EDIT2: Since about page 30 this thread has turned into a haven for statistics nerds! Enter at your own risk.
EDIT: I'm a strong believer in the theory that maps can fix any balance issues inherent in the way Blizzard designed the races. Therefore, I believe that the imbalance I'm talking about in this OP will pass eventually. However, what I really wanted this thread to be about was why the matchup shifted towards zergs for no obvious reason over the past 8 months. I was hoping that some people would have some theories on that.
ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level. It's remarkable how that fact has sort of snuck up on us over the past few months, but it's absolutely true. Since about March, it seems like zergs have reached a point in the metagame where they always have the build order advantage.
Whether it's because of Jaedong leading the way for zergs everywhere, or the inability for protosses to come up with any innovation in their play since the zealot/archon push that was popular 8 months ago, Protosses are in a bad place right now when they play zerg. And it's not the maps. Destination used to be balanced ZvP (56-54 before Mar 1 2009). Now it is not (61-44 after).
Let's talk numbers. In the upcoming OSL prelims, the maps used are Destination, Heartbreak Ridge, and Return of the King. The combined stats for those three maps after early March, including "non-official" games like prelim games, is 60% ZvP. Outsider is 41-27 (60.3%). Neo Medusa is 34-25 (57.6%).
Why is this matchup suddenly so drastically imbalanced?
A wise man once said (seriously who was that? FS?) that if protoss is losing, nothings wrong with the balance. If they are winning there must be something wrong, so I think the situation right now is nothing surprising if you look at the MU historically
not even at the semi pro level. I never play zerg, and I played as zerg the other day against a protoss, and I won without even following a strict BO. go figure.
On September 25 2009 17:19 BookTwo wrote: not even at the semi pro level. I never play zerg, and I played as zerg the other day against a protoss, and I won without even following a strict BO. go figure.
I just massed hydras
I can beat c+ zergs TvZ with gaycute leta/fantasy style builds.
Have you watched the recent Preseason games? But yes, Protoss needs more innovation, and everyone knows ZvP is inherently imbalanced. It's just that Zerg seems to have a lot more options with an easy 3-base 3-gas that's so common in maps nowadays.
Nearly all of the best Tosses are slumping overall. It's just not as noticeable with PvT because most of the maps are really toss favored so the stats come out relatively even.
Not really a big deal. Every race has their ups and downs.
Stop making silly 2nd entrence with mineralpatch kind of maps that favour 9 pool alot imo. Altho that may not be a problem on progaming level maybe -,- Zerg has so many options with 3 hatch 3 gas---> 5 hatch 3 gas , den and spire at the same time never gives any intel anyways ;p
Perhaps its as simple as mutta control being out of control ? Lets just hope Bisu JR shows his face soon and starts raping jaedong until he slumps
On September 25 2009 17:26 iamho wrote: personally ive always felt z balance is a bit off, zvp is really easy esp. in hive tech, zvt is so fucking hard, zvz is just a screwed matchup
man i hate being like yarnc (best matchup zvt, great/respectable zvz, terrible zvp...)
I kind of wish progamer protosses would play something other than standard FE->Starport/Citadel->dts. It's predictability allows zergs to counter against it way too easily.
Personally, it's really frustrating to watch a PvZ as a protoss fan, because basically the zerg is the one that can do all the cute rushes and tricks for basically the first 10 minutes of the game. While the protoss has this one build that only works if everything the zerg tries fails.
On September 25 2009 17:32 baubo wrote: I kind of wish progamer protosses would play something other than standard FE->Starport/Citadel->dts. It's predictability allows zergs to counter against it way too easily.
Personally, it's really frustrating to watch a PvZ as a protoss fan, because basically the zerg is the one that can do all the cute rushes and tricks for basically the first 10 minutes of the game. While the protoss has this one build that only works if everything the zerg tries fails.
What do you suggest that protoss should start doing?
I agree with the op, zvp is broken. People should really stop complaining about storms. Even storms is not enough to make protoss even with the zerg.
I would say its because zergs economy is so huge with the 3hatch spire 5hatch hydra build that even a FE protoss cannot keep up unless they get some decent harassment in there even with an expansion of their own. The fact is that without harassment the zerg will easily overwhelm you. Over time, zergs have become nearly immune to most forms of harassment, sair dt doesnt work as well as it used too, sairs have become nearly useless in most scenarios because scourge are always abundant. The protoss metagame is starting to shift, as you see alot more gateway first builds recently. Bisu still wins, but, it's bisu. Protoss will have to adapt as zerg did to fast sair play. It's an ever evolving game.
On September 25 2009 17:32 baubo wrote: I kind of wish progamer protosses would play something other than standard FE->Starport/Citadel->dts. It's predictability allows zergs to counter against it way too easily.
Personally, it's really frustrating to watch a PvZ as a protoss fan, because basically the zerg is the one that can do all the cute rushes and tricks for basically the first 10 minutes of the game. While the protoss has this one build that only works if everything the zerg tries fails.
I dont think zvp is imbalanced at all... Its just that protoss has not even a single great player beside bisu at the moment, while zerg has many players at their personal peak just right now... thats what makes zvp SEEM imbalanced In fact I strongly believe zvp at D to C levels are even favouring protoss over zerg, just because 5hatch hydra is so scouting dependent, while protoss can just asume whats coming and scout perfectly with corsairs...
Maps are definitely a factor. Andromeda is almost 70% P favored since a few months back (a theory of collective slumping would have to account for this fact somehow). Colosseum II is slightly P favored. Outsider is fairly even. Looking at these maps, I think one deciding factor for the matchup balance is how easily protoss can secure a third base (which is really hard on HBR and Destination).
A much more accurate analysis is probably possible. In any case, we need more maps like Andromeda to balance things out.
On September 25 2009 17:39 okum wrote: Maps are definitely a factor. Andromeda is almost 70% P favored since a few months back (a theory of collective slumping would have to account for this fact somehow). Colosseum II is slightly P favored. Outsider is fairly even. Looking at these maps, I think one deciding factor for the matchup balance is how easily protoss can secure a third base (which is really hard on HBR and Destination).
A much more accurate analysis is probably possible. In any case, we need more maps like Andromeda to balance things out.
dw, you ment Protoss have been owning on the map after it's z>p imbalance.
Camlito, how can you say that Andromeda is 70% zvp? what stats are you reading? -.- and it wasn't the most imbalanced zerg map in the past year, Battle Royal was probably the most ridiculous =\
Wasn't bisu talking about how imbalanced the current maps are? Maybe he's right, or maybe the usual macro play off of a fast expand is just too predictable these days.
I saw bisu vs zero on outsider, where bisu was all over the map with a ton of reaver harass and lots of corsairs. He ultimately lost the game, but he was really losing reavers left and right. I think zero only won because bisu's resources dried up, despite bisu's lacking control at times. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it seems like the typical fast expand into mass gates has been "solved" in a way, and protoss players are going to havve to come up with something different. 3 hatch spire into 5 hatch hydra is a pretty safe and effective counter to what protoss has been doing lately, and that impacts the statistics in zerg's favor.
On September 25 2009 17:32 baubo wrote: I kind of wish progamer protosses would play something other than standard FE->Starport/Citadel->dts. It's predictability allows zergs to counter against it way too easily.
Personally, it's really frustrating to watch a PvZ as a protoss fan, because basically the zerg is the one that can do all the cute rushes and tricks for basically the first 10 minutes of the game. While the protoss has this one build that only works if everything the zerg tries fails.
What do you suggest that protoss should start doing?
Well, I certainly don't know any new nice build. But at the very least, I think protoss needs to incorporate some technical rushes. Various speedlot rushes, goon/reaver timing attacks, etc. And perhaps more sair/reaver if maps allow it. Just enough twists to keep the zerg honest.
On September 25 2009 17:32 baubo wrote: I kind of wish progamer protosses would play something other than standard FE->Starport/Citadel->dts. It's predictability allows zergs to counter against it way too easily.
Personally, it's really frustrating to watch a PvZ as a protoss fan, because basically the zerg is the one that can do all the cute rushes and tricks for basically the first 10 minutes of the game. While the protoss has this one build that only works if everything the zerg tries fails.
sounds like PvT to me...
You mean TvP? I pretty much agree, at least before Fantasy.
On September 25 2009 17:32 baubo wrote: I kind of wish progamer protosses would play something other than standard FE->Starport/Citadel->dts. It's predictability allows zergs to counter against it way too easily.
Personally, it's really frustrating to watch a PvZ as a protoss fan, because basically the zerg is the one that can do all the cute rushes and tricks for basically the first 10 minutes of the game. While the protoss has this one build that only works if everything the zerg tries fails.
What do you suggest that protoss should start doing?
Stop playing WoW.
Ver is right, almost all of protoss players are slumping. Bisu is not (however he isn't in top shape as well), and uhm well... Nobody else? Ok, Stork has shown nice performance at WCG but it was quite late to stop playing WoW.
3. Zergs overall control muta/scourge better than in the past
4. 4gate/2archon seems to have lost it's luster
Now we have every protoss out there dying to hydra all-ins, or delaying psi storm way too long. They're also giving up air superiority on a whim, and cutting too many cannons. Maybe I'm wrong (as I haven't played protoss as my main race for quite some time), but PvZ isn't a matchup like ZvT where you have to survive on the bare minimum of defense in order to have the slight advantage in army size on the field. It's more like TvP where the terran moves to secure safe expansions with good defensive positions, and tries to win with a vastly superior army. Protoss has a difficult time doing anything to a maxed terran, just as zerg has trouble with a huge protoss ball of death. The problem in both situations for the 'underdog' of the matchup, is getting there.
Hell, zergs were complaining right before this that the protoss late-game army is unstoppable, due to other recent results (which I will not spoil here). It's just smart play, though. There's nothing wrong with playing turtle-ish protoss when the zerg is being aggressive. Psi storm is there for a reason.
yeah, pvz has always been hard, even at my level (b/b+). against a zerg who knows how to cheese well, and also has solid macro style play, it only gets harder. any scouting attempt is denied, but i am afraid to spend money on extra cannons because i will get behind economically and have a difficult time winning. i have definitely noticed the latest Z>P trend in the progaming scene, too. four gate zealot/archon has pretty much been nullified with flawless sim city and such =/ it's funny how people cry about protoss imba bullshit when we are the ones dealing with perhaps the hardest matchup in starcraft right now
On September 25 2009 18:15 lokiM wrote: people still do 1 gate builds 1 gate > fe that is, but only works on maps with a expo in your main.. like colo2, outsider
i think he was talking about one gate tech builds, which isn't viable on rampless maps like colosseum. imo python is one of the good maps to one gate on.
On September 25 2009 18:16 OneOther wrote: yeah, pvz has always been hard, even at my level (b/b+). against a zerg who knows how to cheese well, and also has solid macro style play, it only gets harder. any scouting attempt is denied, but i am afraid to spend money on extra cannons because i will get behind economically and have a difficult time winning. i have definitely noticed the latest Z>P trend in the progaming scene, too. four gate zealot/archon has pretty much been nullified with flawless sim city and such =/ it's funny how people cry about protoss imba bullshit when we are the ones dealing with perhaps the hardest matchup in starcraft right now
well.. people worse than you aren't suffering AS much .
heh yeah, who knows i just meant that the difficulty doesn't exist only in the progaming and semi-progaming realm. i feel like pvz gets drastically harder after b- or so. there's a huge jump in the matchup all of a sudden
On September 25 2009 18:15 lokiM wrote: people still do 1 gate builds 1 gate > fe that is, but only works on maps with a expo in your main.. like colo2, outsider
i think he was talking about one gate tech builds, which isn't viable on rampless maps like colosseum. imo python is one of the good maps to one gate on.
well ofc, i was only saying colo2 if you were to 1gate > FE
my god, thank you for making this thread, i've been meaning to talk about it for a long time, not as a whim or a fanboy cry but as a serious topic.
OKAY how about we make a list of ZERG adaptations to the PROTOSS fast expand builds, and other innate problems in the Protoss FE build order? i'll start with the biggest changes that I have personally seen lately (these are not in any particular order of importance, it's just the order in which they came to me):
1- Zergs have better muta/scourge control. (Jaedong vs Stork @ Katrina) Zerg players have realized that scourging and cloning are as important for ZvP than in ZvT, if not more.
2- Zerg players can now easily prevent DTs because they have studied the Protoss builds, especially Bisu's. In every game that I watch nowadays, as long as there is one overlord per base, it's practically impossible to get anything done with one or two DTs. With no harassment to the zerg economy, only rape can result.
3- There is a problem with the Bisu build. The problem is called No-Fucking-Detection. Zerg players nowadays are exploiting the build order of the Bisu build with LURKERS and their inherit advantage over zealots, the main unit in the protoss army against zergs. With the Bisu build, players have no detection for quite a while, since templar tech is given such high priority. This almost always results in (1) Protoss getting contained (2) Protoss losing map control (3) Protoss being unable to be offensive.
4- Zerg players have studied the Protoss timings. The infamous hydra breaks of JulyZerg are so popular nowadays. (JulyZerg vs Bisu @ Bluestorm, Yarnc vs Anytime @ outsider, etc) This applies to the Bisu build as well as the Corsair/Reaver build, though it's safe to say that the Corsair/Reaver build is a little better at defending these because of the first reaver that comes out.
5- Zerg players have become better at Storm dodging. This is all their credit of course, but people have realized that with a little more micro on the hydras, they can rape the Protoss army easily.
6- The Protoss Fast Expand Build order does not offer many surprises or variations. I seriously fell in love with Movie after his first MSL game against Jaedong because he brought something so new to the table. His dragoon push was unparalleled to any other variations that have been seen (I think it was more aggressive and had a better timing than Much's variations and Bisu's goon/reaver remix). But other than that, there is not much that can catch the Zerg player with his pants down, and if there is, it will only happen so often because they study it to death. The Protoss Fast Expand, by nature, is a self-contained build order, and unlike the Zerg, cannot always HIDE information as well (i mean shit overlords can fly).
7- This might be just me, but I feel like after every Fast Expand, I am uncomfortable with my mineral-to-gas ratio, which tends to be as high as 3:1. This is obviously inevitable since the Forge, Pylons, Cannons, Gates, and Nexi rely solely on minerals, but perhaps the build order of the Fast Expand can be changed. My suggestions are either (1) build your main gas before the Fast Expand Gateway and mine with one or two probes or (2) build your assimilator at your natural as your Nexus builds, so that as soon as it is finished building you can split 3 probes onto the gas and the other 2 or 3 to mineral mining, instead of sending them all to minerals. This might result in a later Cybernetics Core. This is a serious problem because a slanted mineral-to-gas ratio will force you into making more zealots or might limit your number of high templars, which Zerg players have become so good at sniping (Zero vs Bisu @ Heartbreak Ridge for fuck's sake). I also feel like gas is incredibly important for the Protoss army in the late game, since Archons are literally the only unit that can withstand Ultralisks.
8- In the late game, the Protoss should do something special. Against Terrans, Protoss can switch to arbiter tech or carrier tech. However, against Zergs, the only thing I have seen is a couple of players trying Dark Archons in the late game. I think that's a great idea, but I also think Carrier/Corsair is a solution. Perhaps we can create a build order which allows Protoss players to switch tech between templar tech, reaver tech, and carrier tech. Much like the tech switches of the Zerg against the Protoss and the Terrans, I think this is the only way to catch them off guard.
Aside from all the other reasons that people give, such as Protoss players slumping (which I disagree with as far as this particular topic is involved--aside from Bisu no other protoss player can be said to have outstanding PvZ, not violet, not anyone), the match up of Protoss Vs Zerg is once again starting to tilt in favor of the Zerg. I am not saying that there is an inherit imbalance between the races, all I am saying is that something needs to be done.
The Bisu build had something special in it, and this is what made it so strong--the element of surprise and the unseen. However, Protoss players have exhausted this build so much so that not even Bisu uses it lately (just look at his games, he prefers going Corsair/Reaver).
What I propose is a slower tech tree for the Protoss Build Order. I think instead of rushing to Templar Archives, one should stay on Starport, Citadel, and Robotics, and react accordingly. If the Zerg is massing hydras, Storms are perhaps the way to go, skipping DTs if possible. If Lurkers come your way, an early Observatory will allow you to be aggressive. If Mutas come your way, I would recommend Corsair/Reaver.
Basically, I think the future of Protoss vs Zerg lies in the Corsair/Reaver build. Not so much the current one, but a remix of it. I think Protoss players will almost always lose the ground battles because the Zerg's macro can sustain a bigger and stronger ground army. So the Protoss are going to have to gain air control, and I don't mean partially, I mean 100% of it. The only way a Protoss can stop the Zerg economy from reaching its peak is harassment. This harassment can only come through guerrila and sneaky tactics. That's what the Bisu build gave us. But now we have to create more ways of doing so, and do so at a larger scale.
I hope people start taking this topic more seriously. Even if the statistics don't show it, something needs to be done because exploiting one build and one build only becomes mundane and predictable. I hope more people contribute to the list that I have given so that we can start looking at other paradigms of Protoss vs Zerg. thx
I mean.. i'll throw this out there just because i'm a Protoss user w/ hundreds of games of experience in the matchup and watching all the pro-gaming i can.. It's a really hard matchup for sure! I've give it to ppl that will say that BW is "balanced" or prolly as close to being completely balanced as it can get, or any other RTS game, but also, ZvP does seem to definately veer towards the Z side in advantages..
I know each race has their own distinct advantages, obvioulsy, like Terran being good at surviving aka turtling, Protoss being strong w/ rvr's, temps, arbs etc, and Zerg being able to mass like a biatch, plus dark swarm, ultras etc.
but in the specific matchup, I think Zerg starts w/ more advantages. Overlords, for one. They get to see ur base, normally well before ur cy-core comes up, and they can escape w/ the knowledge of ur tech choice. Considering most P's FE these days, which is standard, that gives a good Z the ability to 3 hatch w/ 2 extra expansions, and gives them enough time to defend them pretty well. From there, it's pretty much a guessing game as Protoss. Most of the time, we're supposed to go for Corsairs, to see what they're doing and perhaps provide some harass. Well, the Zerg pretty much knowing this tech choice (from OL scout) can either go for spire/den build and go skurge just enough to kill off any sairs or they can go 4+ hatch hydra for an early break, or they can still power up enough muta + skurge to still do significant dmg. Only if a Protoss really knows mutas are coming can they particularly prepare for them and if they read the Z's build wrong, and put too much muta-D up, they'll switch it up and go all for hydras, making that money useless.. or they'll make P defend up so much, they can just sit and take another base, chill w/ lurkers and by the time we get to robo/obs after going str8 for temp tech, they alrdy have 4+ gas etc..
so ya, from start to finish, it takes good insight, good multitasking, harass and macro to stand a chance - but the zergs are always that 1 step ahead. Not to mention their food supply is their dropships - so at any time, they can mass drop u.. which is almost unpredictable, until it happens. Then theres also the cracklings, which can destroy whole townships in seconds.. (nexus in liek less than 5). That would be like our Pylons acting as cannons too.. or something huge :O
On September 25 2009 18:46 Sosha wrote: I mean.. i'll throw this out there just because i'm a Protoss user w/ hundreds of games of experience in the matchup and watching all the pro-gaming i can.. It's a really hard matchup for sure! I've give it to ppl that will say that BW is "balanced" or prolly as close to being completely balanced as it can get, or any other RTS game, but also, ZvP does seem to definately veer towards the Z side in advantages..
I know each race has their own distinct advantages, obvioulsy, like Terran being good at surviving aka turtling, Protoss being strong w/ rvr's, temps, arbs etc, and Zerg being able to mass like a biatch, plus dark swarm, ultras etc.
but in the specific matchup, I think Zerg starts w/ more advantages. Overlords, for one. They get to see ur base, normally well before ur cy-core comes up, and they can escape w/ the knowledge of ur tech choice. Considering most P's FE these days, which is standard, that gives a good Z the ability to 3 hatch w/ 2 extra expansions, and gives them enough time to defend them pretty well. From there, it's pretty much a guessing game as Protoss. Most of the time, we're supposed to go for Corsairs, to see what they're doing and perhaps provide some harass. Well, the Zerg pretty much knowing this tech choice (from OL scout) can either go for spire/den build and go skurge just enough to kill off any sairs or they can go 4+ hatch hydra for an early break, or they can still power up enough muta + skurge to still do significant dmg. Only if a Protoss really knows mutas are coming can they particularly prepare for them and if they read the Z's build wrong, and put too much muta-D up, they'll switch it up and go all for hydras, making that money useless.. or they'll make P defend up so much, they can just sit and take another base, chill w/ lurkers and by the time we get to robo/obs after going str8 for temp tech, they alrdy have 4+ gas etc..
so ya, from start to finish, it takes good insight, good multitasking, harass and macro to stand a chance - but the zergs are always that 1 step ahead. Not to mention their food supply is their dropships - so at any time, they can mass drop u.. which is almost unpredictable, until it happens. Then theres also the cracklings, which can destroy whole townships in seconds.. (nexus in liek less than 5). That would be like our Pylons acting as cannons too.. or something huge :O
gL though Protoss <3
Err... this is about the PRO LEVEL in particular.
ZvP at my level is equally as hard... i may have an ovie in your base, but it doesn't mean i completely understand what you are doing or how to counter it. I have lost many games where the core was spinning , and it wasn't what i predicted out of goon range/corsairs.
ZvP, at D-C (or even some B players who just cheese.. which is alot now -_-) need some sick mechanics to pull off the advantages zerg seems to have, along with macro. Also knowing how to counter, when to drone, when to expo.. protosses complain about pvz just as much as zergs/terrans complain about protoss, but i've realized, along with others (i hope) of both races that the other race is equally as hard.
Protoss are so strong on paper, but can die instantly to something they didnt expect or prepare for. It takes sick game sense, scouting, multitasking (these 2 are combined in a way) and understanding of the matchup to improve at it, while Zerg really needs to: understand how to counter what the protoss is doing, knowing when to drone/unit, and subtle micro (temp sniping, obs sniping, lurk spreading, flanking, storm dodging).
Directed to lower (b- or before) players
Protoss - ZvP is HARD in many ways Zerg - PvZ is HARD in many ways
ZvP has been the most imba matchup, and protoss is the hardest race to play in the pro level. There are only handful of well known protosses in the history of starcraft.
On September 25 2009 17:12 motbob wrote: ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level. It's remarkable how that fact has sort of snuck up on us over the past few months, but it's absolutely true. Since about March, it seems like zergs have reached a point in the metagame where they always have the build order advantage.
Whether it's because of Jaedong leading the way for zergs everywhere, or the inability for protosses to come up with any innovation in their play since the zealot/archon push that was popular 8 months ago, Protosses are in a bad place right now when they play zerg. And it's not the maps. Destination used to be balanced ZvP (56-54 before Mar 1 2009). Now it is not (61-44 after).
Let's talk numbers. In the upcoming OSL prelims, the maps used are Destination, Heartbreak Ridge, and Return of the King. The combined stats for those three maps after early March, including "non-official" games like prelim games, is 60% ZvP. Outsider is 41-27 (60.3%). Neo Medusa is 34-25 (57.6%).
Why is this matchup suddenly so drastically imbalanced?
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
There is something seriously wrong with this matchup and I've been of the same opinion for ages. Zerg just has the ability to overrun protoss so easily and protoss is so fragile in this matchup. Zerg counters are hard, they can switch tech, and finally just get imba swarm and imbalisks and own.
And yeah people, it's not about the maps so stop trying to understand map statistics based on ridiculously low sample sizes.
My own theory is that big maps is good for zerg in ZvP because they can expo all over and it's hard for protoss to move around everywhere. The recent maps seem to be quite big. Terran is also at an disadvantage on big maps btw
On September 25 2009 17:19 BookTwo wrote: not even at the semi pro level. I never play zerg, and I played as zerg the other day against a protoss, and I won without even following a strict BO. go figure.
I just massed hydras
I can beat c+ zergs TvZ with gaycute leta/fantasy style builds.
Go figure.
edit: like the person below.
Are you seriously comparing doing micro-intensive leta/fantasy builds in TvZ to massing hydras and 1a2a3a in ZvP?
Zerg has the ability to build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. Also the micro intensive PvZ and the generally macro based ZvP contradict each other so much that protoss has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, and still they loose.
I like the idea of discussing possible solutions instead of complaining. As an option I tried to surprise the zergs with fast speedlots after denying the scouting with one dragoon and delaying the archives. It often works at my D level, but don't know if it is viable at the higher levels.
And indeed watching the pro-pvz lately I felt bad about the protosses. They seem to have no solution for now and the new maps with impossible FE make this just laughable.
heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
On September 25 2009 17:19 BookTwo wrote: not even at the semi pro level. I never play zerg, and I played as zerg the other day against a protoss, and I won without even following a strict BO. go figure.
I just massed hydras
I can beat c+ zergs TvZ with gaycute leta/fantasy style builds.
Go figure.
edit: like the person below.
Are you seriously comparing doing micro-intensive leta/fantasy builds in TvZ to massing hydras and 1a2a3a in ZvP?
Zerg has the ability to build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. Also the micro intensive PvZ and the generally macro based ZvP contradict each other so much that protoss has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, and still they loose.
micro-intensive? You think there is no fucking micro in ZvP?
Massing just hydra and flanking is easy, but that doesn't work if the protoss isn't a retard.
I hate people who keep fucking thinking zvp takes no micro. It only takes no micro late game :D.
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
Sure but how come like almost every pro protoss has PvZ as their worst matchup statistically?
Good at PvZ: Bisu. Stork isn't bad. Violet got some recognition but he's really not very consistent. Good at ZvP: Savior, JulyZerg, By.Hero, Zero are all (in)famous for their ZvP. Jaedong, Calm, Luxury, and other Zergs can easily be said to be better at the match up than protoss players like Jangbi, Kal, Best. There is a reason, or more than one, like the 8 that i just gave...
if you think this thread is bogus, by all means diss it. but if you think you have something to contribute, please do so. it's important for some people u know oO
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
Sure but how come like almost every pro protoss has PvZ as their worst matchup statistically?
The reason for zerg being so strong is absolutely map related. Zerg has been and allways will be the most flexible race. They can tech switch freely and it's very hard to scout what they are doing unless you're familiar with their builds. Hence why players such as f91 can rack up wins vs "better" players.
To combat zergs flexibility the other races has allways had to rely on harassing their economy to mess up their build timings. But that hardly works on modern maps because maps like Destination, HBR and Outsider allows for tight wall ins and easily defendable chokes. Zerg doesn't have to spend extra money defending but rather just place their buildings in a certain way and they can defend. As seen in ZvP, if zerg can get their entire lair tech tree and still mass drone without being harassed they are extremely hard to kill. I believe these wallable areas also makes it harder for protoss to timing push zergs third which takes another threat off the table.
This absolutely reminds me of the treads in the past, when I would write that protoss need to use corsairs/dts/reavers and most of them would argue that it is impossible. Then Bisu came and they went orgasmic about "Bisu build". IMO it is very simple to upgrade it - just add reavers in shuttles into it.
This discussion is so 2005.
Also LOL @ guy who wrote that PvT is hard because toss has to adapt to the terran.
Camlito, you can't rely on statistics like that because they tell you nothing of the underlying causes.
I hope you're not trying to make a case with those stats, because alot of those players aren't very good either, meaning they will more likely loose to a better player regardless of race. Besides many of these guys haven't played that many games.
Violet, Shuttle and Sangho aren't very good players and loosing to better terrans of course says nothing about the racial imbalance but rather the players skill levels.
Regardless, if you compare PvZ and ZvP stats for the top 10 players of each race you will notice a huge different in percentage. Zerg players are able to dominate this matchup historically and still do, while protoss players with the exception of Bisu never could dominate PvZ, ever.
On September 25 2009 20:09 StarBrift wrote: The reason for zerg being so strong is absolutely map related.
On September 25 2009 20:09 StarBrift wrote: Zerg has been and allways will be the most flexible race. They can tech switch freely and it's very hard to scout what they are doing unless you're familiar with their builds. Hence why players such as f91 can rack up wins vs "better" players.
Isn't this kinda contradictory?
How can the most flexible race be so dependant on maps? (which they aren't in 99% of the cases)
WHAT ABOUT protoss players stop bitching about imbalance and come up with something that messes up the mighty zerg economy? I mean protoss nowadays doesn't involve much multi-tasking... only things they do is walk around with dts trying to get some drone kills and that's all. What about sneaky 4 dt drops that are ridiculous devastating? Time to use new units? More use of the DA? Seriously if zergs come up with new builds every year why can't protoss do the same? They even have more possibilities of unit combos and all...
On September 25 2009 20:27 WeSt wrote: WHAT ABOUT protoss players stop bitching about imbalance and come up with something that messes up the mighty zerg economy? I mean protoss nowadays doesn't involve much multi-tasking... only things they do is walk around with dts trying to get some drone kills and that's all. What about sneaky 4 dt drops that are ridiculous devastating? Time to use new units? More use of the DA? Seriously if zergs come up with new builds every year why can't protoss do the same? They even have more possibilities of unit combos and all...
Early game, Zerg has all the map control, scouting and better all-in rush possibilities. Protoss has to play on the defensive, while Zerg can basically do whatever they like. Muta harass? Chances are the Protoss won't scout it. Lurkers? He might expect them. All-in hydra break? If you did your job denying scouting, it'll hit right before a Corsair starts to look for it. It's easier to be varied and creative when your opponent is in the dark than when he's breathing down your neck, as Zergs are on the Protosses.
That said, I do agree Protoss players should try new units / unit combos. Zergs have experimented with the Queen, why can't Protoss give the Dark Archon the same chance?
I think that the overall tosses in the proscene are slumping, and there's also no REAL consistent toss nowadays. We have a lot of good zergs right now. The Bisu build has been so much used that we all know how to counter it with zerg, and I'm not even talking about 1gate&tech or 2gates opening..
