Essentially, there is this mindset in the community that a couple of simple rules can be applied to forecast the balance of a map such as:
- Long rush distance is good for Zerg, bad for Terran - Chokes are good for Protoss, bad for Zerg - Far away third is good for Zerg, bad for Protoss - Airspace is good for Terran, bad for Protoss
I'd submit that this mentality of theorycrafting about map balance is completely and utterly oversimplifying the situation to the point of these forecasts being wrong as often as they are right. Often casters (I'm looking at a certain muscular bald German in particular) will hammer and hammer the supposed balance of the map before a single game is even played on it. Allow yourself a list of counter examples to the forecasts: (all winratse are HotS global TLPD)
When the map was first released, everyone was talking about how bad this map supposedly was for Protoss, it had to be right? the third had no chokes and was far away, lots of airspace, easy to drop main? The map seems balanced in ZvP and protoss favoured in PvT. What causes this? I don't know, hindsight is 20/20, I can give all sorts of plausible explanations such as that it's easy to proxy oracles behind the base or that blink stalker play is really strong or that colossi can easily defend both the main and natural from drops by just walking in there. Ultimately this is all theory, and that's my point, it's hard to say what actually causes the map to be good for PvT, it just is. And it has been long before the oracle buff.
Everyone talked about it and how it's so good for Protoss. That 0.9% winrate advantage over Z is hardly significant. But it's a fairly solid TvP map. Why? It has 3 easy to secure bases doesn't it? Surely it should be good for protoss? Hell, again, a colossus can easily walk around and defend 3 bases from drops. But no, the reverse is true here, this map is good for TvP. Again, I don't know why, you can come up with all sorts of plausible explanations, but they aren't falsifiable nor verifiable, you can never know if the explanation is actually what is causing it.
Everyone said it would be a good map for Zerg due to the open and hard third and a bad map for Protoss due to all the air space. As far as ZvP goes, the forecast held. But Terran has been absolutely on top of Zerg on this map, and Protoss has an ever so small not really intresting lead over Terran here. Again, no one knows why.
It was supposed to be a really good map for Zerg and a really bad map for Terran, it's huge and so open. Terran doesn't have warpgates or nydus or fast units that make rush distance negatable right? Well, at least the forecast held for TvZ. But all the other matchups are very balanced. Zerg was supposed to crush Protoss on this map, Protoss was supposed to crush Terran, it didn't happen.
And our only non HotS map included just for hilarity's sake: Winrates are computed by adding up the games from all the international and Korean versions:
What was supposed to be the best PvZ map ever became in fact the worst. Everyone saw the chokes and went bonkers. Artosis kept preaching even in the face of undeniable numbers that it was still a good map for PvZ, he just could not believe it, his intuition was shattered, all those chokes and still Zerg domianted Protoss on this map. Whatever caused it, the far third, the hard to wall natural, the fact that protoss could not catch mutas on the map due to the chokes, the sheer amount of counter attack paths. Ultimately it's all theory, there's only one thing we know, the map was ridiculously imbalance and not how we expected it.
No theorycraft on map balance can be complete without Daedalus point:
Though the sample size is very small. The chance of an even coin landing 6 times on its head is in a row is 2%. And people were saying it would be bad for Protoss in PvT, the chance of a coin that favours tails falling on its head 6 times in a row is even lower. The forecast was absolutely right about ZvP, but no one expected the map to be even worse for Terran than it is for Protoss. The TvZ numbers are even worse than the PvZ numbers.
As for my own experiences. My TvP is fairly good, I have a 60% winrate currently in this season despite the imbalances that some people say exist. But I have never won a game vs Protoss on Daedalus point. I'm 0-6 in TvP on that map and I'm not sure what causes it. A thing I noticed that it is hard to drop the main because colossi often just walk up there from the third with stalkers blinking along. I often die to zealot runbies on that map at my third and fourth so maybe that's a cause. It's probably a lot of little things adding up which ultimately shape the balance, things no one foresees or thinks about when they see a map overview. The map is really good for zealot runbies into the third and fourth. Despite the lack of chokes and the easy of getting a really strong bio arc on the colossus army. It's a tough map to play TvP on and I'm not quite sure what causes it. It's also hard to bunker up your natural on which protoss doesn't really rely, they can often just walk past is. It's easy for protoss to hide a pylon some-where in your natural which caught me in the second TvP I played on this map and I since always check. It's hard to defend both the main and nat from oracles.
