That's such a crap myth that Terrans continously try to build up. Anytime a foreigner was really dominant you could find more than one source saying that he/she has Koreanlevel mechanics - Idra, Jinro, Huk, Naniwa, Stephano, MaNa, Thorzain, Nerchio.
Basically just read a list of premier tournament winners, lookout for foreigners and you will find those names - and hardly any other apart from a few exceptions - again. It's the guys with Code A/S mechanics that are topforeigners, regardless of what they play.

Even more, if you go to sc2ranks.com and watch the racedistribution of Korea you will see that Protoss was often the most played race there. According to the "Protoss/Zerg easier"-myth the GSL should have had at least the same Protoss representation as it had Terrans or Zergs right now (similar/higher amount of players, easier to go pro with protoss according to the myth). But this statistical effect didn't show up for 2.5years.
We know today that gameplay 2 years ago was very suboptimal. According to P/Z "easier to learn", players of those races should have dominated Terran at that time as Terrans would have been stuck at a lower skilllevel compared to P/Z mediocre skilllevel. I ask you, where were they? Why could Mvp, Polt, MKP, MMA dominate over players that with the same training were already closer to optimal play?

You can't use that as your "proof" of a crap myth. You aren't in any position to state that MVP, Polt, etc *wouldn't* have won even if they used a different race.

Big J

Austria16289 Posts

March 10 2013 20:49 GMT

#182

On March 11 2013 05:31 D_K_night wrote:

Show nested quote +

On March 10 2013 20:39 Big J wrote:

On March 10 2013 18:55 monkybone wrote:

On March 10 2013 16:27 AstroPegnuin wrote:
It's always funny to read how biased Terran players are and ignorant to the actual realities of the games balance, Terrans would tell you that they deserve to be made Saints because playing Terran is of the same caliber of Jesus' sacrifice. The whole foreigner Terran struggle argument is completely invalid to me because there are no where near as much hard working foreign Terran as there is Protoss and Zerg, I would love to see someone veto all foreigner players who have trained in Korea who have predominantly been Protoss and Zerg in the foreigner standings, I would not at all be surprised to see Terran do much better on the totem pole for non KR.

There's a reason why there's not as many Terran players and Protoss and Zerg players. There is a continuous spectrum of skill among the players, and the density is just higher at the top for Protoss and Zergs. For every mediocre Protoss and Zerg you have a bad Terran who is not differing in skill. And for every good Protoss and Zerg you have a mediocre Terran. It gives the impression of that there are less Terrans than Zergs and Protosses, but the matter of fact is that the few foreign Terran players who actually are relevant practice their ass off like no one else, like Kas.

To just look at it superficially and say that there's just not as many Terrans as there are Zergs and Protosses and state that as a reason why Terran is doing bad in the foreign scene is inverting the causality. Terran isn't doing bad because of lack of Terrans. There is a lack of Terrans because Terran is harder at the pro level.

You can't use that as your "proof" of a crap myth. You aren't in any position to state that MVP, Polt, etc *wouldn't* have won even if they used a different race.

Yeah and that's absolutly not what I was talking about... I was stating that Terran is not harder to learn and therefore it was possible for those players to win tournaments. Of course I believe that those guys are/were amazing players. But if Terran was really reasonably harder to learn than the other races, they other races would have dominated them at times from which we know that there was still a lot to learn about the game. (because they would have been "further down the road", if it had been easier for them to learn)

Rabiator

Germany3948 Posts

March 11 2013 05:54 GMT

#183

On March 11 2013 03:43 Sabu113 wrote:

Show nested quote +

I am glad you're taking hte level headed approach...

Statistics are merely a tool to tell a story. Any halfway competent person observing the games could draw a roughly similar timeline to what the stats pulled. GomTvT was the consequence of a badly designed and badly balanced game.

God I wish people would look past their personal ladder problems.

I am the guy who is sitting on the couch with a bag of chips watching the game solely for the upcoming screw-ups by the Blizzard balancing team. It will happen, because they didnt manage to get a stable balance for WoL in all those years and the new HotS units are even funkier than most of the previous stuff. I should seriously make a bet as to when Blizzard comes around and notices that there are real problems in their mechanics which make balancing rather impossible.

algorithm0r

Canada486 Posts

March 11 2013 07:21 GMT

#184

Sweet report Orek. As always.

Your subjective thoughts are really well thought out, though perhaps a bit "mainstream" at times. Personally I think the Zerg OP of now is more connected to earlier infestor buffs than the queen buff... the queen buff allowed them to survive the only answer to infestor broodlord --- early aggression.

ThaReckoning

United States197 Posts

March 11 2013 19:48 GMT

#185

I think it should be noted that while interesting, this data is more useful to the observer and developer, not the player. What I mean is that while everything isn't necessarily balanced, it's always beatable. If your goal is to be good at the game, I'd shy away from reading threads like this one, Anything the other guy can do, you can beat. Take Goku's beginner's mindset and apply it to SC2, and it'll make your life much easier as a player.