|
United States4883 Posts
On January 27 2014 23:53 SC2John wrote:
The first thing I want to say is that when people talk about whether a map is "good" or "bad" for a certain race, they're referring to whether or not a race can play a standard macro game on that map (whatever "standard" is in the current meta).
This does not mean that, for instance, Zerg cannot benefit from short rush distances. But it is a generally sound statement to make when talking about the "standard" macro play in today's games. This is because no matter how you play or the map, the race has the same general weaknesses and strengths. This is the most important thing I can stress.
On January 28 2014 03:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:
You seem to take from it that I say that the theory that Zerg benefits from short rush distances is sound. I'm just saying that the theory that Zerg benefits from large one's is flawed. That's a fundamentally different reasoning.
In regards to standard play in the current meta, long rush distances are good for Zerg. That doesn't mean that Zerg can never benefit from short rush distances, but rather that a large portion of the meta and viable strategies relies on long rush distances.
How is the Zerg lower tier army inefficient? Terran and Protoss cannot move out against Zerg before they have a reasonable army because speedlings in small numbers overwhelm anything cost efficiently.
Cost efficiency is generally the ratio of cost to DPS per hit point. Zerglings are anything but "cost efficient". However, they can overwhelm the opponent with superior numbers, making them efficient map control units. The words "cost efficient" are used incorrectly here.
That's why maps need wallable mains. Terran and Protoss have no units that are cost efficient vs Zerg. If maps had no choke at the main Zerg could just turn all their production to units and Terran/Protoss couldn't stop the assault and this would of course only work better with tadam short rush distances.
Again, Terran and Protoss units are highly cost efficient vs. Zerg. This is again an issue of map control and not cost efficiency. The drawback to early map control is often a weaker infrastructure and a very cost-inefficient army; this is true for all the races.
You assume the only or optimal way to play Zerg is defensively. Maximize income, create units reactively to a push and just barely hold it. This may be how IdrA plays it and how he long preached that itw as the only way to play.
This is still the most standard way to play. Also, NesTea is perhaps more influential in this arena than Idra. If you don't understand what I mean, look at every ZvT in the past year; a large majority of the games are the Zerg taking 4 bases and getting a super economy then holding the 4M parade push for the next 20 minutes. Again, that doesn't mean this is the only way to play, it just means that it's considered the standard.
But newer generation more aggressive Zergs such as Life, Leenock, DRG (and Hyvaa lol) have time and time again shown that playing non reactive aggressive Zerg where you do not make an army in response to your opponent is viable and works, and this style benefits from short rush distances of course.
WRONG. Again, the natural consequence of early map control is a weaker infrastructure and a less cost-efficient army. Life's 2012 ZvT (the one that was killing Terrans left and right) was based on having a large rush distance so that the early lings Life made for map control could delay a push long enough to get the proper tech out. On a greater scale, the same goes in ZvP for roach/hydra busts at the Protoss third base. The goal is to trade, delay, and transition just long enough to crush the upgraded tech from Protoss.
Don't confuse "aggressive" with "good for short rush distances", because that's a wrong assumption. Again, it's the general larva mechanic that makes Zerg do generally better on larger maps. It's not because there's only one way to play the race, it's because the race itself has certain restrictions. This means that a player can look at a map, say, "well, gee, I'm disadvantaged in this area and this area, but I have an advantage here," and make adjustments to their play to mitigate their weaknesses and reinforce their strengths. Map analysis is purely the reason why sometimes the numbers don't add up.
I'm not trying to prove that all general statements made about maps and the races are true. I'm saying that deductive (and experiential) reasoning can provide a reasonable base for map analysis in a "standard" game. This doesn't mean the game HAS to be played a certain way or that players will always do the same thing, but it gives us a very good predictor into the actions of players and how they might react on certain maps and in certain situations. In televised matches, sometimes these predictors are blown out of proportion, but in a sense, a well-informed player can always make well-informed predictions on a game with a fair amount of success.
I'm not making excuses or creating "theoretical reasoning" to provide for number inconsistencies. I'm explaining the way the map is definitely shaped and how certain architectures and distances can be abused by certain races as a strength, and why others would find weaknesses in that. Looking back on the history of maps, the results don't always match the predictors, but that's simply a matter of 2-D logic: "This map has lots of small chokes, so Protoss should be favored over Zerg on this map." There are billions of factors that go into deciding whether a race is favored over another, but we can always take clues from the way the map is designed to more intelligently guess the outcome, both as players and as spectators.
|
Canada13402 Posts
On January 28 2014 03:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 01:14 ZeromuS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 28 2014 00:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 23:53 SC2John wrote:On January 27 2014 22:53 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Tell that to Artosis and Tasteless & Co. who are constantly hammering how Whirlwind is good for Zerg and how lucky Zerg got for spawning cross and explaining to people how Zerg needs long rush distance due to the larval mechanical (which is a fallacy, theoretically Larvae benefit as much from short rush distances as long because Zerg can also turn their entire production into attacking units). They're the one's I'm criticizing and they do say all those things.
Zerg does not benefit from short rush distances because of the way drones and larva mechanics work. They benefit largely from being able to a) delay for as long as possible and buy some extra time between drone/unit production cycles and b) creating a hugeass ocean of creep. Look at Zerg win rates on Yeonsu. It's not a coincidence, it's because in general chokes and small rush distances are bad for Zerg It's only bad for Zerg against Terran, in PvZ it's fine. The idea that larvae mean Zerg does not benefit from a short rush distances is theoretically flawed. Zerg can just as easily benefit from a short rush distance on a theoretical level because just as they can turn their entire production to workers (benefit from a long rush distance) they can turn their entire production into attacking units in which case they benefit from a short one. Playing like IdrA isn't the only way to play Zerg. Show nested quote +What are you even saying with these "theoretical" statements? I just don't why someone would insist on plugging their ears and pretending that real analysis is not a thing Because it's inaccurate "anything goes" reasoning and is as often wrong as it is right. There is zero guarantee to the correctness. Show nested quote +I can understand frustration with casters who hype things up way more than they should (and end up being wrong), but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to predict what someone's going to do based on the map or opening build. Those are highly probable based on analysis of the race attributes, the way maps work, and how the game works. There are no great mysteries behind why certain races do well on maps and why they don't lol. The scientific method might not be flawed, but the way you're using logic here is If this were true it would be accurate, which it is now. Show nested quote +EDIT: And yes, I watch almost every professional SC2 game, so I know why Protoss wins on Polar Night. No, you think you know and you have no way of verifying or falsifying your hypothesis to the cause. No, you think you know and you have no way of verifying or falsifying your hypothesis to the cause. Because it's inaccurate "anything goes" reasoning and is as often wrong as it is right. There is zero guarantee to the correctness. The idea that larvae mean Zerg does not benefit from a short rush distances is theoretically flawed. Zerg can just as easily benefit from a short rush distance on a theoretical level because just as they can turn their entire production to workers (benefit from a long rush distance) they can turn their entire production into attacking units in which case they benefit from a short one. Playing like IdrA isn't the only way to play Zerg. And /thread Saying that the theory of an idea is flawed is fundamentally different than saying that the theory of the negation of the idea is sound. You seem to take from it that I say that the theory that Zerg benefits from short rush distances is sound. I'm just saying that the theory that Zerg benefits from large one's is flawed. That's a fundamentally different reasoning. Show nested quote +-- I will add the following though:
Zerg cannot break a defensive opponent as easily as the other races because of the general inefficiency of their lower tier army. They need the rush distances to be larger because they do not build their army all at once. How is the Zerg lower tier army inefficient? Terran and Protoss cannot move out against Zerg before they have a reasonable army because speedlings in small numbers overwhelm anything cost efficiently. That's why maps need wallable mains. Terran and Protoss have no units that are cost efficient vs Zerg. If maps had no choke at the main Zerg could just turn all their production to units and Terran/Protoss couldn't stop the assault and this would of course only work better with tadam short rush distances. Show nested quote +Against any sort of mid game timing, the zerg needs to: - recognize it
- stop drone production(cannot cancel drones, if you cancel the larva dies and you get the money back but no production mehcanic to use that money)
- wait for the next round of larva to pop
- produce and wait the build time of the units
- rally all the units to the front and fight with the army altogether
- repeat as necessary until army is able to defend - sending in a small army two times to die is less effective than one large army to win
I dont want to get involved in the fight but short distances are a poor factor for zerg winrates. While roaches are beefy they do not dps enough vs repair and banelings have a long production time. Other than using these two units at a very early timing the rush distance will negatively impact zerg and they are unlikely to break a defensive opponent. You assume the only or optimal way to play Zerg is defensively. Maximize income, create units reactively to a push and just barely hold it. This may be how IdrA plays it and how he long preached that itw as the only way to play. But newer generation more aggressive Zergs such as Life, Leenock, DRG (and Hyvaa lol) have time and time again shown that playing non reactive aggressive Zerg where you do not make an army in response to your opponent is viable and works, and this style benefits from short rush distances of course.
