|
Well, it's not a surprise for me. I play both Protoss and Terran at top diamond level. Here are some stats from Sc2Gears:
Number of games played: Terran - 127, Protoss - 79 Average APM: Terran - 208, Protoss - 122 Average EAPM: Terran - 138, Protoss - 71 Win ratio in TvP/PvT: Terran - 52%, Protoss -74% Win ratio in mirror matchup: Terran - 51%, Protoss - 43% Win ratio vs Z: Terran - 49%, Protoss - 52% Average win ratio across all matchups: Terran - 51%, Protoss - 59%
What is also worth noticing, that I pretty much don't know any build order for Protoss after 5 minute mark. In PvZ i just go for FFE and try to place 3rd asap, in PvT I go Nexus first Oz style (with Forge and cannons after nexus), then I just do whatever, if I don't die in early game, I win pretty much no matter what I transition into. In PvP I go for 3 gate robo.
As a Terran, I've got at least 2-3 build orders per matchup, depending on the map. I can execute them perfectly, yet I struggle a lot more than when I play Protoss. Even though, I prefer Terran, because it's much more challenging, and it gives me much more satisfaction when I win. Protoss is more of a one-hand relax race. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if I put as much work in my Protoss as I did in Terran, I'd get to top Masters in a month. It's just so boring compared to Terran.
|
In my opinion Terran is the race that has the most beautiful and complex strategies and micro possibilities of the three, making it better in the hands of the absolute top players. But because of this it is also by far the hardest to play, so much can go wrong and you need to be on top of your game every single second.
This must be very frustrating to anyone who is not a Code S player, which is people who play on the ladder.
|
On September 21 2012 19:43 theJob wrote: I didn't know that we measure game balance by how many are playing a specific race. Seems to me that people grab on to whatever they find to try to construct arguments about game balance. Why look at a derivative statistic (at best) of game balance when the cold data (win ratios) are publically available? You do realize that Match Making will give you 50% winrate, unless you are gm and in gm most of the players have like 55%-60% winrate and top players have more. So better player playing worse race will have same winrate than worse player playing better race. But ofcourse we cant measure what makes a player better. Only way to measure race balance and player skill is that every pro starts playing random and then after total of 1000000 random games played we can see how did each race perform.
|
To be honest I really really love the situation right now. For me this has been kind of a positive development, just because my TvT sucks balls.
my winratio is so much better now than it was 5 months ago. (although it might have something to do with me going back to Broodwar for this time, which appears to have doubled my mechanical skills).
|
I personally like that terran is having a hard time atm, tbh it's not that bad when 1.5 came out but still. It feels better when you win.
There's also the problem of no good EU/US terrans. Kas sometimes show some brilliance but it's not enough. Happy is just a one trick pony, always plays the same. Lucifron has showed some good games, but I doubt it he'll continue to.
|
On September 21 2012 20:10 sCuMBaG wrote: To be honest I really really love the situation right now. For me this has been kind of a positive development, just because my TvT sucks balls.
my winratio is so much better now than it was 5 months ago. (although it might have something to do with me going back to Broodwar for this time, which appears to have doubled my mechanical skills).
Yes that's a good way to look at it, back when zerg was underpowered for nearly 10 months wins meant more and it forced you to refine your play as much as possible. There is a certain appeal to play the "underdog" race.
Think of it in this way, once patches get in action and balance is restored your hard-earned skills will make you rise faster.
|
On September 21 2012 20:14 Andr3 wrote: I personally like that terran is having a hard time atm, tbh it's not that bad when 1.5 came out but still. It feels better when you win.
There's also the problem of no good EU/US terrans. Kas sometimes show some brilliance but it's not enough. Happy is just a one trick pony, always plays the same. Lucifron has showed some good games, but I doubt it he'll continue to. Saying "no good [insert race] in [insert continent]" is getting really old and its stupid. Did you know about slivko, vortix or sortof 6months ago? Propably not. Suddendly they got "good" and old "good" terrans stopped being good, for example strelok, cloud, naama, sjow and many others.
|
IMO Terran is the most difficult race to play late game for these reasons:
1) Terran produces units in the worst way. Lots of Barracks, Factories, or Starports. Zerg gets to make one tech building and they can pop 20 muta, roach, infestor, ulta, etc at once from just their mining bases and a macro hatch. Protoss can max out and wait for cooldown on gateways and instantly repopulate their armies. They also have chrono.
What this means is that Terran is stuck in whatever tech path they choose. If Terran has 10 barracks he can't just switch to 10 factories or starports. There is not enough resources, space, or time, or upgrades.
Z can change army composition on a whim, P can as well to a lesser extent. T is stuck with whatever.
2) Terran battle micro is harder. This is an undeniable fact. Z/P is very 1a + spellcaster, maybe blink or burrow or focus fire. Terran has to split their army to avoid AoE. Has to stim and stutter. Has to siege. Has to cloak shee. Has to EMP/Snipe.
Terran has much more to do in battles, and therefore has more chances to lose their squishy armies if they mess up even one of the micro scenarios I mention.
|
On September 21 2012 13:20 -Switch- wrote: refer to races in code S. game is fine
Why reference code S, the majority of games are played without knowing your opponent style and without having a week to prepare on each map.
|
On September 21 2012 20:17 mazqo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 20:14 Andr3 wrote: I personally like that terran is having a hard time atm, tbh it's not that bad when 1.5 came out but still. It feels better when you win.