I think protosses have to find a new way to beat zergs in zvp.. It's time to innovate and find some new kickass BO..
It's like 2006 all over again. I say make zealots do 1 hit instead of 2. See how ultras/lings like that shit. +2 zealots kill +2 lings in 2 hits, +3 zealots do 16 damage to +5 ultras rather than 10. Plus it doesn't effect PvT that much.
On September 25 2009 17:26 iamho wrote: personally ive always felt z balance is a bit off, zvp is really easy esp. in hive tech, zvt is so fucking hard, zvz is just a screwed matchup
zvt is easy, zvp is fucking annoying and hard and a pain in the ass. zvz is fun.
Don't forget that beginners usually begin with protoss, which adds more loss to he protoss. Not talking about prolevel here.
quit whining about one build. its an opening, not a build. FE happens to be the best way to deal with a macro zerg in todays macro world. you just want tosses to 1 base cuz it's easy to overwhelm with early lings and sunks.
On September 25 2009 17:24 lokiM wrote: I'm guessing you got destroyed by some random zerg, and you are only comparing the pro scene
destination @ iccup zvp = 51% 16,000 games
Outsider @ iccup zvp = 50.89% over 3,000+ games
Neo Medusa @ iccup zvp = 52% with just under 3k games
seems pretty balanced to me..
That's cool, you are giving him shit for compaing random players to the pro scene. Oh wait then you're sourcing ICCup D games to prove map balance at the pro scene.
this debate is so boring, so pointless and has been going on ever since the game came out. Every angle of this has been covered up and down.
Edit: Btw, if u ask a zerg gamer what he thinks, ur gonna get alot of different answers. Not all zergs like zvp. Some think its the hardest mu for zerg.
And also, I thought this issue was closed after Bisu raped his way to the top. Anyway i didnt hear alot of "pvz is so fucking imbalanced" in that period^^
New maps, new players. I'd say that after finding the right PvZ balance formula (easily accessible 3rd gas) the mapmakers wanted to try something new and here we are with a new drama. The other factors that contribute is that yes PvZ is imbalanced is a sense that protoss needs a very fine-tuned set of maps to be on par with the zerg without breaking the other MU's. There's no really good toss lately, true as well. Finally, zergs have been studying FE for ages now, they really know all the multitude of measures toss can apply and prepare accordingly with a huge economy in mind.
Keep in mind that the money GOM and OGN are making from their translations is directly related to the amount of drama on the screen. It makes sense to tune the maps in such a way that an underdog race suddenly becomes dominant.
Maybe Toss macrobots should start thinking more strategically early game? Bisu just went early 2gate lots into sair reaver vs zero on Outsider in the Team Eval game. Wow, something the zerg has to scout??!?! Wouldn't want to do that build!!!! Just do Forge FE Forge FE Forge FE plus a proxy every 10 games...oh wait that's kinda predictable, huh?
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level and not to talk about foreigners level. RET talks about something that is true, but im 100% sure that you feel much more confident playing ZvP than White-ra, Mana, Fenix Playing PvZ, RET can you make a Reppack where you lose from a Toss? Maybe we can talk about harassing Z but its way to difficult to macro and micro if you don’t have an insane EAPM P has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, Zerg can build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. I think in same level of play Zerg will always win against toss, Let make en axample there a match PvZ, P being B+ and Zerg Being B- or B zerg can win ez and always will be the most flexible race, Zerg macro at that lvl is insane that good toss have troubles beating Z, theres a Replay of AHZZ where he almost beat a A- toss, do you know what that mean? That a well execute 5hatch Hydra can adapt to everything P does, there`s no BO from toss that allow them to be a thread to them maybe Corsair/reaver but EAPM is needed very high here. With that being said Zerg players are able to dominate this matchup historically and still do
I kinda feel like it's just the current state of the metagame at the moment. Zerg players have "solved" a bunch of problems that Protoss players had come up with. One of the main things that has been bothering me a bit lately with Bisu is that he hasn't really been playing harassment focused PvZ lately, which was arguably his greatest strength, but rather been playing with the focus of playing extremely clean and trying to win wholly upon his management skills. Maybe it's because Zerg players have caught up on his harassment plays or something, but idk. Ever since the "perfect" 4gate2archon timing build was solved, I haven't really noticed any innovation from Protoss players in PvZ.
I'll probably take shitloads of flak for saying this, but I think the key to ZvP tends to lie in mutas.
Yeah, what?
What I mean is that if your muta use vs Protoss isn't that good, then you really are forced not to use them, which makes you very predictable to play against. Zerg fundamentally relies on the ability to do midgame tech switches. Without this ability, Zergs midgame is terribly weak. Of course Hive tech is powerful, but you have to get there in a good position for that to matter any.
However, if your muta use vs Protoss is pretty good, you can rely on them well.
Back in 2006, players like July, Chojja, and especially Savior, the muta use was basically impossible for Protoss players to deal with. Bisu changed all that and for a while mutas were complete suicide. But now the modern muta/scourge use is very good against Protoss again. However, ZvP is not that badly imbalanced right now, I think. Zerg looked strong last season, but earlygame/midgame ZvP right now is played on the tip of a knife. One small slip and the Protoss will overrun you with superior macro.
Its because protoss has to do something better than 1a2a3a now kekekeke ;D.
On topic: Zergs (most of them) always rely on their own knowledge and sense of the game, whereas protoss rely on build orders and timing pushes. Over the time, it became so predicable, that basically every zerg can understand what are you doing. It's also because a new era of zergs started, which is led by LJD. We will see how far it will go. Also, these are map stats from last few months, which can say nothing. You have to look at % or all ZvP played this year to make a statement like that (ZvP imbalanced in Pro level) ,also If you take the overal all times ZvP's it would be exactly 50% : 50%. Right now Protoss needs something new, they need to start playing more unpredictably with more determination in their gameplay.
Also, saw stuff about how hard is to apply early pressure to walled zerg. Just use simple logic. Sunkens and buildings cost minerals. Minerals require time. Just pressure zerg earlier than u do normally (do it with ~3 zealots). He gets wall earlier than he should -> he has less minerals earlier-> less drones early on -> worst early eco-> terrible late game.
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level and not to talk about foreigners level. RET talks about something that is true, but im 100% sure that you feel much more confident playing ZvP than White-ra, Mana, Fenix Playing PvZ, RET can you make a Reppack where you lose from a Toss? Maybe we can talk about harassing Z but its way to difficult to macro and micro if you don’t have an insane EAPM P has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, Zerg can build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. I think in same level of play Zerg will always win against toss, Let make en axample there a match PvZ, P being B+ and Zerg Being B- or B zerg can win ez and always will be the most flexible race, Zerg macro at that lvl is insane that good toss have troubles beating Z, theres a Replay of AHZZ where he almost beat a A- toss, do you know what that mean? That a well execute 5hatch Hydra can adapt to everything P does, there`s no BO from toss that allow them to be a thread to them maybe Corsair/reaver but EAPM is needed very high here. With that being said Zerg players are able to dominate this matchup historically and still do
What the fuck
With your logic, i don't know why i am not beating b- protosses constantly... damnit! Just have to point out this user has a Probe icon, is complaining, and is a T1 fan. Guess the favourite player!
This just sounds like whining, with a lot of over-generalizations and useless theorycrafting. Like the guy that says its imbalanced because of Protoss mineral gas ratio or lack of detection early game (like 1% of games end with the P dying to some sort of lurker attack).
With vastly different level players and dynamic maps, why does everyone insist on going to the source (the game) instead of these external (and just as important) factors? Why must it be THE GAME that needs fixing instead of the maps? Nobody was saying P>Z when Bisu was playing well back in GomTV. But when ratios become 60% on certain maps, suddenly the core structure of the game is not right?
Ultimately any statistical "imbalance" in any matchups can be solved easily by tweaking the maps. If Z>>P right now on the current set of maps, the leagues will adjust. Then you'll see Ps "play better" and everyone will shut up. In fact, had Bisu beaten Iris in that Game 5 and then beaten Calm (which was very close to happening), I don't think this thread even gets made. Is that what these OMFG IMBA discussions are hinging on now? 3-4 Protoss wins in the MSL semis/finals?
I think that right now, P plays on defensive if he does FE. This then allows the zerg to do whatever he wants before P's tech kicks in. Hence, this makes P play a sort of catch up because he needs to gain back map control.
I feel that there is slight imbalance of some sort but I think the key lies in harass and being able to mess up the Z's timing and tech switches.
I too am confident that the current "imbalance" can be solved by fixing the mappool.
Along with innovation from protoss players. Imo they really don't seem to like trying new things. Dark Archons have great potential as support units against both mutas and defilers. Less HT snipes and only half the swarms should really be enough to make it worth the money. Hallucinations can make harrass much more effective (less shuttles lost to scourges), and possibly have their uses in battle too. Protoss should also try to develop some strong all-ins to put more pressure on the zerg through the metagame. I rarely see anything that is even close to an all-in from toss.
Oh and is it really useful to get 3 armor ups and only 2 shields ups when a pvz goes into lategame? Mass archons, many corsairs, lots of cannons, a bunch of shuttles AND defilers with plague. All of this screams "shield upgrades".
Well, I can't really judge how effective these things would be, but I seriously doubt that they have been tested sufficiently.
You easely can pick a period when a certain matchup looked or was imbalanced, Though if you pick a large period (years) or look at the whole history you see the most "imbalanced" mu is TvZ with 53.5% vs 46.5% or so, at least the last time i saw it, it looked like this.
Man you have discovered America finally?! This mu has always been so damn imbalanced there are millions data to prove it ... Z can only lose it if they do something really wrong or stupid but if they simply play it fairly (with equal skill of the players) Z always have the mu in their pocket.
BTW i thought this kind of post were forbidden ...
On September 25 2009 23:05 wiesel wrote: You guys play starcraft not warcraft3 don't forget it and grow some balls.
"omg i hope the next patch nerfs [x] or at least gives [y] a buff, since even the [y] pros are retiring now cuz they lack in success, and what about [z]? nobody at blizzard gives any more love to [z] any more!!!" right? ;D
It seems like lately the Zergs have been REALLY good at storm dodging/templar sniping. A lot of PvZ games in the pro scene hinge on this, and although Protoss can (and SHOULD, its so frustrating to watch 3-4 templars die to hydralisk fire without casting any storm) do better protection of their HT... great storm dodging is all up to how good the Zerg is. This goes for Mutalisks as well.
So what can be done!?!?!? I'm a noob so I don't know, but what about DA maelstrom to stop mutalisks? What about faster reavers to deal with hydralisks? Zergs pick fights out in the open which makes it way easier to storm dodge... so I thought about disruption web... it means the Zerg can't pick where to fight as much. All these options require a lot of gas.... but honestly, almost every PvZ it's usual to see 1-2 templars being sniped early game without casting a storm.... thats 150-300 redundant gas that COULD HAVE gone towards these other parts of the tech tree
But yeah... I'm not a very good player.... I just want to see some zergs DIE. even TERRANS who traditionally rape zergs have been getting smacked about. GODDAMN ZERGS
I think some people in this thread forget this is about the PRO/SEMI-PRO SCENE IMBALANCE, not your own subtle whining about how you always lose and need something to blame.
On September 25 2009 23:04 JMave wrote: I think that right now, P plays on defensive if he does FE. This then allows the zerg to do whatever he wants before P's tech kicks in. Hence, this makes P play a sort of catch up because he needs to gain back map control.
I feel that there is slight imbalance of some sort but I think the key lies in harass and being able to mess up the Z's timing and tech switches.
On September 25 2009 23:04 JMave wrote: I think that right now, P plays on defensive if he does FE. This then allows the zerg to do whatever he wants before P's tech kicks in. Hence, this makes P play a sort of catch up because he needs to gain back map control.
I feel that there is slight imbalance of some sort but I think the key lies in harass and being able to mess up the Z's timing and tech switches.
welcome to TvP
So true. In this game you either have mobility or firepower, never both.
On September 25 2009 23:29 Hayarok wrote: i agree Zerg has advantage in ZvP. its goes like that T>Z , T=P , Z>P.
This whole thread however is becoming more and more pointless. Almost every player states what is beneficial for his excuses of losing to X race. Srsly, if ur PvZ is bad then it doesn't mean that PvZ is imba - probably your PvT and PvP is better, that's it. For me as a Terran player it is harder to play ZvP than PvZ, I can only do neo-sauron ZvP and i suck at playing lurkers and scourging obses. But the ultimate truth is - the game itself is balanced, maps aren't. Ofc it isn't PERFECTLY balanced, but chances to win don't range more than few% from 50% on balanced maps.
Plus 3 of the most prestigious and knowledgeable foreigners already took their part in this discussion - Ver, Hot_Bid, Ret (sorry if I missed somebody's post). You just CAN'T disagree with what they say about SC. It's as if you tried to convince Blizzard that Kerrigan is male :|
On September 25 2009 23:04 JMave wrote: I think that right now, P plays on defensive if he does FE. This then allows the zerg to do whatever he wants before P's tech kicks in. Hence, this makes P play a sort of catch up because he needs to gain back map control.
I feel that there is slight imbalance of some sort but I think the key lies in harass and being able to mess up the Z's timing and tech switches.
welcome to TvP
So true. In this game you either have mobility or firepower, never both.
This whole thread however is becoming more and more pointless. Almost every player states what is beneficial for his excuses of losing to X race. Srsly, if ur PvZ is bad then it doesn't mean that PvZ is imba - probably your PvT and PvP is better, that's it. For me as a Terran player it is harder to play ZvP than PvZ, I can only do neo-sauron ZvP and i suck at playing lurkers and scourging obses. But the ultimate truth is - the game itself is balanced, maps aren't. Ofc it isn't PERFECTLY balanced, but chances to win don't range more than few% from 50% on balanced maps.
Plus 3 of the most prestigious and knowledgeable foreigners already took their part in this discussion - Ver, Hot_Bid, Ret (sorry if I missed somebody's post). You just CAN'T disagree with what they say about SC. It's as if you tried to convince Blizzard that Kerrigan is male :|
On September 25 2009 22:58 Hot_Bid wrote: This just sounds like whining, with a lot of over-generalizations and useless theorycrafting. Like the guy that says its imbalanced because of Protoss mineral gas ratio or lack of detection early game (like 1% of games end with the P dying to some sort of lurker attack).
With vastly different level players and dynamic maps, why does everyone insist on going to the source (the game) instead of these external (and just as important) factors? Why must it be THE GAME that needs fixing instead of the maps? Nobody was saying P>Z when Bisu was playing well back in GomTV. But when ratios become 60% on certain maps, suddenly the core structure of the game is not right?
Ultimately any statistical "imbalance" in any matchups can be solved easily by tweaking the maps. If Z>>P right now on the current set of maps, the leagues will adjust. Then you'll see Ps "play better" and everyone will shut up. In fact, had Bisu beaten Iris in that Game 5 and then beaten Calm (which was very close to happening), I don't think this thread even gets made. Is that what these OMFG IMBA discussions are hinging on now? 3-4 Protoss wins in the MSL semis/finals?
I don't understand why people bother pointing something out that is true of themselves. You are whining about protoss whining, pretty much the same thing. Saying that maps are the sole problem is also theorycrafting. (you have a theory of why the problem occurs but its not 100%true)
This being said, I do not think ZvP/PvZ is imbalanced. Just need to use your brain a lot more then the zerg. Examples are: letting an overlord see your stargate, the cancelling it in favor of a robotics and going mass goon/reaver or something like that. Its just a matchup of mindgames and making the opponent play YOUR game. The only real time and place I can see it might be a bit imbalanced is once zerg gets defiler/ultralisk, but thats your fault for letting them make such an investment and letting it go unpunished. You dont just all of a sudden obtain 20 3/5 ultralisks.
3 things I think protoss needs to do more are 1. take risks 2. Don't let it turn into a macro battle (aka do not let zerg get the "magic" 4th gas 3. play according to the map. Hell, different maps need different builds if this wasn't obvious. You can't stargate/dt then 1a2a3a your way to victory everytime.
On September 25 2009 23:04 JMave wrote: I think that right now, P plays on defensive if he does FE. This then allows the zerg to do whatever he wants before P's tech kicks in. Hence, this makes P play a sort of catch up because he needs to gain back map control.
I feel that there is slight imbalance of some sort but I think the key lies in harass and being able to mess up the Z's timing and tech switches.
welcome to TvP
Except the P can't do anything but FE PvZ these days whereas the T in TvP can still throw out the occasional 2 fac or 1 fac port to keep the P on his toes. PvZ is like TvP where the opponent knows you're doing siege expand so can just go crazy with his exps and macro.
On September 25 2009 22:58 Hot_Bid wrote: This just sounds like whining, with a lot of over-generalizations and useless theorycrafting. Like the guy that says its imbalanced because of Protoss mineral gas ratio or lack of detection early game (like 1% of games end with the P dying to some sort of lurker attack).
With vastly different level players and dynamic maps, why does everyone insist on going to the source (the game) instead of these external (and just as important) factors? Why must it be THE GAME that needs fixing instead of the maps? Nobody was saying P>Z when Bisu was playing well back in GomTV. But when ratios become 60% on certain maps, suddenly the core structure of the game is not right?
Ultimately any statistical "imbalance" in any matchups can be solved easily by tweaking the maps. If Z>>P right now on the current set of maps, the leagues will adjust. Then you'll see Ps "play better" and everyone will shut up. In fact, had Bisu beaten Iris in that Game 5 and then beaten Calm (which was very close to happening), I don't think this thread even gets made. Is that what these OMFG IMBA discussions are hinging on now? 3-4 Protoss wins in the MSL semis/finals?
iirc shortly after Bisu's 3-0 savior there was a period where Zergs were struggling/couldn't cope with the sair/dt opening and there was a lot of crying.
zergs having a slight edge now is not the same as when Bisu debuted the new style but your post comes across like zergs don't whine at all. in reality zergs whine just as much as terrans and protoss
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level and not to talk about foreigners level. RET talks about something that is true, but im 100% sure that you feel much more confident playing ZvP than White-ra, Mana, Fenix Playing PvZ, RET can you make a Reppack where you lose from a Toss? Maybe we can talk about harassing Z but its way to difficult to macro and micro if you don’t have an insane EAPM P has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, Zerg can build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. I think in same level of play Zerg will always win against toss, Let make en axample there a match PvZ, P being B+ and Zerg Being B- or B zerg can win ez and always will be the most flexible race, Zerg macro at that lvl is insane that good toss have troubles beating Z, theres a Replay of AHZZ where he almost beat a A- toss, do you know what that mean? That a well execute 5hatch Hydra can adapt to everything P does, there`s no BO from toss that allow them to be a thread to them maybe Corsair/reaver but EAPM is needed very high here. With that being said Zerg players are able to dominate this matchup historically and still do
LOL. harrasing takes 5 clicks, and it may kill over 20 drones. hard eh? (pick temple, move shuttle, drop ht, use storm). Lets talk about ht sniping, storm dodging, flanking and etc that zerg has to do every game? and he also has to defend from 1 high templar drop which can kill like 50 drones, or reaver, or dt. Also Z's gets no alarm when their drones gets attack, so they have to check every base every few secods... P's role is much much much more easier in PvZ. If all you can do is 4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z 1a2a3a and then tell it doesnt work, then try learning something new. what about pro-scene, as somewho already told, its not the race, its the players. Z players improved alot in ZvP, while P's are in the same place like they were a year ago, doing the exactly same builds...
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level and not to talk about foreigners level. RET talks about something that is true, but im 100% sure that you feel much more confident playing ZvP than White-ra, Mana, Fenix Playing PvZ, RET can you make a Reppack where you lose from a Toss? Maybe we can talk about harassing Z but its way to difficult to macro and micro if you don’t have an insane EAPM P has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, Zerg can build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. I think in same level of play Zerg will always win against toss, Let make en axample there a match PvZ, P being B+ and Zerg Being B- or B zerg can win ez and always will be the most flexible race, Zerg macro at that lvl is insane that good toss have troubles beating Z, theres a Replay of AHZZ where he almost beat a A- toss, do you know what that mean? That a well execute 5hatch Hydra can adapt to everything P does, there`s no BO from toss that allow them to be a thread to them maybe Corsair/reaver but EAPM is needed very high here. With that being said Zerg players are able to dominate this matchup historically and still do
LOL. harrasing takes 5 clicks, and it may kill over 20 drones. hard eh? (pick temple, move shuttle, drop ht, use storm). Lets talk about ht sniping, storm dodging, flanking and etc that zerg has to do every game? and he also has to defend from 1 high templar drop which can kill like 50 drones, or reaver, or dt. Also Z's gets no alarm when their drones gets attack, so they have to check every base every few secods... P's role is much much much more easier in PvZ. If all you can do is 4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z 1a2a3a and then tell it doesnt work, then try learning something new. what about pro-scene, as somewho already told, its not the race, its the players. Z players improved alot in ZvP, while P's are in the same place like they were a year ago, doing the exactly same builds...
On September 25 2009 17:12 motbob wrote: ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level. It's remarkable how that fact has sort of snuck up on us over the past few months, but it's absolutely true. Since about March, it seems like zergs have reached a point in the metagame where they always have the build order advantage.
Whether it's because of Jaedong leading the way for zergs everywhere, or the inability for protosses to come up with any innovation in their play since the zealot/archon push that was popular 8 months ago, Protosses are in a bad place right now when they play zerg. And it's not the maps. Destination used to be balanced ZvP (56-54 before Mar 1 2009). Now it is not (61-44 after).
Let's talk numbers. In the upcoming OSL prelims, the maps used are Destination, Heartbreak Ridge, and Return of the King. The combined stats for those three maps after early March, including "non-official" games like prelim games, is 60% ZvP. Outsider is 41-27 (60.3%). Neo Medusa is 34-25 (57.6%).
Why is this matchup suddenly so drastically imbalanced?
I dont think you can put such a big statement as 'ZvP is imbalanced' and then asking 'WHY?' without looking like a fool.
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level and not to talk about foreigners level. RET talks about something that is true, but im 100% sure that you feel much more confident playing ZvP than White-ra, Mana, Fenix Playing PvZ, RET can you make a Reppack where you lose from a Toss? Maybe we can talk about harassing Z but its way to difficult to macro and micro if you don’t have an insane EAPM P has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, Zerg can build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. I think in same level of play Zerg will always win against toss, Let make en axample there a match PvZ, P being B+ and Zerg Being B- or B zerg can win ez and always will be the most flexible race, Zerg macro at that lvl is insane that good toss have troubles beating Z, theres a Replay of AHZZ where he almost beat a A- toss, do you know what that mean? That a well execute 5hatch Hydra can adapt to everything P does, there`s no BO from toss that allow them to be a thread to them maybe Corsair/reaver but EAPM is needed very high here. With that being said Zerg players are able to dominate this matchup historically and still do
LOL. harrasing takes 5 clicks, and it may kill over 20 drones. hard eh? (pick temple, move shuttle, drop ht, use storm). Lets talk about ht sniping, storm dodging, flanking and etc that zerg has to do every game? and he also has to defend from 1 high templar drop which can kill like 50 drones, or reaver, or dt. Also Z's gets no alarm when their drones gets attack, so they have to check every base every few secods... P's role is much much much more easier in PvZ. If all you can do is 4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z 1a2a3a and then tell it doesnt work, then try learning something new. what about pro-scene, as somewho already told, its not the race, its the players. Z players improved alot in ZvP, while P's are in the same place like they were a year ago, doing the exactly same builds...
Stop defending your easy match-up, scum.
I've recently tried PvZ instead of ZvZ (my main race is Z), and the guy I played against was D+ main race Z, while it was like 3rd time I play PvZ in my life. The game was soooo soooo easy even I was surprised, I thought it's even a little hard to play with a toss (Always defended toss that they have to think about strategy etc.). All I did, was pushed out with 3 first zealots, doing some eco damage (4 drones I think), but that made Z to be more concerned about the possible threat, so he started making units ealier. I expoed with goon/ht army outside of my base and turtled until I got 3/3 upgrades and pushed out. just 1a2a3a4a5a gg. Its that easy. Always thought people are over reacting how easy is it to play with protoss at low levels, but I guess they arent... (it wasnt just no agression from Z game, he opened with 9 pool, and then contained me with lurks/scourges hydras for some time, until I walked out with goons and ht). I guess protoss sat on their puffy chair for too long, its time for them to start actually doing something to win, not just 1a2a3a4a5a.
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level and not to talk about foreigners level. RET talks about something that is true, but im 100% sure that you feel much more confident playing ZvP than White-ra, Mana, Fenix Playing PvZ, RET can you make a Reppack where you lose from a Toss? Maybe we can talk about harassing Z but its way to difficult to macro and micro if you don’t have an insane EAPM P has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, Zerg can build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. I think in same level of play Zerg will always win against toss, Let make en axample there a match PvZ, P being B+ and Zerg Being B- or B zerg can win ez and always will be the most flexible race, Zerg macro at that lvl is insane that good toss have troubles beating Z, theres a Replay of AHZZ where he almost beat a A- toss, do you know what that mean? That a well execute 5hatch Hydra can adapt to everything P does, there`s no BO from toss that allow them to be a thread to them maybe Corsair/reaver but EAPM is needed very high here. With that being said Zerg players are able to dominate this matchup historically and still do
LOL. harrasing takes 5 clicks, and it may kill over 20 drones. hard eh? (pick temple, move shuttle, drop ht, use storm). Lets talk about ht sniping, storm dodging, flanking and etc that zerg has to do every game? and he also has to defend from 1 high templar drop which can kill like 50 drones, or reaver, or dt. Also Z's gets no alarm when their drones gets attack, so they have to check every base every few secods... P's role is much much much more easier in PvZ. If all you can do is 4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z 1a2a3a and then tell it doesnt work, then try learning something new. what about pro-scene, as somewho already told, its not the race, its the players. Z players improved alot in ZvP, while P's are in the same place like they were a year ago, doing the exactly same builds...
Stop defending your easy match-up, scum.
I've recently tried PvZ instead of ZvZ (my main race is Z), and the guy I played against was D+ main race Z, while it was like 3rd time I play PvZ in my life. The game was soooo soooo easy even I was surprised, I thought it's even a little hard to play with a toss (Always defended toss that they have to think about strategy etc.). All I did, was pushed out with 3 first zealots, doing some eco damage (4 drones I think), but that made Z to be more concerned about the possible threat, so he started making units ealier. I expoed with goon/ht army outside of my base and turtled until I got 3/3 upgrades and pushed out. just 1a2a3a4a5a gg. Its that easy. Always thought people are over reacting how easy is it to play with protoss at low levels, but I guess they arent... (it wasnt just no agression from Z game, he opened with 9 pool, and then contained me with lurks/scourges hydras for some time, until I walked out with goons and ht). I guess protoss sat on their puffy chair for too long, its time for them to start actually doing something to win, not just 1a2a3a4a5a.
hey guess what einstein? this thread is about pro level. not your shitty D rank. just thought i'd let you know.
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
I remember a thread in the past where someone did a recap of the golden age of Protoss and it turned out that the 6 dragons(BeSt included) had 70% winrate between them. The other part of that was that nobody else came close to them, in fact all other P sucked hard. We might have been dealing with some kind of syncronized peak/slump during that time. In recent months the dragons have not achieved great winrates against Z and at lower levels it has been pretty bad. Proleague finished 54% Z Minor League finished 66% for Z and the new maps are not even funny. In the offline test, Z had about 75% winrate on them. They have some kind of advantage over them that we do not entirely comprehend.
Could it be that the 1a2a3anoobrace requires skill? Brains? APM? Impossible. Obviously impossible. + Show Spoiler +
how come this is the weakest race in progaming then?
Let me link this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=96051 article about ZvP for no particular reason... Interesting enough writer said the matchup is balanced despite the numbers(well he does not include any stats so he kinda lied by ommition)
Protoss need superior build orders to survive! Just how Terran has an edge on Zerg, Zerg has an edge on Protoss. And it is not clear why, if it were clear, Blizzard would have patched the game, but it seems "adequate" as is, patches might in fact disturb more so nothing has happened for years.
I play none of the races involved here, so I have little weight to add behind my words, but the problem is most definitely your play not the matchup. You are a very good player, but there is something at a higher level going on here.
On September 25 2009 19:26 Foucault wrote: And yeah people, it's not about the maps
My own theory is that big maps is good for zerg
Maps don't matter, or some maps favor zerg... which way shall it be?
I mean the actual terrain and stuff of the map don't matter that much, but size does matter. For example Andromeda is a hard ass map TvP because of it's size and how easy it is for toss to grab far away expansions and cannon up while terran can't do much about it because it's too long to get there.
Same with ZvP where zerg can more easily outmacro protoss on bigger maps because protoss can't keep up with the distance to all the bases
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level and not to talk about foreigners level. RET talks about something that is true, but im 100% sure that you feel much more confident playing ZvP than White-ra, Mana, Fenix Playing PvZ, RET can you make a Reppack where you lose from a Toss? Maybe we can talk about harassing Z but its way to difficult to macro and micro if you don’t have an insane EAPM P has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, Zerg can build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. I think in same level of play Zerg will always win against toss, Let make en axample there a match PvZ, P being B+ and Zerg Being B- or B zerg can win ez and always will be the most flexible race, Zerg macro at that lvl is insane that good toss have troubles beating Z, theres a Replay of AHZZ where he almost beat a A- toss, do you know what that mean? That a well execute 5hatch Hydra can adapt to everything P does, there`s no BO from toss that allow them to be a thread to them maybe Corsair/reaver but EAPM is needed very high here. With that being said Zerg players are able to dominate this matchup historically and still do
LOL. harrasing takes 5 clicks, and it may kill over 20 drones. hard eh? (pick temple, move shuttle, drop ht, use storm). Lets talk about ht sniping, storm dodging, flanking and etc that zerg has to do every game? and he also has to defend from 1 high templar drop which can kill like 50 drones, or reaver, or dt. Also Z's gets no alarm when their drones gets attack, so they have to check every base every few secods... P's role is much much much more easier in PvZ. If all you can do is 4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z 1a2a3a and then tell it doesnt work, then try learning something new. what about pro-scene, as somewho already told, its not the race, its the players. Z players improved alot in ZvP, while P's are in the same place like they were a year ago, doing the exactly same builds...