Im just gonna say one last thing. You need a certain amount of economy to make X or Y attack work.
Early zerg attacks rely on a certain amount of economy and they cannot break the defensive stance of their opponents. The only reason protoss and terran cant push out against a zerg too early in most scenarios is because the production system Zerg uses allows them to get a large army supply more quickly and earlier than their opponents, however, when being aggressive with this army you see vastly diminishing returns due to the low range of the early units. Yes some maps with large naturals and short rush distances might benefit zergs doing a very quick all in. However, due to the cut in economy for the army they will hit a breaking point where the opposing army with a similar economy to back it will be more powerful than the zerg army. At this point the zerg needs to defend and they need time to trade their existing army for some of the opposing army and remake the same army. If their economy is just enough to maintain that army, then they can trade effectively, but if they dont trade well enough even once, then the game snowballs as their economy cannot create enough army supply to defend against additional attacks.
this is why things like the seven gate and four gate worked, zerg either had too much economy and not enough army, or they couldnt sustain their army as well as the opponent could and they slowly lose.
I am not saying short rush distances are universally bad for all zerg builds. But they are very favourable to the non zerg races in a versus Z matchup.
Leenock and the other zergs you mention would not benefit from a map like steppes for example. They require a certain amount of economy to support their builds. Also keep in mind that on a short rush distance map, strong high tech and slightly slower units become much more powerful especially against a low tech aggressive zerg army of roach ling. Mutas do well on short maps but you need a full 2 base economy to even get a reasonable amount of them.
Let us ALSO remember that the defensive posture of a protoss or terran is intended to help them reach this breaking point faster with a strong economy to make a more powerful army that can handle the zerg army. So yes, zerg needs more economy to make more units to trade better and to try to baneling bust every short distance map is folly because if T or P defends, they are in a good position to counter and outright win because in a direct fight they will have more economy to make more army which already trades well against zerg.
|
On January 28 2014 06:29 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 23:53 SC2John wrote:
The first thing I want to say is that when people talk about whether a map is "good" or "bad" for a certain race, they're referring to whether or not a race can play a standard macro game on that map (whatever "standard" is in the current meta). This does not mean that, for instance, Zerg cannot benefit from short rush distances. But it is a generally sound statement to make when talking about the "standard" macro play in today's games. This is because no matter how you play or the map, the race has the same general weaknesses and strengths. This is the most important thing I can stress.
And the theory that Zerg is supposed to play a defensive macro game is outdated as hell. It was popularized by IdrA and Nestea and it's over. There was a time in the meta where Zergs recognized that the only way to beat top biomine playing Terrans was to roach/bane all in them and they did so with great success. If you're going to roach/bane all in every other map there is no advantage to a larger rush distance. The meta at that time was that Terran got a quick 3 CC, into biomine and put on basically no pressure until 140 supply when they started their biomine parade as popularized by innovation and flash. Zerg realized the weakness of this style was that they had no tanks and were quite greedy and would hit with roach/bane timings before they got to their biomine parade. In this meta there is no advantage whatsoever for Zerg in a longer rush distance because they are the first to attack and hope to do crippling damage with their attack.
Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 03:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:
You seem to take from it that I say that the theory that Zerg benefits from short rush distances is sound. I'm just saying that the theory that Zerg benefits from large one's is flawed. That's a fundamentally different reasoning. In regards to standard play in the current meta, long rush distances are good for Zerg. That doesn't mean that Zerg can never benefit from short rush distances, but rather that a large portion of the meta and viable strategies relies on long rush distances.
Show nested quote +How is the Zerg lower tier army inefficient? Terran and Protoss cannot move out against Zerg before they have a reasonable army because speedlings in small numbers overwhelm anything cost efficiently. Cost efficiency is generally the ratio of cost to DPS per hit point. Zerglings are anything but "cost efficient". However, they can overwhelm the opponent with superior numbers, making them efficient map control units. The words "cost efficient" are used incorrectly here.
T
Again, Terran and Protoss units are highly cost efficient vs. Zerg. This is again an issue of map control and not cost efficiency. The drawback to early map control is often a weaker infrastructure and a very cost-inefficient army; this is true for all the races. Only in large numbers, not in small numbers, and small numbers is exactly what you have early game.
e]
This is still the most standard way to play. Also, NesTea is perhaps more influential in this arena than Idra. If you don't understand what I mean, look at every ZvT in the past year; a large majority of the games are the Zerg taking 4 bases and getting a super economy then holding the 4M parade push for the next 20 minutes. Again, that doesn't mean this is the only way to play, it just means that it's considered the standard.
It is absolutely not the standard way to play, it was like 3 years ago. DRG's rise to power marked the end of that philosophy. DRG was the first player to popularize the style of not making an army reactively but just always having a large army and Life drove this philosophy to extremes.
I play like this myself and I don't make an army in response, I don't even know most of the time when Terran is moving out, I just make sure I always have an army and constantly poke at Terran.
WRONG. Again, the natural consequence of early map control is a weaker infrastructure and a less cost-efficient army. Life's 2012 ZvT (the one that was killing Terrans left and right) was based on having a large rush distance so that the early lings Life made for map control could delay a push long enough to get the proper tech out. On a greater scale, the same goes in ZvP for roach/hydra busts at the Protoss third base. The goal is to trade, delay, and transition just long enough to crush the upgraded tech from Protoss.
