KCM/Race Survival
Why does flash play terran? - Page 7
Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
kidcrash
United States616 Posts
KCM/Race Survival | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2667 Posts
| ||
QOGQOG
817 Posts
On July 27 2021 07:55 TMNT wrote: Lol this kind of debate literally just happened 2 pages before between me and another guy, and of course plenty other times in the past 20 years. Some guys would make a list of all the hard things Terran has to do, and then claim them harder/hardest, without ever accounting for what Protoss and Zerg have to do. Or sometimes they did account for, but with completely false information. For example, I find the bit about scouting the most amusing. Terran is the race with the most and the strongest timings in the game, yet somehow he makes it out that P and Z don't need scout as much as Terran. Ever heard of a thing called 5 Fact bro? Yeah, it's a sort of tilting at windmills experience. Nice to have company though. The scouting thing still baffles me. Forget PvT, has no one ever played/watched PvP or PvZ? On July 27 2021 09:01 kidcrash wrote: Yes protoss is the easiest race which is exactly why they won almost every KCM season and got 2nd place when they didn't..... https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/KCM/Race_Survival Geez, I had forgotten just how brutal the record there was. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
On July 27 2021 07:55 TMNT wrote: Lol this kind of debate literally just happened 2 pages before between me and another guy, and of course plenty other times in the past 20 years. Some guys would make a list of all the hard things Terran has to do, and then claim them harder/hardest, without ever accounting for what Protoss and Zerg have to do. Or sometimes they did account for, but with completely false information. For example, I find the bit about scouting the most amusing. Terran is the race with the most and the strongest timings in the game, yet somehow he makes it out that P and Z don't need scout as much as Terran. Ever heard of a thing called 5 Fact bro? Lets look at the matchups involving Terran, and what Zerg and Protoss needs to scout for: TvZ (bio): Terran needs to: - Scout once at 11/12 supply. If not finding Zerg first, must send another scv immediately towards other location. Must also have hotkeyed scvs ready to send to choke, or will die to even initial lings off of any pool first build. - Keep scv alive at minimum to see if Z saves larva, is making lings, lair timing and number of hatcheries - See with scv or scan to see spire or hydra den, each requiring completely different response - Constantly scout for 3rd base, scout for army composition At this point, failing to identify any of this can result to an immediate auto loss to speedling all in, early ling rush, lurker all in, muta all in - in fact, even without going all in, Terran will die to any tech choice unless heavily attempting to counter it. Further: - Is Zerg doing Crazy Zerg? Requires a very specific response (sit 2base, add rax earlier than normal, wait for upgrade timing, keep all units together) - Is Zerg going Guardians? - Is Zerg doing heavy lurker style? Must put down multiple factories immediately - Is Zerg sneaking 4th base? Unless scouted and punished, Terran will lose the game Now what does Zerg HAVE to know to not simply lose the game? Generally, Zergs doesn't even bother to drone scout - Terran openers are predictable and can be countered completely blindly, as long as initial lings are put outside base. Must put overlord to look for bunker rush outside nat. Later, Zerg needs to identify mech vs bio, but can do so with initial mutas without any issues - there is no auto loss if its not identified earlier. Later, Zerg can easily see a possible mech switch and deal with it as it happens. True, there are some builds that requires Zerg to be more adaptive, such as 2port wraith - but that is a complete non meta build, as viable Terran builds are, as mentioned, extremely predictable. Zergs are totally happy with Terrans essentially expanding at free will - 5base Z vs 5 base T means a clean victory for +5 carap ultra/defiler/ling. In terms of micro: Zerg needs to have muta micro, but can be effective even without using mutas at all, or making them but not using them very procatively. Defilers can be totally avoided, but are as mutas, difficult to use without having developed skills in using them. Zerg has the option to just not use these units, such as getting into ultras, or doing lurkers. Terran (in bio play), must use M&M and be very delicate about anti muta micro, map movement to avoid lurkers, anti lurker micro, all units must be stimmed quickly and microd vs ultras. Meanwhile lings and ultras are simply a-moved and are extremely effective without even being controlled beyond a simple a-move across the map. Compare that to terran units - all must be babysat the entire game through. TvP: Scouting: - Terran must scout for proxy 2gate (and other proxies such as reaver etc), identify whether an expand is coming up or not - or they autolose to DTs, fast Zealots etc. - Terran must look for timing of bases, number of gates, tech choice / playstyle What does Protoss need to do ? Countering even the strongest all in (2fact) can be done with pure kiting micro, no need for any specific response in terms of build. If, however, P goes DTs or fast reaver, Terran MUST get ebay + turrets or it is simply over. There is no way to counter it once it has been made obvious, as is the case with any Terran cheese. Micro: - Even the most low effort, lazy Protoss offense such as forward gate or simply sending a zealot across the map requires sim city and heavy micro. - All Terran units must be microed delicately to be effective. Tanks needs to be sieged and unsieged and mindful of their position on the map - just to not die to simple gateway push needs careful set up tanks and sim city, and mines. All this is WAY more micro intensive than any Protoss army control. - Tanks needs to focus fire goons, vults needs to be kept in front of army and focus zealots, and continually placing mines - Vessels and tanks needs to be spread to avoid being easily countered by Arbiter stasis. All of this is the bare minimum to survive against D level Protoss. Meanwhile, Protoss micro is a lot simpler - zealots run first, dragoons follow up, use arbiter to stasis (or recall). On the point of recall, Terran needs to be very sensitive to the timing of recalls, and place mines and turrets to even attempt to hold the recall - which often will still go through and do damage no matter what, effectively preventing a Terran pushout. Protoss is playing worry free - some cannons is enough to defend mineral line and bases, and they enjoy full map control. kogeT has already stated how Terran is a lot more demanding than the other races - The amount of confirmation bias that must exist to not see this obvious fact is to me absurd. It isn't really relevant who says it tho - it is clear as day. | ||
