|
On January 19 2013 09:56 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 09:48 oscarsg wrote:On January 19 2013 09:43 NDDseer wrote:On January 19 2013 09:31 bo1b wrote:On January 19 2013 09:18 forsooth wrote:On January 19 2013 08:02 bo1b wrote:On January 19 2013 02:18 Mongolbonjwa wrote:On January 19 2013 01:59 TsGBruzze wrote:On January 19 2013 01:20 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
I have said this for long time, and I say this again. Terran is the hardest race by far, both mechanically and strategically.
Terran has been nerfed to the ground so many times that I have lost track, and blizzards unability to make mech work in TvP despite many attemps and opportunities tells me that nothing is going to change. I would say that terran as it is now, is in wrong game because other two races are just so much more mobile and flexible that terran has hard time to compete with them in any aspect of the game. i cant agree with you, i played terran a long time, a very long time and just recently wanted to switch. and in my experience i must say zerg strategy and macro is hard, hell even the micro is hard unless you go for infestors... Please, you cant seriously say that zerg has harder macro while only thing they need to build is hatchery and occasional tech building while terran constantly has to build new production facilities and addons and pay attention to merciless production cycles while zerg can forget those because larva does not disappear anywhere. Also eventually terran runs out of space and needs to build stuff to more vulnerable places. Micro harder for zerg you say? How can you even compare your baneling a-move to marine splits that require good reaction times and fast actions otherwise all marines are gonna melt away. This game also makes autoflank so well that you dont neccesarily need to pay attention to battle at all while for terran this is never true. You ever kept up injects on 5 hatches + creep spread? Zerg macro is hard lol, the only race with easy as shit macro is protoss. It's pure cyclical repetition. Zero thought involved. A bit more APM intensive, sure, but not difficult at all. Thats pretty much what macro is, repetition. Terran macro (eg building more barracks) requires some degree of thought to it. Should I keep building units, or can I skimp a round so I have a stronger reinforcement later? Do I need more tech labs, more reactors, more barracks or more units? Is it better to get a second starport or more barracks (quick, scan protoss tech and hope to find out, then have a bit of an educated guess). I guess no one ever over-drones anymore. The overdroning will lose you the game as rapidly as fucking up all your production, sure, but the problem is that the main obstacle for zerg is looking after their drone/tech choices and less about microing, army positioning/awareness etc. So while shitty macro can lose you the game for either race, it's FAR FAR easier for terran to lose the game because of not watching their army properly, not microing engagements well, not having the multitasking to force zerg to respond to attacks in multiple locations (compare how often terran players drop vs zerg players do ling runbys, reality is that terran is the "active" player in forcing increased multitasking by both players). So if zerg fucks up their macro, they lose, but if they don't they have quite a margin of error for army awareness, micro, multitasking due to speed/mobility of zerg units. If terran fucks up their macro, they lose, but if while focussing on macro they miss a critical (read, any engagement ever) moment for micro, army awareness, multitasking, they lose as well with far less margin for error.
I'm not denying any of that, I think that Terran is the hardest race to play "best" as well. But saying that the Zerg mechanics and micro is easy is just flat out stupid.
|
On January 19 2013 09:48 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 09:43 NDDseer wrote:On January 19 2013 09:31 bo1b wrote:On January 19 2013 09:18 forsooth wrote:On January 19 2013 08:02 bo1b wrote:On January 19 2013 02:18 Mongolbonjwa wrote:On January 19 2013 01:59 TsGBruzze wrote:On January 19 2013 01:20 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
I have said this for long time, and I say this again. Terran is the hardest race by far, both mechanically and strategically.