What kind of life are you watching? Life would 10pool Terrans 30% of the time in his early dominance. This kid does not utilize large maps to his advantage at all, they are his detriment, he would constantly attack Terrans and Protosses himself, he didn't wait for them to come to him.
Don't confuse "aggressive" with "good for short rush distances", because that's a wrong assumption. Again, it's the general larva mechanic that makes Zerg do generally better on larger maps. It's not because there's only one way to play the race, it's because the race itself has certain restrictions. This means that a player can look at a map, say, "well, gee, I'm disadvantaged in this area and this area, but I have an advantage here," and make adjustments to their play to mitigate their weaknesses and reinforce their strengths. Map analysis is purely the reason why sometimes the numbers don't add up. Then why isn't it true? There is currently no statistical evidence for the hypothesis that large maps favour Zerg. If we take small maps like Bel'shir Vestige, Polar Night, Yeonsu, Daedalus Point, Neo Planet S there is no clear pattern of them being bad for Zerg. If we take large maps like Frost, Whirlwind, Alterzim, Tal'Darim Alter, there is again no clear pattern of a high winrate for Zerg.
I'm not trying to prove that all general statements made about maps and the races are true. I'm saying that deductive (and experiential) reasoning can provide a reasonable base for map analysis in a "standard" game. This doesn't mean the game HAS to be played a certain way or that players will always do the same thing, but it gives us a very good predictor into the actions of players and how they might react on certain maps and in certain situations. In televised matches, sometimes these predictors are blown out of proportion, but in a sense, a well-informed player can always make well-informed predictions on a game with a fair amount of success. And I'm saying that this is utter nonsense and theorycrafting about map balance has proven to have the validity of flipping a coin.
[/QUOTE]
On January 28 2014 06:59 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 03:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:On January 28 2014 01:14 ZeromuS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 28 2014 00:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 23:53 SC2John wrote:On January 27 2014 22:53 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Tell that to Artosis and Tasteless & Co. who are constantly hammering how Whirlwind is good for Zerg and how lucky Zerg got for spawning cross and explaining to people how Zerg needs long rush distance due to the larval mechanical (which is a fallacy, theoretically Larvae benefit as much from short rush distances as long because Zerg can also turn their entire production into attacking units). They're the one's I'm criticizing and they do say all those things.
Zerg does not benefit from short rush distances because of the way drones and larva mechanics work. They benefit largely from being able to a) delay for as long as possible and buy some extra time between drone/unit production cycles and b) creating a hugeass ocean of creep. Look at Zerg win rates on Yeonsu. It's not a coincidence, it's because in general chokes and small rush distances are bad for Zerg It's only bad for Zerg against Terran, in PvZ it's fine. The idea that larvae mean Zerg does not benefit from a short rush distances is theoretically flawed. Zerg can just as easily benefit from a short rush distance on a theoretical level because just as they can turn their entire production to workers (benefit from a long rush distance) they can turn their entire production into attacking units in which case they benefit from a short one. Playing like IdrA isn't the only way to play Zerg. Show nested quote +What are you even saying with these "theoretical" statements? I just don't why someone would insist on plugging their ears and pretending that real analysis is not a thing Because it's inaccurate "anything goes" reasoning and is as often wrong as it is right. There is zero guarantee to the correctness. Show nested quote +I can understand frustration with casters who hype things up way more than they should (and end up being wrong), but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to predict what someone's going to do based on the map or opening build. Those are highly probable based on analysis of the race attributes, the way maps work, and how the game works. There are no great mysteries behind why certain races do well on maps and why they don't lol. The scientific method might not be flawed, but the way you're using logic here is If this were true it would be accurate, which it is now. Show nested quote +EDIT: And yes, I watch almost every professional SC2 game, so I know why Protoss wins on Polar Night. No, you think you know and you have no way of verifying or falsifying your hypothesis to the cause. No, you think you know and you have no way of verifying or falsifying your hypothesis to the cause. Because it's inaccurate "anything goes" reasoning and is as often wrong as it is right. There is zero guarantee to the correctness. The idea that larvae mean Zerg does not benefit from a short rush distances is theoretically flawed. Zerg can just as easily benefit from a short rush distance on a theoretical level because just as they can turn their entire production to workers (benefit from a long rush distance) they can turn their entire production into attacking units in which case they benefit from a short one. Playing like IdrA isn't the only way to play Zerg. And /thread Saying that the theory of an idea is flawed is fundamentally different than saying that the theory of the negation of the idea is sound. You seem to take from it that I say that the theory that Zerg benefits from short rush distances is sound. I'm just saying that the theory that Zerg benefits from large one's is flawed. That's a fundamentally different reasoning. -- I will add the following though:
Zerg cannot break a defensive opponent as easily as the other races because of the general inefficiency of their lower tier army. They need the rush distances to be larger because they do not build their army all at once. How is the Zerg lower tier army inefficient? Terran and Protoss cannot move out against Zerg before they have a reasonable army because speedlings in small numbers overwhelm anything cost efficiently. That's why maps need wallable mains. Terran and Protoss have no units that are cost efficient vs Zerg. If maps had no choke at the main Zerg could just turn all their production to units and Terran/Protoss couldn't stop the assault and this would of course only work better with tadam short rush distances. Against any sort of mid game timing, the zerg needs to: - recognize it
- stop drone production(cannot cancel drones, if you cancel the larva dies and you get the money back but no production mehcanic to use that money)
- wait for the next round of larva to pop
- produce and wait the build time of the units
- rally all the units to the front and fight with the army altogether
- repeat as necessary until army is able to defend - sending in a small army two times to die is less effective than one large army to win
I dont want to get involved in the fight but short distances are a poor factor for zerg winrates. While roaches are beefy they do not dps enough vs repair and banelings have a long production time. Other than using these two units at a very early timing the rush distance will negatively impact zerg and they are unlikely to break a defensive opponent. You assume the only or optimal way to play Zerg is defensively. Maximize income, create units reactively to a push and just barely hold it. This may be how IdrA plays it and how he long preached that itw as the only way to play. But newer generation more aggressive Zergs such as Life, Leenock, DRG (and Hyvaa lol) have time and time again shown that playing non reactive aggressive Zerg where you do not make an army in response to your opponent is viable and works, and this style benefits from short rush distances of course. Im just gonna say one last thing. You need a certain amount of economy to make X or Y attack work. You start with 6 drones anyway.