Ultimately, the little subtle things which may not cause an outright win but do help add up and determine the balance of a map as much as the big, immediately visible things. So manys mall things about maps which no one notices, which the designer never considered when making the map can lead to one race getting just a slightly more favourable trade and eventually a win, STarCraft 2 is a game of seconds. Having to build your bunkers far forward on Daedalus to cover the ramp means your SCV's arrive seconds later to repair meaning that you die. It's hardly something people think about when analysing a map but it ultimately decides games.
imo only gosu toss have the balls to play daedalus. thats why the PvT winrate is so good. protoss who veto daedalus are just not good enugh to one base PvZ
On January 27 2014 07:29 Paljas wrote: imo only gosu toss have the balls to play daedalus. thats why the PvT winrate is so good. protoss who veto daedalus are just not good enugh to one base PvZ
All games but one are from GSL, which has no veto.
But thank you for illustrating my point that people have a hard time dealing with the fact that numbers contradict intuition and try to make up explanations for them, the one here being transparently false. When I studied physics in the first year every professor stressed the importance of being able to deal with counter-intuitiveness. When the scientific method contradicts intuition the scientific method takes precedence. That's the entire reason the scientific method exists, human intuition is simply false and truth more often than not is very counter-intuitive. There comes a time where you just have to accept that numbers are more reliable than human intuition.
Quite interesting indeed. I'm interested in how the daedalus pvt winrate turns out to be over time. Theorizing over why it turns out that way may create some nice insights on the match up.
Essentially, there is this mindset in the community that a couple of simple rules can be applied to forecast the balance of a map such as:
- Long rush distance is good for Zerg, bad for Terran - Chokes are good for Protoss, bad for Zerg - Far away third is good for Zerg, bad for Protoss - Airspace is good for Terran, bad for Protoss
I'd submit that this mentality of theorycrafting about map balance is completely and utterly oversimplifying the situation to the point of these forecasts being wrong as often as they are right.
You are oversimplifying the arguments. You have to look at those in the context of maps, and I dare say it is a little naive to take the maps made by toplevel mapmakers who try to avoid imbalanced situations or at least balance out imbalanced features and then analyze how you think the map would play out when you apply simplified rules. Also I'm pretty sure that every higher level player and mapmaker would disagree with some of your ruleexamples to begin with, e.g. long rushdistances in ZvT have proven time and time again that they do not necessarily imbalance the matchup, since it makes drops strong, ultralisks, broodlords and infestors weak, and buys time against 2base zerg busts. Also far away 3rd bases are not good for Zerg. They just punish Protoss players when they try to 3base, something that Protoss can often avoid with 2base allinning, but it's very plainly visible in the applied playstyle of the map, not necessarily in the winrates (because Protoss 2base allins are various and very powerful).
Also some of your mapanalysis is just plainly missing the mark. E.g. Akilon: Protoss does profit from the easy bases, but first of all we all know how swarm hosts play on this map, second of all it is an amazing mutalisk and dropmap as well, just look at the basesetup. And Terran profits from such easy expansions too, they are just not as required for Terran macro play as they are for Protoss macroplay. Whirlwind: Medivac paradise, lots of airspace. Crossfire: Wait, you say this map should have been good for Protoss? A map that is very hard to FFE on and was played during a time in which FFE was the only viable opening in ZvP. Not to mention that taking a third was nearly impossible. It was the prototype of 2base allin maps for Protoss against Zerg and not only that, it was even hard to get into 2basing. Daedalus Point: Wow, what a coincidence that this map is 6-0 for Protoss when you take most of its samplesize from a tournament in which Protoss is 31-8 vs Terran. Not saying that DP is necessarily bad vs Terran, but there is really no conclusion to be drawn from those stats with Code A being a PvT stompfest. Star Station: Very punishable 4th in ZvT, most games taken from a timeframe in which Terran was ~55% in ZvT regardless of maps, Terran hardly cares for open third bases in ZvT, very dropable. PvT blink allins are devastating due to the extreme ledge.
