros. - maintain ratios of different units to beat opposing composition - multi prong. - spread units for optimum efficency - remember timings for upgrades while maintaining the above.
Some of the above are only recently being exploited by their respective race, e.g. Maintaining a warp prism with main army for both harass, multiprong and resuppling the army.
Edit: managing a detector with the army which includes having enough OCs for multiple scans.
Flying transport into main army is fucking ranged medic that has capability of dropship with ability to have short time phoenix speed. Managing slow speed flying casters.... GM terrans make ravens? Timings for upgrades... ehm, i believe with traditional hotkey spam all game long, you can easily catch moment they complete and only real timing you need is timing for armory (around 50% of +1 IIRC). Sorry for being rude, i just wonder about those 3. Also, multi prong is not really hard, if you have game sense and have an idea when enemies army is in other place. After all i am yet to find a terran microing on 2 fronts. timing attacks with workers.... 'Damn, he has storm in research, brb killing him' spread of units for max efficiency is common thing in mirrors too, especially roach wars. pick drop micro is just fancy thing, that is not really used often.
Terran does not have the luxury of producing 18 ultralisks in a single button spam by being on top of their injects,no, a Terran has to actually PLAN their transition.
Zerg does not have a luxury of producing 18 useful ultralisks either.
They do if they have won the game at that point and have way to much money and no army. But that 108 supply will be pretty cumbersome to use.
On September 12 2013 22:24 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Let's break it down. AT CURRENT META, a Terran GM has mastery of:
- timing attacks - pick drop micro, - timing attack with workers - manage slow speed flying casters into main army - integrate flying transport into main army, only this year used by Protoss pros. - maintain ratios of different units to beat opposing composition - multi prong. - spread units for optimum efficency - remember timings for upgrades while maintaining the above.
Some of the above are only recently being exploited by their respective race, e.g. Maintaining a warp prism with main army for both harass, multiprong and resuppling the army.
Edit: managing a detector with the army which includes having enough OCs for multiple scans.
Flying transport into main army is fucking ranged medic that has capability of dropship with ability to have short time phoenix speed. Managing slow speed flying casters.... GM terrans make ravens? Timings for upgrades... ehm, i believe with traditional hotkey spam all game long, you can easily catch moment they complete and only real timing you need is timing for armory (around 50% of +1 IIRC). Sorry for being rude, i just wonder about those 3. Also, multi prong is not really hard, if you have game sense and have an idea when enemies army is in other place. After all i am yet to find a terran microing on 2 fronts. timing attacks with workers.... 'Damn, he has storm in research, brb killing him' spread of units for max efficiency is common thing in mirrors too, especially roach wars. pick drop micro is just fancy thing, that is not really used often.
Terran does not have the luxury of producing 18 ultralisks in a single button spam by being on top of their injects,no, a Terran has to actually PLAN their transition.
Zerg does not have a luxury of producing 18 useful ultralisks either.
They do if they have won the game at that point and have way to much money and no army. But that 108 supply will be pretty cumbersome to use.
That's what i meant under useful. Because there are 2 cases you can afford to make 18 ultras: A. You have won the game. B. You play turtling player (be it mech or toss) and ultras are one of the worst thing to do against turtling player, Kwanro approves. In case A. 140 banelings will be probably more useful and fancy. In case B. There is a unit named swarm host and there is a unit named brood lord.
On September 12 2013 21:15 VieuxSinge wrote: Lucrifron, the best Terran foreigner, was kicked off of the EU WCS by a non-pro Zerg player. This is how hard it is for Terran foreigners today.
And NaNiwa, the best Protoss foreigner was kicked off EU WCS by TargA. Going by single instances like this is pointless, anyone can have a bad day regardless of race.
I agree with what most people are saying, but I also want to bring up a point, which is the mindset of foreigners. For some reason foreigners think they are being "noble" because they don't cheese as often as koreans. I haven't seen an 11/11 rax in at least a year, that said I'm not the most consistent watcher, so I may have just missed those games. I mean, some of the terrans I talk to don't even know about proxy marauder, 11/11 rax etc. Albeit, these are diamond/low masters players, but it's really surprising. On NA, I win about 80% of the games I play because I just 11/11 rax. No one is prepared for it, and no one knows how to properly respond to it. I think terran has the most potential for cheese in TvZ and TvT. In TvP, god help us all.
On September 13 2013 00:29 9-BiT wrote: I agree with what most people are saying, but I also want to bring up a point, which is the mindset of foreigners. For some reason foreigners think they are being "noble" because they don't cheese as often as koreans. I haven't seen an 11/11 rax in at least a year, that said I'm not the most consistent watcher, so I may have just missed those games. I mean, some of the terrans I talk to don't even know about proxy marauder, 11/11 rax etc. Albeit, these are diamond/low masters players, but it's really surprising. On NA, I win about 80% of the games I play because I just 11/11 rax. No one is prepared for it, and no one knows how to properly respond to it. I think terran has the most potential for cheese in TvZ and TvT. In TvP, god help us all.
Have you read (ex fnatic) Rain's latest blog? He talks about how he cheesed a lot because it was the way to win certain games, not because it's just an easy win. Sure there's a lot of risk in doing cheese, but if it works you just win by default most of the time, and that's usually worth the risk. Honestly I like watching all-ins and cheeses just as much if not more than macro games. Games where people win with cheese or all-ins are strategic wins as opposed to macro games which are pretty much all mechanics.
On September 13 2013 00:29 9-BiT wrote: I agree with what most people are saying, but I also want to bring up a point, which is the mindset of foreigners. For some reason foreigners think they are being "noble" because they don't cheese as often as koreans. I haven't seen an 11/11 rax in at least a year, that said I'm not the most consistent watcher, so I may have just missed those games. I mean, some of the terrans I talk to don't even know about proxy marauder, 11/11 rax etc. Albeit, these are diamond/low masters players, but it's really surprising. On NA, I win about 80% of the games I play because I just 11/11 rax. No one is prepared for it, and no one knows how to properly respond to it. I think terran has the most potential for cheese in TvZ and TvT. In TvP, god help us all.
Have you read (ex fnatic) Rain's latest blog? He talks about how he cheesed a lot because it was the way to win certain games, not because it's just an easy win. Sure there's a lot of risk in doing cheese, but if it works you just win by default most of the time, and that's usually worth the risk. Honestly I like watching all-ins and cheeses just as much if not more than macro games. Games where people win with cheese or all-ins are strategic wins as opposed to macro games which are pretty much all mechanics.
I haven't I definitely should. I definitely agree with what you're saying though. If you take a look at the most successful korean terrans in starcraft (1 and 2), you will definitely see that they started out as gimmicky cheesy players. You don't see this with other races. MKP, FlaSh, etc. With other races, you get some weird player, like horang2, who can cheese but not much else. For some reason terran allows cheeses to transition into macro games well. Foreign terrans just don't want to cheese, for whatever reason, even though it allows them to get free wins, and show their strategical side and not rely on their mechanics, which can only be a good thing for foreigners.
On September 12 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote: I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
On September 12 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote: I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
On September 12 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote: I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
If the matchmaking system is working properly, and I am playing on the same account then yes, the opponents should be of "equal skill". And I urge the Random players out there that think P/Z are much harder than T to come forward and speak up. Maybe none of them post on TL though, crazy coincidence.
You're not going to find many of them arguing that Protoss is harder. Even Artosis said on meta that Protoss is less about mechanics, more about timings, nailing down your builds. Zerg is pretty hard, at least harder than WoL Zerg..
I dont understand this idea at all. People also say Protoss is the 1a race, when in reality ANYONE who has played P even at a low Master level knows that P requires just as much or even more micro. If your sentries and stalkers get caught out for even a second by either a stimmed M/M or speedlings you actually just lose your entire army. Protoss requires a different kind of control that is centered around planning before and just as the fight is starting. Things like FFs and Guardian shield are so gimmicky that an army could either smash the other or simply evaporate due to poor positioning. I could easily make the argument that P has the most micro, which could also be said by all three races. The fact is all three races are played differently and shouldnt try to be clumped into one debate.
Just an fyi anyone who has played the game long enough knows how broken the game used to be post launch. Everyone with an objective view of the game could tell Terran was actually broken and were given free wins with bunkers and reapers even in korea. GSL was only TVT. But guess what? Foreign Ts still werent winning the way they should have. Idk why that is for sure but i can tell you that its not because T is harder because it wasnt very hard early WoL and there still werent any results.
That's just wrong. In 2010 and early 2011 Terran was by far the most successful foreigner race. Just check the Tournaments. Same as now that the game is more balanced again. Foreign Terrans are keeping up with their foreign P/Z counterparts, but just like the foreign Z/Ps, they are not going to win a tournament anytime soon.
Define "keeping with" beacuse in Hots from your source for Major+premier tournaments, TOP 2 finishes for foreigners T:2 Z: 7 P:10
in 2011 when Terran was still strong in general: T:19 Z:29 P:43
On September 12 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote: I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
Except people get very selective when they start to decide who is a "terran" pro and what "success", which leads to the endless debate on what counts as doing well. There are a number of high level terrans competing in the WCS in all regions. Australia only has one high level protoss, is protoss under powers for Australians? Does being down under make you unable to warp in units as quickly?
The game is not going to have a 33/33/33 split across the board in all departments.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
If the matchmaking system is working properly, and I am playing on the same account then yes, the opponents should be of "equal skill". And I urge the Random players out there that think P/Z are much harder than T to come forward and speak up. Maybe none of them post on TL though, crazy coincidence.
You're not going to find many of them arguing that Protoss is harder. Even Artosis said on meta that Protoss is less about mechanics, more about timings, nailing down your builds. Zerg is pretty hard, at least harder than WoL Zerg..
I dont understand this idea at all. People also say Protoss is the 1a race, when in reality ANYONE who has played P even at a low Master level knows that P requires just as much or even more micro. If your sentries and stalkers get caught out for even a second by either a stimmed M/M or speedlings you actually just lose your entire army. Protoss requires a different kind of control that is centered around planning before and just as the fight is starting. Things like FFs and Guardian shield are so gimmicky that an army could either smash the other or simply evaporate due to poor positioning. I could easily make the argument that P has the most micro, which could also be said by all three races. The fact is all three races are played differently and shouldnt try to be clumped into one debate.
Just an fyi anyone who has played the game long enough knows how broken the game used to be post launch. Everyone with an objective view of the game could tell Terran was actually broken and were given free wins with bunkers and reapers even in korea. GSL was only TVT. But guess what? Foreign Ts still werent winning the way they should have. Idk why that is for sure but i can tell you that its not because T is harder because it wasnt very hard early WoL and there still werent any results.
That's just wrong. In 2010 and early 2011 Terran was by far the most successful foreigner race. Just check the Tournaments. Same as now that the game is more balanced again. Foreign Terrans are keeping up with their foreign P/Z counterparts, but just like the foreign Z/Ps, they are not going to win a tournament anytime soon.
Define "keeping with" beacuse in Hots from your source for Major+premier tournaments, TOP 2 finishes for foreigners T:2 Z: 7 P:10
in 2011 when Terran was still strong in general: T:19 Z:29 P:43
Those are some random ass numbers there. Can you show your work?
On September 12 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote: I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
why does that have to say anything? Like in football, if you ask children what they want to play they will all tell you that they like the forward and midfield positions. You won't find that many that tell you they want to become a defender. Does that mean that playing defender is "harder"? No, it means that they have more fun taking the roles of trying to score, instead of preventing scoring of the enemy team.
On September 12 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote: I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
Except people get very selective when they start to decide who is a "terran" pro and what "success", which leads to the endless debate on what counts as doing well. There are a number of high level terrans competing in the WCS in all regions. Australia only has one high level protoss, is protoss under powers for Australians? Does being down under make you unable to warp in units as quickly?
The game is not going to have a 33/33/33 split across the board in all departments.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
If the matchmaking system is working properly, and I am playing on the same account then yes, the opponents should be of "equal skill". And I urge the Random players out there that think P/Z are much harder than T to come forward and speak up. Maybe none of them post on TL though, crazy coincidence.
You're not going to find many of them arguing that Protoss is harder. Even Artosis said on meta that Protoss is less about mechanics, more about timings, nailing down your builds. Zerg is pretty hard, at least harder than WoL Zerg..
I dont understand this idea at all. People also say Protoss is the 1a race, when in reality ANYONE who has played P even at a low Master level knows that P requires just as much or even more micro. If your sentries and stalkers get caught out for even a second by either a stimmed M/M or speedlings you actually just lose your entire army. Protoss requires a different kind of control that is centered around planning before and just as the fight is starting. Things like FFs and Guardian shield are so gimmicky that an army could either smash the other or simply evaporate due to poor positioning. I could easily make the argument that P has the most micro, which could also be said by all three races. The fact is all three races are played differently and shouldnt try to be clumped into one debate.
Just an fyi anyone who has played the game long enough knows how broken the game used to be post launch. Everyone with an objective view of the game could tell Terran was actually broken and were given free wins with bunkers and reapers even in korea. GSL was only TVT. But guess what? Foreign Ts still werent winning the way they should have. Idk why that is for sure but i can tell you that its not because T is harder because it wasnt very hard early WoL and there still werent any results.
