|
I've said this match was up imbalanced long ago, perhaps that was 5 years back. Of course I got flamed for it at the time, now suddenly most are in agreement. Most people have listed the problems with the match up accurately.
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned the over effectiveness of sunken colonies... Sunkens are far, far too good against toss. If a zerg gets an expo up with sunkens and lurkers, throw in a spore for good measure and it becomes almost invulnerable. The fact that sunkens are so effective is what makes rushing zerg next to useless. One sunken with ling backup is all it takes to stop a rush. Reduce the effectiveness of sunkens, then suddenly toss can rush again and pressure the zerg.
Of course cannons are awesome too, but toss needs any edge they can get vs zerg. It's a shame that so many toss have to resort to cannon turtling to protect expos. That's far from entertaining, but it works...
A solution?
I'm not sure if there is one. If there is a solution it has to do with cannons. Could a protoss ever successfully execute a canon containment strategy?
|
United States10774 Posts
On September 30 2009 14:53 Camlito wrote:
Err, those prelim results are wrong?
it's 59-38 in favor of zergs, around 60%, not 69%
100 ZvPs in prelims?
...I am pretty sure you are looking at the wrong data cam
|
The MST statistic is useful, because it abstracts out singular player ability. The statistic there is not skewed by extremely strong players playing well anyway because there aren't extremely strong players on that list.
8 of the ZVP wins are from Yellow[arnc] and July.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 30 2009 14:51 motbob wrote:
BeSt is bad vs zergs, yet was doing well 8 months ago, and this is supposed to mean that Z>P 8 months ago? What?
Best was doing well overall, but against Zergs? not amazingly. His only notable wins against zergs from the beginning of the Incruit OSL season to about Febraury were in his Bo3 against Effort. A bunch of wins against middle-tier zergs like Roro and Haran are hardly statistics in favor of a well played matchup.
Best earned his 6 Dragons status through primarily his PvT and PvP. My point was that his PvZ (and arguably that of the other PvZ-weak players among the 6 dragons) don't contribute anything to the analysis. They did well because they could afford to drop PvZs when they were dominating PvTs and PvPs against top players, not because they were winning PvZs against zergs that were actually doing well.
EDIT: Oneother beat me to it. It's more that you can't judge the matchup by saying Best was winning PvZs. Winning games against Shark and losing to keke don't make your PvZ good.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 30 2009 14:59 DM20 wrote:Show nested quote +The MST statistic is useful, because it abstracts out singular player ability. The statistic there is not skewed by extremely strong players playing well anyway because there aren't extremely strong players on that list. 8 of the ZVP wins are from Yellow[arnc] and July.
...and Yarnc is TERRIBLE at ZvP!
Heh, that reminds me. Someone earlier was trying to argue that Yarnc wasn't that bad against P, just bad against Jangbi. I think that's been proven wrong.
|
On September 30 2009 14:57 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2009 14:53 Camlito wrote:
Err, those prelim results are wrong?
it's 59-38 in favor of zergs, around 60%, not 69% 100 ZvPs in prelims? ...I am pretty sure you are looking at the wrong data cam
Not the amount of series, the overall scores (like 2-1, 2-0 etc)
|
On September 30 2009 14:57 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2009 14:53 Camlito wrote:
Err, those prelim results are wrong?
it's 59-38 in favor of zergs, around 60%, not 69% 100 ZvPs in prelims? ...I am pretty sure you are looking at the wrong data cam
Actually he is correct, the stats are the winner of each B03 it looks like, so a toss winning a game and losing the other 2 is just showing up as a loss and skewing the stats.
|
On September 30 2009 15:05 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2009 14:59 DM20 wrote:The MST statistic is useful, because it abstracts out singular player ability. The statistic there is not skewed by extremely strong players playing well anyway because there aren't extremely strong players on that list. 8 of the ZVP wins are from Yellow[arnc] and July. ...and Yarnc is TERRIBLE at ZvP! Heh, that reminds me. Someone earlier was trying to argue that Yarnc wasn't that bad against P, just bad against Jangbi. I think that's been proven wrong.
He's still a top level gamer playing against B teamers, which is what people claimed these stats avoided.
|
United States10774 Posts
|
Well if chess has an inherent imbalance of around 6% (white first move advantage play to win- black playing to draw) still makes chess 'the most perfect and balanced game ever'
Now if you take out the 8 wins by july and fake yellow then zvp (55.5%) so really- it's more balanced than chess.
Like i said, no name players playing veterans are going to give a poor statistical representation of the MU.
take is or leave it- right now zvp is 5% imba and if 6% or less is good enough for chess, 5% is good enough for BW.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 30 2009 15:15 Misrah wrote:
Well if chess has an inherent imbalance of around 6% (white first move advantage play to win- black playing to draw) still makes chess 'the most perfect and balanced game ever'
Now if you take out the 8 wins by july and fake yellow then zvp (55.5%) so really- it's more balanced than chess.