Stop defending your easy match-up, scum.
I've recently tried PvZ instead of ZvZ (my main race is Z), and the guy I played against was D+ main race Z, while it was like 3rd time I play PvZ in my life. The game was soooo soooo easy even I was surprised, I thought it's even a little hard to play with a toss (Always defended toss that they have to think about strategy etc.). All I did, was pushed out with 3 first zealots, doing some eco damage (4 drones I think), but that made Z to be more concerned about the possible threat, so he started making units ealier. I expoed with goon/ht army outside of my base and turtled until I got 3/3 upgrades and pushed out. just 1a2a3a4a5a gg. Its that easy. Always thought people are over reacting how easy is it to play with protoss at low levels, but I guess they arent... (it wasnt just no agression from Z game, he opened with 9 pool, and then contained me with lurks/scourges hydras for some time, until I walked out with goons and ht). I guess protoss sat on their puffy chair for too long, its time for them to start actually doing something to win, not just 1a2a3a4a5a.
hey guess what einstein? this thread is about pro level. not your shitty D rank. just thought i'd let you know.
If you really think so - read the topic. If you still think so, read the topic again. If you still think so, you are stupid enough to be a great protoss.
On September 25 2009 22:58 Hot_Bid wrote: This just sounds like whining, with a lot of over-generalizations and useless theorycrafting. Like the guy that says its imbalanced because of Protoss mineral gas ratio or lack of detection early game (like 1% of games end with the P dying to some sort of lurker attack).
With vastly different level players and dynamic maps, why does everyone insist on going to the source (the game) instead of these external (and just as important) factors? Why must it be THE GAME that needs fixing instead of the maps? Nobody was saying P>Z when Bisu was playing well back in GomTV. But when ratios become 60% on certain maps, suddenly the core structure of the game is not right?
Ultimately any statistical "imbalance" in any matchups can be solved easily by tweaking the maps. If Z>>P right now on the current set of maps, the leagues will adjust. Then you'll see Ps "play better" and everyone will shut up. In fact, had Bisu beaten Iris in that Game 5 and then beaten Calm (which was very close to happening), I don't think this thread even gets made. Is that what these OMFG IMBA discussions are hinging on now? 3-4 Protoss wins in the MSL semis/finals?
People insist it's the game because it would be ludacris to assume that the game somehow is perfect in all aspects. There are slight imbalances in many matchups, I don't think anyone argues with that fact. Then again strategies, builds etc of course influences gameplay ALOT too, but you notice a trend after following Starcraft for a long time. Regardless of maps and builds, there are certain imbalanced matchups. I know people hate it when someone says that Starcraft is not 100% super balanced, but it's obviously not.
No you can't tweak maps to turn racial imbalances in Starcraft. Also there is something ethically wrong with balancing gameplay this way. I do think the maps are ZvP now because alot of them are big, which makes zerg macro hardcore. Skip forward to ultras + dark swarm after 20 minutes. I've seen that in a couple of the latest games now, kinda boring.
This just sounds like whining, with a lot of over-generalizations and useless theorycrafting. Like the guy that says its imbalanced because of Protoss mineral gas ratio or lack of detection early game (like 1% of games end with the P dying to some sort of lurker attack).
With vastly different level players and dynamic maps, why does everyone insist on going to the source (the game) instead of these external (and just as important) factors? Why must it be THE GAME that needs fixing instead of the maps? Nobody was saying P>Z when Bisu was playing well back in GomTV. But when ratios become 60% on certain maps, suddenly the core structure of the game is not right?
Ultimately any statistical "imbalance" in any matchups can be solved easily by tweaking the maps. If Z>>P right now on the current set of maps, the leagues will adjust. Then you'll see Ps "play better" and everyone will shut up. In fact, had Bisu beaten Iris in that Game 5 and then beaten Calm (which was very close to happening), I don't think this thread even gets made. Is that what these OMFG IMBA discussions are hinging on now? 3-4 Protoss wins in the MSL semis/finals?
that was me, talking about my personal mineral gas ratio, which i doubt are only true for me. if you read my original post completely you would have seen that i wasnt whining at all, i was looking for ways to adjust the match up. i also didnt blame the game, i said clearly that there is no inherit imbalance in ZvP but it is rather the fault of protoss players of having become predictable with the Bisu build. lurkers may only be the winning factor in 1% of the games but you would be crazy to tell me that zerg players are not going lurkers earlier than when the Bisu build was first introduced, crazy. i never said that lurkers won zerg players games, but they stop any early aggression from the protoss, who's army is mainly zealots.
that said, i feel like that theorycrafting is the only way to problem-solving, and the 8 things i listed were not random thoughts...i personally do have a problem with the current trend of ZvP, so i contributed something to this post, i didnt whine, that was other people and you to a degree. if you didnt think they were helpful im sorry, i didnt mean to make a long non-sensical post. but i definetly think those are big aspects in the match up that need some change.
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level and not to talk about foreigners level. RET talks about something that is true, but im 100% sure that you feel much more confident playing ZvP than White-ra, Mana, Fenix Playing PvZ, RET can you make a Reppack where you lose from a Toss? Maybe we can talk about harassing Z but its way to difficult to macro and micro if you don’t have an insane EAPM P has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, Zerg can build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. I think in same level of play Zerg will always win against toss, Let make en axample there a match PvZ, P being B+ and Zerg Being B- or B zerg can win ez and always will be the most flexible race, Zerg macro at that lvl is insane that good toss have troubles beating Z, theres a Replay of AHZZ where he almost beat a A- toss, do you know what that mean? That a well execute 5hatch Hydra can adapt to everything P does, there`s no BO from toss that allow them to be a thread to them maybe Corsair/reaver but EAPM is needed very high here. With that being said Zerg players are able to dominate this matchup historically and still do
LOL. harrasing takes 5 clicks, and it may kill over 20 drones. hard eh? (pick temple, move shuttle, drop ht, use storm). Lets talk about ht sniping, storm dodging, flanking and etc that zerg has to do every game? and he also has to defend from 1 high templar drop which can kill like 50 drones, or reaver, or dt. Also Z's gets no alarm when their drones gets attack, so they have to check every base every few secods... P's role is much much much more easier in PvZ. If all you can do is 4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z 1a2a3a and then tell it doesnt work, then try learning something new. what about pro-scene, as somewho already told, its not the race, its the players. Z players improved alot in ZvP, while P's are in the same place like they were a year ago, doing the exactly same builds...
Stop defending your easy match-up, scum.
I've recently tried PvZ instead of ZvZ (my main race is Z), and the guy I played against was D+ main race Z, while it was like 3rd time I play PvZ in my life. The game was soooo soooo easy even I was surprised, I thought it's even a little hard to play with a toss (Always defended toss that they have to think about strategy etc.). All I did, was pushed out with 3 first zealots, doing some eco damage (4 drones I think), but that made Z to be more concerned about the possible threat, so he started making units ealier. I expoed with goon/ht army outside of my base and turtled until I got 3/3 upgrades and pushed out. just 1a2a3a4a5a gg. Its that easy. Always thought people are over reacting how easy is it to play with protoss at low levels, but I guess they arent... (it wasnt just no agression from Z game, he opened with 9 pool, and then contained me with lurks/scourges hydras for some time, until I walked out with goons and ht). I guess protoss sat on their puffy chair for too long, its time for them to start actually doing something to win, not just 1a2a3a4a5a.
hey guess what einstein? this thread is about pro level. not your shitty D rank. just thought i'd let you know.
If you really think so - read the topic. If you still think so, read the topic again. If you still think so, you are stupid enough to be a great protoss.
On September 25 2009 17:12 motbob wrote: ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level. It's remarkable how that fact has sort of snuck up on us over the past few months, but it's absolutely true. Since about March, it seems like zergs have reached a point in the metagame where they always have the build order advantage.
Whether it's because of Jaedong leading the way for zergs everywhere, or the inability for protosses to come up with any innovation in their play since the zealot/archon push that was popular 8 months ago, Protosses are in a bad place right now when they play zerg. And it's not the maps. Destination used to be balanced ZvP (56-54 before Mar 1 2009). Now it is not (61-44 after).
Let's talk numbers. In the upcoming OSL prelims, the maps used are Destination, Heartbreak Ridge, and Return of the King. The combined stats for those three maps after early March, including "non-official" games like prelim games, is 60% ZvP. Outsider is 41-27 (60.3%). Neo Medusa is 34-25 (57.6%).
Why is this matchup suddenly so drastically imbalanced?
looks like you should switch to protoss D ranked noob
I've actually wanted to talk about the slump that the protoss race has been on for a while now.
I think it's very similar to how Zerg were doing back in summer/fall 08 where they were just getting crushed everywhere and only JD was doing consistently well (this might partly be because PL back then didn't have race requirements so Zergs rarey got sent out). Like, ClubDay MSL only had 3 Zergs in the Ro16 (only 5 in the Ro32).
I don't really know how much can be blamed on the maps (although admittedly a lot of the maps in ClubDay were really bad for ZvP IMO), but I think it was mostly the fact taht the 6 dragons were doing so well because they had all finally perfected emulating Bisu in FE PvZ. Kal, Jangbi, free, and stork were all really really good vs Z during that time. Now I think that the problem with top Protoss players is that they just don't have any strategic players really leading the way in innovations. Sure Bisu does some stuff, but he hasn't really innovated at all since the 4gate 2 archon build. Ever since that build was figured out Zerg, Protoss has been behind in the matchup.
It's pretty sad right now that Bisu is hands-down the best PvZ on earth, but there are at least 4-5 Zergs that would at least have 50/50 shot of beating him in a Bo5 right now (Jaedong, Effort, hero, zero, july).
(Disclaimer: I may be wrong with this next paragraph because I wasn't watching the scene much until early 08 so I'm not sure about everything. Maybe im giving too much credit to nal_ra nad not enought o bisu, please let me know if I am)Bisu has never really been too much of a drastic innovator though, especially since 2008. Nal_Ra was the first to use FE and the first to use sair/reaver and many other PvZ stats. Bisu was just able to combine them with his much superior multitasking and mechanics. It seems that ever since Ra hasn't been on the forefront of Protoss strategy that it has severely stagnated.
I'm not sure if it's just that there really "isnt anything they can do" or if the protoss race just attracts less creative players than T or Z (which in the most arrogant way I like to think so ), but Protoss players just aren't as good as creating new builds and strategies as the other races. TvZ has seen many huge innovations in the last year (with the standardization of 2-hatch play, mech, valks, hydra-lurk defiler late game, etc), but ZvP has changed much less except for very small map-specific BOs, where the Zerg always seem to be come out ahead very quickly.
Protoss needs at least 1 new player to come along and truly innovate the race, a true successor to nal_ra. I like to think Kal would be that because of how fun he is to watch and how creative he seems, but he's not very creative in BOs or strategies, but just tactics and micro. Maybe Bisu/stork/jangbi will surprise me this season and show a lot of great new strategies, but I think they've all been around too long to just suddenly start coming up with great new builds and strategies. Maybe horang2 will show us that he can come up with just more than cheese or 1-time strats, and that he will also have incredible mechanics (a lot like how flash was known for just cheese but then suddenly had amazing mechanics and late-game), but I have a lot of doubts (although he is surely probably the most interesting protoss to watch after kal now). Hopefully someone will take up the mantle that Ra left behind, I just don't know who can.
On September 26 2009 00:28 FoBuLouS wrote: What happened to corsair reaver? I haven't seen any of that in a long while.
Yeah, protoss needs to use this more or at least reavers.
most of maps aren't that good for sair/reaver these days. plus, most protoss players can't execute sair/reaver because it requires more multitasking and has less room for error.
On September 26 2009 00:28 FoBuLouS wrote: What happened to corsair reaver? I haven't seen any of that in a long while.
Yeah, protoss needs to use this more or at least reavers.
most of maps aren't that good for sair/reaver these days. plus, most protoss players can't execute sair/reaver because it requires more multitasking and has less room for error.
uh, doesn't bisu go sair/reaver almost every game vs Zerg?
On September 26 2009 00:28 FoBuLouS wrote: What happened to corsair reaver? I haven't seen any of that in a long while.
Yeah, protoss needs to use this more or at least reavers.
most of maps aren't that good for sair/reaver these days. plus, most protoss players can't execute sair/reaver because it requires more multitasking and has less room for error.
uh, doesn't bisu go sair/reaver almost every game vs Zerg?
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level and not to talk about foreigners level. RET talks about something that is true, but im 100% sure that you feel much more confident playing ZvP than White-ra, Mana, Fenix Playing PvZ, RET can you make a Reppack where you lose from a Toss? Maybe we can talk about harassing Z but its way to difficult to macro and micro if you don’t have an insane EAPM P has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, Zerg can build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. I think in same level of play Zerg will always win against toss, Let make en axample there a match PvZ, P being B+ and Zerg Being B- or B zerg can win ez and always will be the most flexible race, Zerg macro at that lvl is insane that good toss have troubles beating Z, theres a Replay of AHZZ where he almost beat a A- toss, do you know what that mean? That a well execute 5hatch Hydra can adapt to everything P does, there`s no BO from toss that allow them to be a thread to them maybe Corsair/reaver but EAPM is needed very high here. With that being said Zerg players are able to dominate this matchup historically and still do
LOL. harrasing takes 5 clicks, and it may kill over 20 drones. hard eh? (pick temple, move shuttle, drop ht, use storm). Lets talk about ht sniping, storm dodging, flanking and etc that zerg has to do every game? and he also has to defend from 1 high templar drop which can kill like 50 drones, or reaver, or dt. Also Z's gets no alarm when their drones gets attack, so they have to check every base every few secods... P's role is much much much more easier in PvZ. If all you can do is 4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z 1a2a3a and then tell it doesnt work, then try learning something new. what about pro-scene, as somewho already told, its not the race, its the players. Z players improved alot in ZvP, while P's are in the same place like they were a year ago, doing the exactly same builds...
Stop defending your easy match-up, scum.
I've recently tried PvZ instead of ZvZ (my main race is Z), and the guy I played against was D+ main race Z, while it was like 3rd time I play PvZ in my life. The game was soooo soooo easy even I was surprised, I thought it's even a little hard to play with a toss (Always defended toss that they have to think about strategy etc.). All I did, was pushed out with 3 first zealots, doing some eco damage (4 drones I think), but that made Z to be more concerned about the possible threat, so he started making units ealier. I expoed with goon/ht army outside of my base and turtled until I got 3/3 upgrades and pushed out. just 1a2a3a4a5a gg. Its that easy. Always thought people are over reacting how easy is it to play with protoss at low levels, but I guess they arent... (it wasnt just no agression from Z game, he opened with 9 pool, and then contained me with lurks/scourges hydras for some time, until I walked out with goons and ht). I guess protoss sat on their puffy chair for too long, its time for them to start actually doing something to win, not just 1a2a3a4a5a.
hey guess what einstein? this thread is about pro level. not your shitty D rank. just thought i'd let you know.
If you really think so - read the topic. If you still think so, read the topic again. If you still think so, you are stupid enough to be a great protoss.
On September 25 2009 17:12 motbob wrote: ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level. It's remarkable how that fact has sort of snuck up on us over the past few months, but it's absolutely true. Since about March, it seems like zergs have reached a point in the metagame where they always have the build order advantage.
Whether it's because of Jaedong leading the way for zergs everywhere, or the inability for protosses to come up with any innovation in their play since the zealot/archon push that was popular 8 months ago, Protosses are in a bad place right now when they play zerg. And it's not the maps. Destination used to be balanced ZvP (56-54 before Mar 1 2009). Now it is not (61-44 after).
Let's talk numbers. In the upcoming OSL prelims, the maps used are Destination, Heartbreak Ridge, and Return of the King. The combined stats for those three maps after early March, including "non-official" games like prelim games, is 60% ZvP. Outsider is 41-27 (60.3%). Neo Medusa is 34-25 (57.6%).
Why is this matchup suddenly so drastically imbalanced?
looks like you should switch to protoss D ranked noob
another protoss... now look at the thread topic again... "ZvP is imbalanced"
On September 26 2009 00:28 FoBuLouS wrote: What happened to corsair reaver? I haven't seen any of that in a long while.
Yeah, protoss needs to use this more or at least reavers.
most of maps aren't that good for sair/reaver these days. plus, most protoss players can't execute sair/reaver because it requires more multitasking and has less room for error.
Yeah it requires quite alot of micro and control which makes it a risky build. That's one thing I consider imbalanced with PvZ, the fact that protoss is so much more fragile.
One thing that's really annoying is when protoss makes all these fun strats with reaver/sair and what not and after playing around for a while zerg kills him with mass hydra. The simplicity in ZvP makes it a pretty clear-cut matchup as opposed to PvZ where protoss must be aware of tech switches and brutal flanks all the time. That's another reason why many of these big new maps sucks PvZ, because protoss is so easily flankable
On September 26 2009 00:28 FoBuLouS wrote: What happened to corsair reaver? I haven't seen any of that in a long while.
Yeah, protoss needs to use this more or at least reavers.
most of maps aren't that good for sair/reaver these days. plus, most protoss players can't execute sair/reaver because it requires more multitasking and has less room for error.
uh, doesn't bisu go sair/reaver almost every game vs Zerg?
For the past looooong while, the only time Bisu has gone sair-reaver is in a game on Outsider which he lost, and on HBR against by.hero, which he also lost. Before those two games, the last game I remember Bisu using sair-reaver is on Destination vs Jaedong which he also lost. Bisu is arguably the best sair-reaver user, but even he's been having difficulty using the build successfully lately.
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level and not to talk about foreigners level. RET talks about something that is true, but im 100% sure that you feel much more confident playing ZvP than White-ra, Mana, Fenix Playing PvZ, RET can you make a Reppack where you lose from a Toss? Maybe we can talk about harassing Z but its way to difficult to macro and micro if you don’t have an insane EAPM P has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, Zerg can build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. I think in same level of play Zerg will always win against toss, Let make en axample there a match PvZ, P being B+ and Zerg Being B- or B zerg can win ez and always will be the most flexible race, Zerg macro at that lvl is insane that good toss have troubles beating Z, theres a Replay of AHZZ where he almost beat a A- toss, do you know what that mean? That a well execute 5hatch Hydra can adapt to everything P does, there`s no BO from toss that allow them to be a thread to them maybe Corsair/reaver but EAPM is needed very high here. With that being said Zerg players are able to dominate this matchup historically and still do
LOL. harrasing takes 5 clicks, and it may kill over 20 drones. hard eh? (pick temple, move shuttle, drop ht, use storm). Lets talk about ht sniping, storm dodging, flanking and etc that zerg has to do every game? and he also has to defend from 1 high templar drop which can kill like 50 drones, or reaver, or dt. Also Z's gets no alarm when their drones gets attack, so they have to check every base every few secods... P's role is much much much more easier in PvZ. If all you can do is 4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z 1a2a3a and then tell it doesnt work, then try learning something new. what about pro-scene, as somewho already told, its not the race, its the players. Z players improved alot in ZvP, while P's are in the same place like they were a year ago, doing the exactly same builds...
Stop defending your easy match-up, scum.
I've recently tried PvZ instead of ZvZ (my main race is Z), and the guy I played against was D+ main race Z, while it was like 3rd time I play PvZ in my life. The game was soooo soooo easy even I was surprised, I thought it's even a little hard to play with a toss (Always defended toss that they have to think about strategy etc.). All I did, was pushed out with 3 first zealots, doing some eco damage (4 drones I think), but that made Z to be more concerned about the possible threat, so he started making units ealier. I expoed with goon/ht army outside of my base and turtled until I got 3/3 upgrades and pushed out. just 1a2a3a4a5a gg. Its that easy. Always thought people are over reacting how easy is it to play with protoss at low levels, but I guess they arent... (it wasnt just no agression from Z game, he opened with 9 pool, and then contained me with lurks/scourges hydras for some time, until I walked out with goons and ht). I guess protoss sat on their puffy chair for too long, its time for them to start actually doing something to win, not just 1a2a3a4a5a.
hey guess what einstein? this thread is about pro level. not your shitty D rank. just thought i'd let you know.
If you really think so - read the topic. If you still think so, read the topic again. If you still think so, you are stupid enough to be a great protoss.
On September 25 2009 17:12 motbob wrote: ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level. It's remarkable how that fact has sort of snuck up on us over the past few months, but it's absolutely true. Since about March, it seems like zergs have reached a point in the metagame where they always have the build order advantage.
Whether it's because of Jaedong leading the way for zergs everywhere, or the inability for protosses to come up with any innovation in their play since the zealot/archon push that was popular 8 months ago, Protosses are in a bad place right now when they play zerg. And it's not the maps. Destination used to be balanced ZvP (56-54 before Mar 1 2009). Now it is not (61-44 after).
Let's talk numbers. In the upcoming OSL prelims, the maps used are Destination, Heartbreak Ridge, and Return of the King. The combined stats for those three maps after early March, including "non-official" games like prelim games, is 60% ZvP. Outsider is 41-27 (60.3%). Neo Medusa is 34-25 (57.6%).
Why is this matchup suddenly so drastically imbalanced?
looks like you should switch to protoss D ranked noob
another protoss... now look at the thread topic again... "ZvP is imbalanced"
I just want to say that people talking about a personal game they played at D level is not in any way even remotely comparable to StarCraft as a whole and especially not at esports level.
I think we'll have to wait and see how the new season, doubled with new maps, plays out. Hopefully Aiur can make a comeback.
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level and not to talk about foreigners level. RET talks about something that is true, but im 100% sure that you feel much more confident playing ZvP than White-ra, Mana, Fenix Playing PvZ, RET can you make a Reppack where you lose from a Toss? Maybe we can talk about harassing Z but its way to difficult to macro and micro if you don’t have an insane EAPM P has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, Zerg can build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. I think in same level of play Zerg will always win against toss, Let make en axample there a match PvZ, P being B+ and Zerg Being B- or B zerg can win ez and always will be the most flexible race, Zerg macro at that lvl is insane that good toss have troubles beating Z, theres a Replay of AHZZ where he almost beat a A- toss, do you know what that mean? That a well execute 5hatch Hydra can adapt to everything P does, there`s no BO from toss that allow them to be a thread to them maybe Corsair/reaver but EAPM is needed very high here. With that being said Zerg players are able to dominate this matchup historically and still do
LOL. harrasing takes 5 clicks, and it may kill over 20 drones. hard eh? (pick temple, move shuttle, drop ht, use storm). Lets talk about ht sniping, storm dodging, flanking and etc that zerg has to do every game? and he also has to defend from 1 high templar drop which can kill like 50 drones, or reaver, or dt. Also Z's gets no alarm when their drones gets attack, so they have to check every base every few secods... P's role is much much much more easier in PvZ. If all you can do is 4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z 1a2a3a and then tell it doesnt work, then try learning something new. what about pro-scene, as somewho already told, its not the race, its the players. Z players improved alot in ZvP, while P's are in the same place like they were a year ago, doing the exactly same builds...
Stop defending your easy match-up, scum.
I've recently tried PvZ instead of ZvZ (my main race is Z), and the guy I played against was D+ main race Z, while it was like 3rd time I play PvZ in my life. The game was soooo soooo easy even I was surprised, I thought it's even a little hard to play with a toss (Always defended toss that they have to think about strategy etc.). All I did, was pushed out with 3 first zealots, doing some eco damage (4 drones I think), but that made Z to be more concerned about the possible threat, so he started making units ealier. I expoed with goon/ht army outside of my base and turtled until I got 3/3 upgrades and pushed out. just 1a2a3a4a5a gg. Its that easy. Always thought people are over reacting how easy is it to play with protoss at low levels, but I guess they arent... (it wasnt just no agression from Z game, he opened with 9 pool, and then contained me with lurks/scourges hydras for some time, until I walked out with goons and ht). I guess protoss sat on their puffy chair for too long, its time for them to start actually doing something to win, not just 1a2a3a4a5a.
hey guess what einstein? this thread is about pro level. not your shitty D rank. just thought i'd let you know.
Whats even worse is it sounds like he was vsing a D- noobie.
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level and not to talk about foreigners level. RET talks about something that is true, but im 100% sure that you feel much more confident playing ZvP than White-ra, Mana, Fenix Playing PvZ, RET can you make a Reppack where you lose from a Toss? Maybe we can talk about harassing Z but its way to difficult to macro and micro if you don’t have an insane EAPM P has to do double the amount of work in this matchup compared to zerg, Zerg can build up and reinforce their army so fast when under attack while protoss hasn't. I think in same level of play Zerg will always win against toss, Let make en axample there a match PvZ, P being B+ and Zerg Being B- or B zerg can win ez and always will be the most flexible race, Zerg macro at that lvl is insane that good toss have troubles beating Z, theres a Replay of AHZZ where he almost beat a A- toss, do you know what that mean? That a well execute 5hatch Hydra can adapt to everything P does, there`s no BO from toss that allow them to be a thread to them maybe Corsair/reaver but EAPM is needed very high here. With that being said Zerg players are able to dominate this matchup historically and still do
LOL. harrasing takes 5 clicks, and it may kill over 20 drones. hard eh? (pick temple, move shuttle, drop ht, use storm). Lets talk about ht sniping, storm dodging, flanking and etc that zerg has to do every game? and he also has to defend from 1 high templar drop which can kill like 50 drones, or reaver, or dt. Also Z's gets no alarm when their drones gets attack, so they have to check every base every few secods... P's role is much much much more easier in PvZ. If all you can do is 4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z4z5z6z 1a2a3a and then tell it doesnt work, then try learning something new. what about pro-scene, as somewho already told, its not the race, its the players. Z players improved alot in ZvP, while P's are in the same place like they were a year ago, doing the exactly same builds...
Stop defending your easy match-up, scum.
I've recently tried PvZ instead of ZvZ (my main race is Z), and the guy I played against was D+ main race Z, while it was like 3rd time I play PvZ in my life. The game was soooo soooo easy even I was surprised, I thought it's even a little hard to play with a toss (Always defended toss that they have to think about strategy etc.). All I did, was pushed out with 3 first zealots, doing some eco damage (4 drones I think), but that made Z to be more concerned about the possible threat, so he started making units ealier. I expoed with goon/ht army outside of my base and turtled until I got 3/3 upgrades and pushed out. just 1a2a3a4a5a gg. Its that easy. Always thought people are over reacting how easy is it to play with protoss at low levels, but I guess they arent... (it wasnt just no agression from Z game, he opened with 9 pool, and then contained me with lurks/scourges hydras for some time, until I walked out with goons and ht). I guess protoss sat on their puffy chair for too long, its time for them to start actually doing something to win, not just 1a2a3a4a5a.
hey guess what einstein? this thread is about pro level. not your shitty D rank. just thought i'd let you know.
Whats even worse is it sounds like he was vsing a D- noobie.
On September 25 2009 19:38 ret wrote: heh, this idea just seems like total crap to me when I know hard I get rolled when I 5 hat hydra / muta by very very simple zeal archon storm builds with a hardcore focus on macro. (foreigners can't do that luckily.)
any zergs opening, sets them behind right now. Overpool -> 14 forge 14 nexus , 1 cannon, 2nd cannon if 8 lings instead of 6. -> corsair hits you super fast 9 pool -> low drone, altho p has to make 2 cannons imo your behind. 12 hatch -> risk of getting probe blocked and p going gate gas core before a cannon and his corsair hitting you super early.
speedlings builds, although strong, often have to be allin because protoss wont respect zerg for going speedlings and just play a normal build, in which case you teched after speedling their tech will be far ahead of u.
this is what happens on 2 players like desti and heartbreak all the time, and if the protoss is as good as you are then you are gonna have a rly hard time dealing with their superior build orders..
I can't remember a good pro pvz series which would lead me to believe zerg vs protoss was imbalanced for zerg... I wonder what you guys have been watching. I hope it's not the PMT stuff.
Wait till Proleague or MSL/OSL and the protoss will do fine.
On September 26 2009 01:38 Foucault wrote: No you can't tweak maps to turn racial imbalances in Starcraft. Also there is something ethically wrong with balancing gameplay this way. I do think the maps are ZvP now because alot of them are big, which makes zerg macro hardcore. Skip forward to ultras + dark swarm after 20 minutes. I've seen that in a couple of the latest games now, kinda boring.
Yes you can tweak maps so that they favor one race over the other. Usually through width and number of paths/areas, as well as expansion placement and type (minonly or min+gas). But there are many other things that can be done, which sometimes make the maps "weird" or "non-standard". Also remember the huge balance shifts an island map causes.
Btw, here is an example of an immensly imbalanced p > t, p > z map: It's a 2 player island map, with the two main mineral lines close to each other, and a cliff overlooking both minlines. The cliff is only buildable with 2x2 buildings, especially pylons and cannons, the cannons reach the main minerals. Now toss only needs to get up on the cliff but the enemy must not be able to. This can be done with a setup similar to troy assimilators. Protoss can build an assimilator on a geysir and open up a path for probes, while refineries/extractors are too large. Since the ground is mostly unbuildable you can't even land a rax. And because a can rush is much faster than siege tanks or any kind of air/drop, the toss will always win. Oh yeah you could try glitching workers through the geysirs, but that is hard to do, can partially be prevented, and toss can send as many probes as needed until the first cans are up.
So while this map would obviously be completely ridiculous, it DOES demonstrate that you can mess with SC's balance through maps as much as you want.