That's just wrong. In 2010 and early 2011 Terran was by far the most successful foreigner race. Just check the Tournaments. Same as now that the game is more balanced again. Foreign Terrans are keeping up with their foreign P/Z counterparts, but just like the foreign Z/Ps, they are not going to win a tournament anytime soon.
Define "keeping with" beacuse in Hots from your source for Major+premier tournaments, TOP 2 finishes for foreigners T:2 Z: 7 P:10
in 2011 when Terran was still strong in general: T:19 Z:29 P:43
Those are some random ass numbers there. Can you show your work?
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
If the matchmaking system is working properly, and I am playing on the same account then yes, the opponents should be of "equal skill". And I urge the Random players out there that think P/Z are much harder than T to come forward and speak up. Maybe none of them post on TL though, crazy coincidence.
You're not going to find many of them arguing that Protoss is harder. Even Artosis said on meta that Protoss is less about mechanics, more about timings, nailing down your builds. Zerg is pretty hard, at least harder than WoL Zerg..
I dont understand this idea at all. People also say Protoss is the 1a race, when in reality ANYONE who has played P even at a low Master level knows that P requires just as much or even more micro. If your sentries and stalkers get caught out for even a second by either a stimmed M/M or speedlings you actually just lose your entire army. Protoss requires a different kind of control that is centered around planning before and just as the fight is starting. Things like FFs and Guardian shield are so gimmicky that an army could either smash the other or simply evaporate due to poor positioning. I could easily make the argument that P has the most micro, which could also be said by all three races. The fact is all three races are played differently and shouldnt try to be clumped into one debate.
Just an fyi anyone who has played the game long enough knows how broken the game used to be post launch. Everyone with an objective view of the game could tell Terran was actually broken and were given free wins with bunkers and reapers even in korea. GSL was only TVT. But guess what? Foreign Ts still werent winning the way they should have. Idk why that is for sure but i can tell you that its not because T is harder because it wasnt very hard early WoL and there still werent any results.
That's just wrong. In 2010 and early 2011 Terran was by far the most successful foreigner race. Just check the Tournaments. Same as now that the game is more balanced again. Foreign Terrans are keeping up with their foreign P/Z counterparts, but just like the foreign Z/Ps, they are not going to win a tournament anytime soon.
Define "keeping with" beacuse in Hots from your source for Major+premier tournaments, TOP 2 finishes for foreigners T:2 Z: 7 P:10
in 2011 when Terran was still strong in general: T:19 Z:29 P:43
Lucifron: 72% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans Happy: 71% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans HeroMarine: 69% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans Dayshi: 64% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans
Comparison Naniwa: 75% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans Welmu: 69% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans Stephano: 66% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans VortiX: 65% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans Snute: 64% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans TLO: 60% on HotS against non-Koreans Grubby: 56% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans
(this is by no means a complete list, but just a few players that came to my mind)
Those tournaments you talk about... Have a deeper look. At least amongst the first 5 of the major tournaments, there were 3rd and a 4th place for Terran foreigners. It's really not like foreign Terrans get beaten up by foreign T/Ps. They have their quarterfinals and semifinals. It's basically the reverse situation to Korean Protoss. They have their runs in tournaments. They just don't make it to the finals as often as Korean Z/T.
On September 12 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote: I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
why does that have to say anything? Like in football, if you ask children what they want to play they will all tell you that they like the forward and midfield positions. You won't find that many that tell you they want to become a defender. Does that mean that playing defender is "harder"? No, it means that they have more fun taking the roles of trying to score, instead of preventing scoring of the enemy team.
Comparing children playing football to gm is fucking hilarious. You should be talking about bronze-gold, I don't care how sarcastic or how much of a superiority complex you have, gm is top level.
On September 12 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote: I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
why does that have to say anything? Like in football, if you ask children what they want to play they will all tell you that they like the forward and midfield positions. You won't find that many that tell you they want to become a defender. Does that mean that playing defender is "harder"? No, it means that they have more fun taking the roles of trying to score, instead of preventing scoring of the enemy team.
Comparing children playing football to gm is fucking hilarious. You should be talking about bronze-gold, I don't care how sarcastic or how much of a superiority complex you have, gm is top level.
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder".
On September 12 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote: I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
why does that have to say anything? Like in football, if you ask children what they want to play they will all tell you that they like the forward and midfield positions. You won't find that many that tell you they want to become a defender. Does that mean that playing defender is "harder"? No, it means that they have more fun taking the roles of trying to score, instead of preventing scoring of the enemy team.
Comparing children playing football to gm is fucking hilarious. You should be talking about bronze-gold, I don't care how sarcastic or how much of a superiority complex you have, gm is top level.
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder".
I don't care what they pick. I'm talking about the best starcraft players.
On September 12 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote: I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
why does that have to say anything? Like in football, if you ask children what they want to play they will all tell you that they like the forward and midfield positions. You won't find that many that tell you they want to become a defender. Does that mean that playing defender is "harder"? No, it means that they have more fun taking the roles of trying to score, instead of preventing scoring of the enemy team.
Comparing children playing football to gm is fucking hilarious. You should be talking about bronze-gold, I don't care how sarcastic or how much of a superiority complex you have, gm is top level.
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder".
I don't care what they pick. I'm talking about the best starcraft players.
The point is that even the best Starcraft players pick the race based on any number of reasons, not simply based on which it is easiest to win with. Big J is pointing out that the challenge of a specific thing does not directly relate to the reasons why people pick it.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
If the matchmaking system is working properly, and I am playing on the same account then yes, the opponents should be of "equal skill". And I urge the Random players out there that think P/Z are much harder than T to come forward and speak up. Maybe none of them post on TL though, crazy coincidence.
You're not going to find many of them arguing that Protoss is harder. Even Artosis said on meta that Protoss is less about mechanics, more about timings, nailing down your builds. Zerg is pretty hard, at least harder than WoL Zerg..
I dont understand this idea at all. People also say Protoss is the 1a race, when in reality ANYONE who has played P even at a low Master level knows that P requires just as much or even more micro. If your sentries and stalkers get caught out for even a second by either a stimmed M/M or speedlings you actually just lose your entire army. Protoss requires a different kind of control that is centered around planning before and just as the fight is starting. Things like FFs and Guardian shield are so gimmicky that an army could either smash the other or simply evaporate due to poor positioning. I could easily make the argument that P has the most micro, which could also be said by all three races. The fact is all three races are played differently and shouldnt try to be clumped into one debate.
Just an fyi anyone who has played the game long enough knows how broken the game used to be post launch. Everyone with an objective view of the game could tell Terran was actually broken and were given free wins with bunkers and reapers even in korea. GSL was only TVT. But guess what? Foreign Ts still werent winning the way they should have. Idk why that is for sure but i can tell you that its not because T is harder because it wasnt very hard early WoL and there still werent any results.
That's just wrong. In 2010 and early 2011 Terran was by far the most successful foreigner race. Just check the Tournaments. Same as now that the game is more balanced again. Foreign Terrans are keeping up with their foreign P/Z counterparts, but just like the foreign Z/Ps, they are not going to win a tournament anytime soon.
Define "keeping with" beacuse in Hots from your source for Major+premier tournaments, TOP 2 finishes for foreigners T:2 Z: 7 P:10
in 2011 when Terran was still strong in general: T:19 Z:29 P:43
Lucifron: 72% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans Happy: 71% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans HeroMarine: 69% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans Dayshi: 64% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans
Comparison Naniwa: 75% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans Welmu: 69% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans Stephano: 66% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans VortiX: 65% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans Snute: 64% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans TLO: 60% on HotS against non-Koreans Grubby: 56% winrate on HotS against non-Koreans
(this is by no means a complete list, but just a few players that came to my mind)
Those tournaments you talk about... Have a deeper look. At least amongst the first 5 of the major tournaments, there were 3rd and a 4th place for Terran foreigners. It's really not like foreign Terrans get beaten up by foreign T/Ps. They have their quarterfinals and semifinals. It's basically the reverse situation to Korean Protoss. They have their runs in tournaments. They just don't make it to the finals as often as Korean Z/T.
If you wanna add 3/4 places go ahead since its not on main site it will take some time, I know they have thier runs, just their runs statistical shorter than foreign Z/P. Also i noticed foreign Terran doing better at the begining of the HOTS(not in terms of tournament success) but lately it feels like its trending to WoL situation. Also for 2012, T:11, P:20, Z:33 so for 2011-2013 its about +- T:35, P:73, Z: 69. i surely made some mistakes in counting general outlook stays the same.
On September 12 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote: I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
why does that have to say anything? Like in football, if you ask children what they want to play they will all tell you that they like the forward and midfield positions. You won't find that many that tell you they want to become a defender. Does that mean that playing defender is "harder"? No, it means that they have more fun taking the roles of trying to score, instead of preventing scoring of the enemy team.
Comparing children playing football to gm is fucking hilarious. You should be talking about bronze-gold, I don't care how sarcastic or how much of a superiority complex you have, gm is top level.
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder".
I don't care what they pick. I'm talking about the best starcraft players.
Yes, but if Protoss or Zerg or Terran was op, they would be overrepresented in gm.
On September 12 2013 08:52 Faust852 wrote: I always see protoss race as easy to play, hard to win. It's quite easy to go top but once you are at the summit, where other races are also kicking ass, it's almost impossible to win. It was the case in WoL at least, less in hots but still.
Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
why does that have to say anything? Like in football, if you ask children what they want to play they will all tell you that they like the forward and midfield positions. You won't find that many that tell you they want to become a defender. Does that mean that playing defender is "harder"? No, it means that they have more fun taking the roles of trying to score, instead of preventing scoring of the enemy team.
Comparing children playing football to gm is fucking hilarious. You should be talking about bronze-gold, I don't care how sarcastic or how much of a superiority complex you have, gm is top level.
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder".
I don't care what they pick. I'm talking about the best starcraft players.
Yes, but if Protoss or Zerg or Terran was op, they would be overrepresented in gm.
But that is not the discussion at hand. Once again, each reason has its own set of players and it does not come out to a 33/33/33 split. As featured on Meta last week, Australia only has one really good protoss, a few terrans and the rest are zergs at the highest level. The protoss in Australia(Light) has a GM account in Korea and in SEA. Because people can have more than one account, GM cannot be used to prove anything, because one players can have several accounts in several regions.
On September 12 2013 09:28 Scarecrow wrote: [quote] Your perspective is retarded and insults anyone who plays toss professionally.
If anything the lack of foreigner terrans is more indicative of a lack of top-level mechanics amongst foreigners to maximise terran's strengths the way the top koreans do.
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
why does that have to say anything? Like in football, if you ask children what they want to play they will all tell you that they like the forward and midfield positions. You won't find that many that tell you they want to become a defender. Does that mean that playing defender is "harder"? No, it means that they have more fun taking the roles of trying to score, instead of preventing scoring of the enemy team.
Comparing children playing football to gm is fucking hilarious. You should be talking about bronze-gold, I don't care how sarcastic or how much of a superiority complex you have, gm is top level.
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder".
I don't care what they pick. I'm talking about the best starcraft players.
Yes, but if Protoss or Zerg or Terran was op, they would be overrepresented in gm.
But that is not the discussion at hand. Once again, each reason has its own set of players and it does not come out to a 33/33/33 split. As featured on Meta last week, Australia only has one really good protoss, a few terrans and the rest are zergs at the highest level. The protoss in Australia(Light) has a GM account in Korea and in SEA. Because people can have more than one account, GM cannot be used to prove anything, because one players can have several accounts in several regions.
so what is your point? A race being underrepresented in GM is explained by the fact that people have more than one account?
On September 13 2013 00:48 Faust852 wrote: [quote]
I don't disregard Professional protoss, I love players like Grubby. But It is true that in WoL, Protoss where very underperforming. In Europe, Foreigners protoss were doing good because it was not the top level of play, but in GSL, protoss were lacking behind. If there is 42% protoss in GM, it's certainly because the race is easier to play, and I don't say stronger. i still think Terran is the strongest race if played perfectly.
The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
why does that have to say anything? Like in football, if you ask children what they want to play they will all tell you that they like the forward and midfield positions. You won't find that many that tell you they want to become a defender. Does that mean that playing defender is "harder"? No, it means that they have more fun taking the roles of trying to score, instead of preventing scoring of the enemy team.
Comparing children playing football to gm is fucking hilarious. You should be talking about bronze-gold, I don't care how sarcastic or how much of a superiority complex you have, gm is top level.
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder".
I don't care what they pick. I'm talking about the best starcraft players.
Yes, but if Protoss or Zerg or Terran was op, they would be overrepresented in gm.
But that is not the discussion at hand. Once again, each reason has its own set of players and it does not come out to a 33/33/33 split. As featured on Meta last week, Australia only has one really good protoss, a few terrans and the rest are zergs at the highest level. The protoss in Australia(Light) has a GM account in Korea and in SEA. Because people can have more than one account, GM cannot be used to prove anything, because one players can have several accounts in several regions.
so what is your point? A race being underrepresented in GM is explained by the fact that people have more than one account?