Early zerg attacks rely on a certain amount of economy and they cannot break the defensive stance of their opponents. The only reason protoss and terran cant push out against a zerg too early in most scenarios is because the production system Zerg uses allows them to get a large army supply more quickly and earlier than their opponents, however, when being aggressive with this army you see vastly diminishing returns due to the low range of the early units. Yes some maps with large naturals and short rush distances might benefit zergs doing a very quick all in. However, due to the cut in economy for the army they will hit a breaking point where the opposing army with a similar economy to back it will be more powerful than the zerg army. At this point the zerg needs to defend and they need time to trade their existing army for some of the opposing army and remake the same army. If their economy is just enough to maintain that army, then they can trade effectively, but if they dont trade well enough even once, then the game snowballs as their economy cannot create enough army supply to defend against additional attacks. Well, the last game I played was a ZvT, which was 10pool into roach attack, into another roach attack, into raoch bane attack into mutalisk surprise into win. The only point my opponent crossed to my side of the maps were some hellions which I intercepted with the first wave of roaches. There was no conceivable benefit for me in that game for a long ruch distance. In fact, the 10pool snuck in just barely before the second depot walled off and thefirst roach attack hit just barely before the bunker was up and managed to snipe the building scv, a slightly longer rush distance would have not nearly been that effective.
A longer rush distance would have benefited me if I was trying to get drones and stopped droning inr esponse to attacks that were coming in. I didn't, I made units in response to the defensive timings of my opponent. I made the roaches because I knew it was about the time my opponent would take the natural after the 10pool, I made he roaches after that again because I knew my opponent would be about to land the natural again at that point and I was again just in time to stop it. If the rush distance was longer I would be required to make the roaches earlier to arrive in time, thereby being forced to loose income. Long rush distances just benefit defensive, not aggressive play. Short rush distances means I can make the roaches later and they will arrive at the same time thereby being able to sneak in 2 more drones
this is why things like the seven gate and four gate worked, zerg either had too much economy and not enough army, or they couldnt sustain their army as well as the opponent could and they slowly lose. And that is again defensive play, which is one way to play Zerg, but not the only one.
I am not saying short rush distances are universally bad for all zerg builds. But they are very favourable to the non zerg races in a versus Z matchup. And I'm saying this only depends on whether or not Zerg plays defensively or aggressively.
Leenock and the other zergs you mention would not benefit from a map like steppes for example. They require a certain amount of economy to support their builds. Also keep in mind that on a short rush distance map, strong high tech and slightly slower units become much more powerful especially against a low tech aggressive zerg army of roach ling. Mutas do well on short maps but you need a full 2 base economy to even get a reasonable amount of them. You don't need a "reasonable amount" on a small map.
Back when steppes was still in the pool my ZvT winrate on it was ginormous, I would 7 roach rush on that map every time. The map was perfect for it, small rush distance and the choke to the natural was far removed from the main so scvs had to walk so long to repair.
|
United States4883 Posts
On January 28 2014 07:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 06:29 SC2John wrote:On January 27 2014 23:53 SC2John wrote:
The first thing I want to say is that when people talk about whether a map is "good" or "bad" for a certain race, they're referring to whether or not a race can play a standard macro game on that map (whatever "standard" is in the current meta). This does not mean that, for instance, Zerg cannot benefit from short rush distances. But it is a generally sound statement to make when talking about the "standard" macro play in today's games. This is because no matter how you play or the map, the race has the same general weaknesses and strengths. This is the most important thing I can stress. And the theory that Zerg is supposed to play a defensive macro game is outdated as hell. It was popularized by IdrA and Nestea and it's over. There was a time in the meta where Zergs recognized that the only way to beat top biomine playing Terrans was to roach/bane all in them and they did so with great success. If you're going to roach/bane all in every other map there is no advantage to a larger rush distance. The meta at that time was that Terran got a quick 3 CC, into biomine and put on basically no pressure until 140 supply when they started their biomine parade as popularized by innovation and flash. Zerg realized the weakness of this style was that they had no tanks and were quite greedy and would hit with roach/bane timings before they got to their biomine parade. In this meta there is no advantage whatsoever for Zerg in a longer rush distance because they are the first to attack and hope to do crippling damage with their attack. Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 03:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:
You seem to take from it that I say that the theory that Zerg benefits from short rush distances is sound. I'm just saying that the theory that Zerg benefits from large one's is flawed. That's a fundamentally different reasoning. In regards to standard play in the current meta, long rush distances are good for Zerg. That doesn't mean that Zerg can never benefit from short rush distances, but rather that a large portion of the meta and viable strategies relies on long rush distances. And I disagree that standard play in the current meta is that Zerg is playing defensively. While it's currently not as bad as the roach/bane era in ZvT the top Zergs are very aggressive currently and don't use the Idra/Nestea style meta where they maximize drone count and absorb blows at all. The only top Zerg to still sometimes do that is Soulkey all other great Zergs like JD, Life, Leenock, DRG, Roro, they don't reactively make an army, they make an army and put the hurt on Terran. Show nested quote +How is the Zerg lower tier army inefficient? Terran and Protoss cannot move out against Zerg before they have a reasonable army because speedlings in small numbers overwhelm anything cost efficiently. Cost efficiency is generally the ratio of cost to DPS per hit point. Zerglings are anything but "cost efficient". However, they can overwhelm the opponent with superior numbers, making them efficient map control units. The words "cost efficient" are used incorrectly here. No amount of micro can make 1 marine beat 2 lings. On amove 4 lings beat a zealot with 2 lings left, with proper micro you can turn this into 4 red lings left and there is nothing protoss can do about this. Cost efficiency of Zerglings in small numbers is exceptional because they get all the surface area they want. In general the cost efficiency of melee units goes up in small numbers and that of ranged units goes up in large numbers. Show nested quote +T
Again, Terran and Protoss units are highly cost efficient vs. Zerg. This is again an issue of map control and not cost efficiency. The drawback to early map control is often a weaker infrastructure and a very cost-inefficient army; this is true for all the races. Only in large numbers, not in small numbers, and small numbers is exactly what you have early game. Show nested quote +e]
This is still the most standard way to play. Also, NesTea is perhaps more influential in this arena than Idra. If you don't understand what I mean, look at every ZvT in the past year; a large majority of the games are the Zerg taking 4 bases and getting a super economy then holding the 4M parade push for the next 20 minutes. Again, that doesn't mean this is the only way to play, it just means that it's considered the standard. It is absolutely not the standard way to play, it was like 3 years ago. DRG's rise to power marked the end of that philosophy. DRG was the first player to popularize the style of not making an army reactively but just always having a large army and Life drove this philosophy to extremes. I play like this myself and I don't make an army in response, I don't even know most of the time when Terran is moving out, I just make sure I always have an army and constantly poke at Terran. Show nested quote +
WRONG. Again, the natural consequence of early map control is a weaker infrastructure and a less cost-efficient army. Life's 2012 ZvT (the one that was killing Terrans left and right) was based on having a large rush distance so that the early lings Life made for map control could delay a push long enough to get the proper tech out. On a greater scale, the same goes in ZvP for roach/hydra busts at the Protoss third base. The goal is to trade, delay, and transition just long enough to crush the upgraded tech from Protoss.