Terran has been nerfed to the ground so many times that I have lost track, and blizzards unability to make mech work in TvP despite many attemps and opportunities tells me that nothing is going to change. I would say that terran as it is now, is in wrong game because other two races are just so much more mobile and flexible that terran has hard time to compete with them in any aspect of the game. i cant agree with you, i played terran a long time, a very long time and just recently wanted to switch. and in my experience i must say zerg strategy and macro is hard, hell even the micro is hard unless you go for infestors... Please, you cant seriously say that zerg has harder macro while only thing they need to build is hatchery and occasional tech building while terran constantly has to build new production facilities and addons and pay attention to merciless production cycles while zerg can forget those because larva does not disappear anywhere. Also eventually terran runs out of space and needs to build stuff to more vulnerable places. Micro harder for zerg you say? How can you even compare your baneling a-move to marine splits that require good reaction times and fast actions otherwise all marines are gonna melt away. This game also makes autoflank so well that you dont neccesarily need to pay attention to battle at all while for terran this is never true. You ever kept up injects on 5 hatches + creep spread? Zerg macro is hard lol, the only race with easy as shit macro is protoss. It's pure cyclical repetition. Zero thought involved. A bit more APM intensive, sure, but not difficult at all. Thats pretty much what macro is, repetition. The difference is that there is literally zero decision making required for injects. The optimal play is always to inject exactly as the previous inject finishes. Terran macro (eg building more barracks) requires some degree of thought to it. Should I keep building units, or can I skimp a round so I have a stronger reinforcement later? Do I need more tech labs, more reactors, more barracks or more units? Is it better to get a second starport or more barracks (quick, scan protoss tech and hope to find out, then have a bit of an educated guess). Not to mention that building a few barracks is slightly less apm intensive, but more varied in its execution. I have trained myself to flick through four location hotkeys and inject with each queen in under a second, and that process never ever changes. To build an additional two barracks, requires you to flick back to your main, select two scvs, then scroll around (or use a screen hotkey as I do, but many people don't) to find an empty space in your main, and put down both the barracks before jumping back to main CC and shift rallying scvs back to the mineral line. Remember that to avoid creating work for yourself later, you have to spend a moment figuring out where you can put the barracks so that you maximize space for future barracks without blocking in units either immeadiately or with any possible add ons to any other buildings in the vicinity. If you don't, then macroing later becomes demanding at inconvenient times when you need to fly around buildings and stuff to reorganize your earlier poor planning. Edit: forgot to mention then adding those barracks to your control group, and using another screen hotkey jump to your natural (or other location) to re-rally all your production so that you don't constantly have to gather up spare units sitting next to barracks that you didn't rally with all the others. This process is much easier for zerg because you make far less hatcheries than a terran player does production facilities over the course of almost any game, as well as the core hotkey groups barely changing (with any inject method, at most you have to add a single queen to a hatchery/queen group about 3/4 times a game, where as the terran is constantly required to keep building and filling up production hotkey tabs and rallying them appropriately) Sure, in a game of x length I will spend far more clicks on my inject process than on placing barracks, but the inject process is literally zero thought, where as there is actually quite a few considerations in the way you place/time your barracks. This is what he meant by it not being "difficult" the hardest part of zerg macro is when to drone, when not to drone, from my experience. i'd compare injects to sending 3 workers to gas, in more often fashion
You guy's can't see the forest for the trees.
It doesn't actually matter how much "thought" is needed or not--mechanics (no matter which it is) should require zero thought no matter which it is.
For example, do you meticulously aim your marines splits so that each marine is the perfect amount of space away from each other? No--fuck that! There's no time to plan that out. Much like forever-injects, marine splits *should* take zero thoughts to do. Barracks placement should take no thoughts to do. If you're too busy thinking about what you should be doing mechanically--then you haven't perfected your mechanics yet.
The problem is not whether or not Marine splits or injects are more or less mechanically demanding as each other--it's about our enjoyment as viewers.
How sexy does perfect injects feel as a casual viewer? How about how sexy larva injects look when scanning the battlefield at any random time? If I paused a random part of the game--would the injects look sexy?
Now, when I personally do perfect injects, I feel like I just bent someone's sister over and fucked her till she screamed my name. I feel like a total boss! My screen? It's moving oh so fast as I finally get the rhythm just perfect as I go tap-tap-tap-tap with my figners.
It's like when you've been practicing the C to G transition on the guitar and you finally got the note right without landing your index finger on both the top strings? It's awesome! To me, the person doing it, it feels like an amazing accomplishment whether or not I'm thinking about it or not.
You know what it looks like when I re-watch that replay and don't follow my camera?
It looks like "Ooh look, queen energy is low..."
That's it, that's the happy ending of perfect injects for a viewer.
You know what the happy ending of good phoenix control is? A pack of phoenix passes over workers and kills 3-6 of them before being chased off. A marine drop would simply land 8 marines and they'd kill off 5-10 workers all the while the Terran player is managing 1-2 other drops while moving his army around. You know why the Terran player can do that? Because it doesn't take 100 apm to land 8 marines behind a mineral line so he can drop 24 marines across three mineral lines and wait to micro just the ones that are in trouble and forget about the other 2. Try doing that with Phoenixes or Mutas.