That the difficult of a race cannot be assessed by the number of people in GM, as there are numerous reasons that the specific race has a large number of GM players. That people cannot point to one set of evidence and then say "this means terran is more difficult than the other two races".
On September 13 2013 00:52 Plansix wrote: [quote] The number of players in GM doesn't really prove anything, beyond that there are more protoss players that are able to maintain the ladder score to stay in GM. You can't use confirmation bias to prove your point when there thousands of factors as to why there are more protoss in GM at a specific point.
But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
why does that have to say anything? Like in football, if you ask children what they want to play they will all tell you that they like the forward and midfield positions. You won't find that many that tell you they want to become a defender. Does that mean that playing defender is "harder"? No, it means that they have more fun taking the roles of trying to score, instead of preventing scoring of the enemy team.
Comparing children playing football to gm is fucking hilarious. You should be talking about bronze-gold, I don't care how sarcastic or how much of a superiority complex you have, gm is top level.
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder".
I don't care what they pick. I'm talking about the best starcraft players.
Yes, but if Protoss or Zerg or Terran was op, they would be overrepresented in gm.
But that is not the discussion at hand. Once again, each reason has its own set of players and it does not come out to a 33/33/33 split. As featured on Meta last week, Australia only has one really good protoss, a few terrans and the rest are zergs at the highest level. The protoss in Australia(Light) has a GM account in Korea and in SEA. Because people can have more than one account, GM cannot be used to prove anything, because one players can have several accounts in several regions.
so what is your point? A race being underrepresented in GM is explained by the fact that people have more than one account?
That the difficult of a race cannot be assessed by the number of people in GM, as there are numerous reasons that the specific race has a large number of GM players. That people cannot point to one set of evidence and then say "this means terran is more difficult than the other two races".
Agree completely with this.
It's common knowledge that Terran is the hardest race to play, but you cannot just point to GM numbers to prove/disprove it.
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.
On September 13 2013 00:57 9-BiT wrote: [quote] But if there are more protoss in GM, and more protoss pros, doesn't that mean anything? Every time a point is brought up you just say the sample size is too small, or it's just a coincidence. At some point you have to start addressing the fact that terran is underrepresented, and you have to ask why.
why does that have to say anything? Like in football, if you ask children what they want to play they will all tell you that they like the forward and midfield positions. You won't find that many that tell you they want to become a defender. Does that mean that playing defender is "harder"? No, it means that they have more fun taking the roles of trying to score, instead of preventing scoring of the enemy team.
Comparing children playing football to gm is fucking hilarious. You should be talking about bronze-gold, I don't care how sarcastic or how much of a superiority complex you have, gm is top level.
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder".
I don't care what they pick. I'm talking about the best starcraft players.
Yes, but if Protoss or Zerg or Terran was op, they would be overrepresented in gm.
But that is not the discussion at hand. Once again, each reason has its own set of players and it does not come out to a 33/33/33 split. As featured on Meta last week, Australia only has one really good protoss, a few terrans and the rest are zergs at the highest level. The protoss in Australia(Light) has a GM account in Korea and in SEA. Because people can have more than one account, GM cannot be used to prove anything, because one players can have several accounts in several regions.
so what is your point? A race being underrepresented in GM is explained by the fact that people have more than one account?
That the difficult of a race cannot be assessed by the number of people in GM, as there are numerous reasons that the specific race has a large number of GM players. That people cannot point to one set of evidence and then say "this means terran is more difficult than the other two races".
Agree completely with this.
It's common knowledge that Terran is the hardest race to play, but you cannot just point to GM numbers to prove/disprove it.
If enough terran players say it enough times, its must be true.
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.
correlation =/= causation
This is a very simple concept to understand I don't know what is difficult.
The sample reveals a ratio variance in a tri-option census. Which only proves that there is a ratio variance. You are making the leap of logic that the *cause* of the ratio variance comes from "difficulty" without citing evidence or proof of the two things having a causal relationship.
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.
why does that have to say anything? Like in football, if you ask children what they want to play they will all tell you that they like the forward and midfield positions. You won't find that many that tell you they want to become a defender. Does that mean that playing defender is "harder"? No, it means that they have more fun taking the roles of trying to score, instead of preventing scoring of the enemy team.
Comparing children playing football to gm is fucking hilarious. You should be talking about bronze-gold, I don't care how sarcastic or how much of a superiority complex you have, gm is top level.
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder".
I don't care what they pick. I'm talking about the best starcraft players.
Yes, but if Protoss or Zerg or Terran was op, they would be overrepresented in gm.
But that is not the discussion at hand. Once again, each reason has its own set of players and it does not come out to a 33/33/33 split. As featured on Meta last week, Australia only has one really good protoss, a few terrans and the rest are zergs at the highest level. The protoss in Australia(Light) has a GM account in Korea and in SEA. Because people can have more than one account, GM cannot be used to prove anything, because one players can have several accounts in several regions.
so what is your point? A race being underrepresented in GM is explained by the fact that people have more than one account?
That the difficult of a race cannot be assessed by the number of people in GM, as there are numerous reasons that the specific race has a large number of GM players. That people cannot point to one set of evidence and then say "this means terran is more difficult than the other two races".
Agree completely with this.
It's common knowledge that Terran is the hardest race to play, but you cannot just point to GM numbers to prove/disprove it.
If enough terran players say it enough times, its must be true.
I'm not a Terran and I sympathize with the sentiment that Terran has a pretty high mechanical ceiling, and at the very least, has some pretty steep learning curves en route to GM level. Of course, if neither the Terran player nor the non-Terran player have played all three races at a Korean level, then theres pretty much no way to offer an objective answer.
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.
It's pretty obvious. Foreigners love 200/200 deathballs way more than Koreans do. Too many foreigners have the term "macro-oriented" attached to them. In SC2 terminology, that denotes a player who doesn't attack until they hit 200/200.
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.
On September 13 2013 02:30 ArchAngelSC wrote:
On September 13 2013 02:26 Plansix wrote:
On September 13 2013 02:20 ( bush wrote:
On September 13 2013 01:51 Plansix wrote:
On September 13 2013 01:46 9-BiT wrote:
On September 13 2013 01:39 9-BiT wrote:
On September 13 2013 01:35 Big J wrote:
On September 13 2013 01:33 9-BiT wrote: [quote] Comparing children playing football to gm is fucking hilarious. You should be talking about bronze-gold, I don't care how sarcastic or how much of a superiority complex you have, gm is top level.
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder".
I don't care what they pick. I'm talking about the best starcraft players.
Yes, but if Protoss or Zerg or Terran was op, they would be overrepresented in gm.
But that is not the discussion at hand. Once again, each reason has its own set of players and it does not come out to a 33/33/33 split. As featured on Meta last week, Australia only has one really good protoss, a few terrans and the rest are zergs at the highest level. The protoss in Australia(Light) has a GM account in Korea and in SEA. Because people can have more than one account, GM cannot be used to prove anything, because one players can have several accounts in several regions.
so what is your point? A race being underrepresented in GM is explained by the fact that people have more than one account?
That the difficult of a race cannot be assessed by the number of people in GM, as there are numerous reasons that the specific race has a large number of GM players. That people cannot point to one set of evidence and then say "this means terran is more difficult than the other two races".
Agree completely with this.
It's common knowledge that Terran is the hardest race to play, but you cannot just point to GM numbers to prove/disprove it.
If enough terran players say it enough times, its must be true.
I'm not a Terran and I sympathize with the sentiment that Terran has a pretty high mechanical ceiling, and at the very least, has some pretty steep learning curves en route to GM level. Of course, if neither the Terran player nor the non-Terran player have played all three races at a Korean level, then theres pretty much no way to offer an objective answer.
I will say that good studder stepping is hard to learn and splitting effectively on the fly is can be challenging. However, I don't think it is any more difficult than really good blink stalker management or splitting zergling or muta control.
On September 13 2013 02:53 andrewlt wrote: It's pretty obvious. Foreigners love 200/200 deathballs way more than Koreans do. Too many foreigners have the term "macro-oriented" attached to them. In SC2 terminology, that denotes a player who doesn't attack until they hit 200/200.
I think that also has to do with the fact that Korean play on their own server on really low latency, while other the other regions have much more "variable" latency(EU is a big play, same with NA). Being on such low latency, having good micro can be a much more consistent way to win.
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.
Don't take it the wrong way (i play Z and T) imho Terran is the hardest race to play correctly, it requires better multitasking and micro.
I think it's the easier to understand the dynamics for but you just need to do more "stuff" to keep up with other races which given the notorious lack of practice from foreigners...
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.
On September 13 2013 02:30 ArchAngelSC wrote:
On September 13 2013 02:26 Plansix wrote:
On September 13 2013 02:20 ( bush wrote:
On September 13 2013 01:51 Plansix wrote:
On September 13 2013 01:46 9-BiT wrote:
On September 13 2013 01:39 9-BiT wrote:
On September 13 2013 01:35 Big J wrote: [quote]
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder".
I don't care what they pick. I'm talking about the best starcraft players.
Yes, but if Protoss or Zerg or Terran was op, they would be overrepresented in gm.
But that is not the discussion at hand. Once again, each reason has its own set of players and it does not come out to a 33/33/33 split. As featured on Meta last week, Australia only has one really good protoss, a few terrans and the rest are zergs at the highest level. The protoss in Australia(Light) has a GM account in Korea and in SEA. Because people can have more than one account, GM cannot be used to prove anything, because one players can have several accounts in several regions.
so what is your point? A race being underrepresented in GM is explained by the fact that people have more than one account?
That the difficult of a race cannot be assessed by the number of people in GM, as there are numerous reasons that the specific race has a large number of GM players. That people cannot point to one set of evidence and then say "this means terran is more difficult than the other two races".
Agree completely with this.
It's common knowledge that Terran is the hardest race to play, but you cannot just point to GM numbers to prove/disprove it.
If enough terran players say it enough times, its must be true.
I'm not a Terran and I sympathize with the sentiment that Terran has a pretty high mechanical ceiling, and at the very least, has some pretty steep learning curves en route to GM level. Of course, if neither the Terran player nor the non-Terran player have played all three races at a Korean level, then theres pretty much no way to offer an objective answer.
I will say that good studder stepping is hard to learn and splitting effectively on the fly is can be challenging. However, I don't think it is any more difficult than really good blink stalker management or splitting zergling or muta control.
On September 13 2013 02:53 andrewlt wrote: It's pretty obvious. Foreigners love 200/200 deathballs way more than Koreans do. Too many foreigners have the term "macro-oriented" attached to them. In SC2 terminology, that denotes a player who doesn't attack until they hit 200/200.
I think that also has to do with the fact that Korean play on their own server on really low latency, while other the other regions have much more "variable" latency(EU is a big play, same with NA). Being on such low latency, having good micro can be a much more consistent way to win.
stutter stepping is actually pretty easy to execute by itself, splitting is definitely much harder to do, but even that by itself isn't such a huge deal. It's the fact how HOW much terran has to do all at the same time and all of it perfectly which is the biggest issue.
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.
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.
Opinions are fine and I don't really have a problem with those. You will notice how I have not responded to anyone who has said "I feel that terran is the hardest". I personally find zerg to be the most challenging, but that is because I am bad at keeping up with my injects and can't seem to get over that hump. It is when people start stating their opinion as "fact" and claiming that they lose to "equally skilled opponents due to terran being harder" is when you get people like me responding.
There is a huge difference between "I find this to be harder" when compared "this is harder and that is the reason I lose to people who are as good as I am."
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.
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)
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?
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)...?
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.
On September 13 2013 02:57 zezamer wrote: 200 deathball a-move is the ez way to play the game. People want it easy so they don't play terran.
Right. The first thing they did when they started playing was not trying out the races or playing the game, but googling the easiest race and picking it exclusively for that reason alone.
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.
On September 13 2013 02:30 ArchAngelSC wrote:
On September 13 2013 02:26 Plansix wrote:
On September 13 2013 02:20 ( bush wrote:
On September 13 2013 01:51 Plansix wrote:
On September 13 2013 01:46 9-BiT wrote:
On September 13 2013 01:39 9-BiT wrote:
On September 13 2013 01:35 Big J wrote: [quote]
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder".
I don't care what they pick. I'm talking about the best starcraft players.
Yes, but if Protoss or Zerg or Terran was op, they would be overrepresented in gm.
But that is not the discussion at hand. Once again, each reason has its own set of players and it does not come out to a 33/33/33 split. As featured on Meta last week, Australia only has one really good protoss, a few terrans and the rest are zergs at the highest level. The protoss in Australia(Light) has a GM account in Korea and in SEA. Because people can have more than one account, GM cannot be used to prove anything, because one players can have several accounts in several regions.
so what is your point? A race being underrepresented in GM is explained by the fact that people have more than one account?
That the difficult of a race cannot be assessed by the number of people in GM, as there are numerous reasons that the specific race has a large number of GM players. That people cannot point to one set of evidence and then say "this means terran is more difficult than the other two races".
Agree completely with this.
It's common knowledge that Terran is the hardest race to play, but you cannot just point to GM numbers to prove/disprove it.
If enough terran players say it enough times, its must be true.
I'm not a Terran and I sympathize with the sentiment that Terran has a pretty high mechanical ceiling, and at the very least, has some pretty steep learning curves en route to GM level. Of course, if neither the Terran player nor the non-Terran player have played all three races at a Korean level, then theres pretty much no way to offer an objective answer.