On September 26 2009 01:38 Foucault wrote: No you can't tweak maps to turn racial imbalances in Starcraft. Also there is something ethically wrong with balancing gameplay this way. I do think the maps are ZvP now because alot of them are big, which makes zerg macro hardcore. Skip forward to ultras + dark swarm after 20 minutes. I've seen that in a couple of the latest games now, kinda boring.
Yes you can tweak maps so that they favor one race over the other. Usually through width and number of paths/areas, as well as expansion placement and type (minonly or min+gas). But there are many other things that can be done, which sometimes make the maps "weird" or "non-standard". Also remember the huge balance shifts an island map causes.
Btw, here is an example of an immensly imbalanced p > t, p > z map: It's a 2 player island map, with the two main mineral lines close to each other, and a cliff overlooking both minlines. The cliff is only buildable with 2x2 buildings, especially pylons and cannons, the cannons reach the main minerals. Now toss only needs to get up on the cliff but the enemy must not be able to. This can be done with a setup similar to troy assimilators. Protoss can build an assimilator on a geysir and open up a path for probes, while refineries/extractors are too large. Since the ground is mostly unbuildable you can't even land a rax. And because a can rush is much faster than siege tanks or any kind of air/drop, the toss will always win. Oh yeah you could try glitching workers through the geysirs, but that is hard to do, can partially be prevented, and toss can send as many probes as needed until the first cans are up.
So while this map would obviously be completely ridiculous, it DOES demonstrate that you can mess with SC's balance through maps as much as you want.
Yeah I know you can tweak maps to balance the game but the underlying racial imbalance is still there. That's why I mentioned that I think it's an unethical way to go about it.
On September 26 2009 03:05 wiesel wrote: Because there is no imbalance only better players.
Yeah of course, Starcraft is 100% balanced. God made this game, it's weird but true.
Your argument is emotional but not rational, you believe Starcraft to be 100% balanced because you like the thought of it. Of course Starcraft isn't perfectly balanced, no computer game can be basically.
On September 26 2009 01:38 Foucault wrote: People insist it's the game because it would be ludacris to assume that the game somehow is perfect in all aspects.
lol
Sorry, had to point it out.
On September 26 2009 01:38 Foucault wrote: No you can't tweak maps to turn racial imbalances in Starcraft. Also there is something ethically wrong with balancing gameplay this way.
"Ethically" is probably the wrong word to use there, though I can see why someone would be against using maps as a balancing tool. The problem is that there comes a point at which the balance isn't perfect, but so close that most tweaks would be less balanced than what you start with (Starcraft's not perfectly balanced, but it's pretty damn close-a minute change like shifting a couple mineral patches out on the original Blue Storm turned it from heavily zerg-favored to almost even). Tweaking Zealot base damage or something minute could have large effects throughout the rest of the game that we might not see. It's important to remember that not only must such changes preserve inter-racial balance, but they must preserve unit viability across matchups (e.g. improved Zealots could have a huge effect on which units are important in ZvP, possibly to the point of making some units not useful anymore).
Maps are a useful tool for balance for a couple reasons. 1) They have a short development cycle - a patch takes a long time to code, debug, release, and wait for feedback. Maps by comparison can be more quickly released and tested. 2) Its easier to make fine changes - single numerical changes to actual units and buildings are huge. Shifting the positions of things around on a map allows for greater fine-tuning with regards to balance. 3) It's easy to control their effect on the scene - a new patch applies to every game, all the time. A bad patch could have catastrophic effects on the game, and would take a long time to deal with. Maps, by comparison, especially bad ones, enter and leave quickly. Proleague re-evaluates maps after every round (and in-rounds if its actually bad enough). Leagues switch maps every season, and Bo5s are such that an imbalanced map would only be relevant a fraction of the time. And below the pro level, people just wouldn't play the imba maps.
I am going to agree with one of the first posts in saying that it's the players. There are a TON of up and coming zerg players with rather insane mechanics when compared to Protoss. Is this due to "ZvP imbalance"? I think not. Specifically, if you look at some of the top tier zergs, their ZvP is normally around their ZvT win percentage. In my mind, there are so few major Potoss forces that stand out when compared to Zerg.
I'm a zerg/terran player, and I feel the fundamental (outside of pro-level gaming)``problem" with the ZvP matchup, is that zerg have many, many options in which to take the game. Sadly, most are defined as "cheese" and "all-ins". Whereas protoss have fewer options, such as proxy gating, and forge/cannon blocking (as seen on heartbreak). Obviously, their options are currently more limited in this metagame.
Protoss (at least on iccup) are NOT innovative, and 8/10 times you can expect some sort of bisu build opening. When you know its coming, its much easier to prepare for it and not be thrown offguard (ala ling/hydra all-in).
Protoss (at least on iccup) are NOT innovative, and 8/10 times you can expect some sort of bisu build opening. When you know its coming, its much easier to prepare for it and not be thrown offguard (ala ling/hydra all-in).
that's one of the reasons why pvz has gotten hard. zerg has so many options, whereas protoss is limited. innovative? "innovative" builds don't usually work.
On September 26 2009 03:27 GG.Win wrote: I am going to agree with one of the first posts in saying that it's the players. There are a TON of up and coming zerg players with rather insane mechanics when compared to Protoss. Is this due to "ZvP imbalance"? I think not. Specifically, if you look at some of the top tier zergs, their ZvP is normally around their ZvT win percentage. In my mind, there are so few major Potoss forces that stand out when compared to Zerg.
I'm a zerg/terran player, and I feel the fundamental (outside of pro-level gaming)``problem" with the ZvP matchup, is that zerg have many, many options in which to take the game. Sadly, most are defined as "cheese" and "all-ins". Whereas protoss have fewer options, such as proxy gating, and forge/cannon blocking (as seen on heartbreak). Obviously, their options are currently more limited in this metagame.
Protoss (at least on iccup) are NOT innovative, and 8/10 times you can expect some sort of bisu build opening. When you know its coming, its much easier to prepare for it and not be thrown offguard (ala ling/hydra all-in).
eh with this comment your supporting the zvp is imbalanced side dude
why do you think there is a lot of up and coming zergs and no protoss? because its much harder to make it big with protoss. might want to adjust this part of your argument..
I really think ZvP is a balanced matchup. Yes, Zergs have more all-in options but the matchup seems equalizing in every way.
Maybe I'm letting my T bias see this in a different light, but any matchup that doesn't involve T seems balanced to me, T > Z, T > P. Where was that thread with all the statistics of wins verses losses for all broadcasted pro games ever played? If anyone can dig out that thread, I think historically TvZ has had a more unequal ratio than ZvP
On September 26 2009 03:27 GG.Win wrote: I am going to agree with one of the first posts in saying that it's the players. There are a TON of up and coming zerg players with rather insane mechanics when compared to Protoss. Is this due to "ZvP imbalance"? I think not. Specifically, if you look at some of the top tier zergs, their ZvP is normally around their ZvT win percentage. In my mind, there are so few major Potoss forces that stand out when compared to Zerg.
I'm a zerg/terran player, and I feel the fundamental (outside of pro-level gaming)``problem" with the ZvP matchup, is that zerg have many, many options in which to take the game. Sadly, most are defined as "cheese" and "all-ins". Whereas protoss have fewer options, such as proxy gating, and forge/cannon blocking (as seen on heartbreak). Obviously, their options are currently more limited in this metagame.
Protoss (at least on iccup) are NOT innovative, and 8/10 times you can expect some sort of bisu build opening. When you know its coming, its much easier to prepare for it and not be thrown offguard (ala ling/hydra all-in).
eh with this comment your supporting the zvp is imbalanced side dude
why do you think there is a lot of up and coming zergs and no protoss? because its much harder to make it big with protoss. might want to adjust this part of your argument..
What are you talking about? Zergs planned to be Zerg two years ago because they realized that Zerg was easy? Or it's just a coincidence and suddenly ZvP became easy and now they're up and coming?
How about it's related to styles and right now Zergs are slightly better? This happens every six months. Remember when Protoss was raping, and the dragons, and Terran couldn't win anything? Remember when Boxer and his crew were raping? Remember before Savior when Zergs couldn't win shit? This always happens and people always freak out.
On September 25 2009 22:58 Hot_Bid wrote: This just sounds like whining, with a lot of over-generalizations and useless theorycrafting. Like the guy that says its imbalanced because of Protoss mineral gas ratio or lack of detection early game (like 1% of games end with the P dying to some sort of lurker attack).
With vastly different level players and dynamic maps, why does everyone insist on going to the source (the game) instead of these external (and just as important) factors? Why must it be THE GAME that needs fixing instead of the maps? Nobody was saying P>Z when Bisu was playing well back in GomTV. But when ratios become 60% on certain maps, suddenly the core structure of the game is not right?
Ultimately any statistical "imbalance" in any matchups can be solved easily by tweaking the maps. If Z>>P right now on the current set of maps, the leagues will adjust. Then you'll see Ps "play better" and everyone will shut up. In fact, had Bisu beaten Iris in that Game 5 and then beaten Calm (which was very close to happening), I don't think this thread even gets made. Is that what these OMFG IMBA discussions are hinging on now? 3-4 Protoss wins in the MSL semis/finals?
The maps are all looking pretty bad for protoss right now
A SINGLE TEAR FOR BRETHREN ON AIUR
edit: to clarify thats MY brethren. the ones in aiur. cuz I'm a corsair.
On September 26 2009 03:44 Chill wrote: What are you talking about? Zergs planned to be Zerg two years ago because they realized that Zerg was easy? Or it's just a coincidence and suddenly ZvP became easy and now they're up and coming?
How about it's related to styles and right now Zergs are slightly better? This happens every six months. Remember when Protoss was raping, and the dragons, and Terran couldn't win anything? Remember when Boxer and his crew were raping? Remember before Savior when Zergs couldn't win shit? This always happens and people always freak out.
Exactly.
If anything, people bitching about balance is a good thing, because it implies that BW is still changing, and has a dynamic and vibrant metagame.
Yeah zergs are also playing better than protoss players right now. I think protoss has to discover some new builds or what not, because the bisu thing obviously isn't working that well anymore. Then again I'm not sure how much room there is for new PvZ builds, but somehow people always make up new builds anyways. Protoss needs to change the current PvZ gameflow.
Randomly, two things comes to mind:
1) More agressive play. Pressure zerg more, perhaps agressive 1 base builds can throw zergs that 3-hatch off guard.
2) Reavers. On ground, in shuttles, with sairs. Reavers are good, use them. I haven't seen many scarabs flying around lately unfortunately.
On September 25 2009 23:29 Hayarok wrote: i agree Zerg has advantage in ZvP. its goes like that T>Z , T=P , Z>P.
I don't think Z is that much > than P, Z is just slightly more versatile in the matchup and less limited, but yeah I agree
On September 25 2009 23:39 Geo.Rion wrote: You easely can pick a period when a certain matchup looked or was imbalanced, Though if you pick a large period (years) or look at the whole history you see the most "imbalanced" mu is TvZ with 53.5% vs 46.5% or so, at least the last time i saw it, it looked like this.
Thank you, this is what I wanted to say. We need a TvZ is imba! thread 3 times for every 1 time we get a ZvP imba thread
as far as innovation goes- i had a protoss player bull dog me last night in a zvp on desti. does that count as innovation?
but in all seriousness- and it has been said before: protoss is getting stagnant. i have seen nothing new in their game play for almost a year now. What can you expect? zerg is adapting and protoss refuses to change, and or think of something strategically new.
On September 25 2009 22:58 Hot_Bid wrote: This just sounds like whining, with a lot of over-generalizations and useless theorycrafting. Like the guy that says its imbalanced because of Protoss mineral gas ratio or lack of detection early game (like 1% of games end with the P dying to some sort of lurker attack).
With vastly different level players and dynamic maps, why does everyone insist on going to the source (the game) instead of these external (and just as important) factors? Why must it be THE GAME that needs fixing instead of the maps? Nobody was saying P>Z when Bisu was playing well back in GomTV. But when ratios become 60% on certain maps, suddenly the core structure of the game is not right?
Ultimately any statistical "imbalance" in any matchups can be solved easily by tweaking the maps. If Z>>P right now on the current set of maps, the leagues will adjust. Then you'll see Ps "play better" and everyone will shut up. In fact, had Bisu beaten Iris in that Game 5 and then beaten Calm (which was very close to happening), I don't think this thread even gets made. Is that what these OMFG IMBA discussions are hinging on now? 3-4 Protoss wins in the MSL semis/finals?
I don't even like Protosses, man. I'm a Jaedong fan. I'm just curious as to why this matchup has suddenly shifted from balanced 8 months ago to imbalanced now.
EDIT: updated the OP to clarify what I mean by "imbalanced"
On September 26 2009 03:27 GG.Win wrote: I am going to agree with one of the first posts in saying that it's the players. There are a TON of up and coming zerg players with rather insane mechanics when compared to Protoss. Is this due to "ZvP imbalance"? I think not. Specifically, if you look at some of the top tier zergs, their ZvP is normally around their ZvT win percentage. In my mind, there are so few major Potoss forces that stand out when compared to Zerg.
I'm a zerg/terran player, and I feel the fundamental (outside of pro-level gaming)``problem" with the ZvP matchup, is that zerg have many, many options in which to take the game. Sadly, most are defined as "cheese" and "all-ins". Whereas protoss have fewer options, such as proxy gating, and forge/cannon blocking (as seen on heartbreak). Obviously, their options are currently more limited in this metagame.
Protoss (at least on iccup) are NOT innovative, and 8/10 times you can expect some sort of bisu build opening. When you know its coming, its much easier to prepare for it and not be thrown offguard (ala ling/hydra all-in).
eh with this comment your supporting the zvp is imbalanced side dude
why do you think there is a lot of up and coming zergs and no protoss? because its much harder to make it big with protoss. might want to adjust this part of your argument..
What are you talking about? Zergs planned to be Zerg two years ago because they realized that Zerg was easy? Or it's just a coincidence and suddenly ZvP became easy and now they're up and coming?
How about it's related to styles and right now Zergs are slightly better? This happens every six months. Remember when Protoss was raping, and the dragons, and Terran couldn't win anything? Remember when Boxer and his crew were raping? Remember before Savior when Zergs couldn't win shit? This always happens and people always freak out.
i dont really see what your trying to say. Race distribution is pretty even its not like they all went zerg. It's just the current professional protosses at the moment aren't good enough. I don't really know why your arguing with me anyway as I said that I do not think ZvP is imbalanced.
On September 26 2009 04:03 Misrah wrote: as far as innovation goes- i had a protoss player bull dog me last night in a zvp on desti. does that count as innovation?
but in all seriousness- and it has been said before: protoss is getting stagnant. i have seen nothing new in their game play for almost a year now. What can you expect? zerg is adapting and protoss refuses to change, and or think of something strategically new.
Old game, everything has been done and it turns out z is better then p
I dont know. I always feel like my PvZ is the most solid of all my MU's. I look at it this way. The zerg can only do 2 things. Hydras or Mutals. And i have an arsenal of units on 2 base 2 gas that i can use to destroy it. But here's the catch. Protoss are so PREDICTABLE these days. Hell i played a ZvP on HBR just for shits and giggles today on the C- level and i absolutly STOMPED the Protoss. Protoss's nowadays need to BE MORE AGRESSIVE imo.
Nevuk wrote a GREAT article showing the weaknesses that zerg have in their first 10 minutes. Exploit it. Use it to your advantage. SCOUT SCOUT SCOUT. There's a reason why Bisu is the best Protoss in the world. He can use the extended scouting information to his advantage and wrap his build orders around what he knows.
I love love LOVE suiciding zlots. Early game 7 minute-ish i take 6-8 lots (+1 and speed) and i dash into the zerg's main and snipe as many tech buildings as i can. Den/Spire take priority followed by Evocham/Pool. You have NO clue how annoying that is for zerg. be unpredictable
Nal_rA was sick with his corsair reaver in zvp. the corsair's ability is pretty damn good when he uses it. We need more reavers and corsairs in this MU!
I'm a protoss player, and I really have trouble with PvZ... But I wouldn't go so far as to call it imbalanced. It's just a phase, it'll pass soon with a new innovative strategy ;P
On September 26 2009 01:38 Foucault wrote: No you can't tweak maps to turn racial imbalances in Starcraft. Also there is something ethically wrong with balancing gameplay this way. I do think the maps are ZvP now because alot of them are big, which makes zerg macro hardcore. Skip forward to ultras + dark swarm after 20 minutes. I've seen that in a couple of the latest games now, kinda boring.
Yes you can tweak maps so that they favor one race over the other. Usually through width and number of paths/areas, as well as expansion placement and type (minonly or min+gas). But there are many other things that can be done, which sometimes make the maps "weird" or "non-standard". Also remember the huge balance shifts an island map causes.
Btw, here is an example of an immensly imbalanced p > t, p > z map: It's a 2 player island map, with the two main mineral lines close to each other, and a cliff overlooking both minlines. The cliff is only buildable with 2x2 buildings, especially pylons and cannons, the cannons reach the main minerals. Now toss only needs to get up on the cliff but the enemy must not be able to. This can be done with a setup similar to troy assimilators. Protoss can build an assimilator on a geysir and open up a path for probes, while refineries/extractors are too large. Since the ground is mostly unbuildable you can't even land a rax. And because a can rush is much faster than siege tanks or any kind of air/drop, the toss will always win. Oh yeah you could try glitching workers through the geysirs, but that is hard to do, can partially be prevented, and toss can send as many probes as needed until the first cans are up.
So while this map would obviously be completely ridiculous, it DOES demonstrate that you can mess with SC's balance through maps as much as you want.
Yeah I know you can tweak maps to balance the game but the underlying racial imbalance is still there. That's why I mentioned that I think it's an unethical way to go about it.
You cannot separate balance including the map effects and balance excluding the map effects. SC cannot be played without a map and thus the map is always a factor in balance. That's why there is no "underlying racial imbalance". You can't define that "underlying racial imbalance" through some standard map either, because there is no map that is balanced by itself.
Protoss (at least on iccup) are NOT innovative, and 8/10 times you can expect some sort of bisu build opening. When you know its coming, its much easier to prepare for it and not be thrown offguard (ala ling/hydra all-in).
that's one of the reasons why pvz has gotten hard. zerg has so many options, whereas protoss is limited. innovative? "innovative" builds don't usually work.
There is some work involved in MAKING innovative builds work. To be able to do 2 hatch effectively, many zergs had to drastically improve their muta micro. 3hat spire 5 hath hydra isn't just such a great build that it works no matter how bad you play. It took quite a while for terrans to figure out how to properly do vult into expansion builds with all the followups.
Then I see protosses just letting their arbiters attack lone turrets until they die, stacking all their arbiters to make sure the next EMP hits all of them, and the rare time I see a dark archon, they let it get sniped so easily (that thing has a TON of shields, how can you lose it like that) and then no more dark archons will follow ever after, even though maelstrom is already researched. And don't tell me that microing those units is too hard - look at tvz / zvz.
On September 25 2009 22:58 Hot_Bid wrote: This just sounds like whining, with a lot of over-generalizations and useless theorycrafting. Like the guy that says its imbalanced because of Protoss mineral gas ratio or lack of detection early game (like 1% of games end with the P dying to some sort of lurker attack).
With vastly different level players and dynamic maps, why does everyone insist on going to the source (the game) instead of these external (and just as important) factors? Why must it be THE GAME that needs fixing instead of the maps? Nobody was saying P>Z when Bisu was playing well back in GomTV. But when ratios become 60% on certain maps, suddenly the core structure of the game is not right?
Ultimately any statistical "imbalance" in any matchups can be solved easily by tweaking the maps. If Z>>P right now on the current set of maps, the leagues will adjust. Then you'll see Ps "play better" and everyone will shut up. In fact, had Bisu beaten Iris in that Game 5 and then beaten Calm (which was very close to happening), I don't think this thread even gets made. Is that what these OMFG IMBA discussions are hinging on now? 3-4 Protoss wins in the MSL semis/finals?
I don't even like Protosses, man. I'm a Jaedong fan. I'm just curious as to why this matchup has suddenly shifted from balanced 8 months ago to imbalanced now.
EDIT: updated the OP to clarify what I mean by "imbalanced"
On September 26 2009 03:27 GG.Win wrote: I am going to agree with one of the first posts in saying that it's the players. There are a TON of up and coming zerg players with rather insane mechanics when compared to Protoss. Is this due to "ZvP imbalance"? I think not. Specifically, if you look at some of the top tier zergs, their ZvP is normally around their ZvT win percentage. In my mind, there are so few major Potoss forces that stand out when compared to Zerg.
I'm a zerg/terran player, and I feel the fundamental (outside of pro-level gaming)``problem" with the ZvP matchup, is that zerg have many, many options in which to take the game. Sadly, most are defined as "cheese" and "all-ins". Whereas protoss have fewer options, such as proxy gating, and forge/cannon blocking (as seen on heartbreak). Obviously, their options are currently more limited in this metagame.
Protoss (at least on iccup) are NOT innovative, and 8/10 times you can expect some sort of bisu build opening. When you know its coming, its much easier to prepare for it and not be thrown offguard (ala ling/hydra all-in).
eh with this comment your supporting the zvp is imbalanced side dude
why do you think there is a lot of up and coming zergs and no protoss? because its much harder to make it big with protoss. might want to adjust this part of your argument..
What are you talking about? Zergs planned to be Zerg two years ago because they realized that Zerg was easy? Or it's just a coincidence and suddenly ZvP became easy and now they're up and coming?
How about it's related to styles and right now Zergs are slightly better? This happens every six months. Remember when Protoss was raping, and the dragons, and Terran couldn't win anything? Remember when Boxer and his crew were raping? Remember before Savior when Zergs couldn't win shit? This always happens and people always freak out.
On September 25 2009 22:58 Hot_Bid wrote: This just sounds like whining, with a lot of over-generalizations and useless theorycrafting. Like the guy that says its imbalanced because of Protoss mineral gas ratio or lack of detection early game (like 1% of games end with the P dying to some sort of lurker attack).
With vastly different level players and dynamic maps, why does everyone insist on going to the source (the game) instead of these external (and just as important) factors? Why must it be THE GAME that needs fixing instead of the maps? Nobody was saying P>Z when Bisu was playing well back in GomTV. But when ratios become 60% on certain maps, suddenly the core structure of the game is not right?
Ultimately any statistical "imbalance" in any matchups can be solved easily by tweaking the maps. If Z>>P right now on the current set of maps, the leagues will adjust. Then you'll see Ps "play better" and everyone will shut up. In fact, had Bisu beaten Iris in that Game 5 and then beaten Calm (which was very close to happening), I don't think this thread even gets made. Is that what these OMFG IMBA discussions are hinging on now? 3-4 Protoss wins in the MSL semis/finals?
I don't even like Protosses, man. I'm a Jaedong fan. I'm just curious as to why this matchup has suddenly shifted from balanced 8 months ago to imbalanced now.
EDIT: updated the OP to clarify what I mean by "imbalanced"
On September 26 2009 03:27 GG.Win wrote: I am going to agree with one of the first posts in saying that it's the players. There are a TON of up and coming zerg players with rather insane mechanics when compared to Protoss. Is this due to "ZvP imbalance"? I think not. Specifically, if you look at some of the top tier zergs, their ZvP is normally around their ZvT win percentage. In my mind, there are so few major Potoss forces that stand out when compared to Zerg.
I'm a zerg/terran player, and I feel the fundamental (outside of pro-level gaming)``problem" with the ZvP matchup, is that zerg have many, many options in which to take the game. Sadly, most are defined as "cheese" and "all-ins". Whereas protoss have fewer options, such as proxy gating, and forge/cannon blocking (as seen on heartbreak). Obviously, their options are currently more limited in this metagame.
Protoss (at least on iccup) are NOT innovative, and 8/10 times you can expect some sort of bisu build opening. When you know its coming, its much easier to prepare for it and not be thrown offguard (ala ling/hydra all-in).
eh with this comment your supporting the zvp is imbalanced side dude
why do you think there is a lot of up and coming zergs and no protoss? because its much harder to make it big with protoss. might want to adjust this part of your argument..
What are you talking about? Zergs planned to be Zerg two years ago because they realized that Zerg was easy? Or it's just a coincidence and suddenly ZvP became easy and now they're up and coming?
How about it's related to styles and right now Zergs are slightly better? This happens every six months. Remember when Protoss was raping, and the dragons, and Terran couldn't win anything? Remember when Boxer and his crew were raping? Remember before Savior when Zergs couldn't win shit? This always happens and people always freak out.
/thread
Really? You're not interested in why "styles" have shifted and what Protosses can maybe do about it?
"pvz is easy" "protoss should be changed" "even boxer said so" "savior is so fucking boring" "holy crap!" "wtf" "bisu build" "lolz bisu build" "that's not the bisu build" "yeah nal_ra did that years ago!" "bisu build" "kespa #1!!" "kespa #1 and #2!" "kespa #2 and #1!!"¨ "6 protoss in top 10!!!"
Certain match ups favor certain styles on certain maps at certain times. That's why you don't see players switching races. Because you might be good with one race, but only exceptional with the other. If it is that "seriously imbalanced" why is Bisu still playing protoss, his pvz knowledge is highly praised by other progamers. Sometimes one match up fits like a glove and you can still, after 7 (read SEVEN) fucking years go 8-2 in your last zvp matches like july does (or 15-5).
How many protoss do you know that can multitask as smoothly as Bisu? It is not the game. It is the player and the maps. Some have a profound knowledge of the match up, a desire to constantly stay ahead of trends, and others simply follow the line.
On September 26 2009 05:33 Chill wrote: Did you just ask why people innovate?
My post should read "how." Cut me a break, man.
I mean, honestly, of course I wasn't asking why people innovate. Either you think I'm a complete moron or you're intentionally jumping on the mistakes I make because you hate the whole concept of this thread.
its actually either way there was a time were usually a Protoss could beat a Zerg easy, but everything changes and other players adapt to the strategies they go for.
I don't have the necessary skill to pull this off but....
Can some one try using the following in a macro battle
remove the zealots
concentrate on goons/HT/DAs/Reavers and put a little love for arbiters
mix them together and create a big ball of protoss.
Now, use the DA's to kill maelstrom the ovies, use the HT's to storm em, no more seeing em goons eh?
of course produce archons once energy is depleted from HT.
So, there are no more detectors, most likely there will be a ton of defilers to plaguuu~ to see invi units or use swarm so goons will not have any damage. Possible that all scourges that try to kill the arbiters get sniped by thoses goons.
I dunno, I wanna try it someday but I just can stop clicking on "z" when clicking gateways .
I think that it's not an innovative build and someone could have thought of it before me, just suggesting!
Unfortunately it seems like only 2 or 3 people have realized we simply do not have Kang Min around to show zergs what abuse truly looks like. The biggest problem right now: zergs are not afraid.
The themes I mentioned in my earlier post were pretty much all based on the zerg being afraid. Zergs were afraid of whatever rA was going to pull out on them. Zergs were afraid of Bisu punishing their expansions. Zergs were afraid of 4gate 2archon ripping them apart.
Currently, they don't seem to fear very much at all.
On September 25 2009 18:50 sashkata wrote: I say it's just a phase. This kind of things are not new to starcraft.
So what you're saying Toss will be on the comeback sometime 2014, since apparently the zerg/toss phase in terms of who's the dominant one goes around roughly on a five-to-two year circulation?
On September 26 2009 04:55 DreaM)XeRO wrote: I dont know. I always feel like my PvZ is the most solid of all my MU's. I look at it this way. The zerg can only do 2 things. Hydras or Mutals. And i have an arsenal of units on 2 base 2 gas that i can use to destroy it. But here's the catch. Protoss are so PREDICTABLE these days. Hell i played a ZvP on HBR just for shits and giggles today on the C- level and i absolutly STOMPED the Protoss. Protoss's nowadays need to BE MORE AGRESSIVE imo.
Nevuk wrote a GREAT article showing the weaknesses that zerg have in their first 10 minutes. Exploit it. Use it to your advantage. SCOUT SCOUT SCOUT. There's a reason why Bisu is the best Protoss in the world. He can use the extended scouting information to his advantage and wrap his build orders around what he knows.
I love love LOVE suiciding zlots. Early game 7 minute-ish i take 6-8 lots (+1 and speed) and i dash into the zerg's main and snipe as many tech buildings as i can. Den/Spire take priority followed by Evocham/Pool. You have NO clue how annoying that is for zerg. be unpredictable
I wouldn't say thats unpredictable. A lot of protoss's seem to be doing it or at least the ones I happen to face. I would say you would have to be a lot more unpredictable then that. As far as zvp imbalanced I disagree but w/e.
On September 26 2009 05:33 Chill wrote: Did you just ask why people innovate?
My post should read "how." Cut me a break, man.
I mean, honestly, of course I wasn't asking why people innovate. Either you think I'm a complete moron or you're intentionally jumping on the mistakes I make because you hate the whole concept of this thread.
It's not hard to imagine you meaning why instead of how.
People, c'mon. Television needs drama. It improves rating. You can achieve drama by slightly tweaking the maps when there's already a protoss slump and degeneration in strategy. It's that simple.
Hell, even I want to watch some televised games right now. The marketing works.
On September 26 2009 06:14 Licmyobelisk wrote: I don't have the necessary skill to pull this off but....
Can some one try using the following in a macro battle
remove the zealots
concentrate on goons/HT/DAs/Reavers and put a little love for arbiters
mix them together and create a big ball of protoss.
Now, use the DA's to kill maelstrom the ovies, use the HT's to storm em, no more seeing em goons eh?
of course produce archons once energy is depleted from HT.
So, there are no more detectors, most likely there will be a ton of defilers to plaguuu~ to see invi units or use swarm so goons will not have any damage. Possible that all scourges that try to kill the arbiters get sniped by thoses goons.
I dunno, I wanna try it someday but I just can stop clicking on "z" when clicking gateways .
I think that it's not an innovative build and someone could have thought of it before me, just suggesting!