When people say that "Terran rewards multitasking" it is because Terran's multitasking options are both sexier to watch and allows for more output.
Learning to drop in two places at once is easier to do and gives less of a return than perfecting injects and creep spread. But when was the last time you jizzed yourself over low energy queens in the same way you jizzed yourself when watching THIS.
|
Honestly I think maps is the biggest factor in pvt. The new city map newkirk? I think is really good for pvt. It allows chokes for the toss player as well as high ground air only space for vikings. I also like how big the main is so that terrans can drop.
That aside i feel like playing protoss is like holding two huge glass cannons, collo and HT. If you elminate one of them there goes a 3rd of their army strength. If protoss can keep ht around the map, i think a terran can send in ghosts in from more than just the front.
I have nothing good about zerg to say. INFESTORS IMBA, MUTA IMBA. but as a toss it is just as important to manage how ur army fights. I like playing against muta/ling/bane because it rewards the player who engages the best.
|
Turning into a balance shitfest again. I personally think it's very clear that Terran is the hardest to play, it's not even a close contest. This is based on personal experience as I have higher winrates (high master) with Z and P, while T is my main and I don't even know any proper builds or timings with the other races. I just max faster and win games "for free".
Edit: Oh and btw, I see a lot of people arguing about injecting being hard. I watch all my replays after the game, and the majority of Zergs use the "hatch scroll technique". This is a blatant bug in my opinion, because it takes literally less than a second to inject as many hatches as you could ever practically need and injecting is pretty much the strongest "action" you can perform in the game. It may sound like an insignificant thing, but don't be fooled. That's like having all production facilities auto-place themselves without clicking anywhere for a Terran, it would make the game A LOT easier.
HOWEVER, I think that's not really what the discussion should be about. I think the point is, SHOULD Terran be significantly harder and have such low player numbers? Wouldn't the game be more fun overall if there were more Terrans on ladder, if there were some more foreign pro Terrans that could actually win some maps or god forbid even cause an upset? You see weak Zergs beat superior Terrans every weekend, but the opposite almost never happens.
These things strongly influence the community and I think the game experience would be much more enjoyable that way.
Another thing, maybe slightly off-topic, maybe not. Most casters are incredibly anti-Terran it seems. They can pull off insane things that a regular player couldn't even dream of, but the casters will still just yell "WOW AMAZING FUNGALS". I realise that it's easier for an "average viewer" to see and understand fungals than it is to see Terran triple drop and split everything at the same time, but it's just giving Terran a bad image and this could easily contribute to the low numbers.
|
On January 19 2013 01:15 FutureBreedMachine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 01:13 Powerfoe wrote:
I like how you wrote an essay complaining about how underpowered terran is and can still say, "I'm not saying terran is underpowered." Well I suppose you're right. I'm saying that at a Korean Pro level, most races are relatively balanced, however at lower levels I would say there is an imbalance. Thanks for pointing that out.
What about World Pro Level?
|
On January 19 2013 10:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 09:48 jinorazi wrote:On January 19 2013 09:43 NDDseer wrote:On January 19 2013 09:31 bo1b wrote:On January 19 2013 09:18 forsooth wrote:On January 19 2013 08:02 bo1b wrote:On January 19 2013 02:18 Mongolbonjwa wrote:On January 19 2013 01:59 TsGBruzze wrote:On January 19 2013 01:20 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
I have said this for long time, and I say this again. Terran is the hardest race by far, both mechanically and strategically.