If you want, I can easily explain all of them. There's really no mystery to the numbers, but it does force players to play a certain way, and sometimes that way can be very ugly. 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). So don't get this silly idea that somehow analysts are wrong and shouldn't continually harp on map balance.
Polar Night: 2-Base All Day, Everyday When this map was first released, Protosses could only look on and stare at the 360 degree air defense of the main base and the GIGANTIC opening at the third. In the current meta of phoenix/colossus, the 3rd base was impossible to hold on this map in PvZ, giving rise to a) more 2-base all-ins and b) the development of more voidray-focused strategies (which ignore terrain to some extent). 3 bases on this map is almost impossible to defend in PvT, giving rise to a plethora of early pressure builds (proxy oracle, 10-gate zealot/stalker/MSC poke, blink plays, etc.) as well as powerful 2-base builds (blink/colossus allins, templar/chargelot allins, etc.). The primary reason that these 2-base allins worked so well is because of the fairly short rush distance and the easy control of vision with the watchtowers.
Akilon Wastes: Did You Say SCV pull? Hellbat Drops? Mine Drops? A large portion of TvP games played on this map include games before the hellbat nerf and before Protoss really had any clue how the fuck to deal with early drops in general. On top of that, SCV pulls/2-base Terran allins were quite common on this map due to the very short rush distance and the very awkward-to-defend third base placement. The problem with this map was that Protoss got a "free" third base, but both of the third base placements sucked: one did better against SCV pulls, the other did better against drops. This also explains why the popular Terran 4M and hellbat/marauder pushes worked well on this map against Zerg.
Star Station: Wait, Forward Terran Thirds Are A Thing?" With the popular 4M style as well as hellbat/marauder pushes, the fairly short rush distances on this map and the forward (unbreakable) third allowed Terrans to ramp up the aggression and walk across the map very easily. Remember that about half of the professional games played on this map (or more) were played before cross-spawns only were introduced. There's also a lot of narrow hallways to abuse with widow mines. No mystery here. (If you don't understand what I mean about forward Terran thirds, see where Terrans take their third base in TvZ on Polar Night and Bel'Shir Vestige as well).
Whirlwind: Easy 4 Base Protoss can take and defend 4 bases pretty easily on this map.
Crossfire: Eh It's hard to explain this map, especially since most of the games on it (if not all of them) are absolutely awful. The most reasonable explanation is that it was WoL and Protoss couldn't take a natural.
Daedalus: What In The Actual Fuck, Blizzard? Extraordinarily huge bases. Tons of proxy locations. Fucking gigantic ass ramps. Very short rush distances. Tons of surface area into the main. It's as if Blizzard decided to take all the worst map elements and cram it into one super imbalanced map. If you want to know why your TvP is suffering, it's largely due to a) Protoss having literally every early-game option available to them from 4-gates to proxy oracles to standard macro builds, b) Hugeass bases mean that oracle/blink harassment is ultra powerful, c) short rush distances mean that 2-base all-ins are scarier than ever, d) in the late game, it's very easy to do zealot warpins/army pressure on opposite sides of the map and pull the Terran player in different directions. My advice: get a solid SCV pull strategy down or just do some proxy shit.
Hope that unraveled some of the mystery behind "map balance inaccuracies". It really comes down to: can Protoss take a 3rd? If no, are 2-base allins good? If no, Protoss is fucked (see: PvZ on Crossfire and Daedalus).
Essentially, there is this mindset in the community that a couple of simple rules can be applied to forecast the balance of a map such as:
- Long rush distance is good for Zerg, bad for Terran - Chokes are good for Protoss, bad for Zerg - Far away third is good for Zerg, bad for Protoss - Airspace is good for Terran, bad for Protoss
I'd submit that this mentality of theorycrafting about map balance is completely and utterly oversimplifying the situation to the point of these forecasts being wrong as often as they are right.
You are oversimplifying the arguments. You have to look at those in the context of maps, and I dare say it is a little naive to take the maps made by toplevel mapmakers who try to avoid imbalanced situations or at least balance out imbalanced features and then analyze how you think the map would play out when you apply simplified rules. Also I'm pretty sure that every higher level player and mapmaker would disagree with some of your ruleexamples to begin with, e.g. long rushdistances in ZvT have proven time and time again that they do not necessarily imbalance the matchup, since it makes drops strong, ultralisks, broodlords and infestors weak, and buys time against 2base zerg busts. Also far away 3rd bases are not good for Zerg. They just punish Protoss players when they try to 3base, something that Protoss can often avoid with 2base allinning, but it's very plainly visible in the applied playstyle of the map, not necessarily in the winrates (because Protoss 2base allins are various and very powerful).