I really hope your joking. Unless you plan on playing fastest possible map ice version SUPER $$ clan REAPER v.21 how do you plan on getting all that gas?
On September 26 2009 06:14 Licmyobelisk wrote: I don't have the necessary skill to pull this off but....
Can some one try using the following in a macro battle
remove the zealots
concentrate on goons/HT/DAs/Reavers and put a little love for arbiters
mix them together and create a big ball of protoss.
Now, use the DA's to kill maelstrom the ovies, use the HT's to storm em, no more seeing em goons eh?
of course produce archons once energy is depleted from HT.
So, there are no more detectors, most likely there will be a ton of defilers to plaguuu~ to see invi units or use swarm so goons will not have any damage. Possible that all scourges that try to kill the arbiters get sniped by thoses goons.
I dunno, I wanna try it someday but I just can stop clicking on "z" when clicking gateways .
I think that it's not an innovative build and someone could have thought of it before me, just suggesting!
And where exactly do you plan to get all that gas from? It's not like tosses get so many zealots because they think that they are better than archons.
wow man dont rip on the guy he's obviously clueless about how P uses gas. ZvP isn't imba its just that Z have been more innovative lately and P have been just sticking to the forgeFE
1. Storm = most powerful spell/attack in the game after nuke. 2. Reaver = most powerful ground attack after infested terrans. 3. HT->Archons = most effective unit in the game because you can STORM (see point 1) and then make imba archons that can kill 200 lings after the storms already killed 100.
On September 26 2009 07:47 l10f wrote: 1. Storm = most powerful spell/attack in the game after nuke. 2. Reaver = most powerful ground attack after infested terrans. 3. HT->Archons = most effective unit in the game because you can STORM (see point 1) and then make imba archons that can kill 200 lings after the storms already killed 100.
First of all I dont think zvp is imbalanced in any way. What makes people think there is an imbalance is that Z has a lot more one-punch-getting-ahead-things in ZvP, same with T in TvZ and P in PvT. Starting with all cute all-ins/tricky early game stuff (hydrabreaks, lingsrunbys, 2hatchmuta etc), to midgame (muta snipe ht, hydra rapes the toss), and finally in the lategame, zergs biggest strenght imo (small cracklingdrops, nexussnipe, plague, ULTRALING POWAH). Theres less room for mistakes on the P side, and because today there are very very few players (Bisu, Kal/JangBi/Stork on good days) which can avoid making those, P seems to be losing too easy.
Another problem with protosses is that they fail to create those kind of one-punch-getting-ahead-things. Like Anytime said in an interview, todays Protosses rely to much on mechanics and forgot about timings. Watching a lot of Vods with non-bisu Ps you'll notice that they very often lack any kind of gameplan, its like pre-bisu Ps complained about how Z raped their zeal/goon army; now they know how to fast expand, tech to temps and sairs and.. what now? the most common thing is to add 3-5 gateways, mass some kind of units without any intention to hit a timing (moving out with 1-0 doesnt help that much vs hydraheavy builds, its not a timing Ps should look for), and get raped silly.
Than we have our PvZ god Bisu, adding new timings and cute things pretty much all the time; dont tell me he only introduced the 2archon push, there were a lot more things, here some examples: moving out with 3zeals and a goon vs EffOrt on hbr, distracting his attention to sneak in dts; once again moving out with the same force (dont know vs who), this time he delayed his templararchieves but instead got a somewhat earlier 2. gate, those first 3 zealots were followed by 4 more and speed kicked in as they reached the z; ONCE AGAIN Bisu moves out with 3zeals and one goon, this time he hid a robo and is going to drop 2 dts in Zs main while his small force distracts the Z.
Things like this are changing timings and are screwing around with the Z thinking he knows whats going on. Ofc there are other players doing this (GosI[Flying] in some of his recent games) but still the majority of Ps just keeps doing the same thing over and over, its like they need Bisu to rape all Zs with the 2Archon-timing attack to start copying it. Sadly innovative play doesn't spread at all around Ps, a great example would be SangHo whom i saw using DAs to stop templar sniping, it was part of his prepared bo and totally nullified the Zs attempt, he got ahead because of his DAs (and lost some time after because SangHo sucks and cant control his units).
tl;dr toss players are dumb and start copying Bisu to late.
What is there to innovate with? All I can think of are Dark Archons, and those are limited in success, Storm is oftentimes far more effective than Maelstrom. I do remember a game where Horang2 tries to go Maelstrom instead of Storm, and he just gets rolled over by 3 hatch Hydra due to no storms being available, when it would have if he researched storm instead. Arbiters are not cost-effective, they are slow, cost a lot, and are really easily killed especially in PvZ.
its just because zerg gains so much dominance in games now, map control is so hard to establish as toss until about 15+ minutes in because zerg can get 5hatch with 3 expos, along with having enough lings to counter any early zealot pressure.
I have a strat that I use that is very good against zerg, throws many zergs off, that Jangbi used afew times.. I dunno why more people don't use it, it still can't compete with earlygame macro zerg but it punishes them harshly fast enough before they can get a large army (not saying what it is though ;o watch jangbi reps lol)
Bisu didn't come up with the 2 archon timing push. I think that was Free or Kal, maybe Jangbi? Jangbi/Stork came up with most of the +1 speedlot rushes and any speedlot/sair type thing.
Let's talk numbers. In the upcoming OSL prelims, the maps used are Destination, Heartbreak Ridge, and Return of the King. The combined stats for those three maps after early March, including "non-official" games like prelim games, is 60% ZvP. Outsider is 41-27 (60.3%). Neo Medusa is 34-25 (57.6%).
Why is this matchup suddenly so drastically imbalanced?
This thread should actually be titled "Neo Medusa, ROTK, and Destination are hard maps for P against zerg". Nothing more to it.
Interesting how you mention heartbreak ridge, destination, and ROTK. Then completely ignore heartbreak ridge when giving stats because it doesnt fit your "theory" as well.
The maps recently have been hard for P against zerg. This is a direct result of the massive success P had previously, not suprisingly, due to the maps.
On September 25 2009 17:32 baubo wrote: I kind of wish progamer protosses would play something other than standard FE->Starport/Citadel->dts. It's predictability allows zergs to counter against it way too easily.
Personally, it's really frustrating to watch a PvZ as a protoss fan, because basically the zerg is the one that can do all the cute rushes and tricks for basically the first 10 minutes of the game. While the protoss has this one build that only works if everything the zerg tries fails.
many players are robots nowdays once p gets a decent ball going that can be very hard for z to stop in my experience
imho maps with a hard to establish third are maps where u should not give the zerg mapcontrol. once he is on 3 bases while u are on 2, he has the resources to make it incredibly hard for u to secure ur third. u give away map control in the early- to earlymidgame when going FE. over time, zergs have perfected exploiting this freedom the tosses give em.
imho the future of pvz lies in 1base timing attacks as part of the mix. its a metagame or lets rather say psychological thing: even if u do it only about every 5th game, the zerg fearing ur counterbuild to his 5hatch hydra will immediately make ur FE vs 5hatch hydra stronger because he has to waste more resources, time and focus on defending the possibility of the counterbuild or scouting it in time. that there is no working counter to 5 hatch hydra which zerg players would have to fear - to me this is the crucial point of the current shift of the pvz metagame in zergs favor.
I think it has more to do with Zerg player playing better than Protoss players at the moment. However, some maps are just too beneficial for the Zerg. Like having two entrances to the natural is just too painful for the Protoss. As long as the maps don't screw over the Protoss too much, I wouldn't complain that zvp is imbalanced.
On September 25 2009 18:07 QibingZero wrote: Here's what happened:
1. Nal_ra retired
2. Zergs studied Bisu to death
3. Zergs overall control muta/scourge better than in the past
4. 4gate/2archon seems to have lost it's luster
Now we have every protoss out there dying to hydra all-ins, or delaying psi storm way too long. They're also giving up air superiority on a whim, and cutting too many cannons. Maybe I'm wrong (as I haven't played protoss as my main race for quite some time), but PvZ isn't a matchup like ZvT where you have to survive on the bare minimum of defense in order to have the slight advantage in army size on the field. It's more like TvP where the terran moves to secure safe expansions with good defensive positions, and tries to win with a vastly superior army. Protoss has a difficult time doing anything to a maxed terran, just as zerg has trouble with a huge protoss ball of death. The problem in both situations for the 'underdog' of the matchup, is getting there.
Hell, zergs were complaining right before this that the protoss late-game army is unstoppable, due to other recent results (which I will not spoil here). It's just smart play, though. There's nothing wrong with playing turtle-ish protoss when the zerg is being aggressive. Psi storm is there for a reason.
What he said. I don't think that the matchup is TOO imbalanced, although I do think it is in slight favor of the zerg. I think it's mostly the recent trend of ZvP and PvZ build. The 3 hatch spire into 5 hatch hydra is just so versatile, and the Protoss FE build is just too predictable.
Dude stop crying Stork and Best just dropped the ball and Bisu got kicked out of the individuals.
That's like Effort and Calm (maybe fake Yellow somewhere?) all slumping and Jaedong getting kicked out of the MSL/OSL/ (+ one for GOM?)...and at the same time several protoss players rising up and kicking tail.
There are swings...Have you looked at the TvZ chart in the Jaedong/savior comparison?
What a lot of people seem to be missing is that in a game like starcraft, map and game balance are inextricably linked. Every game of starcraft requires the game itself (ie units, buildings, etc.) as well as a map to play on. Although I feel the game has a stronger impact on balance, it can never be talked about completely independent of maps.
Any imbalance can be solved by modifying either the game or the maps. Since the player community can't alter the game itself (and blizzard seems to have their hands full atm), if an imbalance exists the only solution lies in a slight change in map making philosophy.
What I notice about ZvP is its the matchup where you get the most upsets with no name zergs beating established protoss, while with other matchups even if someone isn't very good at say TvP they'll still beat the scrubs consistently.
I don't know why people point to Bisu as someone protosses should emulate, or as a sign that since he beats zergs, "all other protosses are just slumping". Bisu has the highest APM and the best multi-tasking ability of all protosses. Asking other tosses to emulate him is like asking zergs to emulate Jaedong. No one else has the mechanics, except maybe Jangbi. Free, Kal, Stork, Best all play pretty straight up focusing on direct confrontations rather than multi-pronged attacks. You think they don't want to harass? They simply don't have the mechanics.
On September 26 2009 08:40 ArvickHero wrote: What is there to innovate with? All I can think of are Dark Archons, and those are limited in success, Storm is oftentimes far more effective than Maelstrom. I do remember a game where Horang2 tries to go Maelstrom instead of Storm, and he just gets rolled over by 3 hatch Hydra due to no storms being available, when it would have if he researched storm instead. Arbiters are not cost-effective, they are slow, cost a lot, and are really easily killed especially in PvZ.
I don't think innovation requires new units. Just different BOs and twists. Jangbi destroyed Calm in the PL super-ace with a simple, simple disguised 3-gate +1 speedlot rush. Stork beat zergs several times on ROTK with simple 1-base build that did lots of damage early game. Movie beat Jaedong with a goon/reaver timing push. I think protosses just needs to use more of these so zergs aren't so comfortable macroing in the mid-game.
I think Protoss need someone like Anytime/Nal_ra/Garimto to innovate their tactics little bit more. They are after all the best race to one-base at. As Anytime said, Protoss these days are too into their mechanics and not timing. I like how Stork faced against July in Race War when he used Dark Archon to stop the Defiler to cast swarm, that was really smexy. Remember the days when Toss use to go +1 speedlot every game? Maybe they should continue doing that to counter 3 Hatch Muta into 5 Hatch Hydra. They have SO SO much spells that they can play around with. They need to use D-Web too, that spell is too overlook in PvZ, this way they can make sure Hydras don't shoot the Corsairs down.
The thing is PvZ has always been imbalanced this isn't news. Especially in the pro seen there aren't many protoss players who are consistent except Nal_rA was for a little bit and now Bisu. People have been complaining pvz is imbalanced for protoss for a long time. There were also people who complained pvz is imbalanced for zerg. I used to destroy zergs my rank 5 months ago. Now they have learned new builds and new counters and i get my ass handed to me. The game is always changing and i don't think many of us will think of a new good playstyle for protoss vs zerg. So it's up to the pros.
On September 26 2009 11:42 Xiphos wrote:Remember the days when Toss use to go +1 speedlot every game? Maybe they should continue doing that to counter 3 Hatch Muta into 5 Hatch Hydra.
That won't work. 5-hatch-hydra was designed to be able to account for +1 speedlot (it wouldn't be very universally applicable otherwise). If Zerg doesn't scout a Stargate, he can simply play 3-hatch muta, a la Savior, which counters +1 speedlots.
I'm somewhat amused how blithely people say 'oh all the Protoss players are slumping'. Statistically what are the odds? Did they make a pact to suck at the same time or is it more likely that the maps (God's Garden) are the issue? God's Garden just ticks all the boxes to make it difficult for PvZ - a difficult to take 3rd, an extremely vulnerable to drops 2nd with a cliff overlooking it as well as the positional advantage of being able to block the 3rd area and move units straight to position to drop the 2nd. The distance to possible Zerg expansions on the other side of the map. I'm worried that Acro will be more of the same. Silver Wing and Acro are likely to be very bad for P vs Z for similar reasons. Moon Glaive has 2 entrances to the nat... not going to be a good season for P, but of course it will just be a communal slump for P players.
I hate these kinds of threads. Comparing statistics doesn't mean anything. If you watch the games, there's no clear sign of imbalance one way or another, save perhaps ones related to the map itself.
I also love how people come in here talking about their experience at their low levels of play. Sorry guys, your opinion doesn't count in light of the better players out there. I'm a solid D and I know that for a fact. If P seems weaker than my Z, then it's because the P is a worse player than I am. If vice versa, it means the P is a better player than I am. It's NOT because there's any kind of imbalance in the game.
Quite frankly, I only think that Ps are behind mechanically to Zs. Zs have stepped up their micro and their timings. Everything Ps normally do are becoming less effective than they once were. They need to change something up. I don't know what that is, and we'll wait and see.
zvp zerg strats -hydra break -all-in 3 hatch ling -ling runby -5 hatch hydra lurk -muta to hydra -lurk drop -lurk & ling contain -and they can start off with 2 fast expos, deny scouting, and lock protoss in his base without a single scouting unit until the first sair if speedling.
pvz p strats -fe w/cannons -2 gate -1 gate -has to sit in base blind for forever, then has to try to take a third without losing either it or his army to zerg. if he does this, many games he finds a zerg has outexpoed him and outmacroed him, and now has hive tech.
protoss need an innovative build that either allows for more mobility and power early game, or a strat that allows them to have a fighting chance late game. but since they often have to throw 8 cannons down at their third and three in their nat, which the zerg often doesnt engage until hive tech, they are way behind.
On September 26 2009 12:51 Newguy wrote: Reason why zvp so easy
zvp zerg strats -hydra break -all-in 3 hatch ling -ling runby -5 hatch hydra lurk -muta to hydra -lurk drop -lurk & ling contain -and they can start off with 2 fast expos, deny scouting, and lock protoss in his base without a single scouting unit until the first sair if speedling.
pvz p strats -fe w/cannons -2 gate -1 gate -has to sit in base blind for forever, then has to try to take a third without losing either it or his army to zerg. if he does this, many games he finds a zerg has outexpoed him and outmacroed him, and now has hive tech.
protoss need an innovative build that either allows for more mobility and power early game, or a strat that allows them to have a fighting chance late game. but since they often have to throw 8 cannons down at their third and three in their nat, which the zerg often doesnt engage until hive tech, they are way behind.
Yeah.. The way I think of it is that Zerg have an advantage because they get to react to what the protoss do.. Or do some cheese (all in speedlings, 2hatch hydra bust so on) So protoss always have to scout to make sure they're staying honest.
On September 26 2009 12:51 Newguy wrote: Reason why zvp so easy
zvp zerg strats -hydra break -all-in 3 hatch ling -ling runby -5 hatch hydra lurk -muta to hydra -lurk drop -lurk & ling contain -and they can start off with 2 fast expos, deny scouting, and lock protoss in his base without a single scouting unit until the first sair if speedling.
pvz p strats -fe w/cannons -2 gate -1 gate -has to sit in base blind for forever, then has to try to take a third without losing either it or his army to zerg. if he does this, many games he finds a zerg has outexpoed him and outmacroed him, and now has hive tech.
protoss need an innovative build that either allows for more mobility and power early game, or a strat that allows them to have a fighting chance late game. but since they often have to throw 8 cannons down at their third and three in their nat, which the zerg often doesnt engage until hive tech, they are way behind.
Yeah.. The way I think of it is that Zerg have an advantage because they get to react to what the protoss do.. Or do some cheese (all in speedlings, 2hatch hydra bust so on) So protoss always have to scout to make sure they're staying honest.
On September 26 2009 11:42 Xiphos wrote: I think Protoss need someone like Anytime/Nal_ra/Garimto to innovate their tactics little bit more. They are after all the best race to one-base at. As Anytime said, Protoss these days are too into their mechanics and not timing. I like how Stork faced against July in Race War when he used Dark Archon to stop the Defiler to cast swarm, that was really smexy. Remember the days when Toss use to go +1 speedlot every game? Maybe they should continue doing that to counter 3 Hatch Muta into 5 Hatch Hydra. They have SO SO much spells that they can play around with. They need to use D-Web too, that spell is too overlook in PvZ, this way they can make sure Hydras don't shoot the Corsairs down.
Do you really think that toss will have the resource to build a Fleet Beacon, research D-Web, build up a sair fleet, and keep it alive long enough for them to be cost-effective? Not to mention, a good majority of the Protoss army is melee so D-Web can very easily be used against them. Protoss are running very tight on resources to keep up with Zergs, things need to be very cost-effective, otherwise its not worth pursuing.
On September 26 2009 07:47 l10f wrote: 1. Storm = most powerful spell/attack in the game after nuke. 2. Reaver = most powerful ground attack after infested terrans. 3. HT->Archons = most effective unit in the game because you can STORM (see point 1) and then make imba archons that can kill 200 lings after the storms already killed 100.
Alright you guys caught us. ZvP is super fucking imba. ZvP is literally the easiest thing in the world. It's so easy that we Zergs will purposefully lose a lot of the games (approximately 50%) so as to not arouse the ignorant protoss. Every progame where a Protoss beat a Zerg was thrown away by the Zerg. We actually had to collectively pay savior 5 million dollars to lose to bisu in the MSL because protoss were starting to catch on. we even paid bisu a million dollars to do some stupid fucking build instead of normal dumb shit so that all the protoss players would think THAT was why and not suspect that savior threw it away.
On September 26 2009 12:51 Newguy wrote: Reason why zvp so easy
zvp zerg strats -hydra break -all-in 3 hatch ling -ling runby -5 hatch hydra lurk -muta to hydra -lurk drop -lurk & ling contain -and they can start off with 2 fast expos, deny scouting, and lock protoss in his base without a single scouting unit until the first sair if speedling.
pvz p strats -fe w/cannons -2 gate -1 gate -has to sit in base blind for forever, then has to try to take a third without losing either it or his army to zerg. if he does this, many games he finds a zerg has outexpoed him and outmacroed him, and now has hive tech.
what you are listing is opening BOs, let me write it down the correct way for you: ZvP Zerg OPENING BO 9pool overpool 12hatch
PvZ Protoss (again) OPENING BO FE 2gate 1gate
your basic argument is flawed. sure zerg can allin (which is like 99% of the builds you've listed) but so can the protoss. after a standard opening protoss can go +1 zealot/archon, sair/reaver, sair/dt etc. etc. WHILE having units that's great at harassing! (dt drop didnt work? how about a HT-drop at zergs 3rd or just run your speedlots by some sunks and take out all his drones that way).
On September 26 2009 15:26 Julmust wrote: your basic argument is flawed. sure zerg can allin (which is like 99% of the builds you've listed) but so can the protoss. after a standard opening protoss can go +1 zealot/archon, sair/reaver, sair/dt etc. etc. WHILE having units that's great at harassing! (dt drop didnt work? how about a HT-drop at zergs 3rd or just run your speedlots by some sunks and take out all his drones that way).
Surely you're not comparing the number of stuff a zerg can do in ZvP vs what the protoss can do in PvZ.
Assuming FE, the earliest the protoss can attack is either when sair/reaver is done, or when speedlots/archons are done. The number of things zergs can do before this occurs.
1, 2, or 3 hatch speedlings + variations(squeeze them through minerals, back entrances, etc.) May have various timings too. 2 or 3-hatch hydra (this isn't even all-in because the protoss may guess wrong and put up too many cannons, in which case zerg isn't even behind) Can also be easily followed up with drop tech. 2 or 3 hatch muta 2 or 3 hatch lurker Drops of all kind, mainly lurkers macro hard up to 4 bases, in which case zerg can just win through sheer numbers.
FE relies so heavily on static defense for much of the early game that zergs easily have by far more options when it comes to attack.
On September 26 2009 15:26 Julmust wrote: your basic argument is flawed. sure zerg can allin (which is like 99% of the builds you've listed) but so can the protoss. after a standard opening protoss can go +1 zealot/archon, sair/reaver, sair/dt etc. etc. WHILE having units that's great at harassing! (dt drop didnt work? how about a HT-drop at zergs 3rd or just run your speedlots by some sunks and take out all his drones that way).
Surely you're not comparing the number of stuff a zerg can do in ZvP vs what the protoss can do in PvZ.
Assuming FE, the earliest the protoss can attack is either when sair/reaver is done, or when speedlots/archons are done. The number of things zergs can do before this occurs.
1, 2, or 3 hatch speedlings + variations(squeeze them through minerals, back entrances, etc.) May have various timings too. 2 or 3-hatch hydra (this isn't even all-in because the protoss may guess wrong and put up too many cannons, in which case zerg isn't even behind) Can also be easily followed up with drop tech. 2 or 3 hatch muta 2 or 3 hatch lurker Drops of all kind, mainly lurkers macro hard up to 4 bases, in which case zerg can just win through sheer numbers.
FE relies so heavily on static defense for much of the early game that zergs easily have by far more options when it comes to attack.
That's why people are suggesting 1/2 gate play more, so they don't just play static until the 10 minute mark or whatever. It's not like no protoss ever won with 1/2 gate, PvZ was stll 46% or so before Bisu vs sAviOr.
On September 26 2009 15:26 Julmust wrote: your basic argument is flawed. sure zerg can allin (which is like 99% of the builds you've listed) but so can the protoss. after a standard opening protoss can go +1 zealot/archon, sair/reaver, sair/dt etc. etc. WHILE having units that's great at harassing! (dt drop didnt work? how about a HT-drop at zergs 3rd or just run your speedlots by some sunks and take out all his drones that way).
Surely you're not comparing the number of stuff a zerg can do in ZvP vs what the protoss can do in PvZ.
Assuming FE, the earliest the protoss can attack is either when sair/reaver is done, or when speedlots/archons are done. The number of things zergs can do before this occurs.
1, 2, or 3 hatch speedlings + variations(squeeze them through minerals, back entrances, etc.) May have various timings too. 2 or 3-hatch hydra (this isn't even all-in because the protoss may guess wrong and put up too many cannons, in which case zerg isn't even behind) Can also be easily followed up with drop tech. 2 or 3 hatch muta 2 or 3 hatch lurker Drops of all kind, mainly lurkers macro hard up to 4 bases, in which case zerg can just win through sheer numbers.
FE relies so heavily on static defense for much of the early game that zergs easily have by far more options when it comes to attack.
That's why people are suggesting 1/2 gate play more, so they don't just play static until the 10 minute mark or whatever. It's not like no protoss ever won with 1/2 gate, PvZ was stll 46% or so before Bisu vs sAviOr.
But pro gamers know how to adapt at a much higher level then they have before, they will run over any toss who 1/2 gates.
On September 26 2009 15:26 Julmust wrote: your basic argument is flawed. sure zerg can allin (which is like 99% of the builds you've listed) but so can the protoss. after a standard opening protoss can go +1 zealot/archon, sair/reaver, sair/dt etc. etc. WHILE having units that's great at harassing! (dt drop didnt work? how about a HT-drop at zergs 3rd or just run your speedlots by some sunks and take out all his drones that way).
Surely you're not comparing the number of stuff a zerg can do in ZvP vs what the protoss can do in PvZ.
Assuming FE, the earliest the protoss can attack is either when sair/reaver is done, or when speedlots/archons are done. The number of things zergs can do before this occurs.
1, 2, or 3 hatch speedlings + variations(squeeze them through minerals, back entrances, etc.) May have various timings too. 2 or 3-hatch hydra (this isn't even all-in because the protoss may guess wrong and put up too many cannons, in which case zerg isn't even behind) Can also be easily followed up with drop tech. 2 or 3 hatch muta 2 or 3 hatch lurker Drops of all kind, mainly lurkers macro hard up to 4 bases, in which case zerg can just win through sheer numbers.
FE relies so heavily on static defense for much of the early game that zergs easily have by far more options when it comes to attack.
That's why people are suggesting 1/2 gate play more, so they don't just play static until the 10 minute mark or whatever. It's not like no protoss ever won with 1/2 gate, PvZ was stll 46% or so before Bisu vs sAviOr.
46% over how many games? Assuming the sample space is large, having only a 46% win rate is pretty bad.
On September 26 2009 15:26 Julmust wrote: your basic argument is flawed. sure zerg can allin (which is like 99% of the builds you've listed) but so can the protoss. after a standard opening protoss can go +1 zealot/archon, sair/reaver, sair/dt etc. etc. WHILE having units that's great at harassing! (dt drop didnt work? how about a HT-drop at zergs 3rd or just run your speedlots by some sunks and take out all his drones that way).
Surely you're not comparing the number of stuff a zerg can do in ZvP vs what the protoss can do in PvZ.
Assuming FE, the earliest the protoss can attack is either when sair/reaver is done, or when speedlots/archons are done. The number of things zergs can do before this occurs.
1, 2, or 3 hatch speedlings + variations(squeeze them through minerals, back entrances, etc.) May have various timings too. 2 or 3-hatch hydra (this isn't even all-in because the protoss may guess wrong and put up too many cannons, in which case zerg isn't even behind) Can also be easily followed up with drop tech. 2 or 3 hatch muta 2 or 3 hatch lurker Drops of all kind, mainly lurkers macro hard up to 4 bases, in which case zerg can just win through sheer numbers.
FE relies so heavily on static defense for much of the early game that zergs easily have by far more options when it comes to attack.
That's why people are suggesting 1/2 gate play more, so they don't just play static until the 10 minute mark or whatever. It's not like no protoss ever won with 1/2 gate, PvZ was stll 46% or so before Bisu vs sAviOr.
46% over how many games? Assuming the sample space is large, having only a 46% win rate is pretty bad.
46% is better than 0%?
edit: and that was when protoss only went 1/2 gate. If a protoss went 1/2 gate on a 4 player map or 3 player map where zerg might not scout first, it can strike them as surprised.
It's not like 1/2 gate completely sucks, it is just hard to execute, but it's not like zerg instantly wins over it -_-.
On September 26 2009 15:26 Julmust wrote: your basic argument is flawed. sure zerg can allin (which is like 99% of the builds you've listed) but so can the protoss. after a standard opening protoss can go +1 zealot/archon, sair/reaver, sair/dt etc. etc. WHILE having units that's great at harassing! (dt drop didnt work? how about a HT-drop at zergs 3rd or just run your speedlots by some sunks and take out all his drones that way).
Surely you're not comparing the number of stuff a zerg can do in ZvP vs what the protoss can do in PvZ.
Assuming FE, the earliest the protoss can attack is either when sair/reaver is done, or when speedlots/archons are done. The number of things zergs can do before this occurs.
1, 2, or 3 hatch speedlings + variations(squeeze them through minerals, back entrances, etc.) May have various timings too. 2 or 3-hatch hydra (this isn't even all-in because the protoss may guess wrong and put up too many cannons, in which case zerg isn't even behind) Can also be easily followed up with drop tech. 2 or 3 hatch muta 2 or 3 hatch lurker Drops of all kind, mainly lurkers macro hard up to 4 bases, in which case zerg can just win through sheer numbers.
FE relies so heavily on static defense for much of the early game that zergs easily have by far more options when it comes to attack.
That's why people are suggesting 1/2 gate play more, so they don't just play static until the 10 minute mark or whatever. It's not like no protoss ever won with 1/2 gate, PvZ was stll 46% or so before Bisu vs sAviOr.
But pro gamers know how to adapt at a much higher level then they have before, they will run over any toss who 1/2 gates.
On the pro level, if the zerg is smart enough to know how to handle 1-gate or 2-gate, they usually will get an advantage. Slowlots and dragoons just aren't a match for early game zerg army, assuming the zerg sees it coming. Plus, zergling backstabs are impossible to handle without cannons.
On September 26 2009 15:26 Julmust wrote: your basic argument is flawed. sure zerg can allin (which is like 99% of the builds you've listed) but so can the protoss. after a standard opening protoss can go +1 zealot/archon, sair/reaver, sair/dt etc. etc. WHILE having units that's great at harassing! (dt drop didnt work? how about a HT-drop at zergs 3rd or just run your speedlots by some sunks and take out all his drones that way).
Surely you're not comparing the number of stuff a zerg can do in ZvP vs what the protoss can do in PvZ.
Assuming FE, the earliest the protoss can attack is either when sair/reaver is done, or when speedlots/archons are done. The number of things zergs can do before this occurs.
1, 2, or 3 hatch speedlings + variations(squeeze them through minerals, back entrances, etc.) May have various timings too. 2 or 3-hatch hydra (this isn't even all-in because the protoss may guess wrong and put up too many cannons, in which case zerg isn't even behind) Can also be easily followed up with drop tech. 2 or 3 hatch muta 2 or 3 hatch lurker Drops of all kind, mainly lurkers macro hard up to 4 bases, in which case zerg can just win through sheer numbers.