Terran has been nerfed to the ground so many times that I have lost track, and blizzards unability to make mech work in TvP despite many attemps and opportunities tells me that nothing is going to change. I would say that terran as it is now, is in wrong game because other two races are just so much more mobile and flexible that terran has hard time to compete with them in any aspect of the game. i cant agree with you, i played terran a long time, a very long time and just recently wanted to switch. and in my experience i must say zerg strategy and macro is hard, hell even the micro is hard unless you go for infestors... Please, you cant seriously say that zerg has harder macro while only thing they need to build is hatchery and occasional tech building while terran constantly has to build new production facilities and addons and pay attention to merciless production cycles while zerg can forget those because larva does not disappear anywhere. Also eventually terran runs out of space and needs to build stuff to more vulnerable places. Micro harder for zerg you say? How can you even compare your baneling a-move to marine splits that require good reaction times and fast actions otherwise all marines are gonna melt away. This game also makes autoflank so well that you dont neccesarily need to pay attention to battle at all while for terran this is never true. You ever kept up injects on 5 hatches + creep spread? Zerg macro is hard lol, the only race with easy as shit macro is protoss. It's pure cyclical repetition. Zero thought involved. A bit more APM intensive, sure, but not difficult at all. Thats pretty much what macro is, repetition. The difference is that there is literally zero decision making required for injects. The optimal play is always to inject exactly as the previous inject finishes. Terran macro (eg building more barracks) requires some degree of thought to it. Should I keep building units, or can I skimp a round so I have a stronger reinforcement later? Do I need more tech labs, more reactors, more barracks or more units? Is it better to get a second starport or more barracks (quick, scan protoss tech and hope to find out, then have a bit of an educated guess). Not to mention that building a few barracks is slightly less apm intensive, but more varied in its execution. I have trained myself to flick through four location hotkeys and inject with each queen in under a second, and that process never ever changes. To build an additional two barracks, requires you to flick back to your main, select two scvs, then scroll around (or use a screen hotkey as I do, but many people don't) to find an empty space in your main, and put down both the barracks before jumping back to main CC and shift rallying scvs back to the mineral line. Remember that to avoid creating work for yourself later, you have to spend a moment figuring out where you can put the barracks so that you maximize space for future barracks without blocking in units either immeadiately or with any possible add ons to any other buildings in the vicinity. If you don't, then macroing later becomes demanding at inconvenient times when you need to fly around buildings and stuff to reorganize your earlier poor planning. Edit: forgot to mention then adding those barracks to your control group, and using another screen hotkey jump to your natural (or other location) to re-rally all your production so that you don't constantly have to gather up spare units sitting next to barracks that you didn't rally with all the others. This process is much easier for zerg because you make far less hatcheries than a terran player does production facilities over the course of almost any game, as well as the core hotkey groups barely changing (with any inject method, at most you have to add a single queen to a hatchery/queen group about 3/4 times a game, where as the terran is constantly required to keep building and filling up production hotkey tabs and rallying them appropriately) Sure, in a game of x length I will spend far more clicks on my inject process than on placing barracks, but the inject process is literally zero thought, where as there is actually quite a few considerations in the way you place/time your barracks. This is what he meant by it not being "difficult" the hardest part of zerg macro is when to drone, when not to drone, from my experience. i'd compare injects to sending 3 workers to gas, in more often fashion You guy's can't see the forest for the trees. It doesn't actually matter how much "thought" is needed or not--mechanics (no matter which it is) should require zero thought no matter which it is. For example, do you meticulously aim your marines splits so that each marine is the perfect amount of space away from each other? No--fuck that! There's no time to plan that out. Much like forever-injects, marine splits *should* take zero thoughts to do. Barracks placement should take no thoughts to do. If you're too busy thinking about what you should be doing mechanically--then you haven't perfected your mechanics yet. The problem is not whether or not Marine splits or injects are more or less mechanically demanding as each other--it's about our enjoyment as viewers. How sexy does perfect injects feel as a casual viewer? How about how sexy larva injects look when scanning the battlefield at any random time? If I paused a random part of the game--would the injects look sexy? Now, when I personally do perfect injects, I feel like I just bent someone's sister over and fucked her till she screamed my name. I feel like a total boss! My screen? It's moving oh so fast as I finally get the rhythm just perfect as I go tap-tap-tap-tap with my figners. It's like when you've been practicing the C to G transition on the guitar and you finally got the note right without landing your index finger on both the top strings? It's awesome! To me, the person doing it, it feels like an amazing accomplishment whether or not I'm thinking about it or not. You know what it looks like when I re-watch that replay and don't follow my camera? It looks like "Ooh look, queen energy is low..." That's it, that's the happy ending of perfect injects for a viewer. You know what the happy ending of good phoenix control is? A pack of phoenix passes over workers and kills 3-6 of them before being chased off. A marine drop would simply land 8 marines and they'd kill off 5-10 workers all the while the Terran player is managing 1-2 other drops while moving his army around. You know why the Terran player can do that? Because it doesn't take 100 apm to land 8 marines behind a mineral line so he can drop 24 marines across three mineral lines and wait to micro just the ones that are in trouble and forget about the other 2. Try doing that with Phoenixes or Mutas. When people say that "Terran rewards multitasking" it is because Terran's multitasking options are both sexier to watch and allows for more output. Learning to drop in two places at once is easier to do and gives less of a return than perfecting injects and creep spread. But when was the last time you jizzed yourself over low energy queens in the same way you jizzed yourself when watching THIS.
i'm not sure why you quoted me, i can't seem to link what you're saying to what i said, perhaps its in regards to whats been quoted in the quote?
|
Random diamond for what it's worth.