iFU.pauline
France1390 Posts
On July 27 2021 23:07 krooked wrote: Now what does Zerg HAVE to know to not simply lose the game? Generally, Zergs doesn't even bother to drone scout - Terran openers are predictable and can be countered completely blindly, as long as initial lings are put outside base. Must put overlord to look for bunker rush outside nat. Later, Zerg needs to identify mech vs bio, but can do so with initial mutas without any issues - there is no auto loss if its not identified earlier. Later, Zerg can easily see a possible mech switch and deal with it as it happens. True, there are some builds that requires Zerg to be more adaptive, such as 2port wraith - but that is a complete non meta build, as viable Terran builds are, as mentioned, extremely predictable. Zergs are totally happy with Terrans essentially expanding at free will - 5base Z vs 5 base T means a clean victory for +5 carap ultra/defiler/ling. I need water. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
| ||
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
| ||
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
On July 27 2021 23:45 krooked wrote: ^ I get it, its much easier to attempt to ridicule than to actually form any coherent argument. But consider the following: It is 200/200 armies, both on full 4 base economy. Who has the advantage, T or Z? That is an odd scenario (Z rarely maxes only on 4 bases) but if it's mech, then probably T. If it's bio then probably Z. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
2. Many Zergs opt out of drone scouting. This is completely normal, and while nobody is saying its completely pointless to drone scout, the key point is that it is not strictly necessary, as scv scouting is as Terran. 3. Going back to the lategame T vs Z scenario, its not "probably" better for Z to be endgame, it is "definitely" and "obviously" better for Z. Its honestly absurd to claim anything else. 3-3 marines do absolutely nothing vs +5 carap ultra/defiler. Its not even a point of contention. edit: 4. Speaking of defilers, if Zerg sneaks a defiler into T nat, the game is just over, it is essentially irrelevant how the game has gone up until that point. What kind of "autolose" scenario does Z have, where they are ahead by god knows how much, but just lose the game? Same goes with missclicking marines or not scanning lurkers, or not babysitting army - the game can simply be lost in a moment. This just doesn't happen with Zerg, unless they make much more grave mistakes, like flying all of their mutas into the bio ball. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2667 Posts
On July 27 2021 23:07 krooked wrote: Later, Zerg can easily see a possible mech switch and deal with it as it happens. It took zerg players years to figure out a counter to the quick mech switch. Zerg had to adapt by utilizing broodling tech much earlier in the game than normal. Without it, various mech switch timings were looking more and more broken over time. Then after a few more years came another counter by terran where they deceptively go for mass goliaths because zerg virtually or sometimes literally can't scout the terran base after a certain point, so they don't know if terran goes pure goliaths or also mixes in some tanks, making quick broodling tech a gamble. Unexpected mass goliaths - unsurprisingly - are still giving zerg players at every level a headache, and is one of the easier and least taxing strategies (which also addresses another point you make later). True, there are some builds that requires Zerg to be more adaptive, such as 2port wraith - but that is a complete non meta build, as viable Terran builds are, as mentioned, extremely predictable. How is 2 port wraith predictable in any capacity? This is literally one of the most hated builds by zerg players precisely because it's almost completely unpredictable. On top of that it's also quite effective unless zerg knows the correct response(s) inside out. Zergs are totally happy with Terrans essentially expanding at free will - 5base Z vs 5 base T means a clean victory for +5 carap ultra/defiler/ling. That's the current state of the game. It used to be zerg players suffering against mech transition combined with mass expanding and having no good response to it. Thanks to the rivalry between Flash and Larva, the cards have been flipped, and terrans again have to play a much more aggressive style to win their fair share of games. PS: I'm terran main, so no bias there on my part. In terms of micro: Zerg needs to have muta micro, but can be effective even without using mutas at all, or making them but not using them very procatively. This is akin to saying: "Terran needs to have m&ms, but can be effective even without using m&ms at all." (See: goliaths) The second part in your sentence is even more absurd. If zergs build mutas and don't use them, the huge ball of m&ms can roam freely all over the map and zerg will have to expend lots of valuable resources just to survive until hive tech. That approach doesn't have a great record compared to, you know, the mutas actually being used to kill marines. And every zerg player knows how difficult muta micro is, but you seem to not want to admit that, and your argument devolves into "just don't do any muta micro". Defilers can be totally avoided, but are as mutas, difficult to use without having developed skills in using them. Not sure what you mean by that. Defilers can be avoided? The truth is that zergs depend on defiler tech because it offers the best winrate on average. They can surely skip it, but then they're typically making a small sacrifice to their winrate. The longer the game goes, the more valuable defiler tech becomes. We've seen terrans make all sorts of crazy comebacks when there's a lack of defilers on the map. They're more than