FE relies so heavily on static defense for much of the early game that zergs easily have by far more options when it comes to attack.
That's why people are suggesting 1/2 gate play more, so they don't just play static until the 10 minute mark or whatever. It's not like no protoss ever won with 1/2 gate, PvZ was stll 46% or so before Bisu vs sAviOr.
46% over how many games? Assuming the sample space is large, having only a 46% win rate is pretty bad.
46% is better than 0%?
edit: and that was when protoss only went 1/2 gate. If a protoss went 1/2 gate on a 4 player map or 3 player map where zerg might not scout first, it can strike them as surprised.
It's not like 1/2 gate completely sucks, it is just hard to execute, but it's not like zerg instantly wins over it -_-.
Oh really, I guess as long as Protoss doesn't have a 0% win rate vs Zerg, its acceptable.
1base builds are similar to different zerg builds that can catch a Protoss off guard/screw them. However, the big difference here is that Zerg has overlords, which help them scout what sort of 1base build the Protoss is doing rather easy.
I think the problem with PvZ right now is a combination of Protoss players sucking, and maps. Maps with 2 entrances to your base, or wide chokes, seem like they are designed pretty much just to make FEing Protosses more vulnerable, thus making the matchup alot harder.
On September 26 2009 16:55 Camlito wrote: Fair enough, i just want to see 1/2 gate openings .
So do I. But it will probably require renovation before it can be a BO one can use on a regular basis. Unfortunately, I don't see anyone do it. Stork is probably the most innovative protoss today, but between anime, WOW, and constant bitching about how PvZ is impossible these days, he's probably not spending a lot of time brainstorming. :p
I tend to think the future is in more flexible drop play. Sair/Reaver is cool, but if the only unit you're carting around is reavers, it's extremely predictable, and you can almost never split the reavers up from the shuttles - you're not really using drops, you're just using the Protoss Shuttlereaver. However, if you're carting around a few reavers, and a few speedlots or DTs that you can separate from your shuttles, you have lots of options. (Elevators are also way underused. You can frequently run speedlots to a cliff and jump them over to the opponent's base.)
That, or micro-intensive openings. Overuse of static defense strikes me as a cowardly way to avoid zealot + probe vs. ling.
Listen, for years I hated terran cus zerg and protoss couldn't stand up to them. terran attacks are the easiest to understand cus it's just A move in, the more complex controls are mostly during the dodging and retreating. That's ranged attack for you. and they have the longest range out of the 3 so they could just sit there and be both defensive AND offensive. It pissed me off.
Then came zerg heroes like July and his muta microing/flanking, savior for his reinforcement cutoff and defensive zerg, Jaedong and his aggressive management style, insane microing of 2 groups of muta (to this date nobody else is any good at it yet), so on.
For TvP there was Reach, Kingdom, Nal_rA with zealot bomb and precision dragoon micro, free's ob-less mine defuse, Stork/Jangbi for their incredible knack of creating openings where there were no openings. Fill in any others.
For PvZ the heroes were Nal_rA for his corsair reaver combo into air domination composition, Bisu for his FE into corsair dt, kal (I think) for the 4gate +1speedlots 2archon timing attack, etc. Eventually zerg fought back with July's mastery of corsair scourging, Jaedong's use of burrow for shuttle snipe, muta for templar sniping, etc. etc.
Point is every time the talk of imbalance sounds off it's really a call for new heroes to arise and innovate. The margin for PvZ is thin, no one is denying that. It's comparable to the salad and appetizer days of ZvT when 1 false move means gg game over. But look where that's at now. All these innovations are just overlooked details in the earlier days.
I agree with the poster who mentioned Movie's very cool game vs. Jaedong. A dragoon rush? Dragoons have very solid hp relative to the damage lings and hydralisks can put out in the earlly game, giving them a nice durability. Sure they may not be completely cost effective, but if you can out-micro in the critical early game, sometimes a technically non cost effective unit can be strategically effective.
On September 26 2009 22:33 monolith94 wrote: I agree with the poster who mentioned Movie's very cool game vs. Jaedong. A dragoon rush? Dragoons have very solid hp relative to the damage lings and hydralisks can put out in the earlly game, giving them a nice durability. Sure they may not be completely cost effective, but if you can out-micro in the critical early game, sometimes a technically non cost effective unit can be strategically effective.
the only reason that worked is cus nobody's used it in ages, the possibility didn't enter jaedong's mind so he never upgraded ling speed
as soon as it gets used more it becomes obsolete, cus it's too damn easy to scout and counter
This is an awkward suggestion, but maybe Protoss' should stop FEing everygame. Yes the economic advantage is really good early/mid game but what about Stork vs Jaedong in WCG Korea Finals. He 1 gated and won? I mean its so predictable for protoss to FE. Atleast in PvT you only sometimes see FE, but Protoss is becoming too predictable with the Forge > cannon > nexus opening. Also, Protoss players are sticking to Sair/Dark Templar 90% of the time, and the only players I have ever seen use Sair/Reaver recently is Stork and Bisu. ID love to see more players try going just sair/zealot/templar, or something of a lower level. It will throw some zerg players off. OR maybe even stop using the Corsair. Atleast do something other than forge > cannon > nexus > sair/dt...
On September 27 2009 00:21 Sharp-eYe wrote: This is an awkward suggestion, but maybe Protoss' should stop FEing everygame. Yes the economic advantage is really good early/mid game but what about Stork vs Jaedong in WCG Korea Finals. He 1 gated and won? I mean its so predictable for protoss to FE. Atleast in PvT you only sometimes see FE, but Protoss is becoming too predictable with the Forge > cannon > nexus opening. Also, Protoss players are sticking to Sair/Dark Templar 90% of the time, and the only players I have ever seen use Sair/Reaver recently is Stork and Bisu. ID love to see more players try going just sair/zealot/templar, or something of a lower level. It will throw some zerg players off. OR maybe even stop using the Corsair. Atleast do something other than forge > cannon > nexus > sair/dt...
look, everybody knows one gate can be a nice variation in a series or every once in a while. it can work if you execute correctly. but the point is it can never be a reliable, standard pvz opening. it depends heavily on the map, too.
On September 27 2009 00:21 Sharp-eYe wrote: This is an awkward suggestion, but maybe Protoss' should stop FEing everygame. Yes the economic advantage is really good early/mid game but what about Stork vs Jaedong in WCG Korea Finals. He 1 gated and won? I mean its so predictable for protoss to FE. Atleast in PvT you only sometimes see FE, but Protoss is becoming too predictable with the Forge > cannon > nexus opening. Also, Protoss players are sticking to Sair/Dark Templar 90% of the time, and the only players I have ever seen use Sair/Reaver recently is Stork and Bisu. ID love to see more players try going just sair/zealot/templar, or something of a lower level. It will throw some zerg players off. OR maybe even stop using the Corsair. Atleast do something other than forge > cannon > nexus > sair/dt...
It also depends on early game scouting/guessing. I think that it's pretty ok to assume that P is going to FE (from Z perspective). This is where some solution can be found to break the scheme, but it depends on what Z is going to do about (presumed) P FE. Is he going to try an early run-by with lings? Or is he going to expand twice himself, which is most common? I believe that most Z's play with an attitude set towards P FE'ing. I wonder what would happen if he didn't... I remember that back in the days, when Z started to open every single game with expansion one P (was it Jangbi?) owned top Z player by going 2-3 gate zealot early on and obliterating him, thus reminding all Zerg players that FE is a privilage, not something you have for granted (as one of the wise people here on TL.net said it).
On September 26 2009 22:33 monolith94 wrote: I agree with the poster who mentioned Movie's very cool game vs. Jaedong. A dragoon rush? Dragoons have very solid hp relative to the damage lings and hydralisks can put out in the earlly game, giving them a nice durability. Sure they may not be completely cost effective, but if you can out-micro in the critical early game, sometimes a technically non cost effective unit can be strategically effective.
the only reason that worked is cus nobody's used it in ages, the possibility didn't enter jaedong's mind so he never upgraded ling speed
as soon as it gets used more it becomes obsolete, cus it's too damn easy to scout and counter
At least it would give zerg players more to think about. They also might have to spend money just to be prepared or to actually scout it. And it also allows you to fake that rush if it was used more often.
Hey protoss players - let mi remind you of one thing. There was one very successful protoss progamer who used to post at this site. He was from Australia.
What was the main source of his sucess both PvT and PvZ? HT/reaver drops on workers!
If you FE and just go pure ht/zealot, you will max with about 10 hts at around 11 minutes. At 11 minutes for a standard zerg, they'd be at about 130 pop.
On September 26 2009 22:33 monolith94 wrote: I agree with the poster who mentioned Movie's very cool game vs. Jaedong. A dragoon rush? Dragoons have very solid hp relative to the damage lings and hydralisks can put out in the earlly game, giving them a nice durability. Sure they may not be completely cost effective, but if you can out-micro in the critical early game, sometimes a technically non cost effective unit can be strategically effective.
the only reason that worked is cus nobody's used it in ages, the possibility didn't enter jaedong's mind so he never upgraded ling speed
as soon as it gets used more it becomes obsolete, cus it's too damn easy to scout and counter
At least it would give zerg players more to think about. They also might have to spend money just to be prepared or to actually scout it. And it also allows you to fake that rush if it was used more often.
it's just not viable if it starts to be used more than once every ten games or whatever. too easy to scout, too easy to counter. not effective.
On September 26 2009 14:28 Ideas wrote: Alright you guys caught us. ZvP is super fucking imba. ZvP is literally the easiest thing in the world. It's so easy that we Zergs will purposefully lose a lot of the games (approximately 50%) so as to not arouse the ignorant protoss. Every progame where a Protoss beat a Zerg was thrown away by the Zerg. We actually had to collectively pay savior 5 million dollars to lose to bisu in the MSL because protoss were starting to catch on. we even paid bisu a million dollars to do some stupid fucking build instead of normal dumb shit so that all the protoss players would think THAT was why and not suspect that savior threw it away.
I CANT LIVE THIS LIE ANY MORE
NOOO WTF ARE YOU DOING?!
Great, now all ez protoss are gonna quit.
In all seriousness, this thread has become pure comedy.
On September 27 2009 02:38 closed wrote: Hey protoss players - let mi remind you of one thing. There was one very successful protoss progamer who used to post at this site. He was from Australia.
What was the main source of his sucess both PvT and PvZ? HT/reaver drops on workers!
Yeah, I rarely see worker raids by the protoss anymore. No pressure whatsoever on the zerg. Never forces them to multitask.
On September 26 2009 22:33 monolith94 wrote: I agree with the poster who mentioned Movie's very cool game vs. Jaedong. A dragoon rush? Dragoons have very solid hp relative to the damage lings and hydralisks can put out in the earlly game, giving them a nice durability. Sure they may not be completely cost effective, but if you can out-micro in the critical early game, sometimes a technically non cost effective unit can be strategically effective.
the only reason that worked is cus nobody's used it in ages, the possibility didn't enter jaedong's mind so he never upgraded ling speed
as soon as it gets used more it becomes obsolete, cus it's too damn easy to scout and counter
At least it would give zerg players more to think about. They also might have to spend money just to be prepared or to actually scout it. And it also allows you to fake that rush if it was used more often.
it's just not viable if it starts to be used more than once every ten games or whatever. too easy to scout, too easy to counter. not effective.
I wouldn't trash the concept that easily. Of course the build might require refinement, army composition / unit control might need adjustments, some tricks might have to be applied. I wouldn't be surprised if a decent all-in could be evolved from that. Protosses need some variations in their play, or else they WILL lose.
On September 27 2009 02:44 dhe95 wrote: If you FE and just go pure ht/zealot, you will max with about 10 hts at around 11 minutes. At 11 minutes for a standard zerg, they'd be at about 130 pop.
Then mutalisk come and rape you for making no anti air and lurkers rape you behind contain and you realiz your maxed out zealot/ht combo is complete shit. Then you rage and come to TL.
On September 26 2009 22:33 monolith94 wrote: I agree with the poster who mentioned Movie's very cool game vs. Jaedong. A dragoon rush? Dragoons have very solid hp relative to the damage lings and hydralisks can put out in the earlly game, giving them a nice durability. Sure they may not be completely cost effective, but if you can out-micro in the critical early game, sometimes a technically non cost effective unit can be strategically effective.
the only reason that worked is cus nobody's used it in ages, the possibility didn't enter jaedong's mind so he never upgraded ling speed
as soon as it gets used more it becomes obsolete, cus it's too damn easy to scout and counter
At least it would give zerg players more to think about. They also might have to spend money just to be prepared or to actually scout it. And it also allows you to fake that rush if it was used more often.
it's just not viable if it starts to be used more than once every ten games or whatever. too easy to scout, too easy to counter. not effective.
I wouldn't trash the concept that easily. Of course the build might require refinement, army composition / unit control might need adjustments, some tricks might have to be applied. I wouldn't be surprised if a decent all-in could be evolved from that. Protosses need some variations in their play, or else they WILL lose.
Overlords.
Zerg all-ins have a better success rate, due to denying the Protoss scout. Overlords can fly. You can't get rid of an overlord until you have a Dragoon, and by that time the zerg sees that you went 1gate, and won't spread himself too thin.
On September 27 2009 02:38 closed wrote: Hey protoss players - let mi remind you of one thing. There was one very successful protoss progamer who used to post at this site. He was from Australia.
What was the main source of his sucess both PvT and PvZ? HT/reaver drops on workers!
Yeah, I rarely see worker raids by the protoss anymore. No pressure whatsoever on the zerg. Never forces them to multitask.
True. Storm drops have gone out of style or something. However, I think this is primarily because the focus has shifted from late game ZvP to midgame ZvP.
When late game ZvP does happen though, it has become much more action packed. What's happened is that Protoss generally needs all of their templar for either Archons or to defend expansions, and they don't have any to send out to storm drop.
Another problem is that a lot of maps nowadays aren't conducive to storm drops. If you think about Desti and HBR, the mains are big enough such that a storm drop can be seen coming from a mile away. Compare this to Python where the mineral line is much closer to the cliff, and the natural borders unbuildable area. Outsider is an obvious exception, but you've seen storm drops (or natural denial) more often on that map.
I believe in the pro-scene that not only the predictability of protoss builds but also the inability to harass early game for toss because of the ease of sunkening up... So the zerg ability to transition extremely fast makes it very difficult for toss to respond. For instance, the zerg player doen't see a starport going up, makes mutas and does damage and mantains map control for a while against the toss. On the other hand, the zerg player sees a starport and has a overlord attacked by a corsair, he switches to 4 hatch hydra instead, making the toss's investment in a starport pretty useless.
Sickest and PvZ i´ve seen in a while, also very innovative: Shauni vs iNcontrol. The game is amazing i recommend it: GeT.Shauni (tasukete) vs EG.iNcontrol
I´d love to see more builds like that being used at pro lvl. = )
On September 27 2009 12:52 Traveler wrote: I believe in the pro-scene that not only the predictability of protoss builds but also the inability to harass early game for toss because of the ease of sunkening up... So the zerg ability to transition extremely fast makes it very difficult for toss to respond. For instance, the zerg player doen't see a starport going up, makes mutas and does damage and mantains map control for a while against the toss. On the other hand, the zerg player sees a starport and has a overlord attacked by a corsair, he switches to 4 hatch hydra instead, making the toss's investment in a starport pretty useless.
That's not really a proper example. If Protoss doesn't get a Stargate, then Protoss would have to be going for a +1 speedlot rush, which means that Zerg needs to keep his Mutalisks at home to fend the Speedlots off unless he wants to lose all of his Drones. If Zerg sees a Starport, then you'd need a spire for Scourge anyway unless you want to reduce your Hydralisk army by 6 to defend your Overlords.
Part of the problem with Protoss economy harass is that over the years T and Z pro players have gotten too good at microing their workers away from both storms and scarabs, so P harass has been getting less and less effectual over time. Meanwhile, muta control has only gotten better and better.
On September 27 2009 15:06 gravity wrote: Part of the problem with Protoss economy harass is that over the years T and Z pro players have gotten too good at microing their workers away from both storms and scarabs, so P harass has been getting less and less effectual over time. Meanwhile, muta control has only gotten better and better.
lol I just read this in my Zerg bias as "protoss players havent gotten any better over the years while Zerg have just gotten better and better."
On September 27 2009 12:52 Traveler wrote: I believe in the pro-scene that not only the predictability of protoss builds but also the inability to harass early game for toss because of the ease of sunkening up... So the zerg ability to transition extremely fast makes it very difficult for toss to respond. For instance, the zerg player doen't see a starport going up, makes mutas and does damage and mantains map control for a while against the toss. On the other hand, the zerg player sees a starport and has a overlord attacked by a corsair, he switches to 4 hatch hydra instead, making the toss's investment in a starport pretty useless.
That's not really a proper example. If Protoss doesn't get a Stargate, then Protoss would have to be going for a +1 speedlot rush, which means that Zerg needs to keep his Mutalisks at home to fend the Speedlots off unless he wants to lose all of his Drones. If Zerg sees a Starport, then you'd need a spire for Scourge anyway unless you want to reduce your Hydralisk army by 6 to defend your Overlords.
I'm not convinced +1 speedlot is the only option. Skipping stargate puts Protoss at risk of aggressive mutalisk play (or 3hatch hydra, because it's harder to scout it) but it strengthens any early push.
On September 27 2009 15:06 gravity wrote: Part of the problem with Protoss economy harass is that over the years T and Z pro players have gotten too good at microing their workers away from both storms and scarabs, so P harass has been getting less and less effectual over time. Meanwhile, muta control has only gotten better and better.
lol I just read this in my Zerg bias as "protoss players havent gotten any better over the years while Zerg have just gotten better and better."
Come to think of it, maybe Protoss should start dropping one worker-killer near the maynard-escape route when they raid a mineral patch. Also, instead of shooting at workers, the Protoss might consider bringing a speedlot to shoot a scarab at, and run it into position. (This puts scarab AI in the Protoss's control, instead of his opponent's control, and depending how much freedom you have with your shuttles, the unit could even be picked back up.)
The problem with storm drops in PvZ in general is that it's way too gas intensive. You need corsair numbers, speed shuttle, templar tech, all while trying to have enough gas units to fight the zerg army straight up. Not to metion obs if the zerg goes lurkers.
If only scarabs didn't have the most retarded AI in existence...
On September 27 2009 16:12 baubo wrote: The problem with storm drops in PvZ in general is that it's way too gas intensive. You need corsair numbers, speed shuttle, templar tech, all while trying to have enough gas units to fight the zerg army straight up. Not to metion obs if the zerg goes lurkers.
If only scarabs didn't have the most retarded AI in existence...
Everything has problems. Protoss used to worker drop. Now they don't.
On September 27 2009 12:52 Traveler wrote: I believe in the pro-scene that not only the predictability of protoss builds but also the inability to harass early game for toss because of the ease of sunkening up... So the zerg ability to transition extremely fast makes it very difficult for toss to respond. For instance, the zerg player doen't see a starport going up, makes mutas and does damage and mantains map control for a while against the toss. On the other hand, the zerg player sees a starport and has a overlord attacked by a corsair, he switches to 4 hatch hydra instead, making the toss's investment in a starport pretty useless.
That's not really a proper example. If Protoss doesn't get a Stargate, then Protoss would have to be going for a +1 speedlot rush, which means that Zerg needs to keep his Mutalisks at home to fend the Speedlots off unless he wants to lose all of his Drones. If Zerg sees a Starport, then you'd need a spire for Scourge anyway unless you want to reduce your Hydralisk army by 6 to defend your Overlords.
I'm not convinced +1 speedlot is the only option. Skipping stargate puts Protoss at risk of aggressive mutalisk play (or 3hatch hydra, because it's harder to scout it) but it strengthens any early push.
What else are you going to do that puts the initiative on the Zerg? If you don't attack the Zerg with something before Mutalisks are out, then you're pretty much stuck in your base trying to fend off Mutalisks. Although I guess 4 Gate Zealot 2 Archon might work. Just anything that pushes out fast enough to force the Zerg to stay at home with his Mutas rather than harass.
On September 27 2009 15:06 gravity wrote: Part of the problem with Protoss economy harass is that over the years T and Z pro players have gotten too good at microing their workers away from both storms and scarabs, so P harass has been getting less and less effectual over time. Meanwhile, muta control has only gotten better and better.
lol I just read this in my Zerg bias as "protoss players havent gotten any better over the years while Zerg have just gotten better and better."
Come to think of it, maybe Protoss should start dropping one worker-killer near the maynard-escape route when they raid a mineral patch. Also, instead of shooting at workers, the Protoss might consider bringing a speedlot to shoot a scarab at, and run it into position. (This puts scarab AI in the Protoss's control, instead of his opponent's control, and depending how much freedom you have with your shuttles, the unit could even be picked back up.)
Yeah that would be a good idea. It's just that many times that would place the shuttle at risk of detection from either camped units or the unit might just get hit by static defense. It also might alert the enemy earlier to your plan. And bringing a speedlot with the reaver requires too much micro. In fact, there's still the chance that the scarab can become a dud if it gets stuck in the workers while chasing your speedlot.
On September 27 2009 16:12 baubo wrote: The problem with storm drops in PvZ in general is that it's way too gas intensive. You need corsair numbers, speed shuttle, templar tech, all while trying to have enough gas units to fight the zerg army straight up. Not to metion obs if the zerg goes lurkers.
If only scarabs didn't have the most retarded AI in existence...
You only need 2 templar per shuttle to get the most bang for your buck. Why do you need corsairs? Economic harassment is not a midgame tactic. It should primarily be done in the late game since you definitely shouldn't have the units to do it midgame.
Zerg all-ins have a better success rate, due to denying the Protoss scout. Overlords can fly. You can't get rid of an overlord until you have a Dragoon, and by that time the zerg sees that you went 1gate, and won't spread himself too thin.
This. I have had a great success with all-in builds (smth like 16-3) this season @ Iccup. If you see toss going FE and bad simcity -> all-in -> EZ win. Why not end the game fast if you see and opportunity? I've used build that I find most succesfull to adapt in every situation depending on what my opponent does, and prevent scouting. Also I don't consider myself as a good player, by that i mean i'm not mechanically good enough to play competitively in mid- or late-game.
That's why I have to use my strategic sight early game and I find it best to do with Z. vs P it's pretty easy early game IMO.
On September 25 2009 17:12 motbob wrote: ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level. It's remarkable how that fact has sort of snuck up on us over the past few months, but it's absolutely true.
On September 25 2009 17:12 motbob wrote: Destination used to be balanced ZvP (56-54 before Mar 1 2009). Now it is not (61-44 after).
On September 25 2009 17:12 motbob wrote: Why is this matchup suddenly so drastically imbalanced?
First of all I don't know where you are getting your stats from, according to TLPD;
Destination is 53-52 ZvP overall
Stats from when it was first played until 2009-03-01: 32-32
From 3/1 until now: 23-20
Heartbreak is 22-19 overall for ZvP
RTOK is is 8-11 ZvP
Stats aside, assuming there really has been a 7% shift after 3/1/09, I have absolutely no idea why you would describe it as "imbalance." You don't think there has been similar trends in the past over similar sample sizes with different matchups in 10 years of progaming? Wouldn't it be infinitely more reasonable to attribute a shift as small as this to something like, new build orders or change in skill level of players? When you can find some real trends that can support your claim for imbalance, not this pussy 7% shit you're putting up right now from an unknown sample then you can speak the word "imbalance." And I really hope that goes for everyone who actually takes this issue seriously.
imo kespa making tons of map with a protected 3rd gas which is really lame since thats all a zerg needs while a protoss dosent need the base as bad until later on
On September 25 2009 17:12 motbob wrote: ZvP is seriously imbalanced at the pro and semi-pro level. It's remarkable how that fact has sort of snuck up on us over the past few months, but it's absolutely true.
On September 25 2009 17:12 motbob wrote: Why is this matchup suddenly so drastically imbalanced?
First of all I don't know where you are getting your stats from, according to TLPD;
Destination is 53-52 ZvP overall
Stats from when it was first played until 2009-03-01: 32-32
From 3/1 until now: 23-20
Heartbreak is 22-19 overall for ZvP
RTOK is is 8-11 ZvP
I got the stats by taking all of the games from TLPD, not just the "official" ones used in TLPD statistics, but also games such as prelim or minor league games.
Stats aside, assuming there really has been a 7% shift after 3/1/09, I have absolutely no idea why you would describe it as "imbalance." You don't think there has been similar trends in the past over similar sample sizes with different matchups in 10 years of progaming? Wouldn't it be infinitely more reasonable to attribute a shift as small as this to something like, new build orders or change in skill level of players? When you can find some real trends that can support your claim for imbalance, not this pussy 7% shit you're putting up right now from an unknown sample then you can speak the word "imbalance." And I really hope that goes for everyone who actually takes this issue seriously.
This is sort of my main point. I'm trying to find the factors that might have shifted the stats 7%.
no name players, on untested maps, too small of a population sample ie (not Representative of the past 10 or so years of zvp stats)
hope that is good enough?
Nah, try again. i couldnt think of a better sample to use than the MST prelims actually. it's pretty much perfect from a statistics point of view. only weakness is a small sample size but 30 matches per MU is about as good as you're gonna get.
69.2% ZvP? how is that not imbalanced?
oh, and you realise that the maps for the MST were byzantium, desti and HBR, right? all of which are pretty balanced.
On September 30 2009 14:05 Avidkeystamper wrote: So maps that were balanced suddenly favor zerg in spite of no new strategical shifts. Yep, must be the maps.
lol im tired of your sarcastic bullshit (that are 90% wrong). if it's not the maps that are affecting the MSL prelims, then what is it? imbalance in the matchup? i was trying to come up with a good reason why zergs are winning, but it seems like that's obviously not the reason. want to enlighten me?
On September 30 2009 14:05 Avidkeystamper wrote: So maps that were balanced suddenly favor zerg in spite of no new strategical shifts. Yep, must be the maps.
lol im tired of your sarcastic bullshit (that are 90% wrong). if it's not the maps that are affecting the MSL prelims, then what is it? imbalance in the matchup? i was trying to come up with a good reason why zergs are winning, but it seems like that's obviously not the reason. want to enlighten me?
Remember the stat shift I posted on Destination? 56-54 ---> 61-44? That's evidence that it's not the maps, but something else.
Also, remember how Byzantium used to be an absolute graveyard for Zergs against Protoss? Now it's favored towards Zerg. I know it's undergone updates... but IMO the change is a little too great for the minor balance changes to fully explain it. That's just my opinion.
Then what you really should be asking is why B team tosses or the ones who don't get on tv suck more versus zerg than the ones who do, since the more significant deviation here is the difference in matchup stats in sample sizes which include lower tier pros compared to sample sizes that don't. Either way, no matter how you look at it, there are infinite explanations which may "explain" this 7% that you have discovered. The B team tosses of Oz probably frequent more brothels than other progamers. Restaurants in Korea could've offered free meals to protoss players at one point which cut away at their practice time. The trend is insignificant, there is no reason why the first word you decide to use should be imbalance.
On September 30 2009 14:05 Avidkeystamper wrote: So maps that were balanced suddenly favor zerg in spite of no new strategical shifts. Yep, must be the maps.
On September 30 2009 14:09 Avidkeystamper wrote: Yes, HBR, Byzantium, and Destination are imbalanced towards zergs. That's what you're arguing.
On September 30 2009 14:12 zulu_nation8 wrote: Either way, no matter how you look at it, there are infinite explanations which may "explain" this 7% that you have discovered. The B team tosses of Oz probably frequent more brothels than other progamers. Restaurants in Korea could've offered free meals to protoss players at one point which cut away at their practice time. The trend is insignificant, there is no reason why the first word you decide to use should be imbalance.
Yeah, there are infinite explinations, but maybe only one or two that don't totally suck.
Well then if you admit that the maps are not the problem (because this is not the statistical case over time) then it must be zerg imba? You are only looking at the answers you want.
Really the reality is- historically zvp is not imbalanced, and there are shifts (some times dramatically) over short periods of time when z>>p and p>>z. What i am trying to tell you is that if you look at the total zvp percentage of competition BW history you will find it quite balanced. You are looking at a fraction of a fraction of this time line, and find (at this particular moment in time) that z>>p.
I can tell you with 100% certainty that history will indeed repeat itself, and p>>z at some point in the upcoming future. It has been like this since the conception of competitive BW and i can guarantee you it will happen again. Statistically the numbers are behind me. This is nothing but a small hiccup, and i am sure that if the best protoss minds but their heads together- they will come up with some new and revolutionary that will knock the zerg off the top.
So until then, think of something yourself- or wait.
remember savior in his prime? playing protoss against him was unplayable. no one could touch him, people lost faith z>>>>>>>>>p and suddenly bisu. and bam! that was over fast. then it was 6 dragons time p>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>z- now it's 5 hatch dra.......it's just an endless cycle.
On September 30 2009 14:20 zulu_nation8 wrote: you included too many variables in your sample size that showed, in my opinion a statistically insignificant trend, every explanation sucks.
There's no "opinion." Either the change is statistically significant or it isn't. I'll look up the statistical test and run it.
On September 30 2009 14:20 Misrah wrote: Really the reality is- historically zvp is not imbalanced,
This isn't quite correct. Historically, it's always worked out something along the lines of T>Z>P>T, with some fluctuation due to metagame shifts, dominance of individuals/groups, etc. The overall race balance tends to work out because most individual leagues end up with players playing a good spread of their matchups, but matchup by matchup, it's never been balanced.
On September 30 2009 14:20 Misrah wrote: remember savior in his prime? playing protoss against him was unplayable. no one could touch him, people lost faith z>>>>>>>>>p and suddenly bisu. and bam! that was over fast. then it was 6 dragons time p>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>z- now it's 5 hatch dra.......it's just an endless cycle.
