I'm a mid masters random player who used to play Terran but felt like other races were "stronger" in the sense that they we're easier. In no way am I stating this as a fact, it is simply just my perspective after playing random for almost 3 months now. I urge that you please do not take this as an aggressive proposition, I simply want your opinions on the future of the Terran player base. Don't get me wrong; Zerg and Protoss are VERY difficult in their own ways and many times I have struggled, losing to simple builds such as 2factory mass hellions as zerg and multi pronged drops as Protoss. Of course these things I overcame over time.
According to SC2ranks, over the last year the Terran player base has been diminishing. I'm sure you are all well aware of this and have heard threads about it numerous times.
The general thesis is that Terran is simply "too hard", requiring better unit control, solid mechanics and higher apm than the other two races. To be honest I don't completely agree with this.
What I believe is that Protoss and Zerg both have a favorable aspect which I believe allows for them to be more 'Safe' or 'Prepared' or 'Advantageous'. Lets look at Protoss first.
Without a doubt, I would say that the Protoss army has the best ratio of Power:Mobility in the game. We all know what it is, the Protoss death ball. The Protoss army is almost always ready for battle (unless ghosts or fungal is involved). The army cannot be poked, it can only be engaged directly with good position if one was to come out the victor. The Protoss death ball has the advantage of making many positions on the map viable for an engagement. It is mostly the Terran or Zerg's obligation to find the best positioning available for an engagement which can be extremely difficult and very unrewarding if small mistakes are made. I would say that this is mainly because of the colossus and most certainly smart casting. If a Protoss finds himself in a bad position, with ease, in most situations, the Protoss can retreat to safety (FF can also play a part in this).
Due to the softness of vikings (in comparison to the corrupter), the Terran player can also easily lose his armies backbone if vikings are positioned poorly. Again with colossus having the ability to stand within the army amongst the anti air units, It can also become very difficult to find this positioning.
Hence putting lesser skilled Terrans diamond -> masters and even Grandmasters at a larger disadvantage in core battles. Zergs high mobility allows for safety vs Protoss.
Now Zerg I believe have an unbelievable advantage against Terran which I discovered over the last month or so. Building 5 queens at the start of a game vs Terran is one of the greatest most beneficial strategies you can choose. The focus required to spread creep against the focus required to kill the creep is heavily in favor of the Zerg I believe. With 5 queens you can spread tremendous amounts of creep which gives Zerg the most important thing that they need and a little bonus: Vision and MORE SPEED. As if speed-lings aren't fast enough! .
Now lets discuss killing creep as a Terran. To me it is as important to defend creep tumors as it is to defend a drop. When a Terran sends a squad of tumor killers, you make it a high priority to destroy that squadron. And when you have 8 tumors next to each other, it's really not hard to defend the tumors at all. To be straight forward with you, Terran's creep tumor denial abilities are extremely poor and easily countered. I believe the most effective way for a Terran to kill creep tumors is banshee raven, but of course like I said, easily counter able. Mutalisks and Infestors. Both units death with this substantially well and also any other creep destroying squadron. I have even found beneficial to make 4-5 Spine crawlers and move them with my creep tumors, it denies squadrons completely.
Finally when Terran is to engage the Zerg army, everyone knows that creep is the deadliest place to be. Units are faster and Zerg is given vision. Terrans only means of AoE are tanks. Tanks are a siege unit. Siege tanks take 2 seconds to assume siege mode. Any small mistakes, and like VS Protoss, the backbone of the Terran army disappears and like most situations for a Terran, you endure extremely cost inefficient battles and are put in a devastating position to come back from.
You may say, "Terran should have leap frogged' his tanks" (For those who don't know this term, it is when you leave some tanks siege'd and move un-sieged tanks forward, proceeding forward). Creep ultimately will slow down any timing push made by the Terran. If The Terran is to Leap frog his tanks forward, more time is given for the Zerg to prepare units, or even get in a great position to engage. Timing pushes ultimately work best when there is not creep. However with creep becoming harder and harder to deny, the Terran's strongest means of attack, the 'Timing push' is now at a disadvantage.
I have seen countless footage of Korean Terrans losing to zerg because they push their luck by walking a few extra cm on creep. The Terran may even scout arrowhead (Lead with a marine far beyond the pack) and siege when he see's the Zerg army, but you must truly understand the speed of Zerg units on creep. Tanks might get 2 shots off on lings depending on how far out you siege your tanks.
EDIT: I might as well add that Protoss players do not need to deal with creep the same way Terran players do due to the colossus' mobility.
Now I'm not saying Terran is underpowered on a Korean professional level, however on a lower level I would argue they are. Every race has their strengths and their weaknesses of course (perhaps the 5queen is a little too strong), however I am saying, that at a until a certain level of skill, Playing Terran is ultimately and uphill battle especially with the current map designs such as Entombed valley which is heavily Protoss favoured due to the ability to take a 3rd which is very easy to defend. This would explain why there are such low numbers of foreign pro Terrans, and would also explain the diminishing number of Terrans on ladder.
So my conclusion is to be that Terran will most likely remain the lowest played race due to mechanical issues. Unless perhaps there is to be innovative map design that allows for Terran to have easier access to advantageous positioning vs Protoss. I think the Zerg aspect is Fixable so we could see a change there. If tanks were made more viable vs Protoss then it would be a game changer. Of course I forgot to mention that when I say TvP i'm talking Bio which is the standard play.
This would also explain why Terrans all in so much on ladder I imagine XD
So there you have it. These are the conclusions I've drawn from playing all three races and I think I make some valid points. Please discuss and do not argue aggressively. This thread is in no way to cause trouble and I hope you can all sympathize for Terrans but keep crushing, would you not rather lose to a Terran with skill rather than a Terran who only knows all in?
Edit: I'm sure you have all seen the graphs of the Korean players losses to Foreigners. Terran has the highest amount of deaths to foreign Protoss and Zerg. Foreign Terrans however very rarely defeat a Korean Terran. I will try find a link http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=385876 ~ there you go, please scroll down.
Yes, Terran will be the least played race at lower levels due to mechanical difficulty. Same exact thing happened in BW. However, they were the most dominant at the professional level. It's just the way the world works when you have asymmetrical race design. Issues only arise when the skill demand/reward ratio is too skewed to reward easy play (like Infestor play) or if a race just doesn't have the means to counter a strategy with a reasonably expected level of mechanical skill.
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.
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.
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."
His essay doesn't say they are underpowered. Saying something is inherently harder to use for lower level people and saying something is underpowered is quite different.
You can have the most powerful calculator in the world at your fingertips, but if it is impossibly complicated, most people would rather use a simpler calculator. This doesn't mean that the calculator is underpowered, just that the initial learning curve is such that it harder for new users to learn it. Top KR terrans can make terran very strong, however, the point is that for the average-joe on ladder, many terran players are getting easily discouraged and leaving.
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.
I too wanted to switch to Zerg a while after I began playing however I was determined that I could become masters because I thought I was genuinely good at computer games and wanted to make it to masters whether Terran was OP at the time or UP.
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.
How is Terran more mechanical difficult at lower Leagues when Terran is the only race of them all that has similar mechanics to other RTS games. If you have ever played another RTS game, Terran will be the easiest to pick up and learn since they have the classic RTS mechanics with pumping out units from Barracks. Protoss and Zerg works completely different.
Just dont agree that Terran is difficult to learn.
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."
His essay doesn't say they are underpowered. Saying something is inherently harder to use for lower level people and saying something is underpowered is quite different.
You can have the most powerful calculator in the world at your fingertips, but if it is impossibly complicated, most people would rather use a simpler calculator. This doesn't mean that the calculator is underpowered, just that the initial learning curve is such that it harder for new users to learn it. Top KR terrans can make terran very strong, however, the point is that for the average-joe on ladder, many terran players are getting easily discouraged and leaving.
Yeah its pretty late here and I just spat those words out... Definitely could have explained some things better.
On January 19 2013 01:20 Avean wrote: How is Terran more mechanical difficult at lower Leagues when Terran is the only race of them all that has similar mechanics to other RTS games. If you have ever played another RTS game, Terran will be the easiest to pick up and learn since they have the classic RTS mechanics with pumping out units from Barracks. Protoss and Zerg works completely different.
Just dont agree that Terran is difficult to learn.
\
Well I learned Protoss and Zerg, and although at first I was terrible, the mechanics of the races can easily be learned even by just reading a few articles.,, "Don't miss your spit"... Protoss isn't really that far off from Terran macro wise
I disagree and I feel like you bring valid points without bringing their complement. For example when you talked about protoss you talked about its superior strengh but actually protoss army is so weak without colossus So for the protoss to survive the first 9 mins he needs to use forcefields to their greatest extend(this also require choosing army position to be easier to forcefield in panic mode) Now to zerg first most of your points in zvt is about creep which is actually not THAT hard to deal with and remember spreading the creep after the first 10 mins of the game requires some attention from the zerg so obviously terran needs some work to clear it. Clearing creep is an issue and i agree with that but that doesnt mean easier or harder it is an advantage for zergs who spend some of their apm on creep like for example terrans advantage in having planetary fortress which allows them to force the zerg army to be all their to destroy it. Note: There will always be a least represented race even if the game is perfectly balanced for me the main reason terran is under represented is that in general people try to play with different races in any game other than humans(not a fact just an observation)
I just lost all my games today against low masters and high diamonds, and i'm pretty depressed. I really feel like i play as well/better as my opponents but still get CRUSHED. Like, CRUSHED, in most of the games. I don't know, I'd love blizzard to do something about other races macro compared to terran's. We don't have something to increase our units production, only our income. Our production is the longest to come in to play because of addons. And our units aren't great enough to justify such handicaps imo. I really feel like switching races or just quitting, because terran is by far the funniest race to play for me, but losing all the time hopelessly isn't fun.
Well terran is much harder to play ata lower level. I am a life long terran player. When i first started Bronze 1v1 and D in BW, I was stuck in bronze FOREVER! Honestly now that i am mechanically sound i went right to masters. Terran is tough to play, it requires micro and better decision making than other races. Our units aren't as strong as protoss and not as fast as zerg. So we are forced to turtle. That isn't afun play style but it is what it is. So i can completely see why it is not played by as many people.
On January 19 2013 01:20 Avean wrote: How is Terran more mechanical difficult at lower Leagues when Terran is the only race of them all that has similar mechanics to other RTS games. If you have ever played another RTS game, Terran will be the easiest to pick up and learn since they have the classic RTS mechanics with pumping out units from Barracks. Protoss and Zerg works completely different.
Just dont agree that Terran is difficult to learn.
Maybe in the beginning, but learning the mechanics for Zerg and Protoss isn't that huge of a problem in my opinion. As a masters random player I think once you got the basic mechanics of Zerg and Protoss, the overall terran gameplay is much more unforgiving and difficult.
However the worst thing they could do is making terran easier, they should make aspects of the other races harder instead, for example infestor usage. Add more high risk high reward micro for the Zerg or Protoss army instead of (more or less) a-move would be really cool. I am not saying this is the case for all army compositions, but a lot of them don't require as much micro as a Terran going marine tank, splitting the marines, focus firing and kiting at the same time.
This belongs in "The Designated Balance Discussion"- thread. Just because you're venting in large paragraphs, that doesn't make it any less whining. Players of every race thinks their race is the hardest and/or weakest. You're a terran player, therefor you'd like to think that your race has it worst, because it's a part of the human defense mechanism to blame anything but yourself.
On January 19 2013 01:26 omars252 wrote: I disagree and I feel like you bring valid points without bringing their complement. For example when you talked about protoss you talked about its superior strengh but actually protoss army is so weak without colossus So for the protoss to survive the first 9 mins he needs to use forcefields to their greatest extend(this also require choosing army position to be easier to forcefield in panic mode) Now to zerg first most of your points in zvt is about creep which is actually not THAT hard to deal with and remember spreading the creep after the first 10 mins of the game requires some attention from the zerg so obviously terran needs some work to clear it. Clearing creep is an issue and i agree with that but that doesnt mean easier or harder it is an advantage for zergs who spend some of their apm on creep like for example terrans advantage in having planetary fortress which allows them to force the zerg army to be all their to destroy it. Note: There will always be a least represented race even if the game is perfectly balanced for me the main reason terran is under represented is that in general people try to play with different races in any game other than humans(not a fact just an observation)
Hey man you're totally right> Protoss is extremely weak without colossus I will agree with you there, however I am strictly talking small aspects of the game where Terran can lose very core battles with the inclusion of the colossus. Early game is a whole different story, hence the favorable Terran all ins.
On January 19 2013 01:33 ErAsc2 wrote: This belongs in "The Designated Balance Discussion"- thread. Just because you're venting in large paragraphs, that doesn't make it any less whining. Players of every race thinks their race is the hardest and/or weakest. You're a terran player, therefor you'd like to think that your race has it worst, because it's a part of the human defense mechanism to blame anything but yourself.
Hey man i'm trying my best to speak from a rational point of view. I gave up on Terran and switched to random. It is far more enjoyable and I support random now. In no way am I attempting to be biased.
On January 19 2013 01:28 Nimix wrote: I just lost all my games today against low masters and high diamonds, and i'm pretty depressed. I really feel like i play as well/better as my opponents but still get CRUSHED. Like, CRUSHED, in most of the games. I don't know, I'd love blizzard to do something about other races macro compared to terran's. We don't have something to increase our units production, only our income. Our production is the longest to come in to play because of addons. And our units aren't great enough to justify such handicaps imo. I really feel like switching races or just quitting, because terran is by far the funniest race to play for me, but losing all the time hopelessly isn't fun.
I suppose this is it. After playing several games with terran i suppose most people are fed up from dying to storms/colossi/fungal. For low level players it is pretty easy to get caught and in sc2 you can be punished pretty brutally by the amount of AoE in this game.
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.
You're right though. Even at the highest level, Zerg has been the best race for over a year and Terran is the most difficult race to win competitive tournaments with at the moment, even more so than it is as Protoss.
On January 19 2013 01:28 Nimix wrote: I just lost all my games today against low masters and high diamonds, and i'm pretty depressed. I really feel like i play as well/better as my opponents but still get CRUSHED. Like, CRUSHED, in most of the games. I don't know, I'd love blizzard to do something about other races macro compared to terran's. We don't have something to increase our units production, only our income. Our production is the longest to come in to play because of addons. And our units aren't great enough to justify such handicaps imo. I really feel like switching races or just quitting, because terran is by far the funniest race to play for me, but losing all the time hopelessly isn't fun.
Hey man I know your pain. I don't think those issues would do too well for balancing the Pro level however ahahah.. Just small things could use a change.
No point to beat a dead horse imo. All terran players know this. Players of other races would remain in denial. And of course blizzard won't do anything to help T. Its up to T players to make the race stronger these days, as it has been for a while. “Give up” as you want and no one would care.
I like "the protoss army is always ready for combat". That's just completely, absolutely, 100% wrong. This just seems pretty whiny to me overall. Entombed Valley is also not extremely protoss favored. There's tons of ways to abuse the map as terran, you just have to be competent enough.
On January 19 2013 01:46 DarkLordOlli wrote: I like "the protoss army is always ready for combat". That's just completely, absolutely, 100% wrong.
Yes you're correct it is completely wrong, the actually statement reads "The Protoss army is almost always ready for battle". Please use the direct quote.
On January 19 2013 01:46 DarkLordOlli wrote: I like "the protoss army is always ready for combat". That's just completely, absolutely, 100% wrong.
I'd like the hear an explanation on why you say that.
I feel compared to terran and zerg, that protoss IS battle ready all the time.
Ever had the problem that your melee units are stuck in the back as terran? Or zerg, with lings being super quick? Ever had the problem that you can't split up your army because it's super fragile in low numbers? There are a TON of fights you can't take as protoss or your army will melt away in seconds. If you walk out on the map, you always have to be aware of opponent's positioning so you don't get flanked because you can't take that fight. The "protoss deathball" that's being talked about with templar/chargelot/stalker/colossus loses to the ultimate terran deathball (viking, ghost, BC) and the ultimate zerg deathball (BL/infestor/corruptor), both of which are always ready to take fights no matter where and when.
On January 19 2013 01:46 DarkLordOlli wrote: There's tons of ways to abuse the map as terran, you just have to be competent enough.
Please enlighten us.
Multitasking aggression. Drop in the main, get positioning on the third. If protoss just warps in in the main and denies your positioning, pick up and drop in the natural. Just keep your macro up, keep protoss pinned back. And make ghosts. Use the path between natural and third against protoss by attacking colossi with vikings. You see that from players who are actually good.
i wasnt aware of this...terran is the most fun race for me. units worth micro'ing, not spells, but good old unit micro. it is understandable in lower leagues though, marine splitting is a requirement in marine based play in tvz.
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...
Well the other races are more rewarding to play with less effort. Terran is not underpowered or anything but you can't be lazy with the viable playstyles Terran has. If this changes Terran might become more popular. Also hard to get into Terran unless you read up on the topic. I don't mind it is nice to have a grind race.
From personal experience there are more defensive and passive players out there. Playing aggressive is something people have to get into and it is usually harder to do. Zerg is probably a good example for this, they can easily be aggressive as some pros show. But most people prefer to sit it out, because it is safer. And the easiest playstyle Terran has is the aggressive one, the defensive one is really hard to execute. So the race itself doesn't suit the majority of people. Loving defensive play, Terran was really hard to pick up for me despite being my favorite race. While Zerg was easy for me from the getgo. But I know aggressive players that have trouble with any race except Terran.
Anyway if they make mech to easy by allowing it to be played purely defensive, Terran will bloom.
On January 19 2013 01:46 DarkLordOlli wrote: I like "the protoss army is always ready for combat". That's just completely, absolutely, 100% wrong.
I'd like the hear an explanation on why you say that.
I feel compared to terran and zerg, that protoss IS battle ready all the time.
Ever had the problem that your melee units are stuck in the back as terran? Or zerg, with lings being super quick? Ever had the problem that you can't split up your army because it's super fragile in low numbers? There are a TON of fights you can't take as protoss or your army will melt away in seconds. If you walk out on the map, you always have to be aware of opponent's positioning so you don't get flanked because you can't take that fight. The "protoss deathball" that's being talked about with templar/chargelot/stalker/colossus loses to the ultimate terran deathball (viking, ghost, BC) and the ultimate zerg deathball (BL/infestor/corruptor), both of which are always ready to take fights no matter where and when.
On January 19 2013 01:46 DarkLordOlli wrote: There's tons of ways to abuse the map as terran, you just have to be competent enough.
Please enlighten us.
Multitasking aggression. Drop in the main, get positioning on the third. If protoss just warps in in the main and denies your positioning, pick up and drop in the natural. Just keep your macro up, keep protoss pinned back. And make ghosts. Use the path between natural and third against protoss by attacking colossi with vikings.
Please play some Terran before talking about a unit (Battlecruisers) built maybe one game out of 500, and drop play in a map with little to no air space.
On January 19 2013 02:00 FeyFey wrote: Well the other races are more rewarding to play with less effort. Terran is not underpowered or anything but you can't be lazy with the viable playstyles Terran has. If this changes Terran might become more popular. Also hard to get into Terran unless you read up on the topic. I don't mind it is nice to have a grind race.
From personal experience there are more defensive and passive players out there. Playing aggressive is something people have to get into and it is usually harder to do. Zerg is probably a good example for this, they can easily be aggressive as some pros show. But most people prefer to sit it out, because it is safer. And the easiest playstyle Terran has is the aggressive one, the defensive one is really hard to execute. So the race itself doesn't suit the majority of people. Loving defensive play, Terran was really hard to pick up for me despite being my favorite race. While Zerg was easy for me from the getgo. But I know aggressive players that have trouble with any race except Terran.
Anyway if they make mech to easy by allowing it to be played purely defensive, Terran will bloom.
ya mech is really what I believe would bring more people to play Terran
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.
Is there such thing as imbalance at lower levels? doesn't it mean that you're losing games simply because you're not good enough?
My struggles as a Gold League Terran lately have centered around the following reasons for losing: - "You just need to macro better." - "You didn't have the right army composition, you need to scout better."
While I understand that both of those elements are important, it feels like I'm fighting an up-hill battle in any non-mirror match up as a Terran. I can't simply focus on macro against Toss or Zerg because their late game armies are simply too powerful. I have to be at least as good on my macro AND be doing constant harassment to my Toss or Zerg opponent. Meanwhile, a Toss or a Zerg can just focus purely on macro and be just fine. I've heard plenty of comments like, "Of course you lost, you let the Toss/Zerg sit back and tech." I've never heard that said about losing to a Terran.
Scouting for army composition is another issue. In TvP, I need to know roughly how many Colossi and how many HT/Archons my opponent has to be able to balance my composition correctly. The same thing with TvZ. I'm having to respond to my opponent's composition. As a Terran in those match ups, is there any army composition that a Toss or Zerg has to worry about scouting ahead of time that will change their composition? It doesn't feel like the other two races have to respond to my composition nearly as much as I do to theirs.
I just think that you need a decent amount of game knowledge and experience before you can even "start" playing terran properly. Sure you can make stalkers, templar and collusi and attack and press t in bronze league. but can you use ghosts at all ? what about kiting zealots or split marines vs banelings? alot of these things make terran underpowered in low level play, unless you do a less mechanically requiring style like mech (your units will just do what they promise to do, and not die to aoe because you don't have high level control.) I don't think its a bad thing that terran is designed this way, since i really like the overall unit control based styles like bio, however it just makes it very hard for newer players. Maybe if blizzard makes mech viable, alot of newer players can start out terran with it, and then still have same success with the game as zergs and protosses at low level have with their race.
On January 19 2013 01:28 ImANinjaBich wrote: Well terran is much harder to play ata lower level. I am a life long terran player. When i first started Bronze 1v1 and D in BW, I was stuck in bronze FOREVER! Honestly now that i am mechanically sound i went right to masters. Terran is tough to play, it requires micro and better decision making than other races. Our units aren't as strong as protoss and not as fast as zerg. So we are forced to turtle. That isn't afun play style but it is what it is. So i can completely see why it is not played by as many people.
On January 19 2013 01:28 ImANinjaBich wrote: Well terran is much harder to play ata lower level. I am a life long terran player. When i first started Bronze 1v1 and D in BW, I was stuck in bronze FOREVER! Honestly now that i am mechanically sound i went right to masters. Terran is tough to play, it requires micro and better decision making than other races. Our units aren't as strong as protoss and not as fast as zerg. So we are forced to turtle. That isn't afun play style but it is what it is. So i can completely see why it is not played by as many people.
well terran is not a turtle race.
lol exactly. Of all 3 races Terran is the only one that CAN'T turtle successfully. You have to cheese like a madman if you want to win. Protoss seems to have the best turtle power due to forcefields and insane deathball splash damage. This is also pretty true for Zerg but only because infestors and broods are so overpowered. There is a reason Terran is always the aggressor in pro games, if you aren't constantly picking apart your opponents then you're getting behind.
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.
Having tech labs, like machine shops in BW and reactors is what makes Terran a pretty complicated race. It's really hard to be optimal with two addons that can be attached to any of the three different production buildings. The right switch times for tech switch, having to produce those crucial "counter" units is what makes the race more difficult to any player. I wish they wouldn't have introduced Terran having two addons which in its way is a pretty cool mechanic. But having to bounce so much between the addons make it much harder to make those optimal choices compared to the other races.
At 1k-1.3k points master through the last 4 seasons i have played 1050 games, only 250 of those were vs T. Definitely underrepresented, definitely harder to play, but not weaker.
The main reason i play zerg and not terran is simply aesthetics, i dont wan't to play a race that looks so generic and feel like I've played it to death in other rts games. Maybe thats the case for other people too.
It is unbelieveable how they made terran to be the race that always has to be the one who needs to react to opponents unit choises if the terran does not want to lose the game instantly.
On January 19 2013 01:28 Nimix wrote: I just lost all my games today against low masters and high diamonds, and i'm pretty depressed. I really feel like i play as well/better as my opponents but still get CRUSHED. Like, CRUSHED, in most of the games. I don't know, I'd love blizzard to do something about other races macro compared to terran's. We don't have something to increase our units production, only our income. Our production is the longest to come in to play because of addons. And our units aren't great enough to justify such handicaps imo. I really feel like switching races or just quitting, because terran is by far the funniest race to play for me, but losing all the time hopelessly isn't fun.
But you didn't play better than your opponent, cause you lost. As a mid master Terran player, speaking from experience from losing to things that I think at the heat of the moment are complete B.S imho, if we take a step back and really think, are we really playing better? hell, what is better? Our APM is higher? That doesn't mean we're playing better. In every game that I've won/lost, I've found things that I could do better that isn't that much harder than what I'm doing now. It'd be boring if I could just 1A and press T or F a bunch of times.
The point is, the non pros shouldn't whine cause they can always realistically improve in a short amount of time, things as simple as having better macro, to forming arcs before engagements.
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.
[...]
That is so not true, in my opinion. Terran can queue up units (obviously not 4-5, that would lose you the game, but queuing 2 units isn't that bad), but the zerg inject timing has to be perfect. Also, if I has excess resources from macroing badly, I just drop down a couple of more production facilities with those resources and I am fine within one to two minutes. Zerg needs to build a new hatch, which takes longer, build a new queen and wait for the inject to hit in, to make up for the lack of macro.
1. When it comes to TL.net the vast majority here is terrans. Just take a look at FPL where there are groups for protoss, terran and zerg. The terran group is larger than both zerg and protoss combined. 2. From my personal experience in both WoL (since early beta) and HotS terran was the most played race for the most part of WoL and even now I see more terrans than protoss on ladder. It was roughly 50/35/15% Z/T/P when playing 1vs1 (Plat-Master) and 2vs2 (hight Masters) in both Wings and HotS recently. 3. Terran was the most dominant race when it comes to tournaments during all of WoL up until Summer 2012 when Zerg took over. http://aligulac.com/periods/ has a pretty neat history overview when it comes to which race was dominant at which part of Wings.
I still stand by the general sentiment that terrans don't utilize their units to the fullest. I see many many games where terrans simply refuse to build ghosts in a long drawnout macro TvP. In general is the lack of terrans using their spellcasters alarming. Most players just go for the really easy to control bioball which requires only stimkiting and occasional splitting. I even see high master terrans playing with only one single control group for their whole army.
I feel like terrans were fed with too easy victories for the majority of Wings that most of the casual players never really bothered learning how to properly control an army. Jeez, many people still think that stutterstep is the hardest form of micro or general army control. I mean c'mon, terran bio units even move at the same freakin speed so that you don't have to worry which unit arrives at which time when moving your army over the map. It doesn't get much easier, really.
On January 19 2013 02:32 Nezgar wrote: I still stand by the general sentiment that terrans don't utilize their units to the fullest. I see many many games where terrans simply refuse to build ghosts in a long drawnout macro TvP. In general is the lack of terrans using their spellcasters alarming. Most players just go for the really easy to control bioball which requires only stimkiting and occasional splitting. I even see high master terrans playing with only one single control group for their whole army.
I feel like terrans were fed with too easy victories for the majority of Wings that most of the casual players never really bothered learning how to properly control an army. Jeez, many people still think that stutterstep is the hardest form of micro or general army control. I mean c'mon, terran bio units even move at the same freakin speed so that you don't have to worry which unit arrives at which time when moving your army over the map. It doesn't get much easier, really.
Please read the op. The op is stating his opinion regarding terran on low levels.
. Jeez, many people still think that stutterstep is the hardest form of micro or general army control. I mean c'mon, terran bio units even move at the same freakin speed so that you don't have to worry which unit arrives at which time when moving your army over the map. It doesn't get much easier, really.
Not sure if you are trolling here or do not watch/play starcraft.
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.
And last year this was reversed for Terran and Zerg, where lower level Zerg players got stomped by any Terran player but as you climbed towards Code S players, you noticed that Zergs were winning a larger percentage of games.
Honestly, as a random player, my best matches are TvZ and ZvT. As long as you just shift command the SCV's that are building things and keep checking on your current SCV production, it really is no different than Protoss macro mechanics essentially. Zerg production is notably easier as long as you keep on top of larvae injects, but if you lose a hatch it throws you off WAY worse than a barracks getting destroyed
On January 19 2013 02:27 Thieving Magpie wrote: Terran: low health, low cost, slow - Glass Cannons Protoss: high health, high cost, slow - Phalanx Zerg: low health, low cost, fast - Swarm
There is nothing low health about Zerg lategame (broods, ultras, etc etc). Quite the opposite really. And lets face it, most vs Z games end with infestor + brood and then ultra tech switches if necessary.
On January 19 2013 02:32 Nezgar wrote: I still stand by the general sentiment that terrans don't utilize their units to the fullest.
Preposterous. So many Terrans units were destroyed/weakened (and some rightfully so) precisely because Terrans were using or starting to use their full potential.
On January 19 2013 02:32 Nezgar wrote: I see many many games where terrans simply refuse to build ghosts in a long drawnout macro TvP.
Ghosts are perfectly standard in macro games involving Templar tech, no idea what you're talking about.
In Wings, I rarely get TvT. In HOTS though, I get a very even distribution in all match ups. I don't know if this will remain true after release, but for now Terran representation seems pretty healthy in the beta.
I do find it curious though that our best foreign players are largely zerg.
Also @ the guy saying Terran's are refusing to make ghosts in long drawn out TvP's.... I really have no idea what games you're watching and referring to. I don't remember the last time I saw a high level TvP that didn't include ghosts when the game went past 3 bases.
On January 19 2013 02:27 Thieving Magpie wrote: Terran: low health, low cost, slow - Glass Cannons Protoss: high health, high cost, slow - Phalanx Zerg: low health, low cost, fast - Swarm
There is nothing low health about Zerg lategame (broods, ultras, etc etc). Quite the opposite really. And lets face it, most vs Z games end with infestor + brood and then ultra tech switches if necessary.
Mostly just saying that its less painful to lose lings than to lose marines and protoss units fit together better than terran units.
Terran can kind of "do it all" but you got to squeeze the sponge damn hard to get anything out of it--which I like actually.
I think terran gets the most difficult as you play at higher and higher levels . Thats probably , because you have to be the aggressor in both MUs . You need to pressure your opponents so they would not feel comfortable and learn to play on the edge of being as greedy as possible without dieing . Thats because terran's late game is the hardest to manage and you win or lose by how well you have set up yourself for the late game . Even if you are Bomber or Flash you'll have a hard time in the late game if you don't have a slight edge in economy or upgrades/army .
In Broodwar it wasn't such the case , terran could turtle all game and win without even attacking . Just split the map , and there was nothing more cost effective then the tank , even carriers were not cost effective against mass of upgraded goliaths . Flash won like half of his games by his opponents starving themselves , by throwing shit at him and just dieing . Tank//vulture/goliath/vessel/turrets can be more cost effective then anything the other 2 races could throw at them .
While in SC2 it's the opposite zerg and protoss have more cost effective late game and they could win , by just defending well .
And while you get better and better with terran it gets harder and harder to play aggresive , because everyone gets really good at defending or just kill you if you try to play greedy .
I think terran is all about perfecting your macro and build orders even your building placement on for every map .While the other races could play a lot more free style . And thats why foreign terrans can't even hold a candle to a korean terran . They focus more on how to kill their opponents earlier , because they are scared of the late game , while they should focus on how they could set themselves better for the late game even if they don't end up damaging their opponents along the way .
Just look at how well Flash optimizes his build orders to the last depot . You never see him behind in supply if he makes it through the early middle game without taking a huge blow . Or Fantasy executing a difficult harass build . They just never think twice about what they have to do next until they are far out in to the late game . Korean terrans just optimize their macro and builds better when they practice then foreigners .
Overall you have to have a perfect plan before starting the game so you could multitask more fluently in game . I think this is also one of the reason while the terrans are better at a GSL style tournament (practicing for a few games a time) then a foreigner style tournament where all the games are played in the spam of 3 days and you can't prepare for them .
1. When it comes to TL.net the vast majority here is terrans. Just take a look at FPL where there are groups for protoss, terran and zerg. The terran group is larger than both zerg and protoss combined.
On January 19 2013 02:57 Joedaddy wrote: I do find it curious though that our best foreign players are largely zerg.
Korean pros are very aggressive. Often watching streams they'll gas first in TvT because they are confident with their control and multitasking. Foreigners, on the other hand, tend to favor macro games with many bases. Naturally, macro games favor the zerg more then the terran, so in foreignland Zerg is better represented. In aggro korea, Terran is better represented.
In addition, the greatest difficulty with Zerg IMO is identifying what your opponent is doing, then reacting accordingly. Because a Zerg that knows exactly whats coming can drone and build units properly, thus coming out ahead (usually). This is why they are worse in lower leagues but very healthy in higher leagues when Zergs can dedicate themselves to beating these timings and securing their deathball.
On January 19 2013 02:57 Joedaddy wrote: I do find it curious though that our best foreign players are largely zerg.
Korean pros are very aggressive. Often watching streams they'll gas first in TvT because they are confident with their control and multitasking. Foreigners, on the other hand, tend to favor macro games with many bases. Naturally, macro games favor the zerg more then the terran, so in foreignland Zerg is better represented. In aggro korea, Terran is better represented.
In addition, the greatest difficulty with Zerg IMO is identifying what your opponent is doing, then reacting accordingly. Because a Zerg that knows exactly whats coming can drone and build units properly, thus coming out ahead (usually). This is why they are worse in lower leagues but very healthy in higher leagues when Zergs can dedicate themselves to beating these timings and securing their deathball.
On January 19 2013 02:32 Nezgar wrote: Just a couple things:
1. When it comes to TL.net the vast majority here is terrans. Just take a look at FPL where there are groups for protoss, terran and zerg. The terran group is larger than both zerg and protoss combined. 2. From my personal experience in both WoL (since early beta) and HotS terran was the most played race for the most part of WoL and even now I see more terrans than protoss on ladder. It was roughly 50/35/15% Z/T/P when playing 1vs1 (Plat-Master) and 2vs2 (hight Masters) in both Wings and HotS recently. 3. Terran was the most dominant race when it comes to tournaments during all of WoL up until Summer 2012 when Zerg took over. http://aligulac.com/periods/ has a pretty neat history overview when it comes to which race was dominant at which part of Wings.
I still stand by the general sentiment that terrans don't utilize their units to the fullest. I see many many games where terrans simply refuse to build ghosts in a long drawnout macro TvP. In general is the lack of terrans using their spellcasters alarming. Most players just go for the really easy to control bioball which requires only stimkiting and occasional splitting. I even see high master terrans playing with only one single control group for their whole army.
I feel like terrans were fed with too easy victories for the majority of Wings that most of the casual players never really bothered learning how to properly control an army. Jeez, many people still think that stutterstep is the hardest form of micro or general army control. I mean c'mon, terran bio units even move at the same freakin speed so that you don't have to worry which unit arrives at which time when moving your army over the map. It doesn't get much easier, really.
Your post is really weird.
One the one hand you cite your personal experience in an attempt to prove the OP wrong and on the other hand you post statistics that have nothing to do with what the OP is talking about.
Your personal experience is simply wrong and provably so. The statistics are irrelevant because top level balance has nothing to do with what the OP was talking about. You should have at least tried to understand what the OP was talking about.
Yes it will remain the lowest played race as players more on the casual side will come to the frustrating point where opponents will play macro+amove against you and it will take a lot of work on your game to start to get beyond this point, most ladder players will just not have the time or be willing to put i the effort.
At pro level Terran is struggling a bit atm but there are a lot of good Terran players and I think there is always going to be a decent count of pro Terrans and its going to be ok on ladder aswell, nothing too drastic.
Terran used to be the most played race and also the most successful race pretty much at all levels. People make all kinds of statements in this thread to sound as though they are universal and absolute, but they only apply to recent months. Things will change, as they've changed from what was before. Around the Legacy of the Void beta, expect protoss in HotS to become the strongest race. Surprise, surprise. Most played race gets the most people to buy its respective expansion.
On January 19 2013 01:46 DarkLordOlli wrote: There's tons of ways to abuse the map as terran, you just have to be competent enough.
Please enlighten us.
I wasn't aware that there was a need for the discussion. As a Terran I think Entombed is as good as it get for TvP in current maps because there are so many ways to abuse the terrain with aggressive drop or pressure focused play. Even if you don't outright win, you can still keep their tech in limbo long enough that it costs them the game eventually.
Anyway, it's been the case for a long time that you pay the hardest for your mistakes as Terran. Slow production and lack of crazy AOE like fungal or lazors makes it an uphill battle in most cases.
from personal experience, i can say that terran works out quite nice and is much more versatile then protoss or zerg. true there are a couple of hurdls to overcome, such as marine micro, constant production even during battles, multi dropping/harrasment depo lifts (nothing scares me more then a hundred speedlings running right through my depo wall), but if you manage to get a grip on these and have a decent understanding of how limited Tosses and Zergs tech choices and methods of scouting are (council tech vs coloss tech / infestor vs spire vs T1.5 + observers and overlords) you can start to get creative and will be able to take the tempo in most of your games. Tempo being the most important part in playing terran. you need to guide your opponents through their tech choices and punish them for every wrong choice or move they make. if you want to play turtle style starcraft then terran, even though we got the strongest defences of the game to our avail, will not be fit to your playstlye because strong turtleing requires even stronger control over your opponent otherwise you will just get countered on your moveout, outmacroed, or simply get crushed.
as a result of abusing terran strengs such as mobility of banshees, sudden tech switches to mech and air, sich mapcontrol through sensor towers, cloak vs observer mechanic, +2 blueflame hellion drops and runbys and lots of other goodies i have been able to play very successful at mid master level even though my average spending quotient is usually platin level at best.
Terran is a race that relies on the defender's advantage more heavily than the other two races due to its mode of production. This is problematic in SC2 due to the ease and speed of mass unit production the other two races potentially have access to. As it is now, larva inject and warp gate are fundamental flaws in the game that no amount of unit stat tinkering can remedy.
Terran is the most mechanically demanding race. From another point of view, Protoss and Zerg may not mechanically demanding enough. Protoss and Zerg needs more responsive and microable units.
On January 19 2013 03:26 figq wrote: Terran used to be the most played race and also the most successful race pretty much at all levels.
What do you mean by "preety much all levels"
For example http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all/0/103 Terran while most popular at the beggining never was most represented race in highest league wordwide. So its hard to argue that terran dominated ladders. Its also hard to argue that terrran dominated pro scene below Korean level since with exception of 2010, for foreign scene Terran was least succesfull race in terms of toruanemtns wins/finals.
On January 19 2013 03:52 Agro_Z wrote: Terran is a race that relies on the defender's advantage more heavily than the other two races due to its mode of production. This is problematic in SC2 due to the ease and speed of mass unit production the other two races potentially have access to. As it is now, larva inject and warp gate are fundamental flaws in the game that no amount of unit stat tinkering can remedy.
Terran is the most mechanically demanding race. From another point of view, Protoss and Zerg may not mechanically demanding enough. Protoss and Zerg needs more responsive and microable units.
I hate this perpetuated lie.
Protoss and Zerg have less sexy "mechanically demanding" requirements--but I wouldn't say that they don't have any.
Creep Spread + injects + counterattacks + bane splits + etc... are all mechanically demanding, just not sexy.
Same with toss.
Marine splits are sexy, overlord management not so much.
Ahhh... I remember the days when I was a bronzie zerg and all terrans would bunker rush me, 2 rax me and so many strategies that terrans could use to win. So i am not sad about this at all.
On January 19 2013 03:26 figq wrote: Terran used to be the most played race and also the most successful race pretty much at all levels.
What do you mean by "preety much all levels"
For example http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all/0/103 Terran while most popular at the beggining never was most represented race in highest league wordwide. So its hard to argue that terran dominated ladders. Its also hard to argue that terrran dominated pro scene below Korean level since with exception of 2010, for foreign scene Terran was least succesfull race in terms of toruanemtns wins/finals.
On January 19 2013 03:52 Agro_Z wrote: Terran is a race that relies on the defender's advantage more heavily than the other two races due to its mode of production. This is problematic in SC2 due to the ease and speed of mass unit production the other two races potentially have access to. As it is now, larva inject and warp gate are fundamental flaws in the game that no amount of unit stat tinkering can remedy.
Terran is the most mechanically demanding race. From another point of view, Protoss and Zerg may not mechanically demanding enough. Protoss and Zerg needs more responsive and microable units.
I hate this perpetuated lie.
Protoss and Zerg have less sexy "mechanically demanding" requirements--but I wouldn't say that they don't have any.
Creep Spread + injects + counterattacks + bane splits + etc... are all mechanically demanding, just not sexy.
Same with toss.
Marine splits are sexy, overlord management not so much.
I never said that Protoss and Zerg are not mechanically demanding at all. It is just that Terran can be more mechanically demanding in many situations. To clarify, in army versus army situations, many times the Terran is required to have a larger micro response than the other two races. Terran units have more high micro situations, so why shouldn't Zerg and Protoss also have these "sexy" fun micro opportunities. Instead, in SC2 we have micro-restricting abilities or essentially A-move, low attention units. This is what I mean by Protoss and Zerg need more responsive and microable units.
On January 19 2013 02:06 mvdunecats wrote: My struggles as a Gold League Terran lately have centered around the following reasons for losing: - "You just need to macro better." - "You didn't have the right army composition, you need to scout better."
While I understand that both of those elements are important, it feels like I'm fighting an up-hill battle in any non-mirror match up as a Terran. I can't simply focus on macro against Toss or Zerg because their late game armies are simply too powerful. I have to be at least as good on my macro AND be doing constant harassment to my Toss or Zerg opponent. Meanwhile, a Toss or a Zerg can just focus purely on macro and be just fine. I've heard plenty of comments like, "Of course you lost, you let the Toss/Zerg sit back and tech." I've never heard that said about losing to a Terran.
Scouting for army composition is another issue. In TvP, I need to know roughly how many Colossi and how many HT/Archons my opponent has to be able to balance my composition correctly. The same thing with TvZ. I'm having to respond to my opponent's composition. As a Terran in those match ups, is there any army composition that a Toss or Zerg has to worry about scouting ahead of time that will change their composition? It doesn't feel like the other two races have to respond to my composition nearly as much as I do to theirs.
No. If you're gold you lost because you suck. It's as simple as that.
I'm sorry for being blunt, but balance REALLY does not matter at a low level. I am mid master terran as my offrace just because I have decent mechanics, there is nothing else to it. I guarantee if you post replays we can pick out ways you messed up terribly in the first 8 minutes of the game.
On January 19 2013 03:52 Agro_Z wrote: Terran is a race that relies on the defender's advantage more heavily than the other two races due to its mode of production. This is problematic in SC2 due to the ease and speed of mass unit production the other two races potentially have access to. As it is now, larva inject and warp gate are fundamental flaws in the game that no amount of unit stat tinkering can remedy.
Terran is the most mechanically demanding race. From another point of view, Protoss and Zerg may not mechanically demanding enough. Protoss and Zerg needs more responsive and microable units.
I hate this perpetuated lie.
Protoss and Zerg have less sexy "mechanically demanding" requirements--but I wouldn't say that they don't have any.
Creep Spread + injects + counterattacks + bane splits + etc... are all mechanically demanding, just not sexy.
Same with toss.
Marine splits are sexy, overlord management not so much.
I never said that Protoss and Zerg are not mechanically demanding at all. It is just that Terran can be more mechanically demanding in many situations. To clarify, in army versus army situations, many times the Terran is required to have a larger micro response than the other two races. Terran units have more high micro situations, so why shouldn't Zerg and Protoss also have these "sexy" fun micro opportunities. Instead, in SC2 we have micro-restricting abilities or essentially A-move, low attention units. This is what I mean by Protoss and Zerg need more responsive and microable units.
I definitely agree that Toss and Zerg need their own sexy mechanics.
Toss being the only race to need to move their screen in order to make units is not exactly that mechanics that makes me wet my pants if you know what I mean. Also, needing 200 apm and 7500mins/500gas worth of units to pick off workers (phoenix) is also not very sexy.
5 Phoenix does less than 1 medivac/8marines 5 phoenix does less than 1 shuttle/1reaver
It costs a lot, takes up a lot of supply, and does less than what protoss used to have and what terran currently has.
It needs a lot of mechanics to do right, as well as map awareness and positioning. It's hard. But is it sexy? Hell no.
When 4 marauders land in your rear--you worry about losing workers, losing buildings, you're forced to retreat.
Terran is the hardest race to play since Brood War. We don't have warpgates or queens to fuel the production cycles or to quickly reinforce and/or switch compositions on the fly, our upgrades are littered on bio, mech and air while Zergs have all-around ground unit armor, and Protosses have all-around ground armor and weapons, and we're still stuck with terrible units (except maybe mines) in Heart of the Swarm while Protoss and Zerg get shiny good new units.
On January 19 2013 02:06 mvdunecats wrote: My struggles as a Gold League Terran lately have centered around the following reasons for losing: - "You just need to macro better." - "You didn't have the right army composition, you need to scout better."
While I understand that both of those elements are important, it feels like I'm fighting an up-hill battle in any non-mirror match up as a Terran. I can't simply focus on macro against Toss or Zerg because their late game armies are simply too powerful. I have to be at least as good on my macro AND be doing constant harassment to my Toss or Zerg opponent. Meanwhile, a Toss or a Zerg can just focus purely on macro and be just fine. I've heard plenty of comments like, "Of course you lost, you let the Toss/Zerg sit back and tech." I've never heard that said about losing to a Terran.
Scouting for army composition is another issue. In TvP, I need to know roughly how many Colossi and how many HT/Archons my opponent has to be able to balance my composition correctly. The same thing with TvZ. I'm having to respond to my opponent's composition. As a Terran in those match ups, is there any army composition that a Toss or Zerg has to worry about scouting ahead of time that will change their composition? It doesn't feel like the other two races have to respond to my composition nearly as much as I do to theirs.
No. If you're gold you lost because you suck. It's as simple as that.
I'm sorry for being blunt, but balance REALLY does not matter at a low level. I am mid master terran as my offrace just because I have decent mechanics, there is nothing else to it. I guarantee if you post replays we can pick out ways you messed up terribly in the first 8 minutes of the game.
This also applies for pro level. We didn't see a lot of perfect games up the point we have in SC2. Everyone makes mistakes and can do certain things better. The problem is, that especially zerg is usually not punished as hard as terran/protoss for making mistakes. And that is true for every level of play.
On January 19 2013 03:26 figq wrote: Terran used to be the most played race and also the most successful race pretty much at all levels. People make all kinds of statements in this thread to sound as though they are universal and absolute, but they only apply to recent months. Things will change, as they've changed from what was before. Around the Legacy of the Void beta, expect protoss in HotS to become the strongest race. Surprise, surprise. Most played race gets the most people to buy its respective expansion.
I can see Terran becoming the dominant race sometime in the future, but difficulty gap will still remain.
If OP isn't going to say it I will, Terran is the hardest race to play. Period.
Its over represented in Korea because Professionals have the skill sets, multitasking, and work ethic, necessary to play the race. Terran is nowhere near as "forgiving" as Protoss or Zerg. That is why it is so under represented in lower play. But as game knowledge and mechanical skill goes up, so does the representation of Terran. Granted its not as steep as Zerg, but the effect is still valid.
In lower play you consistently see the "NR 20" strat or several variants of it. You build up an army, either fast or slow, and then attack and hope you win the game. On the other end, you either turtle up, or your defense is broken and you lose. Essentially, its "1a-ing". At the same equal low level skill set of players, Zerg and Protoss can afford, more so than Terran, mistakes what would otherwise prove costly. This is not an argument of what units are weaker or strong. Its more so of the instant mechanic of Zerg to Spawn unit and Protoss to Warp in units. More so, on the equal low level skill set of players, Terran requires more micromanagement of units, then Zerg or Protoss. I'm not suggesting that its 10 fold more skill, but a slightly more advanced placement of units is required.
On January 19 2013 01:20 Avean wrote: How is Terran more mechanical difficult at lower Leagues when Terran is the only race of them all that has similar mechanics to other RTS games. If you have ever played another RTS game, Terran will be the easiest to pick up and learn since they have the classic RTS mechanics with pumping out units from Barracks. Protoss and Zerg works completely different.
Just dont agree that Terran is difficult to learn.
Terran doesn't have a cushion to fall back on like Protoss and Zerg, that's what makes its mechanics so hard, Zergs have the ability to build up larva to instantly remax and Toss can warp in a whole load of zealots, Terran have to wait 50s for a marine to pop.
Here's the biggest issue Terran came out OP when WOL came out Everybody and their mother played terran and abused certain strategies Later on, Blizzard balanced things a little bit and Terran wasn't able to easily steamroll their opponents. People don't like being able to steamroll their opponents with little skill one year, and then the next year needing a lot more skill to steamroll their opponents Terrans cry and make posts like these.
If WOL came out at the current state, I don't think we'd have as many people complain. TLDR; terrans used to have it easy (as the race was clearly imbalanced), and once things became more balanced (or harder for them, however you want to look at it), people who just liked terran because it was OP and easy started complaining and playing other races.
On January 19 2013 05:07 Soft`Soap wrote: Here's the biggest issue Terran came out OP when WOL came out Everybody and their mother played terran and abused certain strategies Later on, Blizzard balanced things a little bit and Terran wasn't able to easily steamroll their opponents. People don't like being able to steamroll their opponents with little skill one year, and then the next year needing a lot more skill to steamroll their opponents Terrans cry and make posts like these.
If WOL came out at the current state, I don't think we'd have as many people complain. TLDR; terrans used to have it easy (as the race was clearly imbalanced), and once things became more balanced (or harder for them, however you want to look at it), people who just liked terran because it was OP and easy started complaining and playing other races.
Balance 2 years ago =/= a justified non-balance now.
People who played Terran when it was OP are now the same kids who are playing Zerg. This "patch Zerg" phenomenon is nothing new. This kids are just abusing the race at the moment that are in their glory days. It should be a strong indicator of which race is imbalanced atm. Take Protoss in HotS. Skytoss is broken, everyone and their mothers are playing it. Blizzard is slowly trying to address that issue.
Hard too follow you. Because you are explaining areas of Terran weakness when compared to other races. When it seems like you want to know if Terran will be the least played race in hots. We can't say yes or no because we can't predict the future. But I think because the campaign features Zerg and that the most popular foreign players are Zerg people will play Zerg. I think Protoss will be second because they have cool looking units lol. And Terran 3rd because they are dull and hard too use if you ask me. But who knows the current trends should continue if you assume that everyone will stick to their wol race in hots.
On January 19 2013 05:07 Soft`Soap wrote: Here's the biggest issue Terran came out OP when WOL came out Everybody and their mother played terran and abused certain strategies Later on, Blizzard balanced things a little bit and Terran wasn't able to easily steamroll their opponents. People don't like being able to steamroll their opponents with little skill one year, and then the next year needing a lot more skill to steamroll their opponents Terrans cry and make posts like these.
If WOL came out at the current state, I don't think we'd have as many people complain. TLDR; terrans used to have it easy (as the race was clearly imbalanced), and once things became more balanced (or harder for them, however you want to look at it), people who just liked terran because it was OP and easy started complaining and playing other races.
Balance 2 years ago =/= a justified non-balance now.
People who played Terran when it was OP are now the same kids who are playing Zerg. This "patch Zerg" phenomenon is nothing new. This kids are just abusing the race at the moment that are in their glory days. It should be a strong indicator of which race is imbalanced atm. Take Protoss in HotS. Skytoss is broken, everyone and their mothers are playing it. Blizzard is slowly trying to address that issue.
Of course, you will always get the flavour of the month players who will see a certain strat from one race which is powerful and easier than others to perform and will roll that race untill either things are nerfed or players become batter at countering them. Not saying its a bad thing as people can play what ever the hell they like but there is somewhat of a less achievement feel to that way.
On January 19 2013 02:06 mvdunecats wrote: My struggles as a Gold League Terran lately have centered around the following reasons for losing: - "You just need to macro better." - "You didn't have the right army composition, you need to scout better."
While I understand that both of those elements are important, it feels like I'm fighting an up-hill battle in any non-mirror match up as a Terran. I can't simply focus on macro against Toss or Zerg because their late game armies are simply too powerful. I have to be at least as good on my macro AND be doing constant harassment to my Toss or Zerg opponent. Meanwhile, a Toss or a Zerg can just focus purely on macro and be just fine. I've heard plenty of comments like, "Of course you lost, you let the Toss/Zerg sit back and tech." I've never heard that said about losing to a Terran.
Scouting for army composition is another issue. In TvP, I need to know roughly how many Colossi and how many HT/Archons my opponent has to be able to balance my composition correctly. The same thing with TvZ. I'm having to respond to my opponent's composition. As a Terran in those match ups, is there any army composition that a Toss or Zerg has to worry about scouting ahead of time that will change their composition? It doesn't feel like the other two races have to respond to my composition nearly as much as I do to theirs.
No. If you're gold you lost because you suck. It's as simple as that.
I'm sorry for being blunt, but balance REALLY does not matter at a low level. I am mid master terran as my offrace just because I have decent mechanics, there is nothing else to it. I guarantee if you post replays we can pick out ways you messed up terribly in the first 8 minutes of the game.
OFC he lost because he made a mistake. That is the entire point. As Terran, you are not allowed to make mistakes. You have the slowest reinforcement, so if you lose your army your at a HUGE disadvantage. You MUST babysit your army, because they are extremely fragile and die quickly to AOE. (Talking about marines here). You MUST have the perfect composition in reaction to your opponent (ghost / HT, vikings / Colossus, BroodLord).
Zerg and Protoss are under no such restrictions when it comes to their army composition, so it is EASIER to play optimally as Z and P than it is to play as T at all levels. This gets exaggerated for low level terrans because they might not have perfectly optimal play like flash.
Balance matters at all levels. If its not fun from low levels up, then why would any new person want to ever play SC2 as Terran? Zerg and Protoss definately have more leeway to make a mistake and still comeback. Terran has nearly none.
(It takes a Great Terran to beat a Good Protoss and an OK zerg.)
http://aligulac.com/periods/ I like how toss has been getting the short end of the stick since the game essentially came out >.,.<
"Terran is underpowered in lower leagues" statement can be argued. For example, for protoss, roach/zergling or early mass marine vs forcefield is a very hard thing to learn. A gold zerg player can roll over gold protoss player if protoss does not know how to use force fields properly. Similarly inject and creep mechanics make zerg a lot hard in lower leagues. Terran player can hotkey his barracks to 4 and tap 4-a-a-d sometimes, even queues units and outmacros zerg if zerg is bad at injecting.
Individual quality of terran units makes for race's harder mechanics I think. Marines, marauders, tanks, banshees are all problematic units to deal with. Stalkers, non charge zealots, phoenixes, void rays are not. Microing colossus vs vikings is hard for P too, because you lose so much of your army's dps when you retreat a single colossus. I agree that terran is a little harder to play but not that much harder.
On January 19 2013 05:07 Soft`Soap wrote: Here's the biggest issue Terran came out OP when WOL came out Everybody and their mother played terran and abused certain strategies Later on, Blizzard balanced things a little bit and Terran wasn't able to easily steamroll their opponents. People don't like being able to steamroll their opponents with little skill one year, and then the next year needing a lot more skill to steamroll their opponents Terrans cry and make posts like these.
If WOL came out at the current state, I don't think we'd have as many people complain. TLDR; terrans used to have it easy (as the race was clearly imbalanced), and once things became more balanced (or harder for them, however you want to look at it), people who just liked terran because it was OP and easy started complaining and playing other races.
I played random at the start of the game and eventually decided I liked Zerg the best due to the way the race played out. The queen buff so drastically changed the ZvT matchup into Zergs favor that I actually quit playing Zerg because of how easy it was to beat Terran. Terran was OP at the start of the game on small maps in low economy / gimmicky games with an unrefined metagame because that's what Terran is the strongest at- making low tech units cost efficient with good micro and catching their opponent off guard.
With larger maps and a more mature metagame, TvZ was at a 50% win rate before the queen buff and even with the rise of the infestor based playstyle, nobody was complaining because Zerg couldn't have 8+ infestors out before Terran could put on pressure and the games were exciting- Zerg actually had to fight to get to hive tech with a strong enough economy to kill their opponent. Now Terrans are getting owned by Zergs across the board with sub 40% win rates except in tournaments where you have top Korean Terrans playing against foreigner Zergs. Not to mention the gameplay itself has become horribly stale and boring to watch since Terran can't attack into a Zerg player before 13 minutes anymore without gambling that the Zerg player doesn't scout at all or is playing especially greedy.
You contradict yourself multiple times throughout your essay and your replies. Obviously this wasn't well thought out, researched or carefully considered.
On January 19 2013 05:07 Soft`Soap wrote: Here's the biggest issue Terran came out OP when WOL came out Everybody and their mother played terran and abused certain strategies Later on, Blizzard balanced things a little bit and Terran wasn't able to easily steamroll their opponents. People don't like being able to steamroll their opponents with little skill one year, and then the next year needing a lot more skill to steamroll their opponents Terrans cry and make posts like these.
If WOL came out at the current state, I don't think we'd have as many people complain. TLDR; terrans used to have it easy (as the race was clearly imbalanced), and once things became more balanced (or harder for them, however you want to look at it), people who just liked terran because it was OP and easy started complaining and playing other races.
That's simply not true. Maybe for the racehoppers that jump on whatever's imba, but I was Protoss since i started and got to master league with it before i switched to random (because i wanted to be master league with all races). Terran was by far the hardest thing to play at that point because the simple turtle till deathball style that worked with Protoss was awful as T compared P/Z's counterparts. I switched to random right as the ghost nerf hit the field, i was never spoiled with the prior terran imbalances. Still, it took me a long time to get to master with T compared to the other two.
Im not really advocating terran be made easier. Although the meching player in me would love a siege tank buff, if certain aspects of T were buffed it would probably break competitive starcraft because at the top terran is still really damn good. I see it as a parabola. In the lowest of leagues Terran is forgiving to to calldown supply and scan, combined with powerful basic units. It troughs plat->mid master where all places are improving their mechanics. Since terrans have more things to practice compared to P/Z micro-wise, they lag a little. And their late game is harder to control. But when players have great mechanics the race again becomes powerful.
(There still is some issues with TvZ however, even at top levels)
On January 19 2013 02:06 mvdunecats wrote: My struggles as a Gold League Terran lately have centered around the following reasons for losing: - "You just need to macro better." - "You didn't have the right army composition, you need to scout better."
While I understand that both of those elements are important, it feels like I'm fighting an up-hill battle in any non-mirror match up as a Terran. I can't simply focus on macro against Toss or Zerg because their late game armies are simply too powerful. I have to be at least as good on my macro AND be doing constant harassment to my Toss or Zerg opponent. Meanwhile, a Toss or a Zerg can just focus purely on macro and be just fine. I've heard plenty of comments like, "Of course you lost, you let the Toss/Zerg sit back and tech." I've never heard that said about losing to a Terran.
Scouting for army composition is another issue. In TvP, I need to know roughly how many Colossi and how many HT/Archons my opponent has to be able to balance my composition correctly. The same thing with TvZ. I'm having to respond to my opponent's composition. As a Terran in those match ups, is there any army composition that a Toss or Zerg has to worry about scouting ahead of time that will change their composition? It doesn't feel like the other two races have to respond to my composition nearly as much as I do to theirs.
No. If you're gold you lost because you suck. It's as simple as that.
I'm sorry for being blunt, but balance REALLY does not matter at a low level. I am mid master terran as my offrace just because I have decent mechanics, there is nothing else to it. I guarantee if you post replays we can pick out ways you messed up terribly in the first 8 minutes of the game.
OFC he lost because he made a mistake. That is the entire point. As Terran, you are not allowed to make mistakes. You have the slowest reinforcement, so if you lose your army your at a HUGE disadvantage. You MUST babysit your army, because they are extremely fragile and die quickly to AOE. (Talking about marines here). You MUST have the perfect composition in reaction to your opponent (ghost / HT, vikings / Colossus, BroodLord).
Zerg and Protoss are under no such restrictions when it comes to their army composition, so it is EASIER to play optimally as Z and P than it is to play as T at all levels. This gets exaggerated for low level terrans because they might not have perfectly optimal play like flash.
Balance matters at all levels. If its not fun from low levels up, then why would any new person want to ever play SC2 as Terran? Zerg and Protoss definately have more leeway to make a mistake and still comeback. Terran has nearly none.
(It takes a Great Terran to beat a Good Protoss and an OK zerg.)
http://aligulac.com/periods/ I like how toss has been getting the short end of the stick since the game essentially came out >.,.<
Balance matters at the highest levels only. The highest levels don't have the luxury of work-shopping their mechanics and coming out significantly better than their former opponents at an even rating. Also, low level terrans can't play optimally if they don't play like Flash? Theres an argument to be made on Terran having a higher learning curve than the other races, but you spearhead the bias to new frontiers.
As someone who completely agrees with this, I have to say even I think these threads are getting really old. Its pretty common knowledge terran is much less forgiving, much harder, etc.
As far as the player size of terran vs other races, theres more at play than just people getting mad that terran sucks. I do agree that has contributed, but theres other factors:
Pro players/streamers- Almost all of the high quality streams and pro players were not Terran from 2010 up until now. There was always very few people to watch playing terran, and there were a lot less foreign heros that played terran since sc2 came out. Now maybe this is because of bad design/imbalance too and the pros just saw it coming, but you can't deny that since streaming and tournaments/TL is such a huge part of SC2, that doesnt have an impact on people wanting to play and learn from their favorite pro players/streamers.. This goes both ways into Korea. I never really felt that after the first few terran nerfs more were needed. The fact is more Koreans played terran bc the most famous stars and players in SC1/BW were terran, and thus there was a higher concentration of terran players early on, plus the race is most similar to BW units/macro.
So yeah, I guess im helping another veiled terran qq thread that even I'm getting tired on, but it really isnt fair to just say oh bc terran is underpowered thats why less people are playing them. Have to take into account the influence of the streaming/pro community.
On January 19 2013 01:20 Avean wrote: How is Terran more mechanical difficult at lower Leagues when Terran is the only race of them all that has similar mechanics to other RTS games. If you have ever played another RTS game, Terran will be the easiest to pick up and learn since they have the classic RTS mechanics with pumping out units from Barracks. Protoss and Zerg works completely different.
Just dont agree that Terran is difficult to learn.
Terran doesn't have a cushion to fall back on like Protoss and Zerg, that's what makes its mechanics so hard, Zergs have the ability to build up larva to instantly remax and Toss can warp in a whole load of zealots, Terran have to wait 50s for a marine to pop.
last I checked marines took 25 seconds to build. Also by large terran will have the largest army out of all races when game gets to 3+ bases since mules replace scv's to an extent. If your going to try an argue your point dont try to exaggerate to get your point across...it doesnt work
On January 19 2013 03:26 figq wrote: Terran used to be the most played race and also the most successful race pretty much at all levels.
What do you mean by "preety much all levels"
For example http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all/0/103 Terran while most popular at the beggining never was most represented race in highest league wordwide. So its hard to argue that terran dominated ladders. Its also hard to argue that terrran dominated pro scene below Korean level since with exception of 2010, for foreign scene Terran was least succesfull race in terms of toruanemtns wins/finals.
Terran is only the hardest race currently, because they need to apply pressure to Zerg/Toss in order to take a lead and eventually a win. While pressuring you need to keep your macro up while microing your units well and most players, not even GMs can do this well.
When watching a foreign Terran go for hellion banshee for example in TvZ, their resources pile up like mad because their macro slips hard, while Korean Terrans are able to queue up units, add more production, start upgrades, ect, WHILE controlling their units well.
Anybody that plays muta/ling in ZvT know how hard it is to keep up your creep spread/injects/upgrades while controlling your units. The thing with Terran is that they are basically always playing a muta style vs Toss and Zerg, where damage that you deal is only effective if your macro keeps up. While on the other hand, defending with infestors is so much more incredibly easier to do (especially since the queen buff allowing me to get much better creep spread than before).
This all leads to casual players not choosing Terran, as they don't want the game to feel like a chore.
Is nonstandard Terran play really so unforgiving at lower levels? After all, the OP isn't talking about the highest level of play. I've found that if you make something silly such as BC's or Thor's near the late game, then you still have a good chance of winning. In fact, most often your opponent won't respond correctly and you will win. Of course this is at a plat level on the NA ladder, but still, we aren't talking about the highest level of play. Also, as a terran player, base races are your friend.
i think talking about balance at low leagues is irrelevant. bronze player play is so bad that it doesnt matter what race they play they still will make mistakes and lose alot. how many bronze zergs can hit prefect fungals to hold off blink stalkers, while spiliting there infestors and broods to avoid vortex? how many bronze terrans can pre-split their marines to avoid fungals while focus firing banes with tanks? how many protosses while hit that prefect force-field to hold off the terran army pushing up the ramp with medvac support? the only thing that really matters in lower leagues is learning to marco better then ur opponents. there are plently of videos and guides on just pumping pure MMM in all 3 matchups and 1a'ing and wining against anything with just having more shit then the opponent. now to the point of terran being harder at lower leagues? yes if lower leagues try to emulate the pros with multi drops and splitting and macro no duh they will be harder to play. but the point is lower leagues don't and shouldn't do that and should only focus on marco and improving that. trying to balance a game around play with terrible mechanics is foolish. just my thoughts
On January 19 2013 07:20 DemigodcelpH wrote: I think it will remain this way, because Terran remains significantly harder to play while being weaker at almost all stages of the game.