I think he was explaining that these were common (and perhaps faulty) beliefs about map balance. For the most part, they are true for "standard" macro play. The only one that might be a little off is that long rush distances are bad for Terran: these days, Terrans do well on pretty much any map regardless of the distance between bases. Then again, that probably has more to do with aggressive third base placement and the more attacking-oriented playstyles top-level Terrans have been using.
Essentially, there is this mindset in the community that a couple of simple rules can be applied to forecast the balance of a map such as:
- Long rush distance is good for Zerg, bad for Terran - Chokes are good for Protoss, bad for Zerg - Far away third is good for Zerg, bad for Protoss - Airspace is good for Terran, bad for Protoss
I'd submit that this mentality of theorycrafting about map balance is completely and utterly oversimplifying the situation to the point of these forecasts being wrong as often as they are right.
You are oversimplifying the arguments. You have to look at those in the context of maps, and I dare say it is a little naive to take the maps made by toplevel mapmakers who try to avoid imbalanced situations or at least balance out imbalanced features and then analyze how you think the map would play out when you apply simplified rules. Also I'm pretty sure that every higher level player and mapmaker would disagree with some of your ruleexamples to begin with, e.g. long rushdistances in ZvT have proven time and time again that they do not necessarily imbalance the matchup, since it makes drops strong, ultralisks, broodlords and infestors weak, and buys time against 2base zerg busts. Also far away 3rd bases are not good for Zerg. They just punish Protoss players when they try to 3base, something that Protoss can often avoid with 2base allinning, but it's very plainly visible in the applied playstyle of the map, not necessarily in the winrates (because Protoss 2base allins are various and very powerful).
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.
Khaldor went on for day and night about how hard Polar Night was for Protoss stressing the open far away third when like 3 games were played on the map, holding himself capable of forecasting the future. Which is pretty much the problem with Khaldor and many casters, the crystal ball syndrome. This implicit arm's race casters have going on to look into the future in order to appear knowledgeable. THe interesting part is that if you watch actual progamers cast whose knowledge far exceeds that of "analytical casters " (who in my opinion talk bullshit a lot of the time) they make no such attempt at all. At MLG Gameon catz made no attempt to look 12 minutes ahead in time and consequently did not look quite as foolish as Wolf and Artosis who are wrong about 40% of the time when they make such attempts. Either of them saying
Also some of your mapanalysis is just plainly missing the mark. E.g. Akilon: Protoss does profit from the easy bases, but first of all we all know how swarm hosts play on this map, second of all it is an amazing mutalisk and dropmap as well, just look at the basesetup. And Terran profits from such easy expansions too, they are just not as required for Terran macro play as they are for Protoss macroplay.
Apparently not?
Whirlwind: Medivac paradise, lots of airspace.
Maybe, maybe not, how can you know?
Star Station was also a medivac paradise but it was balanced in PvT, Polar Night is a medivac Paradise and is P favoured?
Crossfire: Wait, you say this map should have been good for Protoss? A map that is very hard to FFE on and was played during a time in which FFE was the only viable opening in ZvP. Not to mention that taking a third was nearly impossible. It was the prototype of 2base allin maps for Protoss against Zerg and not only that, it was even hard to get into 2basing.
Yes, everyone said the map was going to be good for Protoss with all the chokes. Artosis kept on stretching in the GSL how good the map was for Protoss when people long realized it wasn't the case. He just kept saying it on the air going on and on about how unfair it was for Zerg.
Daedalus Point: Wow, what a coincidence that this map is 6-0 for Protoss when you take most of its samplesize from a tournament in which Protoss is 31-8 vs Terran. Not saying that DP is necessarily bad vs Terran, but there is really no conclusion to be drawn from those stats with Code A being a PvT stompfest.
And in proleague, which features largely the same players, PvT is doing fine, could this be because the map pool really favours protoss in GSL, who knows?