There are a couple things wrong with the analogies used here. 1) Savior was a single player. Middle and low-tier zergs were still winning/losing to protosses just the same as before. It's just that Savior had a rather singular dominance. It's not like Savior's style translated into drastically improved results for players like Chojja or Gorush, whereas the current developments have created two ZvZ finals. 2) Bisu brought down Savior. He did not bring down the entire race. Did it shift the entire matchup? Probably, but not as much as people say it did. The thing is, Bisu is Bisu. His actual build and play-style are hard to translate to players of middle-lower tiers of play, because it's so heavily dependent on his mechanics. The generally new style of play shook a lot of people up, but it wasn't really P>Z after people realized to stop going 3hatch muta. 3) The 6 dragons era was again, the product of a few players' singular successes. You can't translate that into an actual metagame shift. Bisu/Stork/Jangbi/Best/Free/Kal did well because they are Bisu/Stork/Jangbi/Best/Free/Kal, not because the metagame was favorable to protoss. The fact that a player like Best, who has downright terrible PvZ, is on that list only goes to further indicate that protosses were doing well IN SPITE of the PvZ matchup, NOT because of it.
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.
3) The 6 dragons era was again, the product of a few players' singular successes. You can't translate that into an actual metagame shift. Bisu/Stork/Jangbi/Best/Free/Kal did well because they are Bisu/Stork/Jangbi/Best/Free/Kal, not because the metagame was favorable to protoss. The fact that a player like Best, who has downright terrible PvZ, is on that list only goes to further indicate that protosses were doing well IN SPITE of the PvZ matchup, NOT because of it.
I know you're agreeing with me, but this point doesn't make any sense. 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?
3) The 6 dragons era was again, the product of a few players' singular successes. You can't translate that into an actual metagame shift. Bisu/Stork/Jangbi/Best/Free/Kal did well because they are Bisu/Stork/Jangbi/Best/Free/Kal, not because the metagame was favorable to protoss. The fact that a player like Best, who has downright terrible PvZ, is on that list only goes to further indicate that protosses were doing well IN SPITE of the PvZ matchup, NOT because of it.
I know you're agreeing with me, but this point doesn't make any sense. 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?
He means that BeSt did well despite being losing against Zergs, not that he was beating them.
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?
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.
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.
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 14:53 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.
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.
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.
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 15:15 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 15:15 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
On September 30 2009 16:01 Misrah wrote: 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.
In a world of Protoss that could play like Bisu curb stomping Jaedong the other night, the discussion would be reversed. Starcraft is a reflection of the skill of the player. This is what makes it good. The "imballances" being map, race, or otherwise, are minimal enough to really not matter. Thats why its so great. Skill is the determining factor in victory.
Why did you change the first part of your OP? I definately don't agree. There are underlying imbalances with the races, I have no idea how anyone thinks there wouldn't be.
Maps can balance these out a bit but I think some of you people place WAY too much emphasis on maps.
On September 30 2009 18:25 Foucault wrote: Why did you change the first part of your OP? I definately don't agree. There are underlying imbalances with the races, I have no idea how anyone thinks there wouldn't be.
Maps can balance these out a bit but I think some of you people place WAY too much emphasis on maps.
Well, in my opinion it's possible to make a ~100% ZvP map between players of equal level. It's also possible to make a ~100% PvZ map. It follows that you can make a map of any balance you want, including 50%. I could be wrong, but I'm a total believer of the power of maps to correct imbalance.
On September 26 2009 00:28 FoBuLouS wrote: What happened to corsair reaver? I haven't seen any of that in a long while.
Yeah, protoss needs to use this more or at least reavers.
most of maps aren't that good for sair/reaver these days. plus, most protoss players can't execute sair/reaver because it requires more multitasking and has less room for error.
Yeah it requires quite alot of micro and control which makes it a risky build. That's one thing I consider imbalanced with PvZ, the fact that protoss is so much more fragile.
One thing that's really annoying is when protoss makes all these fun strats with reaver/sair and what not and after playing around for a while zerg kills him with mass hydra. The simplicity in ZvP makes it a pretty clear-cut matchup as opposed to PvZ where protoss must be aware of tech switches and brutal flanks all the time. That's another reason why many of these big new maps sucks PvZ, because protoss is so easily flankable
WOW. What is wrong with you. I have never seen anyone make so many contradicting replys in one thread before.
You keep saying maps does not change the balance, and at the same time you again and again brings up this example of big maps favoring zerg and saying big maps makes it too difficult for protoss.
if ur trying to say ' z is imba ' then your full of shit. stop crying cos the easiest race to play got a bit more difficult. the z still needs 2 play faster/smarter/better than a protoss ever would to keep up with even a lesser skilled opponent. (PROOF? go check apm's in progames. p has alot less, always.)
On September 30 2009 18:25 Foucault wrote: Why did you change the first part of your OP? I definately don't agree. There are underlying imbalances with the races, I have no idea how anyone thinks there wouldn't be.
Maps can balance these out a bit but I think some of you people place WAY too much emphasis on maps.
Well, in my opinion it's possible to make a ~100% ZvP map between players of equal level. It's also possible to make a ~100% PvZ map. It follows that you can make a map of any balance you want, including 50%. I could be wrong, but I'm a total believer of the power of maps to correct imbalance.
Like I said: "Maps can balance these out a bit but I think some of you people place WAY too much emphasis on maps."
On September 26 2009 00:28 FoBuLouS wrote: What happened to corsair reaver? I haven't seen any of that in a long while.
Yeah, protoss needs to use this more or at least reavers.
most of maps aren't that good for sair/reaver these days. plus, most protoss players can't execute sair/reaver because it requires more multitasking and has less room for error.
Yeah it requires quite alot of micro and control which makes it a risky build. That's one thing I consider imbalanced with PvZ, the fact that protoss is so much more fragile.
One thing that's really annoying is when protoss makes all these fun strats with reaver/sair and what not and after playing around for a while zerg kills him with mass hydra. The simplicity in ZvP makes it a pretty clear-cut matchup as opposed to PvZ where protoss must be aware of tech switches and brutal flanks all the time. That's another reason why many of these big new maps sucks PvZ, because protoss is so easily flankable
WOW. What is wrong with you. I have never seen anyone make so many contradicting replys in one thread before.
You keep saying maps does not change the balance, and at the same time you again and again brings up this example of big maps favoring zerg and saying big maps makes it too difficult for protoss.
Plz stop it, it makes my head explode.
Yeah big maps favors zerg over protoss. However, regardless of maps protoss is still at an disadvantage in this matchup.
On September 30 2009 19:50 Vex wrote: if ur trying to say ' z is imba ' then your full of shit. stop crying cos the easiest race to play got a bit more difficult. the z still needs 2 play faster/smarter/better than a protoss ever would to keep up with even a lesser skilled opponent. (PROOF? go check apm's in progames. p has alot less, always.)
On September 26 2009 00:28 FoBuLouS wrote: What happened to corsair reaver? I haven't seen any of that in a long while.
Yeah, protoss needs to use this more or at least reavers.
most of maps aren't that good for sair/reaver these days. plus, most protoss players can't execute sair/reaver because it requires more multitasking and has less room for error.
Yeah it requires quite alot of micro and control which makes it a risky build. That's one thing I consider imbalanced with PvZ, the fact that protoss is so much more fragile.
One thing that's really annoying is when protoss makes all these fun strats with reaver/sair and what not and after playing around for a while zerg kills him with mass hydra. The simplicity in ZvP makes it a pretty clear-cut matchup as opposed to PvZ where protoss must be aware of tech switches and brutal flanks all the time. That's another reason why many of these big new maps sucks PvZ, because protoss is so easily flankable
WOW. What is wrong with you. I have never seen anyone make so many contradicting replys in one thread before.
You keep saying maps does not change the balance, and at the same time you again and again brings up this example of big maps favoring zerg and saying big maps makes it too difficult for protoss.
Plz stop it, it makes my head explode.
Yeah big maps favors zerg over protoss. However, regardless of maps protoss is still at an disadvantage in this matchup.
LOL, I'm not even gonna point it out, lets just let it hang there. ^^ omg hahahaha
Total 156 games: 102–54 (65.4%) Best Streak — 10 wins (2008.07.05–29) Worst Streak — 4 losses (2006.12.07–2007.02.05) Current — 3 losses Notes — Bo3 in (round parenthesis), Bo5 in [square parenthesis]
2006.02—2006.07 / 8 games: 6–2 (84.6%) (WW) (WW) L W W L 2006.08—2007.03 / 17 games: 10–7 (58.8%) (WW) (WW) W (WLW) (LWW) L L (LL) W L 2006 Season / 25 games: 16–9 (64%) 2007.04—2007.08 27 games: 16–11 (59.3%) (LWL) W L (LWW) W W W L W W [LLWL] (WLW) (LWW) (WLW) 2007.09—2008.03 / 21 games: 15–6 (71.4%) L W L (WW) (WW) W [LWWW] W W L W L [LWWW] 2007 Season / 48 games: 31–17 (64.6%) 2008.03—2008.09 / 28 games: 23–5 (82.1%) L W W (WW) (WW) L W W [WWW] [WWW] (WW) (LWL) (WW) (WLW) (WW) 2008 Season(st half) / 28 games: 23–5 (82.1%) 2008.09—2009.03 / 34 games: 20–14 (58.8%) W L (LWL) (WW) (WLL) W L (LWL) W W L (WW) W L W W W L [LWLWW] (LWW) 2009.03—2009.09 / 21 games: 12–9 (57.1%) L (LWW) W (LWW) W L L W (WW) W L (WW) (LL) L 2008-09 Season / 55 games: 32–23 (58.2%)
On September 30 2009 19:50 Vex wrote: if ur trying to say ' z is imba ' then your full of shit. stop crying cos the easiest race to play got a bit more difficult. the z still needs 2 play faster/smarter/better than a protoss ever would to keep up with even a lesser skilled opponent. (PROOF? go check apm's in progames. p has alot less, always.)
Wow!
If only you'd posted sooner, we'd been spared of 16 pages of diarrhea!
Guys, quit arguing and go to sleep, our hero here has solved this case.
On September 30 2009 19:50 Vex wrote: if ur trying to say ' z is imba ' then your full of shit. stop crying cos the easiest race to play got a bit more difficult. the z still needs 2 play faster/smarter/better than a protoss ever would to keep up with even a lesser skilled opponent. (PROOF? go check apm's in progames. p has alot less, always.)
Check the replays for Bisu vs. anyone except Jaedong or by.hero.
Bisu has a higher APM than Zero and still loses to Zero quite often.
if ur trying to say ' z is imba ' then your full of shit. stop crying cos the easiest race to play got a bit more difficult. the z still needs 2 play faster/smarter/better than a protoss ever would to keep up with even a lesser skilled opponent. (PROOF? go check apm's in progames. p has alot less, always.)
On September 26 2009 00:28 FoBuLouS wrote: What happened to corsair reaver? I haven't seen any of that in a long while.
Yeah, protoss needs to use this more or at least reavers.
most of maps aren't that good for sair/reaver these days. plus, most protoss players can't execute sair/reaver because it requires more multitasking and has less room for error.
Yeah it requires quite alot of micro and control which makes it a risky build. That's one thing I consider imbalanced with PvZ, the fact that protoss is so much more fragile.
One thing that's really annoying is when protoss makes all these fun strats with reaver/sair and what not and after playing around for a while zerg kills him with mass hydra. The simplicity in ZvP makes it a pretty clear-cut matchup as opposed to PvZ where protoss must be aware of tech switches and brutal flanks all the time. That's another reason why many of these big new maps sucks PvZ, because protoss is so easily flankable
WOW. What is wrong with you. I have never seen anyone make so many contradicting replys in one thread before.
You keep saying maps does not change the balance, and at the same time you again and again brings up this example of big maps favoring zerg and saying big maps makes it too difficult for protoss.
Plz stop it, it makes my head explode.
Yeah big maps favors zerg over protoss. However, regardless of maps protoss is still at an disadvantage in this matchup.
On October 01 2009 02:14 HiHiByeBye wrote: i feel that the game is still evolving. Protoss hasnt evolved yet? remember when protoss used to win everything?
You mean the whopping 2 months or so that it happened, in the 10 years of progaming history during which Protoss only won the OSL in the fall or sometimes not at all? Vaguely.
On October 01 2009 02:14 HiHiByeBye wrote: i feel that the game is still evolving. Protoss hasnt evolved yet? remember when protoss used to win everything?
You mean the whopping 2 months or so that it happened, in the 10 years of progaming history during which Protoss only won the OSL in the fall or sometimes not at all? Vaguely.
On September 30 2009 19:50 Vex wrote: if ur trying to say ' z is imba ' then your full of shit. stop crying cos the easiest race to play got a bit more difficult. the z still needs 2 play faster/smarter/better than a protoss ever would to keep up with even a lesser skilled opponent. (PROOF? go check apm's in progames. p has alot less, always.)
Check the replays for Bisu vs. anyone except Jaedong or by.hero.
Bisu has a higher APM than Zero and still loses to Zero quite often.
Not that this is particularly relevant, but I was under the impression that ZerO a 450 apm zerg. I thought I read that in a few places around here >.>. Bisu shouldn't really be used to often to model an imbalance between zerg and protoss. He should more be seen as an exception to the rule more than the standard from which to base - he's one of those types of players that can play well enough to overcome most standard map imbalances (should they be more minute).
He lost it to himself. Shine played great in game 3 to be honest but it wasn't his fault that Bisu lost units for nothing and didn't provide a challenge.
On September 30 2009 19:50 Vex wrote: if ur trying to say ' z is imba ' then your full of shit. stop crying cos the easiest race to play got a bit more difficult. the z still needs 2 play faster/smarter/better than a protoss ever would to keep up with even a lesser skilled opponent. (PROOF? go check apm's in progames. p has alot less, always.)
Check the replays for Bisu vs. anyone except Jaedong or by.hero.
Bisu has a higher APM than Zero and still loses to Zero quite often.
Not that this is particularly relevant, but I was under the impression that ZerO a 450 apm zerg. I thought I read that in a few places around here >.>. Bisu shouldn't really be used to often to model an imbalance between zerg and protoss. He should more be seen as an exception to the rule more than the standard from which to base - he's one of those types of players that can play well enough to overcome most standard map imbalances (should they be more minute).
Check the Blizzcon reps that include Zero. Zero is 300 APM in most of the games.
maybe there are ways to make pvz balanced with the possibilities offered by the game, but the current metagame is seriously broken. toss´ need to develop something new.
maybe keep ur ht in the back next to an archon. vulnerable to hydra flanking though. maybe keep ur ht in ur base next to cannons until u gathered the critical mass of corsairs. very gas intensive build though.. maybe get a DA. even more gas intensive though and no protoss has figured out a good timing for that so far. maybe use reavers instead of ht to take on the mass hydras. they can take much more, especially as u can keep them in shuttles to absorb some more shots of the mutas. and they can fire nonstop, so they dont become useless during an ongoing battle like hts do after they casted their one storm. and if the game progresses to the lategame u will need at least 2 reavers anyway to protect ur bases.
im just a noob, so do i miss something with this last suggestion? imho thats the most promising approach. well, todays games of bisu vs shine once and for all prove that dragoons alone are not enough to protect ur hts.
Unbelievable as of itself but I don't believe that PvZ is imbalanced anymore. Maps can be bad yeah, but not the MU itself. And like 3 years ago I was on the frontlines of PvZ imba fights. What have you done to me Bisu?
On October 14 2009 22:08 Camlito wrote: Ok everyone saying it's imbalanced - yes - let's say it is.
What would YOU do to change zerg that can not effect ZvT or change protoss that can not Effect PvT? Change storm to kill lurker in 1 hit?
I think you're taking a much too liberal interpretation of "imbalanced", as it's used in this thread. The rational people who are saying ZvP is imbalanced right now aren't referring to some serious defect in BW (come on, everyone knows the game has great balance) but rather somewhere in the current maps, Protoss's strategic arsenal, and/or Protoss's talent pool.
Nobody can deny that ZvP is extremely imbalanced right now—in the sense that Zergs are winning over 60% of their games against Protoss and dominating in all leagues.
The obvious solution, as HB posted out way earlier in this thread and I'm sure has been beaten into the ground by now, is to change the maps to restore balance to the matchup. But it doesn't look like that will happen for at least another few months.
i have a slightly off topic question: why did pro toss players stop using disruption web? it used to be really popular with sair reaver but even when we do see sair reaver these days there is no web
On October 14 2009 22:24 d_so wrote: i have a slightly off topic question: why did pro toss players stop using disruption web? it used to be really popular with sair reaver but even when we do see sair reaver these days there is no web
? Assuming it's not just a fake sair reaver into mass speedlot, there always is disruption web.
ok it may seem pvz is imballanced but thats just because zergs figured a way to crack the forge fe what i've seen in shine last match which was done allready by jaedong vs bisu on destination last proleague
[B]On October 14 2009 22: so if this will be the next trend of building 9 muta to snipe the templars why not let the zerg waste them on hallucinated templars ???]
Because burning the templars mana on hallu kinda defeats the purpose of keeping them alive... I think a build similar to bisus build 1st game is the answer + Show Spoiler +
corsair heavy relatively early
that or what has been theory crafted a zillion times, DAs.
[B]On October 14 2009 22: so if this will be the next trend of building 9 muta to snipe the templars why not let the zerg waste them on hallucinated templars ???]
Because burning the templars mana on hallu kinda defeats the purpose of keeping them alive... I think a build similar to bisus build 1st game is the answer + Show Spoiler +
corsair heavy relatively early
that or what has been theory crafted a zillion times, DAs.
On September 30 2009 20:17 nonduc wrote: Jaedong vs Protosses
Total 156 games: 102–54 (65.4%) Best Streak — 10 wins (2008.07.05–29) Worst Streak — 4 losses (2006.12.07–2007.02.05) Current — 3 losses Notes — Bo3 in (round parenthesis), Bo5 in [square parenthesis]
2006.02—2006.07 / 8 games: 6–2 (84.6%) (WW) (WW) L W W L 2006.08—2007.03 / 17 games: 10–7 (58.8%) (WW) (WW) W (WLW) (LWW) L L (LL) W L 2006 Season / 25 games: 16–9 (64%) 2007.04—2007.08 27 games: 16–11 (59.3%) (LWL) W L (LWW) W W W L W W [LLWL] (WLW) (LWW) (WLW) 2007.09—2008.03 / 21 games: 15–6 (71.4%) L W L (WW) (WW) W [LWWW] W W L W L [LWWW] 2007 Season / 48 games: 31–17 (64.6%) 2008.03—2008.09 / 28 games: 23–5 (82.1%) L W W (WW) (WW) L W W [WWW] [WWW] (WW) (LWL) (WW) (WLW) (WW) 2008 Season(st half) / 28 games: 23–5 (82.1%) 2008.09—2009.03 / 34 games: 20–14 (58.8%) W L (LWL) (WW) (WLL) W L (LWL) W W L (WW) W L W W W L [LWLWW] (LWW) 2009.03—2009.09 / 21 games: 12–9 (57.1%) L (LWW) W (LWW) W L L W (WW) W L (WW) (LL) L 2008-09 Season / 55 games: 32–23 (58.2%)
Nice post, glad someone goes to stats instead of hilariously contradictory ICCUP stories from angry players.
On October 14 2009 22:08 Camlito wrote: Ok everyone saying it's imbalanced - yes - let's say it is.
What would YOU do to change zerg that can not effect ZvT or change protoss that can not Effect PvT? Change storm to kill lurker in 1 hit?
I think you're taking a much too liberal interpretation of "imbalanced", as it's used in this thread. The rational people who are saying ZvP is imbalanced right now aren't referring to some serious defect in BW (come on, everyone knows the game has great balance) but rather somewhere in the current maps, Protoss's strategic arsenal, and/or Protoss's talent pool.
Nobody can deny that ZvP is extremely imbalanced right now—in the sense that Zergs are winning over 60% of their games against Protoss and dominating in all leagues.
The obvious solution, as HB posted out way earlier in this thread and I'm sure has been beaten into the ground by now, is to change the maps to restore balance to the matchup. But it doesn't look like that will happen for at least another few months.
I don't think it needs patching either.
Also - 4 posts above mine was a subtle jab at a patch needed for ZvP lol.
According to this, we should be complaining about TvZ and PvT more right? But those threads don't get made because guess what, Z and T players aren't whiney emos. Amirite!!?!?
On October 14 2009 22:24 d_so wrote: i have a slightly off topic question: why did pro toss players stop using disruption web? it used to be really popular with sair reaver but even when we do see sair reaver these days there is no web
Most people use sair/reaver as an opening nowadays, not as a game model. You open sair/reaver, do some harass and then proceed with a ground army. In that scenario, wasting 500/300 to get a single upgrade isn't very economical, you could get 4 zeals and an archon for that money.
If you play sair/reaver with a dedication eventually getting carriers well then the fleet beacon is 100% justified, but with a ground switch it's in a huge question.
Now as I think about it more, getting a defensive 3rd with sair/reaver with a fast carrier switch later is not that a crazy idea considering that zergs get later and later Hive in ZvP.
[B]On October 14 2009 22: so if this will be the next trend of building 9 muta to snipe the templars why not let the zerg waste them on hallucinated templars ???]
Because burning the templars mana on hallu kinda defeats the purpose of keeping them alive... I think a build similar to bisus build 1st game is the answer + Show Spoiler +
corsair heavy relatively early
that or what has been theory crafted a zillion times, DAs.
well considering u know the muta is coming and u cant prevent it why not out of 6 templars use 4 for hallucination and form archons make the fake move out return to base after muta engagement and rejoins with templars..... forget it i'm convinced lol
According to this, we should be complaining about TvZ and PvT more right? But those threads don't get made because guess what, Z and T players aren't whiney emos. Amirite!!?!?
Actually, we should only look at the most recent games. The time fram you gave is large enough and I do remember Protosses dominating everything for a while which affects the statistics. If it was 216-160 (made up this numbers now) and now it's 216-200 for example then it might seem like P's are doing fine while in reality they don't.
We have to wait a month or two to get to any real conclusions. All the maps and meta-game must pass the "beginning of a season" unpredictability and when it goes stable we'll be able to gather enough data.
According to this, we should be complaining about TvZ and PvT more right? But those threads don't get made because guess what, Z and T players aren't whiney emos. Amirite!!?!?
Actually, we should only look at the most recent games. The time fram you gave is large enough and I do remember Protosses dominating everything for a while which affects the statistics. If it was 216-160 (made up this numbers now) and now it's 216-200 for example then it might seem like P's are doing fine while in reality they don't.
We have to wait a month or two to get to any real conclusions. All the maps and meta-game must pass the "beginning of a season" unpredictability and when it goes stable we'll be able to gather enough data.
Well, we all know it goes in cycles, if it comes out even after 2 years, doesn't that support the idea that the recent Z>P trend is just temporary?
On September 30 2009 16:04 MaGic~PhiL wrote: 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..
!
since it was the last post of a page and many might have missed it..
[B]On October 14 2009 22: so if this will be the next trend of building 9 muta to snipe the templars why not let the zerg waste them on hallucinated templars ???]
Because burning the templars mana on hallu kinda defeats the purpose of keeping them alive... I think a build similar to bisus build 1st game is the answer + Show Spoiler +
corsair heavy relatively early
that or what has been theory crafted a zillion times, DAs.
According to this, we should be complaining about TvZ and PvT more right? But those threads don't get made because guess what, Z and T players aren't whiney emos. Amirite!!?!?
Actually, we should only look at the most recent games. The time fram you gave is large enough and I do remember Protosses dominating everything for a while which affects the statistics. If it was 216-160 (made up this numbers now) and now it's 216-200 for example then it might seem like P's are doing fine while in reality they don't.
We have to wait a month or two to get to any real conclusions. All the maps and meta-game must pass the "beginning of a season" unpredictability and when it goes stable we'll be able to gather enough data.
Well, we all know it goes in cycles, if it comes out even after 2 years, doesn't that support the idea that the recent Z>P trend is just temporary?
YES IS DOES, WHICH IS WHAT I WROTE IN THE OP ASFBYUASFBSAIUFHAB
motbob if you agree its just a temporary trend you have a completely different idea of what "imbalanced" means than everyone else in the starcraft playing world.
[B]On October 14 2009 22: so if this will be the next trend of building 9 muta to snipe the templars why not let the zerg waste them on hallucinated templars ???]
Because burning the templars mana on hallu kinda defeats the purpose of keeping them alive... I think a build similar to bisus build 1st game is the answer + Show Spoiler +
corsair heavy relatively early
that or what has been theory crafted a zillion times, DAs.
According to this, we should be complaining about TvZ and PvT more right? But those threads don't get made because guess what, Z and T players aren't whiney emos. Amirite!!?!?
[B]On October 14 2009 22: so if this will be the next trend of building 9 muta to snipe the templars why not let the zerg waste them on hallucinated templars ???]
Because burning the templars mana on hallu kinda defeats the purpose of keeping them alive... I think a build similar to bisus build 1st game is the answer + Show Spoiler +
corsair heavy relatively early
that or what has been theory crafted a zillion times, DAs.
According to this, we should be complaining about TvZ and PvT more right? But those threads don't get made because guess what, Z and T players aren't whiney emos. Amirite!!?!?
I always knew TvZ was imba! Fucking Irad is gay
There is a fucking thread about ZvP imbalance while there are no threads about TvZ imbalance? Unacceptable. TvZ is the most imba matchup (favor of T of course) and the statistics I quoted reflect it. What the hell is 248-200? It's like saying, Hey I switched my race to Z, come kill me Terrans
On September 25 2009 17:24 lokiM wrote: I'm guessing you got destroyed by some random zerg, and you are only comparing the pro scene
destination @ iccup zvp = 51% 16,000 games
Outsider @ iccup zvp = 50.89% over 3,000+ games
Neo Medusa @ iccup zvp = 52% with just under 3k games
seems pretty balanced to me..
That's cool, you are giving him shit for compaing random players to the pro scene. Oh wait then you're sourcing ICCup D games to prove map balance at the pro scene.
I posted that against his very first OP, until he edited it up saying he was only talking about the pro scene. Before he edited it, he was just complaining about overal 'imbalance'
On October 15 2009 02:55 Kullosus wrote: Look at GomTV Classic Season 2. Nothing but Protoss, In fact it where Bisu asserted his dominance over zergs by defeating Jaedong
Bisu never beat JD that GOM season.
(He then proceeded to lose to JD in the special event)
I reckon the feeling of Z>P comes partly from the fact that besides Bisu (and perhaps Kal?) I dont think there has ever been a dominant protoss (that actually got anywhere in MSL/OSL) that reliably beat zergs at that level. I certainly cant remember Nal_Ra, Reach etc being the given winner against Z's, but I do admit that my memory might be skewed.
In the end its always going to to be hard to say what the exact problem is, but when I play the MU (at very, very low level) it seems I have to cover for so many things, while the Zerg doesnt ever have to be all that surprised, at least in the early game. If I dont go Fexp my options are quite clear and counterable, even if scouted a bit late, if I go fexp my options are quite predictable aswell. As far as I know Bisu's been the only one having regular succes against high class Zergs, and that seems to stem more from incredible control on multiple fronts (harass etc) then from just having a "sollution" that everyone can use.
According to this, we should be complaining about TvZ and PvT more right? But those threads don't get made because guess what, Z and T players aren't whiney emos. Amirite!!?!?
I always knew TvZ was imba! Fucking Irad is gay
i wish i was at the level where i could exploit the "imba"
[B]On October 14 2009 22: so if this will be the next trend of building 9 muta to snipe the templars why not let the zerg waste them on hallucinated templars ???]
Because burning the templars mana on hallu kinda defeats the purpose of keeping them alive... I think a build similar to bisus build 1st game is the answer + Show Spoiler +
corsair heavy relatively early
that or what has been theory crafted a zillion times, DAs.
I might be wrong, but corsair heavy builds come in the cost of army size, which is what we saw in game 1, Bisu's rather tiny army (plus no templars)
I really think a game patch that allows you to unwarp templars from archons while it's still building would help a LOT.
You can't? Since people have been glitching DTs through by morphing them. Or is this only for DA but not for Archon? In this case, that's quite dumb.
I remember asking about it in the thread when Bisu morphed the HT to save them, but got slaughtered for having no storms, with everyone saying no that's not possible. I think the possibility of being able to morph an Archon to save the HTs from the Mutas and then unmorphing them when the mutas go away is huge, it's a very minor change that won't affect anything else but this, and would make PvZ more balanced.
According to this, we should be complaining about TvZ and PvT more right? But those threads don't get made because guess what, Z and T players aren't whiney emos. Amirite!!?!?
According to this, we should be complaining about TvZ and PvT more right? But those threads don't get made because guess what, Z and T players aren't whiney emos. Amirite!!?!?
How about you remove the short reign of Sair/DT from those numbers, or go back five years instead of two?
Or how about you do it? He showed that over a decent period of time it all balances out fairly well. If you feel a strong need to look at the PL stats over the last 5 years go ahead and compile them I am sure alot of people would find it at least mildly interesting, but don't _demand_ that someone else do it just because the statistics he came up with doesnt suit your particular view of reality.
According to this, we should be complaining about TvZ and PvT more right? But those threads don't get made because guess what, Z and T players aren't whiney emos. Amirite!!?!?
How about you remove the short reign of Sair/DT from those numbers, or go back five years instead of two?
Or how about you do it? He showed that over a decent period of time it all balances out fairly well. If you feel a strong need to look at the PL stats over the last 5 years go ahead and compile them I am sure alot of people would find it at least mildly interesting, but don't _demand_ that someone else do it just because the statistics he came up with doesnt suit your particular view of reality.
ZvP was not imbalenced 2 years ago. It's imbalanced for the last 6 months. Let's look at the data for the past 6 months ok?