On January 19 2013 07:20 DemigodcelpH wrote: I think it will remain this way, because Terran remains significantly harder to play while being weaker at almost all stages of the game.
hahahahaha
Thanks for your valuable input. You should let terrans whine quietly if you don't even know what to say in response
It's nice to see I'm not the only one who struggles in TvZ. I have tried everything short of switching races. I'd venture to guess my TvZ win rate is in the 30%-40% range. I simply do not know what to do against mass fungals. It is the bane of my existence. So much so that I quit Sc2 and went back to D2. LOL
I think we'll end up with a relatively balanced game (compared to the zerg-fest that was WOL) with HotS but Terran is still going to be the most difficult race to play because of how multitask oriented the race is.
On January 19 2013 07:54 KingKayzz wrote: It's nice to see I'm not the only one who struggles in TvZ. I have tried everything short of switching races. I'd venture to guess my TvZ win rate is in the 30%-40% range. I simply do not know what to do against mass fungals. It is the bane of my existence. So much so that I quit Sc2 and went back to D2. LOL
Yea tons of people have transitioned to either DOTA or LoL. I literally hit a point with Terran where my macro could no longer pull me through the lag shitstorms that SC2 gives my computer. Any sort of lag with Terran basically makes the game unplayable as 1 mistake means you lose. I see a lot of ROOT guys playing DOTA2 lol...
The problem with terran is the fact that while they aren't hard to learn, they are hard to use properly. They are more subject to subtle control errors and thus give the illusion of being weak. Terran is like a fighter jet vs a propeller plane. The propeller plane such as a P51 mustang is much easier to learn and in a battle between two noobs the P51 would win, even if its because the noob in the jet crashed into a mountain somewhere. In a battle between two aces, we know the jet would completely destroy the easier to master P51. Its all down to how touchy the joystick is.
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.
Terran is the only race in the game where micro is not optional. In many scenerios standard armies (roach/ling/hydra/muta, stalker/zealot/archon/HT/sentry/colossus) of P and Z need very little micro and positioning, and a few spell casts to win. Terran requires constant kiting in both directions (an ultra-high APM sink), pre-engagement positioning and jockeying/threatening. Terran is the only race that necessitates army splitting/grouping management to dodge AoE abilities.
If you don't see how difficult it is to play Terran at the diamond level and above, you have clearly never tried. I have a build where I can maintain >95 SQ until about the 15 minute mark and it's still easy to lose games because of one second of not paying attention/mismicroing. Trust me, the other races are much, much more forgiving of these mistakes. The truth is Terran is very strong early, but becomes significantly more difficult to play as the game length goes on, whereas the game gets easier and easier to play as the game goes on for the other races. This is a fundamental imbalance, even if the game is balanced at a 50-50 rate. It forces a specific play-style from T which is no fun.
On January 19 2013 08:15 SirKibbleX wrote: Terran is the only race in the game where micro is not optional. In many scenerios standard armies (roach/ling/hydra/muta, stalker/zealot/archon/HT/sentry/colossus) of P and Z need very little micro and positioning, and a few spell casts to win. Terran requires constant kiting in both directions (an ultra-high APM sink), pre-engagement positioning and jockeying/threatening. Terran is the only race that necessitates army splitting/grouping management to dodge AoE abilities.
Have you ever played ZvZ muta vs infestor? Or ZvT when Ling bane muta was dominant? Mutalisks are just as micro oriented as most Terran units, not splitting banes means you will be very cost ineffective against a Terran who target fires with tanks, and mutas get raped hard if you clump when thors hit the field. Combine with all the harass potential mutas have, and the ability to wear down groups of Terran marines with muta blobs. Against splash you have to split and/or magic box (Fungal, storm, Thors) I agree that most P/Z unit comps require comparatively less micro, but ling bane muta is just not one of them.
Humorously because of its difficulty it has fallen out of favor due to the much easier, deathball-y infestor style. It makes the Terran and Zerg in me sad =///
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.
Diamond offrace this doesn't feel that hard, then again, it's only diamond :/ But the constant macro for terran while microing feels harder and more unforgiving
Thing is, Terran, I feel, has the lowest skill floor, but the highest skill ceiling. I play all three races pretty evenly, and I always feel that I don't perform well as terran because I just don't have the speed to macro solidly, and then worry about micro. I average about 60-70 APM (doesn't matter, just a reference point) and I feel like of the three races, I fall behind when macro-ing as terran.
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....
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.
Diamond offrace this doesn't feel that hard, then again, it's only diamond :/ But the constant macro for terran while microing feels harder and more unforgiving
It should feel hard since there isnt a pro zerg in the world who keeps his energy below 40 after 15min with more then 3 hatches.
People seem to forget just how hard it is to muta/ling/bling and are now assuming that zerg is just faceroll because theyre winning.
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....
I put all my queens for injecting on one hotkey. f1 v f2 v etc
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.
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.
That beyond anything is the major problem with the queen change, before hand 2hatch muta into muta/bling was prevalent and the games that zerg put out vs terran at least were just beautiful.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
you're labeling people for how they play the game, 1 unit group, 2, 3, whatever, it really doesnt matter. there was a bw pros that did not hotkey units at all, i have a friend that doesnt use group hotkey and he is doing fine in diamond, people should play however they're comfortable with.
i assume your question is rhetorical as such question should asked for a fun spirit filled fanboy debate and not as an absolute to explain who is better in what.
i'm not sure where everyone is going to get at with this "debate". a race is only good as the player that uses it, and perhaps some skillsets reward better for some race than other. but people debating what is easy and what is hard, its pathetic and sad from my perspective.
This article makes sense in the context for "playing to win" players with no other interest in the game and have clear mechanical limits.
However I imagine platinum league and below, and high masters league and above, will not have this issue. The issue this article is discussing is narrow in range, even if I agree the points are valid.
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.
I don't see the point of this. Everytime I come to sc2 general I see a thread that x race is weaker than all the other races. This is proven by x statistics, but this will change when x happens with x.
As a high-diamond random player, I completely agree. Maybe terran is a little too good when you're bronze silver because marines/marauders are even pretty solid if clumped up and left to fight any army that comes to attack them, you can queue up production and scans make it really easy to save yourself in a detection scenario/scout generally what the opponent is doing.
However, at diamond level surely Terran is far far more mechanically (and perhaps also strategically) demanding, as so much of your units effectiveness relies on microing them well/paying a lot of attention to your army. As an example, if zerg tries to rush you mid way across the map with ling/bane/muta vs. marine/tank/medivac, if you aren't watching the minimal and react as soon as zerg comes into your vision you will get wholesale slaughtered almost no matter what, all the zerg has to do is move past your army and then a-move to surround. If you're protoss, you can be almost completely surrounded by the time you notice, and you can ring yourself with forcefields as defence, or if you have colossus then it's pretty rare for the zerg to even try jump you unprepared anyways, because they need as much time as possible to perfect spine crawler defence, corruptor numbers and placement etc.
The relative disparity in remaining army between the winning and losing force after a battle is frequently far larger in situations when Terran is caught unprepared compared to when Protoss or Zerg is caught unprepared (Zerg can usually back out of a fight if they need to as well, plus good creep spread makes it even harder that you don't already know what's going on).
This isn't to say Zerg and Protoss don't have difficult aspects too, it's just that the challenge of Zerg is basically correctly droning/teching/units at the right time (and not much reliant on engagement micro, average for army awareness) which has a far larger margin for error than Terran which is highly reliant on engagement micro and army awareness (less about composition, timings etc.). Protoss is mostly about your overall strategic choices, spending chrono wisely, knowing what/when to warp in (and when you should be investing in gateways) as well as getting the right aoe at the right time. Engagement micro/army awareness/timings are less important. Protoss probably has the largest margin for error, simply because at about plat - master level you can rely on your Terran/Zerg opponent screwing up independently to let you back in the game a bit more.
These comments all come from sizeable (1500 or so) games as Random at Diamond level, but I think the principle applies to Master/GM players as well, Terran pros themselves talk about the main issue with their race being how it is quite unforgiving, only barely covered by the possibility for a comeback with extremely good micro.
Terran isn't underpowered, is probably the most powerful, but definitely the most difficult to use and also has the least margin for error.
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."
I like how you are dumb enough to write that. read the damn article before writing something that stupid.
On January 19 2013 03:06 raga4ka wrote: While in SC2 it's the opposite zerg and protoss have more cost effective late game and they could win , by just defending well.
People say this. But how many Zerg and Protoss can really compete with a 180 supply Terran army, made possible by sacrificing SCVs in favor of Orbital Commands?
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?
i assume your question is rhetorical as such question should asked for a fun spirit filled fanboy debate and not as an absolute to explain who is better in what..
You're on the ball, mate.
I mean, if there are players that does things smoother, faster and better than others, for example HyuN or Life (who I think all stands out from the other Zergs in their own way), how can you say that their race is easy?
Control groups, injects, warp ins, proxy rax, micro, multitasking, you name it; it hasn't reached the ceiling yet. Do Protoss player's use their harassment-methods in the most optimal way yet? I don't believe that. Are Zerg player's able to hit all their injects at perfect times whilst controlling their army and spread creep? I don't believe that. Can Terran players improve their build orders so that they can give themselves a better defense/economy/attack in the early game/mid game/late game? I believe so.
If everything were so easy as people want it to be, more people would have contested for the GSL's. If it were so easy as people wants it to be, what's the point in practicing the same build order for 5 hours a day?
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.
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"
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.
imo the hardest part is keeping up with it meanwhile doing so many other things. to say its just repetition doesnt seem to draw the whole picture of how macro is important. sc2 made me form a habit of pulling my army close to my main or safe area before/while i macro(something i didnt notice doing in bw), since few emp or forcefield or fungal without warning can end the game, one aspect why i think sc2 is so very much volatile.
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).
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
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"
I know exactly what he meant lol, but when I play terran, for the most part I've practised my build so many times that I know what buildings I'm going to make and where generally. Of course there is choice, and of course you do have to flick back to make supply depots/raxes etc but for the most part it is still very repetitive.
I guess when I played zerg it was muta/bling vs terran, so I take issue with people saying that Zerg is this race where you can win with far less mechanical skill then there terran counterparts.
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.
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 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 01:13 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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
On January 19 2013 11:27 Prevolved wrote: Terran players saying Terran is the hardest. Seems legit.
User was warned for this post
I'm pretty sure by this point most Protoss and Zerg players can admit that too.
Real life example: I played terran at a high masters level, rarely ever offraced. I didn't think i could make a CSL match so we put in a gold protoss instead of me. He got matched up against a high masters zerg. A couple days before the game I realized i could play indeed, so I subbed for our toss. I beat the high masters zerg with 2 base blink stalkers despite never really playing protoss, and never really playing zerg. Does anyone honestly think a high masters protoss player could play terran and beat a high masters zerg player on a dime?
It's just not even a debate anymore that terran is MUCH MUCH harder to play. As for top level balance that's still undecided. but difficulty level it's not even a question.
On January 19 2013 11:59 Kashll wrote: It's just not even a debate anymore that terran is MUCH MUCH harder to play. As for top level balance that's still undecided. but difficulty level it's not even a question.
I wouldn't call it "much much" harder to play. I play both terran and protoss at masters level (switching between the two whenever I feel like it) and fare equally well. It's just that different races reward different things, and the aspects that a terran needs to master are much more hectic and attention consuming than protoss and zerg. However, terran vs zerg is severely skewed towards being super-duper easy for zerg, no doubt about that.
On January 19 2013 11:27 Prevolved wrote: Terran players saying Terran is the hardest. Seems legit.
User was warned for this post
I'm pretty sure by this point most Protoss and Zerg players can admit that too.
Real life example: I played terran at a high masters level, rarely ever offraced. I didn't think i could make a CSL match so we put in a gold protoss instead of me. He got matched up against a high masters zerg. A couple days before the game I realized i could play indeed, so I subbed for our toss. I beat the high masters zerg with 2 base blink stalkers despite never really playing protoss, and never really playing zerg. Does anyone honestly think a high masters protoss player could play terran and beat a high masters zerg player on a dime?
It's just not even a debate anymore that terran is MUCH MUCH harder to play. As for top level balance that's still undecided. but difficulty level it's not even a question.
As someone who plays all three races at around low masters level I would have to say Toss is BY FAR the easiest to play followed by Terran and Zerg on equal footing.
Zerg and Terran are hard for different reasons. Terran macro is much easier for me due to lifting bases, supply drop and reactors while hitting injects is hard for me. Micro wise Terran is harder because I can just go ling/bling Muta and a move. I struggle with using infestors and bio so I usually just go mech of ling/bling/muta for a move armies.
Terran is not as hard as Terrans make it out to be but it is still much harder then toss (no macro required, mass warp in, colossus, lol?).
Just my 2 cents.
Supply drop doesn't count at least you're comfortable having bad mechanics, I rarely see top korean Terrans doing it.
On January 19 2013 11:27 Prevolved wrote: Terran players saying Terran is the hardest. Seems legit.
User was warned for this post
I'm pretty sure by this point most Protoss and Zerg players can admit that too.
Real life example: I played terran at a high masters level, rarely ever offraced. I didn't think i could make a CSL match so we put in a gold protoss instead of me. He got matched up against a high masters zerg. A couple days before the game I realized i could play indeed, so I subbed for our toss. I beat the high masters zerg with 2 base blink stalkers despite never really playing protoss, and never really playing zerg. Does anyone honestly think a high masters protoss player could play terran and beat a high masters zerg player on a dime?
It's just not even a debate anymore that terran is MUCH MUCH harder to play. As for top level balance that's still undecided. but difficulty level it's not even a question.
As someone who plays all three races at around low masters level I would have to say Toss is BY FAR the easiest to play followed by Terran and Zerg on equal footing.
Zerg and Terran are hard for different reasons. Terran macro is much easier for me due to lifting bases, supply drop and reactors while hitting injects is hard for me. Micro wise Terran is harder because I can just go ling/bling Muta and a move. I struggle with using infestors and bio so I usually just go mech of ling/bling/muta for a move armies.
Terran is not as hard as Terrans make it out to be but it is still much harder then toss (no macro required, mass warp in, colossus, lol?).
Just my 2 cents.
Actually I agree that zerg macro is considerably more difficult than terran macro. The problem is that as a terran you're forced to worry about much more than macro. Being able to put 90% of your attention into a difficult thing makes it much more managable than putting 33% of your attention into it.
On January 19 2013 11:27 Prevolved wrote: Terran players saying Terran is the hardest. Seems legit.
User was warned for this post
I'm pretty sure by this point most Protoss and Zerg players can admit that too.
Real life example: I played terran at a high masters level, rarely ever offraced. I didn't think i could make a CSL match so we put in a gold protoss instead of me. He got matched up against a high masters zerg. A couple days before the game I realized i could play indeed, so I subbed for our toss. I beat the high masters zerg with 2 base blink stalkers despite never really playing protoss, and never really playing zerg. Does anyone honestly think a high masters protoss player could play terran and beat a high masters zerg player on a dime?
It's just not even a debate anymore that terran is MUCH MUCH harder to play. As for top level balance that's still undecided. but difficulty level it's not even a question.
As someone who plays all three races at around low masters level I would have to say Toss is BY FAR the easiest to play followed by Terran and Zerg on equal footing.
Zerg and Terran are hard for different reasons. Terran macro is much easier for me due to lifting bases, supply drop and reactors while hitting injects is hard for me. Micro wise Terran is harder because I can just go ling/bling Muta and a move. I struggle with using infestors and bio so I usually just go mech of ling/bling/muta for a move armies.
Terran is not as hard as Terrans make it out to be but it is still much harder then toss (no macro required, mass warp in, colossus, lol?).
Just my 2 cents.
I feel like for players who are used to playing RTS's Zerg has the highest learning curve simply due to the fact that we're used to "Terran" production (and to a lesser extent Protoss as well) because it's the most widely used form of production in RTS games. My girlfriend who had never touched a RTS in her life found Zerg much easier to learn than Terran or Protoss, and once I got the hang of injects (really quite easy compared to a Terran's macro cycle in my opinion) Zerg's macro mechanics have actually become the easiest part of playing Zerg for me.
While the discussion here has been way more civil than most would have guessed, I'm not really seeing the point of it other than being a "Terran is very difficult to play" circle jerk. Not to say that I don't agree, this just doesn't seem productive at all.
WOL launched with Small maps and a shitload of timing attacks people didn't know how to defend, hence terran dominance. Then three forces started to shape balance separately but simultaneously: players became better at defending timing attacks, Blizzard went on a terran nerf spree and tournaments started to introduce bigger and bigger maps. Somewhere along the way the balance had tipped in zerg's favor but things didn't stop there. Understandably so since a.) these parties don't cooperate closely and b.) some changes take several months to show their effect. (Although I find it a little too convenient how in the year leading up to HotS' launch zerg is at its strongest.)
Anyway my point is that having huge maps, no viable timing attacks and anemic harassment potential is just as stupid as steppes of war with strong siege tanks was. If the current race design is to stay, Blizzard and map makers need to find a middle road. Defending early and midgame for zerg and end game for terran needs to be comparable in difficulty and let's be honest, the real picture couldn't be more different.
Considering the forgiveness of the terran race, it all comes down to two things: Macro mechanics and AoE. As Agro_Z has worded it so appropriately, "larva inject and warp gate are fundamental flaws in the game that no amount of unit stat tinkering can remedy". And seeing the arrogance of the dev team + their attitude towards BW I don't expect this to change.
AoE is a problem because the marine is the backbone of the terran army. Small, slow, low health unit; as susceptible to AoE as it gets. If using the marauder instead was an option, micro requirements wouldn't be nearly as steep. Muta ling bane was the only comp similarly demanding and look how it got phased out despite no nerfs. People naturally gravitated towards brood infestor not only because it is stronger but because it is a lot easier to control.
Terrans losing several games to being caught unsieged is a concern, but it has nothing to do with the tank as a unit. Playing the siege / unsiege game is what makes them unique and you SHOULD die if you screw up. Rather it is the lopsided overall game balance forcing terrans to take stupid risks like dashing their whole army over creep is what's at the root of the problem.
There are many design choices that seem very backwards to me: Terran, the least mobile race with the best defensive capabilities forced to go out and play the aggressor. Zerg, the race made to expand and given all the tools necessary to be wasteful having the most cost effective end game army of all. Terran - the least flexible race due to production buildings, addons, separate upgrades - having to assume the reactionary role. Maps trying to emulate Brood War in the era of death ball vs. death ball where there is no defender's advantage to speak of and races can't really capitalize on more than three bases, etc...
On January 19 2013 12:40 kill619 wrote: While the discussion here has been way more civil than most would have guessed, I'm not really seeing the point of it other than being a "Terran is very difficult to play" circle jerk. Not to say that I don't agree, this just doesn't seem productive at all.
Hey we need support groups after being traumatized on ladder.
On January 19 2013 12:40 kill619 wrote: While the discussion here has been way more civil than most would have guessed, I'm not really seeing the point of it other than being a "Terran is very difficult to play" circle jerk. Not to say that I don't agree, this just doesn't seem productive at all.
Hey we need support groups after being traumatized on ladder.
I know that feel bro, just surprised no one has closed this yet s'all. I guess there's potential here that I'm just not seeing, or maybe the mods are just taking pity on the Terrans seeing as how blizzard doesn't seem to want to T_T
On January 19 2013 11:27 Prevolved wrote: Terran players saying Terran is the hardest. Seems legit.
User was warned for this post
I'm pretty sure by this point most Protoss and Zerg players can admit that too.
Real life example: I played terran at a high masters level, rarely ever offraced. I didn't think i could make a CSL match so we put in a gold protoss instead of me. He got matched up against a high masters zerg. A couple days before the game I realized i could play indeed, so I subbed for our toss. I beat the high masters zerg with 2 base blink stalkers despite never really playing protoss, and never really playing zerg. Does anyone honestly think a high masters protoss player could play terran and beat a high masters zerg player on a dime?
It's just not even a debate anymore that terran is MUCH MUCH harder to play. As for top level balance that's still undecided. but difficulty level it's not even a question.
As someone who plays all three races at around low masters level I would have to say Toss is BY FAR the easiest to play followed by Terran and Zerg on equal footing.
Zerg and Terran are hard for different reasons. Terran macro is much easier for me due to lifting bases, supply drop and reactors while hitting injects is hard for me. Micro wise Terran is harder because I can just go ling/bling Muta and a move. I struggle with using infestors and bio so I usually just go mech of ling/bling/muta for a move armies.
Terran is not as hard as Terrans make it out to be but it is still much harder then toss (no macro required, mass warp in, colossus, lol?).
Just my 2 cents.
I feel like for players who are used to playing RTS's Zerg has the highest learning curve simply due to the fact that we're used to "Terran" production (and to a lesser extent Protoss as well) because it's the most widely used form of production in RTS games. My girlfriend who had never touched a RTS in her life found Zerg much easier to learn than Terran or Protoss, and once I got the hang of injects (really quite easy compared to a Terran's macro cycle in my opinion) Zerg's macro mechanics have actually become the easiest part of playing Zerg for me.
Actually most RTS out there are nothing like Starcraft at all. The only one that is close to it is maybe Terran but otherwise the learning curve for Terran is fairly high for people that come from backgrounds like command and conquer series. Zerg is far closer to be like command and conquer just because you can have all your structures and unit creation under one hotkey.
To me its not the learning curve or the race balance that I have an issue with its the playstyle of many people that play this game in a very passive way that it sometimes through you off when you see an aggressive player because a vast majority of people in lower leagues never attack until they have a max army which is very frustrating for people trying to learn the game properly but are running into players that are flat out not willing to get better at the game that makes people lose games because going against a purely defensive player frustrates most people that after they attack and lose a majority of there army and then are rebuilding it that the other player never even bothers to use that opportunity to attack and just sits there trying to reach max army.
Most of the mineral lines in this game have to many minerals that never forces players to get outside an expand. If they shrunk the amount of minerals in each line then possibly you could see players expanding and possibly attacking because they will run out of resources faster and will be forced to move out on the map to protect there expansion or to stop a player from expanding. Right now though if they don't adjust the amount of minerals in each base then I doubt we will see a change at all from WOL to HOTS.
On January 19 2013 11:27 Prevolved wrote: Terran players saying Terran is the hardest. Seems legit.
User was warned for this post
I'm pretty sure by this point most Protoss and Zerg players can admit that too.
Real life example: I played terran at a high masters level, rarely ever offraced. I didn't think i could make a CSL match so we put in a gold protoss instead of me. He got matched up against a high masters zerg. A couple days before the game I realized i could play indeed, so I subbed for our toss. I beat the high masters zerg with 2 base blink stalkers despite never really playing protoss, and never really playing zerg. Does anyone honestly think a high masters protoss player could play terran and beat a high masters zerg player on a dime?
It's just not even a debate anymore that terran is MUCH MUCH harder to play. As for top level balance that's still undecided. but difficulty level it's not even a question.
As someone who plays all three races at around low masters level I would have to say Toss is BY FAR the easiest to play followed by Terran and Zerg on equal footing.
Zerg and Terran are hard for different reasons. Terran macro is much easier for me due to lifting bases, supply drop and reactors while hitting injects is hard for me. Micro wise Terran is harder because I can just go ling/bling Muta and a move. I struggle with using infestors and bio so I usually just go mech of ling/bling/muta for a move armies.
Terran is not as hard as Terrans make it out to be but it is still much harder then toss (no macro required, mass warp in, colossus, lol?).
Just my 2 cents.
I feel like for players who are used to playing RTS's Zerg has the highest learning curve simply due to the fact that we're used to "Terran" production (and to a lesser extent Protoss as well) because it's the most widely used form of production in RTS games. My girlfriend who had never touched a RTS in her life found Zerg much easier to learn than Terran or Protoss, and once I got the hang of injects (really quite easy compared to a Terran's macro cycle in my opinion) Zerg's macro mechanics have actually become the easiest part of playing Zerg for me.
I started out as a Zerg player back in BW and I remember how annoying it was to have to build all that infrastructure when I switched to Protoss years later. It was only at the end that I learned the nightmare that was Terran base construction. Fuck BW supply depots.
Anyway, I find Zerg macro to be by far the simplest in SC2. You basically just operate on a timer and do the same things over and over. All of those active decisions you have to make when playing Terran and to a lesser extent Protoss about where to place buildings, how to most efficiently use your space, which add-ons to use and when, simply don't exist. The only difficult part is knowing when you can drone.
I am not sure why the OP thinks Terran is unbalanced at *lower* levels. With better macro you can always take a step up, regardless of which race you play. It is at the pro level, where macro is basically 99% perfect in every game, where you see the most obvious imbalance.
The fact that no foreign terran ever beats a korean Z literally EVER is quite telling, especially when you have white zergs constantly threatening and beating korean terrans. Yes threads like this are all over the place, but what else are Terrans supposed to do? Nobody is listening so I guess be as loud as possible until we finally disappear?
Considering they used to be the easiest for quite some time, when all they had to do was to roll the all-in dice, I think it's fair to say that times changes Edit : And that the answer is, obviously no
The fact that no foreign terran ever beats a korean Z literally EVER is quite telling,
Kas 2-0'd Golden today
As many people, including terrans, said before, this thread cannot take any direction but the "Us terran" direction, I regret answering to this already
On January 19 2013 12:58 Iron_ wrote: I am not sure why the OP thinks Terran is unbalanced at *lower* levels. With better macro you can always take a step up, regardless of which race you play. It is at the pro level, where macro is basically 99% perfect in every game, where you see the most obvious imbalance.
The fact that no foreign terran ever beats a korean Z literally EVER is quite telling, especially when you have white zergs constantly threatening and beating korean terrans. Yes threads like this are all over the place, but what else are Terrans supposed to do? Nobody is listening so I guess be as loud as possible until we finally disappear?
Because being marginally better than your opponent shouldn't be a requirement to have an equal chance of beating someone simply because of the race they play. If two races are balanced, then both players should have an equal shot of beating each other regardless of what skill level is being referred to. If the only place the game is "balanced" is at the skill level where quitting your job and playing starcraft for 5-12 hours a day is required, that's a pretty big "fuck you" to a large chunk of your player base.
On January 19 2013 11:59 Kashll wrote: It's just not even a debate anymore that terran is MUCH MUCH harder to play. As for top level balance that's still undecided. but difficulty level it's not even a question.
I wouldn't call it "much much" harder to play. I play both terran and protoss at masters level (switching between the two whenever I feel like it) and fare equally well. It's just that different races reward different things, and the aspects that a terran needs to master are much more hectic and attention consuming than protoss and zerg. However, terran vs zerg is severely skewed towards being super-duper easy for zerg, no doubt about that.
I'm stating that very small mechanical aspects of the game is what make Terran seem "MUCH MUCH" harder to play at lower levels, when addressing these issues would make for Terran to be more accessible to the more average skilled player.
What I'm trying to say is... Terran is roughly on even playing ground in terms of skill. However, due to small aspects of design of the other races as I stated in the OP, the main game deciding battles particularly mid-game to lategame are skewed in the Protoss and Zerg favour. Lets say picking a fight with a Protoss is trying to find the sweet spot, and fighting a zerg is like trying to find the blind spot. Terran macro really isn't all too hard at all.
Nothing is likely to change because if they buff terran for the average master/gm player (foreigners), terran will become too strong in the hands of top koreans.
I dont think that Terran is underpowered, I just feel that Terran is hard to use the units at the fullest, just look at the marines, the difference of a bad controlled group of marines to a well controlled is huge, Other races dont have any unit that have a range of skill cap like the marine. Ghost is and Raven are harder to use than Infestor and HT, for example, to use a Ghost to the fullest u have to snipe observers and land EMP on HTs, but use HT is easier cause storm do the same damage to all targets and is easier to land a Storm. All of this do not turn Terran underpowered, just harder the units at the fullest, something that Koreans can do, Foreigners cant at the moment.
On January 19 2013 14:23 Masq wrote: this has been discussed a million times.
Nothing is likely to change because if they buff terran for the average master/gm player (foreigners), terran will become too strong in the hands of top koreans.
You have two options, suck it up or switch races.
Basically this...
It's hard enough for devs to make the game balanced at only the top level of play. The thought of having a balanced game at all levels of play while maintaining significantly different races is an extreme challenge, and I think the devs should be commended for the fact that the game is as balanced as it is. It's always funny that people hold up BW as this perfectly balanced RTS game, when really it was quite awful by the standards that would be applied to it by most SC2 players. Terran was horrendously UP for lower level players. You would literally have to be a mid masters level Terran to be a platinum leveled Protoss player. (I was C- Protoss, D- Terran whilst playing 95% of my games as Terran. I basically became C- with Toss on a whim.)
To be fair though, something about BW made me not mind losing 80% of my games as Terran which doesn't exist in SC2. Maybe it was joining ICCup as a total n00b near the end, giving me the feeling everybody had played longer than me so it was only natural that i was getting steam rollered. Maybe it was just Terran in BW was so much fun that the one time my siege line held it made it worth all the failures. Maybe the fact that I so easily played Toss and won made me realize that I was inherently better than Toss players who couldn't get past D or D+ (lol) so I could still feel somewhat superior even whilst losing. I really don't know what it is, even though SC2 the skill gap is smaller between races at low levels than BW and engagements much less forgiving the annoyance at being steamrolled by P or Z is much greater. Maybe it was just in BW no D Protoss ever talked smack because anybody playing BW knew that if you weren't a D+ Protoss you were basically garbage. Maybe that is why this thread should exist just so Terrans can look at this and realize that though they got beat that doesn't mean they're worse and use it as encouragement to keep with it and get better.
Ultimately though playing all three races in BW and SC2, I stuck with Terran in each because I found it the most fun and interesting to play. I enjoy feeling like my armies are unforgiving but have enormous potential that I can unlock. Maybe we should all just take it easy and focus on having fun, instead of who's better than who at what level. After all, unless you're a pro, you'e terrible at this game.
On January 19 2013 12:58 Iron_ wrote: I am not sure why the OP thinks Terran is unbalanced at *lower* levels. With better macro you can always take a step up, regardless of which race you play. It is at the pro level, where macro is basically 99% perfect in every game, where you see the most obvious imbalance.
The fact that no foreign terran ever beats a korean Z literally EVER is quite telling, especially when you have white zergs constantly threatening and beating korean terrans. Yes threads like this are all over the place, but what else are Terrans supposed to do? Nobody is listening so I guess be as loud as possible until we finally disappear?
Because being marginally better than your opponent shouldn't be a requirement to have an equal chance of beating someone simply because of the race they play. If two races are balanced, then both players should have an equal shot of beating each other regardless of what skill level is being referred to. If the only place the game is "balanced" is at the skill level where quitting your job and playing starcraft for 5-12 hours a day is required, that's a pretty big "fuck you" to a large chunk of your player base.
But it IS a requirement, at ALL levels up to pro. You have the capacity to be better. Not every match is even at lower levels. Among the many reasons for losing, imbalance is never the sole, and more rarely the biggest contributing factor. To even evaluate the existence of such imbalances (between all races) you'd have to remove the variable of skill level which is virtually impossible at lower levels unlike at the top where it asymptotes and opponents are much closer in skill. There is a very big reason why balance is only regarded at the top. Do you want the same rehashed explanations or are you just going to grasp at anything and weather the storm?
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.
really, injecting on 5 hatches? unless you're talking about some past 30 minutes weird ass ZvZ you're blatantly exaggerating, because at most you'll be injecting on 3 bases+a macro hatch in your main for the other matchups. which is as simple as keeping 3 of your queens hotkeyed, not very hard to do.
from then on you simply dont have to hit perfect injects on the fifth hatch(or your main hatches for that matter), you can casually inject as you are scrolling around the map.
long gone are the days when zerg had to hit every single inject to keep up with production
Protoss players who talk smack after winning games are just like your young cousin who used to pick Oddjob when you were playing GoldenEye and then talk smack when he did alright. Ultimately it's like, whatever he's a bit of a dumbass and doesn't really know what he's talking about, but you're just glad that he's not in you immediate family.
On January 19 2013 14:50 YumYumGranola wrote: Protoss players who talk smack after winning games are just like your young cousin who used to pick Oddjob when you were playing GoldenEye and then talk smack when he did alright. Ultimately it's like, whatever he's a bit of a dumbass and doesn't really know what he's talking about, but you're just glad that he's not in you immediate family.
Considering they used to be the easiest for quite some time, when all they had to do was to roll the all-in dice, I think it's fair to say that times changes
You mean all they COULD do, terran end game is weak since day one. Only difference being that back then hatch first, droning without an army and 12 min hive wasn't considered zerg's birth right, so terrans could actually win before the end game, albeit too easily. Blizzard over compensated so now it's the other way around.
On January 19 2013 12:58 Iron_ wrote: I am not sure why the OP thinks Terran is unbalanced at *lower* levels. With better macro you can always take a step up, regardless of which race you play. It is at the pro level, where macro is basically 99% perfect in every game, where you see the most obvious imbalance.
The fact that no foreign terran ever beats a korean Z literally EVER is quite telling, especially when you have white zergs constantly threatening and beating korean terrans. Yes threads like this are all over the place, but what else are Terrans supposed to do? Nobody is listening so I guess be as loud as possible until we finally disappear?
Because being marginally better than your opponent shouldn't be a requirement to have an equal chance of beating someone simply because of the race they play. If two races are balanced, then both players should have an equal shot of beating each other regardless of what skill level is being referred to. If the only place the game is "balanced" is at the skill level where quitting your job and playing starcraft for 5-12 hours a day is required, that's a pretty big "fuck you" to a large chunk of your player base.
But it IS a requirement, at ALL levels up to pro. You have the capacity to be better. Not every match is even at lower levels. Among the many reasons for losing, imbalance is never the sole, and more rarely the biggest contributing factor. To even evaluate the existence of such imbalances (between all races) you'd have to remove the variable of skill level which is virtually impossible at lower levels unlike at the top where it asymptotes and opponents are much closer in skill. There is a very big reason why balance is only regarded at the top. Do you want the same rehashed explanations or are you just going to grasp at anything and weather the storm?
haha, your funny. You really think I'm gonna fall for this shit again?
I'm a high masters T player, and I never once thought about race switching.
I've played T since Broodwar, and I'll always be T!
I think the source of the problem is just fundamentally the way Terran works. You need to "build up" production buildings to match your economy, never miss any rounds of units, etc. At the same time, the pressure is always on you to make a move against your opponent, because your 200/200 is not favorable against brood/infestor nor the P death ball. Then the responsibility is on you to harass, deny expansions, and outposition your opponent. Not making mistakes in these decisions takes experience and is often the reason for losses (macro mechanics aside).
It's very much less mechanical and more gamesense (yet the mechanical aspects like not missing depots, scvs, and muels and such are still there and apply for all races). For example with Zerg, creep spreading and injecting are purely mechanical skills, and yet are HUGE factors to a player's skill.
EDIT: I said source of the "problem," I don't think it's a problem though... it's just the way the race works
On January 19 2013 12:58 Iron_ wrote: I am not sure why the OP thinks Terran is unbalanced at *lower* levels. With better macro you can always take a step up, regardless of which race you play. It is at the pro level, where macro is basically 99% perfect in every game, where you see the most obvious imbalance.
The fact that no foreign terran ever beats a korean Z literally EVER is quite telling, especially when you have white zergs constantly threatening and beating korean terrans. Yes threads like this are all over the place, but what else are Terrans supposed to do? Nobody is listening so I guess be as loud as possible until we finally disappear?
Because being marginally better than your opponent shouldn't be a requirement to have an equal chance of beating someone simply because of the race they play. If two races are balanced, then both players should have an equal shot of beating each other regardless of what skill level is being referred to. If the only place the game is "balanced" is at the skill level where quitting your job and playing starcraft for 5-12 hours a day is required, that's a pretty big "fuck you" to a large chunk of your player base.
But it IS a requirement, at ALL levels up to pro. You have the capacity to be better. Not every match is even at lower levels. Among the many reasons for losing, imbalance is never the sole, and more rarely the biggest contributing factor. To even evaluate the existence of such imbalances (between all races) you'd have to remove the variable of skill level which is virtually impossible at lower levels unlike at the top where it asymptotes and opponents are much closer in skill. There is a very big reason why balance is only regarded at the top. Do you want the same rehashed explanations or are you just going to grasp at anything and weather the storm?
haha, your funny. You really think I'm gonna fall for this shit again?
On January 19 2013 12:58 Iron_ wrote: I am not sure why the OP thinks Terran is unbalanced at *lower* levels. With better macro you can always take a step up, regardless of which race you play. It is at the pro level, where macro is basically 99% perfect in every game, where you see the most obvious imbalance.
The fact that no foreign terran ever beats a korean Z literally EVER is quite telling, especially when you have white zergs constantly threatening and beating korean terrans. Yes threads like this are all over the place, but what else are Terrans supposed to do? Nobody is listening so I guess be as loud as possible until we finally disappear?
Because being marginally better than your opponent shouldn't be a requirement to have an equal chance of beating someone simply because of the race they play. If two races are balanced, then both players should have an equal shot of beating each other regardless of what skill level is being referred to. If the only place the game is "balanced" is at the skill level where quitting your job and playing starcraft for 5-12 hours a day is required, that's a pretty big "fuck you" to a large chunk of your player base.
But it IS a requirement, at ALL levels up to pro. You have the capacity to be better. Not every match is even at lower levels. Among the many reasons for losing, imbalance is never the sole, and more rarely the biggest contributing factor. To even evaluate the existence of such imbalances (between all races) you'd have to remove the variable of skill level which is virtually impossible at lower levels unlike at the top where it asymptotes and opponents are much closer in skill. There is a very big reason why balance is only regarded at the top. Do you want the same rehashed explanations or are you just going to grasp at anything and weather the storm?
haha, your funny. You really think I'm gonna fall for this shit again?
On January 19 2013 14:23 Masq wrote: this has been discussed a million times.
Nothing is likely to change because if they buff terran for the average master/gm player (foreigners), terran will become too strong in the hands of top koreans.
You have two options, suck it up or switch races.
Basically this...
It's hard enough for devs to make the game balanced at only the top level of play. The thought of having a balanced game at all levels of play while maintaining significantly different races is an extreme challenge, and I think the devs should be commended for the fact that the game is as balanced as it is. It's always funny that people hold up BW as this perfectly balanced RTS game, when really it was quite awful by the standards that would be applied to it by most SC2 players. Terran was horrendously UP for lower level players. You would literally have to be a mid masters level Terran to be a platinum leveled Protoss player. (I was C- Protoss, D- Terran whilst playing 95% of my games as Terran. I basically became C- with Toss on a whim.)
To be fair though, something about BW made me not mind losing 80% of my games as Terran which doesn't exist in SC2. Maybe it was joining ICCup as a total n00b near the end, giving me the feeling everybody had played longer than me so it was only natural that i was getting steam rollered. Maybe it was just Terran in BW was so much fun that the one time my siege line held it made it worth all the failures. Maybe the fact that I so easily played Toss and won made me realize that I was inherently better than Toss players who couldn't get past D or D+ (lol) so I could still feel somewhat superior even whilst losing. I really don't know what it is, even though SC2 the skill gap is smaller between races at low levels than BW and engagements much less forgiving the annoyance at being steamrolled by P or Z is much greater. Maybe it was just in BW no D Protoss ever talked smack because anybody playing BW knew that if you weren't a D+ Protoss you were basically garbage. Maybe that is why this thread should exist just so Terrans can look at this and realize that though they got beat that doesn't mean they're worse and use it as encouragement to keep with it and get better.
Ultimately though playing all three races in BW and SC2, I stuck with Terran in each because I found it the most fun and interesting to play. I enjoy feeling like my armies are unforgiving but have enormous potential that I can unlock. Maybe we should all just take it easy and focus on having fun, instead of who's better than who at what level. After all, unless you're a pro, you'e terrible at this game.
Well the first part is just not right! I was a B- Terran and after release High Master and then Mid Master T and i felt like T at BW was balanced while it isn't at SC2.
After all the Nerfs and Buffs for Z/P it got really hard, because defending is always easier than being aggressive. What Blizzard basically did was nerfing most of the T strategies which were designed to be aggressive and buffing P/Z abilities to defend which resulted in Terrans going for FE style and here are 2 problems in my opinion: 1. P/Z are able to punish a FE Terran with different builds 2. P/Z army is stronger at 200/200 max fights and they can rebuild way faster
I am fine with nerfing builds like the early Marine/SCV all-in or the proxy fax Thor rush but what I will never understand is the RAX requires Depot nerf, it was a build that put you behind economically and was designed to punish a FE of P/Z and would win you the game like 70% without problems but it was a buildorder win. You take a risk and you may have a high chance of losing or winning. All in all i cried for like a year saying that the Terran lategame is UP and nothing changed and what I did was simple, I stopped playing SC2 and now I play since 2 days again because of HotS and after like 5 games with T I tried P again and sticked with it for the next 40 games.
As a Zerg player, I agree that creep is very strong against Terran. I would go so far as to say it is imbalanced. I also agree that Protoss are less affected by creep. At least they can fight on creep. It seems like Terrans cannot engage on creep ever. In the midgame, good creep spread and overlord speed means I can cover the entire map with vision.
On January 19 2013 14:25 Tileks wrote: I dont think that Terran is underpowered, I just feel that Terran is hard to use the units at the fullest, just look at the marines, the difference of a bad controlled group of marines to a well controlled is huge, Other races dont have any unit that have a range of skill cap like the marine. Ghost is and Raven are harder to use than Infestor and HT, for example, to use a Ghost to the fullest u have to snipe observers and land EMP on HTs, but use HT is easier cause storm do the same damage to all targets and is easier to land a Storm. All of this do not turn Terran underpowered, just harder the units at the fullest, something that Koreans can do, Foreigners cant at the moment.
i highly disagree with ghosts being harder to use than hts, its easier to land emps by spamming them, toss will then just get rolled, and ghosts have an extra range.
i think he meant its harder to kite and use ghosts. PvT deathball is very close to equal though. If a few emps are landed that hit the templars, the terran can literally hit t and a move the toss. Once you get used to the range or storm, you can just kite the zealots until you can win.
On January 19 2013 16:03 freizya wrote: i think he meant its harder to kite and use ghosts. PvT deathball is very close to equal though. If a few emps are landed that hit the templars, the terran can literally hit t and a move the toss. Once you get used to the range or storm, you can just kite the zealots until you can win.
High level TvP takes way more skill from the terran to win late game, if they don't win the first engagement favorably, they lose due to their inability to remax because of how their production mechanic works.
Fellow random too! And I don't agree that Terran is harder, I think it's a matter of play style. Maybe it doesn't suit you. I always liked being aggressive and had a blast playing Terran.
I think I a lot of ways playing passive is harder at a lower level, because you have to scout and prepare for so much stuff. As a Terran I can decide ill go for a certain attack and all I have to think of is the execution, with minimal scouting.
I think this sense of entitlement that Terran players have is problematic, because people now say things like "Terran is harder" like it's an established fact. I see no evidence for it, and my experience is that it's wrong (I would agree, though, that at the highest level they're underpowered).
On January 19 2013 14:25 Tileks wrote: I dont think that Terran is underpowered, I just feel that Terran is hard to use the units at the fullest, just look at the marines, the difference of a bad controlled group of marines to a well controlled is huge, Other races dont have any unit that have a range of skill cap like the marine. Ghost is and Raven are harder to use than Infestor and HT, for example, to use a Ghost to the fullest u have to snipe observers and land EMP on HTs, but use HT is easier cause storm do the same damage to all targets and is easier to land a Storm. All of this do not turn Terran underpowered, just harder the units at the fullest, something that Koreans can do, Foreigners cant at the moment.
i agree in some ways. i think that in bronze zerg is hardest and at around gold-dia terran is hardest and then it evens out. One thing that you cant forget is that people are diffrent, i had very easy time with terran because it suits my style so well and had a harder time with zerg and some people probaly have an easy time with zerg and hard time with terran.
My biggest problem with SC2 right now are the maps. They have gotten more and more "open" with almost no features apart from the main and natural, maybe the 3ed. Why so few chokes? Why so few high ground areas? My only hope is with KESPA, as i think Blizzard, the community and GSL have all failed miserably at making good maps.
EDIT: open maps + lack of micro needed+speed gives Zerg a big advantage in the "how hard is to play" area.
I am a top diamond player since a lot of seasons… I feel a lot better than my opponents, given my game sense, my micro and my various builds (and TvT really tells me alot about this), but I also feel stuck forever in diamond, losing to two bad storms / fungle, an ultra after broodlord remax, DTs, and other shit you simply can't adapt quick enough.
When I try to all in myself, like hellion/marau, even when it's not scouted, the other races can more than often instantly warp reinforcements if needed or use all the larvaes with the correct counter unit… It's incredible how easy and quick it is for these races to adress an urgent need, it's so damn unfair compared to us. If you see the first colossi, how much time before you get enough vikings ? If a protoss sees a banshee, how much time before he gets the counter ? I don't even want to talk about Zerg at this point.
This, in addition of the constant threat of losing your army to a single spell + a click, is extremely stressful as a player. I even get really depressed after a gaming session, as I don't understand how I could win games where I macroed correctly, microed like a king, and adapted well to anything thrown at me. Little errors make you lose vs Huge errors.
The finishing blow comes from the way P& Z are playing : do nothing and defend until they're unbeatable. It's like being on a timer where you explode at the end, whereas you, as terran, can NEVER do the same playing bio and can never tank an army 30 food ahead of your own if you need to defend… I have so many recorded replays to showcase this imbalanced racial difficulty, it's not even funny.
I'm really really depressed with SCII. I went to the Ironsquid in Paris last year. I watched the VOD again and let me tell you : the game SUCKS right now. It's a 200/200 race, boring, repetitive, imbalanced, without micro, while the game was awesome before and TvZ was the staple matchup of SCII. Watch some good old VOD, the first GSL seasons, and you'll see how better the game was before. The new map pool + the queen patch really killed this game. I don't know if I can continue anymore. Everytime I launch the game, I'm ready to be sad. The only way to feel powerful during direct engagements is to go mech sadly, and adopt the boring style of the other races…
whats the most played race protoss? protoss is easiest but at a high level it seems to lose as a race problem to zergs pretty hard while terran can do well in every matchup.
the problem with protoss is its more fun to go blink stalker warp prism harass but its complete garbage generally speaking as a strat because really strong zerg/terran midgame pushes crush you where as terrans crazy all over the place style actually works. just from a fun standpoint
Terran is the hardest beacause otherwise it would be blatantly OP. Having the marine at what not. Just the most cost-effective units overall. Since it's the hardest it's also the least played.
Another thread for terrans to vent their frustrations. I can relate since I do play terran in highmasters but these threads are silly because people always come to the same conclusion and give themselves a pat on their backs for how much effort they show while playing Terran.
Top koreans ruin the game for every mortal Terran since they are pushing the skill ceiling ever upwards and if they get a leg up on other races the race gets nerfed. Not that I mind much.
On January 19 2013 14:25 Tileks wrote: I dont think that Terran is underpowered, I just feel that Terran is hard to use the units at the fullest, just look at the marines, the difference of a bad controlled group of marines to a well controlled is huge, Other races dont have any unit that have a range of skill cap like the marine. Ghost is and Raven are harder to use than Infestor and HT, for example, to use a Ghost to the fullest u have to snipe observers and land EMP on HTs, but use HT is easier cause storm do the same damage to all targets and is easier to land a Storm. All of this do not turn Terran underpowered, just harder the units at the fullest, something that Koreans can do, Foreigners cant at the moment.
i highly disagree with ghosts being harder to use than hts, its easier to land emps by spamming them, toss will then just get rolled, and ghosts have an extra range.
This made my skin crawl. You have clearly never played TvP from the Terran side. Ghosts have to *LEAD* your army to cast the emp spell, and even if it lands, you have to hit *ALL* of the templars *TWICE* to stop storm, which will kill you if you do not hit every single one. So, when the ghosts get done casting emps they *die instantly* because they do not have stim and they are slow as fuck and can not micro at all.
Second, ghosts lead the group if you box click. This means that if you need to box click your units at any time to stim real fast, it does not cast. You either need to control click them out of the group, or tab over to cast the spell. Since the Terran army dies in about 1.5 seconds to the protoss death ball, this seemingly small detail becomes a huge deal.
Third, there is no such thing as "spamming emp". Try it. Go into unit tester and spam emp as fast as you can with 4 ghosts. You know what happens? One or two goes off. Because it is not instant cast, if you cast it too fast, they don't go off. It's fucking horrible. Ghosts are just plain awful compared to their HT and Intestor counterparts. Just awful.
I think it's about style. For me T was always easier. It seemed to me it was harder to punish and as a T I felt much safer with a variety of openings. Also you don't have to worry about cheese that much.
I dont think the imbalance is that big. (There will always be imbalance, its not possible to balance a game perfectly, even in Chess you can argue that one color is better then the other). I am only in a gold Terran, but most of the times i can identify what i did wrong, when i loose. And i believe that is true for all games, that are mentioned in this thread.
But maybe the terran race has a more frustrating feel to it, when they loose ? And you have to learn to deal with this frustration as a person, before you can get the right mindset to improve as a player.
The terran race is weaker in the late game and stronger in the midgame. That was confirmed by Blizzard themselfes as they explained the TvP issues.[http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/4838104108#1]So you have less hope in the game. Protoss can hope to get their late game Army and kill the Terran, same for Zerg (After a good terran drop, hellion harrass, etc.) . It maybe just be an illusion but it makes the game experience less frustrating.
While as a Terran you get more often the feeling of : "There is nothing i can do, if i dont do a big amount of damage till minute X, i cannot win no matter what." And that feeling is very frustrating. And that leads to a wrong mindset and that makes you stop enjoy the game, etc. and in the end we dont have so much foreign terrans.
TL; DR : A terran loss feels more frustrating then a protoss or zerg loss. That leads to less terran players.
On January 19 2013 20:08 wingless666 wrote: I dont think the imbalance is that big. (There will always be imbalance, its not possible to balance a game perfectly, even in Chess you can argue that one color is better then the other). I am only in a gold Terran, but most of the times i can identify what i did wrong, when i loose. And i believe that is true for all games, that are mentioned in this thread.
But maybe the terran race has a more frustrating feel to it, when they loose ? And you have to learn to deal with this frustration as a person, before you can get the right mindset to improve as a player.
The terran race is weaker in the late game and stronger in the midgame. That was confirmed by Blizzard themselfes as they explained the TvP issues.[http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/4838104108#1]So you have less hope in the game. Protoss can hope to get their late game Army and kill the Terran, same for Zerg (After a good terran drop, hellion harrass, etc.) . It maybe just be an illusion but it makes the game experience less frustrating.
While as a Terran you get more often the feeling of : "There is nothing i can do, if i dont do a big amount of damage till minute X, i cannot win no matter what." And that feeling is very frustrating. And that leads to a wrong mindset and that makes you stop enjoy the game, etc. and in the end we dont have so much foreign terrans.
TL; DR : A terran loss feels more frustrating then a protoss or zerg loss. That leads to less terran players.
But actually this is false.
Ultra late game terran is stronger than ultra late game of protoss / zerg.
Ghosts / viking totally destroys any protoss army. Thor / Raven / BC + PF totally destroys any zerg army.
But until master, terran players, for sure, a lot of trouble surviving the lategame and going into the ultra late game.
When MVP was winning everything, T looked too good, but then again he was playing damn near perfect - which is what is required of T now days. Mistakes from T just more punishable.
On January 19 2013 20:17 kckkryptonite wrote: When MVP was winning everything, T looked too good, but then again he was playing damn near perfect - which is what is required of T now days. Mistakes from T just more punishable.
When MVP was winning everything T was kind of OP. We had a few seasons where GSL consisted of 80% T or something like that.
I think T will return. All that is needed for T to win more games is less open maps.
You guys actually might be right with terran beeing the race which requires most multitasking and skill. Its kinda hard to judge, cause you have to look at alot of things: scouting possibilities, spells, macro abilities like inject, boost and mule, warp ins, larva management, harass options....and so on
But still i know alot of guys, who play terran in the lower leagues and argue it is the easiest race of all, because lower skilled enemies have alot of trouble dealing with the high dps of a bioball or with drops. If your macro is bad, it´ll take too long getting AoE out and its hard too to get the map awareness and the multitasking you need to deal with a fast medivac push.
Not to stir shit up, and this thread seems dedicated to compare low-level balance with actual balance but: http://aligulac.com/periods/ Protoss almost consistently UP.
On January 19 2013 20:17 kckkryptonite wrote: When MVP was winning everything, T looked too good, but then again he was playing damn near perfect - which is what is required of T now days. Mistakes from T just more punishable.
When MVP was winning everything T was kind of OP. We had a few seasons where GSL consisted of 80% T or something like that.
I think T will return. All that is needed for T to win more games is less open maps.
You saying we had few season in GSL with around 25/32 Terrans? Random numbers for the win.
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."
Word.
This is really just an elaborate whine. Just L2P my friend.
On January 19 2013 14:25 Tileks wrote: I dont think that Terran is underpowered, I just feel that Terran is hard to use the units at the fullest, just look at the marines, the difference of a bad controlled group of marines to a well controlled is huge, Other races dont have any unit that have a range of skill cap like the marine. Ghost is and Raven are harder to use than Infestor and HT, for example, to use a Ghost to the fullest u have to snipe observers and land EMP on HTs, but use HT is easier cause storm do the same damage to all targets and is easier to land a Storm. All of this do not turn Terran underpowered, just harder the units at the fullest, something that Koreans can do, Foreigners cant at the moment.
i highly disagree with ghosts being harder to use than hts, its easier to land emps by spamming them, toss will then just get rolled, and ghosts have an extra range.
You forget that you have to place your vikings, stutter step, avoid storms, stim and try to snipe observers meanwhile you are landing those snipes and emps.
On January 19 2013 20:17 kckkryptonite wrote: When MVP was winning everything, T looked too good, but then again he was playing damn near perfect - which is what is required of T now days. Mistakes from T just more punishable.
When MVP was winning everything T was kind of OP. We had a few seasons where GSL consisted of 80% T or something like that.
I think T will return. All that is needed for T to win more games is less open maps.
You saying we had few season in GSL with around 25/32 Terrans? Random numbers for the win.
Yeah that's definitely not random. Were you not around during the GomTVT era?
On January 19 2013 20:08 wingless666 wrote: I dont think the imbalance is that big. (There will always be imbalance, its not possible to balance a game perfectly, even in Chess you can argue that one color is better then the other). I am only in a gold Terran, but most of the times i can identify what i did wrong, when i loose. And i believe that is true for all games, that are mentioned in this thread.
But maybe the terran race has a more frustrating feel to it, when they loose ? And you have to learn to deal with this frustration as a person, before you can get the right mindset to improve as a player.
The terran race is weaker in the late game and stronger in the midgame. That was confirmed by Blizzard themselfes as they explained the TvP issues.[http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/4838104108#1]So you have less hope in the game. Protoss can hope to get their late game Army and kill the Terran, same for Zerg (After a good terran drop, hellion harrass, etc.) . It maybe just be an illusion but it makes the game experience less frustrating.
While as a Terran you get more often the feeling of : "There is nothing i can do, if i dont do a big amount of damage till minute X, i cannot win no matter what." And that feeling is very frustrating. And that leads to a wrong mindset and that makes you stop enjoy the game, etc. and in the end we dont have so much foreign terrans.
TL; DR : A terran loss feels more frustrating then a protoss or zerg loss. That leads to less terran players.
NA Random masters and this is exactly how I feel.
When I get Zerg or even Protoss against Terran, I know its possible for me to stay back and play safe. When I'm Terran against another race I must constantly think of ways to get an advantage. And its not like Terran's timing attacks are amazing (I've always had more success with timing attacks as Protoss).
Terran is mechanically harder in general, and its much harder to come back from a disadvantage. Terran macro, especially, is SO unforgiving. Micro wise, I feel Terran and Zerg are probably equal most of the time.
Sadly, I started with Terran as my only race, but now its the race I dislike the most out of the 3. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone. I have friends who love Terran and everything about it. Just sharing my personal thoughts after playing all 3 races at a "decent" level.
On January 19 2013 20:17 kckkryptonite wrote: When MVP was winning everything, T looked too good, but then again he was playing damn near perfect - which is what is required of T now days. Mistakes from T just more punishable.
When MVP was winning everything T was kind of OP. We had a few seasons where GSL consisted of 80% T or something like that.
I think T will return. All that is needed for T to win more games is less open maps.
You saying we had few season in GSL with around 25/32 Terrans? Random numbers for the win.
Yeah that's definitely not random. Were you not around during the GomTVT era?
I want to bring up a strong point, the OP was talking about the difference in terms of mechanics and strategy between the races from lower to pro levels. but people must understand, we're all playing different games, while for me this game is not the similar game to my friend who play a different race, while for me SC2 (as a terran) is about TVT, TVP, TVZ strategies with different approach of macro and micro (such as keeping all raxs queued up, not over queuing, having mindset of creativity aggression etc) for my zerg friend, it is a total of a different game as he has to focus his game on total uncomparable different things - mindset of defensive game, hitting inject, creep spread.
Even if at the end of the day, we do decide that X var of zerg race is easier to execute then Y var of terran race, then we're up to a second different and impossible task, of deciding the importance of X and Y to win the game. (example: lets say dropping mules is easier from hitting inject, how can we decide if missing inject will effect much worse on my game then dropping a mule)
On January 19 2013 20:17 kckkryptonite wrote: When MVP was winning everything, T looked too good, but then again he was playing damn near perfect - which is what is required of T now days. Mistakes from T just more punishable.
When MVP was winning everything T was kind of OP. We had a few seasons where GSL consisted of 80% T or something like that.
I think T will return. All that is needed for T to win more games is less open maps.
You saying we had few season in GSL with around 25/32 Terrans? Random numbers for the win.
Yeah that's definitely not random. Were you not around during the GomTVT era?
Yeah its random since its simply false.
GSL Code S October 2011, 20 Terrans. Do your research.
On January 19 2013 20:17 kckkryptonite wrote: When MVP was winning everything, T looked too good, but then again he was playing damn near perfect - which is what is required of T now days. Mistakes from T just more punishable.
When MVP was winning everything T was kind of OP. We had a few seasons where GSL consisted of 80% T or something like that.
I think T will return. All that is needed for T to win more games is less open maps.
You saying we had few season in GSL with around 25/32 Terrans? Random numbers for the win.
Yeah that's definitely not random. Were you not around during the GomTVT era?
Yeah its random since its simply false.
GSL Code S October 2011, 20 Terrans. Do your research.
On January 19 2013 20:17 kckkryptonite wrote: When MVP was winning everything, T looked too good, but then again he was playing damn near perfect - which is what is required of T now days. Mistakes from T just more punishable.
When MVP was winning everything T was kind of OP. We had a few seasons where GSL consisted of 80% T or something like that.
I think T will return. All that is needed for T to win more games is less open maps.
You saying we had few season in GSL with around 25/32 Terrans? Random numbers for the win.
Yeah that's definitely not random. Were you not around during the GomTVT era?
Yeah its random since its simply false.
To be fair we had a season with 19/32 as terrans, the following with 20/32, and the season after that with 17/32. All of those seasons had at least 50% of the players being terran if you incude code a.
On January 19 2013 20:17 kckkryptonite wrote: When MVP was winning everything, T looked too good, but then again he was playing damn near perfect - which is what is required of T now days. Mistakes from T just more punishable.
When MVP was winning everything T was kind of OP. We had a few seasons where GSL consisted of 80% T or something like that.
I think T will return. All that is needed for T to win more games is less open maps.
You saying we had few season in GSL with around 25/32 Terrans? Random numbers for the win.
Yeah that's definitely not random. Were you not around during the GomTVT era?
Yeah its random since its simply false.
To be fair we had a season with 19/32 as terrans, the following with 20/32, and the season after that with 17/32. All of those seasons had at least 50% of the players being terran if you incude code a.
Im aware of that , still far away from 80% and that was my point about "random numbers"
On January 19 2013 20:17 kckkryptonite wrote: When MVP was winning everything, T looked too good, but then again he was playing damn near perfect - which is what is required of T now days. Mistakes from T just more punishable.
When MVP was winning everything T was kind of OP. We had a few seasons where GSL consisted of 80% T or something like that.
I think T will return. All that is needed for T to win more games is less open maps.
You saying we had few season in GSL with around 25/32 Terrans? Random numbers for the win.
Yeah that's definitely not random. Were you not around during the GomTVT era?
Yeah its random since its simply false.
GSL Code S October 2011, 20 Terrans. Do your research.
20/32=62.5%, Do your math.
It was never my intention to specify the exact percentage of T during those seasons. I just wanted to point out that they were overrepresented in GSL for a while. Me not knowing the exact percentage is kind of the reason why I added the "or something like that" to the end of the sentence.
On January 19 2013 18:29 Sapphire.lux wrote: My biggest problem with SC2 right now are the maps. They have gotten more and more "open" with almost no features apart from the main and natural, maybe the 3ed. Why so few chokes? Why so few high ground areas? My only hope is with KESPA, as i think Blizzard, the community and GSL have all failed miserably at making good maps.
EDIT: open maps + lack of micro needed+speed gives Zerg a big advantage in the "how hard is to play" area.
Early blizz maps had lots of cliffs, chokes, interesting terrain, islands, hidden expansions, multi shaped designs, etc... Then Zerg whined about imba maps and now we have our current map pool.
On January 19 2013 20:17 kckkryptonite wrote: When MVP was winning everything, T looked too good, but then again he was playing damn near perfect - which is what is required of T now days. Mistakes from T just more punishable.
When MVP was winning everything T was kind of OP. We had a few seasons where GSL consisted of 80% T or something like that.
I think T will return. All that is needed for T to win more games is less open maps.
You saying we had few season in GSL with around 25/32 Terrans? Random numbers for the win.
Yeah that's definitely not random. Were you not around during the GomTVT era?
Yeah its random since its simply false.
GSL Code S October 2011, 20 Terrans. Do your research.
20/32=62.5%, Do your math.
It was never my intention to specify the exact percentage of T during those seasons. I just wanted to point out that they were overrepresented in GSL for a while. Me not knowing the exact percentage is kind of the reason why I added the "or something like that" to the end of the sentence.
Isn't that the definition of spouting off random numbers?
On January 19 2013 14:25 Tileks wrote: I dont think that Terran is underpowered, I just feel that Terran is hard to use the units at the fullest, just look at the marines, the difference of a bad controlled group of marines to a well controlled is huge, Other races dont have any unit that have a range of skill cap like the marine. Ghost is and Raven are harder to use than Infestor and HT, for example, to use a Ghost to the fullest u have to snipe observers and land EMP on HTs, but use HT is easier cause storm do the same damage to all targets and is easier to land a Storm. All of this do not turn Terran underpowered, just harder the units at the fullest, something that Koreans can do, Foreigners cant at the moment.
i highly disagree with ghosts being harder to use than hts, its easier to land emps by spamming them, toss will then just get rolled, and ghosts have an extra range.
This made my skin crawl. You have clearly never played TvP from the Terran side. Ghosts have to *LEAD* your army to cast the emp spell, and even if it lands, you have to hit *ALL* of the templars *TWICE* to stop storm, which will kill you if you do not hit every single one. So, when the ghosts get done casting emps they *die instantly* because they do not have stim and they are slow as fuck and can not micro at all.
Second, ghosts lead the group if you box click. This means that if you need to box click your units at any time to stim real fast, it does not cast. You either need to control click them out of the group, or tab over to cast the spell. Since the Terran army dies in about 1.5 seconds to the protoss death ball, this seemingly small detail becomes a huge deal.
Third, there is no such thing as "spamming emp". Try it. Go into unit tester and spam emp as fast as you can with 4 ghosts. You know what happens? One or two goes off. Because it is not instant cast, if you cast it too fast, they don't go off. It's fucking horrible. Ghosts are just plain awful compared to their HT and Intestor counterparts. Just awful.
Just from the way you're describing the way you control your units, I can tell you don't understand how to efficiently command MMMGV.
On January 19 2013 14:25 Tileks wrote: I dont think that Terran is underpowered, I just feel that Terran is hard to use the units at the fullest, just look at the marines, the difference of a bad controlled group of marines to a well controlled is huge, Other races dont have any unit that have a range of skill cap like the marine. Ghost is and Raven are harder to use than Infestor and HT, for example, to use a Ghost to the fullest u have to snipe observers and land EMP on HTs, but use HT is easier cause storm do the same damage to all targets and is easier to land a Storm. All of this do not turn Terran underpowered, just harder the units at the fullest, something that Koreans can do, Foreigners cant at the moment.
i highly disagree with ghosts being harder to use than hts, its easier to land emps by spamming them, toss will then just get rolled, and ghosts have an extra range.