Star Station: Very punishable 4th in ZvT, most games taken from a timeframe in which Terran was ~55% in ZvT regardless of maps, Terran hardly cares for open third bases in ZvT, very dropable. PvT blink allins are devastating due to the extreme ledge.
Maybe, maybe not, again, hindisght is 20/20.
You can come up with all sorts of "plausible explanations" to observed phaenomena. But until those explanations are sufficiently general to accurately forecast yet unforeseen events they aren't falsifiable nor verifiable and therefore there is no way of knowing if they are right. Your explanations may be right, they may be pure bollocks, no one can know because they are not sufficiently general.
On January 27 2014 15:37 SC2John wrote: If you want, I can easily explain all of them. There's really no mystery to the numbers, but it does force players to play a certain way, and sometimes that way can be very ugly. 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). So don't get this silly idea that somehow analysts are wrong and shouldn't continually harp on map balance.
Polar Night: 2-Base All Day, Everyday When this map was first released, Protosses could only look on and stare at the 360 degree air defense of the main base and the GIGANTIC opening at the third. In the current meta of phoenix/colossus, the 3rd base was impossible to hold on this map in PvZ, giving rise to a) more 2-base all-ins and b) the development of more voidray-focused strategies (which ignore terrain to some extent). 3 bases on this map is almost impossible to defend in PvT, giving rise to a plethora of early pressure builds (proxy oracle, 10-gate zealot/stalker/MSC poke, blink plays, etc.) as well as powerful 2-base builds (blink/colossus allins, templar/chargelot allins, etc.). The primary reason that these 2-base allins worked so well is because of the fairly short rush distance and the easy control of vision with the watchtowers.
Akilon Wastes: Did You Say SCV pull? Hellbat Drops? Mine Drops? A large portion of TvP games played on this map include games before the hellbat nerf and before Protoss really had any clue how the fuck to deal with early drops in general. On top of that, SCV pulls/2-base Terran allins were quite common on this map due to the very short rush distance and the very awkward-to-defend third base placement. The problem with this map was that Protoss got a "free" third base, but both of the third base placements sucked: one did better against SCV pulls, the other did better against drops. This also explains why the popular Terran 4M and hellbat/marauder pushes worked well on this map against Zerg.
Star Station: Wait, Forward Terran Thirds Are A Thing?" With the popular 4M style as well as hellbat/marauder pushes, the fairly short rush distances on this map and the forward (unbreakable) third allowed Terrans to ramp up the aggression and walk across the map very easily. Remember that about half of the professional games played on this map (or more) were played before cross-spawns only were introduced. There's also a lot of narrow hallways to abuse with widow mines. No mystery here. (If you don't understand what I mean about forward Terran thirds, see where Terrans take their third base in TvZ on Polar Night and Bel'Shir Vestige as well).
Whirlwind: Easy 4 Base Protoss can take and defend 4 bases pretty easily on this map.
Crossfire: Eh It's hard to explain this map, especially since most of the games on it (if not all of them) are absolutely awful. The most reasonable explanation is that it was WoL and Protoss couldn't take a natural.
Daedalus: What In The Actual Fuck, Blizzard? Extraordinarily huge bases. Tons of proxy locations. Fucking gigantic ass ramps. Very short rush distances. Tons of surface area into the main. It's as if Blizzard decided to take all the worst map elements and cram it into one super imbalanced map. If you want to know why your TvP is suffering, it's largely due to a) Protoss having literally every early-game option available to them from 4-gates to proxy oracles to standard macro builds, b) Hugeass bases mean that oracle/blink harassment is ultra powerful, c) short rush distances mean that 2-base all-ins are scarier than ever, d) in the late game, it's very easy to do zealot warpins/army pressure on opposite sides of the map and pull the Terran player in different directions. My advice: get a solid SCV pull strategy down or just do some proxy shit.
Hope that unraveled some of the mystery behind "map balance inaccuracies". It really comes down to: can Protoss take a 3rd? If no, are 2-base allins good? If no, Protoss is fucked (see: PvZ on Crossfire and Daedalus).
And here we go again, explanations made in hindsight.