just a booster to a zerg army, they also create crucial stability in the zerg defenses. That's why terran has to try various timing attacks and drops to destabilize a zerg using defiler tech (at least that's the current meta). Zerg has the option to just not use these units, such as getting into ultras, or doing lurkers. Terran has the option to not use m&ms, too. Simply tech to goliaths and play a whole game using mech. Also, when you say "or lurkers", that's a strange point. Lurkers without defiler tech lose their value very rapidly. The combined power of siege tanks, vessels and m&ms obliterates lurker/hydra or lurker/ling. Terran (in bio play), must use M&M Yes, but they can do a mech build. Why are you ignoring that option? and be very delicate about anti muta micro Same goes for muta micro. , map movement to avoid lurkers Same goes for lurkers against m&ms with tanks and/or vessels. , anti lurker micro Anti m&m micro isn't any easier. , all units must be stimmed quickly and microd vs ultras. Meanwhile lings and ultras are simply a-moved and are extremely effective without even being controlled beyond a simple a-move across the map. Compare that to terran units - all must be babysat the entire game through. Zerg has to keep repositioning his army and refilling it with key units like defilers. Zerg has to manage more bases than terran and constantly keep an eye out for timing attacks and dropships (if terran plays a standard m&m build). I could also address your claims about TvP, but your arguments about TvZ are off by so much that I don't care to also go into that. What your opinion boils down to is this: zergs can just sit around and build units without using them, until they use them with a-move and win. Every single point in your argument derives from that premise. What this means is that - instead of observing the game from an unbiased point of view and coming to factual conclusions - you have a preconceived idea and then build your argument to support that, and you handwave away every observation that contradicts your idea. So you put the cart before the horse, and when it gets stuck you ignore the facts rather than objectively and honestly address the problem with your approach. Edit: funny coincidence. Just now I'm watching a game on stream from JyJ against Effort, skipping over m&m tech in the early game and instead quickly massing goliaths. Seems like even some top players see the value in this build. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
It took zerg players years to figure out a counter to the quick mech switch. Zerg had to adapt by utilizing broodling tech much earlier in the game than normal. Without it, various mech switch timings were looking more and more broken over time. Then after a few more years came another counter by terran where they deceptively go for mass goliaths because zerg virtually or sometimes literally can't scout the terran base after a certain point, so they don't know if terran goes pure goliaths or also mixes in some tanks, making quick broodling tech a gamble. Unexpected mass goliaths - unsurprisingly - are still giving zerg players at every level a headache, and is one of the easier and least taxing strategies (which also addresses another point you make later). 1. I am talking about the game in its current meta. For all I know, Terran was the easiest race by far at some point in 2001 - but that really isn't relevant to the discussion 2. As I've already stated, mech makes TvZ a lot easier for T, and is not what I am discussing. Bio is the meta viable way to play at the highest levels, and thus the playstyle I am discussing. How is 2 port wraith predictable in any capacity? This is literally one of the most hated builds by zerg players precisely because it's almost completely unpredictable. On top of that it's also quite effective unless zerg knows the correct response(s) inside out. I never said 2port wraith is predictable. Read my post again. What I said was that standard Terran play is predictable. 2port wraith is not standard play. Why do you think I brought 2port wraith up? That's the current state of the game. It used to be zerg players suffering against mech transition combined with mass expanding and having no good response to it. Thanks to the rivalry between Flash and Larva, the cards have been flipped, and terrans again have to play a much more aggressive style to win their fair share of games. PS: I'm terran main, so no bias there on my part. As I've said multiple times, I am talking about bio, not mech. I'm not concerned with whether or not you are Terran main, Zerg main, Protoss main or if you are F rank or S rank. It simply isn't relevant. An F rank Protoss player could come into this thread and say something that is objectively true, and an S rank Terran main could come in here and say something untrue. I look at the argument you make, not who you are as a person or player. This is akin to saying: "Terran needs to have m&ms, but can be effective even without using m&ms at all." (See: goliaths) The second part in your sentence is even more absurd. If zergs build mutas and don't use them, the huge ball of m&ms can roam freely all over the map and zerg will have to expend lots of valuable resources just to survive until hive tech. That approach doesn't have a great record compared to, you know, the mutas actually being used to kill marines. And every zerg player knows how difficult muta micro is, but you seem to not want to admit that, and your argument devolves into "just don't do any muta micro". 