I agree with OP, especially because he argues his point well and doesn't fall in overgeneralizations.
(I am not saying Terran is UP, I am saying that it is harder, two different things)
|
On January 19 2013 10:07 oscarsg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 09:56 NDDseer wrote:On January 19 2013 09:48 oscarsg wrote:On January 19 2013 09:43 NDDseer wrote:On January 19 2013 09:31 bo1b wrote:On January 19 2013 09:18 forsooth wrote:On January 19 2013 08:02 bo1b wrote:On January 19 2013 02:18 Mongolbonjwa wrote:On January 19 2013 01:59 TsGBruzze wrote:On January 19 2013 01:20 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
I have said this for long time, and I say this again. Terran is the hardest race by far, both mechanically and strategically.
Terran has been nerfed to the ground so many times that I have lost track, and blizzards unability to make mech work in TvP despite many attemps and opportunities tells me that nothing is going to change. I would say that terran as it is now, is in wrong game because other two races are just so much more mobile and flexible that terran has hard time to compete with them in any aspect of the game. i cant agree with you, i played terran a long time, a very long time and just recently wanted to switch. and in my experience i must say zerg strategy and macro is hard, hell even the micro is hard unless you go for infestors... Please, you cant seriously say that zerg has harder macro while only thing they need to build is hatchery and occasional tech building while terran constantly has to build new production facilities and addons and pay attention to merciless production cycles while zerg can forget those because larva does not disappear anywhere. Also eventually terran runs out of space and needs to build stuff to more vulnerable places. Micro harder for zerg you say? How can you even compare your baneling a-move to marine splits that require good reaction times and fast actions otherwise all marines are gonna melt away. This game also makes autoflank so well that you dont neccesarily need to pay attention to battle at all while for terran this is never true. You ever kept up injects on 5 hatches + creep spread? Zerg macro is hard lol, the only race with easy as shit macro is protoss. It's pure cyclical repetition. Zero thought involved. A bit more APM intensive, sure, but not difficult at all. Thats pretty much what macro is, repetition. Terran macro (eg building more barracks) requires some degree of thought to it. Should I keep building units, or can I skimp a round so I have a stronger reinforcement later? Do I need more tech labs, more reactors, more barracks or more units? Is it better to get a second starport or more barracks (quick, scan protoss tech and hope to find out, then have a bit of an educated guess). I guess no one ever over-drones anymore. The overdroning will lose you the game as rapidly as fucking up all your production, sure, but the problem is that the main obstacle for zerg is looking after their drone/tech choices and less about microing, army positioning/awareness etc. So while shitty macro can lose you the game for either race, it's FAR FAR easier for terran to lose the game because of not watching their army properly, not microing engagements well, not having the multitasking to force zerg to respond to attacks in multiple locations (compare how often terran players drop vs zerg players do ling runbys, reality is that terran is the "active" player in forcing increased multitasking by both players). So if zerg fucks up their macro, they lose, but if they don't they have quite a margin of error for army awareness, micro, multitasking due to speed/mobility of zerg units. If terran fucks up their macro, they lose, but if while focussing on macro they miss a critical (read, any engagement ever) moment for micro, army awareness, multitasking, they lose as well with far less margin for error. I'm not denying any of that, I think that Terran is the hardest race to play "best" as well. But saying that the Zerg mechanics and micro is easy is just flat out stupid.
Do you even read what I write?
I have not said that Zerg macro or micro is easy, anywhere. In the quotes, some other guy has, I was just continuing the discussion.
Here is the summary of my case:
No race is "easy", but Zerg macro is of comparable difficulty to Terran while being easIER on a micro/army positioning front.