This made my skin crawl. You have clearly never played TvP from the Terran side. Ghosts have to *LEAD* your army to cast the emp spell, and even if it lands, you have to hit *ALL* of the templars *TWICE* to stop storm, which will kill you if you do not hit every single one. So, when the ghosts get done casting emps they *die instantly* because they do not have stim and they are slow as fuck and can not micro at all.
Second, ghosts lead the group if you box click. This means that if you need to box click your units at any time to stim real fast, it does not cast. You either need to control click them out of the group, or tab over to cast the spell. Since the Terran army dies in about 1.5 seconds to the protoss death ball, this seemingly small detail becomes a huge deal.
Third, there is no such thing as "spamming emp". Try it. Go into unit tester and spam emp as fast as you can with 4 ghosts. You know what happens? One or two goes off. Because it is not instant cast, if you cast it too fast, they don't go off. It's fucking horrible. Ghosts are just plain awful compared to their HT and Intestor counterparts. Just awful.
Just from the way you're describing the way you control your units, I can tell you don't understand how to efficiently command MMMGV.
I agree. MMMGV needs proper position and movement. About your ghost emp thing. I think you should get a raven with you. It's not the same as playing vs overseer because you can snipe it. But perhaps you can have a raven in front with your vikings. -- Kill the obs. Because the obs will most likely be in front of his army. Then hopefully run in and snipe or emp the hts.
On January 19 2013 18:29 Sapphire.lux wrote: My biggest problem with SC2 right now are the maps. They have gotten more and more "open" with almost no features apart from the main and natural, maybe the 3ed. Why so few chokes? Why so few high ground areas? My only hope is with KESPA, as i think Blizzard, the community and GSL have all failed miserably at making good maps.
EDIT: open maps + lack of micro needed+speed gives Zerg a big advantage in the "how hard is to play" area.
Early blizz maps had lots of cliffs, chokes, interesting terrain, islands, hidden expansions, multi shaped designs, etc... Then Zerg whined about imba maps and now we have our current map pool.
Oh please, next thing you gonne say is Kulas Ravine and Steps of War were balanced...
that's why i quit sc2 all together. I really don't like other races, but terran just can't macro as well. Or terran macro is a lot more demanding to say the least. You need a ton of buildings + addons and your units need to walk all the way across the map. Protoss needs buildings but they have warp in, zerg doesn't need buildings except for tech. And on top of all that, Terran units are also the slowest. And it's always Terran who needs to be the aggressor early on so P and Z don't snowball and deathball, how does that make any fucking sense? Well im gonna just keep playing dota until blizzard starts giving a shit, although with all the stuff P an Z got in HotS it doesn't seem like it's gonna happen too soon.
On January 19 2013 18:29 Sapphire.lux wrote: My biggest problem with SC2 right now are the maps. They have gotten more and more "open" with almost no features apart from the main and natural, maybe the 3ed. Why so few chokes? Why so few high ground areas? My only hope is with KESPA, as i think Blizzard, the community and GSL have all failed miserably at making good maps.
EDIT: open maps + lack of micro needed+speed gives Zerg a big advantage in the "how hard is to play" area.
Early blizz maps had lots of cliffs, chokes, interesting terrain, islands, hidden expansions, multi shaped designs, etc... Then Zerg whined about imba maps and now we have our current map pool.
Oh please, next thing you gonne say is Kulas Ravine and Steps of War were balanced...
I said no such thing--I said there were interesting terrain features and choices when blizzard was left to their own devices and when blizz listened to the forums we got the flat maps we have now. I never talked about balance--just design.
I will still play Terran in HotS, just because of self-respect! Don't care if I stay in Plat forever. My army-control is terrible, so with Toss I probably would win alot more, but who cares.
On January 20 2013 02:43 Dirkinity wrote: I will still play Terran in HotS, just because of self-respect! Don't care if I stay in Plat forever. My army-control is terrible, so with Toss I probably would win alot more, but who cares.
Trust me, if your army control is terrible, you would NOT win much as toss. One missed FF = gg in most instances.
On January 20 2013 02:43 Dirkinity wrote: I will still play Terran in HotS, just because of self-respect! Don't care if I stay in Plat forever. My army-control is terrible, so with Toss I probably would win alot more, but who cares.
Trust me, if your army control is terrible, you would NOT win much as toss. One missed FF = gg in most instances.
Uh... Army control has very little to do with placing Force Fields. Toss can move around as 1 blob/deathball and quite literally 1A... that's what he is referring to. I was able to play Protoss at a masters level after literally a year of not touching Toss... because it is mechanically very simple.
On January 19 2013 01:20 Avean wrote: How is Terran more mechanical difficult at lower Leagues when Terran is the only race of them all that has similar mechanics to other RTS games. If you have ever played another RTS game, Terran will be the easiest to pick up and learn since they have the classic RTS mechanics with pumping out units from Barracks. Protoss and Zerg works completely different.
Just dont agree that Terran is difficult to learn.
A bronze terran a moves their marines. Their bronze zerg opponent a moves their banelings. who wins?
On January 19 2013 01:20 Avean wrote: How is Terran more mechanical difficult at lower Leagues when Terran is the only race of them all that has similar mechanics to other RTS games. If you have ever played another RTS game, Terran will be the easiest to pick up and learn since they have the classic RTS mechanics with pumping out units from Barracks. Protoss and Zerg works completely different.
Just dont agree that Terran is difficult to learn.
One important difference between terran and the other two races is that mistakes in terran macro are harder to overcome. This is due to the nature of larva and warpins.
On January 19 2013 20:17 kckkryptonite wrote: When MVP was winning everything, T looked too good, but then again he was playing damn near perfect - which is what is required of T now days. Mistakes from T just more punishable.
When MVP was winning everything T was kind of OP. We had a few seasons where GSL consisted of 80% T or something like that.
I think T will return. All that is needed for T to win more games is less open maps.
You saying we had few season in GSL with around 25/32 Terrans? Random numbers for the win.
Yeah that's definitely not random. Were you not around during the GomTVT era?
Yeah its random since its simply false.
GSL Code S October 2011, 20 Terrans. Do your research.
20/32=62.5%, Do your math.
I heard that the game has not changed at all since october 2011, confirm/deny?
first year everyone was terran, not that bad see less terrans now, hots will change everything so i am pretty fine with it, it was a terran time now is zerg time, hots hopefully will give us a protoss time (with time i mean 3+ months and not 1 tournament with 3 protoss top3 xD)
On January 19 2013 18:29 Sapphire.lux wrote: My biggest problem with SC2 right now are the maps. They have gotten more and more "open" with almost no features apart from the main and natural, maybe the 3ed. Why so few chokes? Why so few high ground areas? My only hope is with KESPA, as i think Blizzard, the community and GSL have all failed miserably at making good maps.
EDIT: open maps + lack of micro needed+speed gives Zerg a big advantage in the "how hard is to play" area.
Early blizz maps had lots of cliffs, chokes, interesting terrain, islands, hidden expansions, multi shaped designs, etc... Then Zerg whined about imba maps and now we have our current map pool.
Oh please, next thing you gonne say is Kulas Ravine and Steps of War were balanced...
They weren't but they were fun to watch. The game has become so passive now.
I'm not sure maps should be so balanced. Brood War often balanced racial imbalance by making maps that were specifically better for whatever race was lagging behind in the current metagame -- it made for a vibrant mapmaking community that didn't just try and cookie-cutter out fair maps. Part of the thrill of early SC2 was a bananas map pool -- scrap station anybody? :D
Terran army micro is the most demanding (throughout the game not necessarily at each point) and Terran is getting the least impactful changes in HOTS while having many strategies eliminated by patches. This is indisputable.
I think it's a no brainer that it will continue to be the least played race internationally. I can't believe there was a thread made about this and so many people are arguing.
On January 19 2013 22:26 Leviance wrote: I'm sure in HotS Terran players will rise again
There will be less Terrans in HOTS, a lot of people are currently in the process of switching races or simply quitting if they played Terran because the expansion offers nothing new to Terran players.
You basically play the same game with a bad spider mine, while the other races get insane new stuff + insane buffs that make it feel like you're playing wings of liberty vs buffed P/Z + new units.
On January 19 2013 22:26 Leviance wrote: I'm sure in HotS Terran players will rise again
There will be less Terrans in HOTS, a lot of people are currently in the process of switching races or simply quitting if they played Terran because the expansion offers nothing new to Terran players.
You basically play the same game with a bad spider mine, while the other races get insane new stuff + insane buffs that make it feel like you're playing wings of liberty vs buffed P/Z + new units.
This... HotS is a huge disappointment for T players, just feels like WoL terran + harder to defend allins / lategame. It's like they want terrans to quit
It's the old skill-cap problem and it's not going away. You would at least expect that Blizzard will attempt to apply a band-aid but judging by the way they are handling expansion and mech there that won't be happening either. /edit: Not to say terran will go extinct or anything. At least in Korea there are enough pros playing the race to last until the game dies.
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've said this before and I'll say it again...unsubstantiated opinions are like buttholes and so on.... I've actually never said that but I think it applies
On January 19 2013 22:26 Leviance wrote: I'm sure in HotS Terran players will rise again
There will be less Terrans in HOTS, a lot of people are currently in the process of switching races or simply quitting if they played Terran because the expansion offers nothing new to Terran players.
You basically play the same game with a bad spider mine, while the other races get insane new stuff + insane buffs that make it feel like you're playing wings of liberty vs buffed P/Z + new units.
You are in the scene quite a bit, can you help explain to me why they took away our only late game help (the medivac healing boost)? Why did they not just tweak it if they thought it was a bit much? Why make our late game even worse and boost our all in ability instead? After these changes HOTS was simply put not fun anymore so I went back to WOL.
On January 20 2013 02:43 Dirkinity wrote: I will still play Terran in HotS, just because of self-respect! Don't care if I stay in Plat forever. My army-control is terrible, so with Toss I probably would win alot more, but who cares.
Trust me, if your army control is terrible, you would NOT win much as toss. One missed FF = gg in most instances.
I think you never played Terran. Its not like I have problems selecting a Caster and cast a spell. The problem is microing vikings vs COlossi while kiting with your bio... I don't even mention EMPing.
Terran just has no Über T3 Units like Archon/Colossi/Ultralisk/Broodlord that are A-Move friendly. We have alot of small Glass-Cannon Units.
Personally, it comes down to mechanics the most. Terran is much more diverse in its mechanics, so it is harder to maintain fluent game flow from start to finish/easier to make mistakes.
I think a good example to illustrate it would be driving a car with a manual gearbox and driving a car with automatic gearbox. It is not just more diverse actions to perform and more coordination but also requires more thinking on the fly (for example: should I stay in 3rd through this corner or should I drop down to 2nd gear etc.)
In Sc2 terms, you need. 1. good macro that relies on
- constant production of units/workers, - adding extra production facilities (and thinking about if you can support them or not), - swapping addons - managing through different building hotkeys - avoiding to queue but also not skip unit production because even 1 second of idle time on a number of production facilities adds up through a long macro game because you are not producing in cycles - 30 seconds of supply block will hurt you more than zerg player who accumulated larva and resources in those 30 seconds and now produces all those units at once - more careful planning of structure positioning (will my tank, thor etc. get stuck) - especially important on maps with small mains like entombed - preparing in advance for tech switches of other races (example: adding extra starports/tech lab racks to prepare for broodlord or ultra switch, or even better example, making a decision to tech to ravens for broods which needs to be made way before broods are on the field etc.)
2. On top of that, the difference between properly controled/miss controled army is biggest when it comes to terran
good example: marine tank army that is properly positioned/sieged/split vs. marine tank army caught unsieged
3. Situations like the one mentioned above are more hurtful to terran due to inferior unit production compared to protoss and zerg.
So when we look at mechanics as a whole, the execution of both your macro and micro simultaneously, it is in my opinion hardest to juggle all those things to run smoothly as a terran player.
That is why you need stronger basics to be successful with terran than other two races because not mastring these basics properly gets in the way of the other part of the game - scouting, strategy, decision making. So while for example, zerg player, will be able to focus more on strategy/decision making when he gets to like high diamond/low master level, terran will at that level still struggle with managing fluent macro and army control at the same time.
This might not seem like a big deal at pro level, but we can see that even on pro level lower than absolute best (Code S level of play), protoss and especially zerg foreign pros are much more success full than their terran colleagues. This could suggest that even at foreign pro level, terran as the race still "gets in the way".
Every time I take a break and come back from the world of SC2 there's always a shitfest going on about which race sucks the most. Lets face it there is no foreign terran hero to look up to. No one is going to play terran if they don't got a foreign terran hero to look up to outside of Korea. Why is there no foreign terran hero, well maybe it's just a race that only Koreans can play just like in BW.
Some may argue that Kas, and Lucifron from IEM are somewhat of heros but lets face it, they get really inconsistent results against foreigners and almost always lose in limelight of the Koreans. The only Foreign Terran I remember winning any big tournament was probably Thorzain.
I will not lie that Terran probably has it the hardest right now but thats because we had the best performing player in SC2 history MVP win everything and Blizzard balancing the entire game around him...
On January 19 2013 18:29 Sapphire.lux wrote: My biggest problem with SC2 right now are the maps. They have gotten more and more "open" with almost no features apart from the main and natural, maybe the 3ed. Why so few chokes? Why so few high ground areas? My only hope is with KESPA, as i think Blizzard, the community and GSL have all failed miserably at making good maps.
EDIT: open maps + lack of micro needed+speed gives Zerg a big advantage in the "how hard is to play" area.
Early blizz maps had lots of cliffs, chokes, interesting terrain, islands, hidden expansions, multi shaped designs, etc... Then Zerg whined about imba maps and now we have our current map pool.
Oh please, next thing you gonne say is Kulas Ravine and Steps of War were balanced...
They weren't but they were fun to watch. The game has become so passive now.
Depends on who you are i guess. Watching the cliff nonsense in kulas for instance was not really fun to watch imo.
On January 19 2013 18:29 Sapphire.lux wrote: My biggest problem with SC2 right now are the maps. They have gotten more and more "open" with almost no features apart from the main and natural, maybe the 3ed. Why so few chokes? Why so few high ground areas? My only hope is with KESPA, as i think Blizzard, the community and GSL have all failed miserably at making good maps.
EDIT: open maps + lack of micro needed+speed gives Zerg a big advantage in the "how hard is to play" area.
Early blizz maps had lots of cliffs, chokes, interesting terrain, islands, hidden expansions, multi shaped designs, etc... Then Zerg whined about imba maps and now we have our current map pool.
Oh please, next thing you gonne say is Kulas Ravine and Steps of War were balanced...
They weren't but they were fun to watch. The game has become so passive now.
Depends on who you are i guess. Watching the cliff nonsense in kulas for instance was not really fun to watch imo.
But games like this were FREACKING AWESOME to watch. It's a shame that the maps are not very interesting anymore. .
Compare a game like this, that happened A YEAR AGO, to games today, where it is 15-18 ingame miuntes of macro macro take third macro attack lose lose win lose. I really wish they would at the very least, revert the queen buff. It shut down way too many options for Terran, kinda like how the siege mode change in HOTS shuts down early options for zerg. I dont like either changes (Though I appreciate the symmetry.)
On January 19 2013 22:26 Leviance wrote: I'm sure in HotS Terran players will rise again
There will be less Terrans in HOTS, a lot of people are currently in the process of switching races or simply quitting if they played Terran because the expansion offers nothing new to Terran players.
You basically play the same game with a bad spider mine, while the other races get insane new stuff + insane buffs that make it feel like you're playing wings of liberty vs buffed P/Z + new units.
You are in the scene quite a bit, can you help explain to me why they took away our only late game help (the medivac healing boost)? Why did they not just tweak it if they thought it was a bit much? Why make our late game even worse and boost our all in ability instead? After these changes HOTS was simply put not fun anymore so I went back to WOL.
Bad decision making by the dev team. Because with the new ultralisk buff, that medivac healing is pretty necessary for bio play. I've played quite a few TvZ now and a lot of Zerg are simply massing ultras 1A and winning games without even microing.
And those ones aren't even the tip top Zergs, imagine the ones that actually are mega mega good that abuse the new 12 range fungal + mega buff ultras...etc..
Pretty disappointing that they removed the medivac healing upgrade but leave the other races with lategame buffs + new stuff.
On January 19 2013 18:29 Sapphire.lux wrote: My biggest problem with SC2 right now are the maps. They have gotten more and more "open" with almost no features apart from the main and natural, maybe the 3ed. Why so few chokes? Why so few high ground areas? My only hope is with KESPA, as i think Blizzard, the community and GSL have all failed miserably at making good maps.
EDIT: open maps + lack of micro needed+speed gives Zerg a big advantage in the "how hard is to play" area.
Early blizz maps had lots of cliffs, chokes, interesting terrain, islands, hidden expansions, multi shaped designs, etc... Then Zerg whined about imba maps and now we have our current map pool.
Oh please, next thing you gonne say is Kulas Ravine and Steps of War were balanced...
They weren't but they were fun to watch. The game has become so passive now.
Depends on who you are i guess. Watching the cliff nonsense in kulas for instance was not really fun to watch imo.
Compare a game like this, that happened A YEAR AGO, to games today, where it is 15-18 ingame miuntes of macro macro take third macro attack lose lose win lose. I really wish they would at the very least, revert the queen buff. It shut down way too many options for Terran, kinda like how the siege mode change in HOTS shuts down early options for zerg. I dont like either changes (Though I appreciate the symmetry.)
Oh i agree but then again, i wasn't talking about 2011, but about stuff like Kulas and steps of war, like you could see in the post i quoted.
I have been saying this for a while, but people tell me stop QQ, and look at win rates, which are like less than 50% for terran currently. But win rates don't show you how terrans are winning games on the ladder, are they winning late game beating broodlord/ultra/infestor or collosus archon storm armies, or do they do some timing attack off one or two bases?
On January 19 2013 22:26 Leviance wrote: I'm sure in HotS Terran players will rise again
There will be less Terrans in HOTS, a lot of people are currently in the process of switching races or simply quitting if they played Terran because the expansion offers nothing new to Terran players.
You basically play the same game with a bad spider mine, while the other races get insane new stuff + insane buffs that make it feel like you're playing wings of liberty vs buffed P/Z + new units.
You are in the scene quite a bit, can you help explain to me why they took away our only late game help (the medivac healing boost)? Why did they not just tweak it if they thought it was a bit much? Why make our late game even worse and boost our all in ability instead? After these changes HOTS was simply put not fun anymore so I went back to WOL.
Bad decision making by the dev team. Because with the new ultralisk buff, that medivac healing is pretty necessary for bio play. I've played quite a few TvZ now and a lot of Zerg are simply massing ultras 1A and winning games without even microing.
And those ones aren't even the tip top Zergs, imagine the ones that actually are mega mega good that abuse the new 12 range fungal + mega buff ultras...etc..
Pretty disappointing that they removed the medivac healing upgrade but leave the other races with lategame buffs + new stuff.
Yea late game getting even harder wasn't exactly what I was hoping for. It's funny, with that medivac boost I was still a little disappointed that we had to play exactly the same way as in WOL, but at least it was a little better. Then they moved the upgrade to the useless BC building. Then they took it away. What a cruel joke this has all seemed like.
On January 19 2013 22:26 Leviance wrote: I'm sure in HotS Terran players will rise again
There will be less Terrans in HOTS, a lot of people are currently in the process of switching races or simply quitting if they played Terran because the expansion offers nothing new to Terran players.
You basically play the same game with a bad spider mine, while the other races get insane new stuff + insane buffs that make it feel like you're playing wings of liberty vs buffed P/Z + new units.
You are in the scene quite a bit, can you help explain to me why they took away our only late game help (the medivac healing boost)? Why did they not just tweak it if they thought it was a bit much? Why make our late game even worse and boost our all in ability instead? After these changes HOTS was simply put not fun anymore so I went back to WOL.
Bad decision making by the dev team. Because with the new ultralisk buff, that medivac healing is pretty necessary for bio play. I've played quite a few TvZ now and a lot of Zerg are simply massing ultras 1A and winning games without even microing.
And those ones aren't even the tip top Zergs, imagine the ones that actually are mega mega good that abuse the new 12 range fungal + mega buff ultras...etc..
Pretty disappointing that they removed the medivac healing upgrade but leave the other races with lategame buffs + new stuff.
Yea late game getting even harder wasn't exactly what I was hoping for. It's funny, with that medivac boost I was still a little disappointed that we had to play exactly the same way as in WOL, but at least it was a little better. Then they moved the upgrade to the useless BC building. Then they took it away. What a cruel joke this has all seemed like.
It seems that the dev team will not add a new terran unit so I think they should some Fusion Core upgrades. Something like a 250\250 120sec upgrade that decrease the building time of all units by 15% (except SVCs). That way Terran can remax faster and dont lose to the next warpin or zerg remax after a close and even battle.
lets put it this way, if you were to turn pro and you knew that your absolute skill potential was ~low tier code A/ decent but not great foreigner, what race would you choose?
Absolutely not terran if you hope to have any reasonable success.
If you knew that your skills were going to be among the best there is, then would you choose terran?
Now that is a definite possibility. The strength of terran is that its a extreme double edged sword. Terran played at its absolute perfection is at least slightly superior to zerg perfection and infinitely superior to protoss perfection. However, anything less best performance with terran leads to a very steep drop off in success, if your not literally at the top of the food chain, a Terran player is not going to have as much success relatively to the other races.
On January 19 2013 01:20 Avean wrote: How is Terran more mechanical difficult at lower Leagues when Terran is the only race of them all that has similar mechanics to other RTS games. If you have ever played another RTS game, Terran will be the easiest to pick up and learn since they have the classic RTS mechanics with pumping out units from Barracks. Protoss and Zerg works completely different.
Just dont agree that Terran is difficult to learn.
Terran doesn't have a cushion to fall back on like Protoss and Zerg, that's what makes its mechanics so hard, Zergs have the ability to build up larva to instantly remax and Toss can warp in a whole load of zealots, Terran have to wait 50s for a marine to pop.
last I checked marines took 25 seconds to build. Also by large terran will have the largest army out of all races when game gets to 3+ bases since mules replace scv's to an extent. If your going to try an argue your point dont try to exaggerate to get your point across...it doesnt work
oops, I honestly thought it was 50s... I have no need to exaggerate, it's commonly thought that Terran has the most punishing mechanics. As for your point about mules, are you honestly trying to say that a slightly larger bio army is going to beat bl/infestor or destroy a T3 toss army followed by a wave of 20 zealots every time?
Protoss and Zerg have the strongest late game armies, Terran definitely does not.
Terran actually has the most powerful end game army in this game. Simply nothing can beat the right mixture of maxed and fully upgraded battlecruisers, siege tanks, thors, banshees, ghosts and vikings. Problem is just, how to get there.
In my oppinion terran is the most strong race in this game and in hots, cuz dustin browder like to win with his race.....I really hope he retires as Jay Wilson and is replaced as fast as possible. Sadly i preordered Heart of the Terran.....
On January 19 2013 22:26 Leviance wrote: I'm sure in HotS Terran players will rise again
There will be less Terrans in HOTS, a lot of people are currently in the process of switching races or simply quitting if they played Terran because the expansion offers nothing new to Terran players.
You basically play the same game with a bad spider mine, while the other races get insane new stuff + insane buffs that make it feel like you're playing wings of liberty vs buffed P/Z + new units.
You are in the scene quite a bit, can you help explain to me why they took away our only late game help (the medivac healing boost)? Why did they not just tweak it if they thought it was a bit much? Why make our late game even worse and boost our all in ability instead? After these changes HOTS was simply put not fun anymore so I went back to WOL.
Bad decision making by the dev team. Because with the new ultralisk buff, that medivac healing is pretty necessary for bio play. I've played quite a few TvZ now and a lot of Zerg are simply massing ultras 1A and winning games without even microing.
And those ones aren't even the tip top Zergs, imagine the ones that actually are mega mega good that abuse the new 12 range fungal + mega buff ultras...etc..
Pretty disappointing that they removed the medivac healing upgrade but leave the other races with lategame buffs + new stuff.
The Ultras are really hard to deal with in HotS right now, not sure if it is worse than when they had the burrow-charge haha.
On January 20 2013 22:09 Mongolbonjwa wrote: Terran actually has the most powerful end game army in this game. Simply nothing can beat the right mixture of maxed and fully upgraded battlecruisers, siege tanks, thors, banshees, ghosts and vikings. Problem is just, how to get there.
You simply can not get that comp unless the map is one like Metropolis.
Terran being the hardest to play is old news, has been since the huge fungal buff really. If memory serves outside of Tfunks win at DHO:stockholm last year where he only played shitty zergs(Hardest was probably monster who is a B-teamer from MVP) the last foreign terran to win a tournament was Naama winning DHW 2010? There is a reason there are very few foreign terrans doing anything.
Well I will still watch sc2 for the sake of it but im pretty close to 1 year without playing =P (and last time before it was 3 games then retired again xD )
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.
Diamond offrace this doesn't feel that hard, then again, it's only diamond :/ But the constant macro for terran while microing feels harder and more unforgiving
It should feel hard since there isnt a pro zerg in the world who keeps his energy below 40 after 15min with more then 3 hatches.
People seem to forget just how hard it is to muta/ling/bling and are now assuming that zerg is just faceroll because theyre winning.
Have you seen JD I think he might keep his energy that low
On January 20 2013 13:00 vayuu wrote: Terran played at its absolute perfection is at least slightly superior to zerg perfection and infinitely superior to protoss perfection.
I think its especially hard for terrans at lower levels to snipe/emp the high templars of the protoss. For me, as a platinum player, its really hard to kill all of them before they can land one storm and if they land 1 or 2 you are basicly dead. Sure the pros can dodge snipe emp and will not miss, however I will miss sometimes or not pay attention to my army for 2 seconds.
On January 21 2013 20:52 DetermineD wrote: I think its especially hard for terrans at lower levels to snipe/emp the high templars of the protoss. For me, as a platinum player, its really hard to kill all of them before they can land one storm and if they land 1 or 2 you are basicly dead. Sure the pros can dodge snipe emp and will not miss, however I will miss sometimes or not pay attention to my army for 2 seconds.
Well hopefully they'll buff the tanks some more and with widow mines for better map control they could make mech more viable . I think mech is viable at the lower levels in TvP in WOL also . I got to diamond once farely easy meching in all 3 MUs , so you could try that :D .
Its obvious... look at the foreign terrans compared to foreign zergs/toss. Its clear that Terran is clearly the hardest race or the race you have the least success with, when your control/multitasking isn't near perfection.
I was playing terran too ( was gold/plat when masters didn't exist yet) and i stopped because of progamers. I watched enough matches to know how the race should be played at high level but I couldn't have the execution, so in game I knew about my mistakes or if i was late on something instantaneously but my hands could just not follow. Was too frustrating and i could not play regularly enough for my hands to be at the level of my mind.
This problem might be encountered with other aces too ( some friends also stopped because of that) but it seems terran is the most punishing with bad/medium unit control :p
I think Blizzard are just going to forget Terran in HotS. We've already seen them abandon the Warhound an not bother to replace it (how hard would it have been to bring back the Goliath?). We've also seen that they don't seem to mind one race (Zerg) dominating tournament after tournament for nearly a year (by the time HotS comes out) so they'll probably see a HotS where Protoss and Zerg are competetive and Terran makes it to RO8 every now and then as a step up from WoL - which it will be post Queen buff.
People start the game, learn it and end up playing with the race they LIKE and not always balance. I've dragged 2 ppl into sc2, they both picked zerg, not because it's imba but because they found it to be the "coolest" race. i play toss for the same reason.
Terran is definitely the most demanding in terms of mechanics and control but I don't think there's been a drastic change in the number of Terrans playing, just that many Terran players aren't placing quite as high as many of them used to. If you remember back in the beginning of SC2, Terrans pretty much dominated the race distribution in tournaments and normally were the ones placing very well. I think that the numbers just appear to be lower because P and Z (in particular) are taking the top placings but I don't think that many people stopped playing Terran. The ladder at lower levels has always seemed P/Z dominate which as many others have said, is due to Terran just being a very demanding race to play and is even more difficult for lower skilled players.
Very well written OP. At least for TvP I've also been argueing like forever that the Protoss deathball is too mobile for it's damage and durability compared to the mobile Terran ball aka Bioball. Noone ever listened to me either.
Anyways, the problem is still that Blizzard does only balance on highest Pro Level (which is quite much Korea only), where Players are so skilled that they can get enough out of the Terran race to be competitive. Unfortunately I don't see it changing with HotS yet. Terrans will stay the most multitasking and micro intensive race. Mech hasn't got much better (especially in TvP). The Widow Mine just adds to the immobility of Mech and tbh it's a rather gimmicky thing, depending too much on luck or the opponent's stupidity. The biggest problem with Siegetanks still is the splash to your own units, if Marines or Hellbats is quite unimportant. Also the inability to hold ground with them, like you could in BW, makes them very unstable. At a certain point you would just need too many Tanks to cover all your stuff and still be safe against the counters (mainly air units). So you can only use them like running up to the opposing army, hitting the siege button and crossing fingers that they are sieged before the opponents units are too close. Hellbats... honestly... they're Bio units... not Mech. So actually Bio got the biggest buff imo (Hellbats being Bio, Medivac buff, Reaper buffs). The casual Terran players, who can't move and/or think fast enough for Bio are left at a disadvantage still. To conclude... I think Terran player numbers will shrink further until Blizzard realizes that there are ways to give a race several playstyles.
It's not about the control, really. Terran (or at least bio-based forces) being more difficult to control while having the same requirements elsewhere on positioning and macro and the like would be fine. People have different tastes, and some people generally like things being difficult to do (the mistake these people do is trying to force everyone to adhere to that - ie. if I like difficult things, everything should be difficult, which is just asinine and selfish).
The problem is elsewhere. Namely, the economy, and the nerfs having turned Terran units from threats into narrow anti-one-unit counters. Think about it. You fear Broodlords. You, to an extent, fear Corruptors because they turn into Broodlords. You laugh at Vikings unless you're heavy air. The onus is always on the Terran to counter the opposing composition.
To quote myself from the "TvZ: What is (still) Broken" thread:
On December 26 2012 09:36 Coffee Zombie wrote: Apart from Infestors, the whole thing boils down to larvae. In the past, you needed larvae to defend early pushes and to shoo off the contain from Reactor Hellion Expand quickly. Zerg players didn't like it. I vividly remember the endless inanity of "making Roaches is unacceptable because it means we can't drone/tech optimally". I am serious. The damage IdrA and Artosis have done to Zerg players' mindset cannot be underestimated.
The issue is that, as we all have (to our boredom) noticed over the last half a year, the Zerg economy, if unhindered, is broken. The ability to use all your production slots on nothing but economy is way too good to exist, except for the fact that in the past you could force Zerg to use larvae for defense. This meant both sides made army, econ and teched a bit. It was fair (though understandably felt bad for Z because they were literally being damaged).
Also, the only really boring part about Reactor Hellion was that T went for it almost always. The opener itself played out entertainingly enough: both sides had high stakes (immediate, long-lasting loss of map control for Terran, severe economic damage or outright game loss for Zerg) and there was lots of action happening. Terrans were busy trying to snipe tumors, Z was busy trying to sneak them past the Hellions, players had to watch their Queens/Hellions constantly to prevent a Hellion/Speedling snipe, respectively, and so forth. The most important thing of all, though, was that it led to an actual midgame.
And from here we get to the cascade effect the Queendralisk buff had. The early game implications are clear for all to see. But the ripple effects? Dear god. First, creep spread easily goes out of control, where spreading it was an effort before. The better economy allows for a very early swell of Infestors, which helps make Zerg safe and essentially kills the midgame, from which we get into quick, fast, Infestor/T3 comp with the accompanying tech switches. The sheer scale of the change is perhaps best realized when one stops to consider that in the past a 17 minute Hive was risky and greedy. Such a far cry from our current, absurdly safe 12 minute Hive timings, isn't it? That's all because Z had to invest into a midgame to fight off the Terran midgame (which they could get to due to less creep and slower Zerg development). And damn, was that midgame ever good.
The slower Hive timings also made the late game more bearable - Terran had more time to get their infrastructure up to contend with Zerg's endgame composition. The fundamental character of it was then, and still is expensive, inflexible Terran infrastructure making very narrow anti-1-unit counters that have no other use vs. a flexible Zerg infrastructure making little but threats.
The greatest casualty of the Queendralisk patch hasn't been balance, though - a certain amount of imbalance you can work around and it is even entertaining for some. The greatest casualties have been fun (the game has become dull), the idea that the game makes any kind of sense (the kind of imbalance and it's degree make the games feel just plain stupid). I also can't tell good and bad Zergs apart anymore. In the past, great creep spread was an achievement. There were brilliant holds, good game sense, great flanks. Mutas hadn't been eclipsed so badly and so were an actual (not just stubbornly stylistic) option. Now it's the same dull monotony where it feels like the sheer, absurd, dominant power of some key units does more work than the player.
I play terran only and my probs lie with P-storms and Z-banelings, it's just so hard. It's so hard to win against them without descent micro (or even undoable). It feels like its all about getting a good trades thx too micro, but its very demanding and takes time too learn. On the other hand, when ur skill level (micro) is high enough, u overpower every race. But micro is key and that takes time. As said earlier by someone else. the terran is asymmetrical, but when u reach the tippingpoint, ur so strong. Im still trying to reach that tippingpoint^^
On January 19 2013 12:57 forsooth wrote: Anyway, I find Zerg macro to be by far the simplest in SC2. You basically just operate on a timer and do the same things over and over. All of those active decisions you have to make when playing Terran and to a lesser extent Protoss about where to place buildings, how to most efficiently use your space, which add-ons to use and when, simply don't exist. The only difficult part is knowing when you can drone.
That used to be difficult. Nowadays you have Queens, so early game you just drone or, thanks to Blizztard's genius philosophy of set times of strength and weakness, make some units at the only times Terran has a prayer, and then proceed to make Infestors and crush. Such brilliance.
On January 19 2013 14:23 Masq wrote: this has been discussed a million times.
Nothing is likely to change because if they buff terran for the average master/gm player (foreigners), terran will become too strong in the hands of top koreans.
You have two options, suck it up or switch races.
There is a third one. You're a rat in a ship you know for a fact will sink (and no, HotS won't change any of it). No one will throw you into jail for hopping out. Thus: Abandon ship. I did. Turned out to be a great decision, too. Check out fighting games, or Go/Baduk/Weiqi - whatever you want to call it. Go play LoL/DotA. Hell, go back to BW. The UI and pathing may be horrible, but at least the game is fun. Anything is better than SC2 at this point.
On January 21 2013 22:54 BurningRanger wrote: Very well written OP. At least for TvP I've also been argueing like forever that the Protoss deathball is too mobile for it's damage and durability compared to the mobile Terran ball aka Bioball. Noone ever listened to me either.
Anyways, the problem is still that Blizzard does only balance on highest Pro Level (which is quite much Korea only), where Players are so skilled that they can get enough out of the Terran race to be competitive. Unfortunately I don't see it changing with HotS yet. Terrans will stay the most multitasking and micro intensive race. Mech hasn't got much better (especially in TvP). The Widow Mine just adds to the immobility of Mech and tbh it's a rather gimmicky thing, depending too much on luck or the opponent's stupidity. The biggest problem with Siegetanks still is the splash to your own units, if Marines or Hellbats is quite unimportant. Also the inability to hold ground with them, like you could in BW, makes them very unstable. At a certain point you would just need too many Tanks to cover all your stuff and still be safe against the counters (mainly air units). So you can only use them like running up to the opposing army, hitting the siege button and crossing fingers that they are sieged before the opponents units are too close. Hellbats... honestly... they're Bio units... not Mech. So actually Bio got the biggest buff imo (Hellbats being Bio, Medivac buff, Reaper buffs). The casual Terran players, who can't move and/or think fast enough for Bio are left at a disadvantage still. To conclude... I think Terran player numbers will shrink further until Blizzard realizes that there are ways to give a race several playstyles.
The problem isn't even balancing at the top level. The problem is Blizzard balancing purely by spreadsheet instead of gut feeling. We're humans, we don't experience spreadsheets, we experience gut feelings - a spreadsheet-imba matchup that makes sense and that you feel is at least somewhat fair is, in fact, a lot better than some spreadsheet-even überturtly atrocity that's strictly scripted by Blizzard's idiotic philosophy of timing-asymmetric balance. Asymmetric balance should be a difference in method, not strength at a point in time.
I can't speak for the top level players, but maybe for ladder, I don't play terran because it lacks in variety or it has variety but it lacks in interesting/fun kind of play. I play both toss and zerg and majority of my vT (especially PvT) games consist of them going MMM and doing the typical drop play...I feel like I dont even have to scout when I play a PvT they just rely on timing pushes and drops. Really all I have to do to win a PvT is go standard gateway/collosus comp then when we engage in battle i swtich to chargelot archon with HT because they most predictably go vikings in response to collosi. The point I am trying to make is Terran just arent that interesting to play as or against for that matter, zerg have banelings we have ultras we can move while burrowed and do ambushes...what terran can do? deploy tanks, 1A press T...and drops...ghosts just aren't used as much as they should, same with ravens.
In ZvT it pretty much goes, reactor hellion opening into cloaked banshee, no damage done to zerg terran will either realise he did no damage and GG or he will try to stay in the game and turtle MMM/mech off 2 bas
and that's another thing, the units arent that cool like thor is just a big walking arnold Schwarzenegger...yeah...it's just not fun to play, it is fun to swarm your oponent with lings and then blowing him up with banelings when he pushes out.
I can't speak for the top level players, but maybe for ladder, I don't play terran because it lacks in variety or it has variety but it lacks in interesting/fun kind of play. I play both toss and zerg and majority of my vT (especially PvT) games consist of them going MMM and doing the typical drop play...I feel like I dont even have to scout when I play a PvT they just rely on timing pushes and drops. Really all I have to do to win a PvT is go standard gateway/collosus comp then when we engage in battle i swtich to chargelot archon with HT because they most predictably go vikings in response to collosi. The point I am trying to make is Terran just arent that interesting to play as or against for that matter, zerg have banelings we have ultras we can move while burrowed and do ambushes...what terran can do? deploy tanks, 1A press T...and drops...ghosts just aren't used as much as they should, same with ravens.
In ZvT it pretty much goes, reactor hellion opening into cloaked banshee, no damage done to zerg terran will either realise he did no damage and GG or he will try to stay in the game and turtle MMM/mech off 2 bas
and that's another thing, the units arent that cool like thor is just a big walking arnold Schwarzenegger...yeah...it's just not fun to play, it is fun to swarm your oponent with lings and then blowing him up with banelings when he pushes out.
The problem is that T can't play differently or atleast not, if they want to win. Blizzard doesn't want T to play Mech or Sky against P. I'm not sure why... maybe they're too lazy to balance a different style, so they make anything else than MMM (near) unplayable in TvP. In TvZ it's ok. Here you can actually play Mech or Bio or a mix even. With Bio you don't even need Tanks, if you can split very well against Fungal and Banelings.
In both matchups though you need to start with Marines to not die instantly and you eventually need Vikings against the standard T3 units of P and Z (Colossus and BL). You have NO chance to do anything else against those. Terran T3 though has several counters from both P and Z. Against Thors you have Immos, HTs and quite much the usual Gateway army for P and Infestors, Roaches and BLs for Z. Against BCs there are Stalkers, Voidrays and HTs for P and Corruptors, Hydras and Infestors (ITs) for Z. Even the not so standard T3 units of P and Z (Archon and Ultra) have just few counters from Terrans, a bit more, but that's probably the reason why they're "not so standard". Against Archons you can use Ghosts and Marauders. Against Ultras you need Marauders or Thors. Terrans don't have that many options. Blizzard has hardcoded how Terrans have to react to what Protoss and Zerg does. And then there's also the problem of Techswitches from P and Z. The counters that Terran has quite much only work against the thing they should counter. Vikings are only good against Colossi and BLs. If the P/Z does a Techswitch, they become worthless. Same with Marauders, when Z switches from Ultra to BL. On P and Z side the above mentioned counters to Terran T3 are still quite valuable, if a Terran would Techswitch (which is very unlikely anyways, because hard to pull off). Immos are useful against all Mech and also parts of Bio (Marauders). HTs, Voidrays and Stalker are useful against quite much anything. Hydras do OKish against anything. Corruptors can still be morphed to BLs, when no Terran air is left, and BLs are only useless, when there's nothing left on the ground. I don't have to talk about Infestors I think.
It may be true that Terran is more boring to play, but that's because Blizzard refuses to give it more effective options to choose from.
You can play a lot of funny things with Terran, like cloaked Banshees, Reapers, Battlecruisers with Ravens and so on... but not competitive. All of that is rather gimmicky, but if the opponent knows how to play, he just rolls over you, if you don't play "standard".
A balance thread with a (temp)banned OP, I'm amazed this is still open.
For what it's worth, I say Terran being the least played race for a while could be good, better then them continuing the reign of terror they had for the majority of WoL, the constant TvT's where one of the reasons I lost interest in watching the game for a while.
Also, if you really need to be shown how to win with TvP, go watch yesterday's IEM, any game from Dream apart from the Finals should suffice.
I can't speak for the top level players, but maybe for ladder, I don't play terran because it lacks in variety or it has variety but it lacks in interesting/fun kind of play. I play both toss and zerg and majority of my vT (especially PvT) games consist of them going MMM and doing the typical drop play...I feel like I dont even have to scout when I play a PvT they just rely on timing pushes and drops. Really all I have to do to win a PvT is go standard gateway/collosus comp then when we engage in battle i swtich to chargelot archon with HT because they most predictably go vikings in response to collosi. The point I am trying to make is Terran just arent that interesting to play as or against for that matter, zerg have banelings we have ultras we can move while burrowed and do ambushes...what terran can do? deploy tanks, 1A press T...and drops...ghosts just aren't used as much as they should, same with ravens.
In ZvT it pretty much goes, reactor hellion opening into cloaked banshee, no damage done to zerg terran will either realise he did no damage and GG or he will try to stay in the game and turtle MMM/mech off 2 bas
and that's another thing, the units arent that cool like thor is just a big walking arnold Schwarzenegger...yeah...it's just not fun to play, it is fun to swarm your oponent with lings and then blowing him up with banelings when he pushes out.
The problem is that T can't play differently or atleast not, if they want to win. Blizzard doesn't want T to play Mech or Sky against P. I'm not sure why... maybe they're too lazy to balance a different style, so they make anything else than MMM (near) unplayable in TvP. In TvZ it's ok. Here you can actually play Mech or Bio or a mix even. With Bio you don't even need Tanks, if you can split very well against Fungal and Banelings.
In both matchups though you need to start with Marines to not die instantly and you eventually need Vikings against the standard T3 units of P and Z (Colossus and BL). You have NO chance to do anything else against those. Terran T3 though has several counters from both P and Z. Against Thors you have Immos, HTs and quite much the usual Gateway army for P and Infestors, Roaches and BLs for Z. Against BCs there are Stalkers, Voidrays and HTs for P and Corruptors, Hydras and Infestors (ITs) for Z. Even the not so standard T3 units of P and Z (Archon and Ultra) have just few counters from Terrans, a bit more, but that's probably the reason why they're "not so standard". Against Archons you can use Ghosts and Marauders. Against Ultras you need Marauders or Thors. Terrans don't have that many options. Blizzard has hardcoded how Terrans have to react to what Protoss and Zerg does. And then there's also the problem of Techswitches from P and Z. The counters that Terran has quite much only work against the thing they should counter. Vikings are only good against Colossi and BLs. If the P/Z does a Techswitch, they become worthless. Same with Marauders, when Z switches from Ultra to BL. On P and Z side the above mentioned counters to Terran T3 are still quite valuable, if a Terran would Techswitch (which is very unlikely anyways, because hard to pull off). Immos are useful against all Mech and also parts of Bio (Marauders). HTs, Voidrays and Stalker are useful against quite much anything. Hydras do OKish against anything. Corruptors can still be morphed to BLs, when no Terran air is left, and BLs are only useless, when there's nothing left on the ground. I don't have to talk about Infestors I think.
It may be true that Terran is more boring to play, but that's because Blizzard refuses to give it more effective options to choose from.
You can play a lot of funny things with Terran, like cloaked Banshees, Reapers, Battlecruisers with Ravens and so on... but not competitive. All of that is rather gimmicky, but if the opponent knows how to play, he just rolls over you, if you don't play "standard".
I dont think ravens, ghost or thors are gimmicky. Im thinking like ghosts (with nukes) and ravens are not used enough at lower levels of play. I see thors as an usefull counterunit against zerg. It gives so much extra depth to play with the ravens and ghosts. They can decide matches and give extra strategy depth in your play, its just hard to execute at the right time
On January 22 2013 01:13 Scootaloo wrote: Also, if you really need to be shown how to win with TvP, go watch yesterday's IEM, any game from Dream apart from the Finals should suffice.
That is not helpful at all. Do you honestly think that Terran players don't watch pro games or understand how they're "supposed" to play? The whole point of this thread is that unless you are a top tier Korean Terran (such as Dream) then the level of skill required to win games in TvP and TvZ is lopsided against Terran.
There's always something to improve, but it's hard to not let it get you. I want to play a game where the races are as balanced as possible and it feels like I'm facing an equal. It's better for both sides, as it makes your victories more deserved and defeats easier to swallow.
On January 22 2013 01:13 Scootaloo wrote: Also, if you really need to be shown how to win with TvP, go watch yesterday's IEM, any game from Dream apart from the Finals should suffice.
That is not helpful at all. Do you honestly think that Terran players don't watch pro games or understand how they're "supposed" to play? The whole point of this thread is that unless you are a top tier Korean Terran (such as Dream) then the level of skill required to win games in TvP and TvZ is lopsided against Terran.
There's always something to improve, but it's hard to not let it get you. I want to play a game where the races are as balanced as possible and it feels like I'm facing an equal. It's better for both sides, as it makes your victories more deserved and defeats easier to swallow.
How difficult something is to do should not matter and should actually be seen as a skill-set moreso than a limitation.
Are engagements harder with Terran? Sure--but macro is harder with Zerg (as in, the reason Zerg normally have more APM than other races is that they need to click a fuck tonne in order "macro mindlessly."
The real discourse should be about entertainment value for the viewer. Turtle-fests are boring and hated.
But late 2010 through most of 2011 was amazing and fun because of so much aggression and lots 1base play dispersed between the long macro games.
Having a best of 7 have 25% all ins, 25% timing attacks, and 50% macro games is awesome! Because you'll never know what will happen.
When a PvZ starts, we already know it will take 30-45 minutes. So when it does, we're bored. But 2011? We didn't know if we'd reach the 15 minute mark, when it hit 20 minutes we'd be glued to our seats and when the game lasted 30 we were going absolutely bonkers!
but for those long macro games to be fun we need to have a sense that it's an accomplishment to reach there. That is done with aggression, that is done with timing attacks and all-ins. If half of PvZs were back and forth full on lair tech aggression and 50% broodfestor--people would love the matchup. The days of 2rax was incredible since any zerg that lived past the 15 minute mark were called gods.
Now? Now we have macro games in all matchups in oversized maps that prevent aggression. We've wandered off so far from our desired goals that bringing back the old Blizz maps of Scrap Station and Steppes of War and Lost Temple would actually IMPROVE the metagame. Broodfestor does not work on Delta Quadrant I can promise you that. You know what does work on Delta Quadrant? Slugfest TvT matches with nukes.
Just saying, I'm not a supporter of bringing back old maps, I'm saying that what we've forced Blizzard to do with constant whining is creating a gamestate that would actually be improved by bad maps.
Yeah i can beat zerg using mech but my micro just isn't good enough to beat a protoss at my level. How many threads end up in the strategy section where a terran says "i took out a protoss' third and had better macro, but storms ended the game because i didn't have good enough micro to scan, pick off observers, cloak my ghost, and then emp/snipe templar before my entire army dies." It happens so often, the better player just doesn't usually win in these games. Once i had 6 bases to protoss' 2 and their storms won them the game. At lower levels, you still need awesome micro or storm can just melt your army so quickly.
On January 22 2013 09:42 Jockmcplop wrote: Yeah i can beat zerg using mech but my micro just isn't good enough to beat a protoss at my level. How many threads end up in the strategy section where a terran says "i took out a protoss' third and had better macro, but storms ended the game because i didn't have good enough micro to scan, pick off observers, cloak my ghost, and then emp/snipe templar before my entire army dies." It happens so often, the better player just doesn't usually win in these games. Once i had 6 bases to protoss' 2 and their storms won them the game. At lower levels, you still need awesome micro or storm can just melt your army so quickly.
Im lower level, I also had problems with storm and i don't use ghosts yet (because i suck at it basically). But if u double upgrade early on and keep denying expansions and expand urself, you'll eventually will out macro them, it takes a while tho because storms hurt alot. TvP is my best matchup now, so u can win tvp on lower levels without ghosts.
On January 21 2013 23:39 FireMonkey wrote: I can't speak for the top level players, but maybe for ladder, I don't play terran because it lacks in variety or it has variety but it lacks in interesting/fun kind of play. I play both toss and zerg and majority of my vT (especially PvT) games consist of them going MMM and doing the typical drop play...I feel like I dont even have to scout when I play a PvT they just rely on timing pushes and drops. Really all I have to do to win a PvT is go standard gateway/collosus comp then when we engage in battle i swtich to chargelot archon with HT because they most predictably go vikings in response to collosi. The point I am trying to make is Terran just arent that interesting to play as or against for that matter, zerg have banelings we have ultras we can move while burrowed and do ambushes...what terran can do? deploy tanks, 1A press T...and drops...ghosts just aren't used as much as they should, same with ravens.
In ZvT it pretty much goes, reactor hellion opening into cloaked banshee, no damage done to zerg terran will either realise he did no damage and GG or he will try to stay in the game and turtle MMM/mech off 2 bas
and that's another thing, the units arent that cool like thor is just a big walking arnold Schwarzenegger...yeah...it's just not fun to play, it is fun to swarm your oponent with lings and then blowing him up with banelings when he pushes out.
I agree. Starcraft 2 is a very boring game. With the Starcraft 1 tournament around I'm really excited about what even the hasu players do, let alone if it were Flash and Yellow. Starcraft 2 never has that excitement, every game looks somewhat the same with the 1 in 40 game being an exciting cheese.
On January 22 2013 01:13 Scootaloo wrote: A balance thread with a (temp)banned OP, I'm amazed this is still open.
For what it's worth, I say Terran being the least played race for a while could be good, better then them continuing the reign of terror they had for the majority of WoL, the constant TvT's where one of the reasons I lost interest in watching the game for a while.
Also, if you really need to be shown how to win with TvP, go watch yesterday's IEM, any game from Dream apart from the Finals should suffice.
Yeah I am happy we don't have Ts all over the place anymore. Those TvT days were so boring. Static Siege tank line and some few drops. 50+ min games every time.
I play terran because I like the race and even if we assume that its harder to play, I'll still win half my matches on the ladder and just be ranked a little lower than the people playing other races of 'equal' skill. For my own games, 'pro' balance has absolutely no relevance at all. I don't get why people that don't play at the highest level (being GSL, excluding everyone on this forum pretty much) get upset over things like this.
Sure, you can switch races to obtain a slightly higher ladder ranking, but is that really why you play the game? I play the race I find the most fun to play, and smashing all the race switching flavor of the month all-ins/endgame comps only makes it more fun.
I agree somewhat, but I can't agree completely because you started to run off on 'qq'.
I dont think you can claim terran is the hardest race mechanical wise. Some of the purest/highest (non spam) apm is spread around all the races. In fact Id go so far as to say that KR Zergs require far more apm to play at a higher level than the others, and respectively Zergs have the highest apm in the game in the proscene. If every single zerg is having to play at 35+ apm more than the others, then the only conclusion is: a, they are just as mechanically demanding as terran, or b, every single zerg user spams shitloads. Im going to choose A. I just feel like trying to say 'this race is mechanically' the hardest is always an opinion, and it depends on what all you include in 'mechanics' (i generally wouldn't call unit control mechanics, for instance.
I also disagree with your entire protoss paragraph, to a point where I dont think you played them near enough to even judge them. Protoss is the one race that can't engage without commiting. How do you justify saying protoss can do this? The entire design of the MSC is to promote playing without having to commit, because currently you can not engage either a Terran or Zerg without committing, haven't you ever heard of Concussive or Fungal? You also type out like Protoss can move out in the early game. Protoss is not good unless your all-in'ing, or going up to 3 bases and turtling. I just dont get the whole 'protoss dictates all engagements'. Its competely false.
As for your main part. Yes, terran will possibly be the least played race, esp in HOTS. They were the highest for a very very long time and people eventually move to other races, with a new expansion focusing on zerg, its almost guaranteed that Terran/Protoss will be the 2 at the bottom, possibly trading places between patches.
Blizzard is also working extremely hard to make mech work in the beta, a complaint you randomly through in there. Although I do find it extremely funny that Terran wants every tech option available in all races, yet you guys are perfectly fine with Protoss being Linear, forced into Robo, and having to open very specific openings just to survive. Terrans have the most versatiliy and you act like they have the least. You also dont act like Terran dictate the pace of most games, they may not in TvZ but in TvP the game generally is protoss trying to counter whatever they scout with their obs. We have to react to you generally, then you react to us, and it goes back and forth. Thats how rts's work lol.
So, I agree with you. But there was such an easier time to post this, and alot of other things that could be said without resorting to some of your qq and imo straight up wrong accessments, especially of the Protoss race. Why QQ about some of those things when all you wanted to do was ask a simple question?
On January 22 2013 09:34 Thieving Magpie wrote: How difficult something is to do should not matter and should actually be seen as a skill-set moreso than a limitation.
I agree that it "shouldn't" matter but it does. No one wants to play a game where they are inherently at a disadvantage.
On January 22 2013 09:34 Thieving Magpie wrote: The real discourse should be about entertainment value for the viewer. Turtle-fests are boring and hated.
While I agree the game from a spectator point of view has gotten worse the glaring exception is TvT which has improved over time imo.
On January 22 2013 10:45 ohampatu wrote: I also disagree with your entire protoss paragraph, to a point where I dont think you played them near enough to even judge them. Protoss is the one race that can't engage without commiting. How do you justify saying protoss can do this? The entire design of the MSC is to promote playing without having to commit, because currently you can not engage either a Terran or Zerg without committing, haven't you ever heard of Concussive or Fungal? You also type out like Protoss can move out in the early game. Protoss is not good unless your all-in'ing, or going up to 3 bases and turtling. I just dont get the whole 'protoss dictates all engagements'. Its competely false.
Imho Protoss can commit more easily than Terran, because they can get out of an engagement more easily. Forcefields can be used to keep the Terran (or Zerg) from chasing. Terran can only slow chasing units down with Concussive Shells and, if Zealots have charge, even that doesn't work anymore. Even more important is though, that a retreating Protoss usually gets to keep the high value units, mainly the Colossi. They just lose the easily replaceable WG units, usually even just the only mineral costing Zealots, because those are closest to the opponent and slowest to retreat, but then still quite beefy. Just HTs/Archons are harder to retreat, because they're slow, but still you have Forcefields and Zealots as buffer. A retreating Terran will usually use Stim to get away, which leaves behind the high-value units, Ghosts, Medivacs and Vikings. The stimmed Bio then is also overall damaged because of Stim and with most Medivacs chased down and destroyed you can't even heal them up that fast. So in comparison Terran keeps his cheap stuff (damaged) having to rebuild the costly hightech units, while Protoss keeps the hightech units just needing to rebuild the cheap stuff. Protoss can imo more easily commit, because they don't have to fear the need to retreat. If Terran commits, he needs to be sure that he can win this, because there usually is no retreat. You'd be damaged so heavily that you won't survive an immediate attack.
On January 22 2013 10:45 ohampatu wrote: Blizzard is also working extremely hard to make mech work in the beta, a complaint you randomly through in there. Although I do find it extremely funny that Terran wants every tech option available in all races, yet you guys are perfectly fine with Protoss being Linear, forced into Robo, and having to open very specific openings just to survive. Terrans have the most versatiliy and you act like they have the least. You also dont act like Terran dictate the pace of most games, they may not in TvZ but in TvP the game generally is protoss trying to counter whatever they scout with their obs. We have to react to you generally, then you react to us, and it goes back and forth. Thats how rts's work lol.
Imo Blizzard is not working hard on making Mech work as I already stated in my last post. They rather seem to be pushing Bio even more. And it's not that Terrans want every tech option available, but atleast a choice. Protoss are not forced in to Robo. They can still work without Colossi and use Storm only. It may be a little less effective, but on the Terran side Medivacs are a must and so are Vikings, if Colossi are on the field. Ghosts are a must, if HTs are there. A Protoss doesn't have to react with HTs, if Ghosts are on the field. Yes, Protoss needs AoE, but atleast can choose between 2 or use both. Also, please explain how Protoss have to react to what Terrans do. If a Terran were to go Mech or Sky, yes. But that's more comparable to a Terran having to react on a Protoss going Sky. You have to react to early all-in or macro, but all races have to. Overall, if the Terran goes Bio, you don't have to react to specific things, but just build your Colossi-WG deathball. A Terran has to react though to what AoE unit Protoss comes up with. Just building Vikings blindly, when there are no Colossi, loses you the game. No Vikings, but Ghosts, when there are no HTs but Colossi, and you're screwed.
On January 22 2013 10:45 ohampatu wrote: I also disagree with your entire protoss paragraph, to a point where I dont think you played them near enough to even judge them. Protoss is the one race that can't engage without commiting. How do you justify saying protoss can do this? The entire design of the MSC is to promote playing without having to commit, because currently you can not engage either a Terran or Zerg without committing, haven't you ever heard of Concussive or Fungal? You also type out like Protoss can move out in the early game. Protoss is not good unless your all-in'ing, or going up to 3 bases and turtling. I just dont get the whole 'protoss dictates all engagements'. Its competely false.
Imho Protoss can commit more easily than Terran, because they can get out of an engagement more easily. Forcefields can be used to keep the Terran (or Zerg) from chasing. Terran can only slow chasing units down with Concussive Shells and, if Zealots have charge, even that doesn't work anymore. Even more important is though, that a retreating Protoss usually gets to keep the high value units, mainly the Colossi. They just lose the easily replaceable WG units, usually even just the only mineral costing Zealots, because those are closest to the opponent and slowest to retreat, but then still quite beefy. Just HTs/Archons are harder to retreat, because they're slow, but still you have Forcefields and Zealots as buffer. A retreating Terran will usually use Stim to get away, which leaves behind the high-value units, Ghosts, Medivacs and Vikings. The stimmed Bio then is also overall damaged because of Stim and with most Medivacs chased down and destroyed you can't even heal them up that fast. So in comparison Terran keeps his cheap stuff (damaged) having to rebuild the costly hightech units, while Protoss keeps the hightech units just needing to rebuild the cheap stuff. Protoss can imo more easily commit, because they don't have to fear the need to retreat. If Terran commits, he needs to be sure that he can win this, because there usually is no retreat. You'd be damaged so heavily that you won't survive an immediate attack.
On January 22 2013 10:45 ohampatu wrote: Blizzard is also working extremely hard to make mech work in the beta, a complaint you randomly through in there. Although I do find it extremely funny that Terran wants every tech option available in all races, yet you guys are perfectly fine with Protoss being Linear, forced into Robo, and having to open very specific openings just to survive. Terrans have the most versatiliy and you act like they have the least. You also dont act like Terran dictate the pace of most games, they may not in TvZ but in TvP the game generally is protoss trying to counter whatever they scout with their obs. We have to react to you generally, then you react to us, and it goes back and forth. Thats how rts's work lol.
Imo Blizzard is not working hard on making Mech work as I already stated in my last post. They rather seem to be pushing Bio even more. And it's not that Terrans want every tech option available, but atleast a choice. Protoss are not forced in to Robo. They can still work without Colossi and use Storm only. It may be a little less effective, but on the Terran side Medivacs are a must and so are Vikings, if Colossi are on the field. Ghosts are a must, if HTs are there. A Protoss doesn't have to react with HTs, if Ghosts are on the field. Yes, Protoss needs AoE, but atleast can choose between 2 or use both. Also, please explain how Protoss have to react to what Terrans do. If a Terran were to go Mech or Sky, yes. But that's more comparable to a Terran having to react on a Protoss going Sky. You have to react to early all-in or macro, but all races have to. Overall, if the Terran goes Bio, you don't have to react to specific things, but just build your Colossi-WG deathball. A Terran has to react though to what AoE unit Protoss comes up with. Just building Vikings blindly, when there are no Colossi, loses you the game. No Vikings, but Ghosts, when there are no HTs but Colossi, and you're screwed.
Seems like you need to learn a couple things about Protoss.
Protoss is by far the worst race for retreating in WoL, it's a matter of either forcefielding off (if you still have forcefields after the engagement) some small choke or losing your sentries and any other slow spellcasters, did you forget terran can stim and that ghosts are faster then HT's and Sentries? Zealots are faster then HT's and sentries, I really don't get what made you think otherwsie. Something you might have missed about protoss is that they rely heavily on gas, when you're killing sentries and HT's, you're basically destroying lost tech potential, and as you might know, units with mana tend to be important to keep alive.
For toss, every composition apart from mass b stalkers is bad at retreating, for terran it's everything but MMM, this whole "woe me terran" attitude is just sad when they've done so well in the past, I suppose it's nice to see that when the going gets tough, everyone balance whines, even the race that has been doing fantastic for the most part of WoL.
Also, I think you misunderstand why protoss needs robo, remember we don't have scans? Protoss instinctively have learned to go for robo because otherwise you can just auto lose if the terran goes banshees. And your counter list is a bit strange, terran needs vikings when toss goes collosi, not vice versa, ghosts counter HT, not vice versa, also, terran has 3 AOE's, tank, ghost and hunter seeker, so please don't whine about protoss having too much AOE with 2 units, only difference is we need it more, otherwise bio > protoss. You don't seem to realize that collosi or HT's are Protoss reaction to Bio, which you then have to counter. To be honest it just sounds like you badly need to play some protoss, you'd know this shit if you did.
And on building blindly, prolly a bad idea, how about you scout or scan so you don't have to build blindly?
Sorry for simplifying things too much but when talking to other people of lower skills levels, generally speaking poor scouting and mechanics, feel that Terran simply don't have any ability to put on early pressure. Specifically, if Zerg does a roach, etc. bust, I die, but if I don't open 3 OC I'm behind.
Players who see this kind of huge learning curves and give up or change race were the same when Terran was more dominating against Protoss and everyone changed races to Terran, cause people though T was OP.
Before Zerg starting playing with 3 hatch opening against T & P, were also saying that Zerg was under powered. And surprise lots of race changing and off racing.
No sympathy personally; hitting a wall with your main race, and off-racing is just going to make you a worst player.
On January 22 2013 20:26 Scootaloo wrote: For toss, every composition apart from mass b stalkers is bad at retreating, for terran it's everything but MMM,
For reasons he pointed out MMM is pretty bad at retreating because unless you stim colossus and stalkers get free shots off the whole time. If you stim, you then leave behind your high value units such as ghosts and medivacs - thus retreating for terran can be really rough.
Protoss is also hard, but he makes a good point, forcefields and faster units allow you to get away with only sentries and templar being left behind. Even then templar can also use storms to ward back forces that intend on chasing (assuming they have energy remaining). Obviously retreating is not a good thing for any race but imo Protoss has more tools to defend themselves and minimize losses during a retreat than Terran in a typical scenario.
If we want to get really silly we can bring up mass recall as well - but that's used, like, never...
this whole "woe me terran" attitude is just sad when they've done so well in the past, I suppose it's nice to see that when the going gets tough, everyone balance whines, even the race that has been doing fantastic for the most part of WoL.
What does the past matter in this conversation?
Also, I think you misunderstand why protoss needs robo, remember we don't have scans?
Totally right, but I think he was talking more in terms of composition, i.e. you're not forced to open with colossus or immortals - but they are a good option. At the end of the day who cares though, it would be great if both Terran and Protoss had more composition options...
And your counter list is a bit strange, terran needs vikings when toss goes collosi, not vice versa, ghosts counter HT, not vice versa, also, terran has 3 AOE's, tank, ghost and hunter seeker, so please don't whine about protoss having too much AOE with 2 units, only difference is we need it more, otherwise bio > protoss. You don't seem to realize that collosi or HT's are Protoss reaction to Bio, which you then have to counter.
2 of those terran AOE units are almost never used in TvP outside of allins - and almost never used together. Hell, seeker missle is rarely used in any of the match-ups. Meanwhile storm and colossus are completely standard in 99% of PvT games. Not a fair comparison.