1. Again, I'm talking about bio TvZ. 2. I definitely did acknowledge that muta micro is necessary to be a skillful muta user. But mutas aren't actually necessary for zerg, nor is utilizing them with high level muta micro necessary to succeed at lower levels of play. To be able to play SK terran at a base level requires some MM micro, or else you just auto lose the game. To sum up my point: Yes, muta micro is difficult and a display of skill. It is not however a prerequisite to play with great muta micro to succeed at lower levels of play, as Zerg can go into 3H mutas and use mutas without great muta micro and still do well (again, at lower levels) and transition into ultras or lurkers, while Terran is using MM whole game through and a bare minimum of micro skill is needed to not just automatically lose the game (read: stim rines, split vs lurkers, huddle up vs ultras/mutas etc). Yes, but they can do a mech build. Why are you ignoring that option? I'm not ignoring it. If Terrans started playing mech all the time, then TvZ would be easier for T than for Z. But SK Terran is the prefered way of play because it is stronger. That is why I am talking and discussing TvZ in the perspective of bio. TvZ bio is still more difficult to play than ZvT muta into defilers, even though that is also very difficult. + Show Spoiler + Same goes for muta micro. Yep, difference is that there are a ton of other factors (which you of course just ignored) that adds up to Terran being more difficult. But its true, muta micro is difficult. Probably more difficult than just pure anti muta micro. + Show Spoiler + Same goes for lurkers against m&ms with tanks and/or vessels. You're not going to lose all your lurkers in an instance because you looked away for a split second. + Show Spoiler + Anti m&m micro isn't any easier. Yes it is. + Show Spoiler + Zerg has to keep repositioning his army and refilling it with key units like defilers. Zerg has to manage more bases than terran and constantly keep an eye out for timing attacks and dropships (if terran plays a standard m&m build). I could also address your claims about TvP, but your arguments about TvZ are off by so much that I don't care to also go into that. What your opinion boils down to is this: zergs can just sit around and build units without using them, until they use them with a-move and win. Every single point in your argument derives from that premise. What this means is that - instead of observing the game from an unbiased point of view and coming to factual conclusions - you have a preconceived idea and then build your argument to support that, and you handwave away every observation that contradicts your idea. So you put the cart before the horse, and when it gets stuck you ignore the facts rather than objectively and honestly address the problem with your approach. 1. What difficulty is there "managing" a base? Placing some static defence and rallying units isn't very time intensive. 2. IDK what zergs you're playing, but constantly repositioning his army? You mean sending them through nydus canals? 3. Cool, so you can debunk my arguments but you won't. Interesting. 4. That isn't what my argument boils down to. Its not even close to what I'm saying. That might be what your head is interpreting it as, but that is on you. Not surprisingly, you're caught up in attacking me as a player. Its interesting that your "middle of the road" view of everything being fair is somehow automatically correct and "unbiased". I haven't ignored any facts. I've presented an argument for why Terran is harder to play than Z or P. You could of course disagree, like for instance insisting that zerg army micro is in fact harder or somehow exactly equally difficult as MM micro, and we could discuss that in depth. But to say that it is a "fact" that its equally hard isn't any more unbiased than to say it is a "fact" that Terran is harder. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2667 Posts
On July 28 2021 01:00 krooked wrote: 1. I am talking about the game in its current meta. For all I know, Terran was the easiest race by far at some point in 2001 - but that really isn't relevant to the discussion 2. As I've already stated, mech makes TvZ a lot easier for T, and is not what I am discussing. Bio is the meta viable way to play at the highest levels, and thus the playstyle I am discussing. 1. The current meta is a result of previous metas. If you ignore the context of how it came to be and what the current struggles are for each race, you can make an argument for or against just about anything. Terrans are currently struggling against zergs more than they did until a few years ago. That's just how things go in this game, every discovery has the potential to change the meta. So it is absolutely relevant to the discussion, but that fact doesn't suit your argument. 2. You have to ignore mech because it's an inconvenient fact that throws a curveball into your argument. You're arguing "zerg can play a simpler game and still win", but at the same time you reject the fact that terran also has the same option. And you have to reject this fact, because otherwise your argument falls apart due to being inconsistent. Mech is viable, zerg strats that are less difficult are also viable, and therefore if you embrace one viable option but not the other you're being selective in your argument, and that makes for very poor reasoning. How is 2 port wraith predictable in any capacity? This is literally one of the most hated builds by zerg players precisely because it's almost completely unpredictable. On top of that it's also quite effective unless zerg knows the correct response(s) inside out. I never said 2port wraith is predictable. Read my post again. What I said was that standard Terran play is predictable. 2port wraith is not standard play. Why do you think I brought 2port wraith up? I can't read your mind. Just tell us, why DID you bring up 2port wraith (especially seeing that you prefer to ignore non-standard/non-m&m builds)? Obviously m&m builds are (somewhat) predictable, because they're standard. You can say that about every standard build, regardless of the race! That's the current state of the game. It used to be zerg players suffering against mech transition combined with mass expanding and having no good response to it. Thanks to the rivalry between Flash and Larva, the cards have been flipped, and terrans again have to play a much more aggressive style to win their fair share of games. PS: I'm terran main, so no bias there on my part. As I've said multiple times, I am talking about bio, not mech. I'm not concerned with whether or not you are Terran main, Zerg main, Protoss main or if you are F rank or S rank. It simply isn't relevant. An F rank Protoss player could come into this thread and say something that is objectively true, and an S rank Terran main could come in here and say something untrue. I look at the argument you make, not who you are as a person or player. The mech transition I was talking about there (that resulted in extraordinary terran domination for years) is connected to a standard m&m opening. Are you aware of the historical context of this strategy and its impact on TvZ winrates? The point is that metas change over time, and currently terran players are having trouble with their standard m&m