What kind of life are you watching? Life would 10pool Terrans 30% of the time in his early dominance. This kid does not utilize large maps to his advantage at all, they are his detriment, he would constantly attack Terrans and Protosses himself, he didn't wait for them to come to him. Show nested quote +Don't confuse "aggressive" with "good for short rush distances", because that's a wrong assumption. Again, it's the general larva mechanic that makes Zerg do generally better on larger maps. It's not because there's only one way to play the race, it's because the race itself has certain restrictions. This means that a player can look at a map, say, "well, gee, I'm disadvantaged in this area and this area, but I have an advantage here," and make adjustments to their play to mitigate their weaknesses and reinforce their strengths. Map analysis is purely the reason why sometimes the numbers don't add up. Then why isn't it true? There is currently no statistical evidence for the hypothesis that large maps favour Zerg. If we take small maps like Bel'shir Vestige, Polar Night, Yeonsu, Daedalus Point, Neo Planet S there is no clear pattern of them being bad for Zerg. If we take large maps like Frost, Whirlwind, Alterzim, Tal'Darim Alter, there is again no clear pattern of a high winrate for Zerg. Show nested quote +I'm not trying to prove that all general statements made about maps and the races are true. I'm saying that deductive (and experiential) reasoning can provide a reasonable base for map analysis in a "standard" game. This doesn't mean the game HAS to be played a certain way or that players will always do the same thing, but it gives us a very good predictor into the actions of players and how they might react on certain maps and in certain situations. In televised matches, sometimes these predictors are blown out of proportion, but in a sense, a well-informed player can always make well-informed predictions on a game with a fair amount of success. And I'm saying that this is utter nonsense and theorycrafting about map balance has proven to have the validity of flipping a coin.
On January 28 2014 06:59 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 03:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:On January 28 2014 01:14 ZeromuS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 28 2014 00:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 23:53 SC2John wrote:On January 27 2014 22:53 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Tell that to Artosis and Tasteless & Co. who are constantly hammering how Whirlwind is good for Zerg and how lucky Zerg got for spawning cross and explaining to people how Zerg needs long rush distance due to the larval mechanical (which is a fallacy, theoretically Larvae benefit as much from short rush distances as long because Zerg can also turn their entire production into attacking units). They're the one's I'm criticizing and they do say all those things.
Zerg does not benefit from short rush distances because of the way drones and larva mechanics work. They benefit largely from being able to a) delay for as long as possible and buy some extra time between drone/unit production cycles and b) creating a hugeass ocean of creep. Look at Zerg win rates on Yeonsu. It's not a coincidence, it's because in general chokes and small rush distances are bad for Zerg It's only bad for Zerg against Terran, in PvZ it's fine. The idea that larvae mean Zerg does not benefit from a short rush distances is theoretically flawed. Zerg can just as easily benefit from a short rush distance on a theoretical level because just as they can turn their entire production to workers (benefit from a long rush distance) they can turn their entire production into attacking units in which case they benefit from a short one. Playing like IdrA isn't the only way to play Zerg. Show nested quote +What are you even saying with these "theoretical" statements? I just don't why someone would insist on plugging their ears and pretending that real analysis is not a thing Because it's inaccurate "anything goes" reasoning and is as often wrong as it is right. There is zero guarantee to the correctness. Show nested quote +I can understand frustration with casters who hype things up way more than they should (and end up being wrong), but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to predict what someone's going to do based on the map or opening build. Those are highly probable based on analysis of the race attributes, the way maps work, and how the game works. There are no great mysteries behind why certain races do well on maps and why they don't lol. The scientific method might not be flawed, but the way you're using logic here is If this were true it would be accurate, which it is now. Show nested quote +EDIT: And yes, I watch almost every professional SC2 game, so I know why Protoss wins on Polar Night. No, you think you know and you have no way of verifying or falsifying your hypothesis to the cause. No, you think you know and you have no way of verifying or falsifying your hypothesis to the cause. Because it's inaccurate "anything goes" reasoning and is as often wrong as it is right. There is zero guarantee to the correctness. The idea that larvae mean Zerg does not benefit from a short rush distances is theoretically flawed. Zerg can just as easily benefit from a short rush distance on a theoretical level because just as they can turn their entire production to workers (benefit from a long rush distance) they can turn their entire production into attacking units in which case they benefit from a short one. Playing like IdrA isn't the only way to play Zerg. And /thread Saying that the theory of an idea is flawed is fundamentally different than saying that the theory of the negation of the idea is sound. You seem to take from it that I say that the theory that Zerg benefits from short rush distances is sound. I'm just saying that the theory that Zerg benefits from large one's is flawed. That's a fundamentally different reasoning. -- I will add the following though:
Zerg cannot break a defensive opponent as easily as the other races because of the general inefficiency of their lower tier army. They need the rush distances to be larger because they do not build their army all at once. How is the Zerg lower tier army inefficient? Terran and Protoss cannot move out against Zerg before they have a reasonable army because speedlings in small numbers overwhelm anything cost efficiently. That's why maps need wallable mains. Terran and Protoss have no units that are cost efficient vs Zerg. If maps had no choke at the main Zerg could just turn all their production to units and Terran/Protoss couldn't stop the assault and this would of course only work better with tadam short rush distances. Against any sort of mid game timing, the zerg needs to: - recognize it
- stop drone production(cannot cancel drones, if you cancel the larva dies and you get the money back but no production mehcanic to use that money)
- wait for the next round of larva to pop
- produce and wait the build time of the units
- rally all the units to the front and fight with the army altogether
- repeat as necessary until army is able to defend - sending in a small army two times to die is less effective than one large army to win
I dont want to get involved in the fight but short distances are a poor factor for zerg winrates. While roaches are beefy they do not dps enough vs repair and banelings have a long production time. Other than using these two units at a very early timing the rush distance will negatively impact zerg and they are unlikely to break a defensive opponent. You assume the only or optimal way to play Zerg is defensively. Maximize income, create units reactively to a push and just barely hold it. This may be how IdrA plays it and how he long preached that itw as the only way to play. But newer generation more aggressive Zergs such as Life, Leenock, DRG (and Hyvaa lol) have time and time again shown that playing non reactive aggressive Zerg where you do not make an army in response to your opponent is viable and works, and this style benefits from short rush distances of course. Show nested quote +Im just gonna say one last thing. You need a certain amount of economy to make X or Y attack work. You start with 6 drones anyway. Show nested quote +Early zerg attacks rely on a certain amount of economy and they cannot break the defensive stance of their opponents. The only reason protoss and terran cant push out against a zerg too early in most scenarios is because the production system Zerg uses allows them to get a large army supply more quickly and earlier than their opponents, however, when being aggressive with this army you see vastly diminishing returns due to the low range of the early units. Yes some maps with large naturals and short rush distances might benefit zergs doing a very quick all in. However, due to the cut in economy for the army they will hit a breaking point where the opposing army with a similar economy to back it will be more powerful than the zerg army. At this point the zerg needs to defend and they need time to trade their existing army for some of the opposing army and remake the same army. If their economy is just enough to maintain that army, then they can trade effectively, but if they dont trade well enough even once, then the game snowballs as their economy cannot create enough army supply to defend against additional attacks. Well, the last game I played was a ZvT, which was 10pool into roach attack, into another roach attack, into raoch bane attack into mutalisk surprise into win. The only point my opponent crossed to my side of the maps were some hellions which I intercepted with the first wave of roaches. There was no conceivable benefit for me in that game for a long ruch distance. In fact, the 10pool snuck in just barely before the second depot walled off and thefirst roach attack hit just barely before the bunker was up and managed to snipe the building scv, a slightly longer rush distance would have not nearly been that effective. A longer rush distance would have benefited me if I was trying to get drones and stopped droning inr esponse to attacks that were coming in. I didn't, I made units in response to the defensive timings of my opponent. I made the roaches because I knew it was about the time my opponent would take the natural after the 10pool, I made he roaches after that again because I knew my opponent would be about to land the natural again at that point and I was again just in time to stop it. If the rush distance was longer I would be required to make the roaches earlier to arrive in time, thereby being forced to loose income. Long rush distances just benefit defensive, not aggressive play. Short rush distances means I can make the roaches later and they will arrive at the same time thereby being able to sneak in 2 more drones Show nested quote +this is why things like the seven gate and four gate worked, zerg either had too much economy and not enough army, or they couldnt sustain their army as well as the opponent could and they slowly lose. And that is again defensive play, which is one way to play Zerg, but not the only one. Show nested quote +I am not saying short rush distances are universally bad for all zerg builds. But they are very favourable to the non zerg races in a versus Z matchup. And I'm saying this only depends on whether or not Zerg plays defensively or aggressively. Show nested quote +Leenock and the other zergs you mention would not benefit from a map like steppes for example. They require a certain amount of economy to support their builds. Also keep in mind that on a short rush distance map, strong high tech and slightly slower units become much more powerful especially against a low tech aggressive zerg army of roach ling. Mutas do well on short maps but you need a full 2 base economy to even get a reasonable amount of them. You don't need a "reasonable amount" on a small map. Back when steppes was still in the pool my ZvT winrate on it was ginormous, I would 7 roach rush on that map every time. The map was perfect for it, small rush distance and the choke to the natural was far removed from the main so scvs had to walk so long to repair.
