Do you think players tha play certain races share common traits?

[Gt2slurp]

Probably because their bunkers are 100% refundable. :P

loled ><

[SaharaDrac]

So basically this thread is about throwing around arbitrary generalizations?


I think it's micro Protoss players are uncomfortable with, not macro. Less but more powerful units = easier micro. There's nothing about Protoss that makes macro easier, sc1 or sc2. While it is true that there are protoss players out there who like to be hyper aggressive (mainly new players), there are many who like to beast it up with multiple expansions. I personally enjoy things like waiting for Chrono Boost to count up and optimizing other parts of my resource/base management.

Probably because their bunkers are 100% refundable. :P

Arbitrary generalizations and the butthurt protoss that are the inevitable result, yes!

As for Macro, I simply meant they produce fewer units overall.

[Norfindel]

Well, in the last mention about Korea pro-gamer corruption, there wasn't any Protoss player mentioned, but there were like 3 Terrans and Zerg

[Gradius]

Arbitrary generalizations and the butthurt protoss that are the inevitable result, yes!

As for Macro, I simply meant they produce fewer units overall.

lol? It's not like you've said anything offensive, unless preferring more powerful units or having superior taste in lore/art are bad things.

I have some of my own theories though:
1) Protoss players are analytical geniuses who enjoy challenging themselves. Other races' players are mere simpletons.
2) Terran players are afraid to take risks and hate dealing with the unknown - which is why they favor turtle-based gameplay and are given an ability which so easily reduces any uncertainty about what their opponent is doing (scanner sweep).

[Blasterion]

it's also much easier to control fewer units than more units.some how I feel Terran has a abundance of Active Spells as well. (Mode Swaps included) Zerg has the least amount of Castables (especially if we don't count the queen).

[Hammy]

So basically this thread is about throwing around arbitrary generalizations?


I think it's micro Protoss players are uncomfortable with, not macro. Less but more powerful units = easier micro. There's nothing about Protoss that makes macro easier, sc1 or sc2. While it is true that there are protoss players out there who like to be hyper aggressive (mainly new players), there are many who like to beast it up with multiple expansions. I personally enjoy things like waiting for Chrono Boost to count up and optimizing other parts of my resource/base management.

I suspect what he means is that the protoss require fewer units to achieve results, and it requires less intense and reliable macro to get X number of protoss units than it does to get X number of zerg units (considering the whole larvae tension: econ or army, etc...).

Once that army is there, you can use your micro to greater effect (the idea isn't that they want "easier" micro, but they want it to "count more"). Also, the protoss currently have more gamebreaking options. Transitionning quickly into void rays (or immortals, or collossi, or DT) can win you the game right there if you've got the right timing. That's less likely with a race like the Zerg which don't have as many hard counters. The Zerg relies a bit less on army composition and more on numbers (so less time thinking, more time massing and applying a build order). Three extra hydralisks will do way less than an extra immortal, even if you consider both are being microed appropriately.

Of course I'm being very extreme here, all of these differences are pretty subtle imo.


I agree with some of what sahara says, but not all...

I don't think the zerg want to win any more than any other race tbh, but if I had to pick a "greedy for the win race", it would be terran. With such a solid and and patient gameplay, I can picture a terran calculating and planning his unavoidable victory (so I agree with what you said about the terrans). He cares less about how he kills his opponent, and more about just getting the job done for the win.

"I have noticed (and mind you this is from a decade of playing) that players who feel the person with the fastest hands, the strongest mechanics, and the most money should always win the game tend to play Zerg. Agree They tend to be very focused and robotic.Disagree"

Actually I think many zerg players are very intuitive, especially at the higher levels. Zerg players don't think about optimization as much as a terran would, but they've got a 'big picture' kind of process.
A zerg players thinks: right now my opponent is blind and scared, he won't move out => so I'll expand.
A terran player thinks: I've got 80population and my army is 2-1 => so I'll expand.

I think Idra and Artosis are the exception actually, and July/Jaedong/Effort/Calm(and now Sen/TLO at SC2) are the norm. The latter players dazzle us with amazing intuition and understanding of what their opponent is thinking. And how fitting is it that Idra and Artosis only started playing Zerg and they used to be terran players? I think they're playing Zerg in the same way a mech terran used to be played in SC:BW: lay back > secure bases with minimal risk > gain invincible econ/army(same concept) > roll over opponent.
Perhaps this is one Zerg style in SC2, but the aggressive style seems to working just fine (watch the more creative Z players). That aggressive style is definitely a part of why I love them.

Of course when I mention that I think Zerg players are intuitive, this also means I disagree with the whole "fluttered by changes in the game" etc... I think you might get that impression from the fact that a Zerg economy is much more delicate than the other's, so you might think that the players are worse at getting back up from a surprise, when in fact I think the race is just harder at those aspects.

I like your ideas though. I always thought Protoss players picked that race because of their looks
I couldn't really explain why I can't go more than 5 games without playing Zerg. It could just be routine and muscle memory, or maybe they've just got a feel to them that I don't get from the other races.
I like playing Terran as well, but I play them with some very strong and solid builds. This is very different from my zerg play where I think more about what my opponent might be doing than about my own game plan.
I'm analytical with both, but in one case I'm perfecting my own build, while in the other I'm contemplating my opponent's options in the current situation.
This is also why I hate playing zerg in 2v2: I can't be thinking of two opponents at the same time.

I might be getting a bit off topic, so I'll leave at that This is a pretty interesting thread though; i've always wondered why I can't quit Zerg in 1v1.

Probably because their bunkers are 100% refundable. :P

Hehe so true
I've seen some great opening builds that revolve around that recently :wink:

[SaharaDrac]

lol? It's not like you've said anything offensive, unless preferring more powerful units or having superior taste in lore/art are bad things.

I have some of my own theories though:
1) Protoss players are analytical geniuses who enjoy challenging themselves. Other races' players are mere simpletons.
2) Terran players are afraid to take risks and hate dealing with the unknown - which is why they favor turtle-based gameplay and are given an ability which so easily reduces any uncertainty about what their opponent is doing (scanner sweep).

I simply think you're taking my perceptions as more generalized and sweeping than they actually are. As a matter of fact, the only guess I made was towards Protoss players' affinity towards aesthetics. My other statements aren't theory, they're majority fact.

Also, I'm going to EMP your nutsack clean off!

[Roland]

lol? It's not like you've said anything offensive, unless preferring more powerful units or having superior taste in lore/art are bad things.

I have some of my own theories though:
1) Protoss players are analytical geniuses who enjoy challenging themselves. Other races' players are mere simpletons.
2) Terran players are afraid to take risks and hate dealing with the unknown - which is why they favor turtle-based gameplay and are given an ability which so easily reduces any uncertainty about what their opponent is doing (scanner sweep).

Ha, I play Protoss too. I would like to do a poll to study the correlation of race choice to MBTI type... I could get it down to 12 option by only using the archetypes instead of actual types.

From what SaharaDrac said earlier, Zerg=Artisans, Protoss=Rationals, and Terran=Guardians, I can't place Idealists, although they often fit surprisingly well with Rationals. I pretty much agree with that too, although I think a lot of people tend to not put the effort into finding which race they are best with, and just pick the "coolest" one.

[TheEconomist]

I could agree with this because I'm a Random player and refuse to change. Also, IRL I like to struggle and tend to do take the hardest path if it's worth the effort.

[Blasterion]

I personally believe Random People are the type to make Lemonade out of Lemons