Like i said, no name players playing veterans are going to give a poor statistical representation of the MU.
take is or leave it- right now zvp is 5% imba and if 6% or less is good enough for chess, 5% is good enough for BW.
Oh my god this post is terrible.
First, you cooked the data. You don't even try to hide it.
Second, in chess, players switch sides! In Starcraft, players are stuck with their race!
|
On September 30 2009 15:19 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2009 15:15 Misrah wrote:
Well if chess has an inherent imbalance of around 6% (white first move advantage play to win- black playing to draw) still makes chess 'the most perfect and balanced game ever'
Now if you take out the 8 wins by july and fake yellow then zvp (55.5%) so really- it's more balanced than chess.
Like i said, no name players playing veterans are going to give a poor statistical representation of the MU.
take is or leave it- right now zvp is 5% imba and if 6% or less is good enough for chess, 5% is good enough for BW. Oh my god this post is terrible. First, you cooked the data. You don't even try to hide it. Second, in chess, players switch sides! In Starcraft, players are stuck with their race!
no way they stay with the same race!!!! mind blown.
in starcraft you don't switch sides, you switch maps.
ONCE AGAIN- you are using poor stats of zvp to show this huge imba. My chess stat has been compiled since 1948 of all chess turny results, and the zvp stat is the one you just used. except i threw out games that veteran players played against b team noobs. ie. fake yellow and july.
so what are you trying to prove?
Maybe just maybe it's the simple fact that your argument is worthless, your stats are worthless- and compared to the historical trends in zvp this is nothing but normal???? It ALWAYS averages out in the end HISTORY PROVES THIS i don't understand why you don't see the plain and simple truth.
|
On September 30 2009 15:19 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2009 15:15 Misrah wrote:
Well if chess has an inherent imbalance of around 6% (white first move advantage play to win- black playing to draw) still makes chess 'the most perfect and balanced game ever'
Now if you take out the 8 wins by july and fake yellow then zvp (55.5%) so really- it's more balanced than chess.
Like i said, no name players playing veterans are going to give a poor statistical representation of the MU.
take is or leave it- right now zvp is 5% imba and if 6% or less is good enough for chess, 5% is good enough for BW. Second, in chess, players switch sides! In Starcraft, players are stuck with their race!
That's where you're wrong.
This is how I think about it as a longtime chess and starcraft player. In Protoss vs Terran, Protoss is white. They can set the pace and the tempo of the match from the beginning.
In Protoss vs. Zerg the Protoss plays with the black pieces. Zerg has the initiative and its up to the protoss to make a game out of it.
Of course, the beauty of Starcraft is that unlike chess, there are an extremely high amount of factors that go into determining a position so really Protoss has more of a fighting chance than you many of you are giving them credit for. Pvz is supposed to be the Toss's weaker matchup. After all, it wouldn't be fair to play as white all the time would it?
Oh, one more thing, 6-4 odds in zvp is hardly considered an imbalanced matchup. Look at fighting games as examples of how imbalanced things can be. In SSBM Marth has 9-1 odds on mewtwo and 7-3 on much of the rest of the roster.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 30 2009 15:30 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2009 15:19 motbob wrote:On September 30 2009 15:15 Misrah wrote:
Well if chess has an inherent imbalance of around 6% (white first move advantage play to win- black playing to draw) still makes chess 'the most perfect and balanced game ever'
Now if you take out the 8 wins by july and fake yellow then zvp (55.5%) so really- it's more balanced than chess.
Like i said, no name players playing veterans are going to give a poor statistical representation of the MU.
take is or leave it- right now zvp is 5% imba and if 6% or less is good enough for chess, 5% is good enough for BW. Oh my god this post is terrible. First, you cooked the data. You don't even try to hide it. Second, in chess, players switch sides! In Starcraft, players are stuck with their race! no way they stay with the same race!!!! mind blown. in starcraft you don't switch sides, you switch maps. ONCE AGAIN- you are using poor stats of zvp to show this huge imba. My chess stat has been compiled since 1948 of all chess turny results, and the zvp stat is the one you just used. except i threw out games that veteran players played against b team noobs. ie. fake yellow and july.
The fact that chess is imbalanced towards white doesn't matter since players switch side. The fact that ZvP is imbalanced right now does matter because players don't switch sides.
Again, you're cooking your data. You didn't throw out Pusan vs Lake, because you are biased and trying to prove me wrong.
so what are you trying to prove?