builds, and the reason is that the quick mech transition is significantly less viable than it used to be for several years. The option to transition quickly and unexpectedly at any given time gave m&m builds a huge boost in viability, because it allowed terrans to either play aggressively (skipping mech transition) or defensively (mech transition + many bases). Zerg players were completely overwhelmed by these options. Larva figured out a way to combat every type of mech transition and put the ball back into the terran corner, forcing them to play a more aggressive game again (because nowadays zerg is more powerful in the late late game). Furthermore I made this point in response to your claims about 5 base zerg being stronger than 5 base terran, so it was you who provoked that argument about the viability of mech transition after a standard m&m opening. But this is inconvenient for your case. You prefer to sidestep the argument. This is akin to saying: "Terran needs to have m&ms, but can be effective even without using m&ms at all." (See: goliaths) The second part in your sentence is even more absurd. If zergs build mutas and don't use them, the huge ball of m&ms can roam freely all over the map and zerg will have to expend lots of valuable resources just to survive until hive tech. That approach doesn't have a great record compared to, you know, the mutas actually being used to kill marines. And every zerg player knows how difficult muta micro is, but you seem to not want to admit that, and your argument devolves into "just don't do any muta micro". 1. Again, I'm talking about bio TvZ. How convenient for you that you can just keep sidestepping the solution for terran of simply not doing a standard m&m build that would be easier to pull off. This option is an inconvenient fact for your case. 2. I definitely did acknowledge that muta micro is necessary to be a skillful muta user. But mutas aren't actually necessary for zerg, m&ms aren't necessary for terran either. nor is utilizing them with high level muta micro necessary to succeed at lower levels of play. Oh, now you're selectively talking about lower levels. But your argument also fails here, because terran can use goliaths, which are a viable option for lower level terrans. But you don't like that, you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to focus on lower levels of play, but you also want to have the full theoretical terran arsenal from playing standard m&m builds, even though you yourself admit that this is harder at lower levels of play. Well guess what: the exact same thing is true for muta micro (or defiler usage in the late game). Your argument is therefore inconsistent. To be able to play SK terran at a base level requires some MM micro, or else you just auto lose the game. The same is true for muta micro and defiler usage. To sum up my point: Yes, muta micro is difficult and a display of skill. It is not however a prerequisite to play with great muta micro to succeed at lower levels of play, as Zerg can go into 3H mutas and use mutas without great muta micro and still do well (again, at lower levels) and transition into ultras or lurkers, while Terran is using MM whole game through and a bare minimum of micro skill is needed to not just automatically lose the game (read: stim rines, split vs lurkers, huddle up vs ultras/mutas etc). You say that great muta micro is not a prerequisite to play at lower levels, but at the same time you don't want to admit that great m&m micro is not a prerequisite at the same lower level either. This is a double standard. Yes, but they can do a mech build. Why are you ignoring that option? I'm not ignoring it. If Terrans started playing mech all the time, then TvZ would be easier for T than for Z. But SK Terran is the prefered way of play because it is stronger. That is why I am talking and discussing TvZ in the perspective of bio. TvZ bio is still more difficult to play than ZvT muta into defilers, even though that is also very difficult. Why would you care that standard m&m is more difficult if you can instead opt to use goliaths? I know why, it's because then your argument falls apart. Same goes for muta micro. Yep, difference is that there are a ton of other factors (which you of course just ignored) that adds up to Terran being more difficult. But its true, muta micro is difficult. Probably more difficult than just pure anti muta micro. Then what are you complaining about? If zerg can win without great muta micro, then terran can win without playing standard m&m. This solution is obvious. Same goes for lurkers against m&ms with tanks and/or vessels. You're not going to lose all your lurkers in an instance because you looked away for a split second. You don't know what you're talking about, this happens all the time at lower levels. Heck, it even happens at higher levels sometimes. Anti m&m micro isn't any easier. Yes it is. Oh really? A few paragraphs above you said this: But its true, muta micro is difficult. Probably more difficult than just pure anti muta micro. You just contradicted yourself. I think I'll leave it at that. Your argument is filled with holes. | ||
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
On July 28 2021 00:19 krooked wrote: 1. I made it clear I was talking about bio. I dont know how 200/200 mech vs 200/200 Z looks, but I would be surprised if its a clear advantage for T. 2. Many Zergs opt out of drone scouting. This is completely normal, and while nobody is saying its completely pointless to drone scout, the key point is that it is not strictly necessary, as scv scouting is as Terran. 3. Going back to the lategame T vs Z scenario, its not "probably" better for Z to be endgame, it is "definitely" and "obviously" better for Z. Its honestly absurd to claim anything else. 3-3 marines do absolutely nothing vs +5 carap ultra/defiler. Its not even a point of contention. edit: 4. Speaking of defilers, if Zerg sneaks a defiler into T nat, the game is just over, it is essentially irrelevant how the game has gone up until that point. What kind of "autolose" scenario does Z have, where they are ahead by god knows how much, but just lose the game? Same goes with missclicking marines or not scanning lurkers, or not babysitting army - the game can simply be lost in a moment. This just doesn't happen with Zerg, unless they make much more grave mistakes, like flying all of their mutas into the bio ball. 1. Fair enough. 