(Similar for protoss, but not the case I'm making at the moment)
Teach a bronze Zerg player how to macro (reasonable injects, a bit of creep spread, not completely over or under droning, not losing to shit like unscouted dts/banshees) and they are 85% of the way to diamond or master. Throw in some basic engage/run decision making and ability to account for the occassional multipronged attack and they're set.
Teach a bronze Terran player how to macro (reasonable barracks timings, reasonable production rounds, reasonable mule drops/scans, reasonable cheese defence vs unscouted dts), and even though this is of comparable difficulty to the Zerg macro, you have only got your Terran player 50% of the way to diamond or master. They will still need significant training in army awareness, when to move out, when to force a fight/back off, when/how to effectively multipronged harass, complicated micro manoeuvres like siege tank leapfrogging and creep clearing with small groups of marines that are loaded in medivacs when the lings show up.
A Zerg vs Terran matchup where players are of comparable "macro" capability and the Terran has little/no "micro" skill advantage will heavily favour the Zerg player because "macro" is so much more integral to their success (but not more difficult than Terran macro). This is the case the OP is making, noting that this disparity is especially prominent around the diamond-low master skill level. I completely agree.
NOTE that the POTENTIAL/POWER for either race and the PRO SKILL LEVEL are not being discussed, as at the highest levels terrans are able to turn the complexities of terran into advantages, however this is really unfeasible at lower levels. If a gold league player asked you how to improve his game, you'd tell him to stop splitting marines like a boss and start spending that 2k mineral bank, but even if he makes that adjustement he will still just be crushed by a Gold league Zerg with similar macro skills because banelings don't benefit nearly as much from proper attention as marines do. The Terran needs not to replace his micro with macro to have an advantage, but to be able to perform both. Zergs can improve by just switching their attention from micro to macro.
|
On January 19 2013 01:17 haffy wrote:
I don't think everyone picks their race on balance. I picked Terran at the start, then switched to Zerg when they were considered the harder race and Terran considered OP. I only did it because I liked Zerg play style. I didn't really care that I dropped a league or two at the time.
This is literally exactly what happened to me. I spent months watching beta and learning builds for terran and then season after release climbing the ladder with terran as my main race. Then i learned that alot of people at the time where claiming terran to be OP and zerg very unpowered and wanted a challenge, at this point im just to invested into zerg to switch again and drop a league.
|
honestly there's so much negativity surrounding Terran, it's not surprising that people are leaning away from playing it.
|
On January 19 2013 08:50 Talack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 08:46 EleanorRIgby wrote:
yea at high masters level its a lot easier for a terran to just lose the game to a bad push or if your opponent gets a good storm and warps in 20 zealots.
If you want to win as terran you have to be at least somewhat aggressive, while z/p can play passive and win just fine. This philosophy was completely fine before they made all the aggression so easy to hold off without really sacrificing any economy for it.
This is what pisses me off the most about HotS. Protoss gets the mothership core which is a fantastic support / defense unit . It ensures that even if the the protoss is caught off guard by a drop, they can still pf nexus or recall to defend it.
|
Do you even read what I write?
I have not said that Zerg macro or micro is easy, anywhere. In the quotes, some other guy has, I was just continuing the discussion.
Here is the summary of my case:
No race is "easy", but Zerg macro is of comparable difficulty to Terran while being easIER on a micro/army positioning front.
(Similar for protoss, but not the case I'm making at the moment)
Teach a bronze Zerg player how to macro (reasonable injects, a bit of creep spread, not completely over or under droning, not losing to shit like unscouted dts/banshees) and they are 85% of the way to diamond or master. Throw in some basic engage/run decision making and ability to account for the occassional multipronged attack and they're set.
Teach a bronze Terran player how to macro (reasonable barracks timings, reasonable production rounds, reasonable mule drops/scans, reasonable cheese defence vs unscouted dts), and even though this is of comparable difficulty to the Zerg macro, you have only got your Terran player 50% of the way to diamond or master. They will still need significant training in army awareness, when to move out, when to force a fight/back off, when/how to effectively multipronged harass, complicated micro manoeuvres like siege tank leapfrogging and creep clearing with small groups of marines that are loaded in medivacs when the lings show up.
A Zerg vs Terran matchup where players are of comparable "macro" capability and the Terran has little/no "micro" skill advantage will heavily favour the Zerg player because "macro" is so much more integral to their success (but not more difficult than Terran macro). This is the case the OP is making, noting that this disparity is especially prominent around the diamond-low master skill level. I completely agree.