Maybe just maybe it's the simple fact that your argument is worthless, your stats are worthless- and compared to the historical trends in zvp this is nothing but normal???? It ALWAYS averages out in the end HISTORY PROVES THIS i don't understand why you don't see the plain and simple truth.
If you were to read the OP you would see that I agree with you here.
|
fine you want stats- here are some legit stats:
I randomly took maps and decided to check the zvp win rate and compile them: here we go-
Ando 53-46
Tau 26-23
Rush Hour 3 18-16
Collo 2 14-18
Chepung 5-7
Python 28-19
Luna 14-16
medusa 31-37
neo medusa 18-12
blue storm 37-39
heart break 22-19
outsider 13-11
destination 53-52
total games- 648
zerg wins: 332
toss wins: 316
zerg % win: 51.23%
toss % win: 48.76%
now i just randomly took some maps that came to the top of my head. if you want to add to the list, and try and get all of the maps then go for it. But look- i don't see any glaring imbalance from this random collection of maps.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 30 2009 15:51 Misrah wrote:
fine you want stats- here are some legit stats:
I randomly took maps and decided to check the zvp win rate and compile them: here we go-
Ando 53-46
Tau 26-23
Rush Hour 3 18-16
Collo 2 14-18
Chepung 5-7
Python 28-19
Luna 14-16
medusa 31-37
neo medusa 18-12
blue storm 37-39
heart break 22-19
outsider 13-11
destination 53-52
total games- 648
zerg wins: 332
toss wins: 316
zerg % win: 51.23%
toss % win: 48.76%
now i just randomly took some maps that came to the top of my head. if you want to add to the list, and try and get all of the maps then go for it. But look- i don't see any glaring imbalance from this random collection of maps.
It's obvious that you didn't even read the OP and that you just read the phrase "ZvP is imbalanced". I'm not talking about ZvP historically. I'm talking about it right now, on current maps (although maps probably aren't the cause), for pros of all levels.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 30 2009 15:51 Misrah wrote:
fine you want stats- here are some legit stats:
I randomly took maps and decided to check the zvp win rate and compile them: here we go-
Ando 53-46
Tau 26-23
Rush Hour 3 18-16
Collo 2 14-18
Chepung 5-7
Python 28-19
Luna 14-16
medusa 31-37
neo medusa 18-12
blue storm 37-39
heart break 22-19
outsider 13-11
destination 53-52
total games- 648
zerg wins: 332
toss wins: 316
zerg % win: 51.23%
toss % win: 48.76%
now i just randomly took some maps that came to the top of my head. if you want to add to the list, and try and get all of the maps then go for it. But look- i don't see any glaring imbalance from this random collection of maps.
I think you need to reread the OP.
|
The MST results in TLPD only includes the morning session.
All sessions are:
Total Games:
ZvP: 63-33 (66%)
Total Series:
ZvP: 29-12 (70%)
|
and i am trying to make a point that through the ups and downs- look at what happened????? it turned out even! you are making a fuss about something that has occurred in the past, is occurring now and will in the future.
But in the end it all evens out. so there is no imba, only stages of dominance, that is followed with stages of weakness.
it's a cycle. yes i did read the op- my words don't seem to affect your logic, i was hoping that numbers would.
That list has everything to do with what i am trying to tell you. but you brushed it off. i am done wasting time with this.
|
The statement ZvP is imbalanced is plain and simply wrong.
Everyone who played this game long enough and has a clue about it knows: A match up is never imbalanced. It is never the match up.
Its always the map. You can create maps where P>>Z and maps where Z>>P. The problem is, to get a map that brings u equally good results in terms of balance with all three match ups. A map that is fair in PvT and TvZ often lacks in PvZ and vice versa..
So i can always laugh and will always laugh about the people who say Z>>P or PvZ is a hard match up...
It depends on the maps. It might be a fact that the maps right now are favouring zerg, or that the maps suite the style of the modern zergs better ect..
It might be close to impossible to make balanced maps for each match up but it sometimes happens..
Additionally u would have to look at much much more pro games to be able to analyze if Z>P. Even if u had a big enoug samplesize it would still be almost impossible to clearly say a match up favours a certain race, because every gamer is so individual and even though not many can play PvZ like e.g. Bisu can its still a fact that PvZ CAN BE PLAYED THAT GOOD / THAT WAY. So basicaly all the imbalance talk is bull shit.
1) How hard a match up is, has always depended on the maps and always will
2) We have by far too few games played on maps to make a certain statement
3) Most people not being capable of winning PvZ on Iccup and losing this mu most of the time
--> does not <-- make it imabalanced
4) You would need both players to play the perfect game to be able to analyze wether its balanced or not.. thats impossible..
all about maps, individual style and certain players, coincidence, ect...
not imbalance..
!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