2. Maybe on 2 player maps where overlord is sufficient but if you don't know that terran is going mech, the vulture will be game-ending usually. I might be wrong though but please give some examples. 3. If you macro and control properly, 3-3 marines are not that bad against ultralisks unless you've failed to prevent zerg from getting too many bases. Now there is a certain point where ultralisks in great enough number beats mass 3-3 marines but at that point you should transition into making tanks and bcs or even late mech switch. I think zerg is favoured at this point of the game but this is fair because zerg is weaker than terran during midgame and early late game.. 4. This is not true at all. It is a bad situation but happens fairly often and a calm, collected terran will often be able to survive it by lifting cc while irradiating the lurker/defiler. Also, zerg can be quite ahead and lose to drop or sunken bust, both of which are pretty common ways of losing when ahead as zerg. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
1. The current meta is a result of previous metas. If you ignore the context of how it came to be and what the current struggles are for each race, you can make an argument for or against just about anything. Terrans are currently struggling against zergs more than they did until a few years ago. That's just how things go in this game, every discovery has the potential to change the meta. So it is absolutely relevant to the discussion, but that fact doesn't suit your argument. 2. You have to ignore mech because it's an inconvenient fact that throws a curveball into your argument. You're arguing "zerg can play a simpler game and still win", but at the same time you reject the fact that terran also has the same option. And you have to reject this fact, because otherwise your argument falls apart due to being inconsistent. Mech is viable, zerg strats that are less difficult are also viable, and therefore if you embrace one viable option but not the other you're being selective in your argument, and that makes for very poor reasoning. 1. No, it isn't relevant. It doesn't matter whether or not Terran was more or less difficult during a different meta. My argument is about the current meta. Maybe one day in the future, Terran will be the by far easiest race - but whatever happens now, won't be an argument for it being harder or easier then. It is as simple as that. 2. Its amazing how obtuse you manage to be. I've several times stated that yes, mech is easier. We both know its completely viable. But when I talk about difficulty in TvZ, as an argument for OVERALL difficulty of playing the Terran race, I bring up BIO PLAY. If someone were to only play mech TvZ, then their experience of Terrans overall difficulty would definitely be less difficult than someone who plays bio, but Terran would still be overall the most difficult race. But bio play exists, it is the most difficult and most viable way to play TvZ, and that is what I revolve my argument around. It really shouldn't be difficult to understand. But to take a page out of your book of arguing, I guess your argument relies on calling out some imagined fallacy in mine. + Show Spoiler + I can't read your mind. Just tell us, why DID you bring up 2port wraith (especially seeing that you prefer to ignore non-standard/non-m&m builds)? Obviously m&m builds are (somewhat) predictable, because they're standard. You can say that about every standard build, regardless of the race! You don't need to read my mind. Simply read the post where I brought it up. There is no ignoring of non standard builds. The argument revolves around what is meta and viable. Sure all terrans could go only goliath in all matchups and just a-move everywhere, and it would be easy af. But it would fall apart at higher levels of play. So we discuss what is actually meta. We talk about standard play because everyone can grab a free strategic win by cheesing. Yes, 2port is hard to hold. So is 2fact, so is one base lurker, so is proxy 2gate. But whereas 2port wraith is pretty rare, 2fact and 2gate isn't. + Show Spoiler + The mech transition I was talking about there (that resulted in extraordinary terran domination for years) is connected to a standard m&m opening. Are you aware of the historical context of this strategy and its impact on TvZ winrates? The point is that metas change over time, and currently terran players are having trouble with their standard m&m builds, and the reason is that the quick mech transition is significantly less viable than it used to be for several years. The option to transition quickly and unexpectedly at any given time gave m&m builds a huge boost in viability, because it allowed terrans to either play aggressively (skipping mech transition) or defensively (mech transition + many bases). Zerg players were completely overwhelmed by these options. Larva figured out a way to combat every type of mech transition and put the ball back into the terran corner, forcing them to play a more aggressive game again (because nowadays zerg is more powerful in the late late game). Furthermore I made this point in response to your claims about 5 base zerg being stronger than 5 base terran, so it was you who provoked that argument about the viability of mech transition after a standard m&m opening. But this is inconvenient for your case. You prefer to sidestep the argument. Again, the context simply isn't relevant. There is no side stepping of any argument. How convenient for you that you can just keep sidestepping the solution for terran of simply not doing a standard m&m build that would be easier to pull off. This option is an inconvenient fact for your case. There is no sidestepping, what do you not understand? I have made no claims that Terran mech is harder to play than Zerg. Thats exactly why I'm focusing on bio. Read this line 10 times until you understand it. m&ms aren't necessary for terran either. If you play SK Terran, which is what I am talking about, and have been talking about all the time, then they definitely are necessary. Oh, now you're selectively talking about lower levels. But your argument also fails here, because terran can use goliaths, which are a viable option for lower level terrans. But you don't like that, you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to focus on lower levels of play, but you also want to have the full theoretical terran arsenal from