NOTE that the POTENTIAL/POWER for either race and the PRO SKILL LEVEL are not being discussed, as at the highest levels terrans are able to turn the complexities of terran into advantages, however this is really unfeasible at lower levels. If a gold league player asked you how to improve his game, you'd tell him to stop splitting marines like a boss and start spending that 2k mineral bank, but even if he makes that adjustement he will still just be crushed by a Gold league Zerg with similar macro skills because banelings don't benefit nearly as much from proper attention as marines do. The Terran needs not to replace his micro with macro to have an advantage, but to be able to perform both. Zergs can improve by just switching their attention from micro to macro.
this a million times
i would also like to add that terran production cycles are much more frequent than warp gate/inject cycles thus should a terran be on point with positioning and micro the it is relatively more taxing to maintain the same macro as the other races. This effect on lower level players is even more magnified because the powerful micro potential of terran comes at a price of losing almost any no micro vs no micro engagements.
While the macro mechanics each race have relatively the same difficulty, the need for micro for a terran player is what makes terran powerful yet incredibly unforgiving. On the other hand. For lower level players the absolute requirement for micro really exploits any weakness in mechanics more than the other races.
|
Someday, terran players will learn SC2 doesn't revolve around your race.
Also, are people(mainly terrans;what a surprise) still clinging to this myth their race requires the most skill?
Really? *sigh*
|
On January 19 2013 09:07 oscarsg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 08:56 SupLilSon wrote:On January 19 2013 08:50 oscarsg wrote:On January 19 2013 08:40 SupLilSon wrote:On January 19 2013 08:02 bo1b wrote:On January 19 2013 02:18 Mongolbonjwa wrote:On January 19 2013 01:59 TsGBruzze wrote:On January 19 2013 01:20 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
I have said this for long time, and I say this again. Terran is the hardest race by far, both mechanically and strategically.
Terran has been nerfed to the ground so many times that I have lost track, and blizzards unability to make mech work in TvP despite many attemps and opportunities tells me that nothing is going to change. I would say that terran as it is now, is in wrong game because other two races are just so much more mobile and flexible that terran has hard time to compete with them in any aspect of the game. i cant agree with you, i played terran a long time, a very long time and just recently wanted to switch. and in my experience i must say zerg strategy and macro is hard, hell even the micro is hard unless you go for infestors... Please, you cant seriously say that zerg has harder macro while only thing they need to build is hatchery and occasional tech building while terran constantly has to build new production facilities and addons and pay attention to merciless production cycles while zerg can forget those because larva does not disappear anywhere. Also eventually terran runs out of space and needs to build stuff to more vulnerable places. Micro harder for zerg you say? How can you even compare your baneling a-move to marine splits that require good reaction times and fast actions otherwise all marines are gonna melt away. This game also makes autoflank so well that you dont neccesarily need to pay attention to battle at all while for terran this is never true. You ever kept up injects on 5 hatches + creep spread? Zerg macro is hard lol, the only race with easy as shit macro is protoss. Try using camera hotkeys and more than 3-4 control groups. It's really not that difficult... I can't tell you how many master/GM zergs I've seen playing with 3 control groups.... Parting uses only 2 hotkey groups for units, and YoDa does the same as a Terran. But hey, if the Zerg macro is so easy, why is it that no one is even close to HyuN's level of pure macro/mechanics? Why can he be the only one to do these amazing builds with multi-harassment, whilst expanding and getting 200/200 with Hive tech and 10+ infestors after 13 minutes? Why can Life keep his initial 8-10 lings alive forever, whilst other Zerg players loses them one after another? The ceiling hasn't been reached yet, and to talk about "easy mechanics" is an imbecile worthy. "Easier", maybe. What are you even talking about? No one is close to HyuN in macro and mechanics? How many GSLs has HyuN won? Oh yea... 0 So GSL wins = best mechanics? Does that mean that Mvp has better mechanics/macro than Gumiho? Does MC have better mechanics/macro than Parting/Rain? Does Nestea have better mechanics/macro than HyuN?