I will say that good studder stepping is hard to learn and splitting effectively on the fly is can be challenging. However, I don't think it is any more difficult than really good blink stalker management or splitting zergling or muta control.
On September 13 2013 02:53 andrewlt wrote: It's pretty obvious. Foreigners love 200/200 deathballs way more than Koreans do. Too many foreigners have the term "macro-oriented" attached to them. In SC2 terminology, that denotes a player who doesn't attack until they hit 200/200.
I think that also has to do with the fact that Korean play on their own server on really low latency, while other the other regions have much more "variable" latency(EU is a big play, same with NA). Being on such low latency, having good micro can be a much more consistent way to win.
Well no, in all non-mirrors it is the Terran setting the tempo of the game. They aren't just splitting and studder stepping, they're micro'ing one engagement as they do several other things. Anyone can just stare at a fight and control very well regardless of race.
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?
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.
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 if the difficulty of a race would correlate to the player numbers (which I also believe to be not the case), then clearly zerg is the hardest race to play, followed by terran, followed by protoss. That is according to sc2ranks. So even if somebody believes there to be a correlation, it would not imply terran being the hardest race.
But I thought this thread is about the lack of good foreign terrans (in relation to the other good foreigners). The statistics of the European Premier league is quite clear on that, though one could argue that the sample size is too few.
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 if the difficulty of a race would correlate to the player numbers (which I also believe to be not the case), then clearly zerg is the hardest race to play, followed by terran, followed by protoss. That is according to sc2ranks. So even if somebody believes there to be a correlation, it would not imply terran being the hardest race.
But I thought this thread is about the lack of good foreign terrans (in relation to the other good foreigners). The statistics of the European Premier league is quite clear on that, though one could argue that the sample size is too few.
The problem is mostly that you can't use representation to be causal with execution
Even if a tournament had infinite players you still can't make the causal link until you prove a causal link.
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 if the difficulty of a race would correlate to the player numbers (which I also believe to be not the case), then clearly zerg is the hardest race to play, followed by terran, followed by protoss. That is according to sc2ranks. So even if somebody believes there to be a correlation, it would not imply terran being the hardest race.
But I thought this thread is about the lack of good foreign terrans (in relation to the other good foreigners). The statistics of the European Premier league is quite clear on that, though one could argue that the sample size is too few.
The argument about difficult stemmed out of the initial discussion, claiming that terran was the most difficult, therefore there were fewer players, which leads to there being fewer total terran pros. Its a pretty far leap of logic, requiring a lot of steps.
As for the the OPs topic, I think that an interesting theory is that because Koreans end up practicing in such a low latency environment(Korean Internet is dope) they are able to take greater advantage of the snappy micro that terran units have. I don't think it is 100% the reason why, but I can see that a lot of korean terrans get better practice in low latency environments and are able to take better advantage of it than foreign terrans, who use the ladder(which EU has a much wider range of pings) for the majority of their practice.
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 if the difficulty of a race would correlate to the player numbers (which I also believe to be not the case), then clearly zerg is the hardest race to play, followed by terran, followed by protoss. That is according to sc2ranks. So even if somebody believes there to be a correlation, it would not imply terran being the hardest race.
But I thought this thread is about the lack of good foreign terrans (in relation to the other good foreigners). The statistics of the European Premier league is quite clear on that, though one could argue that the sample size is too few.
The argument about difficult stemmed out of the initial discussion, claiming that terran was the most difficult, therefore there were fewer players, which leads to there being fewer total terran pros. Its a pretty far leap of logic, requiring a lot of steps.
As for the the OPs topic, I think that an interesting theory is that because Koreans end up practicing in such a low latency environment(Korean Internet is dope) they are able to take greater advantage of the snappy micro that terran units have. I don't think it is 100% the reason why, but I can see that a lot of korean terrans get better practice in low latency environments and are able to take better advantage of it than foreign terrans, who use the ladder(which EU has a much wider range of pings) for the majority of their practice.
Parting is a good case study to back this claim, a player who, for the most part, wins with protoss using micro and mechanical skills moreso than build orders choices.
Few players can do what Parting does as consistently as parting does it. There's a reason Parting alone was able to choo choo his way through tournaments--because his execution was phenomenal.
Korea producing non-terran SC2 players that also win due to micro is revealing about the latency.
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".
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.
I just corrected information you used that is false (its fact not opinion). Your opinion i know and im not gonna try to change it. Just stop using false information.
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 if the difficulty of a race would correlate to the player numbers (which I also believe to be not the case), then clearly zerg is the hardest race to play, followed by terran, followed by protoss. That is according to sc2ranks. So even if somebody believes there to be a correlation, it would not imply terran being the hardest race.
But I thought this thread is about the lack of good foreign terrans (in relation to the other good foreigners). The statistics of the European Premier league is quite clear on that, though one could argue that the sample size is too few.
The argument about difficult stemmed out of the initial discussion, claiming that terran was the most difficult, therefore there were fewer players, which leads to there being fewer total terran pros. Its a pretty far leap of logic, requiring a lot of steps.
As for the the OPs topic, I think that an interesting theory is that because Koreans end up practicing in such a low latency environment(Korean Internet is dope) they are able to take greater advantage of the snappy micro that terran units have. I don't think it is 100% the reason why, but I can see that a lot of korean terrans get better practice in low latency environments and are able to take better advantage of it than foreign terrans, who use the ladder(which EU has a much wider range of pings) for the majority of their practice.
sc2 has a hardcoded latency. you'll literally not feel the difference between 5ms or 150ms. you LITERALLY won't feel it.
so your argument is invalid. what's your next best bet?
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)
a) in short, in average worse players play Terran. b) there was always bump between plat and master league especially plat and diamond where T population was around 25% which is around 20% less then expected. I assume you meant they are switching to Terran(not from) in bronze.
Probably because they spent most of their time in these forums complaining about how hard/superior their race is than practicing. Who knows? I think there are a lot of good foreign terrans/zergs/protosses. It's not only the foreign terrans that arent winning anything, foreign Z/P havent won anything in HoTs either.
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%
On September 13 2013 03:39 JustPassingBy wrote: 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?
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)...?
No, you missunderstand me. I believe in their first multiplayer games, people are/were more likely to pick Terran for one reason or another. Then they play the game some more and try the other races and make their final race choice, which is not influenced by the reasons why the first picked Terran a little more and only by their personal preferences.
At that point "how hard" it is to play a race may be part of the reason what race to pick, but I don't believe that is the main reason when there are arguments like "ALIENS!!!"(so race-thematic/lore), "LAZORZ"(visuals) or "IDRAAAAAAAAA"(idols) around. Not to mention that "how hard" it is to play a race is still made up by a small sample of games with Bronze strategies! I don't think I'm an expert for Bronze-play, but from what Husky has showed me, I don't think you can easily argue that any race is mechanically more difficult at that level, as the game is just played so differently and just having a plan (as many offensive PFs it may include) seems to be more than you can expect.
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 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%.
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)
a) in short, in average worse players play Terran. b) there was always bump between plat and master league especially plat and diamond where T population was around 25% which is around 20% less then expected. I assume you meant they are switching to Terran(not from) in bronze.
nope a) if you want to have it short: players that dont want to invest a lot of time into the game are more likely to pick Terran than people that want to invest a lot of time into learning something new like the other races they haven't played in the campaign. b) You are using the statistical average for your expectation, which is a very statistical inrobust methode. You should use the median, or the alpha-cut averages instead as expectation as they are robust against statistical outliers. Well, that gives you the very stable 27-29% as expectation you find in ALL leagues apart from GM and Bronze (the outliers). And you are using old data, when you refer to 25% (which were that low due to imbalance at the end of WoL).
Foreigners don't want to practice 10 hours a day... It's been a problem for a long time, the gap between foreign terrans and (the best) korean terrans has always been huge..
Foreigners in general aren't winning any tournaments in HotS, so I don't really see why you would limit the argument to just Terran. Koreans are dominating pretty much every tournament, it's not just foreign terrans that are losing, foreign protosses and zerg are doing pretty much just as bad. It's just a testimony to how big the skill gap between foreigners and koreans is nowadays, it really has very little to do with race.
We haven't seen a foreigner win a premier tournament in 10 months and looking at the next few events there is no chance (at least in my mind) that will change in the near future. No chance.
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.
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 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 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.
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 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,
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".
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
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).
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.
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!!
On September 13 2013 17:37 MidnightZL wrote: 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!!
Well thought out arguments, clearly not biased 10/10 etc
The question is why are there so few good foreign Terrans. What are your thoughts?
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.
could you publish that data? I would be very interested in seeing it!
Too many people here automatically assume that when someone suggests that Terran is the race with the hardest mechanics is that its a slur to protoss or zerg players. It does require more apm for Terran units to be effective cost and supply wise, but that's not saying it's the hardest race to play. Zergs and Protoss have their weaknesses as well and strengths in different areas, that's why different races become OP/UP as the metagame progresses.
Less successful foreign Terrans because foreign pros with few exceptions are generally weaker in their mechanics than Korean pros who train like its their job. It IS their job. So given a group of players with weaker mechanics, obviously their deficiencies will be most obvious in the race that requires the most APM to shine.
Too many arguments in which race is the hardest to play. "Hardest" going by win rates can mean different things to different people. Someone with great mechanics but poor decision making would probably find some races easier than others while someone with the inverse set of skills might another race more suited to their style.
Making a blanket statement like Terran hard because APM requirements are highest is kinda silly because different people have different concepts of what is difficult and what is easy. Yet it doesn't negate the fact that Terran requires more APM. Same as in Broodwar.
Well, obviously no race is the hardest to play. If that were the case, then the game wouldn't be as balanced as it is now. Recent statistics even show that terran is the favorite in the TvZ matchup.
The point up to debate is whether the terran learning curve is steeper at the end, so that if you are just below the level of the very best, playing protoss or zerg might be wiser than playing terran.
It's kind of similar how I roll over platinum players who clearly are mechanically better than me with my terran, simply because how ridiculously apm efficient autorepair is (in a big mech army), just on the other side of the spectrum.
I would rather ask: Why do zergs or protoss' defeat korean players more often than terrans do. I don't have any numbers but thats what I have seen... I think the requirements for being successful as a terran are more compared to the other two races, may it be a mechanical reason or not...
On September 13 2013 19:00 openbox1 wrote: oh I thought the debate was why there aren't many foreign pros playing terrans...
That was what sparked it all. If the stuff about the learning curve was true, then that would be one explanation.
Well, draw the assumed learning curves for Terran/Zerg/Protoss. Then draw where Terran/Zerg/Protoss foreigners were 2011 on that curve and where Korean Terran/Zerg/Protoss were 2011. Then repeat for 2012. Then repeat for 2013. You will soon see the impossibility of the situation that Terran was the hardest race in 2011, 2012 and 2013 for foreigners, while not being underpowered for Koreans.
On September 13 2013 19:10 Phaenoman wrote: I would rather ask: Why do zergs or protoss' defeat korean players more often than terrans do. I don't have any numbers but thats what I have seen... I think the requirements for being successful as a terran are more compared to the other two races, may it be a mechanical reason or not...
again, because as a class, foreign pros in general (with some exceptions of course) do not have the same level of mechanics as a top level korean pros. As playing Terran is more apm intensive, foreign terrans suffer more than their protoss and zerg counterparts.
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.
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.
You made a point, but nearly all Koreans are going to execute this kinda aggresive playstyle better then top foreigner, imo. You pretty much can't compete with best Korean players in terms of micro, apm or execution. It is the creativity that keeps foreign Protoss and Zerg players up there. There is no creativity for Terran players, as you described.
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.
You made a point, but nearly all Koreans are going to execute this kinda aggresive playstyle better then top foreigner, imo. You pretty much can't compete with best Korean players in terms of micro, apm or execution. It is the creativity that keeps foreign Protoss and Zerg players up there. There is no creativity for Terran players, as you described.
I stopped reading at 'super easy forgiving macro'. To think that you must be either:
A) In bronze league (nothing wrong with that) B) Completely new to SC2.
Above points aren't mutually exclusive.
In all seriousness, if there's a race that is 'forgiving' it's zerg. In late-game scenarios, your poor macro is forgiven because your opportunity cost is 1/4 as much of a terran or a protoss (because of larvae - you screw up and they just sit there and stack up, no biggie if you're shit and can't macro).
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.
You made a point, but nearly all Koreans are going to execute this kinda aggresive playstyle better then top foreigner, imo. You pretty much can't compete with best Korean players in terms of micro, apm or execution. It is the creativity that keeps foreign Protoss and Zerg players up there. There is no creativity for Terran players, as you described.
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.
You made a point, but nearly all Koreans are going to execute this kinda aggresive playstyle better then top foreigner, imo. You pretty much can't compete with best Korean players in terms of micro, apm or execution. It is the creativity that keeps foreign Protoss and Zerg players up there. There is no creativity for Terran players, as you described.
I stopped reading at 'super easy forgiving macro'. To think that you must be either:
A) In bronze league (nothing wrong with that) B) Completely new to SC2.
Above points aren't mutually exclusive.