playing standard m&m builds, even though you yourself admit that this is harder at lower levels of play. Well guess what: the exact same thing is true for muta micro (or defiler usage in the late game). Your argument is therefore inconsistent. Again, you keep eternally harping on about mech. Get it through your skull - I'm not talking about mech. Jesus christ. I want to focus on lower level of play because that is what most players are. Once you are a pro player or semi pro, the difficulty of terran isn't that much of an issue anymore, as thousands upon thousands of hours of gameplay has ironed them out. The same is true for muta micro and defiler usage. Not really. Mutas aren't necessarily the main army of Z, and just learning muta micro is easier and less complex than learning how to control MM against all the different types of Z units. Controlling 4+ control groups of MM latgame is just one of many situations where it is simply more difficult than microing mutas. You say that great muta micro is not a prerequisite to play at lower levels, but at the same time you don't want to admit that great m&m micro is not a prerequisite at the same lower level either. This is a double standard. Depending on the definition of "great", it is necessary, because a Z just putting some lurkers in the ground, or a-moving his ultralisks will force a lower level player to show great micro to not just auto die. Marines simply will not be effective unless they are controlled properly, using stim, bunching up etc. Mutas on the other hand can just target fire and pull back and be very effective in lower levels. Why would you care that standard m&m is more difficult if you can instead opt to use goliaths? I know why, it's because then your argument falls apart. As I've said a billion times, not talking about goliath build or mech. Then what are you complaining about? If zerg can win without great muta micro, then terran can win without playing standard m&m. This solution is obvious. Yeah, definitely true. Completely besides the point I'm making or the discussion overall. You don't know what you're talking about, this happens all the time at lower levels. Heck, it even happens at higher levels sometimes. Can you please carefully explain exactly how that would happen? I supposed you have a video since it happens even at the highest level. I'm certain whatever you show me won't be half as bad as walking marines over lurkers.Let me paint a scenario: A group of marines walk across the map, h-position lurkers are in their path, the entire army dies, the game is over. Meanwhile, lets say worst case scenario, a group of lurkers are walking and get shelled by tanks - they simply turn around. Lurkers are essentially never the entire Zerg army, and they don't die as quickly. Oh really? A few paragraphs above you said this: Anti MM micro isn't only muta micro. Be consistent with what words you use. I think I'll leave it at that. Good, bye Anc13nt: 2. Not sure what examples you want? 3. 3-3 marines are that bad against +5 ultra carapace and defilers. Pro players are struggling vs Crazy Zerg even at +4 carap with essentially perfect macro. Even 3base crazy zerg is extremely scary. Again, I really do not understand what the point is discussing this. Go into a game with a friend and just macro up to 5base and let Z tech to +5 carap ultra defiler and see if you can win. I guarantee you, you cannot. 4. Depends entirely on the situation. A single defiler with some backup, just walking up to the army in the nat isn't that dangerous. But several defilers or defiler early in the game walking up while terran is out on the map (which is usually the case) is, as I said, almost always game ending. Terrans aren't turtling at home in their base - thats the easiest way to lose, and that opens for defilers walking up to nat. 5. If Zerg are ahead but losing like that, it is because they are greedy and play with almost no units. Its definitely true that Zerg generally plays as greedy and as brittle as possible for the later powerspike, and that is one of the challenges Zerg players face. As I've said many times before - the fact that Z or P has challenges doesn't disprove that Terran is harder than the other races. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2667 Posts
On July 28 2021 03:39 krooked wrote: 1. No, it isn't relevant. It doesn't matter whether or not Terran was more or less difficult during a different meta. Yes, it is relevant. You're trying to handwave away arguments that don't support your case, you're trying to conveniently shape the argument in ways to support your position only and not anyone else's. That is dishonest. Its amazing how obtuse you manage to be. I've several times stated that yes, mech is easier. We both know its completely viable. But when I talk about difficulty in TvZ, as an argument for OVERALL difficulty of playing the Terran race, I bring up BIO PLAY. The overall difficulty at lower levels is not affected by m&m builds, because goliath play is viable. So you have an alternative that works perfectly well and is easier to execute than m&m builds, and therefore you have no argument in favor of terran being more difficult at lower levels than the other races. I don't care that m&m builds are more difficult than goliath builds. Goliath builds work and are easier at lower levels. Your argument isn't that m&m builds are more difficult, your argument is that terran is more difficult. You're pointing to m&m builds as a means to support that argument, but you're deliberately handwaving away a viable alternative that proves that terran is not more difficult, because if you accepted that alternative your argument would fall apart. If someone were to only play mech TvZ, then their experience of Terrans overall difficulty would definitely be less difficult than someone who plays bio, but Terran would still be overall the most difficult race. I need evidence for that claim. I don't believe you. You don't need to read my mind. Simply read the post where I brought it up. Nope, either you elaborate on your position on 2port wraiths or I'll ignore that argument. There is no ignoring of non standard builds. The argument revolves around what is meta and viable. Only meta at lower levels, as per your argument. At the lower levels the meta is simple: goliath builds are viable and easier to execute. It's on you to substantiate why those builds are also more difficult to play than the zerg builds that are viable at lower levels, because you made this claim without evidence. Sure all terrans could go only goliath in all matchups and just a-move everywhere, and it would be easy af. And yet again, you contradict something you said earlier: Terran would still be overall the most difficult race. It's either "still the most difficult race" or it's "easy af". Pick one. But it would fall apart at higher levels of play. Ah! Shifting the goalpost back to higher levels of play. You're quite clearly not capable of keeping your argument straight. Your arguments don't challenge me and I'm getting bored. Maybe you can peak someone else's interest. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