No, but if he had unparalleled macro and mechanics like you claim then he should have at least won 1 fucking GSL by this point...
|
On January 19 2013 10:51 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 09:07 oscarsg wrote:On January 19 2013 08:56 SupLilSon wrote:On January 19 2013 08:50 oscarsg wrote:On January 19 2013 08:40 SupLilSon wrote:On January 19 2013 08:02 bo1b wrote:On January 19 2013 02:18 Mongolbonjwa wrote:On January 19 2013 01:59 TsGBruzze wrote:On January 19 2013 01:20 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
I have said this for long time, and I say this again. Terran is the hardest race by far, both mechanically and strategically.
Terran has been nerfed to the ground so many times that I have lost track, and blizzards unability to make mech work in TvP despite many attemps and opportunities tells me that nothing is going to change. I would say that terran as it is now, is in wrong game because other two races are just so much more mobile and flexible that terran has hard time to compete with them in any aspect of the game. i cant agree with you, i played terran a long time, a very long time and just recently wanted to switch. and in my experience i must say zerg strategy and macro is hard, hell even the micro is hard unless you go for infestors... Please, you cant seriously say that zerg has harder macro while only thing they need to build is hatchery and occasional tech building while terran constantly has to build new production facilities and addons and pay attention to merciless production cycles while zerg can forget those because larva does not disappear anywhere. Also eventually terran runs out of space and needs to build stuff to more vulnerable places. Micro harder for zerg you say? How can you even compare your baneling a-move to marine splits that require good reaction times and fast actions otherwise all marines are gonna melt away. This game also makes autoflank so well that you dont neccesarily need to pay attention to battle at all while for terran this is never true. You ever kept up injects on 5 hatches + creep spread? Zerg macro is hard lol, the only race with easy as shit macro is protoss. Try using camera hotkeys and more than 3-4 control groups. It's really not that difficult... I can't tell you how many master/GM zergs I've seen playing with 3 control groups.... Parting uses only 2 hotkey groups for units, and YoDa does the same as a Terran. But hey, if the Zerg macro is so easy, why is it that no one is even close to HyuN's level of pure macro/mechanics? Why can he be the only one to do these amazing builds with multi-harassment, whilst expanding and getting 200/200 with Hive tech and 10+ infestors after 13 minutes? Why can Life keep his initial 8-10 lings alive forever, whilst other Zerg players loses them one after another? The ceiling hasn't been reached yet, and to talk about "easy mechanics" is an imbecile worthy. "Easier", maybe. What are you even talking about? No one is close to HyuN in macro and mechanics? How many GSLs has HyuN won? Oh yea... 0 So GSL wins = best mechanics? Does that mean that Mvp has better mechanics/macro than Gumiho? Does MC have better mechanics/macro than Parting/Rain? Does Nestea have better mechanics/macro than HyuN? No, but if he had unparalleled macro and mechanics like you claim then he should have at least won 1 fucking GSL by this point...
Why? There is more to the game then just mechanics, and even having much faster hands doesn't ensure victory. Mvp is proof of this.
|
Yes.
It's the most mechanically demanding race, which means it requires the most amount of boring and mundane "training" to reach certain casual levels of play that zerg and especially protoss can achieve with simply messing around and being creative.
This doesn't mean you can be the best with poor mechanics with any race. Top players of each race have astonishing speed and precision, on average zerg tending to have the highest APM and EPM (to those who care).
Each race requires skill, knowledge, creativity, planning and many other things, just each requires every category to a different extent.
Terran simply relies on mechanics to improve more than the other two races, which can be very dull to train and difficult to track improvement.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Once a protoss opponent gets storm or a Zerg gets infestors, unless I'm able to push at that point in the game and do major damage(take out their army+a base(or two)) etc... I usually figure I lost the game but I still try hard as hell to win lol. It just becomes really hard even if you keep your macro up to dodge the storms or FG. One FG then several banes to kill that whole group etc... I do find it easier to macro(not considering injects) with Zerg since I just have to worry about hitting single hotkey -> sdddd or szzzz etc... That's my opinion anyways 
|
one simple way to look at whats different about about terran compared to other two race is that terran is the one who decides the outcome of a typical battle through terran player's ability to micro. such as vs fungal, storm, baiting ff, stutter step, etc. stand there do nothing; zerg/toss wins, micro like god; terran wins.
|
Terran players saying Terran is the hardest. Seems legit.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 19 2013 11:27 Prevolved wrote:
Terran players saying Terran is the hardest. Seems legit.
Try making an actual counter argument and contributing to the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