In all seriousness, if there's a race that is 'forgiving' it's zerg. In late-game scenarios, your poor macro is forgiven because your opportunity cost is 1/4 as much of a terran or a protoss (because of larvae - you screw up and they just sit there and stack up, no biggie if you're shit and can't macro).
hear, hear. That guy got a point. He used the mathematically well defined term "opportunity cost" and surely evaluated it's value for all races, which led him to the given number that zergs opportunity cost is 1/4 as much of a terran or a protoss. Well researched, sir, no need to see a proof for that.
hey in my defense, he didn't add that part of 1/4 opportunity cost when I quoted him. It was just a simple one liner at "I stopped reading at forgiving macro."
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.
You made a point, but nearly all Koreans are going to execute this kinda aggresive playstyle better then top foreigner, imo. You pretty much can't compete with best Korean players in terms of micro, apm or execution. It is the creativity that keeps foreign Protoss and Zerg players up there. There is no creativity for Terran players, as you described.
I stopped reading at 'super easy forgiving macro'. To think that you must be either:
A) In bronze league (nothing wrong with that) B) Completely new to SC2.
Above points aren't mutually exclusive.
In all seriousness, if there's a race that is 'forgiving' it's zerg. In late-game scenarios, your poor macro is forgiven because your opportunity cost is 1/4 as much of a terran or a protoss (because of larvae - you screw up and they just sit there and stack up, no biggie if you're shit and can't macro).
The only thing forgiving about Terran macro is MULE and Scan, everything else is downhill from there. To have the equivalent of near continuous Scans for 3 min, a Terran needs at least 4 OCs with at least 150mp stockpiled for each OC.
That's like saying a man hunted by a pack of wolves has it easy if he's armed with a knife and blanket.
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. Obviously viking/marauder/ghost count against P, and marauder/viking for the Ultra/BL switch.
I don't agree with Terran production being forgiving at all. Protoss have WG and yes you can miss cycles but you have a big button which lights up saying when to build units, with one hotkey for all WGs located on the W button - doesn't get easier than that. You also get all units out at once.
Zerg needs to inject, but seriously - injecting should become harder (for instance, you get 3 larvae but more often, so same amount of larvae but more injects). Hitting injects is easy and if you're diamond or above it won't be an issue. As someone already mentioned, larvae builds up and in a lategame scenario you can build everything at once and have a big army.
Lets not forget that Terran is the race that suffers the most from camping production. Many a game have been lost because the opponent gets access to your production and just wins because of it. Protoss can warp in elsewhere, Zerg units come out scattered across the map (which of course has its downsides).
There aren't a lot of foreign Terrans, if we define "foreign Terrans" as successful pro gamers who are Terran. Of course there are a lot of people outside of Korea playing Terran.
QXC is a weird example to take, he isn't very relevant and he is a special player and doesn't represent the rest at all. The good foreign Terrans plays pretty standard (except like Strelok?). How much mech play do you see in TvP/TvZ? I can't say I see it all too often..
Saying that Terran doesn't have room for innovation while Z/P has.. I don't know about that, you may be right. But the reason new innovative strategies aren't coming from foreigner Terrans is first and foremost because foreigner Terrans aren't good.
Maybe many find T so boring to play. 45+min long 4M vs Zerg and 45+mins long 3M+~8Vikings+~4Ghots vs P works incredibly well. T units composition never changes.
I am Zerg but the macro from T and P a lot easier for me in HotS, unlike WoL.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
wasn't really the point I was trying to make but I think T does have a lot of things about it that just make you shine if you are that much better than your opponent. If you are equal skill, its always hard for terran but it's not impossible. I'd say this games balance is pretty good but my point is the ladder is basically a nightmare for Terran players, Especially for TvP. Sooo many barcodes, there is no meta, you dont recognize anyone unless you're a ladder hero, cheese comes at your in different flavors, cuts and locations on the map game for game. the amount of times i've almost come back in a game against a pitiful player who just opened with blink > nexus or 3h 1 gas into roach ling bane, i can't even count on every poster in this thread's hands put together. Terran has a distinct advantage in prepared series imho where you can react with your build (for example, innovation getting tanks aginst symbol, lol), but that the ladder in itself is discouraging because you can't play blindly with T atm. Unit positioning in early tvp is really big on mindgames right now, ii can't tell you how many times i've been nexus into 4gated off 2 gas and just lost because i have 5 marines in my main mineral line for nexus into SG oracle timing. And Vice-versa of course. If you're an aspiring terran, playing 20 games a day and losing 10 of them to random cheese that are completely coinflip but require a very extreme or specific response is demoralizing in a way the other races simply cannot understand.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
wasn't really the point I was trying to make but I think T does have a lot of things about it that just make you shine if you are that much better than your opponent. If you are equal skill, its always hard for terran but it's not impossible. I'd say this games balance is pretty good but my point is the ladder is basically a nightmare for Terran players, Especially for TvP. Sooo many barcodes, there is no meta, you dont recognize anyone unless you're a ladder hero, cheese comes at your in different flavors, cuts and locations on the map game for game. the amount of times i've almost come back in a game against a pitiful player who just opened with blink > nexus or 3h 1 gas into roach ling bane, i can't even count on every poster in this thread's hands put together. Terran has a distinct advantage in prepared series imho where you can react with your build (for example, innovation getting tanks aginst symbol, lol), but that the ladder in itself is discouraging because you can't play blindly with T atm. Unit positioning in early tvp is really big on mindgames right now, ii can't tell you how many times i've been nexus into 4gated off 2 gas and just lost because i have 5 marines in my main mineral line for nexus into SG oracle timing. And Vice-versa of course. If you're an aspiring terran, playing 20 games a day and losing 10 of them to random cheese that are completely coinflip but require a very extreme or specific response is demoralizing in a way the other races simply cannot understand.
The same can be said for every other race. Getting cannon rushed, proxy DTed, cheesed out or just flat out beat by people just rolling the dice is part of SC2. It happens to everyone and everyone has their most hated match up. It has always been that way.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
wasn't really the point I was trying to make but I think T does have a lot of things about it that just make you shine if you are that much better than your opponent. If you are equal skill, its always hard for terran but it's not impossible. I'd say this games balance is pretty good but my point is the ladder is basically a nightmare for Terran players, Especially for TvP. Sooo many barcodes, there is no meta, you dont recognize anyone unless you're a ladder hero, cheese comes at your in different flavors, cuts and locations on the map game for game. the amount of times i've almost come back in a game against a pitiful player who just opened with blink > nexus or 3h 1 gas into roach ling bane, i can't even count on every poster in this thread's hands put together. Terran has a distinct advantage in prepared series imho where you can react with your build (for example, innovation getting tanks aginst symbol, lol), but that the ladder in itself is discouraging because you can't play blindly with T atm. Unit positioning in early tvp is really big on mindgames right now, ii can't tell you how many times i've been nexus into 4gated off 2 gas and just lost because i have 5 marines in my main mineral line for nexus into SG oracle timing. And Vice-versa of course. If you're an aspiring terran, playing 20 games a day and losing 10 of them to random cheese that are completely coinflip but require a very extreme or specific response is demoralizing in a way the other races simply cannot understand.
The same can be said for every other race. Getting cannon rushed, proxy DTed, cheesed out or just flat out beat by people just rolling the dice is part of SC2. It happens to everyone and everyone has their most hated match up. It has always been that way.
Tell me good working cheeses for terran in TvP please except 3 base scv pull
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
wasn't really the point I was trying to make but I think T does have a lot of things about it that just make you shine if you are that much better than your opponent. If you are equal skill, its always hard for terran but it's not impossible. I'd say this games balance is pretty good but my point is the ladder is basically a nightmare for Terran players, Especially for TvP. Sooo many barcodes, there is no meta, you dont recognize anyone unless you're a ladder hero, cheese comes at your in different flavors, cuts and locations on the map game for game. the amount of times i've almost come back in a game against a pitiful player who just opened with blink > nexus or 3h 1 gas into roach ling bane, i can't even count on every poster in this thread's hands put together. Terran has a distinct advantage in prepared series imho where you can react with your build (for example, innovation getting tanks aginst symbol, lol), but that the ladder in itself is discouraging because you can't play blindly with T atm. Unit positioning in early tvp is really big on mindgames right now, ii can't tell you how many times i've been nexus into 4gated off 2 gas and just lost because i have 5 marines in my main mineral line for nexus into SG oracle timing. And Vice-versa of course. If you're an aspiring terran, playing 20 games a day and losing 10 of them to random cheese that are completely coinflip but require a very extreme or specific response is demoralizing in a way the other races simply cannot understand.
The same can be said for every other race. Getting cannon rushed, proxy DTed, cheesed out or just flat out beat by people just rolling the dice is part of SC2. It happens to everyone and everyone has their most hated match up. It has always been that way.
Tell me good working cheeses for terran in TvP please except 3 base scv pull
That's not cheese, you are on 3 bases. That is a decision that you want the game to end right there and fuck everything else. Proxy 2 rax on a 2 player map has always worked for people on some level. Not all cheese is created equal however. Zerg is much better as cheesing protoss than Protoss is at cheesing zerg, in my opinion.
On September 12 2013 03:11 c0sm0naut wrote: Terran pop is very low again in gm worldwide besides KR where there at slightly more tgamers but still below 1/3rd. Protoss dominates the ladder via best of 1 format at 42%. I play r and have hit gms a few times on ladder and would say as Terran it's gonna be so hard to climb the ladder and that alone is probably demoralizing enough for the vast majority of aspiring Terran out there. After being the wol punching bag towards the end it really shouldn't be any mystery why the top Terran names are only familiar while top Z and P names are born monthly. My 2 cents. Not trying to QQ Terran is still the best race if you are the better player
"Not whining or anything. Terran is a great race if you are better than your opponent, but if you are at equal skill level, they are doing to win because protoss and zerg are just easier."
As I said before, the terran players are so "on message". they hit all their talking points and make sure that people know that their race is hardest.
He said he plays Random... not Terran exclusively. I've had the same experience as him while playing Random and finding Terran to be much much more difficult than Protoss and to a lesser extent Zerg. Right when HoTs came out I was able to maintain a 70% winrate as Protoss (while playing random, my Terran was ~55%, Zerg was ~30%, ZvZ was a complete bitch TBH) through the first season. I hadn't played Protoss at all through the last 6 months of WoL yet I still struggled more with Terran despite playing similarly skilled opponents. Sure this is just my own personal testimony, but when Random players consistently have the same experience it might be an indication of some truth.
There is a post that is directly above this where a terran player says they find protoss to be harder to play. Using confirmation bias to prove a point does not make it fact or based on good evidence. Finding a bunch of people who all say "Yeah, I play random and I think terran is hardest" only shows that you were able to find a group of people that agree with you. Its not like you were actively seeking out people who found the other races to be more difficult. And using phrases like "I was struggling to win against similarly skilled opponents" is not proof that your opponent was of equal skill.
wasn't really the point I was trying to make but I think T does have a lot of things about it that just make you shine if you are that much better than your opponent. If you are equal skill, its always hard for terran but it's not impossible. I'd say this games balance is pretty good but my point is the ladder is basically a nightmare for Terran players, Especially for TvP. Sooo many barcodes, there is no meta, you dont recognize anyone unless you're a ladder hero, cheese comes at your in different flavors, cuts and locations on the map game for game. the amount of times i've almost come back in a game against a pitiful player who just opened with blink > nexus or 3h 1 gas into roach ling bane, i can't even count on every poster in this thread's hands put together. Terran has a distinct advantage in prepared series imho where you can react with your build (for example, innovation getting tanks aginst symbol, lol), but that the ladder in itself is discouraging because you can't play blindly with T atm. Unit positioning in early tvp is really big on mindgames right now, ii can't tell you how many times i've been nexus into 4gated off 2 gas and just lost because i have 5 marines in my main mineral line for nexus into SG oracle timing. And Vice-versa of course. If you're an aspiring terran, playing 20 games a day and losing 10 of them to random cheese that are completely coinflip but require a very extreme or specific response is demoralizing in a way the other races simply cannot understand.
The same can be said for every other race. Getting cannon rushed, proxy DTed, cheesed out or just flat out beat by people just rolling the dice is part of SC2. It happens to everyone and everyone has their most hated match up. It has always been that way.
Tell me good working cheeses for terran in TvP please except 3 base scv pull
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,
I think it's pointless for the most part to debate which race is the most difficult overall. I do, however, refuse to believe there is no disparity in difficulty in late game, equal supply tvp engagements. I, as well as most of my terran brothers, would argue that to the grave.
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.
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).
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.
could you publish that data? I would be very interested in seeing it!
I wish I could... I have first generation MacBook Pro with SSDupgrade, there wasn't enough Space for work AND learning materials AND games WoL was my only game too. :-/
In any case, here's my methodology: As explained, a ticker was used, based on 5min videos of Korean / foriegn pros playing SC2, spamming their keyboards. I counted based on each time an action or SWITCH had to take place, macro/micro, unit composition production/pushing up ramp, etc. A caveat, a Zerg switching from scouting the map with lings to his spawn larvae macro counts as one action, likewise, a Terran calling down MULES switching to controlling his army counts as one action.