Yes, it is relevant. You're trying to handwave away arguments that don't support your case, you're trying to conveniently shape the argument in ways to support your position only and not anyone else's. That is dishonest. I've explained it several times already: It isn't relevant, because the discussion isn't "what race has historically been the most difficult", it is "what race is most difficult in the CURRENT META". If the previous meta was literally just attacking with workers, or if it was all one base, or all 4x expands before making a single unit - it just doesn't matter! The overall difficulty at lower levels is not affected by m&m builds, because goliath play is viable. So you have an alternative that works perfectly well and is easier to execute than m&m builds, and therefore you have no argument in favor of terran being more difficult at lower levels than the other races. I don't care that m&m builds are more difficult than goliath builds. Goliath builds work and are easier at lower levels. Your argument isn't that m&m builds are more difficult, your argument is that terran is more difficult. You're pointing to m&m builds as a means to support that argument, but you're deliberately handwaving away a viable alternative that proves that terran is not more difficult, because if you accepted that alternative your argument would fall apart. As previously stated, mech/goliath build isn't what is being discussed here. If we were talking about TvZ at lower levels, specifically using mech builds, then that is another topic of discussion. We are talking about bio builds. Its like me saying "well Zerg isn't really difficult, because you could simply opt to only play lurkers, and thus its easy!". I need evidence for that claim. I don't believe you. I've presented plenty earlier in the thread. You decided to home in on only TvZ argument, in fact you home in on only the possibility of playing mech instead. Consider that for a second. Nope, either you elaborate on your position on 2port wraiths or I'll ignore that argument. Then ignore it, I don't care. Its your loss. Only meta at lower levels, as per your argument. At the lower levels the meta is simple: goliath builds are viable and easier to execute. It's on you to substantiate why those builds are also more difficult to play than the zerg builds that are viable at lower levels, because you made this claim without evidence. If we consider meta, zerg has more playstyles than Terran, and those playstyles are easier to execute at lower level than SK terran is. Simple. And yet again, you contradict something you said earlier: Yes, easier overall, not in TvZ. God you're slow. Ah! Shifting the goalpost back to higher levels of play. You're quite clearly not capable of keeping your argument straight. No, the argument is perfectly straight. People at lower level follow the meta at higher level because they want to learn to play the strongest style of play, not whatever nets them the easiest strategic wins, such as just spamming strange all ins. Is that so difficult to understand? I'm glad you're getting bored, so you won't waste thread space on your non-argument bickering. | ||
Bonyth
Poland499 Posts
As for controling m&m, it could be harder to control them than controling mutalisks. But on the other side, sending a pair of dropships with d-matrix or without takes much less effort than it takes zerg to deny that. Same goes for battlecruiser usage. But since u seem to limit your theory only to m&m vs zerg, yeah, you are right, terran is probably harder. But there is more to SK build that u mention than just m&m control. Then again, i play protoss, so i could be wrong. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2667 Posts
On July 28 2021 06:09 krooked wrote: God you're slow. Ah yes, the best way to prove that you're right: resort to ad hominem. I don't "not understand" your point because I'm slow. I don't understand it because your argument is bad. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
Ad hominem is saying you're wrong because of something about you as a person. Saying you're stupid isn't an ad hominem. Saying you are wrong because you are stupid - that would be an ad hominem. Bonyth: I haven't limited my theory to that at all, the discussion revolved around that because those answering my original post decided to focus on those points specifically. I brought up a lot of other points too. I'm not trying to "accomplish" anything, simply stating my opinion on the topic of the thread - whether or not terran is harder to play than P or Z, which I believe it pretty obviously is - again, at "lower" levels. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2667 Posts
On July 28 2021 07:32 krooked wrote: Magic Powers: Ad hominem is saying you're wrong because of something about you as a person. Saying you're stupid isn't an ad hominem. Saying you are wrong because you are stupid - that would be an ad hominem. Bonyth: I haven't limited my theory to that at all, the discussion revolved around that because those answering my original post decided to focus on those points specifically. I brought up a lot of other points too. I'm not trying to "accomplish" anything, simply stating my opinion on the topic of the thread - whether or not terran is harder to play than P or Z, which I believe it pretty obviously is - again, at "lower" levels. Still an ad hominem the way you used it. Furthermore, you're arguing that standard m&m builds must be practiced in order to climb up the ranks. The same is true for zerg: they have to practice muta micro, and also defiler usage. You're focusing on terran because you have a bias, not because it's honest to say that terran has a harder time. | ||
| ||