Also there are other AOE units. Ghost is technically AOE, as is the Archon.
On January 22 2013 10:45 ohampatu wrote: I also disagree with your entire protoss paragraph, to a point where I dont think you played them near enough to even judge them. Protoss is the one race that can't engage without commiting. How do you justify saying protoss can do this? The entire design of the MSC is to promote playing without having to commit, because currently you can not engage either a Terran or Zerg without committing, haven't you ever heard of Concussive or Fungal? You also type out like Protoss can move out in the early game. Protoss is not good unless your all-in'ing, or going up to 3 bases and turtling. I just dont get the whole 'protoss dictates all engagements'. Its competely false.
Imho Protoss can commit more easily than Terran, because they can get out of an engagement more easily. Forcefields can be used to keep the Terran (or Zerg) from chasing. Terran can only slow chasing units down with Concussive Shells and, if Zealots have charge, even that doesn't work anymore. Even more important is though, that a retreating Protoss usually gets to keep the high value units, mainly the Colossi. They just lose the easily replaceable WG units, usually even just the only mineral costing Zealots, because those are closest to the opponent and slowest to retreat, but then still quite beefy. Just HTs/Archons are harder to retreat, because they're slow, but still you have Forcefields and Zealots as buffer. A retreating Terran will usually use Stim to get away, which leaves behind the high-value units, Ghosts, Medivacs and Vikings. The stimmed Bio then is also overall damaged because of Stim and with most Medivacs chased down and destroyed you can't even heal them up that fast. So in comparison Terran keeps his cheap stuff (damaged) having to rebuild the costly hightech units, while Protoss keeps the hightech units just needing to rebuild the cheap stuff. Protoss can imo more easily commit, because they don't have to fear the need to retreat. If Terran commits, he needs to be sure that he can win this, because there usually is no retreat. You'd be damaged so heavily that you won't survive an immediate attack.
On January 22 2013 10:45 ohampatu wrote: Blizzard is also working extremely hard to make mech work in the beta, a complaint you randomly through in there. Although I do find it extremely funny that Terran wants every tech option available in all races, yet you guys are perfectly fine with Protoss being Linear, forced into Robo, and having to open very specific openings just to survive. Terrans have the most versatiliy and you act like they have the least. You also dont act like Terran dictate the pace of most games, they may not in TvZ but in TvP the game generally is protoss trying to counter whatever they scout with their obs. We have to react to you generally, then you react to us, and it goes back and forth. Thats how rts's work lol.
Imo Blizzard is not working hard on making Mech work as I already stated in my last post. They rather seem to be pushing Bio even more. And it's not that Terrans want every tech option available, but atleast a choice. Protoss are not forced in to Robo. They can still work without Colossi and use Storm only. It may be a little less effective, but on the Terran side Medivacs are a must and so are Vikings, if Colossi are on the field. Ghosts are a must, if HTs are there. A Protoss doesn't have to react with HTs, if Ghosts are on the field. Yes, Protoss needs AoE, but atleast can choose between 2 or use both. Also, please explain how Protoss have to react to what Terrans do. If a Terran were to go Mech or Sky, yes. But that's more comparable to a Terran having to react on a Protoss going Sky. You have to react to early all-in or macro, but all races have to. Overall, if the Terran goes Bio, you don't have to react to specific things, but just build your Colossi-WG deathball. A Terran has to react though to what AoE unit Protoss comes up with. Just building Vikings blindly, when there are no Colossi, loses you the game. No Vikings, but Ghosts, when there are no HTs but Colossi, and you're screwed.
Seems like you need to learn a couple things about Protoss.
Protoss is by far the worst race for retreating in WoL, it's a matter of either forcefielding off (if you still have forcefields after the engagement) some small choke or losing your sentries and any other slow spellcasters, did you forget terran can stim and that ghosts are faster then HT's and Sentries? Zealots are faster then HT's and sentries, I really don't get what made you think otherwsie. Something you might have missed about protoss is that they rely heavily on gas, when you're killing sentries and HT's, you're basically destroying lost tech potential, and as you might know, units with mana tend to be important to keep alive.
For toss, every composition apart from mass b stalkers is bad at retreating, for terran it's everything but MMM, this whole "woe me terran" attitude is just sad when they've done so well in the past, I suppose it's nice to see that when the going gets tough, everyone balance whines, even the race that has been doing fantastic for the most part of WoL.
Also, I think you misunderstand why protoss needs robo, remember we don't have scans? Protoss instinctively have learned to go for robo because otherwise you can just auto lose if the terran goes banshees. And your counter list is a bit strange, terran needs vikings when toss goes collosi, not vice versa, ghosts counter HT, not vice versa, also, terran has 3 AOE's, tank, ghost and hunter seeker, so please don't whine about protoss having too much AOE with 2 units, only difference is we need it more, otherwise bio > protoss. You don't seem to realize that collosi or HT's are Protoss reaction to Bio, which you then have to counter. To be honest it just sounds like you badly need to play some protoss, you'd know this shit if you did.
And on building blindly, prolly a bad idea, how about you scout or scan so you don't have to build blindly?
Firstly, yes I know that HTs and Sentries are slower than Bio and the own other WG units (I had stated that for HTs atleast above already), but... as spellcasters they are usually not very close to the front. When hunting down a retreating Protoss army, you have to work through the Zealots first, because they were closest to the front. And then there are still Forcefields to block followers. Terrans don't have anything to block followers, not even beefy ground units like Zealots that can easily be left behind.
You're not forced to have a Robo. You can just as well use Cannons, like Terrans may use Turrets against cloaked units. And you can also Storm cloaked units.
About the counters, I guess you just misread. I am stating that Terrans have to build Vikings, if Colossi get on the field, not vice versa. Ghosts must be built, when Protoss goes HT, not vice versa. The point is that these are specific units that are needed... no choice. On Protoss side then... I know they need AoE against Bio... but not a specific unit... they can choose which. And yes, building Vikings or Ghosts blindly is a bad idea, because they're specific counters. I said that too. Protoss can quite much blindly build Colossi and HTs though, when they know that Terran goes Bio.
Then yes, Terran has 3 AoE... on the paper. There's a reason why Tanks and HSM are rarely seen in TvP. Their splash is laughable and in case of the tank it hurts your own units probably more than the opponent's. Even more importantly, look at the sizes of units. Protoss units are quite bulky, which counters splash by itself. AoE damage doesn't hit as many units. Terran Bio is rather small and therefor comes in tighter packs making splash damage against them very effective. That's also why Terrans who can split very good are so popular. In TvZ Tanks and HSM are more useful, because Zerg ground units (except Ultra) are smaller, making Tanksplash effective again, and the HSM being useful against tightly packed, slow Air units like stacked BLs or Corruptors.
Ah I think I understand what you mean, when protoss loses high value units on the retreat it's ok, but when terran loses medi's and ghosts it's a massive problem because you only play terran, right? Also, if terrans would pay some more attention to ghost micro they would have them at the back as well, but as they have an auto attack laziness sets in and it's the protoss fault for microing their HT's, not to mention that they can cloak, I guess killing observers is a no-go at your level of play? And using forcefield for retreat is only viable if you have energy and a lucky choke, 2 contingencies is pretty bad.
Also, bringing mass recall into this is stupid as we're discussing WoL, any theorycrafting on HotS tactics is pointless as they are underdeveloped and in Beta.
And the point I made about terran balance whining as well is just simply a reflection on the scene having believed terrans where just better players for a long time, while it has been adequately proven now it's just a matter of balancing with metagame development.
I really don't know why you even start about AOE, lopsided races have to have different tactics, let me try to explain the matchup for you a bit better, protoss tends to use expensive unit's with a good amount of hit/shieldpoints, terran on the other hand uses cheap crap for most of the matchup that is very susceptible to AOE attacks to compensate for it's incredibly high DPS. Terran doesn't need AOE in TvP because protoss lack the cannon fodder unit's that they're usually good at. As such, any discussion whining about terran not having good enough AOE is mostly a problem of trying to use a tactic in the matchup that is not supposed to work. Also, EMP is much better then you seem to think, at least against protoss, but obviously not as good as AOE vs terran because AOE is literally the bioball weakness.
Oh, and you realize the reason protoss go blindly for collosus is because terrans go blindly for bio? This is all metagame development that happened a long time ago and you probably forgot, but again, play some protoss, it'll really help clear up some of the weird ideas that you seem to have. Just humor me and don't go for AOE in PvT, see what happens.
On January 22 2013 22:45 Scootaloo wrote: Ah I think I understand what you mean, when protoss loses high value units on the retreat it's ok, but when terran loses medi's and ghosts it's a massive problem because you only play terran, right?
Because HTs and Sentrys are in the back, Protoss only leaves Zealots behind, the high-hp unit that can take many terran shots. HTs and Sentrys also prevent the Terran from followingn by using Forcefield or Storm. If you lose your ghosts before they EMP the templar, you lose. If you lose your Vikings before they shoot down all Colossi, you lose. If you lose all your Medivacs, it's not that critical, but it is also very hard because you cant kite any more.
On January 22 2013 22:45 Scootaloo wrote: Also, if terrans would pay some more attention to ghost micro they would have them at the back as well
If you have ghosts at the back, you can not reach the HTs. The thing you dont see is that you have to EMP the HTs, so a special unit, as a Terran player, but as Protoss you can storm everythingn Terran has and it will do damage. Moreover, the ghosts have to do 2 snipes to kill a HT, but a HT only needs to make one feedback to kill a ghost.
On January 22 2013 22:45 Scootaloo wrote: And using forcefield for retreat is only viable if you have energy and a lucky choke, 2 contingencies is pretty bad.
If you have no energy, every unit is useless, that is how the game works, this argument is invalid. I could say: "Stimming is only possible if I have more thatn 10 hp left, that is a huge disadvantage and sometimes I can not stim to retreat." The thing with the choke depends on the time in the game, but if you have 4 forcefields you can even run away from a terran player from the middle of Antiga.
On January 22 2013 22:45 Scootaloo wrote: I really don't know why you even start about AOE, lopsided races have to have different tactics, let me try to explain the matchup for you a bit better, protoss tends to use expensive unit's with a good amount of hit/shieldpoints, terran on the other hand uses cheap crap for most of the matchup that is very susceptible to AOE attacks to compensate for it's incredibly high DPS. Terran doesn't need AOE in TvP because protoss lack the cannon fodder unit's that they're usually good at. As such, any discussion whining about terran not having good enough AOE is mostly a problem of trying to use a tactic in the matchup that is not supposed to work.
So you say you need AOE against a huge amount of high DPS, cheap units? What about mass Zealots then. What AOE does Terran have against them?
I don't know about others, but Im a terran since season 1 and the last few months i basically quit...Because it's become frustrating losing and when i try to find a solution through professional player's stream or tournament games, there are simply no terrans streaming and in ro32 you only get to watch a mix of P and Z's crushing the last 3~4 terrans
Terran is the hardest race to play by far, but to compensate it also has a few realy easy builds and playstyles wich are verry effective at lower lvls (and thats the complaint here, terran beeing to weak at lower lvls) If you make 3 rax marine/marauder and attack you kill more then 50% of the toss and zergs you meet.
On January 22 2013 22:45 Scootaloo wrote: Ah I think I understand what you mean, when protoss loses high value units on the retreat it's ok, but when terran loses medi's and ghosts it's a massive problem because you only play terran, right?
Because HTs and Sentrys are in the back, Protoss only leaves Zealots behind, the high-hp unit that can take many terran shots. HTs and Sentrys also prevent the Terran from followingn by using Forcefield or Storm. If you lose your ghosts before they EMP the templar, you lose. If you lose your Vikings before they shoot down all Colossi, you lose. If you lose all your Medivacs, it's not that critical, but it is also very hard because you cant kite any more.
On January 22 2013 22:45 Scootaloo wrote: Also, if terrans would pay some more attention to ghost micro they would have them at the back as well
If you have ghosts at the back, you can not reach the HTs. The thing you dont see is that you have to EMP the HTs, so a special unit, as a Terran player, but as Protoss you can storm everythingn Terran has and it will do damage. Moreover, the ghosts have to do 2 snipes to kill a HT, but a HT only needs to make one feedback to kill a ghost.
On January 22 2013 22:45 Scootaloo wrote: And using forcefield for retreat is only viable if you have energy and a lucky choke, 2 contingencies is pretty bad.
If you have no energy, every unit is useless, that is how the game works, this argument is invalid. I could say: "Stimming is only possible if I have more thatn 10 hp left, that is a huge disadvantage and sometimes I can not stim to retreat." The thing with the choke depends on the time in the game, but if you have 4 forcefields you can even run away from a terran player from the middle of Antiga.
On January 22 2013 22:45 Scootaloo wrote: I really don't know why you even start about AOE, lopsided races have to have different tactics, let me try to explain the matchup for you a bit better, protoss tends to use expensive unit's with a good amount of hit/shieldpoints, terran on the other hand uses cheap crap for most of the matchup that is very susceptible to AOE attacks to compensate for it's incredibly high DPS. Terran doesn't need AOE in TvP because protoss lack the cannon fodder unit's that they're usually good at. As such, any discussion whining about terran not having good enough AOE is mostly a problem of trying to use a tactic in the matchup that is not supposed to work.
So you say you need AOE against a huge amount of high DPS, cheap units? What about mass Zealots then. What AOE does Terran have against them?
Also worthwhile to note that Templar/Colossi do damage no matter what - Ghosts have to EMP before the Toss army's shields are gone.
On January 22 2013 23:13 Rassy wrote: Terran is the hardest race to play by far, but to compensate it also has a few realy easy builds and playstyles wich are verry effective at lower lvls (and thats the complaint here, terran beeing to weak at lower lvls) If you make 3 rax marine/marauder and attack you kill more then 50% of the toss and zergs you meet.
What is lower levels? To me, Terran was hardest to play in Masters, because you can not just win win MMM anymore. You have to have tanks or ghosts/vikings, and that is where macro gets really hard. Up to that point, macroing pure MMM is very easy in my opinion and Terran has the easiest macro management.
You have two ways of looking at SC2. One is the e-Sport scene, which encompasses maybe 100 top players, 90 from Korea. From this vantage, there really is no imbalance.
In terms of the average gamer, SC2 isn't designed for the regular gamer. Maps, interface, usability, units and balance are tweaked in respect to the top 100 players in the world. No point in debating what's easier or more fun as an average player. The ladder supposedly works so you'll always hit a 50-50 split no matter your skill level, race played, etc (unless you're bottom 100 or top 100). Terran is boring if you play like you're trying to make the next MLG.
On January 22 2013 22:45 Scootaloo wrote: Ah I think I understand what you mean, when protoss loses high value units on the retreat it's ok, but when terran loses medi's and ghosts it's a massive problem because you only play terran, right?
Because HTs and Sentrys are in the back, Protoss only leaves Zealots behind, the high-hp unit that can take many terran shots. HTs and Sentrys also prevent the Terran from followingn by using Forcefield or Storm. If you lose your ghosts before they EMP the templar, you lose. If you lose your Vikings before they shoot down all Colossi, you lose. If you lose all your Medivacs, it's not that critical, but it is also very hard because you cant kite any more.
Ah yes, all those times I see pro's losing sentries, templars and such on the retreat are just tricks of the light then? One of the main reasons this happens is because by the time you know you need to retreat, you tend to be out of mana, you people just randomly assume toss has tons of mana left AFTER the engagement, they arn't medivacs you know.
If you have ghosts at the back, you can not reach the HTs. The thing you dont see is that you have to EMP the HTs, so a special unit, as a Terran player, but as Protoss you can storm everythingn Terran has and it will do damage. Moreover, the ghosts have to do 2 snipes to kill a HT, but a HT only needs to make one feedback to kill a ghost.
Feedback, range 9 EMP, range 10 Can you be more wrong? Not to mention that you only have to EMP a HT cluster once, HT's have to feedback every single Ghost, who, by the way, can also cloak, also, if your only solution for stopping storm is snipe you're clearly not understanding how ghosts work, and feedback hardly ever outright kills a ghost.
If you have no energy, every unit is useless, that is how the game works, this argument is invalid. I could say: "Stimming is only possible if I have more thatn 10 hp left, that is a huge disadvantage and sometimes I can not stim to retreat." The thing with the choke depends on the time in the game, but if you have 4 forcefields you can even run away from a terran player from the middle of Antiga.
You seem to miss the point, units tend to be out of mana at the end of the battle, hence these storms and forcefields you speak of rarely happen for full on retreats. Not to mention that Terran really only uses a single spellcaster (and sloppily I might add).
So you say you need AOE against a huge amount of high DPS, cheap units? What about mass Zealots then. What AOE does Terran have against them?
Hellions, tanks, especially strong if you EMP them. At least try to think yourself please. And as I said before, Terran really doesn't need much AOE in TvP because single target attackers just tend to be stronger.
Even though Terrans were using bio against banelings and storm right of the bat, it wasn't the least plaid race at the time. Zerg used to be the least plaid race, and by quite a large margin (~25% of players after the release).
My Protoss 2cents is that using Terran was always tough, but MVP as well as many other successful top terrans encouraged the casuals to stick with their race. Now that Terran is still as hard but also unsuccessful in all competitive tournaments (including a continuously declining GSL player count), the race becomes highly unattractive from a casual point of view.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
On January 22 2013 22:45 Scootaloo wrote: Ah I think I understand what you mean, when protoss loses high value units on the retreat it's ok, but when terran loses medi's and ghosts it's a massive problem because you only play terran, right?
Because HTs and Sentrys are in the back, Protoss only leaves Zealots behind, the high-hp unit that can take many terran shots. HTs and Sentrys also prevent the Terran from followingn by using Forcefield or Storm. If you lose your ghosts before they EMP the templar, you lose. If you lose your Vikings before they shoot down all Colossi, you lose. If you lose all your Medivacs, it's not that critical, but it is also very hard because you cant kite any more.
Feedback, range 9 EMP, range 10 Can you be more wrong? Not to mention that you only have to EMP a HT cluster once, HT's have to feedback every single Ghost, who, by the way, can also cloak, also, if your only solution for stopping storm is snipe you're clearly not understanding how ghosts work, and feedback hardly ever outright kills a ghost. .
While this is not entirely on topic, I feel the need to respond to this one. First of all, you are auto assuming protoss will have a "HT cluster". This is NOT good protoss play. Your templars should and can be spread (ask Parting) which means that in such situations snipe would be more effective than emp.
Of course in situations where you have 15-20 ghosts (like Dream used recently) than of course ghosts will win easilly because they outnumber the templars and other priority units combined and you have ability to just blanket everything. But even then, by good observer usage protoss can lay templar traps to terran (I think there was also a game between Yoda and Parting that illustrates this well.)
You will need 2 snipes vs. 1 feedback (if it doesn't kill the ghost it will drain his energy) not to mention feedback is instant and lands before the animation, snipe is executed after the animation and it is not instant.
If you issue feedback and 2 snipes in a custom map and let computer do its thing you will see that in such ideal scenario templar will win over the ghost.
Also, if you are using emp and templars have full energy you would need to hit them 2 times to stop them from being able to storm because if there are like 5 templars and you drain some of their energy that still means protoss can drop 2-3 storms on top of your units which will in most cases be more than enough.
Also, since templars are slow, they will often be in the back of the army which means terran will need to lead with the ghost, wich can be really scary for such valuable units to be in front of the army and they can easily get slaughtered by the deathball.
Lastly, storm really doesn't need to be that precise because you can hit everything in a bio ball, it works fine even vs. vikings and medivacs, unlike emp who needs to land on specific targets like ht, sentries, archons.
I am not saying using ghosts is way more difficult than using high templars but you are reducing the discussion to 9 vs 10 range, which is oversimplifying the ghost vs. templar fights.
HT clumping still happens to pro's I'm sure we'll see you in the next GSL Rui.S.
Snipe is fun and such but as you say yourself, it has has a delay, so use EMP, 10 range and you take down any close spellcasters and drain shields, problem solved. And you dont need to lead with your ghosts, just do some scans before and during the engagement to see where they are, adapt, problem solved.
HT's are (usually) stronger vs armies then Ghosts, while ghosts are better anti-spellcasters, but as protoss needs AOE spellcasters more and terran needs anti-spellcasters more this is all fine and well.
On January 22 2013 23:45 murkk wrote: You have two ways of looking at SC2. One is the e-Sport scene, which encompasses maybe 100 top players, 90 from Korea. From this vantage, there really is no imbalance.
Pro TvZ is not at all balanced. I would have less of a problem with Terran being the hardest race but you see the top Terran players losing to inferior zerg players so that is why every Terran is so butt-hurt about it.
Starcraft was always balanced towards the top level of play. When I watch Proleague or GSL Terran seems to do ok, overall. Had some bad months (accomodating to patch changes), but is now back in shape. I don't care if less players choose to play terran in lower leagues, things have to be balanced for the top level, and there balance seems to be halfway ok right now.
If the metagame is entertaining or not is another question though.
For me this is just a nicely disguised balance whine
Glanced over the book you wrote, and wanted to make a few points.
Firstly, when WoL first came out T being the campaign race lead to a large majority of players playing T in the multiplayer so they wouldn't have to spend as much time re training themselves. Additionally early on in the game T was very powerful and very easy to use being games were short and T was extremely strong in the early stages of the game.
Then you saw balance changes and meta game shifts, through these T became a lot more difficult to play with and required higher and higher amounts of mechanical skill to be successful with. As such you started to see especially the fair weather players try to shift to races that felt easier to win with.
Whether or not you'll see any more race population moves will largely depend on ease of play at the lowest levels and balance at the higher levels. I think overall it's far to early into HoTS to really determine how that will pan out come release. Changes in balance and the meta game could make any race more favorable for a multitude of reasons. But in the end I think you are worrying to much about where game design will go with a game that has yet to even be released.
On January 23 2013 00:31 Filter wrote: Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
Nice post. I particularly like how you articulated how loses as Terran feel like a complete crushing, and wins are these barely pull it out of your ass type of games. I don't ever crush a P or Z ever, but get crushed by some all in or just a basic infestor to brood strat (or have my army disappear to HTs), quite often.
I dont really have a problem with ghost vs ht when that's all they have, but when collo's come out it becomes really stressful for me (terran). even one collo is hard to deal with in ghost vs ht micro. usually the ht are in the back behind the collo (most toss have them on a separate hotkey and move it second) which means all i can emp is their main army or retreat. and most toss get at least a couple collo vs transitioning to ht .
On January 19 2013 02:06 mvdunecats wrote: My struggles as a Gold League Terran lately have centered around the following reasons for losing: - "You just need to macro better." - "You didn't have the right army composition, you need to scout better."
While I understand that both of those elements are important, it feels like I'm fighting an up-hill battle in any non-mirror match up as a Terran. I can't simply focus on macro against Toss or Zerg because their late game armies are simply too powerful. I have to be at least as good on my macro AND be doing constant harassment to my Toss or Zerg opponent. Meanwhile, a Toss or a Zerg can just focus purely on macro and be just fine. I've heard plenty of comments like, "Of course you lost, you let the Toss/Zerg sit back and tech." I've never heard that said about losing to a Terran.
Scouting for army composition is another issue. In TvP, I need to know roughly how many Colossi and how many HT/Archons my opponent has to be able to balance my composition correctly. The same thing with TvZ. I'm having to respond to my opponent's composition. As a Terran in those match ups, is there any army composition that a Toss or Zerg has to worry about scouting ahead of time that will change their composition? It doesn't feel like the other two races have to respond to my composition nearly as much as I do to theirs.
Well they do need to worry about your composition too. Im also a gold terran, you just need to use different strats. Do proxy 2 rax, do 7 minute banshees, do something that isnt standard. Your right, you cant just sit there and let zerg tech because then you will surely lose. Just have a plan and make a 10 minute or so push with bio with 1/1 upgrades. Do something, but dont play standard cause you will probably get wrecked until your mechanics get better.
On January 23 2013 00:31 Filter wrote: Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
Nice post. I particularly like how you articulated how loses as Terran feel like a complete crushing, and wins are these barely pull it out of your ass type of games. I don't ever crush a P or Z ever, but get crushed by some all in or just a basic infestor to brood strat (or have my army disappear to HTs), quite often.
This isn't my experience. Personally, I crush Zerg and Protoss players quite often with my first few attacks. No, they're not all-in. They're standard play. If I lose I know what I did wrong, as well.
Terran has never had trouble with representation at the top levels of starcraft. They have been the most represented race in the GSL since 2010, only this season, have they dropped to second place, by just one player in Code S (due to polt withdrawing).
If anything people should cry more about protoss sucking in major tournaments.
Also, if there are lower level players who don't enjoy playing as terran, then just don't pick terran!
We should put an APM cost to every task of each race. The APM cost is the amount of APM needed to perform a task "properly", or to come out evenly in a battle. Here's an attempt for LATE GAME. NOTE: I could be TOTALLY wrong in the actual numbers, but at least looking at APM as a resource might be a way to analyze the skill requirements of the 3 races.
This is actually not a huge problem, as assuming only one battle is happening, Z needs 200 APM, T needs 280, P needs 240. The problem is multiple battles and the ability for P to trade APM effectively against T, and for Z to trade APM effectively against both P and T. I've seen many games where T is doing fine when there is only one thing going on, but as soon as P sends a few zealots for T to deal with in the main base, or Z tries to run by with lings or infestors, T suddenly crumbles.
Production: (actions needed for building units, making sure you're not supply blocked, teching, etc.) Z: ~120 P: ~100 T: ~120 Notes: - holding down a key counts as 1 action - this includes creep control - the discrepancy between P and T is mostly a result of T's units building more quickly than P's
Scouting: (actions needed for determining enemy unit composition, avoiding/setting up flanks, spotting drops) Z: ~20 P: ~60 T: ~40 Notes: - T and P need to keep sending spotter units. T has it easier than P because scan is easier than observer micro - this excludes creep control for Z since it was in the last section - Z needs spotter units too, but overlords are easy to place and Z can also use burrowed units
Micro: (actions needed to come out even in a battle, per battle) Z: ~60 P: ~80 T: ~120 Notes: - Z has low APM requirement but also low potential - In terms of amount of finesse required, T>P>Z - This is actually not a big problem if the only thing happening on the map is the main battle
On January 23 2013 12:30 ultratorr wrote: We should put an APM cost to every task of each race. The APM cost is the amount of APM needed to perform a task "properly", or to come out evenly in a battle. Here's an attempt for LATE GAME. NOTE: I could be TOTALLY wrong in the actual numbers, but at least looking at APM as a resource might be a way to analyze the skill requirements of the 3 races.
This is actually not a huge problem, as assuming only one battle is happening, Z needs 200 APM, T needs 280, P needs 240. The problem is multiple battles and the ability for P to trade APM effectively against T, and for Z to trade APM effectively against both P and T. I've seen many games where T is doing fine when there is only one thing going on, but as soon as P sends a few zealots for T to deal with in the main base, or Z tries to run by with lings or infestors, T suddenly crumbles.
Production: (actions needed for building units, making sure you're not supply blocked, teching, etc.) Z: ~120 P: ~100 T: ~120 Notes: - holding down a key counts as 1 action - this includes creep control - the discrepancy between P and T is mostly a result of T's units building more quickly than P's
Scouting: (actions needed for determining enemy unit composition, avoiding/setting up flanks, spotting drops) Z: ~20 P: ~60 T: ~40 Notes: - T and P need to keep sending spotter units. T has it easier than P because scan is easier than observer micro - this excludes creep control for Z since it was in the last section - Z needs spotter units too, but overlords are easy to place and Z can also use burrowed units
Micro: (actions needed to come out even in a battle, per battle) Z: ~60 P: ~80 T: ~120 Notes: - Z has low APM requirement but also low potential - In terms of amount of finesse required, T>P>Z - This is actually not a big problem if the only thing happening on the map is the main battle
When you were writing this, did it ever occur to you that picking a bunch of arbitrary numbers out of thin air to try to get a point across was a bad idea?
I think people will continue to play terran at low levels where the relative strength of Z and P is very apparent because folks like a challenge. Plus, of all the matchups, TvX is the most entertaining in my opinion. The prospect of ZvZ alone makes me dread ever switching to Z. It looks awful. TvT is quite nice in comparison.
On January 23 2013 12:30 ultratorr wrote: We should put an APM cost to every task of each race. The APM cost is the amount of APM needed to perform a task "properly", or to come out evenly in a battle. Here's an attempt for LATE GAME. NOTE: I could be TOTALLY wrong in the actual numbers, but at least looking at APM as a resource might be a way to analyze the skill requirements of the 3 races.
This is actually not a huge problem, as assuming only one battle is happening, Z needs 200 APM, T needs 280, P needs 240. The problem is multiple battles and the ability for P to trade APM effectively against T, and for Z to trade APM effectively against both P and T. I've seen many games where T is doing fine when there is only one thing going on, but as soon as P sends a few zealots for T to deal with in the main base, or Z tries to run by with lings or infestors, T suddenly crumbles.
Production: (actions needed for building units, making sure you're not supply blocked, teching, etc.) Z: ~120 P: ~100 T: ~120 Notes: - holding down a key counts as 1 action - this includes creep control - the discrepancy between P and T is mostly a result of T's units building more quickly than P's
Scouting: (actions needed for determining enemy unit composition, avoiding/setting up flanks, spotting drops) Z: ~20 P: ~60 T: ~40 Notes: - T and P need to keep sending spotter units. T has it easier than P because scan is easier than observer micro - this excludes creep control for Z since it was in the last section - Z needs spotter units too, but overlords are easy to place and Z can also use burrowed units
Micro: (actions needed to come out even in a battle, per battle) Z: ~60 P: ~80 T: ~120 Notes: - Z has low APM requirement but also low potential - In terms of amount of finesse required, T>P>Z - This is actually not a big problem if the only thing happening on the map is the main battle
When you were writing this, did it ever occur to you that picking a bunch of arbitrary numbers out of thin air to try to get a point across was a bad idea?
They may not be accurate, but not arbitrary. They're based on experience playing, watching matches, and watching streams.
On January 23 2013 12:30 ultratorr wrote: We should put an APM cost to every task of each race. The APM cost is the amount of APM needed to perform a task "properly", or to come out evenly in a battle. Here's an attempt for LATE GAME. NOTE: I could be TOTALLY wrong in the actual numbers, but at least looking at APM as a resource might be a way to analyze the skill requirements of the 3 races.
This is actually not a huge problem, as assuming only one battle is happening, Z needs 200 APM, T needs 280, P needs 240. The problem is multiple battles and the ability for P to trade APM effectively against T, and for Z to trade APM effectively against both P and T. I've seen many games where T is doing fine when there is only one thing going on, but as soon as P sends a few zealots for T to deal with in the main base, or Z tries to run by with lings or infestors, T suddenly crumbles.
Production: (actions needed for building units, making sure you're not supply blocked, teching, etc.) Z: ~120 P: ~100 T: ~120 Notes: - holding down a key counts as 1 action - this includes creep control - the discrepancy between P and T is mostly a result of T's units building more quickly than P's
Scouting: (actions needed for determining enemy unit composition, avoiding/setting up flanks, spotting drops) Z: ~20 P: ~60 T: ~40 Notes: - T and P need to keep sending spotter units. T has it easier than P because scan is easier than observer micro - this excludes creep control for Z since it was in the last section - Z needs spotter units too, but overlords are easy to place and Z can also use burrowed units
Micro: (actions needed to come out even in a battle, per battle) Z: ~60 P: ~80 T: ~120 Notes: - Z has low APM requirement but also low potential - In terms of amount of finesse required, T>P>Z - This is actually not a big problem if the only thing happening on the map is the main battle
I like the part where you used random numbers/action to justify that T is the hardest while Z is the easiest race to play O_O
terran has the least vision and thus the decisions you make have to be right. furthermore terrans constant need of scouting, aka drops and timely scans or even overall just game sense, is what makes bad players struggle. now add on the fact that you need to prepare in ADVANCE for tech swaps, for example heavy chargelot archon requires lots of marines and some ghosts while other comps require more marauders which are 2 dif addons. this makes terrans outright lose to chargelot compositions and then complain protoss is op or whatever.
terran however is the safest race of all 3. your standard terran gameplay covers all requirements to win. if they do some crazy air tech marines and turrets are just baller. if they do some sort of all in guess what bunkers? what about cloaked units, uh scans. terrans can also maintain a macro game vs zerg while protoss sometimes will lose outright because of drone mechanics being far superior. the mule is just the hands down best racial.
if you disagree then explain why in every gsl season there are always tons of terrans and why when you see those terrans win its always amazing. terran wins look impressive more so then some a move z or p army (this is coming from someone who has mained zerg since beta and added on protoss and terran to his skillset) high masters
On January 23 2013 00:31 Filter wrote: Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
Nice post. I particularly like how you articulated how loses as Terran feel like a complete crushing, and wins are these barely pull it out of your ass type of games. I don't ever crush a P or Z ever, but get crushed by some all in or just a basic infestor to brood strat (or have my army disappear to HTs), quite often.
This isn't my experience. Personally, I crush Zerg and Protoss players quite often with my first few attacks. No, they're not all-in. They're standard play. If I lose I know what I did wrong, as well.
You are the only Terran player in the world crushing zergs with timing attacks, so by all means, please share your secrets! (Or more likely are a trolling z or p player).
On January 23 2013 00:31 Filter wrote: Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
Nice post. I particularly like how you articulated how loses as Terran feel like a complete crushing, and wins are these barely pull it out of your ass type of games. I don't ever crush a P or Z ever, but get crushed by some all in or just a basic infestor to brood strat (or have my army disappear to HTs), quite often.
This isn't my experience. Personally, I crush Zerg and Protoss players quite often with my first few attacks. No, they're not all-in. They're standard play. If I lose I know what I did wrong, as well.
You are the only Terran player in the world crushing zergs with timing attacks, so by all means, please share your secrets! (Or more likely are a trolling z or p player).
terran has the tools to outplay people but zerg and protoss do not. if you call droning based on current meta builds and then massing based on current timings skill then shouldnt u be finishing up that coloring book?
On January 23 2013 00:31 Filter wrote: Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
Nice post. I particularly like how you articulated how loses as Terran feel like a complete crushing, and wins are these barely pull it out of your ass type of games. I don't ever crush a P or Z ever, but get crushed by some all in or just a basic infestor to brood strat (or have my army disappear to HTs), quite often.
This isn't my experience. Personally, I crush Zerg and Protoss players quite often with my first few attacks. No, they're not all-in. They're standard play. If I lose I know what I did wrong, as well.
You are the only Terran player in the world crushing zergs with timing attacks, so by all means, please share your secrets! (Or more likely are a trolling z or p player).
terran has the tools to outplay people but zerg and protoss do not. if you call droning based on current meta builds and then massing based on current timings skill then shouldnt u be finishing up that coloring book?
If what you are insinuating is that if you use the current meta game, and punish droning zergs by doing aggression, saying this is an answer is false. Ask any competent Terran. There is ZERO answer to a multiple queen, fast 3 hatch, mass drone build. Zero aggressive answer. No punishment possible unless they are a very very bad zerg. 11/11 rax is trash, and can even be held by a 3 hatch *before pool*. We got nothing. This is a huge part of the problem. The turtle zerg strat is un punishable.
On January 23 2013 00:31 Filter wrote: Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
Nice post. I particularly like how you articulated how loses as Terran feel like a complete crushing, and wins are these barely pull it out of your ass type of games. I don't ever crush a P or Z ever, but get crushed by some all in or just a basic infestor to brood strat (or have my army disappear to HTs), quite often.
This isn't my experience. Personally, I crush Zerg and Protoss players quite often with my first few attacks. No, they're not all-in. They're standard play. If I lose I know what I did wrong, as well.
You are the only Terran player in the world crushing zergs with timing attacks, so by all means, please share your secrets! (Or more likely are a trolling z or p player).
terran has the tools to outplay people but zerg and protoss do not. if you call droning based on current meta builds and then massing based on current timings skill then shouldnt u be finishing up that coloring book?
If what you are insinuating is that if you use the current meta game, and punish droning zergs by doing aggression, saying this is an answer is false. Ask any competent Terran. There is ZERO answer to a multiple queen, fast 3 hatch, mass drone build. Zero aggressive answer. No punishment possible unless they are a very very bad zerg. 11/11 rax is trash, and can even be held by a 3 hatch *before pool*. We got nothing. This is a huge part of the problem. The turtle zerg strat is un punishable.
i said zerg playstyle was unskilled and terrans was. when a terran wins he outplayed someone but when a zerg wins he just droned in relation to meta game timings
i think you need to not get so defensive on this thread lol. terran can do drops and are very cost effective with whatever army comp vs a zerg who is shackled by tech units that are static in use when compared to a more dynamic terran race overall
terran at its best is unstoppable and currently its just second best. at high levels. welcome to blizzard games where never have they in the past many many many years done a good job with pvp (even BW was imbalanced.... ppl tend to forget) i would be so depressed if i was a pro gamer playing protoss. ive played all 3 races to masters and i love to see any terran go fight a good z as protoss. its depressing that is, if u can ever get a zvp matchup (toss easily the most common mid-low master race) terrans can sometimes at least turtle and beat zergs or deny scouting and do some crazy cheese. protoss vs zerg the zerg gets full disclosure on what tech path and what army comp the entire time
On January 23 2013 00:31 Filter wrote: Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
Nice post. I particularly like how you articulated how loses as Terran feel like a complete crushing, and wins are these barely pull it out of your ass type of games. I don't ever crush a P or Z ever, but get crushed by some all in or just a basic infestor to brood strat (or have my army disappear to HTs), quite often.
This isn't my experience. Personally, I crush Zerg and Protoss players quite often with my first few attacks. No, they're not all-in. They're standard play. If I lose I know what I did wrong, as well.
You are the only Terran player in the world crushing zergs with timing attacks, so by all means, please share your secrets! (Or more likely are a trolling z or p player).
terran has the tools to outplay people but zerg and protoss do not. if you call droning based on current meta builds and then massing based on current timings skill then shouldnt u be finishing up that coloring book?
Could u b finishin ur writing books instead of insulting someone who raises gud points?
The only tool terran has to outplay people is micro. This is also a tool that the other races possess. But, the other races also possess other good tools, such as superior macro mechanics, and strong (read: game changing) units.
How anyone can deny the obvious weakness of terran is beyond me entirely. It's plain to see from my own experiences and watching pro games. It's just bad for the game entirely, there is a decline in the terran player base as well as in the viewer ship and entertainment value of watching tournaments. How many times now have we seen zerg or protoss dominate towards the final rounds of tournaments. Many people, including myself are getting really tired of seeing the same mirror match ups as finals.
Personally I'm just tired of SC2 entirely, after I quit playing due to frustration and boredom, I still tuned in and subbed to tournaments, but even they are starting to frustrate and bore me. I'm just tired of seeing the same game played out over and over and over. Pretty much every game I watch now is the same as I've seen a hundred times before. It's kind of sad really.
SC2 failed in my eyes, hopefully HOTS can revitalize my interest but I don't have my hopes up very high.
On January 23 2013 00:31 Filter wrote: Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
Nice post. I particularly like how you articulated how loses as Terran feel like a complete crushing, and wins are these barely pull it out of your ass type of games. I don't ever crush a P or Z ever, but get crushed by some all in or just a basic infestor to brood strat (or have my army disappear to HTs), quite often.
This isn't my experience. Personally, I crush Zerg and Protoss players quite often with my first few attacks. No, they're not all-in. They're standard play. If I lose I know what I did wrong, as well.
You are the only Terran player in the world crushing zergs with timing attacks, so by all means, please share your secrets! (Or more likely are a trolling z or p player).
terran has the tools to outplay people but zerg and protoss do not. if you call droning based on current meta builds and then massing based on current timings skill then shouldnt u be finishing up that coloring book?
If what you are insinuating is that if you use the current meta game, and punish droning zergs by doing aggression, saying this is an answer is false. Ask any competent Terran. There is ZERO answer to a multiple queen, fast 3 hatch, mass drone build. Zero aggressive answer. No punishment possible unless they are a very very bad zerg. 11/11 rax is trash, and can even be held by a 3 hatch *before pool*. We got nothing. This is a huge part of the problem. The turtle zerg strat is un punishable.
Stop exaggerating, 3 hatch before pool = no lings and no spines. If terran fails against ONLY drones, then he is fucking terrible and should rightly lose.
On January 23 2013 00:31 Filter wrote: Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
Nice post. I particularly like how you articulated how loses as Terran feel like a complete crushing, and wins are these barely pull it out of your ass type of games. I don't ever crush a P or Z ever, but get crushed by some all in or just a basic infestor to brood strat (or have my army disappear to HTs), quite often.
This isn't my experience. Personally, I crush Zerg and Protoss players quite often with my first few attacks. No, they're not all-in. They're standard play. If I lose I know what I did wrong, as well.
You are the only Terran player in the world crushing zergs with timing attacks, so by all means, please share your secrets! (Or more likely are a trolling z or p player).
terran has the tools to outplay people but zerg and protoss do not. if you call droning based on current meta builds and then massing based on current timings skill then shouldnt u be finishing up that coloring book?
If what you are insinuating is that if you use the current meta game, and punish droning zergs by doing aggression, saying this is an answer is false. Ask any competent Terran. There is ZERO answer to a multiple queen, fast 3 hatch, mass drone build. Zero aggressive answer. No punishment possible unless they are a very very bad zerg. 11/11 rax is trash, and can even be held by a 3 hatch *before pool*. We got nothing. This is a huge part of the problem. The turtle zerg strat is un punishable.
Stop exaggerating, 3 hatch before pool = no lings and no spines. If terran fails against ONLY drones, then he is fucking terrible and should rightly lose.
I was told by a reliable good player that I get tips from often that Scarlett beat a Korean 11/11 rax with 3 hatch before pool. I never bothered to look it up because honestly, if I watched that, I'd probably just quit. This may be misinformation and if so I apologize. I will research this to find out.
On January 23 2013 00:31 Filter wrote: Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
Nice post. I particularly like how you articulated how loses as Terran feel like a complete crushing, and wins are these barely pull it out of your ass type of games. I don't ever crush a P or Z ever, but get crushed by some all in or just a basic infestor to brood strat (or have my army disappear to HTs), quite often.
This isn't my experience. Personally, I crush Zerg and Protoss players quite often with my first few attacks. No, they're not all-in. They're standard play. If I lose I know what I did wrong, as well.
You are the only Terran player in the world crushing zergs with timing attacks, so by all means, please share your secrets! (Or more likely are a trolling z or p player).
terran has the tools to outplay people but zerg and protoss do not. if you call droning based on current meta builds and then massing based on current timings skill then shouldnt u be finishing up that coloring book?
Could u b finishin ur writing books instead of insulting someone who raises gud points?
The only tool terran has to outplay people is micro. This is also a tool that the other races possess. But, the other races also possess other good tools, such as superior macro mechanics, and strong (read: game changing) units.
How anyone can deny the obvious weakness of terran is beyond me entirely. It's plain to see from my own experiences and watching pro games. It's just bad for the game entirely, there is a decline in the terran player base as well as in the viewer ship and entertainment value of watching tournaments. How many times now have we seen zerg or protoss dominate towards the final rounds of tournaments. Many people, including myself are getting really tired of seeing the same mirror match ups as finals.
Personally I'm just tired of SC2 entirely, after I quit playing due to frustration and boredom, I still tuned in and subbed to tournaments, but even they are starting to frustrate and bore me. I'm just tired of seeing the same game played out over and over and over. Pretty much every game I watch now is the same as I've seen a hundred times before. It's kind of sad really.
SC2 failed in my eyes, hopefully HOTS can revitalize my interest but I don't have my hopes up very high.
zerg and protoss cannot through standard play do multi pronged harass/attacks from an early point in a game till late. the fact that medivacs are part of your standard terran army at around 9-11mins opens up that window in a far safer way. a zerg who invests heavily in drop play at that time risks death to all ins or falling behind in tech as does a protoss player. not to mention that protoss and zerg drops lack that insane dps that 8 marines or 4 marauders bring to the table
sc2 is an economy RTS. that being said the race with the BEST macro is the BEST race. is it any surprise that protoss the easiest and zerg the best macro race have the most ladder representation? is it then any surprise that the race with the best multi task which is a harder skill to obtain is doing poorly on ladder but then well in tournys? sure the latest patches have not been pretty for terran but early years terran (2 years lol...) they were good and zerg was the worst race ( i played z back then it wasnt as pretty playing such an unfigured out race vs proxy reaper and blue flame helion drops)
the only way to not go crazy in this game is to do 1 of 2 things. FOTM reroll. ur playing a video game balanced by idiots, FOTM reroll and u will always be playing the best race. stop crying and understand that the race that you play is your best race and going through a hard time. its just a game and while u prob cant win GSL as terran as easily as zerg you can def get masters and GM.
blizzard doesnt even hire pro gamers to balance the games they have. they have failed for years and years and years myself and friends who are in GM have actually quit sc2 for dota (i didnt cant stand moba) for the very reasons you talk about (they dont even play terran) but its just beating a dead horse at a certain point and the only statement you can actually make is "terran can win any game but has to earn it far more then the other 2 races"
edit - not to mention we are having a spectacularly ignorant discussion with people who think 11/11 rax can be held by 3 hatch before pool. its one of the most foolish personality traits a person has to take information he doesnt know anything about from SOMEONE ELSE, then recant that information as FACT. "misinformed" is a kind understatement to the BS that your type would spew on a daily basis over forums
On January 23 2013 00:31 Filter wrote: Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
Nice post. I particularly like how you articulated how loses as Terran feel like a complete crushing, and wins are these barely pull it out of your ass type of games. I don't ever crush a P or Z ever, but get crushed by some all in or just a basic infestor to brood strat (or have my army disappear to HTs), quite often.
This isn't my experience. Personally, I crush Zerg and Protoss players quite often with my first few attacks. No, they're not all-in. They're standard play. If I lose I know what I did wrong, as well.
You are the only Terran player in the world crushing zergs with timing attacks, so by all means, please share your secrets! (Or more likely are a trolling z or p player).
terran has the tools to outplay people but zerg and protoss do not. if you call droning based on current meta builds and then massing based on current timings skill then shouldnt u be finishing up that coloring book?
If what you are insinuating is that if you use the current meta game, and punish droning zergs by doing aggression, saying this is an answer is false. Ask any competent Terran. There is ZERO answer to a multiple queen, fast 3 hatch, mass drone build. Zero aggressive answer. No punishment possible unless they are a very very bad zerg. 11/11 rax is trash, and can even be held by a 3 hatch *before pool*. We got nothing. This is a huge part of the problem. The turtle zerg strat is un punishable.
Stop exaggerating, 3 hatch before pool = no lings and no spines. If terran fails against ONLY drones, then he is fucking terrible and should rightly lose.
I was told by a reliable good player that I get tips from often that Scarlett beat a Korean 11/11 rax with 3 hatch before pool. I never bothered to look it up because honestly, if I watched that, I'd probably just quit. This may be misinformation and if so I apologize. I will research this to find out.
It could probably be done. Just like it's possible to kill a zealot with 1 marine. It's all about execution and really 3 hatch before pool can't stop an 11/11 a vast vast vast majority of the time
The worst-growing economy. Production that is the slowest to come online. Most infrastructure needed. Rigid infrastructure. Basically all high tech units are narrow anti-one-unit counters that aren't at all scary otherwise. All upgrade branches separate and expensive. On average the most blind faction in the game. Strong point in timing attacks - that are nerfed constantly. Fragile. AoE typically diminishes over distance and hurts own units. Late game based primarily on mass production infrastructure.
Good micro potential. Excellent base composition with high DPS. Drop play. Can leverage small-scale tactical situations excellently with Banshees and Tanks. Scan for momentary glimpses at the expense of macro. (Still good obv.) Quite good at the absolute late game that it rarely reaches. Good at getting a little bit of something out early.
All is good in the world. Let's contrast with mah bugs:
Fastest-growing economy Production comes online decently quick, but nothing spectacular. Tech is expensive, production infrastructure as cheap as can be. Production is flexible to the point of absurdity. Can drone like a nutcase while impervious to all but the most dedicated all-in. Macro mechanic = Roach that shoots up and heals. (Sanity, where are you?) Basically all high tech units are threats - good in any case unless the opponent literally has nothing left on the ground. Very efficient production. Good units overall. Ridiculous map control basically for free. Reaches lategame very quickly, lategame based primarily on stage of tech. Excellent burst damage potential with mass IT.
Not much micro potential (not much of it needed usually either) Roaches don't function well in the late game due to supply inefficiency. Hydras suck. Teching to T2 can be slow. (But you're impervious to nearly anything before that.) Forcefields are annoying as hell. More so than usual. Someone, please keelhaul whoever came up with FF. Laying siege without Broods is hard. Thankfully they now come at 12 minutes instead of 17.
On January 23 2013 00:31 Filter wrote: Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
Nice post. I particularly like how you articulated how loses as Terran feel like a complete crushing, and wins are these barely pull it out of your ass type of games. I don't ever crush a P or Z ever, but get crushed by some all in or just a basic infestor to brood strat (or have my army disappear to HTs), quite often.
This isn't my experience. Personally, I crush Zerg and Protoss players quite often with my first few attacks. No, they're not all-in. They're standard play. If I lose I know what I did wrong, as well.
You are the only Terran player in the world crushing zergs with timing attacks, so by all means, please share your secrets! (Or more likely are a trolling z or p player).
terran has the tools to outplay people but zerg and protoss do not. if you call droning based on current meta builds and then massing based on current timings skill then shouldnt u be finishing up that coloring book?
Could u b finishin ur writing books instead of insulting someone who raises gud points?
The only tool terran has to outplay people is micro. This is also a tool that the other races possess. But, the other races also possess other good tools, such as superior macro mechanics, and strong (read: game changing) units.
How anyone can deny the obvious weakness of terran is beyond me entirely. It's plain to see from my own experiences and watching pro games. It's just bad for the game entirely, there is a decline in the terran player base as well as in the viewer ship and entertainment value of watching tournaments. How many times now have we seen zerg or protoss dominate towards the final rounds of tournaments. Many people, including myself are getting really tired of seeing the same mirror match ups as finals.
Personally I'm just tired of SC2 entirely, after I quit playing due to frustration and boredom, I still tuned in and subbed to tournaments, but even they are starting to frustrate and bore me. I'm just tired of seeing the same game played out over and over and over. Pretty much every game I watch now is the same as I've seen a hundred times before. It's kind of sad really.
SC2 failed in my eyes, hopefully HOTS can revitalize my interest but I don't have my hopes up very high.
zerg and protoss cannot through standard play do multi pronged harass/attacks from an early point in a game till late. the fact that medivacs are part of your standard terran army at around 9-11mins opens up that window in a far safer way. a zerg who invests heavily in drop play at that time risks death to all ins or falling behind in tech as does a protoss player. not to mention that protoss and zerg drops lack that insane dps that 8 marines or 4 marauders bring to the table
sc2 is an economy RTS. that being said the race with the BEST macro is the BEST race. is it any surprise that protoss the easiest and zerg the best macro race have the most ladder representation? is it then any surprise that the race with the best multi task which is a harder skill to obtain is doing poorly on ladder but then well in tournys? sure the latest patches have not been pretty for terran but early years terran (2 years lol...) they were good and zerg was the worst race ( i played z back then it wasnt as pretty playing such an unfigured out race vs proxy reaper and blue flame helion drops)
the only way to not go crazy in this game is to do 1 of 2 things. FOTM reroll. ur playing a video game balanced by idiots, FOTM reroll and u will always be playing the best race. stop crying and understand that the race that you play is your best race and going through a hard time. its just a game and while u prob cant win GSL as terran as easily as zerg you can def get masters and GM.
blizzard doesnt even hire pro gamers to balance the games they have. they have failed for years and years and years myself and friends who are in GM have actually quit sc2 for dota (i didnt cant stand moba) for the very reasons you talk about (they dont even play terran) but its just beating a dead horse at a certain point and the only statement you can actually make is "terran can win any game but has to earn it far more then the other 2 races"
edit - not to mention we are having a spectacularly ignorant discussion with people who think 11/11 rax can be held by 3 hatch before pool. its one of the most foolish personality traits a person has to take information he doesnt know anything about from SOMEONE ELSE, then recant that information as FACT. "misinformed" is a kind understatement to the BS that your type would spew on a daily basis over forums
Rofl what the fuck is this, it's like you replied to me, but didn't actually say anything directly to me. That, or you just didn't read at all. I practically agree with you on all points except "terran has the tools to outplay people". Are you serious? this magic tool that wins terran games is just early/mid game drops? something that terran has been doing since launch, and toss and zerg have gotten so so SOOO good at defending? Get a clue please, before spouting this nonsense.
And I love how the one thing you don't comment on in your whole stupid rant, is how fast and hard terran get nerfed. You cry about reapers and blue flame hellions, but hey they got nerfed to the fucking ground as soon as they were used, same with pretty much everything else terran. A lot of the frustration myself and others feel is based purely on this, blizz would nerf the shit out of terran in heartbeat without a second thought, then let zerg rape face with infestors for over half a year(and continue to do so)? Fuck. That. Shit.
Also about your edit, seriously learn to read, I called the guy out on that 11/11 being held by 3 hatch before pool, so don't lump me in the same boat as "my misinformed type". Jesus christ you're a true waste of space
On January 25 2013 00:24 TsGBruzze wrote: Even as a terran/zerg i laugh at this, why did not these thread came up when zerg was the hardest?
You're joking right? There where multitudes of these for Zerg and Protoss when they drew the short end of the balancing stick, usually they where deleted more quickly, quite frankly, I don't understand why this one is alive, it's just a long terran whine rant, shedding tears and fearing they will always be the weakest from now on, because that is how balance works right? Not like Blizzard has ever buffed a race before that had been doing terribly.
Races whine when they're doing bad in the metagame, hell, humans whine when they're doing bad in life, just sad to see TL actually keeping this thread alive instead of removing it like has been the custom the last 2 years.
To all the terrans in here, I want to extend a tissue and the reasurances that the balancing wheel, like always, will turn around.
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.
I don't get the argument "At a lower level it's not balanced"... It's not balanced because you lack skill? This is not balance's fault, it's your lack of skills fault. It is balanced, you're just not good enough. :S
On January 19 2013 01:15 FutureBreedMachine wrote:
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.
I don't get the argument "At a lower level it's not balanced"... It's not balanced because you lack skill? This is not balance's fault, it's your lack of skills fault. It is balanced, you're just not good enough. :S
This is balance in a game about economy?
On January 24 2013 21:31 Coffee Zombie wrote: The worst-growing economy. Production that is the slowest to come online. Most infrastructure needed. Rigid infrastructure. Basically all high tech units are narrow anti-one-unit counters that aren't at all scary otherwise. All upgrade branches separate and expensive. On average the most blind faction in the game. Strong point in timing attacks - that are nerfed constantly. Fragile. AoE typically diminishes over distance and hurts own units. Late game based primarily on mass production infrastructure.
Good micro potential. Excellent base composition with high DPS. Drop play. Can leverage small-scale tactical situations excellently with Banshees and Tanks. Scan for momentary glimpses at the expense of macro. (Still good obv.) Quite good at the absolute late game that it rarely reaches. Good at getting a little bit of something out early.
All is good in the world. Let's contrast with mah bugs:
Fastest-growing economy Production comes online decently quick, but nothing spectacular. Tech is expensive, production infrastructure as cheap as can be. Production is flexible to the point of absurdity. Can drone like a nutcase while impervious to all but the most dedicated all-in. Macro mechanic = Roach that shoots up and heals. (Sanity, where are you?) Basically all high tech units are threats - good in any case unless the opponent literally has nothing left on the ground. Very efficient production. Good units overall. Ridiculous map control basically for free. Reaches lategame very quickly, lategame based primarily on stage of tech. Excellent burst damage potential with mass IT.
Not much micro potential (not much of it needed usually either) Roaches don't function well in the late game due to supply inefficiency. Hydras suck. Teching to T2 can be slow. (But you're impervious to nearly anything before that.) Forcefields are annoying as hell. More so than usual. Someone, please keelhaul whoever came up with FF. Laying siege without Broods is hard. Thankfully they now come at 12 minutes instead of 17.
On January 24 2013 21:31 Coffee Zombie wrote: The worst-growing economy. Production that is the slowest to come online. Most infrastructure needed. Rigid infrastructure. Basically all high tech units are narrow anti-one-unit counters that aren't at all scary otherwise. All upgrade branches separate and expensive. On average the most blind faction in the game. Strong point in timing attacks - that are nerfed constantly. Fragile. AoE typically diminishes over distance and hurts own units. Late game based primarily on mass production infrastructure.
Good micro potential. Excellent base composition with high DPS. Drop play. Can leverage small-scale tactical situations excellently with Banshees and Tanks. Scan for momentary glimpses at the expense of macro. (Still good obv.) Quite good at the absolute late game that it rarely reaches. Good at getting a little bit of something out early.
All is good in the world. Let's contrast with mah bugs:
Fastest-growing economy Production comes online decently quick, but nothing spectacular. Tech is expensive, production infrastructure as cheap as can be. Production is flexible to the point of absurdity. Can drone like a nutcase while impervious to all but the most dedicated all-in. Macro mechanic = Roach that shoots up and heals. (Sanity, where are you?) Basically all high tech units are threats - good in any case unless the opponent literally has nothing left on the ground. Very efficient production. Good units overall. Ridiculous map control basically for free. Reaches lategame very quickly, lategame based primarily on stage of tech. Excellent burst damage potential with mass IT.
Not much micro potential (not much of it needed usually either) Roaches don't function well in the late game due to supply inefficiency. Hydras suck. Teching to T2 can be slow. (But you're impervious to nearly anything before that.) Forcefields are annoying as hell. More so than usual. Someone, please keelhaul whoever came up with FF. Laying siege without Broods is hard. Thankfully they now come at 12 minutes instead of 17.
So, can anyone guess why I quit?
Wow, I'm impressed, that's like balance whining poetry, a stream of terran tears forming a beautiful waterfall of butthurt. Y'know, in that time you could've done a lot of things, played the game, write some actual poetry, or learn to realize that Blizzard will eventually balance things into Terrans favor again, y'know, like they always have.
Oh, and thanks for making me rediscover why I read these threads.
On January 24 2013 21:31 Coffee Zombie wrote: The worst-growing economy. Production that is the slowest to come online. Most infrastructure needed. Rigid infrastructure. Basically all high tech units are narrow anti-one-unit counters that aren't at all scary otherwise. All upgrade branches separate and expensive. On average the most blind faction in the game. Strong point in timing attacks - that are nerfed constantly. Fragile. AoE typically diminishes over distance and hurts own units. Late game based primarily on mass production infrastructure.
Good micro potential. Excellent base composition with high DPS. Drop play. Can leverage small-scale tactical situations excellently with Banshees and Tanks. Scan for momentary glimpses at the expense of macro. (Still good obv.) Quite good at the absolute late game that it rarely reaches. Good at getting a little bit of something out early.
All is good in the world. Let's contrast with mah bugs:
Fastest-growing economy Production comes online decently quick, but nothing spectacular. Tech is expensive, production infrastructure as cheap as can be. Production is flexible to the point of absurdity. Can drone like a nutcase while impervious to all but the most dedicated all-in. Macro mechanic = Roach that shoots up and heals. (Sanity, where are you?) Basically all high tech units are threats - good in any case unless the opponent literally has nothing left on the ground. Very efficient production. Good units overall. Ridiculous map control basically for free. Reaches lategame very quickly, lategame based primarily on stage of tech. Excellent burst damage potential with mass IT.
Not much micro potential (not much of it needed usually either) Roaches don't function well in the late game due to supply inefficiency. Hydras suck. Teching to T2 can be slow. (But you're impervious to nearly anything before that.) Forcefields are annoying as hell. More so than usual. Someone, please keelhaul whoever came up with FF. Laying siege without Broods is hard. Thankfully they now come at 12 minutes instead of 17.
So, can anyone guess why I quit?
Wow, I'm impressed, that's like balance whining poetry, a stream of terran tears forming a beautiful waterfall of butthurt. Y'know, in that time you could've done a lot of things, played the game, write some actual poetry, or learn to realize that Blizzard will eventually balance things into Terrans favor again, y'know, like they always have.
Oh, and thanks for making me rediscover why I read these threads.
Actually I think one of the problems is that professional Terran players are not “whining” enough even though the situation has been abysmal for a long time. They need to grow some balls to speak out the gameplay issues that are plaguing Terrans. I guess the early Korean Terran dominance has really discouraged this, but they are literally losing money due to the incompetence of Blizzard balance team. If only players like Idra and Nerchio play Terran I am 100% sure this situation would not happen.
This shit-show thread is still open? I just don't see this going anywhere but a balance circlejerk (which it's already done). People will argue mechanical difficult to the ends of the Earth. It really is just ego-stroking and masturbation at this point.
On January 24 2013 21:31 Coffee Zombie wrote: The worst-growing economy. Production that is the slowest to come online. Most infrastructure needed. Rigid infrastructure. Basically all high tech units are narrow anti-one-unit counters that aren't at all scary otherwise. All upgrade branches separate and expensive. On average the most blind faction in the game. Strong point in timing attacks - that are nerfed constantly. Fragile. AoE typically diminishes over distance and hurts own units. Late game based primarily on mass production infrastructure.
Good micro potential. Excellent base composition with high DPS. Drop play. Can leverage small-scale tactical situations excellently with Banshees and Tanks. Scan for momentary glimpses at the expense of macro. (Still good obv.) Quite good at the absolute late game that it rarely reaches. Good at getting a little bit of something out early.
All is good in the world. Let's contrast with mah bugs:
Fastest-growing economy Production comes online decently quick, but nothing spectacular. Tech is expensive, production infrastructure as cheap as can be. Production is flexible to the point of absurdity. Can drone like a nutcase while impervious to all but the most dedicated all-in. Macro mechanic = Roach that shoots up and heals. (Sanity, where are you?) Basically all high tech units are threats - good in any case unless the opponent literally has nothing left on the ground. Very efficient production. Good units overall. Ridiculous map control basically for free. Reaches lategame very quickly, lategame based primarily on stage of tech. Excellent burst damage potential with mass IT.
Not much micro potential (not much of it needed usually either) Roaches don't function well in the late game due to supply inefficiency. Hydras suck. Teching to T2 can be slow. (But you're impervious to nearly anything before that.) Forcefields are annoying as hell. More so than usual. Someone, please keelhaul whoever came up with FF. Laying siege without Broods is hard. Thankfully they now come at 12 minutes instead of 17.
So, can anyone guess why I quit?
Wow, I'm impressed, that's like balance whining poetry, a stream of terran tears forming a beautiful waterfall of butthurt. Y'know, in that time you could've done a lot of things, played the game, write some actual poetry, or learn to realize that Blizzard will eventually balance things into Terrans favor again, y'know, like they always have.
Oh, and thanks for making me rediscover why I read these threads.
LOL you are the funniest guy in this thread. You obviously don't give a shit about having a balanced and fun game to watch/play and are just enjoying all the cheap and free wins everywhere.
Why don't you learn to realize Blizzard aren't going to actually do a fucking thing to fix terran, terran has been in this state for so long with little to no changes. Were other races neglected like this? No. Were/are other races nerfed to the ground as fast and brutally as terran have been? Fuck no.
Blizzard won't fix terran, they want you to buy HOTS instead of fixing what is broken in WOL.
On January 24 2013 13:11 sunglasseson wrote: edit - not to mention we are having a spectacularly ignorant discussion with people who think 11/11 rax can be held by 3 hatch before pool. its one of the most foolish personality traits a person has to take information he doesnt know anything about from SOMEONE ELSE, then recant that information as FACT. "misinformed" is a kind understatement to the BS that your type would spew on a daily basis over forums
Actually you're the ignorant one on this since there are two instances of pro games in which a Zerg won with triple Hatchery before Pool (3HBP) against 11/11: Happy vs rorO, Entombed Valley (?), Code S Season 5; and GuMiho vs Scarlett, Khaydaria, Ritmix RSL III. Of course a proper 11/11 auto-wins against 3HBP, but if Terran does not scout the main, mistakes Zerg's passivity for the “stall on 1 base for Speedlings/Banes” strategy (which is one of the possibilities when defending 2 rax) and hesitates to enter the main or does so too timidly, Zerg can have enough time to mass Zerglings and overcome the Bunker contain. Check facts before bashing people.
On January 24 2013 13:11 sunglasseson wrote: edit - not to mention we are having a spectacularly ignorant discussion with people who think 11/11 rax can be held by 3 hatch before pool. its one of the most foolish personality traits a person has to take information he doesnt know anything about from SOMEONE ELSE, then recant that information as FACT. "misinformed" is a kind understatement to the BS that your type would spew on a daily basis over forums
Actually you're the ignorant one on this since there are two instances of pro games in which a Zerg won with triple Hatchery before Pool (3HBP) against 11/11: Happy vs rorO, Entombed Valley (?), Code S Season 5; and GuMiho vs Scarlett, Khaydaria, Ritmix RSL III. Of course a proper 11/11 auto-wins against 3HBP, but if Terran does not scout the main, mistakes Zerg's passivity for the “stall on 1 base for Speedlings/Banes” strategy (which is one of the possibilities when defending 2 rax) and hesitates to enter the main or does so too timidly, Zerg can have enough time to mass Zerglings and overcome the Bunker contain. Check facts before bashing people.