Basically each time a player has to change his thought process from subject to subject, it counts as 1. I used the switching of map locations and actions taken at said location as one count.
In one video 5 min of MVP, I counted 35 such switches, from unit control in his push into the Terran's base, building supplying his main, keeping upgrades, building SCVs in the expansions and monitoring the edges of his unit's vision.
On the other hand, Kas own 5 min video of behind-the-scenes only counted 27 such switches. Both were playing bio/tank with hellion openers into 12minish drops. WoL era.
MVP made 22% more decisions than Kas!
When I viewed Huk's behind-the-scene YouTube, he had 26 such switches which he went 3 gate into mass blink stalker. Keep in mind he was considered then as the fastest/best foriegn Protoss at the time
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.
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.
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.
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.
That Ryung's entry made Blizzard nerf infestors. It should count :D /sarcasm
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.
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.
I agree, hence why I also pointed out the Ryung incident.
Going back to the topic, it is foolhardy to correlate race ratios with race difficulty because race choice is not determined solely on race difficulty.
Even *if* Terran is the hardest, I don't believe it is, but lets pretend for a bit. Even if Terran is the hardest, that still doesn't mean that less players would choose to play it *because* of the difficulty. Its the age old esport question of "if player X played Y instead of Z, would he still be as good?"
If Flash had played Zerg, instead of Terran, would he have dominated BW? If Jaedong had played Protoss, instead of Zerg, would he still have gone to so many OSL finals?
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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 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.
I don't play Terran because I find it boring to play MMM all day and I don't like mech. There are reasons to dislike playing a race besides difficulty. People are jumping over huge gap to get to the conclusion they want.
In many pro interviews(Moon for example), progamers reported that they decided to play Zerg because they have high APM and it suits the race. Does that mean Zerg is hardest to play? There are few women in the SC scene does that mean rts is too hard for women? Or maybe that women for some reason are not as interested in RTS than in other stuff? Why does that random internet forum has so new post per day? Must be because the forum is too difficult to use.
Logic aside, this attitude of "my race is harder than yours" is toxic. This is a victim complex. It fuels mentality like "my race should be stronger than the other 2 races because you need to put in more effort for the same reward", "He only wins because his race is ezpz", "xxx race players are entitled they already play an ez race unlike me" etc.
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.
I disagree. I mean you can't just "do nothing" and play in a box all game long obviously, but you can't do that with zerg or protoss either, and protoss is the race with the less leeway on composition. As protoss if you're under attack and your opponent doesn't make a ton of mistakes, well you're just gonna die unless you have the right composition (for example, a biopush comes and you don't have aoe, or mutas come and you can't make phoenixes, or you're going zealot heavy against upgraded hellbats...). This isn't a comment on how hard it is, I mean, in the current meta it doesn't seem hard to scout mech and make the right composition against it. It's just that the composition matters more. If you need to be convinced well just look at PvP. Coinflip builds are what they are: losses due to not having the right composition. If terran was the race that relied the most on composition, then you would lose a ton of TvTs due to composition. Well... you don't.
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.
99% of Terran is stimming and kiting. If that's not hard, remind me what is hard... I realize, at least in t vs p, that good ghost usage is what really separates the tiers of players, but it's hard to sympathize with the race that has the fewest spell casters..
The argument is relevant because the same people said the same thing in BW. I've never been a "micro player." 100% macro, but microing with Terran is just a bunch of stiming... the margin for error is way too big to really punish medicore micro players. It just doesn't matter. If it does matter, you're way too bad to play any other race, anyways. That's just my opinion. I never understood the sentiment in BW, as I thought zerg was way harder (you couldn't even hotkey all of your units if you were ling heavy...).
You guys have to remember that there were very few high level Terran players in the foreign scene. Most of the good ones in BW are not even playing SC 2. If C+/B- QXC is the highest BW Terran playing in NA, well... that's probably not good. Most of them didn't continue on with SC 2. In short, none of the talented players with Terran are even playing. I was B+/A- with Terran... I'm not playing it because fuck terran. It's boring. I'm sure others feel the same way. It doesn't help.
Major is the only real high level Terran to have made the switch. You then have overrated Brat_OK. That's just not a lot of players to rely on. If you weren't that great with Terran in BW, when you actually still had to be able to macro... then odds are you won't be that amazing in SC 2. Even if Terran was the hardest race to micro with in SC 2, have you ever tried to macro with other races? Terran is mind numbling easy to macro. You feel like you could have perfect macro if you afk'd 50% of the game. It's just a joke how much easier it is now. You can have perfect macro without even leaving the screen. You want to tell me that micro is that hard/too multitask intensive. Get real.
Imo, it was mostly the maps the made Terran the hardest race in BW. I don't know what the deal is with Terran now. I just know if I had all of my marines on 1 hotkey, I'd have a hell of a time trying to split my units optimally. I just feel like people are taking the lazy way and then not accepting some of the cons that come with it, or at least acting like their race is inherently harder because of their laziness. It's rubbish to me.
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.
99% of Terran is stimming and kiting. If that's not hard, remind me what is hard... I realize, at least in t vs p, that good ghost usage is what really separates the tiers of players, but it's hard to sympathize with the race that has the fewest spell casters..
The argument is relevant because the same people said the same thing in BW. I've never been a "micro player." 100% macro, but microing with Terran is just a bunch of stiming... the margin for error is way too big to really punish medicore micro players. It just doesn't matter. If it does matter, you're way too bad to play any other race, anyways. That's just my opinion. I never understood the sentiment in BW, as I thought zerg was way harder (you couldn't even hotkey all of your units if you were ling heavy...).
You guys have to remember that there were very few high level Terran players in the foreign scene. Most of the good ones in BW are not even playing SC 2. If C+/B- QXC is the highest BW Terran playing in NA, well... that's probably not good. Most of them didn't continue on with SC 2. In short, none of the talented players with Terran are even playing. I was B+/A- with Terran... I'm not playing it because fuck terran. It's boring. I'm sure others feel the same way. It doesn't help.
Major is the only real high level Terran to have made the switch. You then have overrated Brat_OK. That's just not a lot of players to rely on. If you weren't that great with Terran in BW, when you actually still had to be able to macro... then odds are you won't be that amazing in SC 2. Even if Terran was the hardest race to micro with in SC 2, have you ever tried to macro with other races? Terran is mind numbling easy to macro. You feel like you could have perfect macro if you afk'd 50% of the game. It's just a joke how much easier it is now. You can have perfect macro without even leaving the screen. You want to tell me that micro is that hard/too multitask intensive. Get real.
Imo, it was mostly the maps the made Terran the hardest race in BW. I don't know what the deal is with Terran now. I just know if I had all of my marines on 1 hotkey, I'd have a hell of a time trying to split my units optimally. I just feel like people are taking the lazy way and then not accepting some of the cons that come with it, or at least acting like their race is inherently harder because of their laziness. It's rubbish to me.
I have to agree that the non-combat aspects of Terran is so ridiculously easy as to make my head spin, speaking as a Terran player. My macro mistakes are akin to saving up too much energy on Orbitals as opposed to having 30-50 less larva over the course a game when I've played Zerg.
Not that Terran is easy, I just personally find Terran easier than the other races. To each their own.
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.
99% of Terran is stimming and kiting. If that's not hard, remind me what is hard... I realize, at least in t vs p, that good ghost usage is what really separates the tiers of players, but it's hard to sympathize with the race that has the fewest spell casters..
TvP: Knowing when to take engagements. After you've learned to consistently kite well, spread well and do all the actual micro, you need to know when you can take an engagement and what needs to be prioritized at that exact moment. If Protoss vs Terran a-move with maxed out armies (yes, with stim and storm etc), Protoss will win more often than not. That's why its hard against lategame protoss. Against Zerg you obviously have to stim and spread, zerg more or less a-moves. IDK how it is at top pro level, but the M zergs I know says its basically move command with lings, a-move with banes, generally speaking. What is hard about casting spells? Storm is basically "click on the units you want to kill", and fungal is "click on the units you want to stop moving"
The argument is relevant because the same people said the same thing in BW. I've never been a "micro player." 100% macro, but microing with Terran is just a bunch of stiming... the margin for error is way too big to really punish medicore micro players. It just doesn't matter. If it does matter, you're way too bad to play any other race, anyways. That's just my opinion. I never understood the sentiment in BW, as I thought zerg was way harder (you couldn't even hotkey all of your units if you were ling heavy...).
So terrans are just bad at the game? Basically, people who chose terran is also simply bad at the game and that's why we see so few of them be successful! Genious! Again, its not relevant because what people said about Terran in BW has nothing to do with it at all. We are talking about SC2, and all races are completely different.
You guys have to remember that there were very few high level Terran players in the foreign scene. Most of the good ones in BW are not even playing SC 2. If C+/B- QXC is the highest BW Terran playing in NA, well... that's probably not good. Most of them didn't continue on with SC 2. In short, none of the talented players with Terran are even playing. I was B+/A- with Terran... I'm not playing it because fuck terran. It's boring. I'm sure others feel the same way. It doesn't help.
The good P/Z foreigner bw pro's aren't playing either, whats your point? I'd like you to list the few terrans who made the switch vs all the successful P/Zs that transitioned.
Major is the only real high level Terran to have made the switch. You then have overrated Brat_OK. That's just not a lot of players to rely on. If you weren't that great with Terran in BW, when you actually still had to be able to macro... then odds are you won't be that amazing in SC 2. Even if Terran was the hardest race to micro with in SC 2, have you ever tried to macro with other races? Terran is mind numbling easy to macro. You feel like you could have perfect macro if you afk'd 50% of the game. It's just a joke how much easier it is now. You can have perfect macro without even leaving the screen. You want to tell me that micro is that hard/too multitask intensive. Get real.
Terran macro is harder than P/Z because you actually need to stay on it. Again, for clarification - I'm talking about lategame. If you read my previous posts I write a line between foreigners being "macro oriented" and how that puts them in a bad spot as terran. Protoss macro is more forgiving because you can get all your units out at an instance, while terran needs to wait for them. That means that its more important to macro mid-battle for Terran than P/Z. P gets all the units out at once, zerg can make extremely many units (without adding loads of extra buildings etc). Z escapes the problem of having too few production facilities lategame - this problem can arise for both T and P, but again, P has WG.
Again, Protoss can actually just wait till after the engagement is finished and then warp in. Its obviously sub optimal, but way more forgiving than not being able to mid-battle. With lower requirements for micro in engagements, they can also leave to macro freely. If you watch any protoss pro play you will see that they do this very often. I won't bother addressing the 50% away from the game line because its just silly.
Imo, it was mostly the maps the made Terran the hardest race in BW. I don't know what the deal is with Terran now. I just know if I had all of my marines on 1 hotkey, I'd have a hell of a time trying to split my units optimally. I just feel like people are taking the lazy way and then not accepting some of the cons that come with it, or at least acting like their race is inherently harder because of their laziness. It's rubbish to me.
Sure, when your opinion is that terran is all a-move and perfect macro while making dinner, I understand how it all seems very peculiar to you - both that foreigner terrans are struggling and that we are saying its the hardest race. Totally understand you man.
@ Magpie
Injecting is very forgiving and once you reach dia you basically always have enough larvae in lategame scenarios. It also adds up automatically so it basically adds production facilities for you. I understand that its hard up until maybe gold/plat, but after that its very easy. How terran macro is easier than P/Z I will never understand. Closer to other RTS-games? Yes. But that's where the "easy" part stops. As I've already said, in lategame scenarios both P and Z macro is way more forgiving and less multitask-taxing than Terran's macro.
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.
I disagree. I mean you can't just "do nothing" and play in a box all game long obviously, but you can't do that with zerg or protoss either, and protoss is the race with the less leeway on composition. As protoss if you're under attack and your opponent doesn't make a ton of mistakes, well you're just gonna die unless you have the right composition (for example, a biopush comes and you don't have aoe, or mutas come and you can't make phoenixes, or you're going zealot heavy against upgraded hellbats...). This isn't a comment on how hard it is, I mean, in the current meta it doesn't seem hard to scout mech and make the right composition against it. It's just that the composition matters more. If you need to be convinced well just look at PvP. Coinflip builds are what they are: losses due to not having the right composition. If terran was the race that relied the most on composition, then you would lose a ton of TvTs due to composition. Well... you don't.
Again, to clarify - I'm talking about late game scenarios. The fact that Protoss HAS to have AoE early is common knowledge and if you've made platinum you probably know this. That's why protoss all ins are so all in. But all through mid/lategame, Terran needs to look for colossi count and add vikings in response, or look at zealot count and chill out on the marauders etc. After a big engagement it gets worse, because Protoss can warp in a lot of zealots while making colossi out of 3 robos. Or maybe this time they go for zealot archon etc. This is stuff that Terran needs to respond to. What tech switch can terran make? Pure marine? Dies to AoE which protoss will have no matter what. Pure Rauder? Dies to the cheapest unit Protoss has. Terran needs to get basically the same units every time and look for how many of which.
Upgraded hellbats requires a lot of investment and will be spotted quite easily. You will know in advance that they are coming, no way that you get caught by surprise with 15 2-2 hellbats or something.
I don't understand your TvT argument, how does that have anything to do with TvP or TvZ?
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.