I realize now that no amount of arguing will fix you. You are wrong factually on so many levels and have such a shallow understanding of the game and the current meta that I cannot convince you otherwise. You are simply the "hipster" of the SC2 world, the one who thinks he is clever and different.
March to the beat of your own drum! Even though it's actually a rock!
|
On January 28 2014 08:14 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 07:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On January 28 2014 06:29 SC2John wrote:On January 27 2014 23:53 SC2John wrote:
The first thing I want to say is that when people talk about whether a map is "good" or "bad" for a certain race, they're referring to whether or not a race can play a standard macro game on that map (whatever "standard" is in the current meta). This does not mean that, for instance, Zerg cannot benefit from short rush distances. But it is a generally sound statement to make when talking about the "standard" macro play in today's games. This is because no matter how you play or the map, the race has the same general weaknesses and strengths. This is the most important thing I can stress. And the theory that Zerg is supposed to play a defensive macro game is outdated as hell. It was popularized by IdrA and Nestea and it's over. There was a time in the meta where Zergs recognized that the only way to beat top biomine playing Terrans was to roach/bane all in them and they did so with great success. If you're going to roach/bane all in every other map there is no advantage to a larger rush distance. The meta at that time was that Terran got a quick 3 CC, into biomine and put on basically no pressure until 140 supply when they started their biomine parade as popularized by innovation and flash. Zerg realized the weakness of this style was that they had no tanks and were quite greedy and would hit with roach/bane timings before they got to their biomine parade. In this meta there is no advantage whatsoever for Zerg in a longer rush distance because they are the first to attack and hope to do crippling damage with their attack. On January 28 2014 03:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:
You seem to take from it that I say that the theory that Zerg benefits from short rush distances is sound. I'm just saying that the theory that Zerg benefits from large one's is flawed. That's a fundamentally different reasoning. In regards to standard play in the current meta, long rush distances are good for Zerg. That doesn't mean that Zerg can never benefit from short rush distances, but rather that a large portion of the meta and viable strategies relies on long rush distances. And I disagree that standard play in the current meta is that Zerg is playing defensively. While it's currently not as bad as the roach/bane era in ZvT the top Zergs are very aggressive currently and don't use the Idra/Nestea style meta where they maximize drone count and absorb blows at all. The only top Zerg to still sometimes do that is Soulkey all other great Zergs like JD, Life, Leenock, DRG, Roro, they don't reactively make an army, they make an army and put the hurt on Terran. How is the Zerg lower tier army inefficient? Terran and Protoss cannot move out against Zerg before they have a reasonable army because speedlings in small numbers overwhelm anything cost efficiently. Cost efficiency is generally the ratio of cost to DPS per hit point. Zerglings are anything but "cost efficient". However, they can overwhelm the opponent with superior numbers, making them efficient map control units. The words "cost efficient" are used incorrectly here. No amount of micro can make 1 marine beat 2 lings. On amove 4 lings beat a zealot with 2 lings left, with proper micro you can turn this into 4 red lings left and there is nothing protoss can do about this. Cost efficiency of Zerglings in small numbers is exceptional because they get all the surface area they want. In general the cost efficiency of melee units goes up in small numbers and that of ranged units goes up in large numbers. T
Again, Terran and Protoss units are highly cost efficient vs. Zerg. This is again an issue of map control and not cost efficiency. The drawback to early map control is often a weaker infrastructure and a very cost-inefficient army; this is true for all the races. Only in large numbers, not in small numbers, and small numbers is exactly what you have early game. e]
This is still the most standard way to play. Also, NesTea is perhaps more influential in this arena than Idra. If you don't understand what I mean, look at every ZvT in the past year; a large majority of the games are the Zerg taking 4 bases and getting a super economy then holding the 4M parade push for the next 20 minutes. Again, that doesn't mean this is the only way to play, it just means that it's considered the standard. It is absolutely not the standard way to play, it was like 3 years ago. DRG's rise to power marked the end of that philosophy. DRG was the first player to popularize the style of not making an army reactively but just always having a large army and Life drove this philosophy to extremes. I play like this myself and I don't make an army in response, I don't even know most of the time when Terran is moving out, I just make sure I always have an army and constantly poke at Terran.
WRONG. Again, the natural consequence of early map control is a weaker infrastructure and a less cost-efficient army. Life's 2012 ZvT (the one that was killing Terrans left and right) was based on having a large rush distance so that the early lings Life made for map control could delay a push long enough to get the proper tech out. On a greater scale, the same goes in ZvP for roach/hydra busts at the Protoss third base. The goal is to trade, delay, and transition just long enough to crush the upgraded tech from Protoss.