Thanks TheDwf, I was not having any luck finding the example games. I understand that usually 11/11 should win this, however with 2 pro examples that show otherwise, I think that is 2 examples too many. It is just another strong reminder of how ridiculously safe zerg is to any manner of aggression.
But hey.... we have a WIDOW mine soon!...................... fucking sigh
On January 25 2013 01:09 Dumbledore wrote: I don't get the argument "At a lower level it's not balanced"... It's not balanced because you lack skill? This is not balance's fault, it's your lack of skills fault. It is balanced, you're just not good enough. :S
Actually I think it is a valid argument. If the game is unplayable for leagues under Master - GM, people will stop playing. And by stopping playing they will lose their interest in the game which will cause less views, thus attracting less sponsors, decreasing prizepool, making teams unable to pay their players untill they stop. So the balance is an issue for everyone, even for Blizzard, who gets money from every tournament. You need a crowd if you want growth. Stop beeing so arrogant.
On January 24 2013 21:31 Coffee Zombie wrote: The worst-growing economy. Production that is the slowest to come online. Most infrastructure needed. Rigid infrastructure. Basically all high tech units are narrow anti-one-unit counters that aren't at all scary otherwise. All upgrade branches separate and expensive. On average the most blind faction in the game. Strong point in timing attacks - that are nerfed constantly. Fragile. AoE typically diminishes over distance and hurts own units. Late game based primarily on mass production infrastructure.
Good micro potential. Excellent base composition with high DPS. Drop play. Can leverage small-scale tactical situations excellently with Banshees and Tanks. Scan for momentary glimpses at the expense of macro. (Still good obv.) Quite good at the absolute late game that it rarely reaches. Good at getting a little bit of something out early.
All is good in the world. Let's contrast with mah bugs:
Fastest-growing economy Production comes online decently quick, but nothing spectacular. Tech is expensive, production infrastructure as cheap as can be. Production is flexible to the point of absurdity. Can drone like a nutcase while impervious to all but the most dedicated all-in. Macro mechanic = Roach that shoots up and heals. (Sanity, where are you?) Basically all high tech units are threats - good in any case unless the opponent literally has nothing left on the ground. Very efficient production. Good units overall. Ridiculous map control basically for free. Reaches lategame very quickly, lategame based primarily on stage of tech. Excellent burst damage potential with mass IT.
Not much micro potential (not much of it needed usually either) Roaches don't function well in the late game due to supply inefficiency. Hydras suck. Teching to T2 can be slow. (But you're impervious to nearly anything before that.) Forcefields are annoying as hell. More so than usual. Someone, please keelhaul whoever came up with FF. Laying siege without Broods is hard. Thankfully they now come at 12 minutes instead of 17.
So, can anyone guess why I quit?
Wow, I'm impressed, that's like balance whining poetry, a stream of terran tears forming a beautiful waterfall of butthurt. Y'know, in that time you could've done a lot of things, played the game, write some actual poetry, or learn to realize that Blizzard will eventually balance things into Terrans favor again, y'know, like they always have.
Oh, and thanks for making me rediscover why I read these threads.
Actually I think one of the problems is that professional Terran players are not “whining” enough even though the situation has been abysmal for a long time. They need to grow some balls to speak out the gameplay issues that are plaguing Terrans. I guess the early Korean Terran dominance has really discouraged this, but they are literally losing money due to the incompetence of Blizzard balance team. If only players like Idra and Nerchio play Terran I am 100% sure this situation would not happen.
Zerg and Toss being in shit positions carried on for months as well, and from what I heard from shows like SotG and ItG, pro's are vocal about Terran issues as well, don't you remember how long that went on until Blizzard buffed the infestor, which, in part because of it coinciding with zergs figuring out some nifty new strategies, lead to a shitton more balance problems, in Zerg's favor this time.
Blizzard just needs a long time to figure out what and how they should patch, this can be frustrating for players, but do you honestly expect their patching policy to change after years of the same pace? And mind you, when they fix things they still tend to overbuff a single unit in favor of a proper redesign of mechanics like the warpgate or larva production that has been called for practically since release.
On January 25 2013 01:52 BigBossX wrote: LOL you are the funniest guy in this thread. You obviously don't give a shit about having a balanced and fun game to watch/play and are just enjoying all the cheap and free wins everywhere.
Why don't you learn to realize Blizzard aren't going to actually do a fucking thing to fix terran, terran has been in this state for so long with little to no changes. Were other races neglected like this? No. Were/are other races nerfed to the ground as fast and brutally as terran have been? Fuck no.
Blizzard won't fix terran, they want you to buy HOTS instead of fixing what is broken in WOL.
Oh, I do care about balancing, mostly from a spectators point of view, but still, this is just how balancing works, Blizzard takes their sweet time and eventually patch some problems, often leading to other balance issues. Other races where neglected like this, or even more, as it is Terran is still the most thoroughly designed race, with the most unit's, buildings and build orders. In the months and months that Zerg was doing badly, you could find posts like yours on every balance whine thread, hell, it almost sounds like you're channeling the spirit of 2011 Idra, these sentiments that Blizzard doesn't care about Terran (didn't Browder state it was his favorite race?) and that things can't or won't be fixed are pretty much exactly the sort of statements he was well known for making back then.
HoTS is out in less then 2 months, it's better blizzard focus there and get that solid then worry about this small time frame. Like it or not it is what will be better for everyone long term. Especially if you consider there is nobody looking at HoTS right now saying 'that's perfect hurray'.
On January 24 2013 21:31 Coffee Zombie wrote: The worst-growing economy. Production that is the slowest to come online. Most infrastructure needed. Rigid infrastructure. Basically all high tech units are narrow anti-one-unit counters that aren't at all scary otherwise. All upgrade branches separate and expensive. On average the most blind faction in the game. Strong point in timing attacks - that are nerfed constantly. Fragile. AoE typically diminishes over distance and hurts own units. Late game based primarily on mass production infrastructure.
Good micro potential. Excellent base composition with high DPS. Drop play. Can leverage small-scale tactical situations excellently with Banshees and Tanks. Scan for momentary glimpses at the expense of macro. (Still good obv.) Quite good at the absolute late game that it rarely reaches. Good at getting a little bit of something out early.
All is good in the world. Let's contrast with mah bugs:
Fastest-growing economy Production comes online decently quick, but nothing spectacular. Tech is expensive, production infrastructure as cheap as can be. Production is flexible to the point of absurdity. Can drone like a nutcase while impervious to all but the most dedicated all-in. Macro mechanic = Roach that shoots up and heals. (Sanity, where are you?) Basically all high tech units are threats - good in any case unless the opponent literally has nothing left on the ground. Very efficient production. Good units overall. Ridiculous map control basically for free. Reaches lategame very quickly, lategame based primarily on stage of tech. Excellent burst damage potential with mass IT.
Not much micro potential (not much of it needed usually either) Roaches don't function well in the late game due to supply inefficiency. Hydras suck. Teching to T2 can be slow. (But you're impervious to nearly anything before that.) Forcefields are annoying as hell. More so than usual. Someone, please keelhaul whoever came up with FF. Laying siege without Broods is hard. Thankfully they now come at 12 minutes instead of 17.
So, can anyone guess why I quit?
Wow, I'm impressed, that's like balance whining poetry, a stream of terran tears forming a beautiful waterfall of butthurt. Y'know, in that time you could've done a lot of things, played the game, write some actual poetry, or learn to realize that Blizzard will eventually balance things into Terrans favor again, y'know, like they always have.
Oh, and thanks for making me rediscover why I read these threads.
Actually I think one of the problems is that professional Terran players are not “whining” enough even though the situation has been abysmal for a long time. They need to grow some balls to speak out the gameplay issues that are plaguing Terrans. I guess the early Korean Terran dominance has really discouraged this, but they are literally losing money due to the incompetence of Blizzard balance team. If only players like Idra and Nerchio play Terran I am 100% sure this situation would not happen.
Zerg and Toss being in shit positions carried on for months as well, and from what I heard from shows like SotG and ItG, pro's are vocal about Terran issues as well, don't you remember how long that went on until Blizzard buffed the infestor, which, in part because of it coinciding with zergs figuring out some nifty new strategies, lead to a shitton more balance problems, in Zerg's favor this time.
Blizzard just needs a long time to figure out what and how they should patch, this can be frustrating for players, but do you honestly expect their patching policy to change after years of the same pace? And mind you, when they fix things they still tend to overbuff a single unit in favor of a proper redesign of mechanics like the warpgate or larva production that has been called for practically since release.
On January 25 2013 01:52 BigBossX wrote: LOL you are the funniest guy in this thread. You obviously don't give a shit about having a balanced and fun game to watch/play and are just enjoying all the cheap and free wins everywhere.
Why don't you learn to realize Blizzard aren't going to actually do a fucking thing to fix terran, terran has been in this state for so long with little to no changes. Were other races neglected like this? No. Were/are other races nerfed to the ground as fast and brutally as terran have been? Fuck no.
Blizzard won't fix terran, they want you to buy HOTS instead of fixing what is broken in WOL.
Oh, I do care about balancing, mostly from a spectators point of view, but still, this is just how balancing works, Blizzard takes their sweet time and eventually patch some problems, often leading to other balance issues. Other races where neglected like this, or even more, as it is Terran is still the most thoroughly designed race, with the most unit's, buildings and build orders. In the months and months that Zerg was doing badly, you could find posts like yours on every balance whine thread, hell, it almost sounds like you're channeling the spirit of 2011 Idra, these sentiments that Blizzard doesn't care about Terran (didn't Browder state it was his favorite race?) and that things can't or won't be fixed are pretty much exactly the sort of statements he was well known for making back then.
It's less that the patching is slow itself, it's that Blizzard's commentary (and HotS development) make abundantly clear that they don't have a clue. The wall of "Terran tears" I posted above was just a recount of the sheer absurdity of the current situation: One side loses in EVERYTHING economy-related in an economy-based game. It makes no goddamn sense, and one would hope professional developers would realize it too. Same with the Queen patch, which removed the limiter to Zerg's broken-if-not-damaged economy - the need to use larvae for defense, and instantly caused huge issues. But over six months before anything is even done, when back in the day Terran got nerfed switfly with a goddamn huge sledgehammer.
It's pure incompetence in the face of very clear issues, which makes it so frustrating. It's not tricks that's wrong, it's sheer numbers.
And, btw. I played Zerg, and love Siege Tanks. Before the Queen patch hit, I was always looking forward to TvZ, after it I began to dread TvZ and look forward to TvP which was absurdly bad back then. From the second-best matchup in the game to the worst. That's the degree of bad. Nowadays I rather watch mirrors than nonmirrors because Blizzard's time-asymmetric balancing method turns the nonmirrors into a scripted farce.
On January 24 2013 21:31 Coffee Zombie wrote: The worst-growing economy. Production that is the slowest to come online. Most infrastructure needed. Rigid infrastructure. Basically all high tech units are narrow anti-one-unit counters that aren't at all scary otherwise. All upgrade branches separate and expensive. On average the most blind faction in the game. Strong point in timing attacks - that are nerfed constantly. Fragile. AoE typically diminishes over distance and hurts own units. Late game based primarily on mass production infrastructure.
Good micro potential. Excellent base composition with high DPS. Drop play. Can leverage small-scale tactical situations excellently with Banshees and Tanks. Scan for momentary glimpses at the expense of macro. (Still good obv.) Quite good at the absolute late game that it rarely reaches. Good at getting a little bit of something out early.
All is good in the world. Let's contrast with mah bugs:
Fastest-growing economy Production comes online decently quick, but nothing spectacular. Tech is expensive, production infrastructure as cheap as can be. Production is flexible to the point of absurdity. Can drone like a nutcase while impervious to all but the most dedicated all-in. Macro mechanic = Roach that shoots up and heals. (Sanity, where are you?) Basically all high tech units are threats - good in any case unless the opponent literally has nothing left on the ground. Very efficient production. Good units overall. Ridiculous map control basically for free. Reaches lategame very quickly, lategame based primarily on stage of tech. Excellent burst damage potential with mass IT.
Not much micro potential (not much of it needed usually either) Roaches don't function well in the late game due to supply inefficiency. Hydras suck. Teching to T2 can be slow. (But you're impervious to nearly anything before that.) Forcefields are annoying as hell. More so than usual. Someone, please keelhaul whoever came up with FF. Laying siege without Broods is hard. Thankfully they now come at 12 minutes instead of 17.
So, can anyone guess why I quit?
Wow, I'm impressed, that's like balance whining poetry, a stream of terran tears forming a beautiful waterfall of butthurt. Y'know, in that time you could've done a lot of things, played the game, write some actual poetry, or learn to realize that Blizzard will eventually balance things into Terrans favor again, y'know, like they always have.
Oh, and thanks for making me rediscover why I read these threads.
Actually I think one of the problems is that professional Terran players are not “whining” enough even though the situation has been abysmal for a long time. They need to grow some balls to speak out the gameplay issues that are plaguing Terrans. I guess the early Korean Terran dominance has really discouraged this, but they are literally losing money due to the incompetence of Blizzard balance team. If only players like Idra and Nerchio play Terran I am 100% sure this situation would not happen.
Zerg and Toss being in shit positions carried on for months as well, and from what I heard from shows like SotG and ItG, pro's are vocal about Terran issues as well, don't you remember how long that went on until Blizzard buffed the infestor, which, in part because of it coinciding with zergs figuring out some nifty new strategies, lead to a shitton more balance problems, in Zerg's favor this time.
Blizzard just needs a long time to figure out what and how they should patch, this can be frustrating for players, but do you honestly expect their patching policy to change after years of the same pace? And mind you, when they fix things they still tend to overbuff a single unit in favor of a proper redesign of mechanics like the warpgate or larva production that has been called for practically since release.
On January 25 2013 01:52 BigBossX wrote: LOL you are the funniest guy in this thread. You obviously don't give a shit about having a balanced and fun game to watch/play and are just enjoying all the cheap and free wins everywhere.
Why don't you learn to realize Blizzard aren't going to actually do a fucking thing to fix terran, terran has been in this state for so long with little to no changes. Were other races neglected like this? No. Were/are other races nerfed to the ground as fast and brutally as terran have been? Fuck no.
Blizzard won't fix terran, they want you to buy HOTS instead of fixing what is broken in WOL.
Oh, I do care about balancing, mostly from a spectators point of view, but still, this is just how balancing works, Blizzard takes their sweet time and eventually patch some problems, often leading to other balance issues. Other races where neglected like this, or even more, as it is Terran is still the most thoroughly designed race, with the most unit's, buildings and build orders. In the months and months that Zerg was doing badly, you could find posts like yours on every balance whine thread, hell, it almost sounds like you're channeling the spirit of 2011 Idra, these sentiments that Blizzard doesn't care about Terran (didn't Browder state it was his favorite race?) and that things can't or won't be fixed are pretty much exactly the sort of statements he was well known for making back then.
It's less that the patching is slow itself, it's that Blizzard's commentary (and HotS development) make abundantly clear that they don't have a clue. The wall of "Terran tears" I posted above was just a recount of the sheer absurdity of the current situation: One side loses in EVERYTHING economy-related in an economy-based game. It makes no goddamn sense, and one would hope professional developers would realize it too. Same with the Queen patch, which removed the limiter to Zerg's broken-if-not-damaged economy - the need to use larvae for defense, and instantly caused huge issues. But over six months before anything is even done, when back in the day Terran got nerfed switfly with a goddamn huge sledgehammer.
It's pure incompetence in the face of very clear issues, which makes it so frustrating. It's not tricks that's wrong, it's sheer numbers.
And, btw. I played Zerg, and love Siege Tanks. Before the Queen patch hit, I was always looking forward to TvZ, after it I began to dread TvZ and look forward to TvP which was absurdly bad back then. From the second-best matchup in the game to the worst. That's the degree of bad. Nowadays I rather watch mirrors than nonmirrors because Blizzard's time-asymmetric balancing method turns the nonmirrors into a scripted farce.
Actually, the wall of tears you posted is just a couple of highly subjective issues, most of which I wouldn't even call problems as much as features, let's look at a couple:
The worst-growing economy.
This is only in pure worker production capabilities, balanced out by the glorious mule.
Production that is the slowest to come online.
Not sure what you mean by this, last time I checked a gateway and a barracks still cost the same amount of time to build, and a zerg tends to only have defensive units early game these days anyway.
Most infrastructure needed.
Quite simply a side effect having the most units and buildings, not a problem, a feature.
Rigid infrastructure.
What is this even supposed to mean? If anything the reactor/tech lab mechanic gives it more versatility then protoss, and zerg is supposed to be able to switch over quickly, if that's what you want you should play zerg again.
Basically all high tech units are narrow anti-one-unit counters that aren't at all scary otherwise.
Terran has a focus on countering, a feature, not a problem.
All upgrade branches separate and expensive.
Let's just review this really quickly, Terran: 2 bio + 2 mech + 2 air = 6, Protoss: 2 ground + 2 air + 1 shields = 5, Zerg: 2 air + 1 melee + 1 ranged +1 armor = 5. Terran has one more upgrade triplet to get compared to toss and zerg, a simple price you have to pay for having most combat unit's of any race.
On average the most blind faction in the game.
Bullshit, your inability to use scan or otherwise scout properly is not Terran's problem, the quite popular hellions are considered to be very good scouts, and you can't expect to have map vision like a creeping zerg, if you want that, go play zerg.
I'm stopping here because I hope you get the point and I'm not going to waste hours on this ridiculous exercise, balance is a bitch, that's it, Blizzard not responding to your pleas as you want them to has more to do with a lack of communication on their part on these matters, what do you think fueled the zerg frustration in their darkest hour? Not sure how it was before SC2, I never played WoW and when I played W3 I couldn't give a damn about them but I expect the patching practices there where as bad if not worse then here, besides, it's not that bad, just go ask the Diablo 3 crowd how Blizzard is treating their game post release.
Terran has imba music, I can't understand how people can miss that when selecting race! Winning while hearing awesome music is better than winning without hearing awesome music.
On January 23 2013 00:31 Filter wrote: Here's my 2 cents on the matter.
TvZ and TvP are not any fun to play as the Terran play. When you lose as Terran it often feels like you got absolutely crushed and had little chance to even win the game. When you win games as Terran it's often by the absolute skin of your teeth in a very prolonged battle/game, and rarely ever by crushing your opponent. The way you die in both matchups really sucks, usually it's to a single fungal when you weren't looked or your Protoss opponent simply had units you weren't prepared for and you get smoked.
When I play as Zerg I feel like I played poorly when I lose and I'm not bothered by it. I don't have to think at all during the game and simply need to play well mechanically to come out on top. It's not stressful or annoying to lose and I always feel like I probably deserved to lose when I do. I create situations for my opponent to react to and at no point am I really reacting myself, except when I'm facing an immortal all-in or a mass hellion all in. In both of those cases I just assume I made mistakes, think they did a lame build order and move on.
When I play as Protoss I feel no stress at all. I understand going in that probably 50% of my losses will be to anti-meta game build orders. The other 50% will be mistakes that I make myself and can focus on correcting. I'm not worried or stressed about anything my opponent can do and I just hope my opponent can't out micro the capabilities of my army/the game doesn't goto lategame in PvZ.
When I play as Terran my brain is motoring 100% of the time. I'm constantly monitoring my economy to make sure it's balanced and everythings coming out exactly when I need it. I'm worried about early all ins and how I'll scout/defend them. I'm even more worried about catching my opponents midgame tech in time, so that I can react to it in time. I'm also aware that I need to be fully ready for the incoming tech switch or I'll lose the game much earlier than I wanted to. I know every single battle I have to micro extremely carefully to come out on top or I'll lose the game to reinforcements. In a flash/bang the games usually over and I'm typing out another GG to a silly positioning mistake I made with my main army while I was trying to micro a small group of marines and macro in the background.
After I play a game as Terran I'm stressed, my heart rate is racing and I feel mentally exhausted. I dont get that feeling with the other races.
This sums it up really well and is why I've stopped playing random/picking T and just pick Z/P now. It's just not fun for me to play T anymore. T losses make me rage. P/Z losses make me think how I could've played better.
For me at least it has nothing to do with balanced or not.
Actually, the wall of tears you posted is just a couple of highly subjective issues, most of which I wouldn't even call problems as much as features, let's look at a couple:
The worst-growing economy.
This is only in pure worker production capabilities, balanced out by the glorious mule.
Production that is the slowest to come online.
Not sure what you mean by this, last time I checked a gateway and a barracks still cost the same amount of time to build, and a zerg tends to only have defensive units early game these days anyway.
Most infrastructure needed.
Quite simply a side effect having the most units and buildings, not a problem, a feature.
Rigid infrastructure.
What is this even supposed to mean? If anything the reactor/tech lab mechanic gives it more versatility then protoss, and zerg is supposed to be able to switch over quickly, if that's what you want you should play zerg again.
Basically all high tech units are narrow anti-one-unit counters that aren't at all scary otherwise.
Terran has a focus on countering, a feature, not a problem.
All upgrade branches separate and expensive.
Let's just review this really quickly, Terran: 2 bio + 2 mech + 2 air = 6, Protoss: 2 ground + 2 air + 1 shields = 5, Zerg: 2 air + 1 melee + 1 ranged +1 armor = 5. Terran has one more upgrade triplet to get compared to toss and zerg, a simple price you have to pay for having most combat unit's of any race.
On average the most blind faction in the game.
Bullshit, your inability to use scan or otherwise scout properly is not Terran's problem, the quite popular hellions are considered to be very good scouts, and you can't expect to have map vision like a creeping zerg, if you want that, go play zerg.
I'm stopping here because I hope you get the point and I'm not going to waste hours on this ridiculous exercise, balance is a bitch, that's it, Blizzard not responding to your pleas as you want them to has more to do with a lack of communication on their part on these matters, what do you think fueled the zerg frustration in their darkest hour? Not sure how it was before SC2, I never played WoW and when I played W3 I couldn't give a damn about them but I expect the patching practices there where as bad if not worse then here, besides, it's not that bad, just go ask the Diablo 3 crowd how Blizzard is treating their game post release.
Economy: Granted, may hold up to toss. Not to current Zerg, though.
Production is the slowest to come online: Making add-ons takes time, while toss spend 10s for warpgate transformation and have an instant production cycle. Zerg has the addon issue in a way with Queens, but the Inject doesn't inhibit the Hatchery's normal activities like addon building does.
Needed infrastructure a function of having most units and buildings? No. It's a function slow production of units that are needed en masse, especially for the overlarge MULE-fueled army. On top of that the mass of CCs. Again, the differences to toss are less, these are mainly contrasts between T and Z.
The lab/reactor mechanic and T's way of teching via building production is what makes their production flexible early game. It's why I said one of their good points is getting a bit of something out quickly. The later the game goes, the larger the scale becomes, the more detrimental the addon system becomes. A large-scale Terran infrastructure is very rigid in what it can produce, far more so than a Toss and especially Zerg equivalent. Zerg is somewhat rigid early game, but becomes increasingly flexible as the game goes on.
Producing only counters would not be a horrible problem except when coupled with that rigidity in production. Threats+rigid production vs. answers + flexible production is an okay balance, especially if those answers aren't ridiculously narrow. Threats + flexible production vs. answers + rigid production is not. The very definition of a threat is that it demands an answer. So my opponent answers, and I just switch before he can answer again. This is the issue. It doesn't make for a good game - the setup ensures that a good chunk of my opponent's army might as well not exist a large part of the time. It's a very clear form of imbalance.
The upgrades, again, are not individually a great problem but when coupled with being economically behind and needing to invest massively in infrastructure and it becomes very irritating. Also consider typical Terran combined arms forces that would typically need all 6 - Toss ground upgrades are cheaper and cover everything, and you only need 2 + 1 for shields. Quite a bit for 2+1+1 for Bio+support. Zerg is somewhere inbetween - their ground carapace does cost a bit more than Terran's infantry armor.
Terran is blind, comparatively speaking. Good scouting obviously helps and is important, but they still lack the kind of persistent information gathering that Observers give, and especially Zerg's near maphack with mass creep, burrowed units and Overlord spread. Scans are great, but temporary.
I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
No. Insanely more difficult. Simply resetting rallies for each individual building to a location and constantly telling each created miner to mine is exponentially more time consuming.
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
This was true at the beginning of sc2. However, in the past couple of years development in zerg mechanics (backspace inject, hotkey from eggs) has made zerg imo the mechanically easiest race in terms of screen movement and multitasking. Just a single extremely fast screen movement to do backspace injects (which only became really vialbe after the patch that allowed custom hotkeys since backspace is so out of the way) and the rest of your time you can spend on army movement and creep spread. You can create 50 units at once by pressing one button and holding it down. Don't have to deal with rallys either since you can add everything directly into the correct control group from egg. Pretty far from "mechanically more challenging' if you ask me.
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
When's the last time larva was a really important consideration in a ZvX matchup? The macro mechanics were a cool idea but they might have missed the mark.
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
As someone who played random for a good 13months straight zerg is far more mechanically demanding then protoss and about even with terran in sc2. At least for me lol.
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
As someone who played random for a good 13months straight zerg is far more mechanically demanding then protoss and about even with terran in sc2. At least for me lol.
Same for me, I played random for ~2years. If there's nothing going it is of course very easy to hit every inject and spread your creep, but once you have to divert your attention in the midgame a zerg player who misses 2 injects will fall more behind than the terran/protoss who neglected to use their macro mechanic twice. I could imagine it feels different for everyone, though. For someone the hand movement for going through rax/fac/port might be harder to do than going through screen locations every 17seconds.
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
As someone who played random for a good 13months straight zerg is far more mechanically demanding then protoss and about even with terran in sc2. At least for me lol.
See:
On February 05 2013 16:49 sickoota wrote: This was true at the beginning of sc2. However, in the past couple of years development in zerg mechanics (backspace inject, hotkey from eggs) has made zerg imo the mechanically easiest race in terms of screen movement and multitasking. Just a single extremely fast screen movement to do backspace injects (which only became really vialbe after the patch that allowed custom hotkeys since backspace is so out of the way) and the rest of your time you can spend on army movement and creep spread. You can create 50 units at once by pressing one button and holding it down. Don't have to deal with rallys either since you can add everything directly into the correct control group from egg. Pretty far from "mechanically more challenging' if you ask me.
Once you learn these little tricks, Zerg macro becomes easier than even Protoss because you don't have to think about anything. There's no worrying about stuff like like infrastructure scaling, building placement/simcity, or add-on balance/swapping.
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
As someone who played random for a good 13months straight zerg is far more mechanically demanding then protoss and about even with terran in sc2. At least for me lol.
On February 05 2013 16:49 sickoota wrote: This was true at the beginning of sc2. However, in the past couple of years development in zerg mechanics (backspace inject, hotkey from eggs) has made zerg imo the mechanically easiest race in terms of screen movement and multitasking. Just a single extremely fast screen movement to do backspace injects (which only became really vialbe after the patch that allowed custom hotkeys since backspace is so out of the way) and the rest of your time you can spend on army movement and creep spread. You can create 50 units at once by pressing one button and holding it down. Don't have to deal with rallys either since you can add everything directly into the correct control group from egg. Pretty far from "mechanically more challenging' if you ask me.
Once you learn these little tricks, Zerg macro becomes easier than even Protoss because you don't have to think about anything. There's no worrying about stuff like like infrastructure scaling, building placement/simcity, or add-on balance/swapping.
What makes you think I wasn't camera injecting? And I really struggle to control an army well if everything is on the same hotkey lol. I dunno how nerchio has everything on one hotkey and doesn't just a-move into people. In any event, believing that you don't have to go back to base in order to make spines/spores/macro hatches, and thinking that building placement isn't important when it's how you defend against hellions early game, as well as ignoring creep is silly. But that's just my opinion, and I still find terran macro slightly easier, and protoss macro disgustingly easy.
As I've said before, at this stage you don't put your faith in Blizzard's team, since that would be folly.
In the near future, probably everyone will know all three races and for each tournament/patch will pick the most suitable one. Sadly, it seems the only way to go forward.
Random player since beta (diamond for what it's worth)
It is pretty clear to me that in terms of difficulty, Terran is harder than Zerg, which is harder than Protoss.
I don't say that Protoss is easy, far from it. But I am ashamed how easy it is for me to handle the Terran bioball with chargelot/archon/templar or chargelot/colossus. And how hard it is the other way round
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds
No it's not any way comparable. I don't even know where to start, like you realize there's no separate worker rally in bw and that you can only select one building at a time to macro and normally you have a lot more hatcheries in bw since there's no queens? You're comparing apples to oranges. Try playing BW or SC2BW with the BW settings and maybe you'll get an idea.
On topic though I don't mind that there's a lack of terran players so much because then I don't have to play many TvTs .
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds
No it's not any way comparable. I don't even know where to start, like you realize there's no separate worker rally in bw and that you can only select one building at a time to macro and normally you have a lot more hatcheries in bw since there's no queens? You're comparing apples to oranges. Try playing BW or SC2BW with the BW settings and maybe you'll get an idea.
On topic though I don't mind that there's a lack of terran players so much because then I don't have to play many TvTs .
Yea holy shit. I tried to go back and play some BW after I finally got sick to the bone with SC2 and I pretty much gave up. Its so hard to perform simple macro tasks in BW after 2 years of being coddled by SC2. I gave up and just play DOTA ;(
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds
No it's not any way comparable. I don't even know where to start, like you realize there's no separate worker rally in bw and that you can only select one building at a time to macro and normally you have a lot more hatcheries in bw since there's no queens? You're comparing apples to oranges. Try playing BW or SC2BW with the BW settings and maybe you'll get an idea.
On topic though I don't mind that there's a lack of terran players so much because then I don't have to play many TvTs .
Sigh... As I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" look how I say (without hotkeys) look how I then clarified with "I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds" look how that does not cancel out my previous statement of NO HOTKEYS.
If injects were every 17 seconds (instead of 40) it would be hard. If it was every 17 seconds without hotkeys it would feel impossible. Then you're made to imagine that all 3 races have this problem; and suddenly you hate life.
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
As someone who played random for a good 13months straight zerg is far more mechanically demanding then protoss and about even with terran in sc2. At least for me lol.
Personally, I think Terran players have drifted away or switched race more than the other races for two reasons:
1. Terran has been (or is perceived to have been) nerfed more and buffed less than the other races. 2. The strengths of the Protoss and especially Zerg races were less intuitive.
I vividly recall the early days of Terran dominance, where a subset of Terran players would strenuously deny that their race was in any way overpowered. I suspect that denial had nowhere to go but to turn into a belief that the race had been 'spoiled' as the balance was gradually adjusted, and it is within those malcontents we will find our Terran deserters.
The same may happen again when Infestor/Broodlord is brought into line. Or perhaps not - I think the Terran phenomenon may be unique to the heady early days of SC2 where everything was new and everyone wanted to believe their awesome new strats were legit. These days we're on average a little more prepared to say "Yeah, that's bullshit" even when it's us doing the winning
I've been playing Terran since about a month after release. I went through all the leagues and in the early days it wasn't so hard to win as Terran. Now that things have changed units have been buffed and nerfed, I find it harder and harder to win games. I've been masters for a few seasons now and just getting rolled over almost every game gets really frustrating.
I know it's mostly my fault I'm losing, but it's really hard to hold onto that mentality sometimes. I'm going to stick with Terran and hopefully something happens to change the fact we have a rather low win percentage.
As long as Blizzard keeps their mentality that essentially states that you have to be Korean to compete as Terran, I don't see their numbers changing for the better. There will be no Cinderella stories or great tournament upsets to inspire more people to take up the race. Just people who transition from BW, until that pool dries up (which it may have already).
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds
No it's not any way comparable. I don't even know where to start, like you realize there's no separate worker rally in bw and that you can only select one building at a time to macro and normally you have a lot more hatcheries in bw since there's no queens? You're comparing apples to oranges. Try playing BW or SC2BW with the BW settings and maybe you'll get an idea.
On topic though I don't mind that there's a lack of terran players so much because then I don't have to play many TvTs .
Sigh... As I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" look how I say (without hotkeys) look how I then clarified with "I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds" look how that does not cancel out my previous statement of NO HOTKEYS.
If injects were every 17 seconds (instead of 40) it would be hard. If it was every 17 seconds without hotkeys it would feel impossible. Then you're made to imagine that all 3 races have this problem; and suddenly you hate life.
If that's actually how you meant it then it was a really stupid post by you. What the heck is the point of saying no hotkeys? The entire reason SC2 macro is insanely different is that all the hatches can be hotkeyed together and there are separate rallies. What's even the point of your post?
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds
No it's not any way comparable. I don't even know where to start, like you realize there's no separate worker rally in bw and that you can only select one building at a time to macro and normally you have a lot more hatcheries in bw since there's no queens? You're comparing apples to oranges. Try playing BW or SC2BW with the BW settings and maybe you'll get an idea.
On topic though I don't mind that there's a lack of terran players so much because then I don't have to play many TvTs .
Sigh... As I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" look how I say (without hotkeys) look how I then clarified with "I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds" look how that does not cancel out my previous statement of NO HOTKEYS.
If injects were every 17 seconds (instead of 40) it would be hard. If it was every 17 seconds without hotkeys it would feel impossible. Then you're made to imagine that all 3 races have this problem; and suddenly you hate life.
If that's actually how you meant it then it was a really stupid post by you. What the heck is the point of saying no hotkeys? The entire reason SC2 macro is insanely different is that all the hatches can be hotkeyed together and there are separate rallies. What's even the point of your post?
You don't need to use control groups and multiselect to inject right--back space and V are the only keyboard buttons you need along with fast hands. I was talking about backspace not multiunit select.
On February 06 2013 05:01 Xova wrote: I've been playing Terran since about a month after release. I went through all the leagues and in the early days it wasn't so hard to win as Terran. Now that things have changed units have been buffed and nerfed, I find it harder and harder to win games. I've been masters for a few seasons now and just getting rolled over almost every game gets really frustrating.
I know it's mostly my fault I'm losing, but it's really hard to hold onto that mentality sometimes. I'm going to stick with Terran and hopefully something happens to change the fact we have a rather low win percentage.
It's not just you. The hard numbers/traits of basic things ARE screwed up in pretty hilarious ways. Not to say that it is insurmountable, but at this point, considering how long this has gone on and Blizzard's "competence" at handling it, well. An observant player should know what he's in for. Which is to say, frustration and stupid-feeling games.
Terran is the easiest race for me. I win more, do more, succeed more as Terran than either Zerg or Toss. I'm awful at macroing toss and I'm awful at tech timing with zerg.
Saying that--I probably won't be playing Terran when HotS hits. I won't pay extra money to just marines split more.
Terran is the hardest race to play and the most demanding mechanically. Thats why there are no great foreign Terran players that consistently take games off Koreans. So less people play Terran because it is the most dificult race to play. They are also the least changed race in HotS making them less interesting. Very few people will switch to terran because of 1 new unit when the other races have 3 new units. Terran will always be the least played race in HotS.
On February 06 2013 09:51 ELlminator1 wrote: Terran is the hardest race to play and the most demanding mechanically. Thats why there are no great foreign Terran players that consistently take games off Koreans. So less people play Terran because it is the most dificult race to play. They are also the least changed race in HotS making them less interesting. Very few people will switch to terran because of 1 new unit when the other races have 3 new units. Terran will always be the least played race in HotS.
The problem is not difficulty--the problem is the shift in emphasis.
It is hard to macro and drone properly as zerg--but when you get it right you roll your opponents. It's hard to survive the early/midgame as protoss--but when you stabilize you just roll your opponents. It's easy to macro and stabilize with Terran--but Terran does not have the "roll your opponents" part of the equation.
What ends up happening? Terran sets up for high aggression (mid/late game) and then goes off. If terran breaks through, he wins, if he fails he dies.
What does that mean?
Bad zergs die "rushes" and "too much aggression" Bad protoss die due to "weak gateway units" or "lack of aggressive options" Bad terrans die due fighting the enemy.
On February 06 2013 09:51 ELlminator1 wrote: Terran is the hardest race to play and the most demanding mechanically. Thats why there are no great foreign Terran players that consistently take games off Koreans. So less people play Terran because it is the most dificult race to play. They are also the least changed race in HotS making them less interesting. Very few people will switch to terran because of 1 new unit when the other races have 3 new units. Terran will always be the least played race in HotS.
Only Protoss has three new units (Mothership Core, Tempest, Oracle); Zerg has two (Swarm Host, Viper), and at this point the Hellbat is legitimately different enough from the Hellion to be considered a new unit for Terran along with the Widow Mine, so the Terrans have two, too. Actually, Terran has received possibly the most mechanics changes so far of the races in HotS, from Medivac boosters to the Reaper redesign to the new Raven missile.
As a little Zerg gold newbie on the KR ladder. I see predominantly Protoss and Terran players (with a lean more towards Protoss). Personally I'd say that Terran may have problems when microing at our lower levels but they have other things that work way better at our level like mineral line drops. I've had multiple games where as a Zerg I kill off most stuff and get into their base and they just drop my main and win the game. This is all made easier by my lower level of mechanics and injects which makes it much easier for a Terran or Protoss to get away with devestating drops. I'd say there are periods where the meta changes and one particular race is better than the other but to be honest I'd say its pretty balanced at our level.
terran players figured out their metagame way before the other races. this led to terran appearing to be hideously overpowered. terran nerfed back to some semblance of parity (some nerfs WERE totally warranted (hello blueflame!)). other races finally realize they have some rather useful units (infestors, protoss AoE). other races start to catch up in the metagame. terran appears woefully under-powered. a lot of terran players give up after getting continually destroyed as they dont have the micro of the top terran players to counteract the strength of opposition units/builds.
with HoTS, itll be interesting to see how the metagame evolves. but i think its one of those things that you have to be careful to balance on mechanics and not metagame. I certainly dont want to see a return to the days of GomTvTvT but GomZvZvZ is just as bad...
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds
No it's not any way comparable. I don't even know where to start, like you realize there's no separate worker rally in bw and that you can only select one building at a time to macro and normally you have a lot more hatcheries in bw since there's no queens? You're comparing apples to oranges. Try playing BW or SC2BW with the BW settings and maybe you'll get an idea.
On topic though I don't mind that there's a lack of terran players so much because then I don't have to play many TvTs .
Sigh... As I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" look how I say (without hotkeys) look how I then clarified with "I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds" look how that does not cancel out my previous statement of NO HOTKEYS.
If injects were every 17 seconds (instead of 40) it would be hard. If it was every 17 seconds without hotkeys it would feel impossible. Then you're made to imagine that all 3 races have this problem; and suddenly you hate life.
If that's actually how you meant it then it was a really stupid post by you. What the heck is the point of saying no hotkeys? The entire reason SC2 macro is insanely different is that all the hatches can be hotkeyed together and there are separate rallies. What's even the point of your post?
You don't need to use control groups and multiselect to inject right--back space and V are the only keyboard buttons you need along with fast hands. I was talking about backspace not multiunit select.
Back space and V are hotkeys. Using V for inject is the definition of using a hotkey. And no, the macro is entirely different still, with the reason being your drones will follow your rally point. For drones to remain at your town hall, you would have to not be using any rally points. The macro isn't comparable.
I've mained zerg since beta, but I've always wanted to go random. I started doing it a little while ago and was comfortably in diamond, but it was pretty obvious my terran was dragging me down. I switched to terran to try to get it up to speed and I have to say it's a real eye opener. Every match up just feels daunting knowing how much more I'm required to do than my opponent. I'd like if every race had as demanding micro as terran rather than terran made easier, but it's hard to say how you'd do it. Regardless, hopefully HotS will address this a bit.
All that stuff of "balance" is bullshit : we always talk about the "korean" pro top level, but strengh of races depends of your league/level. I really think terran is weak in the mid master-low GM level : you have to perfectly control your units and always looking for an agression and so be able to beat your opponent on multitasking.
but on a bit lower level i'm pretty sure Protoss are pretty weak compared to Terrans, and mostly Zergs.
The problem is not difficulty--the problem is the shift in emphasis.
It is hard to macro and drone properly as zerg--but when you get it right you roll your opponents. It's hard to survive the early/midgame as protoss--but when you stabilize you just roll your opponents. It's easy to macro and stabilize with Terran--but Terran does not have the "roll your opponents" part of the equation.
What ends up happening? Terran sets up for high aggression (mid/late game) and then goes off. If terran breaks through, he wins, if he fails he dies.
I think that describes very well what i am experiencing as a Terran Gold player.
When i starteted i read a lot of guides. Watched youtube videos for noobies like me (Day9 etc.). And they hammer one phrase in your mind : Concentrate on Macro! Build depots and scvs!
But as a Terran, as you have no viable lategame army, you have to win with timing attacks.
But timing attacks contradicts the idea of macro that all the guids are talking about. So i had to change the way i aproached the game. I had to learn the game again. With stuff in mind like : attack at min x, or i will loose the game. Only macro till you have y amount of stuff and then attack, or i will loose the game. Then it all starts to make sense again.
But it was very hard for me to grasp the idea that to much macro is bad. And that all ins are the only viable way to win as terran.
The problem is not difficulty--the problem is the shift in emphasis.
It is hard to macro and drone properly as zerg--but when you get it right you roll your opponents. It's hard to survive the early/midgame as protoss--but when you stabilize you just roll your opponents. It's easy to macro and stabilize with Terran--but Terran does not have the "roll your opponents" part of the equation.
What ends up happening? Terran sets up for high aggression (mid/late game) and then goes off. If terran breaks through, he wins, if he fails he dies.
I think that describes very well what i am experiencing as a Terran Gold player.
When i starteted i read a lot of guides. Watched youtube videos for noobies like me (Day9 etc.). And they hammer one phrase in your mind : Concentrate on Macro! Build depots and scvs!
But as a Terran, as you have no viable lategame army, you have to win with timing attacks.
But timing attacks contradicts the idea of macro that all the guids are talking about. So i had to change the way i aproached the game. I had to learn the game again. With stuff in mind like : attack at min x, or i will loose the game. Only macro till you have y amount of stuff and then attack, or i will loose the game. Then it all starts to make sense again.
But it was very hard for me to grasp the idea that to much macro is bad. And that all ins are the only viable way to win as terran.
terran has good lategame lol. stronger than protoss
in TvP and TvT you can macro forever lol, its just vs zerg that problems come up but even then you can still get to a lategame comp that can compete with broodlord infestor
You do realize that sc2ranks does NOT include all starcraft 2 accounts, right? Using that as prove for anything is pretty dumb.
Terran is the race that takes the most time to get to a decent level, that doesn't mean it's the hardest race or anything, but it has the hardest learning curve to get to say high masters. Given how league of legends is not only the easiest moba, but also the most popular one, it's not a shocker that most people don't take the race with the hardest learning curve at start, it's just people getting more and more lazy and not being interested in actually putting in a lot of time to get results.
So as terran you have to always get maximum value out of your units, while constantly making new ones and adding more production.
For all non one-base games, and Terran opens 1RaxFE
- Protoss has to play save till a tech or unit goal is achieved and then either roflstomps unprepared Terran or takes another base. All units ultimately add up to a deathball, most units share the same upgrades. The robo gives you units with AoE,tankingability,detection and drop abilty. So its like a swissarmy-chainsaw-lightsaber machinegun-satelite. There has to be no decision making, immortals will help you out against terran early game, and you need obs to scout, yo go one-gate-robo-expand. Production : Chronoboost speeds everything, of you forget CR, you can just speed up what you forgot. So a mistake does not matter that much. Also "warpgates" are too cheap for 150 mins and no miningtime lost for that worker. Warp in on site changes close battles so much, even when the fight is in terrans natural, warp in is better than walking. Also the units are super durable, so terran needs to micro every second against Zealots and also needs to produce and rally new units.
- Zerg has to expand and make only Queens and drones. With simcity it´s not possible to harass with Hellion Banshee
On three bases with creepspread any attack can be crushed before getting to your base. I really like zergling Muta, but most Z have gotten so lazy they just go straight infestor and some roaches, 4th and Hive. Still it is hard to stop if every move is spotted. The reason why foreign Zergs do good is the stupidity of the Mechanics. Inject,creep,overlord,drone and all over again. You get income, vision and production from that cycle and you just have to repeat it. Good zergs identify the threatlevel all the time and react properly. Every Overlord has potential to grant detection, Queens are great against early terran aggression.
P and Z can make more mistakes in macro and won´t fall behind. In engagements Protoss is the race that has to watch least for a good position. Zerg can defend early aggression with Queens, which also boost his economy, like fucking Terminator-Mules with .50cal miniguns
So there is a skillgap between Terrans and P/Z created by the influence of a macro and positioning mistake Top korean Terrans dont do these.
My Solution : Warpgate can only warp in on pylons powering the warpgate itself or at a Warpprism, observer need observatory. Nexus can hold one less Chronoboost. Assimilators loose half their HP.
Ultralisks should be build from hatcheries not larvae. Larvae-inject grants less the amount, but needs to be done more frequently.
My Goal: Make P and Z harder to play to create an even rewarding feeling from winning, and evenly distributed effect for making mistakes.
My Solution : Warpgate can only warp in on pylons powering the warpgate itself or at a Warpprism, observer need observatory. Nexus can hold one less Chronoboost. Assimilators loose half their HP.
[...]
Do you have a reason for the assimilator nerf, based on all you said before? Or are you just jealous that Protoss gas harvesting structures have more HP for some reason? It's not like it's the biggest deal man...
On February 06 2013 22:03 plgElwood wrote: So as terran you have to always get maximum value out of your units, while constantly making new ones and adding more production.
For all non one-base games, and Terran opens 1RaxFE
- Protoss has to play save till a tech or unit goal is achieved and then either roflstomps unprepared Terran or takes another base. All units ultimately add up to a deathball, most units share the same upgrades. The robo gives you units with AoE,tankingability,detection and drop abilty. So its like a swissarmy-chainsaw-lightsaber machinegun-satelite. There has to be no decision making, immortals will help you out against terran early game, and you need obs to scout, yo go one-gate-robo-expand. Production : Chronoboost speeds everything, of you forget CR, you can just speed up what you forgot. So a mistake does not matter that much. Also "warpgates" are too cheap for 150 mins and no miningtime lost for that worker. Warp in on site changes close battles so much, even when the fight is in terrans natural, warp in is better than walking. Also the units are super durable, so terran needs to micro every second against Zealots and also needs to produce and rally new units.
- Zerg has to expand and make only Queens and drones. With simcity it´s not possible to harass with Hellion Banshee
On three bases with creepspread any attack can be crushed before getting to your base. I really like zergling Muta, but most Z have gotten so lazy they just go straight infestor and some roaches, 4th and Hive. Still it is hard to stop if every move is spotted. The reason why foreign Zergs do good is the stupidity of the Mechanics. Inject,creep,overlord,drone and all over again. You get income, vision and production from that cycle and you just have to repeat it. Good zergs identify the threatlevel all the time and react properly. Every Overlord has potential to grant detection, Queens are great against early terran aggression.
P and Z can make more mistakes in macro and won´t fall behind. In engagements Protoss is the race that has to watch least for a good position. Zerg can defend early aggression with Queens, which also boost his economy, like fucking Terminator-Mules with .50cal miniguns
So there is a skillgap between Terrans and P/Z created by the influence of a macro and positioning mistake Top korean Terrans dont do these.
My Solution : Warpgate can only warp in on pylons powering the warpgate itself or at a Warpprism, observer need observatory. Nexus can hold one less Chronoboost. Assimilators loose half their HP.
Ultralisks should be build from hatcheries not larvae. Larvae-inject grants less the amount, but needs to be done more frequently.
My Goal: Make P and Z harder to play to create an even rewarding feeling from winning, and evenly distributed effect for making mistakes.
Just switch to P or Z and enjoy your undeserved wins against Terran. David Kim doesn't realize the difficulty difference among the 3 races and is too arrogant to receive feedback, so all you can do is try avoiding the problem.
edit: as far as WoL is concerned at least, in HotS they tried making Terran easier to play. Still way harder to macro and micro compared to Zerg and Protoss though.
I think cloud is correct. Terran is basically the same in HOTS, and the same problems exist. What terran have are essentially more toys and ways to do things. TvP is really tough and unfair in the late stage if you have equal bases with a protoss you will never win. Simply put protoss will always be able to remax on units faster than a Terran will, and one storm shot and its over. Yes you can make emp, but the emp radius nerf makes it hard. The micro is really tough, the macro as well. I think that at the end of the day terran will be played the least amount because of the diffucuilty of the race.
On February 06 2013 22:04 howLiN wrote: To be honest I'm seriously considering switching from Protoss to Terran in HotS, I'm loving the way all the factory units work together.
Good. Blizzard is going to need people to play Terran. Most high masters players like myself that I know won't be playing Terran or at all.
Lol some much nonsense in this thread. Terran used to be able to win be stimming units up a ramp because players were bad and missed forcefields and maps had main bases like on Scrap Station. The thought that terran macro and micro is X times harder than protoss or zerg macro because you can't win games like that anymore is nonsense. If you're good at it, you're good at it. If you're not, you're not. That's what there is to it. You don't hear korean pros complain about how hard it is to macro with their respective race. Why? Because they're good. So if you ever feel that you lose games underservedly at the top level, get better at the game. Up until GM, balance hardly affects you.
The whine that protoss and zerg are more forgiving is absolute bullshit. Like, it is absolutely 100% bullshit. Protoss loses their army once, the game ends. Zerg loses their fragile army to something slightly mobile? The game ends because an immediate counter attack kills 2 bases. Every race is unforgiving at a high level and whoever thinks that protoss or zerg don't need positioning or micro has never played a somewhat high level ZvZ, PvP, PvZ or PvT or played at a high level at all. If you stim your shit up a ramp into an army that's DESIGNED to beat yours, why the fuck would you expect to come out ahead. Just like protoss can't just use a zealot/archon army to fight in choke points. It's common sense. Of course you need positioning. But that's the same for every race.
At the very beginning, when you pick your race, did terran seem the most interesting to you? Zerg is unique, protoss is unique. Terran feels like something every other RTS can offer as well. Most people stick with the race they pick at the beginning. I feel that that really is the main source of fewer terran players, at least at lower levels.
Yes terran is hard to play lategame. But the only reason for that is that they can't instantly replace part of their army and doesn't have strong static defense to make up for that.
What definitely could help that is something like queueing up units when you're maxed that will build faster the longer they're queued up. That way, terran will also benefit in a macro way from being maxed, like protoss building more gates or zerg massing larvae. But honestly, that's got NOTHING to do with terran macro being harder.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: Lol some much nonsense in this thread. Terran used to be able to win be stimming units up a ramp because players were bad and missed forcefields and maps had main bases like on Scrap Station. The thought that terran macro and micro is X times harder than protoss or zerg macro because you can't win games like that anymore is nonsense. If you're good at it, you're good at it. If you're not, you're not. That's what there is to it. You don't hear korean pros complain about how hard it is to macro with their respective race. Why? Because they're good. So if you ever feel that you lose games underservedly at the top level, get better at the game. Up until GM, balance hardly affects you.
The whine that protoss and zerg are more forgiving is absolute bullshit. Like, it is absolutely 100% bullshit. Protoss loses their army once, the game ends. Zerg loses their fragile army to something slightly mobile? The game ends because an immediate counter attack kills 2 bases. Every race is unforgiving at a high level and whoever thinks that protoss or zerg don't need positioning or micro has never played a somewhat high level ZvZ, PvP, PvZ or PvT or played at a high level at all. If you stim your shit up a ramp into an army that's DESIGNED to beat yours, why the fuck would you expect to come out ahead. Just like protoss can't just use a zealot/archon army to fight in choke points. It's common sense. Of course you need positioning. But that's the same for every race.
At the very beginning, when you pick your race, did terran seem the most interesting to you? Zerg is unique, protoss is unique. Terran feels like something every other RTS can offer as well. Most people stick with the race they pick at the beginning. I feel that that really is the main source of fewer terran players, at least at lower levels.
Those are quite the assumptions you're making. Have you ever played Terran?
I've been playing random since the early days of Brood War. Terran has always been the hardest to play. Period. Positioning, macro, and micro have always been hardest for the humans. That's why Korean Terran players are so much fun to watch - they do the impossible.
Sc2 has only made this more true. Every kid and his cat knows that it's much, much easier to re-max an army with Protoss and Zerg than it is for Terran. Everyone knows that a Protoss and Zerg tier-3 death-ball is much more scary than a Terran one (Terran doesn't even have a viable Tier 3). The amount of control it takes to take down a Zerg Brood Lord/Infestor army or a Protoss Colossus/Templar/Gateway army is completely out of proportion in favor of the alien races.
Yes, I'll admit that earlier on, it was easier for Terran players to harass and win early game. Stim timing pushes, tank-marine pushes, hellion run-bys, etc. all made Terran good at the early game. However, patches by Blizzard and experience in gameplay have given Zerg and Protoss an almost complete immunity to early game Terran attacks, leaving Terran with no choice but to try and take on their tier-3 armies with a tier 1.5 unit composition. Obviously, this isn't easy to do. And due to the macro disadvantage of Terran being unable to remax quickly, yes, Terran IS less forgiving than the other two races.
Simply put, Terran is fun to play. But it's hard, and on the ladder, it's frustrating compared to the other two. That is why the number of Zerg and Protoss players are remaining higher on ladder than the number of Terran players.
On February 06 2013 22:04 howLiN wrote: To be honest I'm seriously considering switching from Protoss to Terran in HotS, I'm loving the way all the factory units work together.
Good. Blizzard is going to need people to play Terran. Most high masters players like myself that I know won't be playing Terran or at all.
If you play to have fun I don't see why you should switch races if you enjoy the race you're playing as.
On January 25 2013 12:12 SeeN_CiRcUs wrote: I picked Zerg because I felt they were the most difficult to play mechanically. I feel like the need for manual injects and creep spread make them more challenging than the other races (obv being an ex-BW player, all of the races are easymode for me in terms of macro). Granted I've only played again for a week or so and I probably won't be masters for another day or two but when I played Terran back during 2010 the mechanics were super easy for me. I assume this is aimed at the multi-tasking and micro more than macro mechanics? For me, Terran macro is really easy along with Protoss. Only Zerg gives any challenge really...
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds
No it's not any way comparable. I don't even know where to start, like you realize there's no separate worker rally in bw and that you can only select one building at a time to macro and normally you have a lot more hatcheries in bw since there's no queens? You're comparing apples to oranges. Try playing BW or SC2BW with the BW settings and maybe you'll get an idea.
On topic though I don't mind that there's a lack of terran players so much because then I don't have to play many TvTs .
Sigh... As I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" look how I say (without hotkeys) look how I then clarified with "I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds" look how that does not cancel out my previous statement of NO HOTKEYS.
If injects were every 17 seconds (instead of 40) it would be hard. If it was every 17 seconds without hotkeys it would feel impossible. Then you're made to imagine that all 3 races have this problem; and suddenly you hate life.
If that's actually how you meant it then it was a really stupid post by you. What the heck is the point of saying no hotkeys? The entire reason SC2 macro is insanely different is that all the hatches can be hotkeyed together and there are separate rallies. What's even the point of your post?
You don't need to use control groups and multiselect to inject right--back space and V are the only keyboard buttons you need along with fast hands. I was talking about backspace not multiunit select.
Back space and V are hotkeys. Using V for inject is the definition of using a hotkey. And no, the macro is entirely different still, with the reason being your drones will follow your rally point. For drones to remain at your town hall, you would have to not be using any rally points. The macro isn't comparable.
Do you have bad reading comprehension? I said that BW macro is like injects--I did not say that BW macro is like SC2 macro. Learn to read please. Rally point comparisons mean shit since hitting an inject requires zero rally points. Hitting an inject requires zero unit production and requires zero building selection.
You move your screen to a hatch, select queen, hit V, click on hatch.
BW macro is move your screen to a town hall, select worker, click on mineral, start next worker
I don't understand what rally points and multi unit select has anything to do with what you're talking about!
To be honest, I always found the discussion about each race difficulty totally irrelevant at non-professional gamer because the ladder system is intrinsically imbalanced (BO1, random map and unknown opponent). It depends way more on the way you play than the race you play, you can't put at the same level of difficulty goody's kind of mech and pure bio as Marine King Prime, ling muta and ling infestor, the difficulty to perform a 7 gates immortal Sentry and the difficulty to defend it... and so on, it's purely situational. You can go in GM fairly easily with whatever race and appropriate all in (one per match up), but it doesn't mean you'll succeed on a pro level with it but it's still easy to do.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: Lol some much nonsense in this thread. Terran used to be able to win be stimming units up a ramp because players were bad and missed forcefields and maps had main bases like on Scrap Station. The thought that terran macro and micro is X times harder than protoss or zerg macro because you can't win games like that anymore is nonsense. If you're good at it, you're good at it. If you're not, you're not. That's what there is to it. You don't hear korean pros complain about how hard it is to macro with their respective race. Why? Because they're good. So if you ever feel that you lose games underservedly at the top level, get better at the game. Up until GM, balance hardly affects you.
The whine that protoss and zerg are more forgiving is absolute bullshit. Like, it is absolutely 100% bullshit. Protoss loses their army once, the game ends. Zerg loses their fragile army to something slightly mobile? The game ends because an immediate counter attack kills 2 bases. Every race is unforgiving at a high level and whoever thinks that protoss or zerg don't need positioning or micro has never played a somewhat high level ZvZ, PvP, PvZ or PvT or played at a high level at all. If you stim your shit up a ramp into an army that's DESIGNED to beat yours, why the fuck would you expect to come out ahead. Just like protoss can't just use a zealot/archon army to fight in choke points. It's common sense. Of course you need positioning. But that's the same for every race.
At the very beginning, when you pick your race, did terran seem the most interesting to you? Zerg is unique, protoss is unique. Terran feels like something every other RTS can offer as well. Most people stick with the race they pick at the beginning. I feel that that really is the main source of fewer terran players, at least at lower levels.
Yes terran is hard to play lategame. But the only reason for that is that they can't instantly replace part of their army and doesn't have strong static defense to make up for that.
What definitely could help that is something like queueing up units when you're maxed that will build faster the longer they're queued up. That way, terran will also benefit in a macro way from being maxed, like protoss building more gates or zerg massing larvae. But honestly, that's got NOTHING to do with terran macro being harder.
i agree that terrans weakness is that they take to long time in late game to mobilse a deffense versus toss and zerg, i dont know how to fix thi tho, maybe make warpgates like bbarracks( queed units is staying at 0% and when your not maxxed anymore it starts to load)
On February 07 2013 02:00 Vanadiel wrote: To be honest, I always found the discussion about each race difficulty totally irrelevant at non-professional gamer because the ladder system is intrinsically imbalanced (BO1, random map and unknown opponent). It depends way more on the way you play than the race you play, you can't put at the same level of difficulty goody's kind of mech and pure bio as Marine King Prime, ling muta and ling infestor, the difficulty to perform a 7 gates immortal Sentry and the difficulty to defend it... and so on, it's purely situational. You can go in GM fairly easily with whatever race and appropriate all in (one per match up), but it doesn't mean you'll succeed on a pro level with it but it's still easy to do.
Also, on the flipside of that, there is no such thing as a bad strategy in a ladder system such as the one used by Blizzard.
If you simply do a worker rush every game you will still eventually stabilize with a 50% win-rate. The same can be said with cannon rushes, 111, baneling busts as well as 5 base macro play, 7 base timing pushes, 60minute Broodfestor games, etc...
At some point you will go 50/50 in your overall win-rate no matter what strategy is used. What does this mean? It means the loss of terran players does not come from win-rates it comes from enjoy-ability. People are simply not having fun with Terran.
I swiched from Protoss to Terran at diamond. Then made it up to masters as Terran. I will personally say it is much harder to progress to masters as Terran. My play style was more macro, Mechanics oriented(0 cheese) which is alot of work to play. But very rewarding. The hardest thing was every game was 30+ mins and wins had to be accomplished with near perfect play. Very tiring and lots of work. Be prepared for this when trying to progress as Terran.
Remember how in beta/first half a year or so of WoL Terran was everywhere? Terran players back then used to say that "better players are playing Terran". In reality, Terran was too strong. Anyway, other players where whining that Terran was OP, much like Terran/Protoss are whining Zerg is OP now.
There is one thing that's pretty key here that I think is often overlooked. If you've been playing for months in high master, it will feel shitty/less fun playing in low master or even diamond (at least it did for me, though my "fall" was due to inactivity instead of balance changes). Now, many Terran players got a higher relative rating while Terran was strong and have steadily been losing ground on ladder ever since Terran was (over)nerfed. The same thing will happen to Zerg in HotS if the balance of powers is different... Many lower level Zergs (by that I mean all master and even many GM players) will lose interest or find the game less fun when their actual rating/league will be lower.
You can actually see this in the pro scene as well... Remember how many EU/NA Terran players used to be really dangerous in every tournament? So many of them have completely disappeared, many citing "motivation problems".
On February 07 2013 02:46 budar wrote: Remember how in beta/first half a year or so of WoL Terran was everywhere? Terran players back then used to say that "better players are playing Terran". In reality, Terran was too strong. Anyway, other players where whining that Terran was OP, much like Terran/Protoss are whining Zerg is OP now.
There is one thing that's pretty key here that I think is often overlooked. If you've been playing for months in high master, it will feel shitty/less fun playing in low master or even diamond (at least it did for me, though my "fall" was due to inactivity instead of balance changes). Now, many Terran players got a higher relative rating while Terran was strong and have steadily been losing ground on ladder ever since Terran was (over)nerfed. The same thing will happen to Zerg in HotS if the balance of powers is different... Many lower level Zergs (by that I mean all master and even many GM players) will lose interest or find the game less fun when their actual rating/league will be lower.
You can actually see this in the pro scene as well... Remember how many EU/NA Terran players used to be really dangerous in every tournament? So many of them have completely disappeared, many citing "motivation problems".
This is a really condescending and illogical post, and no, i dont remember EU/NA terran players being "dangerous in every tournament." Nice job shitting on the results of early sc2 players and not taking into consideration the practice they did.
lol, terran was OP, but it wasn't OP to the level where foreigners were able to be "dangerous in every tournament" with them.
These players you remember were likely playing in tournaments with only foreigners, in early sc2././. foreigner terran do not beat koreans
On February 07 2013 02:46 budar wrote: Remember how in beta/first half a year or so of WoL Terran was everywhere? Terran players back then used to say that "better players are playing Terran". In reality, Terran was too strong. Anyway, other players where whining that Terran was OP, much like Terran/Protoss are whining Zerg is OP now.
There is one thing that's pretty key here that I think is often overlooked. If you've been playing for months in high master, it will feel shitty/less fun playing in low master or even diamond (at least it did for me, though my "fall" was due to inactivity instead of balance changes). Now, many Terran players got a higher relative rating while Terran was strong and have steadily been losing ground on ladder ever since Terran was (over)nerfed. The same thing will happen to Zerg in HotS if the balance of powers is different... Many lower level Zergs (by that I mean all master and even many GM players) will lose interest or find the game less fun when their actual rating/league will be lower.
You can actually see this in the pro scene as well... Remember how many EU/NA Terran players used to be really dangerous in every tournament? So many of them have completely disappeared, many citing "motivation problems".
I remember Zerg winning the first two GSLs, Protoss wining the third.
I recall InControl, Machine, Huk, etc... doing really well in MLGs
I recall Tester being one of the most hyped players in the GSL
I recall Terran not winning anything in Korea until 2011 I recall GSTL being ruled by DRG
Well, Jinro did had the best foreigner results in GSL and won an MLG, QXC did an all kill in GSTL, Morrow winning over Idra with 5 rax reaper at IEM, Naama won Dreamhack, Sjow won IEM.
On February 07 2013 03:17 Vanadiel wrote: Well, Jinro did had the best foreigner results in GSL and won an MLG, QXC did an all kill in GSTL, Morrow winning over Idra with 5 rax reaper at IEM, Naama won Dreamhack, Sjow won IEM.
Damn, it's like all the races had their own champions to rally around
On February 07 2013 03:17 Vanadiel wrote: Well, Jinro did had the best foreigner results in GSL and won an MLG, QXC did an all kill in GSTL, Morrow winning over Idra with 5 rax reaper at IEM, Naama won Dreamhack, Sjow won IEM.
compare this to foreigner zerg and protoss success, and you'll realize there is no reason to even argue this point
Haven't read every post here so perhaps someone has hinted at this but...
Maybe Terran isn't played as often as the other races because it's boring.