This is why in natural science explanations are hold to the predictive value criterion. Any explanation made to explain a phenomon must be capable of forecasting in sufficient detail an event which is not yet foreseen order to be taken seriously and for good reason. History has shown time and time again that human beings like to come up with "plausible theories" to explain things in hindsight which are seldom true. In fact, you can give people facts which are false and they can still come up with things to explain it. You should not be able to ever explain the reason behind a falsehood but it happens. Until this theorycrafting on map balance can forecast the future accurately, I don't buy it.
On January 27 2014 22:53 SiskosGoatee wrote: And here we go again, explanations made in hindsight.
This is why in natural science explanations are hold to the predictive value criterion. Any explanation made to explain a phenomon must be capable of forecasting in sufficient detail an event which is not yet foreseen order to be taken seriously and for good reason. History has shown time and time again that human beings like to come up with "plausible theories" to explain things in hindsight which are seldom true. In fact, you can give people facts which are false and they can still come up with things to explain it. You should not be able to ever explain the reason behind a falsehood but it happens. Until this theorycrafting on map balance can forecast the future accurately, I don't buy it.
....what? Of course you can accurately predict map balance by looking at the map. That's why it's called "map analysis", and it's done by every high level player. I systematically laid out why Protoss is a little favored in PvT on Daedalus above. Unless there's a huge metagame shift, all of the analysis I made will hold true. It's not "hindsight theorycrafting", it's map analysis lol.
Polar Night is another good example of map analysis: Protoss cannot take a 3rd easily, so blink and other 2-base all-ins become more prevalent, leading to counter-intuitive higher win rates for Protoss, who would otherwise be "disadvantaged" in a normal macro game. I'm not "theorycrafting" about whether that's the case, that's actually what happened; players analyzed the map and adapted to it in order to suit their needs. That's what you're supposed to do in SC2.
Quit being a philosophical wanker and use your brain lol.
On January 27 2014 22:53 SiskosGoatee wrote: And here we go again, explanations made in hindsight.
This is why in natural science explanations are hold to the predictive value criterion. Any explanation made to explain a phenomon must be capable of forecasting in sufficient detail an event which is not yet foreseen order to be taken seriously and for good reason. History has shown time and time again that human beings like to come up with "plausible theories" to explain things in hindsight which are seldom true. In fact, you can give people facts which are false and they can still come up with things to explain it. You should not be able to ever explain the reason behind a falsehood but it happens. Until this theorycrafting on map balance can forecast the future accurately, I don't buy it.
....what? Of course you can accurately predict map balance by looking at the map. That's why it's called "map analysis", and it's done by every high level player. I systematically laid out why Protoss is a little favored in PvT on Daedalus above. Unless there's a huge metagame shift, all of the analysis I made will hold true. It's not "hindsight theorycrafting", it's map analysis lol.
No, you can do so inaccurately which is wrong at least 40% of the time.
I'm sorry, but progamers and casters alike were constantly talking about how good Akilon was for Protoss and they were wrong. That's inaccuracy.
Polar Night is another good example of map analysis: Protoss cannot take a 3rd easily, so blink and other 2-base all-ins become more prevalent, leading to counter-intuitive higher win rates for Protoss, who would otherwise be "disadvantaged" in a normal macro game. I'm not "theorycrafting" about whether that's the case, that's actually what happened; players analyzed the map and adapted to it in order to suit their needs. That's what you're supposed to do in SC2.
No, you are theorycrafting, you cannot proof or disproof if the scenario you are describing here is the actual cause of the PvT favour on Polar Night, remember, correlation is not causation, in order to demonstrate causation you have to have controlled experiments, we don't have those.
Quit being a philosophical wanker and use your brain lol.
You mean I insist upon use of the scientific method rather than informal, aesthetic and quite frankly inaccurate induction?
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.
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. 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.
EDIT: And yes, I watch almost every professional SC2 game, so I know why Protoss wins on Polar Night.
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.
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.
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.
[qupte]EDIT: And yes, I watch almost every professional SC2 game, so I know why Protoss wins on Polar Night.[/QUOTE]No, you think you know and you have no way of verifying or falsifying your hypothesis to the cause.
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.
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.
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.
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
-- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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. [/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/636_Crux%20Polar%20Night_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/558_Akilon%20Wastes_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/559_Star%20Station_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/550_Crux%20Whirlwind_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/501_Crossfire%20SE%201.1_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/654_Daedalus%20Point_thumbnail.jpg)
)