What kind of life are you watching? Life would 10pool Terrans 30% of the time in his early dominance. This kid does not utilize large maps to his advantage at all, they are his detriment, he would constantly attack Terrans and Protosses himself, he didn't wait for them to come to him. Don't confuse "aggressive" with "good for short rush distances", because that's a wrong assumption. Again, it's the general larva mechanic that makes Zerg do generally better on larger maps. It's not because there's only one way to play the race, it's because the race itself has certain restrictions. This means that a player can look at a map, say, "well, gee, I'm disadvantaged in this area and this area, but I have an advantage here," and make adjustments to their play to mitigate their weaknesses and reinforce their strengths. Map analysis is purely the reason why sometimes the numbers don't add up. Then why isn't it true? There is currently no statistical evidence for the hypothesis that large maps favour Zerg. If we take small maps like Bel'shir Vestige, Polar Night, Yeonsu, Daedalus Point, Neo Planet S there is no clear pattern of them being bad for Zerg. If we take large maps like Frost, Whirlwind, Alterzim, Tal'Darim Alter, there is again no clear pattern of a high winrate for Zerg. I'm not trying to prove that all general statements made about maps and the races are true. I'm saying that deductive (and experiential) reasoning can provide a reasonable base for map analysis in a "standard" game. This doesn't mean the game HAS to be played a certain way or that players will always do the same thing, but it gives us a very good predictor into the actions of players and how they might react on certain maps and in certain situations. In televised matches, sometimes these predictors are blown out of proportion, but in a sense, a well-informed player can always make well-informed predictions on a game with a fair amount of success. And I'm saying that this is utter nonsense and theorycrafting about map balance has proven to have the validity of flipping a coin. Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 06:59 ZeromuS wrote:On January 28 2014 03:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:On January 28 2014 01:14 ZeromuS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 28 2014 00:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 23:53 SC2John wrote:On January 27 2014 22:53 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Tell that to Artosis and Tasteless & Co. who are constantly hammering how Whirlwind is good for Zerg and how lucky Zerg got for spawning cross and explaining to people how Zerg needs long rush distance due to the larval mechanical (which is a fallacy, theoretically Larvae benefit as much from short rush distances as long because Zerg can also turn their entire production into attacking units). They're the one's I'm criticizing and they do say all those things.
Zerg does not benefit from short rush distances because of the way drones and larva mechanics work. They benefit largely from being able to a) delay for as long as possible and buy some extra time between drone/unit production cycles and b) creating a hugeass ocean of creep. Look at Zerg win rates on Yeonsu. It's not a coincidence, it's because in general chokes and small rush distances are bad for Zerg It's only bad for Zerg against Terran, in PvZ it's fine. The idea that larvae mean Zerg does not benefit from a short rush distances is theoretically flawed. Zerg can just as easily benefit from a short rush distance on a theoretical level because just as they can turn their entire production to workers (benefit from a long rush distance) they can turn their entire production into attacking units in which case they benefit from a short one. Playing like IdrA isn't the only way to play Zerg. Show nested quote +What are you even saying with these "theoretical" statements? I just don't why someone would insist on plugging their ears and pretending that real analysis is not a thing Because it's inaccurate "anything goes" reasoning and is as often wrong as it is right. There is zero guarantee to the correctness. Show nested quote +I can understand frustration with casters who hype things up way more than they should (and end up being wrong), but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to predict what someone's going to do based on the map or opening build. Those are highly probable based on analysis of the race attributes, the way maps work, and how the game works. There are no great mysteries behind why certain races do well on maps and why they don't lol. The scientific method might not be flawed, but the way you're using logic here is If this were true it would be accurate, which it is now. Show nested quote +EDIT: And yes, I watch almost every professional SC2 game, so I know why Protoss wins on Polar Night. No, you think you know and you have no way of verifying or falsifying your hypothesis to the cause. No, you think you know and you have no way of verifying or falsifying your hypothesis to the cause. Because it's inaccurate "anything goes" reasoning and is as often wrong as it is right. There is zero guarantee to the correctness. The idea that larvae mean Zerg does not benefit from a short rush distances is theoretically flawed. Zerg can just as easily benefit from a short rush distance on a theoretical level because just as they can turn their entire production to workers (benefit from a long rush distance) they can turn their entire production into attacking units in which case they benefit from a short one. Playing like IdrA isn't the only way to play Zerg. And /thread Saying that the theory of an idea is flawed is fundamentally different than saying that the theory of the negation of the idea is sound. You seem to take from it that I say that the theory that Zerg benefits from short rush distances is sound. I'm just saying that the theory that Zerg benefits from large one's is flawed. That's a fundamentally different reasoning. -- I will add the following though:
Zerg cannot break a defensive opponent as easily as the other races because of the general inefficiency of their lower tier army. They need the rush distances to be larger because they do not build their army all at once. How is the Zerg lower tier army inefficient? Terran and Protoss cannot move out against Zerg before they have a reasonable army because speedlings in small numbers overwhelm anything cost efficiently. That's why maps need wallable mains. Terran and Protoss have no units that are cost efficient vs Zerg. If maps had no choke at the main Zerg could just turn all their production to units and Terran/Protoss couldn't stop the assault and this would of course only work better with tadam short rush distances. Against any sort of mid game timing, the zerg needs to: - recognize it
- stop drone production(cannot cancel drones, if you cancel the larva dies and you get the money back but no production mehcanic to use that money)
- wait for the next round of larva to pop
- produce and wait the build time of the units
- rally all the units to the front and fight with the army altogether
- repeat as necessary until army is able to defend - sending in a small army two times to die is less effective than one large army to win
I dont want to get involved in the fight but short distances are a poor factor for zerg winrates. While roaches are beefy they do not dps enough vs repair and banelings have a long production time. Other than using these two units at a very early timing the rush distance will negatively impact zerg and they are unlikely to break a defensive opponent. You assume the only or optimal way to play Zerg is defensively. Maximize income, create units reactively to a push and just barely hold it. This may be how IdrA plays it and how he long preached that itw as the only way to play. But newer generation more aggressive Zergs such as Life, Leenock, DRG (and Hyvaa lol) have time and time again shown that playing non reactive aggressive Zerg where you do not make an army in response to your opponent is viable and works, and this style benefits from short rush distances of course. Im just gonna say one last thing. You need a certain amount of economy to make X or Y attack work. You start with 6 drones anyway. Early zerg attacks rely on a certain amount of economy and they cannot break the defensive stance of their opponents. The only reason protoss and terran cant push out against a zerg too early in most scenarios is because the production system Zerg uses allows them to get a large army supply more quickly and earlier than their opponents, however, when being aggressive with this army you see vastly diminishing returns due to the low range of the early units. Yes some maps with large naturals and short rush distances might benefit zergs doing a very quick all in. However, due to the cut in economy for the army they will hit a breaking point where the opposing army with a similar economy to back it will be more powerful than the zerg army. At this point the zerg needs to defend and they need time to trade their existing army for some of the opposing army and remake the same army. If their economy is just enough to maintain that army, then they can trade effectively, but if they dont trade well enough even once, then the game snowballs as their economy cannot create enough army supply to defend against additional attacks. Well, the last game I played was a ZvT, which was 10pool into roach attack, into another roach attack, into raoch bane attack into mutalisk surprise into win. The only point my opponent crossed to my side of the maps were some hellions which I intercepted with the first wave of roaches. There was no conceivable benefit for me in that game for a long ruch distance. In fact, the 10pool snuck in just barely before the second depot walled off and thefirst roach attack hit just barely before the bunker was up and managed to snipe the building scv, a slightly longer rush distance would have not nearly been that effective. A longer rush distance would have benefited me if I was trying to get drones and stopped droning inr esponse to attacks that were coming in. I didn't, I made units in response to the defensive timings of my opponent. I made the roaches because I knew it was about the time my opponent would take the natural after the 10pool, I made he roaches after that again because I knew my opponent would be about to land the natural again at that point and I was again just in time to stop it. If the rush distance was longer I would be required to make the roaches earlier to arrive in time, thereby being forced to loose income. Long rush distances just benefit defensive, not aggressive play. Short rush distances means I can make the roaches later and they will arrive at the same time thereby being able to sneak in 2 more drones this is why things like the seven gate and four gate worked, zerg either had too much economy and not enough army, or they couldnt sustain their army as well as the opponent could and they slowly lose. And that is again defensive play, which is one way to play Zerg, but not the only one. I am not saying short rush distances are universally bad for all zerg builds. But they are very favourable to the non zerg races in a versus Z matchup. And I'm saying this only depends on whether or not Zerg plays defensively or aggressively. Leenock and the other zergs you mention would not benefit from a map like steppes for example. They require a certain amount of economy to support their builds. Also keep in mind that on a short rush distance map, strong high tech and slightly slower units become much more powerful especially against a low tech aggressive zerg army of roach ling. Mutas do well on short maps but you need a full 2 base economy to even get a reasonable amount of them. You don't need a "reasonable amount" on a small map. Back when steppes was still in the pool my ZvT winrate on it was ginormous, I would 7 roach rush on that map every time. The map was perfect for it, small rush distance and the choke to the natural was far removed from the main so scvs had to walk so long to repair. I realize now that no amount of arguing will fix you. You are wrong factually on so many levels and have such a shallow understanding of the game and the current meta that I cannot convince you otherwise. You are simply the "hipster" of the SC2 world, the one who thinks he is clever and different. March to the beat of your own drum! Even though it's actually a rock! Ehh, is ending a debate like that with personal attack after personal attack really necessary?