99% of Terran is stimming and kiting. If that's not hard, remind me what is hard... I realize, at least in t vs p, that good ghost usage is what really separates the tiers of players, but it's hard to sympathize with the race that has the fewest spell casters..
TvP: Knowing when to take engagements. After you've learned to consistently kite well, spread well and do all the actual micro, you need to know when you can take an engagement and what needs to be prioritized at that exact moment. If Protoss vs Terran a-move with maxed out armies (yes, with stim and storm etc), Protoss will win more often than not. That's why its hard against lategame protoss. Against Zerg you obviously have to stim and spread, zerg more or less a-moves. IDK how it is at top pro level, but the M zergs I know says its basically move command with lings, a-move with banes, generally speaking. What is hard about casting spells? Storm is basically "click on the units you want to kill", and fungal is "click on the units you want to stop moving"
The argument is relevant because the same people said the same thing in BW. I've never been a "micro player." 100% macro, but microing with Terran is just a bunch of stiming... the margin for error is way too big to really punish medicore micro players. It just doesn't matter. If it does matter, you're way too bad to play any other race, anyways. That's just my opinion. I never understood the sentiment in BW, as I thought zerg was way harder (you couldn't even hotkey all of your units if you were ling heavy...).
So terrans are just bad at the game? Basically, people who chose terran is also simply bad at the game and that's why we see so few of them be successful! Genious! Again, its not relevant because what people said about Terran in BW has nothing to do with it at all. We are talking about SC2, and all races are completely different.
You guys have to remember that there were very few high level Terran players in the foreign scene. Most of the good ones in BW are not even playing SC 2. If C+/B- QXC is the highest BW Terran playing in NA, well... that's probably not good. Most of them didn't continue on with SC 2. In short, none of the talented players with Terran are even playing. I was B+/A- with Terran... I'm not playing it because fuck terran. It's boring. I'm sure others feel the same way. It doesn't help.
The good P/Z foreigner bw pro's aren't playing either, whats your point? I'd like you to list the few terrans who made the switch vs all the successful P/Zs that transitioned.
Major is the only real high level Terran to have made the switch. You then have overrated Brat_OK. That's just not a lot of players to rely on. If you weren't that great with Terran in BW, when you actually still had to be able to macro... then odds are you won't be that amazing in SC 2. Even if Terran was the hardest race to micro with in SC 2, have you ever tried to macro with other races? Terran is mind numbling easy to macro. You feel like you could have perfect macro if you afk'd 50% of the game. It's just a joke how much easier it is now. You can have perfect macro without even leaving the screen. You want to tell me that micro is that hard/too multitask intensive. Get real.
Terran macro is harder than P/Z because you actually need to stay on it. Again, for clarification - I'm talking about lategame. If you read my previous posts I write a line between foreigners being "macro oriented" and how that puts them in a bad spot as terran. Protoss macro is more forgiving because you can get all your units out at an instance, while terran needs to wait for them. That means that its more important to macro mid-battle for Terran than P/Z. P gets all the units out at once, zerg can make extremely many units (without adding loads of extra buildings etc). Z escapes the problem of having too few production facilities lategame - this problem can arise for both T and P, but again, P has WG.
Again, Protoss can actually just wait till after the engagement is finished and then warp in. Its obviously sub optimal, but way more forgiving than not being able to mid-battle. With lower requirements for micro in engagements, they can also leave to macro freely. If you watch any protoss pro play you will see that they do this very often. I won't bother addressing the 50% away from the game line because its just silly.
Imo, it was mostly the maps the made Terran the hardest race in BW. I don't know what the deal is with Terran now. I just know if I had all of my marines on 1 hotkey, I'd have a hell of a time trying to split my units optimally. I just feel like people are taking the lazy way and then not accepting some of the cons that come with it, or at least acting like their race is inherently harder because of their laziness. It's rubbish to me.
Sure, when your opinion is that terran is all a-move and perfect macro while making dinner, I understand how it all seems very peculiar to you - both that foreigner terrans are struggling and that we are saying its the hardest race. Totally understand you man.
@ Magpie
Injecting is very forgiving and once you reach dia you basically always have enough larvae in lategame scenarios. It also adds up automatically so it basically adds production facilities for you. I understand that its hard up until maybe gold/plat, but after that its very easy. How terran macro is easier than P/Z I will never understand. Closer to other RTS-games? Yes. But that's where the "easy" part stops. As I've already said, in lategame scenarios both P and Z macro is way more forgiving and less multitask-taxing than Terran's macro.
Its personal preference mostly. Terran has the least things needed to juggle to macro properly, but is not explosive. Zerg is the most explosive, but has the most to juggle.
I find Zerg macro the most intuitive, but I always slip once I get to the 20 minute mark or so, brain and hands just lose focus and suddenly I can't reinforce.
Terran is always good--but if I lose to many dudes it's hard to make up the difference in time.
When I think of good foreign Toss players, I can't help but to think of ex WC 3 players. It just doesn't help when the most talented foreigner players from that game seemed to choose Toss (most similar to WC 3 races I guess). People could be good with Terran, as there's no way it's harder now than it was in BW, but "the right people" actually have to pick it. If more of those people were willing to choose it, there would be more lucifrons and thorzains.
On September 14 2013 10:17 ysnake wrote: 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?
Terran is the most difficult mechanically, meaning it takes the most time to perfect but has a higher skill cap. Foreigners don't have the time required to master the mechanics
On September 14 2013 10:17 ysnake wrote: Can we get a lock on this thread already?
seriously!
Why? The discussion is more or less to the point. Its actually possible to use logic and facts around the topic, as long as the less serious posts are ignored/deleted.
On September 14 2013 12:03 krooked wrote: Again, to clarify - I'm talking about late game scenarios. The fact that Protoss HAS to have AoE early is common knowledge and if you've made platinum you probably know this. That's why protoss all ins are so all in. But all through mid/lategame, Terran needs to look for colossi count and add vikings in response, or look at zealot count and chill out on the marauders etc. After a big engagement it gets worse, because Protoss can warp in a lot of zealots while making colossi out of 3 robos. Or maybe this time they go for zealot archon etc. This is stuff that Terran needs to respond to. What tech switch can terran make? Pure marine? Dies to AoE which protoss will have no matter what. Pure Rauder? Dies to the cheapest unit Protoss has. Terran needs to get basically the same units every time and look for how many of which.
Upgraded hellbats requires a lot of investment and will be spotted quite easily. You will know in advance that they are coming, no way that you get caught by surprise with 15 2-2 hellbats or something.
I don't understand your TvT argument, how does that have anything to do with TvP or TvZ?
Who cares if it's common knowledge? Isn't it common knowledge that you need vikings to deal with colossi? That says nothing about the importance of composition. If anything, the more a composition requirement is common knowledge, the more the composition is, well, required. I can give you a common example of leeway. Let's say I'm opening templars, and you don't have ghosts yet. You can dodge storms through micro, and thus beat my composition even though you don't counter it. It's hard, but it's been done (Happy comes to mind). If you have stimmed bioball and I don't have aoe, I'm not going to finesse my way into a win. No leeway at all. If you're going mech and for some reason I never scout it and have an anti-bioball army, I don't think I can win (this would never happen and mech sux so maybe I could, anyway I doubt it).
We can go a bit deeper and say that's the reason a lot of people don't like to play against protoss, or feel like the race takes no skill or is a-move: because when you win with protoss, it's a lot of the time because your composition counters your opponent's composition, so that your opponent has no chance at all.
About the TvT vs PvP, well, if composition was so important to terran, then it should reflect in TvT, because that's where composition would have the most impact (both players playing the race where composition matters the most). That's not what happens. On the other hand, you see it almost every series in PvP. Kind of makes my case.
I invite you to play protoss for a little while and not really focus on composition. You'll feel very bad, very soon.
I think the reason more Koreans pick Terran compare to foreigners is because the Korean style is more cut-throat, aggressive and this style naturally favors Terran. When I play Terran I don't have trouble with stutter steps or splitting but it is knowing how to be aggressive that gave me the most trouble - knowing when to do drop, where to drop etc. Foreigners tend to be more comfortable with passive play. It is not only Starcraft the Koreans have displayed their propensity for aggressive style but also in other competitive sports e.g. football and Go. I have also played another turn-based strategy game where the Koreans play an aggressive style. I am not sure about fighting games but it would not surprise me if the Koreans favor aggressive play as well.
On September 14 2013 12:03 krooked wrote: Again, to clarify - I'm talking about late game scenarios. The fact that Protoss HAS to have AoE early is common knowledge and if you've made platinum you probably know this. That's why protoss all ins are so all in. But all through mid/lategame, Terran needs to look for colossi count and add vikings in response, or look at zealot count and chill out on the marauders etc. After a big engagement it gets worse, because Protoss can warp in a lot of zealots while making colossi out of 3 robos. Or maybe this time they go for zealot archon etc. This is stuff that Terran needs to respond to. What tech switch can terran make? Pure marine? Dies to AoE which protoss will have no matter what. Pure Rauder? Dies to the cheapest unit Protoss has. Terran needs to get basically the same units every time and look for how many of which.
Upgraded hellbats requires a lot of investment and will be spotted quite easily. You will know in advance that they are coming, no way that you get caught by surprise with 15 2-2 hellbats or something.
I don't understand your TvT argument, how does that have anything to do with TvP or TvZ?
Who cares if it's common knowledge? Isn't it common knowledge that you need vikings to deal with colossi? That says nothing about the importance of composition. If anything, the more a composition requirement is common knowledge, the more the composition is, well, required. I can give you a common example of leeway. Let's say I'm opening templars, and you don't have ghosts yet. You can dodge storms through micro, and thus beat my composition even though you don't counter it. It's hard, but it's been done (Happy comes to mind). If you have stimmed bioball and I don't have aoe, I'm not going to finesse my way into a win. No leeway at all. If you're going mech and for some reason I never scout it and have an anti-bioball army, I don't think I can win (this would never happen and mech sux so maybe I could, anyway I doubt it).
We can go a bit deeper and say that's the reason a lot of people don't like to play against protoss, or feel like the race takes no skill or is a-move: because when you win with protoss, it's a lot of the time because your composition counters your opponent's composition, so that your opponent has no chance at all.
About the TvT vs PvP, well, if composition was so important to terran, then it should reflect in TvT, because that's where composition would have the most impact (both players playing the race where composition matters the most). That's not what happens. On the other hand, you see it almost every series in PvP. Kind of makes my case.
I invite you to play protoss for a little while and not really focus on composition. You'll feel very bad, very soon.
Yes, its common knowledge that MMMVG is the best comp against P. But to put your statement into perspective: Its death to a terran if he doesn't have stim and an attack comes. Just like no protoss build leads you into no AoE early, no Terran builds neglect Stim.
I agree completely that Terran units are way more microable and once Protoss has gotten caught they can't win the engagement via micro. And I also agree that you can micro through storm, but remember the topic - What's hardest. Players at dia/masters won't have a lot of success trying to engage HTs without ghost unless its a weird HT rush build which leaves P so naked that if he doesn't lose his entire army he just wins.
Stimmed bioball vs no AoE doesn't really happen unless the protoss has done something very very weird, or the terran is all inning you. For clarification, I assume a standard game without any crazy all ins. I don't think anyone disagrees with me that if we talk about all ins, P has way more variety than T has today.
Seeing if T goes mech or not is extremely easy and you would have to be very low level to let that happen. That's like saying "if P goes mass immortal/zealot I just lose because I have too many marauders". Again, lets assume a standard macrogame. Protoss can tech switch and Terran needs to react. That's how the matchup works in 99.9% of games that you would count as standard. Agree?
I would for sure say that a lot of PvTs are won because P has a superior composition - Because Terran failed to react to it. Not because Protoss relentlessly scouted for T's comp and countered it. Just for clarification, I don't rip on Z/P for being a-move races. I know a lot of people do, but just so we are clear Each race has its drawbacks, I just believe that Terran has some issues which are harder to master for a player who is serious but low level (dia/masters etc), and that Terran losses oftentimes is "I just didn't play well enough", while P/Z losses oftentimes comes down to bad decision making, and not engagement management.
Regarding TvT/PvP, as we all know Terran is very limited in which units to use. That's why biomine is whats up TvZ, MMMVG vs P and only three viable comps in the mirror MU. This I think we all can agree upon. What I'm talking about is that Terran, against P and Z, needs to pay attention to tech switches and which units P/Z are making. Terran has no tech switch and needs to react to the units Zerg makes. Examples:
Zerg has roach/hydra, BL, Infestor, Muta, Ultralisk. They all require different answers in ways to play and unit composition. Roach/hydra and Infestor or mutalisk is pretty easy to find out about and react to, but BL/Ultra is harder and if terran is caught off guard, he dies.
Vs P you got the examples I wrote in my previous post. Colossi count, archon count, zealot count, big colossi switch etc. Terran can't do switches, they simply need to react to what the opponent is making. Since P/Z has more viable possibilities than T, P/Z can take comfort in what they are up against.
Remember, I'm not saying that this makes Terran harder on top level, but for newer players that are serious (dia/m) will have issues with these things, and tied in with most serious foreigners wanting to play macrogames, these are issues that Terran faces.
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.