As a Zerg and Terran player, and someone who played Terran almost exclusively in BW, I personally find the way Terran plays currently to be boring as sin. The bulk of your army, in every match up, comes from the rax - because, let's face it, 9 times out of 10 it's the best option. Of course you add to these units as needed but I find most games are won by a group of MMM (often mid-game) that earns an advantage.
I feel that the core aspects of Terran were lost in SC2 - and the race feels bland. I loves me some Terran, I'd love to enjoy it more, I just don't. Maybe others feel the same and that's why it's not often picked.
On February 07 2013 03:21 LF[Media] wrote: You have a very selective memory, Magpie.
I recalled that the first year of SC2 was very terran heavy although it didn't have a lot of Terran results outside of the foreign scene. I recall that we had a lot of terran favorites that immediately disappeared once Koreans showed up. I recall MLG beginning the trend of Korea vs the world and it lead to Ret, Huk and Idra being the main foreign hopes each MLG tournament. I recall that it took till halfway through 2011 before Terran won their second GSL.
I recall a lot of promising terran players that filled up the top 32 and the top 8 but a lot of them falling to the wayside when we get to the top 4.
These events are just as true and just as relevant as "GomTvT"
To say "oh terran was OP strong early on because of representation" is inaccurate. Was Terran OP? Yes--how do we know? Because of the all the nerfs that were thrown at them.
I remember that Terran would get a nerf, innovate the matchup with new playstyles, get nerfed again, innovate again, and then get nerfed again.
That is what tells me that Terran was strong back then. And you know what, those nerfs didn't come from some month long trend or some season long trend--they'd come after a terran player does once or twice in a tournament and an immediate hotfix would follow.
Saying its just representation is dishonest because there was a lot of representation for all three races back in 2010-2011; selective memory is the reason people believe it was all Terran all the time.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: The whine that protoss and zerg are more forgiving is absolute bullshit. Like, it is absolutely 100% bullshit.
Or it's 100% true, and the main raison why Terran constantly underperforms below Code A/S level.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss loses their army once, the game ends.
Yep, especially lategame PvT in which Terran is able to warp Marines/Marauders near your base while you have to wait the slow reinforcements from your Gateways… Oh wait. Please be honest, how many times do we see Terrans winning a fight in lategame TvP, yet they're unable to press on because of how strong Zealots warp-ins + leftover defensive Templars are? Now go check pro games and show me games in which Protoss comes out 30 supply ahead and is unable to do anything. I bet you won't find many instances of this.
There are unforgiving aspects in the Protoss side too, but overall warp-ins + Storm/Colossi + Observers + the fact Protoss units are tougher and need less micro (Zealots/Archons/Colossi require virtually none) + the ability to secure remote expands with Pylons/Canons/HTs make Protoss more forgiving. No doubt mass Ghosts/Vikings can be hard to handle, but queuing Zealots/DTs in Terran's mineral lines/bases to dismantle him before he gets this super-expensive army is so easy compared to the amount of micro/attention needed from the Terran side to deal with Zealots (who are very efficient in small fights when both sides are left unmicroed) + DTs while trying to keep at bay Protoss' main army roaming around the PF checking for any sign of weakness to charge.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: Zerg loses their fragile army to something slightly mobile? The game ends because an immediate counter attack kills 2 bases.
This is so wrong I don't even know how to start. Fragile army? 145 hit points + 1 armor for 75/25 sounds quite beefy to me; Ultralisks with their 500 hit points and 6 armor when fully upgraded disagree too, and what about Corruptors with their 200 hit points and 2 armor? So fragile indeed; if only Zerg had a minerals-only tier1 unit (which, again, doesn't lack sturdiness) which, on top of the unparalleled utility (antiair/defence/production/vision) it already provides, could chain heal single targets too, maybe this “fragility” would be more bearable.
Zerg is the epitome of forgiveness in ZvT because of creep/Fungal/larvae. It doesn't matter how far behind Zerg can get, all they need is hit a good Fungal and suddenly the 15 past minuts in which they were massively outplayed barely matter and the game is fully reset. Banking larvae makes it trivial to remax and buy back a second army for another chance while Terran has a hard time bulldozing his army through several screens of creep because you always stand a chance of overextending against 70+ Zerglings (or 30+ Roaches if mech) reinforcements + Fungal. See DRG vs Bomber, Metropolis, IPL5: DRG suicides two Zerglings/Banelings/Mutalisks armies offcreep charging in horrible positions, yet Bomber has to struggle for another 10 minuts before being able to deal the killing blow. Lose your Hatchery to a non-committed 2 rax? No problem, you still have the right to play a 50 minuts macro game; on the other hand, good luck holding a Roach (Baneling) bust if your 2 rax fails. Kill only 5 SCVs with a Roach poke? Larva inject forgives. Do I also need to mention the numerous games in which Zerg goes Roach Baneling Bust, miserably fails yet it barely matters because 10-15 Drones were built meanwhile at home? On the other hand, watch Hack vs DRG, Icarus, Code S RO32 and Noblesse vs Nestea, Bel'shir Vestige, Code S RO32 to see what happens when Terran is desperate/foolish enough to try a 2-bases timing and fails it; does Zerg need 20 minuts of drawn-out, careful maneuvers to refute Terran's failure? Watch this (Sheth just failed a Roach Baneling bust) and tell me with a straight face this is not forgiving? Did you see Baby/TY vs Leenock, Whirlwind, Code S RO32? Leenock gets permanently dismantled during 15 minuts, barely surviving with one mining base, but in the end everything is forgiven: he still has Broodlords/Infestors and Fungal happens. Just read Lings of Liberty, really, all of this is nothing new. Stating that Zerg is as unforgiving as Terran in TvZ is simply preposterous.
On February 07 2013 02:04 TsGBruzze wrote: i agree that terrans weakness is that they take to long time in late game to mobilse a deffense versus toss and zerg, i dont know how to fix thi tho, maybe make warpgates like bbarracks( queed units is staying at 0% and when your not maxxed anymore it starts to load)
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: The whine that protoss and zerg are more forgiving is absolute bullshit. Like, it is absolutely 100% bullshit.
Or it's 100% true, and the main raison why Terran constantly underperforms below Code A/S level.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss loses their army once, the game ends.
Yep, especially lategame PvT in which Terran is able to warp Marines/Marauders near your base while you have to wait the slow reinforcements from your Gateways… Oh wait. Please be honest, how many times do we see Terrans winning a fight in lategame TvP, yet they're unable to press on because of how strong Zealots warp-ins + leftover defensive Templars are? Now go check pro games and show me games in which Protoss comes out 30 supply ahead and is unable to do anything. I bet you won't find many instances of this.
There are unforgiving aspects in the Protoss side too, but overall warp-ins + Storm/Colossi + Observers + the fact Protoss units are tougher and need less micro (Zealots/Archons/Colossi require virtually none) + the ability to secure remote expands with Pylons/Canons/HTs make Protoss more forgiving. No doubt mass Ghosts/Vikings can be hard to handle, but queuing Zealots/DTs in Terran's mineral lines/bases to dismantle him before he gets this super-expensive army is so easy compared to the amount of micro/attention needed from the Terran side to deal with Zealots (who are very efficient in small fights when both sides are left unmicroed) + DTs while trying to keep at bay Protoss' main army roaming around the PF checking for any sign of weakness to charge.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: Zerg loses their fragile army to something slightly mobile? The game ends because an immediate counter attack kills 2 bases.
This is so wrong I don't even know how to start. Fragile army? 145 hit points + 1 armor for 75/25 sounds quite beefy to me; Ultralisks with their 500 hit points and 6 armor when fully upgraded disagree too, and what about Corruptors with their 200 hit points and 2 armor? So fragile indeed; if only Zerg had a minerals-only tier1 unit (which, again, doesn't lack sturdiness) which, on top of the unparalleled utility (antiair/defence/production/vision) it already provides, could chain heal single targets too, maybe this “fragility” would be more bearable.
Zerg is the epitome of forgiveness in ZvT because of creep/Fungal/larvae. It doesn't matter how far behind Zerg can get, all they need is hit a good Fungal and suddenly the 15 past minuts in which they were massively outplayed barely matter and the game is fully reset. Banking larvae makes it trivial to remax and buy back a second army for another chance while Terran has a hard time bulldozing his army through several screens of creep because you always stand a chance of overextending against 70+ Zerglings (or 30+ Roaches if mech) reinforcements + Fungal. See DRG vs Bomber, Metropolis, IPL5: DRG suicides two Zerglings/Banelings/Mutalisks armies offcreep charging in horrible positions, yet Bomber has to struggle for another 10 minuts before being able to deal the killing blow. Lose your Hatchery to a non-committed 2 rax? No problem, you still have the right to play a 50 minuts macro game; on the other hand, good luck holding a Roach (Baneling) bust if your 2 rax fails. Kill only 5 SCVs with a Roach poke? Larva inject forgives. Do I also need to mention the numerous games in which Zerg goes Roach Baneling Bust, miserably fails yet it barely matters because 10-15 Drones were built meanwhile at home? On the other hand, watch Hack vs DRG, Icarus, Code S RO32 and Noblesse vs Nestea, Bel'shir Vestige, Code S RO32 to see what happens when Terran is desperate/foolish enough to try a 2-bases timing and fails it; does Zerg need 20 minuts of drawn-out, careful maneuvers to refute Terran's failure? Watch this (Sheth just failed a Roach Baneling bust) and tell me with a straight face this is not forgiving? Did you see Baby/TY vs Leenock, Whirlwind, Code S RO32? Leenock gets permanently dismantled during 15 minuts, barely surviving with one mining base, but in the end everything is forgiven: he still has Broodlords/Infestors and Fungal happens. Just read Lings of Liberty, really, all of this is nothing new. Stating that Zerg is as unforgiving as Terran in TvZ is simply preposterous.
On February 07 2013 02:04 TsGBruzze wrote: i agree that terrans weakness is that they take to long time in late game to mobilse a deffense versus toss and zerg, i dont know how to fix thi tho, maybe make warpgates like bbarracks( queed units is staying at 0% and when your not maxxed anymore it starts to load)
Protoss would simply stay at 199/200.
You are starting to make too much sense, someone will have to reply with pure out-of-the-a** arguments to throw us off and deny a meaningful discussion. I just hope that some of the core flaws of the game will get addressed by the time LotV hits :/ because terran late game macro (and maybe forgiveness) wont get even near P/Z levels in HOTS.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: The whine that protoss and zerg are more forgiving is absolute bullshit. Like, it is absolutely 100% bullshit.
Or it's 100% true, and the main raison why Terran constantly underperforms below Code A/S level.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss loses their army once, the game ends.
Yep, especially lategame PvT in which Terran is able to warp Marines/Marauders near your base while you have to wait the slow reinforcements from your Gateways… Oh wait. Please be honest, how many times do we see Terrans winning a fight in lategame TvP, yet they're unable to press on because of how strong Zealots warp-ins + leftover defensive Templars are? Now go check pro games and show me games in which Protoss comes out 30 supply ahead and is unable to do anything. I bet you won't find many instances of this.
There are unforgiving aspects in the Protoss side too, but overall warp-ins + Storm/Colossi + Observers + the fact Protoss units are tougher and need less micro (Zealots/Archons/Colossi require virtually none) + the ability to secure remote expands with Pylons/Canons/HTs make Protoss more forgiving. No doubt mass Ghosts/Vikings can be hard to handle, but queuing Zealots/DTs in Terran's mineral lines/bases to dismantle him before he gets this super-expensive army is so easy compared to the amount of micro/attention needed from the Terran side to deal with Zealots (who are very efficient in small fights when both sides are left unmicroed) + DTs while trying to keep at bay Protoss' main army roaming around the PF checking for any sign of weakness to charge.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: Zerg loses their fragile army to something slightly mobile? The game ends because an immediate counter attack kills 2 bases.
This is so wrong I don't even know how to start. Fragile army? 145 hit points + 1 armor for 75/25 sounds quite beefy to me; Ultralisks with their 500 hit points and 6 armor when fully upgraded disagree too, and what about Corruptors with their 200 hit points and 2 armor? So fragile indeed; if only Zerg had a minerals-only tier1 unit (which, again, doesn't lack sturdiness) which, on top of the unparalleled utility (antiair/defence/production/vision) it already provides, could chain heal single targets too, maybe this “fragility” would be more bearable.
Zerg is the epitome of forgiveness in ZvT because of creep/Fungal/larvae. It doesn't matter how far behind Zerg can get, all they need is hit a good Fungal and suddenly the 15 past minuts in which they were massively outplayed barely matter and the game is fully reset. Banking larvae makes it trivial to remax and buy back a second army for another chance while Terran has a hard time bulldozing his army through several screens of creep because you always stand a chance of overextending against 70+ Zerglings (or 30+ Roaches if mech) reinforcements + Fungal. See DRG vs Bomber, Metropolis, IPL5: DRG suicides two Zerglings/Banelings/Mutalisks armies offcreep charging in horrible positions, yet Bomber has to struggle for another 10 minuts before being able to deal the killing blow. Lose your Hatchery to a non-committed 2 rax? No problem, you still have the right to play a 50 minuts macro game; on the other hand, good luck holding a Roach (Baneling) bust if your 2 rax fails. Kill only 5 SCVs with a Roach poke? Larva inject forgives. Do I also need to mention the numerous games in which Zerg goes Roach Baneling Bust, miserably fails yet it barely matters because 10-15 Drones were built meanwhile at home? On the other hand, watch Hack vs DRG, Icarus, Code S RO32 and Noblesse vs Nestea, Bel'shir Vestige, Code S RO32 to see what happens when Terran is desperate/foolish enough to try a 2-bases timing and fails it; does Zerg need 20 minuts of drawn-out, careful maneuvers to refute Terran's failure? Watch this (Sheth just failed a Roach Baneling bust) and tell me with a straight face this is not forgiving? Did you see Baby/TY vs Leenock, Whirlwind, Code S RO32? Leenock gets permanently dismantled during 15 minuts, barely surviving with one mining base, but in the end everything is forgiven: he still has Broodlords/Infestors and Fungal happens. Just read Lings of Liberty, really, all of this is nothing new. Stating that Zerg is as unforgiving as Terran in TvZ is simply preposterous.
On February 07 2013 02:04 TsGBruzze wrote: i agree that terrans weakness is that they take to long time in late game to mobilse a deffense versus toss and zerg, i dont know how to fix thi tho, maybe make warpgates like bbarracks( queed units is staying at 0% and when your not maxxed anymore it starts to load)
On January 27 2013 07:32 YumYumGranola wrote: [quote]
Really don't agree that inject larvae is a particularly difficult task to do from a macro perspective. Weren't you used to skipping through your command structures on a regular basis to set your un-rallied harvesters to mining? Basically instead of clicking on a recently finished SCV/probe/drone it's just clicking a queen and casting an ability, except on a much longer cycle time. I guess we're all different in how we perceive macro difficulty but inject larvae in my opinion should be relatively easy for anybody who played BW...
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds
No it's not any way comparable. I don't even know where to start, like you realize there's no separate worker rally in bw and that you can only select one building at a time to macro and normally you have a lot more hatcheries in bw since there's no queens? You're comparing apples to oranges. Try playing BW or SC2BW with the BW settings and maybe you'll get an idea.
On topic though I don't mind that there's a lack of terran players so much because then I don't have to play many TvTs .
Sigh... As I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" look how I say (without hotkeys) look how I then clarified with "I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds" look how that does not cancel out my previous statement of NO HOTKEYS.
If injects were every 17 seconds (instead of 40) it would be hard. If it was every 17 seconds without hotkeys it would feel impossible. Then you're made to imagine that all 3 races have this problem; and suddenly you hate life.
If that's actually how you meant it then it was a really stupid post by you. What the heck is the point of saying no hotkeys? The entire reason SC2 macro is insanely different is that all the hatches can be hotkeyed together and there are separate rallies. What's even the point of your post?
You don't need to use control groups and multiselect to inject right--back space and V are the only keyboard buttons you need along with fast hands. I was talking about backspace not multiunit select.
Back space and V are hotkeys. Using V for inject is the definition of using a hotkey. And no, the macro is entirely different still, with the reason being your drones will follow your rally point. For drones to remain at your town hall, you would have to not be using any rally points. The macro isn't comparable.
Do you have bad reading comprehension? I said that BW macro is like injects--I did not say that BW macro is like SC2 macro. Learn to read please. Rally point comparisons mean shit since hitting an inject requires zero rally points. Hitting an inject requires zero unit production and requires zero building selection.
You move your screen to a hatch, select queen, hit V, click on hatch.
BW macro is move your screen to a town hall, select worker, click on mineral, start next worker
I don't understand what rally points and multi unit select has anything to do with what you're talking about!
First, I already made it clear if you're trying to be that ungodly specific, you're retarded. There is utterly no reason to even make that point.
Second, even with your ungodly specificity, you're still wrong. That is not how BW zerg macro works, so I suggest you research further. If you miss an inject, nothing happens. If you miss selecting the drone at the exact few second it pops, you will no longer be able to move your screen to the town hall and select your worker as the worker will not be there. Due to rally points. Hence it being relevant.
On February 05 2013 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?
BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds
No it's not any way comparable. I don't even know where to start, like you realize there's no separate worker rally in bw and that you can only select one building at a time to macro and normally you have a lot more hatcheries in bw since there's no queens? You're comparing apples to oranges. Try playing BW or SC2BW with the BW settings and maybe you'll get an idea.
On topic though I don't mind that there's a lack of terran players so much because then I don't have to play many TvTs .
Sigh... As I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" look how I say (without hotkeys) look how I then clarified with "I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds" look how that does not cancel out my previous statement of NO HOTKEYS.
If injects were every 17 seconds (instead of 40) it would be hard. If it was every 17 seconds without hotkeys it would feel impossible. Then you're made to imagine that all 3 races have this problem; and suddenly you hate life.
If that's actually how you meant it then it was a really stupid post by you. What the heck is the point of saying no hotkeys? The entire reason SC2 macro is insanely different is that all the hatches can be hotkeyed together and there are separate rallies. What's even the point of your post?
You don't need to use control groups and multiselect to inject right--back space and V are the only keyboard buttons you need along with fast hands. I was talking about backspace not multiunit select.
Back space and V are hotkeys. Using V for inject is the definition of using a hotkey. And no, the macro is entirely different still, with the reason being your drones will follow your rally point. For drones to remain at your town hall, you would have to not be using any rally points. The macro isn't comparable.
Do you have bad reading comprehension? I said that BW macro is like injects--I did not say that BW macro is like SC2 macro. Learn to read please. Rally point comparisons mean shit since hitting an inject requires zero rally points. Hitting an inject requires zero unit production and requires zero building selection.
You move your screen to a hatch, select queen, hit V, click on hatch.
BW macro is move your screen to a town hall, select worker, click on mineral, start next worker
I don't understand what rally points and multi unit select has anything to do with what you're talking about!
First, I already made it clear if you're trying to be that ungodly specific, you're retarded. There is utterly no reason to even make that point.
Second, even with your ungodly specificity, you're still wrong. That is not how BW zerg macro works, so I suggest you research further. If you miss an inject, nothing happens. If you miss selecting the drone at the exact few second it pops, you will no longer be able to move your screen to the town hall and select your worker as the worker will not be there. Due to rally points. Hence it being relevant.
Okay, let's take a look at what I said.
"Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?"
Let's break it down.
I'sn't BW macro (in general) just an inject (is similar to larva injects) every 17 seconds (much faster) without hotkeys (no control groups or backspace)
The answer is yes--why? Because I never said that injects = granular specificity of zerg BW macro, nor did I try talking about rally point, production cycles or anything else unrelated to injects or worker creation (see that every 17 seconds comment--that was supposed to be the hint)
Apparently you think I'm talking about BW zerg macro specifics--so let me show you how I HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT OR BROUGHT UP THAT TOPIC.
ie--Is not macro in BW also a system dependent on returning to your town halls regularly to quickly perform a few simple commands in order to maintain economic production. So while you have to go back to the CC/Nexus/Hatch every 17 seconds or your worker production will stop--you also have to go back to your Hatch every 40 seconds otherwise you won't have good production.
ITS THE SAME MENIAL TASK ONLY FASTER AND MORE TEDIOUS. It isn't hard to box select a worker and right click on a mineral patch--it isn't hard at all. It's hard to do it every 17 seconds on the dot for every town hall you have. It is also very easy to box select a Queen, hit V and then click on the hatchery to inject. It's difficult to do it every 40 seconds on the dot as you move your queens back and forth to hit medivacs, block off chokes, chase off observers/overlords, etc...
Now--since you only have a 17 second rythm instead of a 40 second rythm, it suggests that BW is MUCH HARDER mathematically than SC2 since people already have a hard enough time maintaining injects. However, it also suggests that injects are not as easymode as most people make it out to be on this thread since it is the same mechanical design as macroing in BW.
I'm sorry that you did not see that when I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" and for some odd reason you interpreted that as me not wanting to talk about rallying drones. Because if you speak english as a second language, I can understand that despite me not talking about drones, rally points, or even zerg macro in general that you seem to think I was only comparing how SC2 zerg makes workers vs BW zerg. It must be because you don't understand english very well.
On February 05 2013 16:49 forsooth wrote: [quote] BW Zerg macro was very complicated drone and larvae management. There was no such thing as inject. Hatcheries spawned one larva at a time at a regular interval and maxed at three larvae. This meant Zerg players had to build a number of macro hatches and spend much of the game being very careful about when they produced what. SC2 Zerg macro is incredibly easy by comparison and I consider it the easiest overall out of both SC games.
I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds
No it's not any way comparable. I don't even know where to start, like you realize there's no separate worker rally in bw and that you can only select one building at a time to macro and normally you have a lot more hatcheries in bw since there's no queens? You're comparing apples to oranges. Try playing BW or SC2BW with the BW settings and maybe you'll get an idea.
On topic though I don't mind that there's a lack of terran players so much because then I don't have to play many TvTs .
Sigh... As I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" look how I say (without hotkeys) look how I then clarified with "I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds" look how that does not cancel out my previous statement of NO HOTKEYS.
If injects were every 17 seconds (instead of 40) it would be hard. If it was every 17 seconds without hotkeys it would feel impossible. Then you're made to imagine that all 3 races have this problem; and suddenly you hate life.
If that's actually how you meant it then it was a really stupid post by you. What the heck is the point of saying no hotkeys? The entire reason SC2 macro is insanely different is that all the hatches can be hotkeyed together and there are separate rallies. What's even the point of your post?
You don't need to use control groups and multiselect to inject right--back space and V are the only keyboard buttons you need along with fast hands. I was talking about backspace not multiunit select.
Back space and V are hotkeys. Using V for inject is the definition of using a hotkey. And no, the macro is entirely different still, with the reason being your drones will follow your rally point. For drones to remain at your town hall, you would have to not be using any rally points. The macro isn't comparable.
Do you have bad reading comprehension? I said that BW macro is like injects--I did not say that BW macro is like SC2 macro. Learn to read please. Rally point comparisons mean shit since hitting an inject requires zero rally points. Hitting an inject requires zero unit production and requires zero building selection.
You move your screen to a hatch, select queen, hit V, click on hatch.
BW macro is move your screen to a town hall, select worker, click on mineral, start next worker
I don't understand what rally points and multi unit select has anything to do with what you're talking about!
First, I already made it clear if you're trying to be that ungodly specific, you're retarded. There is utterly no reason to even make that point.
Second, even with your ungodly specificity, you're still wrong. That is not how BW zerg macro works, so I suggest you research further. If you miss an inject, nothing happens. If you miss selecting the drone at the exact few second it pops, you will no longer be able to move your screen to the town hall and select your worker as the worker will not be there. Due to rally points. Hence it being relevant.
Okay, let's take a look at what I said.
"Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?"
Let's break it down.
I'sn't BW macro (in general) just an inject (is similar to larva injects) every 17 seconds (much faster) without hotkeys (no control groups or backspace)
The answer is yes--why? Because I never said that injects = granular specificity of zerg BW macro, nor did I try talking about rally point, production cycles or anything else unrelated to injects or worker creation (see that every 17 seconds comment--that was supposed to be the hint)
Apparently you think I'm talking about BW zerg macro specifics--so let me show you how I HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT OR BROUGHT UP THAT TOPIC.
ie--Is not macro in BW also a system dependent on returning to your town halls regularly to quickly perform a few simple commands in order to maintain economic production. So while you have to go back to the CC/Nexus/Hatch every 17 seconds or your worker production will stop--you also have to go back to your Hatch every 40 seconds otherwise you won't have good production.
ITS THE SAME MENIAL TASK ONLY FASTER AND MORE TEDIOUS. It isn't hard to box select a worker and right click on a mineral patch--it isn't hard at all. It's hard to do it every 17 seconds on the dot for every town hall you have. It is also very easy to box select a Queen, hit V and then click on the hatchery to inject. It's difficult to do it every 40 seconds on the dot as you move your queens back and forth to hit medivacs, block off chokes, chase off observers/overlords, etc...
Now--since you only have a 17 second rythm instead of a 40 second rythm, it suggests that BW is MUCH HARDER mathematically than SC2 since people already have a hard enough time maintaining injects. However, it also suggests that injects are not as easymode as most people make it out to be on this thread since it is the same mechanical design as macroing in BW.
I'm sorry that you did not see that when I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" and for some odd reason you interpreted that as me not wanting to talk about rallying drones. Because if you speak english as a second language, I can understand that despite me not talking about drones, rally points, or even zerg macro in general that you seem to think I was only comparing how SC2 zerg makes workers vs BW zerg. It must be because you don't understand english very well.
1. As stated, your purpose of stating no "hotkeys" is retarded and inapplicable.
2. Despite your feeble attempt to keep trying to state you didn't reference anything else, it is impossible to make the comparison you are trying to make without such references.
3. The answer is still no, they are not comparable, because you are punished more severely for not doing it in BW than SC2. This punishment (due to rally points) is entirely relevant to the difficulty of the macro.
4. In BW your hatcheries are not necessarily at expansions, considering you need macro hatches. Particularly in ZvT and ZvP (if Protoss does any build besides Forge FE), unless you are going for an aggressive 2 hatch build in one of these MUs.
At most you can try to say your more elaborated statement of "Zerg still consists of returning to your town hall to maintain economic production" is accurate, although that cannot be insinuated in the slightest by your original statement. At the same time, even after your clarification on something so irrelevant and unnecessary, BW macro is not an inject every 17 seconds because the consequences of failing the action is entirely different (due to rally points).
But yes, your very basic and extremely general point that it is a thoughtless task, just less demanding, is accurate. Just as muling is a thoughtless task as well.
EDIT: And while I'll still maintain it's nigh impossible to decipher what your true intention was behind your initial post that I should have caught on quicker in your subsequent posts. However, in the end, the above points still remain.
Listen, buddy if you don't know what you are talking about (like you don't play all three races) then you shouldn't spend so much time making arguments. It is a waste of your time considering how poorly written and inaccurate this is.
What an informative and well thought-out argument! Please, kind Sir, will you shower us in more of your profound wisdom?
On February 06 2013 02:19 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds
No it's not any way comparable. I don't even know where to start, like you realize there's no separate worker rally in bw and that you can only select one building at a time to macro and normally you have a lot more hatcheries in bw since there's no queens? You're comparing apples to oranges. Try playing BW or SC2BW with the BW settings and maybe you'll get an idea.
On topic though I don't mind that there's a lack of terran players so much because then I don't have to play many TvTs .
Sigh... As I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" look how I say (without hotkeys) look how I then clarified with "I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds" look how that does not cancel out my previous statement of NO HOTKEYS.
If injects were every 17 seconds (instead of 40) it would be hard. If it was every 17 seconds without hotkeys it would feel impossible. Then you're made to imagine that all 3 races have this problem; and suddenly you hate life.
If that's actually how you meant it then it was a really stupid post by you. What the heck is the point of saying no hotkeys? The entire reason SC2 macro is insanely different is that all the hatches can be hotkeyed together and there are separate rallies. What's even the point of your post?
You don't need to use control groups and multiselect to inject right--back space and V are the only keyboard buttons you need along with fast hands. I was talking about backspace not multiunit select.
Back space and V are hotkeys. Using V for inject is the definition of using a hotkey. And no, the macro is entirely different still, with the reason being your drones will follow your rally point. For drones to remain at your town hall, you would have to not be using any rally points. The macro isn't comparable.
Do you have bad reading comprehension? I said that BW macro is like injects--I did not say that BW macro is like SC2 macro. Learn to read please. Rally point comparisons mean shit since hitting an inject requires zero rally points. Hitting an inject requires zero unit production and requires zero building selection.
You move your screen to a hatch, select queen, hit V, click on hatch.
BW macro is move your screen to a town hall, select worker, click on mineral, start next worker
I don't understand what rally points and multi unit select has anything to do with what you're talking about!
First, I already made it clear if you're trying to be that ungodly specific, you're retarded. There is utterly no reason to even make that point.
Second, even with your ungodly specificity, you're still wrong. That is not how BW zerg macro works, so I suggest you research further. If you miss an inject, nothing happens. If you miss selecting the drone at the exact few second it pops, you will no longer be able to move your screen to the town hall and select your worker as the worker will not be there. Due to rally points. Hence it being relevant.
Okay, let's take a look at what I said.
"Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?"
Let's break it down.
I'sn't BW macro (in general) just an inject (is similar to larva injects) every 17 seconds (much faster) without hotkeys (no control groups or backspace)
The answer is yes--why? Because I never said that injects = granular specificity of zerg BW macro, nor did I try talking about rally point, production cycles or anything else unrelated to injects or worker creation (see that every 17 seconds comment--that was supposed to be the hint)
Apparently you think I'm talking about BW zerg macro specifics--so let me show you how I HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT OR BROUGHT UP THAT TOPIC.
ie--Is not macro in BW also a system dependent on returning to your town halls regularly to quickly perform a few simple commands in order to maintain economic production. So while you have to go back to the CC/Nexus/Hatch every 17 seconds or your worker production will stop--you also have to go back to your Hatch every 40 seconds otherwise you won't have good production.
ITS THE SAME MENIAL TASK ONLY FASTER AND MORE TEDIOUS. It isn't hard to box select a worker and right click on a mineral patch--it isn't hard at all. It's hard to do it every 17 seconds on the dot for every town hall you have. It is also very easy to box select a Queen, hit V and then click on the hatchery to inject. It's difficult to do it every 40 seconds on the dot as you move your queens back and forth to hit medivacs, block off chokes, chase off observers/overlords, etc...
Now--since you only have a 17 second rythm instead of a 40 second rythm, it suggests that BW is MUCH HARDER mathematically than SC2 since people already have a hard enough time maintaining injects. However, it also suggests that injects are not as easymode as most people make it out to be on this thread since it is the same mechanical design as macroing in BW.
I'm sorry that you did not see that when I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" and for some odd reason you interpreted that as me not wanting to talk about rallying drones. Because if you speak english as a second language, I can understand that despite me not talking about drones, rally points, or even zerg macro in general that you seem to think I was only comparing how SC2 zerg makes workers vs BW zerg. It must be because you don't understand english very well.
1. As stated, your purpose of stating no "hotkeys" is retarded and inapplicable.
2. Despite your feeble attempt to keep trying to state you didn't reference anything else, it is impossible to make the comparison you are trying to make without such references.
3. The answer is still no, they are not comparable, because you are punished more severely for not doing it in BW than SC2. This punishment (due to rally points) is entirely relevant to the difficulty of the macro.
4. In BW your hatcheries are not necessarily at expansions, considering you need macro hatches. Particularly in ZvT and ZvP (if Protoss does any build besides Forge FE), unless you are going for an aggressive 2 hatch build in one of these MUs.
At most you can try to say your more elaborated statement of "Zerg still consists of returning to your town hall to maintain economic production" is accurate, although that cannot be insinuated in the slightest by your original statement. At the same time, even after your clarification on something so irrelevant and unnecessary, BW macro is not an inject every 17 seconds because the consequences of failing the action is entirely different (due to rally points).
But yes, your very basic and extremely general point that it is a thoughtless task, just less demanding, is accurate. Just as muling is a thoughtless task as well.
EDIT: And while I'll still maintain it's nigh impossible to decipher what your true intention was behind your initial post that I should have caught on quicker in your subsequent posts. However, in the end, the above points still remain.
Its a general statement--of course it only has a general point!
The only thing that differs to them according to you is how punishing it is in BW--an aspect I did not bring up at all. The task is the same but somehow you would rather talk about the aspects outside of the actual act of macroing. You want to bring up how it is punishing, how rally points are blah de blah as if I posted some kind of thesis.
Unlike SC2 Terran and SC2 Toss Zerg actually *has* to come back to their base and do basic clicks in order for their macro to work just like you have to return to your base in BW. Stop being so defensive on the legitimacy of BW as if I'm insulting it. I was not insulting, no need to get upset.
On February 07 2013 12:58 Kashll wrote: Wait are people in here seriously arguing whether Broodwar macro is more difficult than SC2 macro?
Technically, I was trying to say you need to return to your base to inject like you need to return to your base to have workers mine in BW. Then someone got buthurt thinking I was trying to insult BW when I was simply saying that BW has to do it more frequently and all the races have to do it and not just Zerg (unlike in SC2)
Its mostly some guy afraid that I might have said SC2 is BW despite me never saying it.
Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
On February 07 2013 12:52 I_PROTOSSED_MY_HW wrote:
Listen, buddy if you don't know what you are talking about (like you don't play all three races) then you shouldn't spend so much time making arguments. It is a waste of your time considering how poorly written and inaccurate this is.
What an informative and well thought-out argument! Please, kind Sir, will you shower us in more of your profound wisdom?
I don't have the time to point out all the problems with what he said. If you can't see for yourself then I feel sorry for you or you didn't actually read what he wrote (lucky you).
Your providing 0 substance. Point out anything wrong with his arguments instead of calling names. You just sound like a p/z who got mad about being called out....
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
Terran has been in the gutter for over a year...
Saying "get over it" is not a healthy way to keep a game alive and it shots with the loss of interest in SC2. Blizz has demonstrated their horrible balancing skills over and over again and I don't expect it to start picking up any time soon even with HoTS.
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
And Ps and Zs just sat there while terrans were OP'ed? Nope, they whined just as loud as terrans were whining now.
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
And Ps and Zs just sat there while terrans were OP'ed? Nope, they whined just as loud as terrans were whining now.
I love how ever new cool terran strat got nerfed after seemingly a day or two like the mass ghost while BL/Infester has been the only thing seen from Z for over a year... I just don't under stand blizz at all...
On February 07 2013 12:52 I_PROTOSSED_MY_HW wrote:
Listen, buddy if you don't know what you are talking about (like you don't play all three races) then you shouldn't spend so much time making arguments. It is a waste of your time considering how poorly written and inaccurate this is.
What an informative and well thought-out argument! Please, kind Sir, will you shower us in more of your profound wisdom?
I don't have the time to point out all the problems with what he said. If you can't see for yourself then I feel sorry for you or you didn't actually read what he wrote (lucky you).
Your providing 0 substance. Point out anything wrong with his arguments instead of calling names. You just sound like a p/z who got mad about being called out....
Substance just fuels the terran rage. The problem with his argument, like most balance arguments, is that it's just a list of highly subjective examples supposed to prove some emperical unbalance about terran, he probably wasted a lot of time to compile, which the guy you're responding to doesn't feel like throwing away.
For instance, to take the first balance argument in his post, basically a whine about how protoss is OP because they can warp and terran can't, completely forgetting that protoss warpgate units are weaker to compensate for this.
You see what I did there? Protoss warpgate units being weaker does not prove that warpgate is balanced, nor does the protoss ability to warp in near your base prove protoss is OP.
Every fucking time this is how balance discussions go, one idiot just throws out some subjective statement about a game feature and hopes it proves something, then someone else replies with something just as meaningless and the cycle keeps going.
If anything, I applaud the guy you're replying to for not forcing on another 10 pages of low level terrans crying about imbalance. Not that I expect any of the hardcore whiners to take this to heart, they're just venting frustration with losing games they believe they should have won based on previous experiences, in a game that has been balanced in terrans favor for most of it's history.
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
And Ps and Zs just sat there while terrans were OP'ed? Nope, they whined just as loud as terrans were whining now.
Most of the time those threads actually got closed pretty quickly because they where a waste of forum space and effort on everyones part, god knows why this thread is still up, every low level terran seeing this thread will just use it as an excuse to blame losses on balance and waste their time here instead of learning to play the game.
But alas, I'm getting caught up in this myself, no need to feed this whole mess further. Sometimes I wish TL had the sage function.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: The whine that protoss and zerg are more forgiving is absolute bullshit. Like, it is absolutely 100% bullshit.
Or it's 100% true, and the main raison why Terran constantly underperforms below Code A/S level.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss loses their army once, the game ends.
Yep, especially lategame PvT in which Terran is able to warp Marines/Marauders near your base while you have to wait the slow reinforcements from your Gateways… Oh wait. Please be honest, how many times do we see Terrans winning a fight in lategame TvP, yet they're unable to press on because of how strong Zealots warp-ins + leftover defensive Templars are? Now go check pro games and show me games in which Protoss comes out 30 supply ahead and is unable to do anything. I bet you won't find many instances of this.
There are unforgiving aspects in the Protoss side too, but overall warp-ins + Storm/Colossi + Observers + the fact Protoss units are tougher and need less micro (Zealots/Archons/Colossi require virtually none) + the ability to secure remote expands with Pylons/Canons/HTs make Protoss more forgiving. No doubt mass Ghosts/Vikings can be hard to handle, but queuing Zealots/DTs in Terran's mineral lines/bases to dismantle him before he gets this super-expensive army is so easy compared to the amount of micro/attention needed from the Terran side to deal with Zealots (who are very efficient in small fights when both sides are left unmicroed) + DTs while trying to keep at bay Protoss' main army roaming around the PF checking for any sign of weakness to charge.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: Zerg loses their fragile army to something slightly mobile? The game ends because an immediate counter attack kills 2 bases.
This is so wrong I don't even know how to start. Fragile army? 145 hit points + 1 armor for 75/25 sounds quite beefy to me; Ultralisks with their 500 hit points and 6 armor when fully upgraded disagree too, and what about Corruptors with their 200 hit points and 2 armor? So fragile indeed; if only Zerg had a minerals-only tier1 unit (which, again, doesn't lack sturdiness) which, on top of the unparalleled utility (antiair/defence/production/vision) it already provides, could chain heal single targets too, maybe this “fragility” would be more bearable.
Zerg is the epitome of forgiveness in ZvT because of creep/Fungal/larvae. It doesn't matter how far behind Zerg can get, all they need is hit a good Fungal and suddenly the 15 past minuts in which they were massively outplayed barely matter and the game is fully reset. Banking larvae makes it trivial to remax and buy back a second army for another chance while Terran has a hard time bulldozing his army through several screens of creep because you always stand a chance of overextending against 70+ Zerglings (or 30+ Roaches if mech) reinforcements + Fungal. See DRG vs Bomber, Metropolis, IPL5: DRG suicides two Zerglings/Banelings/Mutalisks armies offcreep charging in horrible positions, yet Bomber has to struggle for another 10 minuts before being able to deal the killing blow. Lose your Hatchery to a non-committed 2 rax? No problem, you still have the right to play a 50 minuts macro game; on the other hand, good luck holding a Roach (Baneling) bust if your 2 rax fails. Kill only 5 SCVs with a Roach poke? Larva inject forgives. Do I also need to mention the numerous games in which Zerg goes Roach Baneling Bust, miserably fails yet it barely matters because 10-15 Drones were built meanwhile at home? On the other hand, watch Hack vs DRG, Icarus, Code S RO32 and Noblesse vs Nestea, Bel'shir Vestige, Code S RO32 to see what happens when Terran is desperate/foolish enough to try a 2-bases timing and fails it; does Zerg need 20 minuts of drawn-out, careful maneuvers to refute Terran's failure? Watch this (Sheth just failed a Roach Baneling bust) and tell me with a straight face this is not forgiving? Did you see Baby/TY vs Leenock, Whirlwind, Code S RO32? Leenock gets permanently dismantled during 15 minuts, barely surviving with one mining base, but in the end everything is forgiven: he still has Broodlords/Infestors and Fungal happens. Just read Lings of Liberty, really, all of this is nothing new. Stating that Zerg is as unforgiving as Terran in TvZ is simply preposterous.
On February 07 2013 02:04 TsGBruzze wrote: i agree that terrans weakness is that they take to long time in late game to mobilse a deffense versus toss and zerg, i dont know how to fix thi tho, maybe make warpgates like bbarracks( queed units is staying at 0% and when your not maxxed anymore it starts to load)
Protoss would simply stay at 199/200.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm sure people will try to make up some bullshit to refute it thought. I know your better than 99 percent of playesr on this site, and you gave analysis, so I hope they respect your opinion.
On February 07 2013 12:52 I_PROTOSSED_MY_HW wrote:
Listen, buddy if you don't know what you are talking about (like you don't play all three races) then you shouldn't spend so much time making arguments. It is a waste of your time considering how poorly written and inaccurate this is.
What an informative and well thought-out argument! Please, kind Sir, will you shower us in more of your profound wisdom?
I don't have the time to point out all the problems with what he said. If you can't see for yourself then I feel sorry for you or you didn't actually read what he wrote (lucky you).
Really? Because a lot of what he says seems to make sense to the rest of us. Not to mention the fact the TheDwf is an extremely active / helpful blue poster in the strategy forums. I tend to think he knows what he's talking about.
That being said, I think his points are a little extreme, but especially in TvZ it really does feel like you can lose your advantage at any moment due to a moment of miscontrol and not paying attention, almost no matter how big that lead was. And when you do get a significant lead (i.e hold a roach / ling / bling attack with very little if any losses), Zerg can pull back into the game quite easily by playing smart and defensively and waiting for their opponent to make a single mistake while if the reverse happens (i.e. Zerg holds off a marauder / hellion push with minimal losses) Terran is so far behind it's almost impossible to recover from and Zerg needs to make several big mistakes for the Terran player to get back into the game.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: The whine that protoss and zerg are more forgiving is absolute bullshit. Like, it is absolutely 100% bullshit.
Or it's 100% true, and the main raison why Terran constantly underperforms below Code A/S level.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: Protoss loses their army once, the game ends.
Yep, especially lategame PvT in which Terran is able to warp Marines/Marauders near your base while you have to wait the slow reinforcements from your Gateways… Oh wait. Please be honest, how many times do we see Terrans winning a fight in lategame TvP, yet they're unable to press on because of how strong Zealots warp-ins + leftover defensive Templars are? Now go check pro games and show me games in which Protoss comes out 30 supply ahead and is unable to do anything. I bet you won't find many instances of this.
There are unforgiving aspects in the Protoss side too, but overall warp-ins + Storm/Colossi + Observers + the fact Protoss units are tougher and need less micro (Zealots/Archons/Colossi require virtually none) + the ability to secure remote expands with Pylons/Canons/HTs make Protoss more forgiving. No doubt mass Ghosts/Vikings can be hard to handle, but queuing Zealots/DTs in Terran's mineral lines/bases to dismantle him before he gets this super-expensive army is so easy compared to the amount of micro/attention needed from the Terran side to deal with Zealots (who are very efficient in small fights when both sides are left unmicroed) + DTs while trying to keep at bay Protoss' main army roaming around the PF checking for any sign of weakness to charge.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: Zerg loses their fragile army to something slightly mobile? The game ends because an immediate counter attack kills 2 bases.
This is so wrong I don't even know how to start. Fragile army? 145 hit points + 1 armor for 75/25 sounds quite beefy to me; Ultralisks with their 500 hit points and 6 armor when fully upgraded disagree too, and what about Corruptors with their 200 hit points and 2 armor? So fragile indeed; if only Zerg had a minerals-only tier1 unit (which, again, doesn't lack sturdiness) which, on top of the unparalleled utility (antiair/defence/production/vision) it already provides, could chain heal single targets too, maybe this “fragility” would be more bearable.
Zerg is the epitome of forgiveness in ZvT because of creep/Fungal/larvae. It doesn't matter how far behind Zerg can get, all they need is hit a good Fungal and suddenly the 15 past minuts in which they were massively outplayed barely matter and the game is fully reset. Banking larvae makes it trivial to remax and buy back a second army for another chance while Terran has a hard time bulldozing his army through several screens of creep because you always stand a chance of overextending against 70+ Zerglings (or 30+ Roaches if mech) reinforcements + Fungal. See DRG vs Bomber, Metropolis, IPL5: DRG suicides two Zerglings/Banelings/Mutalisks armies offcreep charging in horrible positions, yet Bomber has to struggle for another 10 minuts before being able to deal the killing blow. Lose your Hatchery to a non-committed 2 rax? No problem, you still have the right to play a 50 minuts macro game; on the other hand, good luck holding a Roach (Baneling) bust if your 2 rax fails. Kill only 5 SCVs with a Roach poke? Larva inject forgives. Do I also need to mention the numerous games in which Zerg goes Roach Baneling Bust, miserably fails yet it barely matters because 10-15 Drones were built meanwhile at home? On the other hand, watch Hack vs DRG, Icarus, Code S RO32 and Noblesse vs Nestea, Bel'shir Vestige, Code S RO32 to see what happens when Terran is desperate/foolish enough to try a 2-bases timing and fails it; does Zerg need 20 minuts of drawn-out, careful maneuvers to refute Terran's failure? Watch this (Sheth just failed a Roach Baneling bust) and tell me with a straight face this is not forgiving? Did you see Baby/TY vs Leenock, Whirlwind, Code S RO32? Leenock gets permanently dismantled during 15 minuts, barely surviving with one mining base, but in the end everything is forgiven: he still has Broodlords/Infestors and Fungal happens. Just read Lings of Liberty, really, all of this is nothing new. Stating that Zerg is as unforgiving as Terran in TvZ is simply preposterous.
On February 07 2013 02:04 TsGBruzze wrote: i agree that terrans weakness is that they take to long time in late game to mobilse a deffense versus toss and zerg, i dont know how to fix thi tho, maybe make warpgates like bbarracks( queed units is staying at 0% and when your not maxxed anymore it starts to load)
Protoss would simply stay at 199/200.
I mostly agree, but be careful when citing Lings of Liberty. It's a weird fake pseudo-reverse anti-balance whine thing (that is to say that nobody knows if it's full-on trolling or not, because some parts are reasonable and others are ridiculous). The article drew out massive Terran complains and agreeing nods, while mods and power users were mocking them for not understanding the "humor". Really a trash OP if I ever saw one, but nobody could say so because the guy who posted is apparently also a mod/power user. In short, Terran agreed, Zergs tried to defend themselves, and mods were like "Hahaha, dumbasses, you got trolled, Ver is so funny, hahaha". Not a very good source.
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
Terran has been in the gutter for over a year...
Saying "get over it" is not a healthy way to keep a game alive and it shots with the loss of interest in SC2. Blizz has demonstrated their horrible balancing skills over and over again and I don't expect it to start picking up any time soon even with HoTS.
Terrans been in the gutter since May 2012, less than a year, and if MMA is anyone to go by the game is finally balanced again.
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
Terran has been in the gutter for over a year...
Saying "get over it" is not a healthy way to keep a game alive and it shots with the loss of interest in SC2. Blizz has demonstrated their horrible balancing skills over and over again and I don't expect it to start picking up any time soon even with HoTS.
Terrans been in the gutter since May 2012, less than a year, and if MMA is anyone to go by the game is finally balanced again.
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
Terran has been in the gutter for over a year...
Saying "get over it" is not a healthy way to keep a game alive and it shots with the loss of interest in SC2. Blizz has demonstrated their horrible balancing skills over and over again and I don't expect it to start picking up any time soon even with HoTS.
Terrans been in the gutter since May 2012, less than a year, and if MMA is anyone to go by the game is finally balanced again.
Did MMA say that on stream or something?
Said that in an interview with axiom/acer or something. I'll find it in a bit when i get back from work if someone else hasn't.
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
Terran has been in the gutter for over a year...
Saying "get over it" is not a healthy way to keep a game alive and it shots with the loss of interest in SC2. Blizz has demonstrated their horrible balancing skills over and over again and I don't expect it to start picking up any time soon even with HoTS.
Terrans been in the gutter since May 2012, less than a year, and if MMA is anyone to go by the game is finally balanced again.
Did MMA say that on stream or something?
Said that in an interview with axiom/acer or something. I'll find it in a bit when i get back from work if someone else hasn't.
Ok thank you. I'll look for it myself
I personally think that SC2's balance is decent since last couple of infestor nerfs. I just hope we will have a balanced Ro8, why not even Ro4, for last WoL GSL to prove me right :D. We could even dodge the now traditional and expected ZvZ finals, one can dream.
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
Terran has been in the gutter for over a year...
Saying "get over it" is not a healthy way to keep a game alive and it shots with the loss of interest in SC2. Blizz has demonstrated their horrible balancing skills over and over again and I don't expect it to start picking up any time soon even with HoTS.
Terrans been in the gutter since May 2012, less than a year, and if MMA is anyone to go by the game is finally balanced again.
Did MMA say that on stream or something?
Said that in an interview with axiom/acer or something. I'll find it in a bit when i get back from work if someone else hasn't.
Ok thank you. I'll look for it myself
I personally think that SC2's balance is decent since last couple of infestor nerfs. I just hope we will have a balanced Ro8, why not even Ro4, for last WoL GSL to prove me right :D. We could even dodge the now traditional and expected ZvZ finals, one can dream.
There won't be. Theres only 1 Protoss in the ro16. Luckily its Parting who has nothing to do but practice for GSL. Anything but ro4 for Parting would be dodgy to me.
Which by the way brings me to this, if Terran is so bad right now, why is there only a single Protoss in the ro16 in the best tournament in the world? How many tournaments have Protoss won in the last six months?
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
Terran has been in the gutter for over a year...
Saying "get over it" is not a healthy way to keep a game alive and it shots with the loss of interest in SC2. Blizz has demonstrated their horrible balancing skills over and over again and I don't expect it to start picking up any time soon even with HoTS.
Terrans been in the gutter since May 2012, less than a year, and if MMA is anyone to go by the game is finally balanced again.
Did MMA say that on stream or something?
Said that in an interview with axiom/acer or something. I'll find it in a bit when i get back from work if someone else hasn't.
Ok thank you. I'll look for it myself
I personally think that SC2's balance is decent since last couple of infestor nerfs. I just hope we will have a balanced Ro8, why not even Ro4, for last WoL GSL to prove me right :D. We could even dodge the now traditional and expected ZvZ finals, one can dream.
There won't be. Theres only 1 Protoss in the ro16. Luckily its Parting who has nothing to do but practice for GSL. Anything but ro4 for Parting would be dodgy to me.
I agree, I wish that this level of balance was achieved about 2 seasons ago, so we would have a more diverse last GSL ever. In any event, here is the interview.
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
Terran has been in the gutter for over a year...
Saying "get over it" is not a healthy way to keep a game alive and it shots with the loss of interest in SC2. Blizz has demonstrated their horrible balancing skills over and over again and I don't expect it to start picking up any time soon even with HoTS.
Terrans been in the gutter since May 2012, less than a year, and if MMA is anyone to go by the game is finally balanced again.
Did MMA say that on stream or something?
Said that in an interview with axiom/acer or something. I'll find it in a bit when i get back from work if someone else hasn't.
Ok thank you. I'll look for it myself
I personally think that SC2's balance is decent since last couple of infestor nerfs. I just hope we will have a balanced Ro8, why not even Ro4, for last WoL GSL to prove me right :D. We could even dodge the now traditional and expected ZvZ finals, one can dream.
There won't be. Theres only 1 Protoss in the ro16. Luckily its Parting who has nothing to do but practice for GSL. Anything but ro4 for Parting would be dodgy to me.
I agree, I wish that this level of balance was achieved about 2 seasons ago, so we would have a more diverse last GSL ever. In any event, here is the interview.
Interesting how a Zerg(Miya) says that David Kim can't balance a scale much less a complex game, and MMA at least admits Wings is closed to balanced now.
On the last episode of thePulse from NASL in part 4, the second half of that discusses the January winrates in Korea, with this to say about the TvP winrates in Korea. Gretorp: "And in TvP?" Frodan: "Terran wins over 50 percent, 54 percent. So Terrans are beating Protoss." This is in Korea.
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
Terran has been in the gutter for over a year...
Saying "get over it" is not a healthy way to keep a game alive and it shots with the loss of interest in SC2. Blizz has demonstrated their horrible balancing skills over and over again and I don't expect it to start picking up any time soon even with HoTS.
Terrans been in the gutter since May 2012, less than a year, and if MMA is anyone to go by the game is finally balanced again.
Did MMA say that on stream or something?
Said that in an interview with axiom/acer or something. I'll find it in a bit when i get back from work if someone else hasn't.
Ok thank you. I'll look for it myself
I personally think that SC2's balance is decent since last couple of infestor nerfs. I just hope we will have a balanced Ro8, why not even Ro4, for last WoL GSL to prove me right :D. We could even dodge the now traditional and expected ZvZ finals, one can dream.
There won't be. Theres only 1 Protoss in the ro16. Luckily its Parting who has nothing to do but practice for GSL. Anything but ro4 for Parting would be dodgy to me.
Which by the way brings me to this, if Terran is so bad right now, why is there only a single Protoss in the ro16 in the best tournament in the world? How many tournaments have Protoss won in the last six months?
MC and Squirtle made it as well. There are 3 toss.
On February 07 2013 14:32 Wingblade wrote: On the last episode of thePulse from NASL in part 4, the second half of that discusses the January winrates in Korea, with this to say about the TvP winrates in Korea. Gretorp: "And in TvP?" Frodan: "Terran wins over 50 percent, 54 percent. So Terrans are beating Protoss." This is in Korea.
Yeah, I think Terran is generally favored in TvP if they can end the game or get a significant lead before 15 minutes or so. If Protoss and Terran enter the 15+ minute mark on even footing though, it becomes insanely hard for Terran to win. Thankfully doing damage / punishing greedy Protoss is a lot easier than doing the same vZ.
On February 07 2013 14:32 Wingblade wrote: On the last episode of thePulse from NASL in part 4, the second half of that discusses the January winrates in Korea, with this to say about the TvP winrates in Korea. Gretorp: "And in TvP?" Frodan: "Terran wins over 50 percent, 54 percent. So Terrans are beating Protoss." This is in Korea.
Yeah, I think Terran is generally favored in TvP if they can end the game or get a significant lead before 15 minutes or so. If Protoss and Terran enter the 15+ minute mark on even footing though, it becomes insanely hard for Terran to win. Thankfully doing damage / punishing greedy Protoss is a lot easier than doing the same vZ.
Currently in HotS, Terran is terrible early game vs protoss. Protoss has a shit ton amount of new all-ins and early game harass options thanks to the DT buff and the oracle. The mothership core can easily deny early game pushes like the two-rax and help defend from drop play with the time warp. Terrans, on the other hand, are left with hellbat drops.
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
Terran has been in the gutter for over a year...
Saying "get over it" is not a healthy way to keep a game alive and it shots with the loss of interest in SC2. Blizz has demonstrated their horrible balancing skills over and over again and I don't expect it to start picking up any time soon even with HoTS.
Terrans been in the gutter since May 2012, less than a year, and if MMA is anyone to go by the game is finally balanced again.
Did MMA say that on stream or something?
Said that in an interview with axiom/acer or something. I'll find it in a bit when i get back from work if someone else hasn't.
Ok thank you. I'll look for it myself
I personally think that SC2's balance is decent since last couple of infestor nerfs. I just hope we will have a balanced Ro8, why not even Ro4, for last WoL GSL to prove me right :D. We could even dodge the now traditional and expected ZvZ finals, one can dream.
There won't be. Theres only 1 Protoss in the ro16. Luckily its Parting who has nothing to do but practice for GSL. Anything but ro4 for Parting would be dodgy to me.
I agree, I wish that this level of balance was achieved about 2 seasons ago, so we would have a more diverse last GSL ever. In any event, here is the interview.
Interesting how a Zerg(Miya) says that David Kim can't balance a scale much less a complex game, and MMA at least admits Wings is closed to balanced now.
It's truly a shame that he didn't leave the game close to what it was in december 2011, when everything was pretty close to 50/50. While a very small buff to early game was needed for zerg, they overshot the mark something tragic.
On February 07 2013 00:48 DarkLordOlli wrote: The whine that protoss and zerg are more forgiving is absolute bullshit. Like, it is absolutely 100% bullshit.
Or it's 100% true, and the main raison why Terran constantly underperforms below Code A/S level.
Thing is if terran was a bit more forgiving, say some cheaper costs, faster build/research time, or less requirements, when you got the advantage with the powerful positional play and medivacs/repairs, you get a critical mass from which there is not a lot other races can do to stay in the game, similarly to immortal/sentry vs zerg where if you dont deflect for the first time, you are as good as dead.
Sure i dont say it is a good thing for the game, but as the balance stands now, you cannot fix it without breaking some other things. Tho, Hots should make a whole lot of a difference in a long term, and this discussion is more relevent to WoL than Hots.
You know what's funny my brother wrote this thread and has never played random only Terran. He whines imba everyday, I'm actually impressed and proud at his ability to troll hundreds of people into a balance discussion.
On February 06 2013 03:21 L3gendary wrote: [quote]
No it's not any way comparable. I don't even know where to start, like you realize there's no separate worker rally in bw and that you can only select one building at a time to macro and normally you have a lot more hatcheries in bw since there's no queens? You're comparing apples to oranges. Try playing BW or SC2BW with the BW settings and maybe you'll get an idea.
On topic though I don't mind that there's a lack of terran players so much because then I don't have to play many TvTs .
Sigh... As I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" look how I say (without hotkeys) look how I then clarified with "I meant go to town hall, select worker, right click on mineral => repeat every 17 seconds" look how that does not cancel out my previous statement of NO HOTKEYS.
If injects were every 17 seconds (instead of 40) it would be hard. If it was every 17 seconds without hotkeys it would feel impossible. Then you're made to imagine that all 3 races have this problem; and suddenly you hate life.
If that's actually how you meant it then it was a really stupid post by you. What the heck is the point of saying no hotkeys? The entire reason SC2 macro is insanely different is that all the hatches can be hotkeyed together and there are separate rallies. What's even the point of your post?
You don't need to use control groups and multiselect to inject right--back space and V are the only keyboard buttons you need along with fast hands. I was talking about backspace not multiunit select.
Back space and V are hotkeys. Using V for inject is the definition of using a hotkey. And no, the macro is entirely different still, with the reason being your drones will follow your rally point. For drones to remain at your town hall, you would have to not be using any rally points. The macro isn't comparable.
Do you have bad reading comprehension? I said that BW macro is like injects--I did not say that BW macro is like SC2 macro. Learn to read please. Rally point comparisons mean shit since hitting an inject requires zero rally points. Hitting an inject requires zero unit production and requires zero building selection.
You move your screen to a hatch, select queen, hit V, click on hatch.
BW macro is move your screen to a town hall, select worker, click on mineral, start next worker
I don't understand what rally points and multi unit select has anything to do with what you're talking about!
First, I already made it clear if you're trying to be that ungodly specific, you're retarded. There is utterly no reason to even make that point.
Second, even with your ungodly specificity, you're still wrong. That is not how BW zerg macro works, so I suggest you research further. If you miss an inject, nothing happens. If you miss selecting the drone at the exact few second it pops, you will no longer be able to move your screen to the town hall and select your worker as the worker will not be there. Due to rally points. Hence it being relevant.
Okay, let's take a look at what I said.
"Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys?"
Let's break it down.
I'sn't BW macro (in general) just an inject (is similar to larva injects) every 17 seconds (much faster) without hotkeys (no control groups or backspace)
The answer is yes--why? Because I never said that injects = granular specificity of zerg BW macro, nor did I try talking about rally point, production cycles or anything else unrelated to injects or worker creation (see that every 17 seconds comment--that was supposed to be the hint)
Apparently you think I'm talking about BW zerg macro specifics--so let me show you how I HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT OR BROUGHT UP THAT TOPIC.
ie--Is not macro in BW also a system dependent on returning to your town halls regularly to quickly perform a few simple commands in order to maintain economic production. So while you have to go back to the CC/Nexus/Hatch every 17 seconds or your worker production will stop--you also have to go back to your Hatch every 40 seconds otherwise you won't have good production.
ITS THE SAME MENIAL TASK ONLY FASTER AND MORE TEDIOUS. It isn't hard to box select a worker and right click on a mineral patch--it isn't hard at all. It's hard to do it every 17 seconds on the dot for every town hall you have. It is also very easy to box select a Queen, hit V and then click on the hatchery to inject. It's difficult to do it every 40 seconds on the dot as you move your queens back and forth to hit medivacs, block off chokes, chase off observers/overlords, etc...
Now--since you only have a 17 second rythm instead of a 40 second rythm, it suggests that BW is MUCH HARDER mathematically than SC2 since people already have a hard enough time maintaining injects. However, it also suggests that injects are not as easymode as most people make it out to be on this thread since it is the same mechanical design as macroing in BW.
I'm sorry that you did not see that when I said "Isn't BW macro just an inject every 17 seconds without hotkeys" and for some odd reason you interpreted that as me not wanting to talk about rallying drones. Because if you speak english as a second language, I can understand that despite me not talking about drones, rally points, or even zerg macro in general that you seem to think I was only comparing how SC2 zerg makes workers vs BW zerg. It must be because you don't understand english very well.
1. As stated, your purpose of stating no "hotkeys" is retarded and inapplicable.
2. Despite your feeble attempt to keep trying to state you didn't reference anything else, it is impossible to make the comparison you are trying to make without such references.
3. The answer is still no, they are not comparable, because you are punished more severely for not doing it in BW than SC2. This punishment (due to rally points) is entirely relevant to the difficulty of the macro.
4. In BW your hatcheries are not necessarily at expansions, considering you need macro hatches. Particularly in ZvT and ZvP (if Protoss does any build besides Forge FE), unless you are going for an aggressive 2 hatch build in one of these MUs.
At most you can try to say your more elaborated statement of "Zerg still consists of returning to your town hall to maintain economic production" is accurate, although that cannot be insinuated in the slightest by your original statement. At the same time, even after your clarification on something so irrelevant and unnecessary, BW macro is not an inject every 17 seconds because the consequences of failing the action is entirely different (due to rally points).
But yes, your very basic and extremely general point that it is a thoughtless task, just less demanding, is accurate. Just as muling is a thoughtless task as well.
EDIT: And while I'll still maintain it's nigh impossible to decipher what your true intention was behind your initial post that I should have caught on quicker in your subsequent posts. However, in the end, the above points still remain.
Its a general statement--of course it only has a general point!
The only thing that differs to them according to you is how punishing it is in BW--an aspect I did not bring up at all. The task is the same but somehow you would rather talk about the aspects outside of the actual act of macroing. You want to bring up how it is punishing, how rally points are blah de blah as if I posted some kind of thesis.
Unlike SC2 Terran and SC2 Toss Zerg actually *has* to come back to their base and do basic clicks in order for their macro to work just like you have to return to your base in BW. Stop being so defensive on the legitimacy of BW as if I'm insulting it. I was not insulting, no need to get upset.
The end result is not the same, that is the point. You're saying it's the same thing, if I tell one person that if they mess up they get a slap on the wrist, and if the other messes up they get the wrist amputated. The consequence is wholly relevant to the task. They are interrelated. You cannot separate them.
And no, Terran and Protoss still have to go back to their base to build pylons and supply depots while Zerg does not.
It has nothing to do with being defensive on the legitimacy of BW, but rather the utter ridiculousness of your post.
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."
Terran is not underpowered, in fact I would have to say T is the most OP race of them all but in order for you to use this race to its fullest you need UNHOLY mechanics and crazy APM
Terran just takes more skill then other races, that's what I think he is trying to say
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."
Terran is not underpowered, in fact I would have to say T is the most OP race of them all but in order for you to use this race to its fullest you need UNHOLY mechanics and crazy APM
Terran just takes more skill then other races, that's what I think he is trying to say
I am not sure about that. If we are talking about super human APM (2000+). I am sure speed ling bling can trade the best in the early game.
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."
Terran is not underpowered, in fact I would have to say T is the most OP race of them all but in order for you to use this race to its fullest you need UNHOLY mechanics and crazy APM
Terran just takes more skill then other races, that's what I think he is trying to say
I am not sure about that. If we are talking about super human APM (2000+). I am sure speed ling bling can trade the best in the early game.
I think the game would be very different were it to be balanced around people with 2000+ apm lol.
On February 07 2013 02:46 budar wrote: Remember how in beta/first half a year or so of WoL Terran was everywhere? Terran players back then used to say that "better players are playing Terran". In reality, Terran was too strong. Anyway, other players where whining that Terran was OP, much like Terran/Protoss are whining Zerg is OP now.