There's also the problem of no good EU/US terrans. Kas sometimes show some brilliance but it's not enough. Happy is just a one trick pony, always plays the same. Lucifron has showed some good games, but I doubt it he'll continue to. Saying "no good [insert race] in [insert continent]" is getting really old and its stupid. Did you know about slivko, vortix or sortof 6months ago? Propably not. Suddendly they got "good" and old "good" terrans stopped being good, for example strelok, cloud, naama, sjow and many others.
funny all those names popped out after the queen patch
|
I've always gone with the rule that KR is balanced racial wise, EU is Zerg and US has a lot of Protoss.
|
On September 21 2012 10:48 Chocobo wrote:
Korea GM: zerg 37.4%, protoss 34.5%, terran 28.2% Korea masters: zerg 27.6%, protoss 33.3%, terran 34.3%, random 4.8%+
Europe GM: zerg 37.3%, protoss 36.7%, terran 24.9%, random 1.2% (random GMs, pretty sick) Europe masters: zerg 35.3%, protoss 35.1%, terran 25.5%, random 4%
SEA GM: zerg 32.4%, protoss 38.1%, terran 25.9%, random 3.6% SEA masters: zerg 32.2%, protoss 32.2%, terran 30.7%, random 5%
China GM: zerg 39.3%, protoss 32.5%, terran 24.8%, random 3.4% China masters: zerg 31.9%, protoss 34.3%, terran 28.2%, random 5.6%
Looks like the results are pretty similar with the exception of Korea... a place known to have higher overall skill levels, so that the skill requirements of terran aren't as much of a drawback. But even there the GM league is low on terrans.
Of course, looking at races used on ladders is a horrible way to determine game balance... tournament competition is one of the best ways, and it's looking pretty even there.
And I couldn't agree more with Bippzy's post... there's nothing wrong with having a race that's tougher to learn but has the most potential if played very skillfully.
How is that even possible? There are 200 spots in GM, which means the biggest alteration can be .5% 1 out of 200 = 0.5%
It's not possible to have 37.4% zerg, it should be 37% 37.5% or 38%. These statistics have just proven to be inaccurate, once again.
|
On September 21 2012 20:29 kaluro wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 10:48 Chocobo wrote:
Korea GM: zerg 37.4%, protoss 34.5%, terran 28.2% Korea masters: zerg 27.6%, protoss 33.3%, terran 34.3%, random 4.8%+
Europe GM: zerg 37.3%, protoss 36.7%, terran 24.9%, random 1.2% (random GMs, pretty sick) Europe masters: zerg 35.3%, protoss 35.1%, terran 25.5%, random 4%
SEA GM: zerg 32.4%, protoss 38.1%, terran 25.9%, random 3.6% SEA masters: zerg 32.2%, protoss 32.2%, terran 30.7%, random 5%
China GM: zerg 39.3%, protoss 32.5%, terran 24.8%, random 3.4% China masters: zerg 31.9%, protoss 34.3%, terran 28.2%, random 5.6%
Looks like the results are pretty similar with the exception of Korea... a place known to have higher overall skill levels, so that the skill requirements of terran aren't as much of a drawback. But even there the GM league is low on terrans.
Of course, looking at races used on ladders is a horrible way to determine game balance... tournament competition is one of the best ways, and it's looking pretty even there.
And I couldn't agree more with Bippzy's post... there's nothing wrong with having a race that's tougher to learn but has the most potential if played very skillfully. How is that even possible? There are 200 spots in GM, which means the biggest alteration can be .5% 1 out of 200 = 0.5% It's not possible to have 37.4% zerg, it should be 37% 37.5% or 38%. These statistics have just proven to be inaccurate, once again. It's probably because GM is not full. At least when the data was taken.
|
this is a call for terrans to play harder! stop qqing like the other races do and play harder
|
On September 21 2012 20:05 YaShock wrote:This would fix nothing, but it would make bunker rushes even more viable. It's not a good idea. He was making a joke towards how the bunker has been patched
|
On September 21 2012 20:31 Santi wrote: this is a call for terrans to play harder! stop qqing like the other races do and play harder
we are talking about the casual players who play for fun, not for money. and if i have to play harder to be able to stay at a 50% winrate, then the game feels unfair and not rewarding to play.
|
If Terran is the hardest race to play then why do they win majority of the GSL's >.<
I mean if MVP switched to Zerg he would be unbeatable??? That doesn't seem logical.
|
too many bad terran players on ladder in general. When a zerg or toss plays terran, they either stomp the terran, or terran stomps zerg/toss.
The dividing gap between good and bad terrans is too wide due to high skill cap for terran
|
On September 21 2012 20:34 graNite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 20:31 Santi wrote: this is a call for terrans to play harder! stop qqing like the other races do and play harder we are talking about the casual players who play for fun, not for money. and if i have to play harder to be able to stay at a 50% winrate, then the game feels unfair and not rewarding to play. Casual players in GM, so it's little different. And no one has to play harder, no one even has to try to have 50% except low bronze.
|
In BW, it was pretty much a unanimous consensus that toss was the easiest race to play. In SC2 the easier races are clearly Z/P, so below pro there is going to be some imbalance just because terran has a much higher skill cap and requires better mechanics to play well. some things never change =)
|
|
|
|