99% of Terran is stimming and kiting. If that's not hard, remind me what is hard... I realize, at least in t vs p, that good ghost usage is what really separates the tiers of players, but it's hard to sympathize with the race that has the fewest spell casters..
The argument is relevant because the same people said the same thing in BW. I've never been a "micro player." 100% macro, but microing with Terran is just a bunch of stiming... the margin for error is way too big to really punish medicore micro players. It just doesn't matter. If it does matter, you're way too bad to play any other race, anyways. That's just my opinion. I never understood the sentiment in BW, as I thought zerg was way harder (you couldn't even hotkey all of your units if you were ling heavy...).
You guys have to remember that there were very few high level Terran players in the foreign scene. Most of the good ones in BW are not even playing SC 2. If C+/B- QXC is the highest BW Terran playing in NA, well... that's probably not good. Most of them didn't continue on with SC 2. In short, none of the talented players with Terran are even playing. I was B+/A- with Terran... I'm not playing it because fuck terran. It's boring. I'm sure others feel the same way. It doesn't help.
Major is the only real high level Terran to have made the switch. You then have overrated Brat_OK. That's just not a lot of players to rely on. If you weren't that great with Terran in BW, when you actually still had to be able to macro... then odds are you won't be that amazing in SC 2. Even if Terran was the hardest race to micro with in SC 2, have you ever tried to macro with other races? Terran is mind numbling easy to macro. You feel like you could have perfect macro if you afk'd 50% of the game. It's just a joke how much easier it is now. You can have perfect macro without even leaving the screen. You want to tell me that micro is that hard/too multitask intensive. Get real.
Imo, it was mostly the maps the made Terran the hardest race in BW. I don't know what the deal is with Terran now. I just know if I had all of my marines on 1 hotkey, I'd have a hell of a time trying to split my units optimally. I just feel like people are taking the lazy way and then not accepting some of the cons that come with it, or at least acting like their race is inherently harder because of their laziness. It's rubbish to me.
I have to agree that the non-combat aspects of Terran is so ridiculously easy as to make my head spin, speaking as a Terran player. My macro mistakes are akin to saving up too much energy on Orbitals as opposed to having 30-50 less larva over the course a game when I've played Zerg.
Not that Terran is easy, I just personally find Terran easier than the other races. To each their own.
Exactly, you have to realise, that each race has some aspects that are easier than others, it has always been that way and the charm of Starcraft. Each race is different from the first building, the first unit, the first look, etc.
There is no doubt the first 10 minutes are easier for Terran a forgiving building structure and economic booster. With that ease comes inflexibility.
Unlike Zerg, a Terran cannot have a troop surge unless he planned for it. Unlike Protoss, a Terran can neither rush his unit build queue nor his research. terran cannot be resuppling his army if his units get ambushed mid rally.
On September 14 2013 12:03 krooked wrote: Again, to clarify - I'm talking about late game scenarios. The fact that Protoss HAS to have AoE early is common knowledge and if you've made platinum you probably know this. That's why protoss all ins are so all in. But all through mid/lategame, Terran needs to look for colossi count and add vikings in response, or look at zealot count and chill out on the marauders etc. After a big engagement it gets worse, because Protoss can warp in a lot of zealots while making colossi out of 3 robos. Or maybe this time they go for zealot archon etc. This is stuff that Terran needs to respond to. What tech switch can terran make? Pure marine? Dies to AoE which protoss will have no matter what. Pure Rauder? Dies to the cheapest unit Protoss has. Terran needs to get basically the same units every time and look for how many of which.
Upgraded hellbats requires a lot of investment and will be spotted quite easily. You will know in advance that they are coming, no way that you get caught by surprise with 15 2-2 hellbats or something.
I don't understand your TvT argument, how does that have anything to do with TvP or TvZ?
Who cares if it's common knowledge? Isn't it common knowledge that you need vikings to deal with colossi? That says nothing about the importance of composition. If anything, the more a composition requirement is common knowledge, the more the composition is, well, required. I can give you a common example of leeway. Let's say I'm opening templars, and you don't have ghosts yet. You can dodge storms through micro, and thus beat my composition even though you don't counter it. It's hard, but it's been done (Happy comes to mind). If you have stimmed bioball and I don't have aoe, I'm not going to finesse my way into a win. No leeway at all. If you're going mech and for some reason I never scout it and have an anti-bioball army, I don't think I can win (this would never happen and mech sux so maybe I could, anyway I doubt it).
We can go a bit deeper and say that's the reason a lot of people don't like to play against protoss, or feel like the race takes no skill or is a-move: because when you win with protoss, it's a lot of the time because your composition counters your opponent's composition, so that your opponent has no chance at all.
About the TvT vs PvP, well, if composition was so important to terran, then it should reflect in TvT, because that's where composition would have the most impact (both players playing the race where composition matters the most). That's not what happens. On the other hand, you see it almost every series in PvP. Kind of makes my case.
I invite you to play protoss for a little while and not really focus on composition. You'll feel very bad, very soon.
Yes, its common knowledge that MMMVG is the best comp against P. But to put your statement into perspective: Its death to a terran if he doesn't have stim and an attack comes. Just like no protoss build leads you into no AoE early, no Terran builds neglect Stim.
I agree completely that Terran units are way more microable and once Protoss has gotten caught they can't win the engagement via micro. And I also agree that you can micro through storm, but remember the topic - What's hardest. Players at dia/masters won't have a lot of success trying to engage HTs without ghost unless its a weird HT rush build which leaves P so naked that if he doesn't lose his entire army he just wins.
Stimmed bioball vs no AoE doesn't really happen unless the protoss has done something very very weird, or the terran is all inning you. For clarification, I assume a standard game without any crazy all ins. I don't think anyone disagrees with me that if we talk about all ins, P has way more variety than T has today.
Seeing if T goes mech or not is extremely easy and you would have to be very low level to let that happen. That's like saying "if P goes mass immortal/zealot I just lose because I have too many marauders". Again, lets assume a standard macrogame. Protoss can tech switch and Terran needs to react. That's how the matchup works in 99.9% of games that you would count as standard. Agree?
I would for sure say that a lot of PvTs are won because P has a superior composition - Because Terran failed to react to it. Not because Protoss relentlessly scouted for T's comp and countered it. Just for clarification, I don't rip on Z/P for being a-move races. I know a lot of people do, but just so we are clear Each race has its drawbacks, I just believe that Terran has some issues which are harder to master for a player who is serious but low level (dia/masters etc), and that Terran losses oftentimes is "I just didn't play well enough", while P/Z losses oftentimes comes down to bad decision making, and not engagement management.
Regarding TvT/PvP, as we all know Terran is very limited in which units to use. That's why biomine is whats up TvZ, MMMVG vs P and only three viable comps in the mirror MU. This I think we all can agree upon. What I'm talking about is that Terran, against P and Z, needs to pay attention to tech switches and which units P/Z are making. Terran has no tech switch and needs to react to the units Zerg makes. Examples:
Zerg has roach/hydra, BL, Infestor, Muta, Ultralisk. They all require different answers in ways to play and unit composition. Roach/hydra and Infestor or mutalisk is pretty easy to find out about and react to, but BL/Ultra is harder and if terran is caught off guard, he dies.
Vs P you got the examples I wrote in my previous post. Colossi count, archon count, zealot count, big colossi switch etc. Terran can't do switches, they simply need to react to what the opponent is making. Since P/Z has more viable possibilities than T, P/Z can take comfort in what they are up against.
Remember, I'm not saying that this makes Terran harder on top level, but for newer players that are serious (dia/m) will have issues with these things, and tied in with most serious foreigners wanting to play macrogames, these are issues that Terran faces.
I'm reacting to you saying that terran is the race that needs to focus the most on composition. I have no interest in what is hard or not hard for this particular point. Some people think mechanics are harder, others disagree. That's not really what I want to discuss.
Of course it's easy to scout mech. I still need to have my composition countering it in order to beat it. I'm not saying that I'll ever not do it. Just saying that I have to do it.
No, if an attack comes and the terran doesn't have stim, he isn't necessarily dead at all. There are a ton of all-in attacks from the protoss that hit before the stim timing (blink all-in), and none of them are unbeatable.
Stimmed bioball vs no aoe happens basically everytime your vikings killed all the colossi and you're engaging the rest of the protoss army. Every scv pull all-in that succeeds ends with stimmed bioball vs no aoe.
The reason why I'm tech switching as protoss is because I'm reacting to your composition countering mine. Why is my reaction a "tech switch" and yours a "needed composition change"? We're doing the same thing. I'm the one to initiate the change, because I'm the one who has to adapt first.
I thought it was obvious that I agree that if terran only makes, lets say banshees, then a regular protoss deathball will lose to it. Again, I'm assuming a standard, normal game.
There can be terran attacks before AoE as well, neither those are unbeatable. I'm talking about a standard game with standard builds, not crazyness. I addressed this in my previous post. Protoss will have out AoE for all terran attacks that aren't crazy, and Terran will have stim out against any normal protoss timing which isn't the earliest all ins (which require other "extreme" measures).
HT is AoE but yes, if all P AoE is eliminated then bio cleans up until zealots arrive, that is correct.
Protoss doesn't say "well he sure was making a lot of marines, I say we make Colossi next to counter it!" Protoss does blind tech switches all the time in the hopes of catching Terran of guard. Protoss doesn't see Terrans composition and tech switches based on that, he simply makes the other AoE. Both colossi and HT rapes everything terran has, and they require specific counters. No Terran unit require specific counters (again, assuming a standard game..) We are not doing the same thing, because Protoss simply isn't reacting to T's comp. T's comp will be the same every time, but with different ratios depending on what protoss has decided to make. Terran is reacting to P, not the other way around.
Well I'm not going to repeat the same things over and over again. It looked from the start like a conversation in which nothing would happen, so I'm not sure why I even got past the "you're wrong about that composition thing".
The general consensus is that all races have their own methods of winning the game.
Zerg is to make the correct economical decision in morphing larvae into drones and forces, you have to weigh out the risk and award.
Protoss is generally played as a mad scientists to grab the right mixture of compounds and all the suddenly put on the last ingredient needed for their ominous march of death.
Now Terran is mainly about speed, agility, and execution. You are constraint with limited choices of units to make up your army so the margin that separates the elite and only decent player is how fast you react to the banneling bombs coming into your way, how fast are you able to pick up your marines into medivac when trouble arises and how fast you can dogdge protoss' zaps and beam to minimize the damage intake. So naturally this race is one that requires prolonged time of training that the western gamers simply do not possess or should I lack the alacrity to allocate whereas, in the case of Protosses and Zerg, their entire gameplay's infrastructure isn't exactly mechanically-centered as the Terran race.
But if you dwell among the Korean with plenty of available time at hand, Terran would certainly be a viable choice of race. However, that is not to say that because of such luxury, player's decisions are automatically cemented into one. The reason for selecting the other two races are of course, based purely upon one's personality traits, their level of patience, their mindset, and their arbitrary preference.
It is still laughable to witness such high momentum for such rudimentary topic.
On September 14 2013 13:00 crawlert wrote: I think the reason more Koreans pick Terran compare to foreigners is because the Korean style is more cut-throat, aggressive and this style naturally favors Terran. When I play Terran I don't have trouble with stutter steps or splitting but it is knowing how to be aggressive that gave me the most trouble - knowing when to do drop, where to drop etc. Foreigners tend to be more comfortable with passive play. It is not only Starcraft the Koreans have displayed their propensity for aggressive style but also in other competitive sports e.g. football and Go. I have also played another turn-based strategy game where the Koreans play an aggressive style. I am not sure about fighting games but it would not surprise me if the Koreans favor aggressive play as well.
/thread. Look at how Korean Terrans play TvP. They ramp up the aggression and constantly do something. Stimming and kiting with a small group of units and that way they can dismantle Protoss quite well. Now look at foreigners. Lucifron, Thorzain and Kas are players who made a career out of passive play. Find a single foreign Terran who play half as aggressive as just about ANY Korean.
On September 14 2013 15:17 Xiphos wrote: I don't even know why this is even argued here.
The general consensus is that all races have their own methods of winning the game.
Zerg is to make the correct economical decision in morphing larvae into drones and forces, you have to weigh out the risk and award.
Protoss is generally played as a mad scientists to grab the right mixture of compounds and all the suddenly put on the last ingredient needed for their ominous march of death.
Now Terran is mainly about speed, agility, and execution. You are constraint with limited choices of units to make up your army so the margin that separates the elite and only decent player is how fast you react to the banneling bombs coming into your way, how fast are you able to pick up your marines into medivac when trouble arises and how fast you can dogdge protoss' zaps and beam to minimize the damage intake. So naturally this race is one that requires prolonged time of training that the western gamers simply do not possess or should I lack the alacrity to allocate whereas, in the case of Protosses and Zerg, their entire gameplay's infrastructure isn't exactly mechanically-centered as the Terran.
On September 14 2013 13:00 crawlert wrote: I am not sure about fighting games but it would not surprise me if the Koreans favor aggressive play as well.
The current Korean SF4 champ is known for playing an excessively lame and smothering style most of the time. The other one is a batshit insane crazy bastard.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dQjDC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9vEfs2k.png)
Tournaments
or 
? 