There is one thing that's pretty key here that I think is often overlooked. If you've been playing for months in high master, it will feel shitty/less fun playing in low master or even diamond (at least it did for me, though my "fall" was due to inactivity instead of balance changes). Now, many Terran players got a higher relative rating while Terran was strong and have steadily been losing ground on ladder ever since Terran was (over)nerfed. The same thing will happen to Zerg in HotS if the balance of powers is different... Many lower level Zergs (by that I mean all master and even many GM players) will lose interest or find the game less fun when their actual rating/league will be lower.
You can actually see this in the pro scene as well... Remember how many EU/NA Terran players used to be really dangerous in every tournament? So many of them have completely disappeared, many citing "motivation problems".
I remember Zerg winning the first two GSLs, Protoss wining the third.
I recall InControl, Machine, Huk, etc... doing really well in MLGs
I recall Tester being one of the most hyped players in the GSL
I recall Terran not winning anything in Korea until 2011 I recall GSTL being ruled by DRG
What do you recall?
As someone already pointed out, your memory is very selective...
In terms of GSL, it's really pointless to argue that it hasn't been Terran dominated in WoL - Terran was the most represented race in every single season until this last one (or maybe nearly every, don't really remember, but nor does it really matter) http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/index.php?title=File:GSLraceW.png&filetimestamp=20130113212912. Terran has most GSL championships, and most wins in various GOM-specials.
Early MLGs/foreign tournaments, do you remember Select, PainUser, Sjow, Tarson, Sarens or the Terran version of Morrow and TLO? And there were probably more, but I can't remember just this second... And no, to the guy that wrote that I'm "shitting on their results", that's not the case at all. The results you achieve never dissapear... heck, FruitDealer probably ranks his GSL#1 win as one of the biggest things in his life (and rightfully so). However, my point was that many Terran players used to base their play on things that subsequently got nerfed or people just learned to deal with them and that made them much worse. This effect also extends to the ladder. All this is obviously my opinion that I can't nor care to try to prove.
Anyway, back to your points... Tester was one of the most hyped players, yet never did anything. Remember Maka and Rainbow?
I already answered the GSL part... as far as GSTL, remember Bomber?
On February 07 2013 13:17 Scootaloo wrote: Good gods, so what if terran is a bit underpowered right now? Worst that will happen is that people will switch over or stop playing, y'know, like always happens when a certain race is underpowered for a while, I know the feeling is really new for you terrans, but it's not the end of the world.
Terran has been in the gutter for over a year...
Saying "get over it" is not a healthy way to keep a game alive and it shots with the loss of interest in SC2. Blizz has demonstrated their horrible balancing skills over and over again and I don't expect it to start picking up any time soon even with HoTS.
Terrans been in the gutter since May 2012, less than a year, and if MMA is anyone to go by the game is finally balanced again.
Did MMA say that on stream or something?
Said that in an interview with axiom/acer or something. I'll find it in a bit when i get back from work if someone else hasn't.
Ok thank you. I'll look for it myself
I personally think that SC2's balance is decent since last couple of infestor nerfs. I just hope we will have a balanced Ro8, why not even Ro4, for last WoL GSL to prove me right :D. We could even dodge the now traditional and expected ZvZ finals, one can dream.
There won't be. Theres only 1 Protoss in the ro16. Luckily its Parting who has nothing to do but practice for GSL. Anything but ro4 for Parting would be dodgy to me.
I agree, I wish that this level of balance was achieved about 2 seasons ago, so we would have a more diverse last GSL ever. In any event, here is the interview.
Interesting how a Zerg(Miya) says that David Kim can't balance a scale much less a complex game, and MMA at least admits Wings is closed to balanced now.
It's truly a shame that he didn't leave the game close to what it was in december 2011, when everything was pretty close to 50/50. While a very small buff to early game was needed for zerg, they overshot the mark something tragic.
Infestor/BL was still completely broken then. It just got less press.
On February 07 2013 13:23 tokicheese wrote: [quote] Terran has been in the gutter for over a year...
Saying "get over it" is not a healthy way to keep a game alive and it shots with the loss of interest in SC2. Blizz has demonstrated their horrible balancing skills over and over again and I don't expect it to start picking up any time soon even with HoTS.
Terrans been in the gutter since May 2012, less than a year, and if MMA is anyone to go by the game is finally balanced again.
Did MMA say that on stream or something?
Said that in an interview with axiom/acer or something. I'll find it in a bit when i get back from work if someone else hasn't.
Ok thank you. I'll look for it myself
I personally think that SC2's balance is decent since last couple of infestor nerfs. I just hope we will have a balanced Ro8, why not even Ro4, for last WoL GSL to prove me right :D. We could even dodge the now traditional and expected ZvZ finals, one can dream.
There won't be. Theres only 1 Protoss in the ro16. Luckily its Parting who has nothing to do but practice for GSL. Anything but ro4 for Parting would be dodgy to me.
I agree, I wish that this level of balance was achieved about 2 seasons ago, so we would have a more diverse last GSL ever. In any event, here is the interview.
Interesting how a Zerg(Miya) says that David Kim can't balance a scale much less a complex game, and MMA at least admits Wings is closed to balanced now.
It's truly a shame that he didn't leave the game close to what it was in december 2011, when everything was pretty close to 50/50. While a very small buff to early game was needed for zerg, they overshot the mark something tragic.
Infestor/BL was still completely broken then. It just got less press.
Infestor/bl was much closer to battlecruiser raven tbh. Unbeatable, but oh so hard to get to.
On February 07 2013 14:05 bo1b wrote: [quote] Terrans been in the gutter since May 2012, less than a year, and if MMA is anyone to go by the game is finally balanced again.
Did MMA say that on stream or something?
Said that in an interview with axiom/acer or something. I'll find it in a bit when i get back from work if someone else hasn't.
Ok thank you. I'll look for it myself
I personally think that SC2's balance is decent since last couple of infestor nerfs. I just hope we will have a balanced Ro8, why not even Ro4, for last WoL GSL to prove me right :D. We could even dodge the now traditional and expected ZvZ finals, one can dream.
There won't be. Theres only 1 Protoss in the ro16. Luckily its Parting who has nothing to do but practice for GSL. Anything but ro4 for Parting would be dodgy to me.
I agree, I wish that this level of balance was achieved about 2 seasons ago, so we would have a more diverse last GSL ever. In any event, here is the interview.
Interesting how a Zerg(Miya) says that David Kim can't balance a scale much less a complex game, and MMA at least admits Wings is closed to balanced now.
It's truly a shame that he didn't leave the game close to what it was in december 2011, when everything was pretty close to 50/50. While a very small buff to early game was needed for zerg, they overshot the mark something tragic.
Infestor/BL was still completely broken then. It just got less press.
Infestor/bl was much closer to battlecruiser raven tbh. Unbeatable, but oh so hard to get to.
Sort of, but not exactly. Part of the reason Infestor/BL was so broken was because of the pre-nerf Infestor. The situation isn't the same in that you can't write pre-nerf BL/Infestor off as "it's okay as long as queens have 3 range".
I dont buy it. If a person is only playing terran, how will he/she know it is more mechanically difficult to play terran as opposed to the other races (at lower levels)? Do you think terran players are discouraged when they study replays and apm and compare playstyles and critical descisions during a lost game? Auto matchmaking should result in 1:1 win:loss rate no matter what style you are using.
Instead of the self-flattering and illogical "its so mechanically demanding at my level" (which might or might not be true, its just not a good explanation), a more reasonable explanation is to look at how the game plays. If low level terran players feel like they cannot choose when the engage happens, and they feel they have little control over the outcome, it might be less enjoyable (even if they win/lose 1:1). Compared to how much better it feels to do all ins (where you do decide when the engage happens), sometimes crushing all opposition, its not strange if people tend to gravitate towards all ins, which is more boring in general (less dynamic matches) and then switch race or stop playing.
Or maybe its just that people write posts about how up terran is at lower levels.
@KrosuZorg - I think at lower levels people are more discouraged by how unforgiving terran is. They study the replay, they see they have lead, they win one engagement, than second than third ... and than die to few banes / fungals and get a-moved by lings. Same goes for losing to two storms.
On February 07 2013 19:49 crow_mw wrote: @KrosuZorg - I think at lower levels people are more discouraged by how unforgiving terran is. They study the replay, they see they have lead, they win one engagement, than second than third ... and than die to few banes / fungals and get a-moved by lings. Same goes for losing to two storms.
If anything terran is more forgiving at lower levels lol.
Terran is kind of vanilla and boring. Terran units are similar to contemporary military equipment. Protoss and Zerg feel more sci-fi and less like battlefield 1942. Maybe that's why they are more popular.
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."
Terran is not underpowered, in fact I would have to say T is the most OP race of them all but in order for you to use this race to its fullest you need UNHOLY mechanics and crazy APM
Terran just takes more skill then other races, that's what I think he is trying to say
Yeah, people were saying the exact same thing about zerg a while ago, so I'm not really convinced it's true this time.
On February 07 2013 14:32 Wingblade wrote: On the last episode of thePulse from NASL in part 4, the second half of that discusses the January winrates in Korea, with this to say about the TvP winrates in Korea. Gretorp: "And in TvP?" Frodan: "Terran wins over 50 percent, 54 percent. So Terrans are beating Protoss." This is in Korea.
Yeah, I think Terran is generally favored in TvP if they can end the game or get a significant lead before 15 minutes or so. If Protoss and Terran enter the 15+ minute mark on even footing though, it becomes insanely hard for Terran to win. Thankfully doing damage / punishing greedy Protoss is a lot easier than doing the same vZ.
Currently in HotS, Terran is terrible early game vs protoss. Protoss has a shit ton amount of new all-ins and early game harass options thanks to the DT buff and the oracle. The mothership core can easily deny early game pushes like the two-rax and help defend from drop play with the time warp. Terrans, on the other hand, are left with hellbat drops.
Good. That's exactly what has to happen. A huge problem with Protoss is that they are incredibly predictable.
On February 07 2013 14:32 Wingblade wrote: On the last episode of thePulse from NASL in part 4, the second half of that discusses the January winrates in Korea, with this to say about the TvP winrates in Korea. Gretorp: "And in TvP?" Frodan: "Terran wins over 50 percent, 54 percent. So Terrans are beating Protoss." This is in Korea.
Yeah, I think Terran is generally favored in TvP if they can end the game or get a significant lead before 15 minutes or so. If Protoss and Terran enter the 15+ minute mark on even footing though, it becomes insanely hard for Terran to win. Thankfully doing damage / punishing greedy Protoss is a lot easier than doing the same vZ.
Currently in HotS, Terran is terrible early game vs protoss. Protoss has a shit ton amount of new all-ins and early game harass options thanks to the DT buff and the oracle. The mothership core can easily deny early game pushes like the two-rax and help defend from drop play with the time warp. Terrans, on the other hand, are left with hellbat drops.
Good. That's exactly what has to happen. A huge problem with Protoss is that they are incredibly predictable.
The flipside to that is that Terran has a lot more options late game now. Ravens are better, BC's are now a viable option that I've seen pros use, and the medivac upgrades make medivacs very strong. Even more important for Terran is that they now are completely unpredicatble it seems, so many things come out of 1 fact that predicting their next move is a lot harder, making the game more exciting to watch. I definitely don't think terran is screwed past 15 though.
On February 07 2013 14:32 Wingblade wrote: On the last episode of thePulse from NASL in part 4, the second half of that discusses the January winrates in Korea, with this to say about the TvP winrates in Korea. Gretorp: "And in TvP?" Frodan: "Terran wins over 50 percent, 54 percent. So Terrans are beating Protoss." This is in Korea.
Yeah, I think Terran is generally favored in TvP if they can end the game or get a significant lead before 15 minutes or so. If Protoss and Terran enter the 15+ minute mark on even footing though, it becomes insanely hard for Terran to win. Thankfully doing damage / punishing greedy Protoss is a lot easier than doing the same vZ.
Currently in HotS, Terran is terrible early game vs protoss. Protoss has a shit ton amount of new all-ins and early game harass options thanks to the DT buff and the oracle. The mothership core can easily deny early game pushes like the two-rax and help defend from drop play with the time warp. Terrans, on the other hand, are left with hellbat drops.
Good. That's exactly what has to happen. A huge problem with Protoss is that they are incredibly predictable.
The flipside to that is that Terran has a lot more options late game now. Ravens are better, BC's are now a viable option that I've seen pros use, and the medivac upgrades make medivacs very strong. Even more important for Terran is that they now are completely unpredicatble it seems, so many things come out of 1 fact that predicting their next move is a lot harder, making the game more exciting to watch. I definitely don't think terran is screwed past 15 though.
Terran was never screwed past 15 in WoL. Terran was very weak between 15-20 when their ghost count was low but now were seeing late game engagements that go in Terrans favor because of carpet EMPs when the Terran gets a double digit ghost count. There's no way to avoid the EMPs or prevent them from happening. If the Terran lets 10-15 ghosts get feedbacked then he deserves to lose.
On February 07 2013 13:31 Scootaloo wrote: For instance, to take the first balance argument in his post, basically a whine about how protoss is OP because they can warp and terran can't, completely forgetting that protoss warpgate units are weaker to compensate for this.
Funny how you call me idiot while you completely missed the point; not once in my post did I say that Protoss was “OP” because of Warpgate. I said that the production asymmetry makes Protoss more forgiving than Terran, because in lategame (not only in lategame actually, but this is the phase in which the issue is the most obvious) Protoss usually gets several chances while Terran rarely has a second opportunity.
Protoss Warpgate units are weaker? Weaker than what? Weaker than what they could be if Warpgate did not exist? Sure, but it does not matter since this would be another game; it's like saying, “Oh, Marines and Hellions would have to be weaker if Terran could produce them 3 at a time with Reactors”. Yep, but it's irrelevant, because the units' statistics are supposed to match their “producibility” and thus are (supposed to be) centered around the current production factors, i. e. Warpgate being available the whole game after you search it and Reactors doubling, not tripling the production.
Or maybe you're referring to the common fallacy that “Gateway units are weak,” full stop?
If Gateway units are weak why do Terrans need to make 3 Bunkers against 4/5g pressure to barely survive? If Gateway units are weak why is it a common sight to see 6/7g bulldoze their way through 4-5 Bunkers like it's no problem? Why does a build like 1 gate double expand → 8g even exist? If Gateway units are weak why do players like PartinG sometimes play full Gateway (except Observers but let us admit they don't have tremendous dps), not even starting Colossi before their fourth? Surely Terrans should be able to bash such a shameful weakness? Or maybe PartinG is clueless and does not understand what the average joe knows since 2010, that “Gateway units are weak because of Warpgate” (so play Stargate I guess?).
Just because the efficiency of unupgraded Zealots/Stalkers/Sentries drastically decreases when Terran gets critical mass of MMM does not mean they're “weak;” it means superior technology prevails, which is working as intended (strongly baiting the “lol but then why Terrans still win with tier1 Mariners since 2010” idiotic argument here, please come and get some). By the way Archons and HTs are Gateway units too and they're not weak at all, Charge Zealots are very strong (insanely strong with the upgrade advantage, which occurs very often in midgame) and Blink Stalkers provide great utility; just because they lack the raw dps of other units does not make them “weak” at all. Dark Templars are very weak in direct fights but we know they have other uses.
On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote: The biggest problem I had in what he said is he just pointed out the fundamentals of Zerg and Protoss and used very specific pro game examples to prove that Protoss and Zerg are forgiving.
The ability to repair or lift buildings is not meaningless but doesn't shape the game in the same way as Zerg being able to produce 5, 10, 15, 26 Drones at once while the other races can usually produce 3 workers simultaneously at most, or Protoss being able to produce Gateway units anywhere as long as they have Psi there. The Broodlords/Infestors issue exists because of Zerg's production while Battlecruisers/Ravens is seen maybe 1 out of 500 games (statistics courtesy of rdmstats.net) precisely because of Terran's production. Terran and Protoss have armies which can challenge Broodlords/Corruptors/Infestors, but it barely matters because it takes 10 extra minuts and expensive infrastructure to get them while Broodlords can knock at your door at 16' – 17'.
On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote: The same thing can be done for Terran. I can't count the number of times Terran got behind and they pulled SCVs and were able to pull off a victory because of mules (Tear vs Yoda is the most recent example I can think of).
You mean the Icarus game in which YoDa has to overcommit to defend Immortal pressure, then is forced to all-in because meanwhile Tear took his third and teched hard, and only succeeds because Tear eagerly throws himself into the battle instead of stalling if only 30 seconds and auto-winning?
Yes MULEs are stupid. It's dumb that a race can have a decent income, even if only temporarily, while having virtually no workers. But why do MULEs exist? Production asymmetry once again.
On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote: How about in the early game were 1 misplaced queen/spine crawler/evo chamber can mean game over?
Really? First, Zerg doesn't lose because a 4 Hellions runby kills 7-8 Drones; second this is not race-specific since Terran misplacing/not raising a wall can lose to Zergling raids too, and Protoss can lose with FFE against Zerg too if their wall is not complete (HerO vs Targa, Cloud Kingdom, Dreamhack Valencia 2012).
On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote: What about supply drops?
Ah, supply blocks.
When you get supply blocked as Zerg it hurts, but larvae are still there after the supply block is ended and Overlords take 25 seconds; plus you can make them without watching your base.
When you get supply blocked as Protoss it hurts, but at least you can instantly have a round of warp-ins once the supply block is gone, and units are expensive so assuming you don't lack Gateways you can quickly deplete any banked resources; Protoss' production is not as regular as Terran's cycles-wise. Pylons take 25 seconds.
When you get supply blocked as Terran it hurts the most because your production has to be constant and regular to be optimal; plus Supply depots take 30 seconds, and Terran's production punishes banking (you can queue units but it does not solve the problem of your delayed cycles of production, it just artificially lowers the resources displayed). Assuming you have 50 energy at that moment with one of your OCs you can use a Supply drop, true, but of course this is suboptimal compared to using a MULE, and your production cycles are still messed up if they take more than 8 supply.
On February 07 2013 14:02 ZenithM wrote: I mostly agree, but be careful when citing Lings of Liberty. It's a weird fake pseudo-reverse anti-balance whine thing (that is to say that nobody knows if it's full-on trolling or not, because some parts are reasonable and others are ridiculous). The article drew out massive Terran complains and agreeing nods, while mods and power users were mocking them for not understanding the "humor". Really a trash OP if I ever saw one, but nobody could say so because the guy who posted is apparently also a mod/power user. In short, Terran agreed, Zergs tried to defend themselves, and mods were like "Hahaha, dumbasses, you got trolled, Ver is so funny, hahaha". Not a very good source.
I was referring to the analytical parts about Zerg, which are spot-on; though satirical, the article was definitely not 100% trolling (see here).
On February 07 2013 14:32 Wingblade wrote: On the last episode of thePulse from NASL in part 4, the second half of that discusses the January winrates in Korea, with this to say about the TvP winrates in Korea. Gretorp: "And in TvP?" Frodan: "Terran wins over 50 percent, 54 percent. So Terrans are beating Protoss." This is in Korea.
Yeah, I think Terran is generally favored in TvP if they can end the game or get a significant lead before 15 minutes or so. If Protoss and Terran enter the 15+ minute mark on even footing though, it becomes insanely hard for Terran to win. Thankfully doing damage / punishing greedy Protoss is a lot easier than doing the same vZ.
Currently in HotS, Terran is terrible early game vs protoss. Protoss has a shit ton amount of new all-ins and early game harass options thanks to the DT buff and the oracle. The mothership core can easily deny early game pushes like the two-rax and help defend from drop play with the time warp. Terrans, on the other hand, are left with hellbat drops.
Good. That's exactly what has to happen. A huge problem with Protoss is that they are incredibly predictable.
The flipside to that is that Terran has a lot more options late game now. Ravens are better, BC's are now a viable option that I've seen pros use, and the medivac upgrades make medivacs very strong. Even more important for Terran is that they now are completely unpredicatble it seems, so many things come out of 1 fact that predicting their next move is a lot harder, making the game more exciting to watch. I definitely don't think terran is screwed past 15 though.
Huh? BCs are effectively heavily nerfed in HotS compared to WoL vs toss. And medivac upgrades? You mean the emergency thrusters or however they call it now. Nice but not earth shattering late game.
I agree that warpgate units are super strong. Zealots with charge is really strong. And you can warp them anywhere given pylon is placed. I do not agree that warpgate units are weaker than barracks units. There are plenty of players (as TheDwf pointed out) that use warpgate units far into late game. But they still win. 3 Bunkers is not enough at all.
On February 07 2013 14:02 ZenithM wrote: I mostly agree, but be careful when citing Lings of Liberty. It's a weird fake pseudo-reverse anti-balance whine thing (that is to say that nobody knows if it's full-on trolling or not, because some parts are reasonable and others are ridiculous). The article drew out massive Terran complains and agreeing nods, while mods and power users were mocking them for not understanding the "humor". Really a trash OP if I ever saw one, but nobody could say so because the guy who posted is apparently also a mod/power user. In short, Terran agreed, Zergs tried to defend themselves, and mods were like "Hahaha, dumbasses, you got trolled, Ver is so funny, hahaha". Not a very good source.
I was referring to the analytical parts about Zerg, which are spot-on; though satirical, the article was definitely not 100% trolling (see here).
Nice to see that he clarified his position at least. I wasn't very sure, because higher ups were roughly calling it a hilarious trolling post. But yeah, some parts were a bit too true
When I play terran I do follow the Blizzard path (i.e. "Terran has to do damage early/mid game").
I find PvT pretty cool - I usually put some heavy pressure (2rax marauder expand) and try to see what happens.
In most cases the P goes for some early expansion and then it is down to micro - depending on how good P's control is he can either die horribly or shut down my attack completely and win himself the game.
Most likely the game goes on - either into macro mode or some kind of toss 1-base counter all-in (warpgate, 5g zealot-archon, DTs, 3g robo etc). The counter is pretty strong and I often lose to it, but it is fine. I have the feeling that if I defend correctly I may just as well hold.
The bottom line is: the early-pressure applied does affect the flow and the outcome of the game. This means that by playing my way I can delay the dreaded terran vs AoE phase of the game for a couple of minutes and have some more fun. And this is a good thing.
When I play vs zerg I feel hopeless - the things I do just do not matter. Free scouting, queen-based defence, spines+transfuse - all of this make the games rather stupid. I just don't get that feeling that tells me: "ok, it is the time to micro our hearts out and the better man will come out ahead". Contrary, I have a feeling that zergies do have a pretty much perfect composition against anything I can throw at them early game. The only option I have is to attack and wait for the Z to screw up. Sometimes it works, most times it fails - either one does not feel really satisfactory.
I have bad feelings about Terran and HotS - I'm afraid that PvT will become just like ZvT - there will be no reasonable way of stopping down the tech and economy and the late game will be just remain an AoE fest as it is now.
I don't like the idea of a macro-based turtle terran, building up a late-game army that can be barely controlled well enough not to die to mass AoE. Add to that non-existent comeback potential for some more frustration. And I'm afraid this is the way we're heading.
If it goes this way I'll switch... or just as well it may mean bye-bye starcraft.
I think people should learn a lot about the history of broodwar and starcraft 2 before writing such posts (or any other related to balance issues).
Starcraft Broodwar was considered imbalanced for a long time untill players found ways to simply simplyfy the answer to those imbalances, therefore making the game more balanced ( This does not mean each race requires the same set of mind and skill but rather that each race required a certain way to play).
Even today, broodawr is belived to be imbalanced, but there have been figured out so many ways to tip those into your own favour or the other way around, that an "imbalanced" strategy is now more considered a form of cheese (since its abused and very good players deal with it relativly easy).
Sc2 is harder in this regard (balance) since 2 much of the game is made more automatic, meaning that higher skill does not translate as well as it did in broodwar where the units AI was significantly worse.
In Starcraft 2, no ammount of micro will maange to kill 3 immortals with 6 stalkers (unless your opponened dosent micro at all), where as in broodwar, 5 dragoons could ver well beat 4 siege tanks if they were caught unsiged at the rigth moment (same happens to siege tanks in sc2, but those who played both games, know the mechanic is far different).
Eventually, one race will settle itself over the rest for a longer period of time (over 1 year of non stop winning 80% of all RO32 qualifiers) and thats when we know we need to change something.
If you remember the GSL from its 1st edition, you will know that the race domination has been changsing all the time, just it takes more time now since less things are to be found out (any of you remmber how Morrow played reapers vs zerg?! Try that now vs a Top Tier Zerg....).
The main issue i have with sc2 is that the unit counters are way too heavy, making build order wins or loss the most common result. I personally dont want to play a game where games could be based upon getting lucky, or where playing vs a maphacker (a good player and maphacker as well i mean), will get you almsot an automatic loss.
This is the main reason i keep playing broodwar as my "challenge game" and sc2 as my team games for having fun when im tired.
Please bare in mind this is my view, not a fact, so dont get angry if you dont see things the same way, just means we are not alike .
On February 07 2013 13:31 Scootaloo wrote: For instance, to take the first balance argument in his post, basically a whine about how protoss is OP because they can warp and terran can't, completely forgetting that protoss warpgate units are weaker to compensate for this.
Funny how you call me idiot while you completely missed the point; not once in my post did I say that Protoss was “OP” because of Warpgate. I said that the production asymmetry makes Protoss more forgiving than Terran, because in lategame (not only in lategame actually, but this is the phase in which the issue is the most obvious) Protoss usually gets several chances while Terran rarely has a second opportunity.
Protoss Warpgate units are weaker? Weaker than what? Weaker than what they could be if Warpgate did not exist? Sure, but it does not matter since this would be another game; it's like saying, “Oh, Marines and Hellions would have to be weaker if Terran could produce them 3 at a time with Reactors”. Yep, but it's irrelevant, because the units' statistics are supposed to match their “producibility” and thus are (supposed to be) centered around the current production factors, i. e. Warpgate being available the whole game after you search it and Reactors doubling, not tripling the production.
Or maybe you're referring to the common fallacy that “Gateway units are weak,” full stop?
If Gateway units are weak why do Terrans need to make 3 Bunkers against 4/5g pressure to barely survive? If Gateway units are weak why is it a common sight to see 6/7g bulldoze their way through 4-5 Bunkers like it's no problem? Why does a build like 1 gate double expand → 8g even exist? If Gateway units are weak why do players like PartinG sometimes play full Gateway (except Observers but let us admit they don't have tremendous dps), not even starting Colossi before their fourth? Surely Terrans should be able to bash such a shameful weakness? Or maybe PartinG is clueless and does not understand what the average joe knows since 2010, that “Gateway units are weak because of Warpgate” (so play Stargate I guess?).
Just because the efficiency of unupgraded Zealots/Stalkers/Sentries drastically decreases when Terran gets critical mass of MMM does not mean they're “weak;” it means superior technology prevails, which is working as intended (strongly baiting the “lol but then why Terrans still win with tier1 Mariners since 2010” idiotic argument here, please come and get some). By the way Archons and HTs are Gateway units too and they're not weak at all, Charge Zealots are very strong (insanely strong with the upgrade advantage, which occurs very often in midgame) and Blink Stalkers provide great utility; just because they lack the raw dps of other units does not make them “weak” at all. Dark Templars are very weak in direct fights but we know they have other uses.
Holy shit, are you actually this stupid? You might not have literally stated protoss was OP because of warpgate, but you did make a long list of all the reasons you think protoss is better then terran, or as we call it, a balance whine. I make an entire post about how the whole balance discussion means nothing because none of the examples given by either side of the argument proclude eachother. And what you respond to is the example I give to show how incredibly stupid and unconstructive balance discussions actually are, and treat it like it's a balance argument.
Bravo, major godamn bravo for so epically missing the point.
I'll try one more time, in the hope you understand what I'm getting at, and if you don't, god help you.
Let's take your argument of
"If Gateway units are weak why do Terrans need to make 3 Bunkers against 4/5g pressure to barely survive?If Gateway units are weak why is it a common sight to see 6/7g bulldoze their way through 4-5 Bunkers like it's no problem? Why does a build like 1 gate double expand → 8g even exist?"
What this paragraph tries to do is prove warpgate units are actually really strong because it is used in push x, y and z and player A uses them a lot. This completely misses the obvious counters that the warpgate function is the reason the pushes work, that player A might have extreme experience with these tactics due a proffesional training schedule.
Ok, now, before you go frothing at the mouth again, I am not trying to prove these things I just said are true, quite frankly, I don't give a shit. I'm trying to show you that just like your reply just now did not invalidate my earlier claim (which, again, was not even to be taken seriously), my claims here don't invalidate your arguments, they can both be true, and at the end of the day say nothing meaningfull about balance.
These "Proofs" you're giving are not proof of jack shit, just your personal perception of the game, hence why these discussions are always such massive clusterfucks and get closed quickly, I have no idea why mods havn't jumped on it yet, if it was a zerg or toss balance whine thread it would've been closed weeks ago.
Also, as we've learned from earlier imbalance, Blizzard doesn't use forumposts to balance, they have their own statistics for that, and guess what, they don't show this imbalance you keep crying about, in Korea terran is actually winning 54% of it's TvP's.
But whatever, if you wanna keep raging about how your losses must be due to imbalance, be my guest, try not to pop a fuse.
Edit: God, how did I miss this gem:
On February 07 2013 16:51 run.at.me wrote: You know what's funny my brother wrote this thread and has never played random only Terran. He whines imba everyday, I'm actually impressed and proud at his ability to troll hundreds of people into a balance discussion.
On February 07 2013 13:31 Scootaloo wrote: For instance, to take the first balance argument in his post, basically a whine about how protoss is OP because they can warp and terran can't, completely forgetting that protoss warpgate units are weaker to compensate for this.
Funny how you call me idiot while you completely missed the point; not once in my post did I say that Protoss was “OP” because of Warpgate. I said that the production asymmetry makes Protoss more forgiving than Terran, because in lategame (not only in lategame actually, but this is the phase in which the issue is the most obvious) Protoss usually gets several chances while Terran rarely has a second opportunity.
Protoss Warpgate units are weaker? Weaker than what? Weaker than what they could be if Warpgate did not exist? Sure, but it does not matter since this would be another game; it's like saying, “Oh, Marines and Hellions would have to be weaker if Terran could produce them 3 at a time with Reactors”. Yep, but it's irrelevant, because the units' statistics are supposed to match their “producibility” and thus are (supposed to be) centered around the current production factors, i. e. Warpgate being available the whole game after you search it and Reactors doubling, not tripling the production.
Or maybe you're referring to the common fallacy that “Gateway units are weak,” full stop?
If Gateway units are weak why do Terrans need to make 3 Bunkers against 4/5g pressure to barely survive? If Gateway units are weak why is it a common sight to see 6/7g bulldoze their way through 4-5 Bunkers like it's no problem? Why does a build like 1 gate double expand → 8g even exist? If Gateway units are weak why do players like PartinG sometimes play full Gateway (except Observers but let us admit they don't have tremendous dps), not even starting Colossi before their fourth? Surely Terrans should be able to bash such a shameful weakness? Or maybe PartinG is clueless and does not understand what the average joe knows since 2010, that “Gateway units are weak because of Warpgate” (so play Stargate I guess?).
Just because the efficiency of unupgraded Zealots/Stalkers/Sentries drastically decreases when Terran gets critical mass of MMM does not mean they're “weak;” it means superior technology prevails, which is working as intended (strongly baiting the “lol but then why Terrans still win with tier1 Mariners since 2010” idiotic argument here, please come and get some). By the way Archons and HTs are Gateway units too and they're not weak at all, Charge Zealots are very strong (insanely strong with the upgrade advantage, which occurs very often in midgame) and Blink Stalkers provide great utility; just because they lack the raw dps of other units does not make them “weak” at all. Dark Templars are very weak in direct fights but we know they have other uses.
On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote: The biggest problem I had in what he said is he just pointed out the fundamentals of Zerg and Protoss and used very specific pro game examples to prove that Protoss and Zerg are forgiving.
The ability to repair or lift buildings is not meaningless but doesn't shape the game in the same way as Zerg being able to produce 5, 10, 15, 26 Drones at once while the other races can usually produce 3 workers simultaneously at most, or Protoss being able to produce Gateway units anywhere as long as they have Psi there. The Broodlords/Infestors issue exists because of Zerg's production while Battlecruisers/Ravens is seen maybe 1 out of 500 games (statistics courtesy of rdmstats.net) precisely because of Terran's production. Terran and Protoss have armies which can challenge Broodlords/Corruptors/Infestors, but it barely matters because it takes 10 extra minuts and expensive infrastructure to get them while Broodlords can knock at your door at 16' – 17'.
On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote: The same thing can be done for Terran. I can't count the number of times Terran got behind and they pulled SCVs and were able to pull off a victory because of mules (Tear vs Yoda is the most recent example I can think of).
You mean the Icarus game in which YoDa has to overcommit to defend Immortal pressure, then is forced to all-in because meanwhile Tear took his third and teched hard, and only succeeds because Tear eagerly throws himself into the battle instead of stalling if only 30 seconds and auto-winning?
Yes MULEs are stupid. It's dumb that a race can have a decent income, even if only temporarily, while having virtually no workers. But why do MULEs exist? Production asymmetry once again.
On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote: How about in the early game were 1 misplaced queen/spine crawler/evo chamber can mean game over?
Really? First, Zerg doesn't lose because a 4 Hellions runby kills 7-8 Drones; second this is not race-specific since Terran misplacing/not raising a wall can lose to Zergling raids too, and Protoss can lose with FFE against Zerg too if their wall is not complete (HerO vs Targa, Cloud Kingdom, Dreamhack Valencia 2012).
On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote: What about supply drops?
Ah, supply blocks.
When you get supply blocked as Zerg it hurts, but larvae are still there after the supply block is ended and Overlords take 25 seconds; plus you can make them without watching your base.
When you get supply blocked as Protoss it hurts, but at least you can instantly have a round of warp-ins once the supply block is gone, and units are expensive so assuming you don't lack Gateways you can quickly deplete any banked resources; Protoss' production is not as regular as Terran's cycles-wise. Pylons take 25 seconds.
When you get supply blocked as Terran it hurts the most because your production has to be constant and regular to be optimal; plus Supply depots take 30 seconds, and Terran's production punishes banking (you can queue units but it does not solve the problem of your delayed cycles of production, it just artificially lowers the resources displayed). Assuming you have 50 energy at that moment with one of your OCs you can use a Supply drop, true, but of course this is suboptimal compared to using a MULE, and your production cycles are still messed up if they take more than 8 supply.
On February 07 2013 14:02 ZenithM wrote: I mostly agree, but be careful when citing Lings of Liberty. It's a weird fake pseudo-reverse anti-balance whine thing (that is to say that nobody knows if it's full-on trolling or not, because some parts are reasonable and others are ridiculous). The article drew out massive Terran complains and agreeing nods, while mods and power users were mocking them for not understanding the "humor". Really a trash OP if I ever saw one, but nobody could say so because the guy who posted is apparently also a mod/power user. In short, Terran agreed, Zergs tried to defend themselves, and mods were like "Hahaha, dumbasses, you got trolled, Ver is so funny, hahaha". Not a very good source.
I was referring to the analytical parts about Zerg, which are spot-on; though satirical, the article was definitely not 100% trolling (see here).
Your argument about Terran having to build all those bunkers is extremely flawed because a Protoss who invests into 4/5g pressure has vastly superior production to a Terran player teching in a standard fashion. Most of the time those three bunkers are barely filled at all so that you have 12-16 marines fighting against 12-16 Protoss gateway units and still holding. It's not becuase Protoss gateway units are good, its because there's so many more of them. Likewise with a six or seven gate all-in, its an all-in and the Protoss has to overwhelm with production at a specific timing, or they lose the game to MMM. That's also why you sometime see Terran instantly sac their natural, wait at the top of their ramp for stim + medivacs, move out and crush the unupgraded Protoss.
Protoss gateway units are bad, but those pressures work simply because Protoss builds the extra production to simply overwhelm the unupgraded bio in small numbers.
On February 08 2013 01:24 CCa1ss1e wrote: brood war imbalanced? ok...
Brood war was balanced by maps mainly. If you think BW was balanced on all maps, then I don't know what to say.
vouch. just think of maps like tears of the moon or battle royale. or think of lost temple 3 o'clock T vs 12 o'clock Z.....
the reason bw could be balanced by mapmakers, however, was that no more balance patches came from blizzard and that the core mechanics of the game were balanced enough on a wide enough range of maps.
in sc2, by contrast, a perfectly fine tvz matchup was completely flipped on its head and pushed into imbalance by the queen range buff. and here again, the mere fact that this little change could have such an impact on the game is a sign that the core mechanics of sc2 are not yet balanced enough to leave the balancing job to mapmakers.
On February 08 2013 01:21 iloveav wrote: The main issue i have with sc2 is that the unit counters are way too heavy, making build order wins or loss the most common result.
While I agree a 100% with the former I think the latter is a huge overexaggeration. nevertheless, I do wish sc2 was a bit less about units hard countering each other.
On February 08 2013 00:11 llIH wrote: I agree that warpgate units are super strong. Zealots with charge is really strong. And you can warp them anywhere given pylon is placed. I do not agree that warpgate units are weaker than barracks units. There are plenty of players (as TheDwf pointed out) that use warpgate units far into late game. But they still win. 3 Bunkers is not enough at all.
This post, killed my soul(Idra quote ftw). Zealots can't simply be endlessly cited by conc shells anymore? Working as intended.
Then you state that warpgate units are used well into the lategame. You mean my T1 upgraded units can be used lategame just like Terran marines and zerglings? Working as intended.
Your last sentence is completely out of place and has no context. What isnt three bunkers enough to do? There's no context in your post but based on what I've read from other I assume your talking about gateway allins. Vastly superior Protoss production which is building more expensive units in higher numbers beats unupgraded bio in a small timing window before the bio gets stim pack? Working as intended.
On February 08 2013 01:47 Wingblade wrote: Your argument about Terran having to build all those bunkers is extremely flawed because a Protoss who invests into 4/5g pressure has vastly superior production to a Terran player teching in a standard fashion. Most of the time those three bunkers are barely filled at all so that you have 12-16 marines fighting against 12-16 Protoss gateway units and still holding. It's not becuase Protoss gateway units are good, its because there's so many more of them. Likewise with a six or seven gate all-in, its an all-in and the Protoss has to overwhelm with production at a specific timing, or they lose the game to MMM. That's also why you sometime see Terran instantly sac their natural, wait at the top of their ramp for stim + medivacs, move out and crush the unupgraded Protoss.
Protoss gateway units are bad, but those pressures work simply because Protoss builds the extra production to simply overwhelm the unupgraded bio in small numbers.
This means they are good enough. They are good enough to hold off any aggression T can throw at P in a defensive stance. Also, if the toss chooses to be aggressive he has a fair number of options. I have seen countless games where pro players died to things like 3-gate pressure, 1-gate-expand-into-4gate attack, 6/7-gate and the like.
Yes, these if you fail a heavy gateway attack you are behind or dead. Yes, in some cases they need to do a ton of damage - but guess what. That is something you must factor in when you are playing aggressively.
I just can't see how good should an unit be so that a failed heavy pressure (or a failed all-in) does not put you behind.
On February 08 2013 01:21 iloveav wrote: The main issue i have with sc2 is that the unit counters are way too heavy, making build order wins or loss the most common result.
While I agree a 100% with the former I think the latter is a huge overexaggeration. nevertheless, I do wish sc2 was a bit less about units hard countering each other.
This is more to do with smooth AI than unit design.
Lots of heavy counters in BW too--but good luck getting them up the ramp.
On February 08 2013 01:24 CCa1ss1e wrote: brood war imbalanced? ok...
BW was heavily imbalanced for quite some times and it relied on new strategies from players to innovate a match-up (Bisu build in PvZ for example) and good maps to help balance the strengths and weaknesses of each race.
On February 08 2013 01:24 CCa1ss1e wrote: brood war imbalanced? ok...
Brood war was balanced by maps mainly. If you think BW was balanced on all maps, then I don't know what to say.
vouch. just think of maps like tears of the moon or battle royale. or think of lost temple 3 o'clock T vs 12 o'clock Z.....
the reason bw could be balanced by mapmakers, however, was that no more balance patches came from blizzard and that the core mechanics of the game were balanced enough on a wide enough range of maps.
in sc2, by contrast, a perfectly fine tvz matchup was completely flipped on its head and pushed into imbalance by the queen range buff. and here again, the mere fact that this little change could have such an impact on the game is a sign that the core mechanics of sc2 are not yet balanced enough to leave the balancing job to mapmakers.
The queen patch was not a 'little' change.
OL speed meant faster scouting which led to more 'Eco' builds.
Queens led to less army being produce which lead to more drones. The range also allowed more creep spread which allowed more map control and vision.
If you think the queen patch was a minor change. Please try to play with marine range +2. A 2 rax would dominate most Zerg builds.
On February 08 2013 00:11 llIH wrote: I agree that warpgate units are super strong. Zealots with charge is really strong. And you can warp them anywhere given pylon is placed. I do not agree that warpgate units are weaker than barracks units. There are plenty of players (as TheDwf pointed out) that use warpgate units far into late game. But they still win. 3 Bunkers is not enough at all.
This post, killed my soul(Idra quote ftw). Zealots can't simply be endlessly cited by conc shells anymore? Working as intended.
Then you state that warpgate units are used well into the lategame. You mean my T1 upgraded units can be used lategame just like Terran marines and zerglings? Working as intended.
Your last sentence is completely out of place and has no context. What isnt three bunkers enough to do? There's no context in your post but based on what I've read from other I assume your talking about gateway allins. Vastly superior Protoss production which is building more expensive units in higher numbers beats unupgraded bio in a small timing window before the bio gets stim pack? Working as intended.
There are a lot of things that can change the situation here. Sentries for example. Are a huge factor. Barracks vs Warpgate - warpgate wins. Remember this is without medivac. Force field and trap them. There is no where to go. And zealots eat marines as well as marauders. No need for concussive. Barracks need to train the units back - Less forgiving. Protoss can warp huge numbers in at a time.
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.
Imbalance does not exist at low level, only room for improvement exist.
On January 19 2013 01:15 FutureBreedMachine wrote:
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.
Imbalance does not exist at low level, only room for improvement exist.
What happens if two players at low level are equal in skill? imbalance can be a problem I believe. Different levels of low level players is another thing. People will meet each other at lower leagues too.
On February 08 2013 01:47 Wingblade wrote: Your argument about Terran having to build all those bunkers is extremely flawed because a Protoss who invests into 4/5g pressure has vastly superior production to a Terran player teching in a standard fashion. Most of the time those three bunkers are barely filled at all so that you have 12-16 marines fighting against 12-16 Protoss gateway units and still holding. It's not becuase Protoss gateway units are good, its because there's so many more of them. Likewise with a six or seven gate all-in, its an all-in and the Protoss has to overwhelm with production at a specific timing, or they lose the game to MMM. That's also why you sometime see Terran instantly sac their natural, wait at the top of their ramp for stim + medivacs, move out and crush the unupgraded Protoss.
Protoss gateway units are bad, but those pressures work simply because Protoss builds the extra production to simply overwhelm the unupgraded bio in small numbers.
This means they are good enough. They are good enough to hold off any aggression T can throw at P in a defensive stance. Also, if the toss chooses to be aggressive he has a fair number of options. I have seen countless games where pro players died to things like 3-gate pressure, 1-gate-expand-into-4gate attack, 6/7-gate and the like.
Yes, these if you fail a heavy gateway attack you are behind or dead. Yes, in some cases they need to do a ton of damage - but guess what. That is something you must factor in when you are playing aggressively.
I just can't see how good should an unit be so that a failed heavy pressure (or a failed all-in) does not put you behind.
You completely missed what I said. It's not that gateway units are "good enough" it's that there are so many more of them. No, T1 gateway units are not good enough to hold unless they are already upgraded or if the Protoss can get AOE out. Yes, Terran players die to them because they don't scout. If you lose to one of these gateway pressures you have nothing to blame but yourself for not scouting and being prepared.
But again, it's not because gateway units are "good" it's because there are so many more of them.
On January 19 2013 01:15 FutureBreedMachine wrote:
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.
Imbalance does not exist at low level, only room for improvement exist.
What happens if two players at low level are equal in skill? imbalance can be a problem I believe. Different levels of low level players is another thing. People will meet each other at lower leagues too.
3 rax stim timings were really good in gold league when I was there. It wasn't because it was imbalances but because I couldn't macro properly. If your dying to something in a lower league you can beat it by simply playing better. There is no imbalance when you can't perform basic macro properly.
On February 08 2013 02:30 llIH wrote: What happens if two players at low level are equal in skill? imbalance can be a problem I believe. Different levels of low level players is another thing. People will meet each other at lower leagues too.
I don't think that effectiveness at lower level matters that much compared to the way that terrans lose. You struggle to defend P/Z all-ins and build up your army only to see it evaporate in 4 seconds to storms or fungals & banelings.
One bad engagement means it's game over in 9/10 games whereas the other races do have a considerable come-back potential.
Also, there are no players you can really follow anywhere below the top-pro level. I've been watching some more of the Go4Sc2 weekly cups and it is just as bad as ever (that is for the last 18 months or so) - total P/Z domination.
To make things even worse terran's last stand (GSL) seems to be cracking too.
On January 19 2013 01:15 FutureBreedMachine wrote:
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.
Imbalance does not exist at low level, only room for improvement exist.
What happens if two players at low level are equal in skill? imbalance can be a problem I believe. Different levels of low level players is another thing. People will meet each other at lower leagues too.
Then the loser did something wrong (not enough macro, lack of mechanics, bad decision) To say it easy, at that level the last thing that decides the game is imbalance, you will only see this effect at the very top.
On February 08 2013 02:40 Wingblade wrote: You completely missed what I said. It's not that gateway units are "good enough" it's that there are so many more of them. No, T1 gateway units are not good enough to hold unless they are already upgraded or if the Protoss can get AOE out. Yes, Terran players die to them because they don't scout. If you lose to one of these gateway pressures you have nothing to blame but yourself for not scouting and being prepared.
But again, it's not because gateway units are "good" it's because there are so many more of them.
Are we watching the same game? Aren't you supposed to be able to defend any scouted all-in in sc2? And still, do not protoss have the ability to bust through established bunker defense? Last time I checked they could bust through bunkers and grab the win even if the T saw it coming.
And the quantity vs quality of units! Damn, can I make such claims too? Let's say I'm set up for mid-game at 10 minutes with two bases, 45+ scvs, a bunch of marines and marauders with stim+cs, two medivacs and some upgrades on the way. Can I get there if I open 7 rax marine? Guess what - no way in hell!
This is the essential choice you make in the game. You play passive and tech, you play aggressively and poke around, you go for one, all-inish timing. All options are open for protoss and all of them play out pretty well in PvT. That means that gateway units are good enough.
On January 19 2013 01:15 FutureBreedMachine wrote:
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.
Imbalance does not exist at low level, only room for improvement exist.
What happens if two players at low level are equal in skill? imbalance can be a problem I believe. Different levels of low level players is another thing. People will meet each other at lower leagues too.
3 rax stim timings were really good in gold league when I was there. It wasn't because it was imbalances but because I couldn't macro properly. If your dying to something in a lower league you can beat it by simply playing better. There is no imbalance when you can't perform basic macro properly.
Never talked about my personal experience. Nor my league, nor yours. I'm talking about the balance. Barracks vs Warpgates. Actually my strongest "skill" would be my macro. Micro comes last. Decision in the middle. Scouting probably also one of my strongest skills. I do not open 3 rax. Almost never. I usually CC first into banshee, or tank. Or I do a concussive marauder 1 rax pressure into mass expand. I do this mostly to counter cheese and counter low tech all ins.
I am playing Terran at mid master. I really do feel this is not necessary to tell. But the way you express yourself seems like you are thinking I'm whining about balance and that I am in gold league. What you are saying reminds me of: Argumentum ad hominem.
On February 08 2013 02:30 llIH wrote: What happens if two players at low level are equal in skill? imbalance can be a problem I believe. Different levels of low level players is another thing. People will meet each other at lower leagues too.
I don't think that effectiveness at lower level matters that much compared to the way that terrans lose. You struggle to defend P/Z all-ins and build up your army only to see it evaporate in 4 seconds to storms or fungals & banelings.
One bad engagement means it's game over in 9/10 games whereas the other races do have a considerable come-back potential.
Also, there are no players you can really follow anywhere below the top-pro level. I've been watching some more of the Go4Sc2 weekly cups and it is just as bad as ever (that is for the last 18 months or so) - total P/Z domination.
To make things even worse terran's last stand (GSL) seems to be cracking too.
This is ultimately the problem with the idea of, "Well, balance below the top level can be overcome by improving. Only the top level matters!" If "imbalance" is rampant at lower levels to the point where players don't feel like their improvement matters, what happens if the top becomes imbalanced? There is no up-and-coming talent to revolutionize the matchups or carry the torch to the top. There's nobody to wholeheartedly cheer on that small handful of players that continue to persevere. The games that are left against the handicapped race become boring because one side can't possibly do what the pros do and the other side doesn't need to watch for "tips" because they can roll their own handicapped opponents just fine. A 6 match-up game soon becomes 3, and SC2 ends up the joke strategy esport, like SSBB is for fighting.
On February 08 2013 01:24 CCa1ss1e wrote: brood war imbalanced? ok...
Brood war was balanced by maps mainly. If you think BW was balanced on all maps, then I don't know what to say.
vouch. just think of maps like tears of the moon or battle royale. or think of lost temple 3 o'clock T vs 12 o'clock Z.....
the reason bw could be balanced by mapmakers, however, was that no more balance patches came from blizzard and that the core mechanics of the game were balanced enough on a wide enough range of maps.
in sc2, by contrast, a perfectly fine tvz matchup was completely flipped on its head and pushed into imbalance by the queen range buff. and here again, the mere fact that this little change could have such an impact on the game is a sign that the core mechanics of sc2 are not yet balanced enough to leave the balancing job to mapmakers.
The Queen patch was not a mere balance change making something a bit harder - it fundamentally, qualitatively altered the way the early game works by removing the one limiter that could be used to keep the Zerg economy in check. Without the limiter of absolutely having to invest larvae or gas into defense, Z econ could go nuts which results in the fast Infestor swells which in turn make it super cost-effective to defend midgame (and basically erase the midgame). Which then results in insanely fast Hives. Nowadays: 12 minute Hive, safe. In the past, 17 minute Hive, greedy.
Why is this still in discussion. No one with a working brain can deny that Terran is by far the hardest race to play and thats why Terran has the fewest players.
On January 19 2013 01:15 FutureBreedMachine wrote:
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.
Imbalance does not exist at low level, only room for improvement exist.
What happens if two players at low level are equal in skill? imbalance can be a problem I believe. Different levels of low level players is another thing. People will meet each other at lower leagues too.
3 rax stim timings were really good in gold league when I was there. It wasn't because it was imbalances but because I couldn't macro properly. If your dying to something in a lower league you can beat it by simply playing better. There is no imbalance when you can't perform basic macro properly.
Never talked about my personal experience. Nor my league, nor yours. I'm talking about the balance. Barracks vs Warpgates. Actually my strongest "skill" would be my macro. Micro comes last. Decision in the middle. Scouting probably also one of my strongest skills. I do not open 3 rax. Almost never. I usually CC first into banshee, or tank. Or I do a concussive marauder 1 rax pressure into mass expand. I do this mostly to counter cheese and counter low tech all ins.
I am playing Terran at mid master. I really do feel this is not necessary to tell. But the way you express yourself seems like you are thinking I'm whining about balance and that I am in gold league. What you are saying reminds me of: Argumentum ad hominem.
Let's stop this before it gets Blizz Forums up in here.
Balance can and is the reason for a lot of losses in the lower league--but it's impossible to tell because the lower league problems can be solved by better play. We can't actually see whether or not balance was the cause of any specific loss a low league player has because there are so many variables to look at many of which solves the problem if fixed.
So, to expedite the argument, people tell low league players to simply play better. The mistake most people make is that this translates into "balance doesn't affect anything in low league" which is wrong--because it does.
But, assuming balance does matter in low league, so what? The winrate of the lower league player can still be improved despite this imbalance because execution is still a bigger aspect of the gameplay at that point. The "imbalance" is still easily surmountable through better play--and since it's impossible to figure out if imbalance or execution was the cause of the loss, telling them to play better resolves both issues.
It is only when "play better" stops being an option that actual balance talks need to be made.
BW, for example, is horribly imbalanced. But the skill ceiling is so high you can tell players to simple "play better" and they'll overcome the imbalance. This creates the illusion of balance. In truth--if automaton 5000 played BW we would see that its possible even worse put together than SC2. But the mechanical limitations are so much that it still translates into balance since people have a hard enough time getting across the map that the fact that unit ____ hard counters _____ is irrelevant. This is not the case in SC2. Marauders *will* counter Stalkers unlike in BW where Dragoons still had a chance to actually beat tanks straight up with better play.
On February 08 2013 01:24 CCa1ss1e wrote: brood war imbalanced? ok...
BW was heavily imbalanced for quite some times and it relied on new strategies from players to innovate a match-up (Bisu build in PvZ for example) and good maps to help balance the strengths and weaknesses of each race.
Discovering new strategies that are effective against whatever the current "imbalanced" metagame is, does not mean the game itself is imbalanced. It just means, well the metagame is imbalanced. Smart players always find ways to win.
On February 08 2013 03:45 algorithm0r wrote: Terran was by far the most played race on release and I have played significantly more Terrans on HotS Beta than any other race.
Is that an argument? You are basically using an "argumentum ad populum". The popularity doesn't necessarily mean they are better.
On February 08 2013 03:45 algorithm0r wrote: Terran was by far the most played race on release and I have played significantly more Terrans on HotS Beta than any other race.
Is that an argument? You are basically using an "argumentum ad populum". The popularity doesn't necessarily mean they are better.
Technically he is using anecdotal evidence.
"I've bumped into Terrans so everyone else must also be bumping into terrans"
On February 08 2013 03:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: It is only when "play better" stops being an option that actual balance talks need to be made.
Playing better becomes no longer an option - there is a limited amount of time and effort a man may commit into a computer game. I am pretty satisfied with my rank and I'm interested in squeezing some good games out of SC2.
Getting a good TvZ felt impossible for quite a while. If TvP heads in that direction (and so it seams in Hots) then I'm either switching or I'm out.
On February 08 2013 03:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: It is only when "play better" stops being an option that actual balance talks need to be made.
Playing better becomes no longer an option - there is a limited amount of time and effort a man may commit into a computer game. I am pretty satisfied with my rank and I'm interested in squeezing some good games out of SC2.
Getting a good TvZ felt impossible for quite a while. If TvP heads in that direction (and so it seams in Hots) then I'm either switching or I'm out.
They will change stuff. Don't worry. But I know it can be frustrating. I feel you there. I spend a lot of time studying. I got 1-2 hours max per day to play.
I'm trying my absolute best to not descend this into balance whine but Terran is indeed underplayed because of its complexity and difficulty to actually play. Let's have a look at some requirements of the Terran race in context of what both Protoss and Zerg require. Terran have to additionally:
Micro buildings - You have to land production buildings in a specific spot in order to benefit from a Tech Lab or Reactor. Zerg and Protoss have no such requirements. While the Supply Depot is also a great benefit for the Terran, it also requires micro to use properly, thus raising the skill ceiling.
Micro units better - Case in point is Banelings, Colossi, or Storms vs Marines. Banelings can two-shot a clump of Marines regardless of Combat Shields and Colossi completely tear them apart whilst being an overwhelmingly a-move unit. Psionic Storms can also kill an entire clump of full health marines in around three ingame seconds.
Handle a higher skill ceiling for their harassment units - Drops are pretty much mandatory in a TvX matchup to pull further ahead as deathballs for both Protoss and Zerg come sooner and take exponentially more micro skill to fend off. In HotS, Terran gets the earliest possible dedicated harassment unit (Reaper) that sadly sucks. Yes it has 60HP and can regen health but the Reaper only deals 4 damage, still trade pitifully with anything that isn't a melee unit, and massing them leaves you in a vulnerable spot where merely a-moving your Mothership Core to the Terran opponent's mineral line can force a gg. Meanwhile, Oracles can literally two shot workers (their beam deals around 30dps to light), is airborne, and a complete bitch to hold off in comparison to even WoL muta harass. Mutalisks have additionally been buffed to make tower diving a little bit more attractive with better passive health regen and a small movement speed increase.
Rely on Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 units as the bread-and-butter comp vs Protoss - Unlike in TvZ and TvT, Terran Mech is by design not viable in TvP even as HotS inches closer to launch. This is because Terrans will be more vulnerable against early Gateway timings than they would've been if they went for 3 rax after CC. Hellions (let aloone Hellbats) come at a later timing than 4 gate, 3 gate robo, or even a 2 base gateway all in. Immortals by design also hard-counter the entirety of the Terran Mech arsenal except for Hellbats which thanks to recent buffs can hold their own against an Armored unit. Siege Tanks are also less of a counter in TvP. While they did 70 damage vs Dragoons, they only deal 50 vs Stalkers and turn a three-shot into a four-shot. Stalkers can additionally Blink on top of Siege Tanks unlike Dragoons, making them more of a soft-counter towards clumped up tanks.
Rely on skillfully denying spellcasting. The very design of the Terran race necessitates that players outright deny spellcasting else risk a possible game-ending scenario. While Ravens by comparison in WoL sucked against Zerg and Protoss due to their hard-counterability against Templar and Infestors (blame the minuscule range of their abilities, especially Seeker Missile, that makes them prone to fungal denies, neural parasites and feedbacks), Templar and Infestors always got the job done requiring Terran to send in Ghosts to attempt to intercept the enemy spellcasters, who would likely be surrounded by Observers/Overseers/armies galore.
On February 08 2013 03:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: It is only when "play better" stops being an option that actual balance talks need to be made.
Playing better becomes no longer an option - there is a limited amount of time and effort a man may commit into a computer game. I am pretty satisfied with my rank and I'm interested in squeezing some good games out of SC2.
Getting a good TvZ felt impossible for quite a while. If TvP heads in that direction (and so it seams in Hots) then I'm either switching or I'm out.
No disagreements from lowly ol' platinum me--but I'm just parsing out *why* play/macro/micro/scout/etc... better gets shoved down people's throats. And even though in my head I know this--I still get frustrated sometimes when I see people genuinely asking for help or voicing their concerns get shut down because they "don't know what they're talking about."
On February 08 2013 03:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: It is only when "play better" stops being an option that actual balance talks need to be made.
Playing better becomes no longer an option - there is a limited amount of time and effort a man may commit into a computer game. I am pretty satisfied with my rank and I'm interested in squeezing some good games out of SC2.
Getting a good TvZ felt impossible for quite a while. If TvP heads in that direction (and so it seams in Hots) then I'm either switching or I'm out.
No disagreements from lowly ol' platinum me--but I'm just parsing out *why* play/macro/micro/scout/etc... better gets shoved down people's throats. And even though in my head I know this--I still get frustrated sometimes when I see people genuinely asking for help or voicing their concerns get shut down because they "don't know what they're talking about."
It's just the way of the eSports world.
macro is such a hard thing to explain, and its all u need till u reach masters, maybe even mid masters. thats why ppl are morons often. its way easier to not point out tiny strategic/position/decision making mistakes then saying "you should have 20 more supply at this point, nothing happened. Also, u didnt control ur army good enough" - and those big points are simply way more important as well.
On February 08 2013 03:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: It is only when "play better" stops being an option that actual balance talks need to be made.
Playing better becomes no longer an option - there is a limited amount of time and effort a man may commit into a computer game. I am pretty satisfied with my rank and I'm interested in squeezing some good games out of SC2.
Getting a good TvZ felt impossible for quite a while. If TvP heads in that direction (and so it seams in Hots) then I'm either switching or I'm out.
No disagreements from lowly ol' platinum me--but I'm just parsing out *why* play/macro/micro/scout/etc... better gets shoved down people's throats. And even though in my head I know this--I still get frustrated sometimes when I see people genuinely asking for help or voicing their concerns get shut down because they "don't know what they're talking about."
It's just the way of the eSports world.
in my opinion people tend to over analyze things :/ a player can be plenty good (diamond-master) without even caring about build orders or metagame.
On February 08 2013 03:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: It is only when "play better" stops being an option that actual balance talks need to be made.
Playing better becomes no longer an option - there is a limited amount of time and effort a man may commit into a computer game. I am pretty satisfied with my rank and I'm interested in squeezing some good games out of SC2.
Getting a good TvZ felt impossible for quite a while. If TvP heads in that direction (and so it seams in Hots) then I'm either switching or I'm out.
No disagreements from lowly ol' platinum me--but I'm just parsing out *why* play/macro/micro/scout/etc... better gets shoved down people's throats. And even though in my head I know this--I still get frustrated sometimes when I see people genuinely asking for help or voicing their concerns get shut down because they "don't know what they're talking about."
It's just the way of the eSports world.
macro is such a hard thing to explain, and its all u need till u reach masters, maybe even mid masters. thats why ppl are morons often. its way easier to not point out tiny strategic/position/decision making mistakes then saying "you should have 20 more supply at this point, nothing happened. Also, u didnt control ur army good enough" - and those big points are simply way more important as well.
I know all this
My brain does.
The days I get butt-hurt is when my heart does the talking.
On February 08 2013 03:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: It is only when "play better" stops being an option that actual balance talks need to be made.
Playing better becomes no longer an option - there is a limited amount of time and effort a man may commit into a computer game. I am pretty satisfied with my rank and I'm interested in squeezing some good games out of SC2.
Getting a good TvZ felt impossible for quite a while. If TvP heads in that direction (and so it seams in Hots) then I'm either switching or I'm out.
No disagreements from lowly ol' platinum me--but I'm just parsing out *why* play/macro/micro/scout/etc... better gets shoved down people's throats. And even though in my head I know this--I still get frustrated sometimes when I see people genuinely asking for help or voicing their concerns get shut down because they "don't know what they're talking about."
It's just the way of the eSports world.
Improving your gameplay in terms of macro/micro/scout only makes sense if it will result in having more fun. It just does not work that way.
The better you get at playing terran the less forgiving the race becomes. You can find a ton of pro games with zergs and tosses coming back into the game thanks to good AoE hits, runbys, DT harass, sudden tech-switch etc. And there are no such games for terrans (except for TvT).
Scouting is not that important really - P/Z all-ins seem to become less popular once you're out of gold league (at leas in eu). In most cases the other races will start up their standard deathball assembly and try to roll you over with a 1-a + F/T.
If you let that happen then after losing a single battle (or not winning it in a dominating fashion) it is game over. To prevent that you need to find some holes in your opponent's defense and mess them up a bit. Once again, this is doable vs toss and not doable vs a competent zerg. And HotS seems to limit any early aggression vs toss and from my standpoint it's a disaster.
On February 08 2013 04:46 Clbull wrote: I'm trying my absolute best to not descend this into balance whine but Terran is indeed underplayed because of its complexity and difficulty to actually play. Let's have a look at some requirements of the Terran race in context of what both Protoss and Zerg require. Terran have to additionally:
Micro buildings - You have to land production buildings in a specific spot in order to benefit from a Tech Lab or Reactor. Zerg and Protoss have no such requirements. While the Supply Depot is also a great benefit for the Terran, it also requires micro to use properly, thus raising the skill ceiling.
Micro units better - Case in point is Banelings, Colossi, or Storms vs Marines. Banelings can two-shot a clump of Marines regardless of Combat Shields and Colossi completely tear them apart whilst being an overwhelmingly a-move unit. Psionic Storms can also kill an entire clump of full health marines in around three ingame seconds.
Handle a higher skill ceiling for their harassment units - Drops are pretty much mandatory in a TvX matchup to pull further ahead as deathballs for both Protoss and Zerg come sooner and take exponentially more micro skill to fend off. In HotS, Terran gets the earliest possible dedicated harassment unit (Reaper) that sadly sucks. Yes it has 60HP and can regen health but the Reaper only deals 4 damage, still trade pitifully with anything that isn't a melee unit, and massing them leaves you in a vulnerable spot where merely a-moving your Mothership Core to the Terran opponent's mineral line can force a gg. Meanwhile, Oracles can literally two shot workers (their beam deals around 30dps to light), is airborne, and a complete bitch to hold off in comparison to even WoL muta harass. Mutalisks have additionally been buffed to make tower diving a little bit more attractive with better passive health regen and a small movement speed increase.
Rely on Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 units as the bread-and-butter comp vs Protoss - Unlike in TvZ and TvT, Terran Mech is by design not viable in TvP even as HotS inches closer to launch. This is because Terrans will be more vulnerable against early Gateway timings than they would've been if they went for 3 rax after CC. Hellions (let aloone Hellbats) come at a later timing than 4 gate, 3 gate robo, or even a 2 base gateway all in. Immortals by design also hard-counter the entirety of the Terran Mech arsenal except for Hellbats which thanks to recent buffs can hold their own against an Armored unit. Siege Tanks are also less of a counter in TvP. While they did 70 damage vs Dragoons, they only deal 50 vs Stalkers and turn a three-shot into a four-shot. Stalkers can additionally Blink on top of Siege Tanks unlike Dragoons, making them more of a soft-counter towards clumped up tanks.