|
Canada13402 Posts
I just think you should be willing to concede to the fact that certain maps have strengths for some races over others.
You mention having a big army because you like having one and its the style DRG and Life use. They make a certain number of lings, on a certain round of larva to deal with things like hellions and map control vs players they scout as doing hellion based map control builds. That same round of lings from life will not be used against a marine mine push, and when it does get made will be made for a different purpose.
They make large ling rounds to scout, counterattack, and buy time for more effective responses.
Thats just, the way it is.
I play like this myself and I don't make an army in response, I don't even know most of the time when Terran is moving out, I just make sure I always have an army and constantly poke at Terran.
And thats the problem. Life makes the units for a reason, he makes them to do certain things, you do not. His understanding is higher than yours, and the fact you extrapolate the aggressive part of his style to meaning what you think it does shows your understanding of the game is just not that good. I can concede that if you are going all in a short distance map is good for the aggressor, but upon failing that all in you are left with very few options to transition.
Getting back to the point of the other maps, there are features that make them better for some races than others.
Polar Night is better for T in PvT because the third is more difficult to take due to the open nature of it, and the fact that protoss AoE is limited in effectiveness against big concaves at the third if you take it quickly. The air space leading to the main makes drops effective and holding both sides of the map is hard for protoss. If you let terran take the third and delay your own as protoss in order to get enough AoE to defend effectively they will outmacro you and you will lose to a timing.
And no being aggressive isnt a good solution, as denying their third is difficult because the timing they take it at you need AoE to really hurt them, as if they see your non AoE aggression, they can simply sit behind their nat wall and take advantage of protoss late tech meaning that the terran will scale better so long as they hold, which with stim medivacs vs no AoE should not be too hard.
Certain things in this game surround ebb and flow of a matchup and that ebb and flow is impacted by map design and map choice. It limits options, doesnt make one race auto win in most cases, but heavily favours one side over the other instead.
|
On January 28 2014 08:55 ZeromuS wrote:
I just think you should be willing to concede to the fact that certain maps have strengths for some races over others. Sure, that's what the winrates indicate. I'm just saying that trying to forecast it thusfar has been a dysmal failure. It's hard to forecast a chaotic system.
You mention having a big army because you like having one and its the style DRG and Life use. They make a certain number of lings, on a certain round of larva to deal with things like hellions and map control vs players they scout as doing hellion based map control builds. That same round of lings from life will not be used against a marine mine push, and when it does get made will be made for a different purpose. You speak of when Life uses his lings defensively, which is rare. In fact, you seem to speak as if using lings to defend certain pressures is all you can do with it. Life uses his zerglings offensively far more often than defensively and forces his opponents to defend against him.
They make large ling rounds to scout, counterattack, and buy time for more effective responses. No, they just make it to attack, not to counter attack, to attack. Life will just attack you, not in response to an attack you are doing. Not in any respnose, just as Terran before the era of DRG didn't attack zerg in response to what Zerg was doing they just attacked.
I play like this myself and I don't make an army in response, I don't even know most of the time when Terran is moving out, I just make sure I always have an army and constantly poke at Terran.
And thats the problem. Life makes the units for a reason, he makes them to do certain things Of course I make them to do certain things, I make them to attack. Saying that I make units to attack and therefore I am clueless is like saying that every Protoss player or Terran player who ever attacks is clueless. If a protoss proxies an oracle, he does so to attack. If sOs 11gate zealot pressures taeja he does so to attack. Just as life 10pooled Mvp to attack. The 10pool was comlpetely nonreactionary, you have to decide on a 10pool before you can drone scout, he did so to attack.
you do not. His understanding is higher than yours, and the fact you extrapolate the aggressive part of his style to meaning what you think it does shows your understanding of the game is just not that good. I'm currently the 8th ranked random player on the EU server and I reveal race. I'd say my understanding of all three races is sufficient. I meet people like Apollo and GM's frequently on the ladder and supposedly Apollo is a great anlytical caster so my understanding of the game can't be much lower than his. Especially because I'm playing this game with a motor disorder.
I can concede that if you are going all in a short distance map is good for the aggressor, but upon failing that all in you are left with very few options to transition. Is this one of those "every time Zerg attacks it is all in?" phrases?
Polar Night is better for T in PvT because the third is more difficult to take due to the open nature of it, and the fact that protoss AoE is limited in effectiveness against big concaves at the third if you take it quickly. The air space leading to the main makes drops effective and holding both sides of the map is hard for protoss. If you let terran take the third and delay your own as protoss in order to get enough AoE to defend effectively they will outmacro you and you will lose to a timing. Then why is PvT 60% on Polar Night? You sort of show here how much theorycraft fails
Polar Night, not counting the small sample sized daedalus, is the most PvT favoured map in the pool right now.
|
Very interesting.....
(BTW how do you post a blog?  )
|
On January 28 2014 10:49 Zergrusher wrote:Very interesting..... (BTW how do you post a blog? ) Click on the down arrow next to "logout Zergrusher" and go to "my blog".
|
On January 28 2014 11:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 10:49 Zergrusher wrote:Very interesting..... (BTW how do you post a blog? ) Click on the down arrow next to "logout Zergrusher" and go to "my blog".
ah, I wish I knew this earlier.
Thank you.
And great Blog BTW, really good discussion going ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