Rely on skillfully denying spellcasting. The very design of the Terran race necessitates that players outright deny spellcasting else risk a possible game-ending scenario. While Ravens by comparison in WoL sucked against Zerg and Protoss due to their hard-counterability against Templar and Infestors (blame the minuscule range of their abilities, especially Seeker Missile, that makes them prone to fungal denies, neural parasites and feedbacks), Templar and Infestors always got the job done requiring Terran to send in Ghosts to attempt to intercept the enemy spellcasters, who would likely be surrounded by Observers/Overseers/armies galore.
Zerg need creep to build their buildings, Protoss needs pylon power. Your first point is silly. Different races are different.
Don't clump against banelings. I would love to be able to do something with my colossi more than a-moving them and act as target practice for vikings. Too bad I have to rely on blink stalkers which are otherwise horrible against bio, or stacked vikings sitting in multiple storms for several seconds. Psi storm can be easily denied by ghosts, and your marines shouldn't sit still with lightning raining on them. If you can't actually run marines out of storm or spread then your going to lose.
Reapers really aren't good for harass now. Mostly a scouting unit. An MSC loses to 3 marines. Massing reapers and dying to an MSC isn't imbalance, its you doing a dumb strategy. Build a turret against oracles. More than worth the 100 minerals to deny a 300/300 investment.
Mech defense is easier now with widow mines and tanks that dont have a 60 second research time. Outside of that, yea mech isnt that good, but bio is more than good enough right for Terran.
Everything up to this point was discussed in HOTSThen in your last post here, you bring up ravens in WOL. It does not follow especially because Ravens in hots are completely different, and much better. You can't talk about hots the entire post and then switch back to wol in your points for your convenience.
As for denying spellcasting, Protoss CANT deny Terran spellcasting when Terran builds more than 5 or 6 ghosts. And the range of EMP and snipe means you don't have to rely on ghost cloaking.
Terran had a 54% winrate against Protoss in Korea in January as stated by NASL in their last episode of the Pulse.
On February 08 2013 04:46 Clbull wrote: I'm trying my absolute best to not descend this into balance whine but Terran is indeed underplayed because of its complexity and difficulty to actually play. Let's have a look at some requirements of the Terran race in context of what both Protoss and Zerg require. Terran have to additionally:
Micro buildings - You have to land production buildings in a specific spot in order to benefit from a Tech Lab or Reactor. Zerg and Protoss have no such requirements. While the Supply Depot is also a great benefit for the Terran, it also requires micro to use properly, thus raising the skill ceiling.
Micro units better - Case in point is Banelings, Colossi, or Storms vs Marines. Banelings can two-shot a clump of Marines regardless of Combat Shields and Colossi completely tear them apart whilst being an overwhelmingly a-move unit. Psionic Storms can also kill an entire clump of full health marines in around three ingame seconds.
Handle a higher skill ceiling for their harassment units - Drops are pretty much mandatory in a TvX matchup to pull further ahead as deathballs for both Protoss and Zerg come sooner and take exponentially more micro skill to fend off. In HotS, Terran gets the earliest possible dedicated harassment unit (Reaper) that sadly sucks. Yes it has 60HP and can regen health but the Reaper only deals 4 damage, still trade pitifully with anything that isn't a melee unit, and massing them leaves you in a vulnerable spot where merely a-moving your Mothership Core to the Terran opponent's mineral line can force a gg. Meanwhile, Oracles can literally two shot workers (their beam deals around 30dps to light), is airborne, and a complete bitch to hold off in comparison to even WoL muta harass. Mutalisks have additionally been buffed to make tower diving a little bit more attractive with better passive health regen and a small movement speed increase.
Rely on Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 units as the bread-and-butter comp vs Protoss - Unlike in TvZ and TvT, Terran Mech is by design not viable in TvP even as HotS inches closer to launch. This is because Terrans will be more vulnerable against early Gateway timings than they would've been if they went for 3 rax after CC. Hellions (let aloone Hellbats) come at a later timing than 4 gate, 3 gate robo, or even a 2 base gateway all in. Immortals by design also hard-counter the entirety of the Terran Mech arsenal except for Hellbats which thanks to recent buffs can hold their own against an Armored unit. Siege Tanks are also less of a counter in TvP. While they did 70 damage vs Dragoons, they only deal 50 vs Stalkers and turn a three-shot into a four-shot. Stalkers can additionally Blink on top of Siege Tanks unlike Dragoons, making them more of a soft-counter towards clumped up tanks.
Rely on skillfully denying spellcasting. The very design of the Terran race necessitates that players outright deny spellcasting else risk a possible game-ending scenario. While Ravens by comparison in WoL sucked against Zerg and Protoss due to their hard-counterability against Templar and Infestors (blame the minuscule range of their abilities, especially Seeker Missile, that makes them prone to fungal denies, neural parasites and feedbacks), Templar and Infestors always got the job done requiring Terran to send in Ghosts to attempt to intercept the enemy spellcasters, who would likely be surrounded by Observers/Overseers/armies galore.
This does not seem to consider the other races very well. I'll go down the list: 1. Terran alone must micro buildings: true in technicality, false in concept. Zerg must continuously spread creep tumors (harder than remembering to put up a depot once in a while) AND has to reroute overlords from its army rally so that it doesn't lose all of its supply when the enemy attacks (this is a huge mistake that costs many lower level zergs victories). Protoss have to position pylons strategically (I'll give it to you, this doesn't seem quite as difficult, but I've never played protoss, so I cannot say conclusively). 2. Terran has to micro better: false. Unattended Banelings can and will detonate cost ineffectively on Mauraders or Siege Tanks. Mutalisks must constantly be attended to if they are going to be worth the cost AND if you don't want all of them to die to half their cost in a stimmed marine pack with a medivac. Protoss occasionally has to move a colossus one way or another to avoid a viking (that's a joke; I've never played toss, so I cannot say one way or another about their micro difficulty). FURTHERMORE Terran's micro capability is a boon to the race. Have you ever played Infestor Ling Bling against a terran who splits his marines and focus fires with tanks? I have, and it is incredibly frustrating to see how cost-effectively marines can trade there. 3. As a former Zerg and current Terran, I MUCH prefer dropping than defending drops. This may simply be personal preference; on the other hand, I really think that it's easier to micro something that you know is coming (i.e. your drop) rather than micro against something that hit you by surprise (i.e. his drop). It's like trying to dodge a wrench from a dark room. Because I do not play HoTS, I cannot comment on the rest of this point. 4. I've no real criticism on this point other than my original: consider other races' use of tier 1 units (upgraded) mid-late game. I rarely see colossi without stalkers or zealots. Additionally, medivacs, vikings, and ghosts are not tier 1 or tier 1.5. 5. I think you have this one correct.
On February 08 2013 06:06 perser84 wrote: i think the interview with last shadow is interresting
he said the reason why teran dont do well its
because all the Bo are figured out by Z and P and you must literally to outplay your opponent since you have few options about which build you go
in order to win terran needs good mechanics like the koreans terrans
the only non korean that has good mechanics is stephano maybe thorzian
that why you cant buff terran easily because korean terrans will dominate
Stephano's mechanics aren't exactly top notch. He has amazing game sense and engages extremely well (most of the time). He's definitely a top caliber player, but not through mechanics.
Thorzain, on the other hand, may be the most respected foreigner in Korea. He was the first foreigner to win a proleague match in quite a few years, in a mirror match at that. Of course, since then Stephano has won a few as well, but that somehow doesn't seem as impressive (probably due to the fact that everybody knows Zerg is broken now).
On February 08 2013 06:06 Wingblade wrote: Don't clump against banelings. [...] As for denying spellcasting, Protoss CANT deny Terran spellcasting when Terran builds more than 5 or 6 ghosts. And the range of EMP and snipe means you don't have to rely on ghost cloaking.
Terran had a 54% winrate against Protoss in Korea in January as stated by NASL in their last episode of the Pulse.
Great advice! We've all seen Automaton2000 smash those banelings into oblivion with pure marines so we will just keep playing terran. It is so much fun to micro like a god!
Same for EMP vs HT - a decent toss will keep templars in the back and the zealots do well without shields. EMP-ing them is next to impossible without superior control. This is pretty much like vortex vs broodlord - does Z stack his bls so they can get vortexed? Does P keep his HTs in one clump in a flankable position?
Well... this just does not happen in my league. But I know, all I need to do is play like Bomber or MKP and I can smash those scrub tosses late-game ezpz.
On February 08 2013 04:46 Clbull wrote: I'm trying my absolute best to not descend this into balance whine but Terran is indeed underplayed because of its complexity and difficulty to actually play. Let's have a look at some requirements of the Terran race in context of what both Protoss and Zerg require. Terran have to additionally:
Micro buildings - You have to land production buildings in a specific spot in order to benefit from a Tech Lab or Reactor. Zerg and Protoss have no such requirements. While the Supply Depot is also a great benefit for the Terran, it also requires micro to use properly, thus raising the skill ceiling.
Micro units better - Case in point is Banelings, Colossi, or Storms vs Marines. Banelings can two-shot a clump of Marines regardless of Combat Shields and Colossi completely tear them apart whilst being an overwhelmingly a-move unit. Psionic Storms can also kill an entire clump of full health marines in around three ingame seconds.
Handle a higher skill ceiling for their harassment units - Drops are pretty much mandatory in a TvX matchup to pull further ahead as deathballs for both Protoss and Zerg come sooner and take exponentially more micro skill to fend off. In HotS, Terran gets the earliest possible dedicated harassment unit (Reaper) that sadly sucks. Yes it has 60HP and can regen health but the Reaper only deals 4 damage, still trade pitifully with anything that isn't a melee unit, and massing them leaves you in a vulnerable spot where merely a-moving your Mothership Core to the Terran opponent's mineral line can force a gg. Meanwhile, Oracles can literally two shot workers (their beam deals around 30dps to light), is airborne, and a complete bitch to hold off in comparison to even WoL muta harass. Mutalisks have additionally been buffed to make tower diving a little bit more attractive with better passive health regen and a small movement speed increase.
Rely on Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 units as the bread-and-butter comp vs Protoss - Unlike in TvZ and TvT, Terran Mech is by design not viable in TvP even as HotS inches closer to launch. This is because Terrans will be more vulnerable against early Gateway timings than they would've been if they went for 3 rax after CC. Hellions (let aloone Hellbats) come at a later timing than 4 gate, 3 gate robo, or even a 2 base gateway all in. Immortals by design also hard-counter the entirety of the Terran Mech arsenal except for Hellbats which thanks to recent buffs can hold their own against an Armored unit. Siege Tanks are also less of a counter in TvP. While they did 70 damage vs Dragoons, they only deal 50 vs Stalkers and turn a three-shot into a four-shot. Stalkers can additionally Blink on top of Siege Tanks unlike Dragoons, making them more of a soft-counter towards clumped up tanks.
Rely on skillfully denying spellcasting. The very design of the Terran race necessitates that players outright deny spellcasting else risk a possible game-ending scenario. While Ravens by comparison in WoL sucked against Zerg and Protoss due to their hard-counterability against Templar and Infestors (blame the minuscule range of their abilities, especially Seeker Missile, that makes them prone to fungal denies, neural parasites and feedbacks), Templar and Infestors always got the job done requiring Terran to send in Ghosts to attempt to intercept the enemy spellcasters, who would likely be surrounded by Observers/Overseers/armies galore.
Zerg need creep to build their buildings, Protoss needs pylon power. Your first point is silly. Different races are different.
Don't clump against banelings. I would love to be able to do something with my colossi more than a-moving them and act as target practice for vikings. Too bad I have to rely on blink stalkers which are otherwise horrible against bio, or stacked vikings sitting in multiple storms for several seconds. Psi storm can be easily denied by ghosts, and your marines shouldn't sit still with lightning raining on them. If you can't actually run marines out of storm or spread then your going to lose.
Reapers really aren't good for harass now. Mostly a scouting unit. An MSC loses to 3 marines. Massing reapers and dying to an MSC isn't imbalance, its you doing a dumb strategy. Build a turret against oracles. More than worth the 100 minerals to deny a 300/300 investment.
Mech defense is easier now with widow mines and tanks that dont have a 60 second research time. Outside of that, yea mech isnt that good, but bio is more than good enough right for Terran.
Everything up to this point was discussed in HOTSThen in your last post here, you bring up ravens in WOL. It does not follow especially because Ravens in hots are completely different, and much better. You can't talk about hots the entire post and then switch back to wol in your points for your convenience.
As for denying spellcasting, Protoss CANT deny Terran spellcasting when Terran builds more than 5 or 6 ghosts. And the range of EMP and snipe means you don't have to rely on ghost cloaking.
Terran had a 54% winrate against Protoss in Korea in January as stated by NASL in their last episode of the Pulse.
It was more a rant at the design of WoL than a balance rant. I know the statistics in top level TvP are in favour of the Terran but the fact is that their matchups generally rely on midgame bio timings. I have yet to see a player seriously go for Mech and consistently win TvPs. TvP was even so bad that the Panzer Terran himself Goody opted to play PvPs in tournaments instead of TvPs.
My point was also that for the Protoss, there wasn't really much spellcasting from the Terran anyway to deny. Ghosts are only really useful against spellcasters or Protoss units and their usefulness against the Protoss arsenal only really extends to removing shields. Also, why else do you think we never saw Raven usage in TvP during Wings? The Raven was meant to be the penultimate Terran spellcaster much like what the High Templar and Infestor were for Protoss and Zerg respectively.
What we got instead was a steaming crock of shit that took 50 more Energy per spellcast to even use its splash damage ability, which had 3 less range than its competitors Fungal Growth and Psionic Storm. The only time it can and has been used has been either in mirror matchups or in late game TvZs on Metropolis (i.e. Game 3 DongRaeGu vs Bomber during IPL4, where Bomber tore his ling bane muta pushes a new one with good tank and map positioning and was so far ahead that a Raven transition was viable.) Plus it has to be a perfect engagement and against clumped up Corruptor and Brood Lord compositions.
I never claimed imbalance. I know that Terrans excel in the early and midgame in TvP. Yet these skill barriers are something that make Terran fifteen times harder to play as a race. Their non-mirrors involve preparing against and avoiding splash damage that can instagib bio armies while their mirror unlike PvP or ZvZ involves tonnes of tankbattles and hour long macro games.
Besides, I like the new Raven. I'm glad we will finally see SK Terran v2.0 in HotS. It's a build I even improvised with myself in low level TvZ and it feels completely glorious to rip apart ling bane infestor brood lord corruptor armies with pure MMM and mass Ravens. It makes him decide whether to retreat and not risk an engagement or eat 8+ Seeker Missiles.
On February 08 2013 04:46 Clbull wrote: I'm trying my absolute best to not descend this into balance whine but Terran is indeed underplayed because of its complexity and difficulty to actually play. Let's have a look at some requirements of the Terran race in context of what both Protoss and Zerg require. Terran have to additionally:
Micro buildings - You have to land production buildings in a specific spot in order to benefit from a Tech Lab or Reactor. Zerg and Protoss have no such requirements. While the Supply Depot is also a great benefit for the Terran, it also requires micro to use properly, thus raising the skill ceiling.
Micro units better - Case in point is Banelings, Colossi, or Storms vs Marines. Banelings can two-shot a clump of Marines regardless of Combat Shields and Colossi completely tear them apart whilst being an overwhelmingly a-move unit. Psionic Storms can also kill an entire clump of full health marines in around three ingame seconds.
Handle a higher skill ceiling for their harassment units - Drops are pretty much mandatory in a TvX matchup to pull further ahead as deathballs for both Protoss and Zerg come sooner and take exponentially more micro skill to fend off. In HotS, Terran gets the earliest possible dedicated harassment unit (Reaper) that sadly sucks. Yes it has 60HP and can regen health but the Reaper only deals 4 damage, still trade pitifully with anything that isn't a melee unit, and massing them leaves you in a vulnerable spot where merely a-moving your Mothership Core to the Terran opponent's mineral line can force a gg. Meanwhile, Oracles can literally two shot workers (their beam deals around 30dps to light), is airborne, and a complete bitch to hold off in comparison to even WoL muta harass. Mutalisks have additionally been buffed to make tower diving a little bit more attractive with better passive health regen and a small movement speed increase.
Rely on Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 units as the bread-and-butter comp vs Protoss - Unlike in TvZ and TvT, Terran Mech is by design not viable in TvP even as HotS inches closer to launch. This is because Terrans will be more vulnerable against early Gateway timings than they would've been if they went for 3 rax after CC. Hellions (let aloone Hellbats) come at a later timing than 4 gate, 3 gate robo, or even a 2 base gateway all in. Immortals by design also hard-counter the entirety of the Terran Mech arsenal except for Hellbats which thanks to recent buffs can hold their own against an Armored unit. Siege Tanks are also less of a counter in TvP. While they did 70 damage vs Dragoons, they only deal 50 vs Stalkers and turn a three-shot into a four-shot. Stalkers can additionally Blink on top of Siege Tanks unlike Dragoons, making them more of a soft-counter towards clumped up tanks.
Rely on skillfully denying spellcasting. The very design of the Terran race necessitates that players outright deny spellcasting else risk a possible game-ending scenario. While Ravens by comparison in WoL sucked against Zerg and Protoss due to their hard-counterability against Templar and Infestors (blame the minuscule range of their abilities, especially Seeker Missile, that makes them prone to fungal denies, neural parasites and feedbacks), Templar and Infestors always got the job done requiring Terran to send in Ghosts to attempt to intercept the enemy spellcasters, who would likely be surrounded by Observers/Overseers/armies galore.
This does not seem to consider the other races very well. I'll go down the list: 1. Terran alone must micro buildings: true in technicality, false in concept. Zerg must continuously spread creep tumors (harder than remembering to put up a depot once in a while) AND has to reroute overlords from its army rally so that it doesn't lose all of its supply when the enemy attacks (this is a huge mistake that costs many lower level zergs victories). Protoss have to position pylons strategically (I'll give it to you, this doesn't seem quite as difficult, but I've never played protoss, so I cannot say conclusively). 2. Terran has to micro better: false. Unattended Banelings can and will detonate cost ineffectively on Mauraders or Siege Tanks. Mutalisks must constantly be attended to if they are going to be worth the cost AND if you don't want all of them to die to half their cost in a stimmed marine pack with a medivac. Protoss occasionally has to move a colossus one way or another to avoid a viking (that's a joke; I've never played toss, so I cannot say one way or another about their micro difficulty). FURTHERMORE Terran's micro capability is a boon to the race. Have you ever played Infestor Ling Bling against a terran who splits his marines and focus fires with tanks? I have, and it is incredibly frustrating to see how cost-effectively marines can trade there. 3. As a former Zerg and current Terran, I MUCH prefer dropping than defending drops. This may simply be personal preference; on the other hand, I really think that it's easier to micro something that you know is coming (i.e. your drop) rather than micro against something that hit you by surprise (i.e. his drop). It's like trying to dodge a wrench from a dark room. Because I do not play HoTS, I cannot comment on the rest of this point. 4. I've no real criticism on this point other than my original: consider other races' use of tier 1 units (upgraded) mid-late game. I rarely see colossi without stalkers or zealots. Additionally, medivacs, vikings, and ghosts are not tier 1 or tier 1.5. 5. I think you have this one correct.
Some key things I want to point out. First, depots take the longest time to make of all supply. Combine this with the production mechanic of Terran and you have the most destructive supply blocks in the game. Second, every single building has to be made with exits and add-ons in mind. This both spreads out the Terran base, making it more vulnerable to harassment, and shrinks building potential in each base. This means every building placement is a decision until you eat, breathe, and sleep SC2. Yes, creep spread is APM intensive, but the decision making required is minimal and of little consequence. You pick a direction to spread creep and remember to do it.
On February 08 2013 06:06 perser84 wrote: i think the interview with last shadow is interresting
he said the reason why teran dont do well its
because all the Bo are figured out by Z and P and you must literally to outplay your opponent since you have few options about which build you go
in order to win terran needs good mechanics like the koreans terrans
the only non korean that has good mechanics is stephano maybe thorzian
that why you cant buff terran easily because korean terrans will dominate
its also why being a gold league terran sucks, because quite frankly my mechanics are AWFUL. so are my opponents, but this seemingly impacts me way more than opponents of other races ( or when I play protoss / zerg, everyone plays random now and then.. right? right...? ).
i dont really care about balance, as half the time people are debating metagame, not balance per se, but the only reason guys like MKP are still in code S is because they have ridiculous micro and unit control. Innovation last night looked awesome.
But on the whole, there's more to sc2 than the 2 terran players left in code S right now. playing terran just isnt fun anymore unless you have the micro of a hyperactive korean octopus.
this is supposed to be fun right?
strangely, sc2 was a hell of a lot more fun when I was playing a hell of a lot worse...
On February 08 2013 06:06 perser84 wrote: i think the interview with last shadow is interresting
he said the reason why teran dont do well its
because all the Bo are figured out by Z and P and you must literally to outplay your opponent since you have few options about which build you go
in order to win terran needs good mechanics like the koreans terrans
the only non korean that has good mechanics is stephano maybe thorzian
that why you cant buff terran easily because korean terrans will dominate
its also why being a gold league terran sucks, because quite frankly my mechanics are AWFUL. so are my opponents, but this seemingly impacts me way more than opponents of other races ( or when I play protoss / zerg, everyone plays random now and then.. right? right...? ).
i dont really care about balance, as half the time people are debating metagame, not balance per se, but the only reason guys like MKP are still in code S is because they have ridiculous micro and unit control. Innovation last night looked awesome.
But on the whole, there's more to sc2 than the 2 terran players left in code S right now. playing terran just isnt fun anymore unless you have the micro of a hyperactive korean octopus.
this is supposed to be fun right?
strangely, sc2 was a hell of a lot more fun when I was playing a hell of a lot worse...
It's not just unit control, but being able to macro like a god while microing like one as well. That's what makes them still able to win games.
On February 08 2013 03:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: It is only when "play better" stops being an option that actual balance talks need to be made.
Playing better becomes no longer an option - there is a limited amount of time and effort a man may commit into a computer game. I am pretty satisfied with my rank and I'm interested in squeezing some good games out of SC2.
Getting a good TvZ felt impossible for quite a while. If TvP heads in that direction (and so it seams in Hots) then I'm either switching or I'm out.
Well theoretically you should be winning 50% of your games so... if you're choosing to go for long drawn out macro games almost exclusively, you should be winning around 50% of them. If you're mixing in timings and are only successful on those, it could be another story...
Im not sure the OP has a point, or at least, a reasonable prescription - saying terran is underpowered (or something... quite a bit of prevarication going on) at the diamond/masters level but not at grandmaster means you can't buff one without fucking up the other. And if we're shooting for cross-league balance, what about plat and lower? Terran is very strong there (scanner means less dying to cloaking cheeses, MMM and 1 base all-ins effective, little player scouting maximizes drop effectiveness, stimpack + a move = fantastic micro, etc). Can't have everything you want.
New players play terran, i know i did because its the race of the campaign and because the units are somewhat familiar. Then after a while these players discover that zerg is way and way easier to play and they switch to zerg or just quit. With few new players coming in, and hots beeing a zerg expansion, i think terran will remain the lowest played race for a looooong time, untill there is some patch wich makes massing one or two units and 1a a good strategy for terran
This thread is so silly especially considering the patch that just got released. Terran never had a problem against Protoss except not knowing how to use ghosts. Terran in HOTS is fine, and borderline OP with this patch. bio + widow mine in TvZ and now TvP possibly. Terran should not be complaining about hots
On February 08 2013 11:33 Kolya504 wrote: Im not sure the OP has a point, or at least, a reasonable prescription - saying terran is underpowered (or something... quite a bit of prevarication going on) at the diamond/masters level but not at grandmaster means you can't buff one without fucking up the other. And if we're shooting for cross-league balance, what about plat and lower? Terran is very strong there (scanner means less dying to cloaking cheeses, MMM and 1 base all-ins effective, little player scouting maximizes drop effectiveness, stimpack + a move = fantastic micro, etc). Can't have everything you want.
Eh it completely depends. A lot of people argue Terran is hard as balls at the lower levels. Microing infestor ling or ling/bane isn't that hard, nor is stalker/colossi (just really sticking with that composition can get you really far). Both those compositions are easier than MMM. Of course, FF at lower levels is tricky as well as antidrops with infestor/ling. It's all relative.
On February 08 2013 11:33 Kolya504 wrote: Im not sure the OP has a point, or at least, a reasonable prescription - saying terran is underpowered (or something... quite a bit of prevarication going on) at the diamond/masters level but not at grandmaster means you can't buff one without fucking up the other. And if we're shooting for cross-league balance, what about plat and lower? Terran is very strong there (scanner means less dying to cloaking cheeses, MMM and 1 base all-ins effective, little player scouting maximizes drop effectiveness, stimpack + a move = fantastic micro, etc). Can't have everything you want.
Eh it completely depends. A lot of people argue Terran is hard as balls at the lower levels. Microing infestor ling or ling/bane isn't that hard, nor is stalker/colossi (just really sticking with that composition can get you really far). Both those compositions are easier than MMM. Of course, FF at lower levels is tricky as well as antidrops with infestor/ling. It's all relative.
FF are hard to be aggressive with at lower levels, but defensive they work out well enough. Same thing with defending drops. Drops end up being a huge risk, especially when you don't have the APM to distract your opponent.
1) Terran isn't the least played race, you might look at those charts again 2) People argue that Terran is balanced at a high level, but too weak at lower levels. I would argue that win-rates in any league below master are PURELY based on skill. The fact that a unit does 3 damage too much or too little has no significance if both players make glaring mistakes. It's simply the one who messes up a few times less who wins. 3) Everyone assumes that the player numbers are directly connected to perceived balance, personally I went away from Terran because it was boring to me. I don't see it as surprise that many people find Zerg or Protoss more exciting and play those.
On February 08 2013 06:06 perser84 wrote: i think the interview with last shadow is interresting
he said the reason why teran dont do well its
because all the Bo are figured out by Z and P and you must literally to outplay your opponent since you have few options about which build you go
in order to win terran needs good mechanics like the koreans terrans
the only non korean that has good mechanics is stephano maybe thorzian
that why you cant buff terran easily because korean terrans will dominate
its also why being a gold league terran sucks, because quite frankly my mechanics are AWFUL. so are my opponents, but this seemingly impacts me way more than opponents of other races ( or when I play protoss / zerg, everyone plays random now and then.. right? right...? ).
i dont really care about balance, as half the time people are debating metagame, not balance per se, but the only reason guys like MKP are still in code S is because they have ridiculous micro and unit control. Innovation last night looked awesome.
But on the whole, there's more to sc2 than the 2 terran players left in code S right now. playing terran just isnt fun anymore unless you have the micro of a hyperactive korean octopus.
this is supposed to be fun right?
strangely, sc2 was a hell of a lot more fun when I was playing a hell of a lot worse...
SC2 used to be a better game, too, with one faction not completely butchered and the crucial-to-design-working limited not removed from another's economy.
I switched from protoss to terran because I hated not being able to deal with mass roach. Then I found out about the horror that is banelings. One moment of not looking at your bio army and it is all green goo. I don't think other races have an equivalent to the pain that a terran experiences when banelings hit your ball of units.
I think split micro is by far the hardest generally micro mechanic in the game. Stutter step and things like blink micro are really easy in comparison imo. The mousespeed and accuracy required to split your army within the 2 ingame seconds that banelings appear from the fog of war is crazy and the results if you fail are so harsh.
Answering the Topic.....I don't know if it will remain the least played race, because over time the playing population is going to decline a lot and the numbers on each race will likely normalize.. but going just by the game design, map design, balance...yeah it will remain the lowest played race.
On February 08 2013 23:11 Hylirion wrote: I switched from protoss to terran because I hated not being able to deal with mass roach. Then I found out about the horror that is banelings. One moment of not looking at your bio army and it is all green goo. I don't think other races have an equivalent to the pain that a terran experiences when banelings hit your ball of units.
I think split micro is by far the hardest generally micro mechanic in the game. Stutter step and things like blink micro are really easy in comparison imo. The mousespeed and accuracy required to split your army within the 2 ingame seconds that banelings appear from the fog of war is crazy and the results if you fail are so harsh.
In fairness, you do need to counter split banelings which compensates a bit. As someone said before, otherwise your brave jihadbugs will just blow up tanks and leave the zerglings to be gunned down. Not quite as immediate, but still pretty harsh (and if the T doesn't split, you don't need to), and more importantly backed up by our nice absurd economy that is barely threatened anymore.
On February 08 2013 23:11 Hylirion wrote: I switched from protoss to terran because I hated not being able to deal with mass roach. Then I found out about the horror that is banelings. One moment of not looking at your bio army and it is all green goo. I don't think other races have an equivalent to the pain that a terran experiences when banelings hit your ball of units.
I think split micro is by far the hardest generally micro mechanic in the game. Stutter step and things like blink micro are really easy in comparison imo. The mousespeed and accuracy required to split your army within the 2 ingame seconds that banelings appear from the fog of war is crazy and the results if you fail are so harsh.
In fairness, you do need to counter split banelings which compensates a bit. As someone said before, otherwise your brave jihadbugs will just blow up tanks and leave the zerglings to be gunned down. Not quite as immediate, but still pretty harsh (and if the T doesn't split, you don't need to), and more importantly backed up by our nice absurd economy that is barely threatened anymore.
This made me think of something. In BW Ghosts had ocular implant upgrade, which gave them huge vision radius. I think that would be a great upgrade to have in SC2. It wouldn't be anything I could imagine being op, if ghosts could get an upgrade that gave them +2 or +3 vision range. So at least terran could see the speedlings, banlings, infestors, and HT a little further away. Maybe even give the raven a larger sight range by default. So at least in late game terran would have a more reasonbale amount of time to react.. Stimming, splitting, or just retreating fast enough is a big problem for many terrans when there army suddenly gets approached by splash dmg. Terran could really use something mobile, with larger vision range than anything they have now.
It really seems like a simple thing that wouldn't make terran any stronger in a fight, it would just give the terran player more time to use what they have well.
On February 06 2013 22:04 howLiN wrote: To be honest I'm seriously considering switching from Protoss to Terran in HotS, I'm loving the way all the factory units work together.
Good. Blizzard is going to need people to play Terran. Most high masters players like myself that I know won't be playing Terran or at all.
If you play to have fun I don't see why you should switch races if you enjoy the race you're playing as.
Because playing to have fun just isn't as fun when you're losing the majority of your games.
Hey guys, played zerg up to diamond in season 1 (like 2010 season 1) then switched to terran. I pretty muched stopped playing on a regular basis for a long time and just played games here and there, but from playing many other games and also piano I got a lot better over the time while not really playing starcraft. In the end it´s funny cause as I got better the requirments for me staying at a like gold/plat level with terran got higher and higher. Which of course is expected since everybody gets better, the game gets more thought out by every skill level and so on... But I don´t think that things like split second marine splitting should be needed to stay at my level. Yeah it´s something like a race defining mechanic by now, but see it like this: It´s 15:00 min into a TvZ, I have 3 bases, Zerg has 4. I follow my main army as it progresses trough enemy territory, not daring to touch the creep. But i know that i have to, so knowing what happens next I build as much supply depots as I can to ensure that i don´t get blocked for like 4 minutes. I do that really bad move, cause I´m to scared to lock back at my base for like a split second. I siege his 4th, I wait for his army. Banelings come in, i´m ready, supplyblocked, 1.5k overmines... but i´m ready. Stim, kite, focus with tanks, take on group of marines left, other right, other back, split them again.... most banelings die, smirk cause feeling badass... jk, flank, keyboardthrow gg
Well that was maybe a bit over the top, but what I want to say is that nothing is more frustrating then losing against people you know that are way, like way worse than you. Ofc i can play 1000x times better, ofc there are 100000 mistakes I make every game... But, but what if he makes 100001 mistakes and still wins? what if he could play 1002x better than he does, but hes the one winning.
Losing to lesser players is the worst thing ever. And since I play fully again and starcraft is the only game I enjoy nowadays it started to really kill me how those toss and zerg guy get away with every sh*t they pull. I understand the balance=/=skillevel thingy u guys pull of here, but just take a tad and think about my point.
On February 06 2013 22:04 howLiN wrote: To be honest I'm seriously considering switching from Protoss to Terran in HotS, I'm loving the way all the factory units work together.
Good. Blizzard is going to need people to play Terran. Most high masters players like myself that I know won't be playing Terran or at all.
If you play to have fun I don't see why you should switch races if you enjoy the race you're playing as.
Because playing to have fun just isn't as fun when you're losing the majority of your games.
Or when you are trying but get demoted or lose to "worse" players when you feel you're getting better.
On February 08 2013 06:06 perser84 wrote: i think the interview with last shadow is interresting
he said the reason why teran dont do well its
because all the Bo are figured out by Z and P and you must literally to outplay your opponent since you have few options about which build you go
in order to win terran needs good mechanics like the koreans terrans
the only non korean that has good mechanics is stephano maybe thorzian
that why you cant buff terran easily because korean terrans will dominate
its also why being a gold league terran sucks, because quite frankly my mechanics are AWFUL. so are my opponents, but this seemingly impacts me way more than opponents of other races ( or when I play protoss / zerg, everyone plays random now and then.. right? right...? ).
i dont really care about balance, as half the time people are debating metagame, not balance per se, but the only reason guys like MKP are still in code S is because they have ridiculous micro and unit control. Innovation last night looked awesome.
But on the whole, there's more to sc2 than the 2 terran players left in code S right now. playing terran just isnt fun anymore unless you have the micro of a hyperactive korean octopus.
this is supposed to be fun right?
strangely, sc2 was a hell of a lot more fun when I was playing a hell of a lot worse...
no I don't think that is strange at all. From my experience it is less fun once I became mid skilled in every competitive game. fps, rts and dotas. can't tell why...
On February 08 2013 06:06 perser84 wrote: i think the interview with last shadow is interresting
he said the reason why teran dont do well its
because all the Bo are figured out by Z and P and you must literally to outplay your opponent since you have few options about which build you go
in order to win terran needs good mechanics like the koreans terrans
the only non korean that has good mechanics is stephano maybe thorzian
that why you cant buff terran easily because korean terrans will dominate
its also why being a gold league terran sucks, because quite frankly my mechanics are AWFUL. so are my opponents, but this seemingly impacts me way more than opponents of other races ( or when I play protoss / zerg, everyone plays random now and then.. right? right...? ).
i dont really care about balance, as half the time people are debating metagame, not balance per se, but the only reason guys like MKP are still in code S is because they have ridiculous micro and unit control. Innovation last night looked awesome.
But on the whole, there's more to sc2 than the 2 terran players left in code S right now. playing terran just isnt fun anymore unless you have the micro of a hyperactive korean octopus.
this is supposed to be fun right?
strangely, sc2 was a hell of a lot more fun when I was playing a hell of a lot worse...
no I don't think that is strange at all. From my experience it is less fun once I became mid skilled in every competitive game. fps, rts and dotas. can't tell why...
This is actually a side effect of knowledge, not skill.
The better you are at ______ the more you realize how crappy you are. People who attempt mastery at something teach themselves (subconsciously) to think that everything they do sucks--this is necessary to drive one's self to improvement.
So let's say you're studying lemming migration patterns under a full moon--the more you learn the dumber you're going to feel because you begin to realize just how much you're not seeing, how much you don't know, things stop being interesting and everything seems to be a hindrance to your study, everything seems to be insufficient at explaining the mysteries before you.
It doesn't matter what you study, practice, or master whether it be marine splits or lemming migrations--they all lead to the same sense of "non-fun-ness"
Think about it this way--how many times can you watch a random movie (doesn't matter which) before it stops surprising you, before it stops giving you a sense of revelation, a sense of exploration? How many times do you rewatch a movie before you're simply re-experiencing what you've already experienced?
The biggest issue at low level SC2 might be the problem, that protoss and zerg have both extremely powerful allins in their vT matchup, that are very easy to execute. And it just sucks if you lose to such shit over and over again, because you need to read the game well to react properly, hit the right build order and then micro the shit out of your units, because they suck ass if just a-moved, while your opponent needs to know how to execute a build order and rarely anymore than a move with some focusfire for the win. especially the 1-1 speedroach timing from zerg, that everyone seems to play right now, is one of the most frustrating strategies, I've ever faced in SC2 history. I could imagine that this has lead to the declinement of terran players too, because there is no strong allin strategy right now, which could be used by Terrans themselves against Z/P.
On January 19 2013 01:04 FutureBreedMachine wrote: According to SC2ranks, over the last year the Terran player base has been diminishing. I'm sure you are all well aware of this and have heard threads about it numerous times.
This thread has been made at least 1000 times before, why did you decide we needed another?
On February 06 2013 22:04 howLiN wrote: To be honest I'm seriously considering switching from Protoss to Terran in HotS, I'm loving the way all the factory units work together.
Good. Blizzard is going to need people to play Terran. Most high masters players like myself that I know won't be playing Terran or at all.
If you play to have fun I don't see why you should switch races if you enjoy the race you're playing as.
Because playing to have fun just isn't as fun when you're losing the majority of your games.
Or when you are trying but get demoted or lose to "worse" players when you feel you're getting better.
how are you measuring their skill? as far as I know there is no real way to judge player "skill" when they are of 2 different races.
pre pro level it's all macro. if you lose it's because you suck, balance has nothing to do with it.
On February 09 2013 08:17 Blackfish wrote: Hey guys, played zerg up to diamond in season 1 (like 2010 season 1) then switched to terran. I pretty muched stopped playing on a regular basis for a long time and just played games here and there, but from playing many other games and also piano I got a lot better over the time while not really playing starcraft. In the end it´s funny cause as I got better the requirments for me staying at a like gold/plat level with terran got higher and higher. Which of course is expected since everybody gets better, the game gets more thought out by every skill level and so on... But I don´t think that things like split second marine splitting should be needed to stay at my level. Yeah it´s something like a race defining mechanic by now, but see it like this: It´s 15:00 min into a TvZ, I have 3 bases, Zerg has 4. I follow my main army as it progresses trough enemy territory, not daring to touch the creep. But i know that i have to, so knowing what happens next I build as much supply depots as I can to ensure that i don´t get blocked for like 4 minutes. I do that really bad move, cause I´m to scared to lock back at my base for like a split second. I siege his 4th, I wait for his army. Banelings come in, i´m ready, supplyblocked, 1.5k overmines... but i´m ready. Stim, kite, focus with tanks, take on group of marines left, other right, other back, split them again.... most banelings die, smirk cause feeling badass... jk, flank, keyboardthrow gg
Well that was maybe a bit over the top, but what I want to say is that nothing is more frustrating then losing against people you know that are way, like way worse than you. Ofc i can play 1000x times better, ofc there are 100000 mistakes I make every game... But, but what if he makes 100001 mistakes and still wins? what if he could play 1002x better than he does, but hes the one winning.
Losing to lesser players is the worst thing ever. And since I play fully again and starcraft is the only game I enjoy nowadays it started to really kill me how those toss and zerg guy get away with every sh*t they pull. I understand the balance=/=skillevel thingy u guys pull of here, but just take a tad and think about my point.
I don't want to sound elitist or insulting but the level of play in gold league is laughable. Anyone blaming balance for their performance there is kidding themselves. I'm only high diamond/low masters as each race but i can easily win any TvZ in gold/plat without even bothering to split my marines.
Players at that level are making so many hilariously bad mistakes that blaming your loss on not splitting good enough really is missing the big problem. Frankly if you're in gold and you think that's why you're losing than i would argue the problem is you're not looking to the right areas to improve.
Edit: I'd like to see some of the people whining actually post a replay or 2. I'm willing to bet anything that your description of these engagements (making it sound like you're a pro) don't even nearly represent reality and you're probably losing for other reasons.
On February 06 2013 22:04 howLiN wrote: To be honest I'm seriously considering switching from Protoss to Terran in HotS, I'm loving the way all the factory units work together.
Good. Blizzard is going to need people to play Terran. Most high masters players like myself that I know won't be playing Terran or at all.
If you play to have fun I don't see why you should switch races if you enjoy the race you're playing as.
Because playing to have fun just isn't as fun when you're losing the majority of your games.
Or when you are trying but get demoted or lose to "worse" players when you feel you're getting better.
how are you measuring their skill? as far as I know there is no real way to judge player "skill" when they are of 2 different races.
pre pro level it's all macro. if you lose it's because you suck, balance has nothing to do with it.
Mainly by "counting" mistakes. Supply blocks, bad engagements, poor strategy, etc. Somebody said it pretty well earlier, about knowing there are 1000 things you can fix and get better at, but getting crushed by a guy who has 1100 things he can fix.
Also, when you run around saying things like "lol u jus suk nub!" (exaggerating, but sentiment is there) you're just being a dick. You're not helping, you're not convincing anybody, you're just plain being an asshole.
On February 09 2013 08:17 Blackfish wrote: Hey guys, played zerg up to diamond in season 1 (like 2010 season 1) then switched to terran. I pretty muched stopped playing on a regular basis for a long time and just played games here and there, but from playing many other games and also piano I got a lot better over the time while not really playing starcraft. In the end it´s funny cause as I got better the requirments for me staying at a like gold/plat level with terran got higher and higher. Which of course is expected since everybody gets better, the game gets more thought out by every skill level and so on... But I don´t think that things like split second marine splitting should be needed to stay at my level. Yeah it´s something like a race defining mechanic by now, but see it like this: It´s 15:00 min into a TvZ, I have 3 bases, Zerg has 4. I follow my main army as it progresses trough enemy territory, not daring to touch the creep. But i know that i have to, so knowing what happens next I build as much supply depots as I can to ensure that i don´t get blocked for like 4 minutes. I do that really bad move, cause I´m to scared to lock back at my base for like a split second. I siege his 4th, I wait for his army. Banelings come in, i´m ready, supplyblocked, 1.5k overmines... but i´m ready. Stim, kite, focus with tanks, take on group of marines left, other right, other back, split them again.... most banelings die, smirk cause feeling badass... jk, flank, keyboardthrow gg
Well that was maybe a bit over the top, but what I want to say is that nothing is more frustrating then losing against people you know that are way, like way worse than you. Ofc i can play 1000x times better, ofc there are 100000 mistakes I make every game... But, but what if he makes 100001 mistakes and still wins? what if he could play 1002x better than he does, but hes the one winning.
Losing to lesser players is the worst thing ever. And since I play fully again and starcraft is the only game I enjoy nowadays it started to really kill me how those toss and zerg guy get away with every sh*t they pull. I understand the balance=/=skillevel thingy u guys pull of here, but just take a tad and think about my point.
I don't want to sound elitist or insulting but the level of play in gold league is laughable. Anyone blaming balance for their performance there is kidding themselves. I'm only high diamond/low masters as each race but i can easily win any TvZ in gold/plat without even bothering to split my marines.
Players at that level are making so many hilariously bad mistakes that blaming your loss on not splitting good enough really is missing the big problem. Frankly if you're in gold and you think that's why you're losing than i would argue the problem is you're not looking to the right areas to improve.
Edit: I'd like to see some of the people whining actually post a replay or 2. I'm willing to bet anything that your description of these engagements (making it sound like you're a pro) don't even nearly represent reality and you're probably losing for other reasons.
EVERY single Terran who has tried to improve has more than likely tried focusing on different tactics throughout a game and hit a wall of "WTF am I doing wrong here?" Bottom line, most of us don't have the APM or mental swiftness (at SC2) to both attempt to micro our army and make the right macro decisions. In any game up through GM level, you could easily point to some improper proportioning of attention between army control and micro at some point in the game. The kicker is that not being able to both control your army well AND keep up with macro punishes you just as badly as slipping up on just one of them.
On February 09 2013 08:17 Blackfish wrote: Hey guys, played zerg up to diamond in season 1 (like 2010 season 1) then switched to terran. I pretty muched stopped playing on a regular basis for a long time and just played games here and there, but from playing many other games and also piano I got a lot better over the time while not really playing starcraft. In the end it´s funny cause as I got better the requirments for me staying at a like gold/plat level with terran got higher and higher. Which of course is expected since everybody gets better, the game gets more thought out by every skill level and so on... But I don´t think that things like split second marine splitting should be needed to stay at my level. Yeah it´s something like a race defining mechanic by now, but see it like this: It´s 15:00 min into a TvZ, I have 3 bases, Zerg has 4. I follow my main army as it progresses trough enemy territory, not daring to touch the creep. But i know that i have to, so knowing what happens next I build as much supply depots as I can to ensure that i don´t get blocked for like 4 minutes. I do that really bad move, cause I´m to scared to lock back at my base for like a split second. I siege his 4th, I wait for his army. Banelings come in, i´m ready, supplyblocked, 1.5k overmines... but i´m ready. Stim, kite, focus with tanks, take on group of marines left, other right, other back, split them again.... most banelings die, smirk cause feeling badass... jk, flank, keyboardthrow gg
Well that was maybe a bit over the top, but what I want to say is that nothing is more frustrating then losing against people you know that are way, like way worse than you. Ofc i can play 1000x times better, ofc there are 100000 mistakes I make every game... But, but what if he makes 100001 mistakes and still wins? what if he could play 1002x better than he does, but hes the one winning.
Losing to lesser players is the worst thing ever. And since I play fully again and starcraft is the only game I enjoy nowadays it started to really kill me how those toss and zerg guy get away with every sh*t they pull. I understand the balance=/=skillevel thingy u guys pull of here, but just take a tad and think about my point.
I don't want to sound elitist or insulting but the level of play in gold league is laughable. Anyone blaming balance for their performance there is kidding themselves. I'm only high diamond/low masters as each race but i can easily win any TvZ in gold/plat without even bothering to split my marines.
Players at that level are making so many hilariously bad mistakes that blaming your loss on not splitting good enough really is missing the big problem. Frankly if you're in gold and you think that's why you're losing than i would argue the problem is you're not looking to the right areas to improve.
Edit: I'd like to see some of the people whining actually post a replay or 2. I'm willing to bet anything that your description of these engagements (making it sound like you're a pro) don't even nearly represent reality and you're probably losing for other reasons.
EVERY single Terran who has tried to improve has more than likely tried focusing on different tactics throughout a game and hit a wall of "WTF am I doing wrong here?" Bottom line, most of us don't have the APM or mental swiftness (at SC2) to both attempt to micro our army and make the right macro decisions. In any game up through GM level, you could easily point to some improper proportioning of attention between army control and micro at some point in the game. The kicker is that not being able to both control your army well AND keep up with macro punishes you just as badly as slipping up on just one of them.
I'm in the same league with every race, i know what each of them takes at a low level.
I'm diamond Z and I've been offracing as Terran for a couple weeks. It's lots of fun (unlike Toss which I find boring to play) but I'd go insane if it were my main race.. I get smashed in like every engagement vs Z and sometimes I forget to scout for Colossus production and that usually kills me too..
I mean, I know I'm macroing terribly and my decisions aren't good either.. and you can't balance the game for gold/plat, but I wish the playstyle I find so fun (marine/medivac/tank) and MMM were a little bit less unforgiving.. mech is almost as boring as BL/Infestors ZvP
On February 09 2013 12:34 Wafflelisk wrote: I'm diamond Z and I've been offracing as Terran for a couple weeks. It's lots of fun (unlike Toss which I find boring to play) but I'd go insane if it were my main race.. I get smashed in like every engagement vs Z and sometimes I forget to scout for Colossus production and that usually kills me too..
I mean, I know I'm macroing terribly and my decisions aren't good either.. and you can't balance the game for gold/plat, but I wish the playstyle I find so fun (marine/medivac/tank) and MMM were a little bit less unforgiving.. mech is almost as boring as BL/Infestors ZvP
Not even close!! Mech might not be as fun to control, but it's infinitely more challenging!
Zerg is the only race which not only doesn't require crisp timings, but until the top level you can get away with essentially no build order planned.
Unless you deny scouting or you are playing against a horrible Zerg; your timings as Terran/Protoss are not likely solid enough to punish them which is essentially why Zerg is broken until the top level play (and still slightly imbalanced due to the same mechanic since they can tech switch / remax so much easier).
All races have their benefits, but besides this the only thing more imbalanced for mid-tier players is simple/OP death ball compositions; which Zerg also has a decent one with BL/Infestor (I would argue it isn't very good with crisp timings, but it is apparent even in top tier play this is decent as long as you completely out macro or tech switch your opponent).
On February 06 2013 22:04 howLiN wrote: To be honest I'm seriously considering switching from Protoss to Terran in HotS, I'm loving the way all the factory units work together.
Good. Blizzard is going to need people to play Terran. Most high masters players like myself that I know won't be playing Terran or at all.
If you play to have fun I don't see why you should switch races if you enjoy the race you're playing as.
Because playing to have fun just isn't as fun when you're losing the majority of your games.
Or when you are trying but get demoted or lose to "worse" players when you feel you're getting better.
how are you measuring their skill? as far as I know there is no real way to judge player "skill" when they are of 2 different races.
pre pro level it's all macro. if you lose it's because you suck, balance has nothing to do with it.
Mainly by "counting" mistakes. Supply blocks, bad engagements, poor strategy, etc. Somebody said it pretty well earlier, about knowing there are 1000 things you can fix and get better at, but getting crushed by a guy who has 1100 things he can fix.
Also, when you run around saying things like "lol u jus suk nub!" (exaggerating, but sentiment is there) you're just being a dick. You're not helping, you're not convincing anybody, you're just plain being an asshole.
You're in no position to count and compare your mistakes with your opponents, since you'll always be biased. I doubt anyone here can post a replay where he objectively played better than his opponent and still lost.
On February 06 2013 22:04 howLiN wrote: To be honest I'm seriously considering switching from Protoss to Terran in HotS, I'm loving the way all the factory units work together.
Good. Blizzard is going to need people to play Terran. Most high masters players like myself that I know won't be playing Terran or at all.
If you play to have fun I don't see why you should switch races if you enjoy the race you're playing as.
Because playing to have fun just isn't as fun when you're losing the majority of your games.
Or when you are trying but get demoted or lose to "worse" players when you feel you're getting better.
how are you measuring their skill? as far as I know there is no real way to judge player "skill" when they are of 2 different races.
pre pro level it's all macro. if you lose it's because you suck, balance has nothing to do with it.
Mainly by "counting" mistakes. Supply blocks, bad engagements, poor strategy, etc. Somebody said it pretty well earlier, about knowing there are 1000 things you can fix and get better at, but getting crushed by a guy who has 1100 things he can fix.
Also, when you run around saying things like "lol u jus suk nub!" (exaggerating, but sentiment is there) you're just being a dick. You're not helping, you're not convincing anybody, you're just plain being an asshole.
You're in no position to count and compare your mistakes with your opponents, since you'll always be biased. I doubt anyone here can post a replay where he objectively played better than his opponent and still lost.
You can play better and lose to a blind counter. I think it is hard to define "better". There are so many things to consider. I guess you could say better macro, micro, strategy, mechanics etc. But I don't believe you can put them all together and sum them up to better than someone else.
On February 06 2013 22:04 howLiN wrote: To be honest I'm seriously considering switching from Protoss to Terran in HotS, I'm loving the way all the factory units work together.
Good. Blizzard is going to need people to play Terran. Most high masters players like myself that I know won't be playing Terran or at all.
If you play to have fun I don't see why you should switch races if you enjoy the race you're playing as.
Because playing to have fun just isn't as fun when you're losing the majority of your games.
Or when you are trying but get demoted or lose to "worse" players when you feel you're getting better.
how are you measuring their skill? as far as I know there is no real way to judge player "skill" when they are of 2 different races.
pre pro level it's all macro. if you lose it's because you suck, balance has nothing to do with it.
Mainly by "counting" mistakes. Supply blocks, bad engagements, poor strategy, etc. Somebody said it pretty well earlier, about knowing there are 1000 things you can fix and get better at, but getting crushed by a guy who has 1100 things he can fix.
Also, when you run around saying things like "lol u jus suk nub!" (exaggerating, but sentiment is there) you're just being a dick. You're not helping, you're not convincing anybody, you're just plain being an asshole.
You're in no position to count and compare your mistakes with your opponents, since you'll always be biased. I doubt anyone here can post a replay where he objectively played better than his opponent and still lost.
Game two of soul key vs Squirtle.
Hero vs leenock on Antiga (6base toss vs 2base Zerg, guess who won)
Etc...
Sadly--the only examples I can really pull out are professional zvp matches... Which is not helpful for a Terran whine thread.
So I found myself playing SC2 less and less about 5 months ago, and finally semi-retired about 3-4 months ago despite still enjoying the game, the community and the professional leagues as a spectator.
When I stopped playing I was a mid diamond level terran. I had issues with t v z, I felt the match up wasn't properly balanced and was tired of a somewhat lopsided loss rate, but mostly I felt that whatever problems in various match ups I had could be corrected with better mechanics and strategies. Over time however, I simply started to feel beat down. Terrans were almost continuously nerfed to the exclusion of other races (perhaps justifiably in some cases) and other races seemed to get the occasional buff but NEVER my race. When I saw the projected changes to the various races in HoTS and tried to play some of the beta, I felt like not only was balancing Terran against the other races not a priority of Blizzard's, but also the creativity and imagination in developing new units and strategies for Terran seemed to be lacking. Perhaps the day that they were proposing Terran changes for HoTS they dismissed the development team and brought in that focus group of Kindergartners from the AT&T commercials.
Anyway, I have tried to play sporadically at times, and my mechanics are no longer the least bit crisp, which is frustrating and in turn leads to losses which in turn leads to apathy....
The point of this post is not to simply whine about balance, balancing a game like WoL or HoTS is inherently a complicated process, and Blizzard does a fairly good job. I simply wanted to share the point of view of a Terran who loves SC2 but quit playing simply because he felt marginalized and ignored. I would have liked maybe one or two cool new toys to play with during my 2 year love affair with WoL, but instead I felt like I had been beaten with a nerfbat like that scene from "They Live" until my love for both the game and my race was completely sapped.
On February 23 2013 07:35 GrokSC wrote: So I found myself playing SC2 less and less about 5 months ago, and finally semi-retired about 3-4 months ago despite still enjoying the game, the community and the professional leagues as a spectator.
When I stopped playing I was a mid diamond level terran. I had issues with t v z, I felt the match up wasn't properly balanced and was tired of a somewhat lopsided loss rate, but mostly I felt that whatever problems in various match ups I had could be corrected with better mechanics and strategies. Over time however, I simply started to feel beat down. Terrans were almost continuously nerfed to the exclusion of other races (perhaps justifiably in some cases) and other races seemed to get the occasional buff but NEVER my race. When I saw the projected changes to the various races in HoTS and tried to play some of the beta, I felt like not only was balancing Terran against the other races not a priority of Blizzard's, but also the creativity and imagination in developing new units and strategies for Terran seemed to be lacking. Perhaps the day that they were proposing Terran changes for HoTS they dismissed the development team and brought in that focus group of Kindergartners from the AT&T commercials.
Anyway, I have tried to play sporadically at times, and my mechanics are no longer the least bit crisp, which is frustrating and in turn leads to losses which in turn leads to apathy....
The point of this post is not to simply whine about balance, balancing a game like WoL or HoTS is inherently a complicated process, and Blizzard does a fairly good job. I simply wanted to share the point of view of a Terran who loves SC2 but quit playing simply because he felt marginalized and ignored. I would have liked maybe one or two cool new toys to play with during my 2 year love affair with WoL, but instead I felt like I had been beaten with a nerfbat like that scene from "They Live" until my love for both the game and my race was completely sapped.
On February 23 2013 07:35 GrokSC wrote: So I found myself playing SC2 less and less about 5 months ago, and finally semi-retired about 3-4 months ago despite still enjoying the game, the community and the professional leagues as a spectator.
When I stopped playing I was a mid diamond level terran. I had issues with t v z, I felt the match up wasn't properly balanced and was tired of a somewhat lopsided loss rate, but mostly I felt that whatever problems in various match ups I had could be corrected with better mechanics and strategies. Over time however, I simply started to feel beat down. Terrans were almost continuously nerfed to the exclusion of other races (perhaps justifiably in some cases) and other races seemed to get the occasional buff but NEVER my race. When I saw the projected changes to the various races in HoTS and tried to play some of the beta, I felt like not only was balancing Terran against the other races not a priority of Blizzard's, but also the creativity and imagination in developing new units and strategies for Terran seemed to be lacking. Perhaps the day that they were proposing Terran changes for HoTS they dismissed the development team and brought in that focus group of Kindergartners from the AT&T commercials.
Anyway, I have tried to play sporadically at times, and my mechanics are no longer the least bit crisp, which is frustrating and in turn leads to losses which in turn leads to apathy....
The point of this post is not to simply whine about balance, balancing a game like WoL or HoTS is inherently a complicated process, and Blizzard does a fairly good job. I simply wanted to share the point of view of a Terran who loves SC2 but quit playing simply because he felt marginalized and ignored. I would have liked maybe one or two cool new toys to play with during my 2 year love affair with WoL, but instead I felt like I had been beaten with a nerfbat like that scene from "They Live" until my love for both the game and my race was completely sapped.
This is almost the exact thing I experienced.
To add to it, my own bad experiences at my lowbie level of play seemed to be dismissed entirely from any discussion. There's even an interview where Browder posits, "there’s cultural differences between countries that makes Korean Terrans and foreigner Terrans different." I realize that balance happens at the top level of play, but this looks like a clear case of the race being designed only for top level play in mind.
On February 23 2013 07:35 GrokSC wrote: So I found myself playing SC2 less and less about 5 months ago, and finally semi-retired about 3-4 months ago despite still enjoying the game, the community and the professional leagues as a spectator.
When I stopped playing I was a mid diamond level terran. I had issues with t v z, I felt the match up wasn't properly balanced and was tired of a somewhat lopsided loss rate, but mostly I felt that whatever problems in various match ups I had could be corrected with better mechanics and strategies. Over time however, I simply started to feel beat down. Terrans were almost continuously nerfed to the exclusion of other races (perhaps justifiably in some cases) and other races seemed to get the occasional buff but NEVER my race. When I saw the projected changes to the various races in HoTS and tried to play some of the beta, I felt like not only was balancing Terran against the other races not a priority of Blizzard's, but also the creativity and imagination in developing new units and strategies for Terran seemed to be lacking. Perhaps the day that they were proposing Terran changes for HoTS they dismissed the development team and brought in that focus group of Kindergartners from the AT&T commercials.
Anyway, I have tried to play sporadically at times, and my mechanics are no longer the least bit crisp, which is frustrating and in turn leads to losses which in turn leads to apathy....
The point of this post is not to simply whine about balance, balancing a game like WoL or HoTS is inherently a complicated process, and Blizzard does a fairly good job. I simply wanted to share the point of view of a Terran who loves SC2 but quit playing simply because he felt marginalized and ignored. I would have liked maybe one or two cool new toys to play with during my 2 year love affair with WoL, but instead I felt like I had been beaten with a nerfbat like that scene from "They Live" until my love for both the game and my race was completely sapped.
This is almost the exact thing I experienced.
To add to it, my own bad experiences at my lowbie level of play seemed to be dismissed entirely from any discussion. There's even an interview where Browder posits, "there’s cultural differences between countries that makes Korean Terrans and foreigner Terrans different." I realize that balance happens at the top level of play, but this looks like a clear case of the race being designed only for top level play in mind.
All balance *must* only be balanced with top players in mind.
The problem is that Terran was given the majority of nerfs, and when HotS shows up we get a faster medivac and a two legged Hellion.
I'm not saying that Terran got *nothing* in HotS--but its hard to feel the love when Blizz rolls so low on the charisma check.
GrokSC, I would be in the same shoes as you if not for one key difference. About three months ago, now, I sat down and started really, really playing. I practiced and I focused. I got really good, and got to the point where I was playing mid and high masters players and winning. I achieved my own personal goal of hitting masters with the race that I enjoyed the most.
It was hard as hell, and that made it all the more rewarding. But then I took a break, and dropped back down to Diamond level, where I sit at present. Every time I take a break I get way, way worse. That's not so bad, in and of itself, except for one thing. I can sit down and play a game as Zerg without having played any games in a week and absolutely destroy anybody I get matched up against at high diamond/low masters level. It's piss easy. If I queue up as Terran I have to struggle and fight to win a match, and it's really hard because I'm not playing as well as I was the last time I played. That feeling of the game being much easier from the other side of the table is very frustrating, and I tend to lose the majority of my TvZ games on ladder (unless I do focused practice, with careful execution of build orders and crisp micro). I can absolutely crush Protoss players at the same level and Terran ones too with multitasking and macro... but Zerg is a whole different animal for me.
To be clear, I don't think that Zerg is actually "imba"... it's just very, very easy to be good with until you hit higher echelons where your opponent's will make you work very hard to maintain that creep spread, that overlord spread, hit those injects, and make overlords on time. When focus isn't at a premium, it is very, very simple.
But, on the flip side, there are Zerg opening builds that will absolutely destroy a Terran player who prepares, has scouted in advance, and is focused and trying hard to survive. IMO there is not one single build order with that same level of threat in ZvT except for unscouted two port cloaked banshees, where the Zerg does not build an evolution chamber quickly. It's really frustrating to deal with as the Terran -- knowing that your lifeline can be cut short with minimal effort while you have to work to win.
[As an aside, I don't find proxy 11-11 to be at all an "insta-death" build order in ZvT. It can be held with intelligent control, and so long as you pull drones appropriately, and have practiced against it properly before, it can be reliably deflected unless you just don't bother scouting.]
I think that HotS does a good job of addressing this with Hellbats and Widow Mines, because they absolutely demolish any kind of lazy or uncareful play if used well. The Hellbat roasts lings (oh God, lings in WoL ZvT...) and drones if dropped, requiring focus from a Zerg, and Widow Mines make it so Zerg doesn't automatically have total map control the moment that Zergling speed finishes. It gives Terran punishing units before a massive number of siege tanks are on the field, enabling them to do actual fun tactics without investing their heart and soul into not dying to bullshit.
On February 23 2013 08:27 CapnAmerica wrote: GrokSC, I would be in the same shoes as you if not for one key difference. About three months ago, now, I sat down and started really, really playing. I practiced and I focused. I got really good, and got to the point where I was playing mid and high masters players and winning. I achieved my own personal goal of hitting masters with the race that I enjoyed the most.
It was hard as hell, and that made it all the more rewarding. But then I took a break, and dropped back down to Diamond level, where I sit at present. Every time I take a break I get way, way worse. That's not so bad, in and of itself, except for one thing. I can sit down and play a game as Zerg without having played any games in a week and absolutely destroy anybody I get matched up against at high diamond/low masters level. It's piss easy. If I queue up as Terran I have to struggle and fight to win a match, and it's really hard because I'm not playing as well as I was the last time I played. That feeling of the game being much easier from the other side of the table is very frustrating, and I tend to lose the majority of my TvZ games on ladder (unless I do focused practice, with careful execution of build orders and crisp micro). I can absolutely crush Protoss players at the same level and Terran ones too with multitasking and macro... but Zerg is a whole different animal for me.
To be clear, I don't think that Zerg is actually "imba"... it's just very, very easy to be good with until you hit higher echelons where your opponent's will make you work very hard to maintain that creep spread, that overlord spread, hit those injects, and make overlords on time. When focus isn't at a premium, it is very, very simple.
But, on the flip side, there are Zerg opening builds that will absolutely destroy a Terran player who prepares, has scouted in advance, and is focused and trying hard to survive. IMO there is not one single build order with that same level of threat in ZvT except for unscouted two port cloaked banshees, where the Zerg does not build an evolution chamber quickly. It's really frustrating to deal with as the Terran -- knowing that your lifeline can be cut short with minimal effort while you have to work to win.
[As an aside, I don't find proxy 11-11 to be at all an "insta-death" build order in ZvT. It can be held with intelligent control, and so long as you pull drones appropriately, and have practiced against it properly before, it can be reliably deflected unless you just don't bother scouting.]
I think that HotS does a good job of addressing this with Hellbats and Widow Mines, because they absolutely demolish any kind of lazy or uncareful play if used well. The Hellbat roasts lings (oh God, lings in WoL ZvT...) and drones if dropped, requiring focus from a Zerg, and Widow Mines make it so Zerg doesn't automatically have total map control the moment that Zergling speed finishes. It gives Terran punishing units before a massive number of siege tanks are on the field, enabling them to do actual fun tactics without investing their heart and soul into not dying to bullshit.
I play Terran and Zerg.
I can't beat Z or P as Zerg, only T I can only beat T or P as Terran, I can't beat Zerg.
Zerg is favored against Terran whether I play Terran or Zerg--its frustratingly hilarious.
Terrans lost so much in style from broodwar to sc2, it's really saddening...
I Miss the minefields, the tank lines, goliaths, and wraiths and valkyries. The Way FanTaSy plays Terran is so completly different than what it looks like in sc2.