I'm not one to complain about imbalance and i don't even play Protoss but certainly from just watching progames it seems that way recently, Zergs i believe on a whole are just better than they used to be and are getting to the point where its fairly easy for them to exploit the toss if they just play regular. The very clever simcities, mass dropping and templar sniping is winning games fairly easily for zergs. I think the toss should maybe harass more like Movie has been doing at the very least. As shown in the Shine - Bisu games if you simply let zerg get an unharassed economy they can sometimes just simply stream units and win even if its 3base vs 3base. I think maybe reavers should be involved more somewhat, certainly it would have helped him in that first game.
While yes we all know the metagame shifts back and forth somewhat certainly its possible we get to the point where the skill level is so high and there is no more new strategical options available for protoss that the zergs start winning even more than they do now. I think a lot of people agree that when zerg is played to near perfection it is the strongest race, not that we are getting to that point yet but certainly the skill level is getting high enough to deal with almost anything protoss throws at them. DT/sair was a one-time metagame shift which helped for a while but nothing like that will necessarily work again.
On October 15 2009 07:39 Adeeler wrote: Maps are irrelevant, races are irrelevant. Only the player matters.
its not like that. you see, its obvious when a player is doing fine. No reason to discredit the performance of say Shine or Calm. The thing imho is that the recent maps and BO trends cause such a huge shift in the metagame, that the current best PvZ has to play spot on vs zerg opponents who are usually rated as A level gamers at best, in order to win.
All Bisu's cute tricks like having his scouting probe alive for 6 mins into the game, sair micro etc, every component should work for him, the MU became so unforgiving for protoss. Zerg on the other hand found the right pattern and optimized their strategies on the current maps, it more or less became matter of good execution and mechanics to win, and the key thing is not to make huge blunders in the BO like for example Jaedong canceling his spire vs Bisu...
The whole sea of zerg players like Calm, the twins, kwanro, zero hero and recent Shine are not objectively spot on ZvPers and in other circumstances they shouldnt be able to take down Bisu with ease. No matter the recent result KTY, remains the top PvZer and the gap between him and the rest of the protoss field is huge
On October 15 2009 02:49 PH wrote: Why is everyone crying about problems that don't exist...
SC isn't even possibly or conceivably imbalanced until the highest possible levels of play (Korean progamer level), which means it doesn't affect you.
It affects me when all games to watch near starleague finals are ZvZ
Yeah, Z:s are still tearing everyone apart... I dont believe the reason are any imbalances, I don't think Zerg players are the better players, I think the maps needs to be replaced... To bad it's to late for this falls OSL & MSL, they should have been long gone for this season. To bad I love high stakes PvZ and TvZ but all I'll be watching these Starleauges will be onesided, imbalanced JDvZ...
In fact, not mixing up the mappool this season almost makes me think Kespa want a Zerg dominance... Anyone think its better for e-sports with one dominant player than a mixed, balanced top field of S-class players?
Race Stats (non-mirrors): TvZ: 177-131 (57.5%) [ Games ] ZvP: 112-88 (56.0%) [ Games ] PvT: 105-89 (54.1%) [ Games ]
Mirrors: 46 TvT | 71 ZvZ | 34 PvP
Too tired to post spring preliminaries, but percentages are roughly: TvZ 58%, ZvP 58%, PvT 53.5%. Also too tired to post statistics from OSL/MSL final tournaments, might finish this tomorrow.
2007 Shinhan Proleague R1 & R2 Combined. 2007-04-14 to 2008-01-27. (during the PvZ revolution)
Race Stats (non-mirrors): TvZ: 91-78 (53.8%) [ Games ] ZvP: 74-72 (49.3%) [ Games ] PvT: 97-83 (53.9%) [ Games ]
Mirrors: 155 TvT | 77 ZvZ | 136 PvP
TvZ seems to have been a pretty balanced MU for over a year now. P's seem to be getting really dominated by Z's recently. It's consistent through large sample sizes. TvZ only went above 60% in that short shinhan 08 proleague season.
2009 Spring OSL Offline Preliminaries Maps used (3): God's Garden, Outsider, Return of the King Heh, having God's Garden in the Map pool is almost like handing Zerg a free win...
According to this, we should be complaining about TvZ and PvT more right? But those threads don't get made because guess what, Z and T players aren't whiney emos. Amirite!!?!?
How about you remove the short reign of Sair/DT from those numbers, or go back five years instead of two?
Or how about you do it? He showed that over a decent period of time it all balances out fairly well. If you feel a strong need to look at the PL stats over the last 5 years go ahead and compile them I am sure alot of people would find it at least mildly interesting, but don't _demand_ that someone else do it just because the statistics he came up with doesnt suit your particular view of reality.
In the US, only Democrat presidents were elected in the past four years. Hence, the US has been on the Democrat agenda for four years.
Time-frame is everything, and starting the statistics with the rather recent and relatively speaking short golden-era of PvZ is (intentionally) misleading. He did exactly what I did in the first two sentences. I don't know how to access the TLPD features to give this info, otherwise, I'd refute it with numbers, as historically, T>Z>P>T is the balance of the game, but in the recent (about one year or so), it seems like the balance is T=Z, so that means a relative strengthening of Z over P, which also explains the masses of Z players in later rounds of the individual leagues.
Gimmicky trick-builds (and I call any harass based build that) should not be the foundation for a match-up, because that automatically accepts that a straight up fight is imbalanced. Adaptability takes all it's edge off, and unfortunately, this is the situation now in PvZ (corsair reaver / corsair DT are just that). It worked for a while until it didn't. It was a good run, but basing an entire MU on very vulnerable corsairs, with exactly 3 units they're useful against out of which none a major force of the enemy, is the equivalent of terrans basing TvZ on valks, or PvT on ghosts. Those are supplementary units, and in an ideal MU, would be treated as such (a nasty surprise, or something that turns a simple situation much more difficult).
According to this, we should be complaining about TvZ and PvT more right? But those threads don't get made because guess what, Z and T players aren't whiney emos. Amirite!!?!?
These are the just threads based around whining how hard terran is. Should I start hunting for the posts individually? It probably wouldnt take TOO long to fill up a page with the amount of whining terrans do.
But yeah somehow zergs seem not to whine much. There was a short period of whining about mech, but that died down fast enough.
i don't know if anyone has brought this up yet, but i remember reading in some coach/player interviews a couple months back about how the toss player has to prepare more than a zerg player in PvZ, so wouldn't this definately imply imbalance? unless, of course, the zerg doesn't gain anything from preparing as much as the toss, but i just don't see why that would be.
According to this, we should be complaining about TvZ and PvT more right? But those threads don't get made because guess what, Z and T players aren't whiney emos. Amirite!!?!?
How about you remove the short reign of Sair/DT from those numbers, or go back five years instead of two?
Or how about you do it? He showed that over a decent period of time it all balances out fairly well. If you feel a strong need to look at the PL stats over the last 5 years go ahead and compile them I am sure alot of people would find it at least mildly interesting, but don't _demand_ that someone else do it just because the statistics he came up with doesnt suit your particular view of reality.
ZvP was not imbalenced 2 years ago. It's imbalanced for the last 6 months. Let's look at the data for the past 6 months ok?
I hate how the use of "imbalanced" is only ever used if protoss is involved, normally losing.
When protoss had there golden age (or, golden 2 months) i seriously thought they wouldn't become as weak as they are today... there was protoss' raping terrans (like horribly owning) and protoss doing very good vs zerg (tempest 2-1 jaedong lolwut), i was sold that SC had changed finally, but 3 months after it went into zergrapeeverythingmode, including terran finally...
Imbalance only means the game is imbalanced, and currently with the mechanics and timings zerg have on maps that are very nice to abuse them, zergs win much much more. Simple as that..
if in 3 months zerg are still over 55% vs Protoss, then there is a big problem (although maps won't change for a while now)
This dumb T thinks that Carriers are imba and are insta-win
Lets not mention to him T ground army > P ground army, and P has to do so much just to engage the T army at equal power (If you don't stasis, storm, flank, zealdrop, mine drag, then your army just melts)
60 hp workers, ability to repair, vulture comes with 3 mines costs 75 mineral, upgrades unproportional, tank is 2 supply instead of 3, blah blah blah I could keep this going for hours
T's on TL whine soooooooooo much when they're playing the best race
This dumb T thinks that Carriers are imba and are insta-win
Lets not mention to him T ground army > P ground army, and P has to do so much just to engage the T army at equal power (If you don't stasis, storm, flank, zealdrop, mine drag, then your army just melts)
60 hp workers, ability to repair, vulture comes with 3 mines costs 75 mineral, upgrades unproportional, tank is 2 supply instead of 3, blah blah blah I could keep this going for hours
T's on TL whine soooooooooo much when they're playing the best race
this sounds so false... Don't complain about scvs considering probes can build anywhere and warp in as much as they want. Manner pylons and Gas steals are pretty common in TvP, there's not really a reason to complain about scvs being toss, only zergs. You just ruined a thread full of race statistics and just skewed it to your opinion. Your ground army arguement is silly, templars, dts, shuttles, and arbirters give the toss a ton of viable strategies. The T only has a wraith against toss, and they only get one for practical reasons... So if you want to argue ground army, then what about tosses carriers arbirters and air superiority. Leaving out the DT and reaver harass early game options. Not like you see T's retaliate making a ton of valks/wraiths/bcs against toss
This dumb T thinks that Carriers are imba and are insta-win
Lets not mention to him T ground army > P ground army, and P has to do so much just to engage the T army at equal power (If you don't stasis, storm, flank, zealdrop, mine drag, then your army just melts)
60 hp workers, ability to repair, vulture comes with 3 mines costs 75 mineral, upgrades unproportional, tank is 2 supply instead of 3, blah blah blah I could keep this going for hours
T's on TL whine soooooooooo much when they're playing the best race
this sounds so false... Don't complain about scvs considering probes can build anywhere and warp in as much as they want. Manner pylons and Gas steals are pretty common in TvP, there's not really a reason to complain about scvs being toss, only zergs. You just ruined a thread full of race statistics and just skewed it to your opinion. Your ground army arguement is silly, templars, dts, shuttles, and arbirters give the toss a ton of viable strategies. The T only has a wraith against toss, and they only get one for practical reasons... So if you want to argue ground army, then what about tosses carriers arbirters and air superiority. Leaving out the DT and reaver harass early game options. Not like you see T's retaliate making a ton of valks/wraiths/bcs against toss
SCVs can build anywhere they want too. In fact, P needs to have pylon where they want to build, T doesn't even need something like that. How is my ground army argument silly lol? Its the truth, if you don't have those things, and you don't flank, then your P army is gonna melt to superior firepower and range of T units. You bring in meaningless points like air superiority to prove your argument, TvP is not about air superiority. Whoever controls the air doesn't dictate the game like ZvP. And you accuse me of skewing information? lol.
Yeah Manner pylons and gas steals do happen, but so what? It's the T player's fault too for letting it happen.
And why do you even mention valks/wraiths/bcs in TvP?
This dumb T thinks that Carriers are imba and are insta-win
Lets not mention to him T ground army > P ground army, and P has to do so much just to engage the T army at equal power (If you don't stasis, storm, flank, zealdrop, mine drag, then your army just melts)
60 hp workers, ability to repair, vulture comes with 3 mines costs 75 mineral, upgrades unproportional, tank is 2 supply instead of 3, blah blah blah I could keep this going for hours
T's on TL whine soooooooooo much when they're playing the best race
this sounds so false... Don't complain about scvs considering probes can build anywhere and warp in as much as they want. Manner pylons and Gas steals are pretty common in TvP, there's not really a reason to complain about scvs being toss, only zergs. You just ruined a thread full of race statistics and just skewed it to your opinion. Your ground army arguement is silly, templars, dts, shuttles, and arbirters give the toss a ton of viable strategies. The T only has a wraith against toss, and they only get one for practical reasons... So if you want to argue ground army, then what about tosses carriers arbirters and air superiority. Leaving out the DT and reaver harass early game options. Not like you see T's retaliate making a ton of valks/wraiths/bcs against toss
SCVs can build anywhere they want too. In fact, P needs to have pylon where they want to build, T doesn't even need something like that. How is my ground army argument silly lol? Its the truth, if you don't have those things, and you don't flank, then your P army is gonna melt to superior firepower and range of T units. You bring in meaningless points like air superiority to prove your argument, TvP is not about air superiority. Whoever controls the air doesn't dictate the game like ZvP. And you accuse me of skewing information? lol.
Yeah Manner pylons and gas steals do happen, but so what? It's the T player's fault too for letting it happen.
And why do you even mention valks/wraiths/bcs in TvP?
by your logic protoss is soooo imba because if terran doesnt siege, protoss army walks over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111
(same thing as saying if u dont use stasis, storm and shuttles, P army melts)
he wasnt talking about air superiority, he was talking about how Protoss air (arbiter, shuttle) can allow p to dominate ground fights with stasis and zealot+storm drops. so protoss can win a ground fight easily, until terran has 3/3. arbiter and shuttle aren't really for air superiority anyway...damagewise that is
instead of dodging the main points, how about u man up and address them straight up? or maybe you already know you can't because not only are you wrong, you have self-proclaimed bias like you're proud to be a non-objective person.
For me, it seems like all P have forgot how to harass Zerg efficently. I mean, how many times in this season you've seen good Storm drop or Reaver drop in PvZ? Even Bisu's epic DT in 1Set came too late to save him from Shine's Hydras.
On October 16 2009 00:33 Vekzel wrote: For me, it seems like all P have forgot how to harass Zerg efficently. I mean, how many times in this season you've seen good Storm drop or Reaver drop in PvZ? Even Bisu's epic DT in 1Set came too late to save him from Shine's Hydras.
Air-based harass is a huge risk unless the protoss has air control. Losing 2 temps or a reaver could be way worse for protoss than the drop is for zerg,
Bisu's sairreaver attempts really haven't been working well for quite a long time now. There is a reason why Protoss players haven't been doing a lot of drop style harass. It's because it doesn't work well anymore. I do think Bisu can definitely bring back shuttle use like he used to in the form of 4zealot hatchery snipe drops that he used with great effectiveness.
Protoss players are just getting sloppy. And in the reverse, Best happens to win a pvz becasue the z was sloppy. It's pretty easy for z to due to bad control or sloppiness lose their entire army. Protoss has so much splash damage that wastes away zergs army in an instant. Corsairs > mass air, Temp, Reaver, Archon > mass ground. See how easy zerg's army can disappear.
The matter for the recent trend = sloppy p's. p's can't dodge a scourge to save their shuttle, can't stop losing temps and dts and especially keep losing obs. When p's were winning they were doing this all the time. And when p's were winning zerg's were sloppy as they don't dodge storms don't snipe anything sending in useless waves just to lose their army to the superior p ball. Z's ground army < P ground army just as P < T.
Listen to Vekzel. Z's always harassing p now-a-days. P's doing shitty harassment because they're too preoccupied with having the perfect defensive base. It's called a great offense ise teh best defence. When z harasses P they don't have much defense at their bases. It's just that P is busy defending that they won't have a chance to attack z. P can use the same strategy. With efficient harassment, they won't need so much defense. P's been playing scared lately >>
So the answer is: Imbalance = a psychological problem!
On October 16 2009 00:53 Rucky wrote: Protoss players are just getting sloppy. And in the reverse, Best happens to win a pvz becasue the z was sloppy. It's pretty easy for z to due to bad control or sloppiness lose their entire army. Protoss has so much splash damage that wastes away zergs army in an instant. Corsairs > mass air, Temp, Reaver, Archon > mass ground. See how easy zerg's army can disappear.
The matter for the recent trend = sloppy p's. p's can't dodge a scourge to save their shuttle, can't stop losing temps and dts and especially keep losing obs. When p's were winning they were doing this all the time. And when p's were winning zerg's were sloppy as they don't dodge storms don't snipe anything sending in useless waves just to lose their army to the superior p ball. Z's ground army < P ground army just as P < T.
Listen to Vekzel. Z's always harassing p now-a-days. P's doing shitty harassment because they're too preoccupied with having the perfect defensive base. It's called a great offense ise teh best defence. When z harasses P they don't have much defense at their bases. It's just that P is busy defending that they won't have a chance to attack z. P can use the same strategy. With efficient harassment, they won't need so much defense. P's been playing scared lately >>
So the answer is: Imbalance = a psychological problem!
Seems like zergs don't have any tough matchups now.
Not long ago, the four gate two archon push seemed unstoppable for a few weeks. But zergs figured it out. Right now, zerg has a build which seems to be nearly unstoppable. As the dozen times before this happened, Protoss will figure it out, maps will change, zerg players will slump, other players will rise. I have only been around TL regularly for 1 and 1/2 year, and I experienced several of those cycles. People get all worked up about basically nothing. Races have their ups and downs, and right now, Zerg is in top position. It will change again eventually.
On October 16 2009 00:51 koreasilver wrote: Bisu's sairreaver attempts really haven't been working well for quite a long time now. There is a reason why Protoss players haven't been doing a lot of drop style harass. It's because it doesn't work well anymore. I do think Bisu can definitely bring back shuttle use like he used to in the form of 4zealot hatchery snipe drops that he used with great effectiveness.
Just supporting the point even more. The fact that p harass isn't working just proves that z's are bringing their A game while P's are bringing their fear game. If Z's are sloppy, i don't see how harass doesn't work as it has worked in the PAST. In the past z's were playing bad and now they're playing great. Don't take the wins away from the players and say the game is imba. The players are just doing a hell of a good job.
edit: To be open minded I'll say this. I understand that p's aren't doing harass because "it just doesn't work well anymore." But does that mean z is just made by the game to be better at stopping p's harassments? Why does it not work anymore. Better z players is one answer. Another could be just the game is imba. (even though p harassment has been around forever and worked) I believe your answer is just that the current type of harassment is not working because z's build is a direct counter to them so P needs to find a "NEW" type of harassment, or just something unfamiliar. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Wait. Is that what everyone's been saying? P just needs a new build? Currently Z build > P build?
On October 16 2009 00:53 Rucky wrote: Protoss players are just getting sloppy. And in the reverse, Best happens to win a pvz becasue the z was sloppy. It's pretty easy for z to due to bad control or sloppiness lose their entire army. Protoss has so much splash damage that wastes away zergs army in an instant. Corsairs > mass air, Temp, Reaver, Archon > mass ground. See how easy zerg's army can disappear.
The matter for the recent trend = sloppy p's. p's can't dodge a scourge to save their shuttle, can't stop losing temps and dts and especially keep losing obs. When p's were winning they were doing this all the time. And when p's were winning zerg's were sloppy as they don't dodge storms don't snipe anything sending in useless waves just to lose their army to the superior p ball. Z's ground army < P ground army just as P < T.
Listen to Vekzel. Z's always harassing p now-a-days. P's doing shitty harassment because they're too preoccupied with having the perfect defensive base. It's called a great offense ise teh best defence. When z harasses P they don't have much defense at their bases. It's just that P is busy defending that they won't have a chance to attack z. P can use the same strategy. With efficient harassment, they won't need so much defense. P's been playing scared lately >>
So the answer is: Imbalance = a psychological problem!
On October 14 2009 23:05 ArvickHero wrote: I really think a game patch that allows you to unwarp templars from archons while it's still building would help a LOT.
This. It makes no sense that hydras are able to cancel lurker mutation when templars are not.
I can't believe this thread is still going... If you take a look at overall games played at all times it's gonna be exactly 50%:50%, 50%:50%, 50%:50%. Some protosses are getting sloppy, some zergs are getting better every day etc. It's not the races, it's the players, when will you understand that people?
On October 16 2009 00:53 Rucky wrote: Listen to Vekzel. Z's always harassing p now-a-days. P's doing shitty harassment because they're too preoccupied with having the perfect defensive base. It's called a great offense ise teh best defence. When z harasses P they don't have much defense at their bases. It's just that P is busy defending that they won't have a chance to attack z. P can use the same strategy. With efficient harassment, they won't need so much defense. P's been playing scared lately >>
It's not that P are playing scared. You're ignoring WHY Protoss needs to lean on that defensive posture in the early-mid game. The fact that protoss has to play blind in the time between they lose their worker scout, and the time their first corsair gets out means that they have to play defensive in order to not flat-out lose against ling all-ins or hydra all-ins. What's more, zerg's flexibility and the fact that they have almost 100% knowledge of what protoss is doing (barring proxies and other all-ins--and even then, a smart player should have a clue) means that they are in a much better position to punish the protoss for being overly aggressive or greedy.
The lack of harassment later on is a different issue. Templar and Reavers are slow. They require shuttles, but the easy access to scourge as a part of a basic, flexible build means that unless Protoss actively tries to take air control (with a strategy like corsair-reaver), cute shuttle play basically isn't viable, because the amount of damage that a reaver or storm drop has to do to be cost-effective is far outweighed by the risk of getting sniped by scourge somewhere along the way.
On October 16 2009 01:07 Rucky wrote: Just supporting the point even more. The fact that p harass isn't working just proves that z's are bringing their A game while P's are bringing their fear game. If Z's are sloppy, i don't see how harass doesn't work as it has worked in the PAST. In the past z's were playing bad and now they're playing great. Don't take the wins away from the players and say the game is imba. The players are just doing a hell of a good job.
No one's trying to say zerg players aren't playing well. But by and large, do you really think that the average skill of zerg progamers just *is better* than the average skill of protoss progamers? At the very top level of play, it's apparent a lot of protosses are slumping, but that does nothing to address mid-low level progamers, over which skill level should reasonably average out.
On October 16 2009 01:07 Rucky wrote: I believe your answer is just that the current type of harassment is not working because z's build is a direct counter to them so P needs to find a "NEW" type of harassment, or just something unfamiliar. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Wait. Is that what everyone's been saying? P just needs a new build? Currently Z build > P build?
This is what everyone's been saying. It's called a metagame. It changes. Sometimes it favors one side, sometimes it favors the other. It shifts based on maps, player preferences, and other things. No one (at least no one reasonable) is saying it won't shift back. But to say that NO shift has occurred, and its ALL a product of relative player skill is a very myopic point of view.
its not imbalanced but alot of the recent proleague(up to this past year) maps make it alot harder on p users, you do need more skill to pvz than to zvp but the same could be said for every other mu
interesting coincidence that right now we are debating about the current metagame right here.
For those saying that protoss should come up with something "new", we are trying to find out how viable is to use DAs in early-mid game with the maelstrom ability.
I personally feel that it can change at least a bit the "threatening" tendencies of zerg players right now since they will have to think twice before going harass a toss player who is going to freeze and storm muta harass and can even have a temporary stop to mass hydras for a few seconds before hammering few storms on to them...
If we pull this off it would definitively be a change in the current trend...
this post is a quick recap of what we are talking about.
But we need more opinions and more "testers" so we can get the timings right... anybody wants to give a quick read and give their opinions??
On October 16 2009 00:53 Rucky wrote: Listen to Vekzel. Z's always harassing p now-a-days. P's doing shitty harassment because they're too preoccupied with having the perfect defensive base. It's called a great offense ise teh best defence. When z harasses P they don't have much defense at their bases. It's just that P is busy defending that they won't have a chance to attack z. P can use the same strategy. With efficient harassment, they won't need so much defense. P's been playing scared lately >>
It's not that P are playing scared. You're ignoring WHY Protoss needs to lean on that defensive posture in the early-mid game. The fact that protoss has to play blind in the time between they lose their worker scout, and the time their first corsair gets out means that they have to play defensive in order to not flat-out lose against ling all-ins or hydra all-ins. What's more, zerg's flexibility and the fact that they have almost 100% knowledge of what protoss is doing (barring proxies and other all-ins--and even then, a smart player should have a clue) means that they are in a much better position to punish the protoss for being overly aggressive or greedy.
The lack of harassment later on is a different issue. Templar and Reavers are slow. They require shuttles, but the easy access to scourge as a part of a basic, flexible build means that unless Protoss actively tries to take air control (with a strategy like corsair-reaver), cute shuttle play basically isn't viable, because the amount of damage that a reaver or storm drop has to do to be cost-effective is far outweighed by the risk of getting sniped by scourge somewhere along the way.
If you read my edit which you did since you quoted it also, you will know that i understand the point of view that protoss can't harass and yes i do understand why protoss needs to be defensive in the early mid game. I'm saying with all this being understood, what can explain this trend, i.e. what is the reason for protoss not being able to harass. and i gave answers a) players b) imba c) builds. I'm leaning to a) and c). I was not discounting builds and accept the facts. the whole point of writing all this is to say b) is stupid. and if you agree then good. no need to give a long explanation of everything i already understand. (it's always NICE to assume people know what they're talking about)
On October 16 2009 01:07 Rucky wrote: Just supporting the point even more. The fact that p harass isn't working just proves that z's are bringing their A game while P's are bringing their fear game. If Z's are sloppy, i don't see how harass doesn't work as it has worked in the PAST. In the past z's were playing bad and now they're playing great. Don't take the wins away from the players and say the game is imba. The players are just doing a hell of a good job. >>
No one's trying to say zerg players aren't playing well. But by and large, do you really think that the average skill of zerg progamers just *is better* than the average skill of protoss progamers? At the very top level of play, it's apparent a lot of protosses are slumping, but that does nothing to address mid-low level progamers, over which skill level should reasonably average out.
So there's a difference with mid-low level progamers? I was just looking at the general picture. You ask what i really think? well why can't i think that? is it implausible that at teh current state zerg progamers are better than protoss progamers. Can you yourself not name a bunch of zergs that are improving drastically? Can you do the same for protoss? I'm just saying potentially within the current batch of progamers, there's just a higher zerg talent than protoss talent. And when new upcoming protoss talent join the fray in the future, the situation might switch.
On October 16 2009 01:07 Rucky wrote: I believe your answer is just that the current type of harassment is not working because z's build is a direct counter to them so P needs to find a "NEW" type of harassment, or just something unfamiliar. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Wait. Is that what everyone's been saying? P just needs a new build? Currently Z build > P build? >>
This is what everyone's been saying. It's called a metagame. It changes. Sometimes it favors one side, sometimes it favors the other. It shifts based on maps, player preferences, and other things. No one (at least no one reasonable) is saying it won't shift back. But to say that NO shift has occurred, and its ALL a product of relative player skill is a very myopic point of view.
Sorry sarcasm doesn't work online. I was going for the "oh is that what everyone's saying" no shit kinda thing. And yes Again i know what metagame is. I know it changes. So I'm a bit confused. You assume all this bad stuff about me that I don't know anything. Aren't you just the smart one. All you had to do was say I agree because I don't even think we're disagreeing. Yes build is one reason, but it takes a certain skill level to perform flawless builds. And for some reason I'm seeing zergs do that. And for another reason I don't even see protoss performing their "inferior" build correctly. So Z build > P build & Z performance > P performance, therefore Z >> P. Q.E.D.
Quick question: What if Protoss players would stop FE'ing every single time and went 2 gate whatever -> exp? Wouldn't that throw off Zerg players and force THEM to play it out defensively?
I mean, bring a bit of the old times, less FE and more scouts:
And wanted to show one more fpvod but I lost it from my HDD somehow and will have to try and find it out, it was where Arang went 2 gate goon range obs -> mass goons + obs and plain owned the zerg (I remember I uploaded it to the TL.net tracker ~2005 or something like that, perhaps it's still out there somewhere).
On October 16 2009 04:06 Manit0u wrote: Quick question: What if Protoss players would stop FE'ing every single time and went 2 gate whatever -> exp? Wouldn't that throw off Zerg players and force THEM to play it out defensively?
And wanted to show one more fpvod but I lost it from my HDD somehow and will have to try and find it out, it was where Arang went 2 gate goon range obs -> mass goons + obs and plain owned the zerg (I remember I uploaded it to the TL.net tracker ~2005 or something like that, perhaps it's still out there somewhere).
If they stop FE and play on 1 base, sure you'd have the element of surprise but that's it. Good players will not be thrown off, and will react to it accordingly. Bisu said that playing 1 base as P vs Z is very disadvantageous, and P just can't compete. I can see definately see why; the modern metagame includes usage of gas intensive units: sairs/dt, sair/reaver, ht+ goon mid game army, etc. You really can't do all that with 1 gas, you will most likely have to get a lot of zeals which is easily countered
On October 16 2009 04:06 Manit0u wrote: Quick question: What if Protoss players would stop FE'ing every single time and went 2 gate whatever -> exp? Wouldn't that throw off Zerg players and force THEM to play it out defensively?
I mean, bring a bit of the old times, less FE and more scouts: [youtube VOD]
And wanted to show one more fpvod but I lost it from my HDD somehow and will have to try and find it out, it was where Arang went 2 gate goon range obs -> mass goons + obs and plain owned the zerg (I remember I uploaded it to the TL.net tracker ~2005 or something like that, perhaps it's still out there somewhere).
the problem my friend is that Nal_Ra is GOD.... xDD
On October 16 2009 04:06 Manit0u wrote: Quick question: What if Protoss players would stop FE'ing every single time and went 2 gate whatever -> exp? Wouldn't that throw off Zerg players and force THEM to play it out defensively?
And wanted to show one more fpvod but I lost it from my HDD somehow and will have to try and find it out, it was where Arang went 2 gate goon range obs -> mass goons + obs and plain owned the zerg (I remember I uploaded it to the TL.net tracker ~2005 or something like that, perhaps it's still out there somewhere).
If they stop FE and play on 1 base, sure you'd have the element of surprise but that's it. Good players will not be thrown off, and will react to it accordingly. Bisu said that playing 1 base as P vs Z is very disadvantageous, and P just can't compete. I can see definately see why; the modern metagame includes usage of gas intensive units: sairs/dt, sair/reaver, ht+ goon mid game army, etc. You really can't do all that with 1 gas, you will most likely have to get a lot of zeals which is easily countered
Well, I don't mean forgoing expansion altogether. What I meant is delaying it a bit in order to get some forces earlier that could keep Zerg on the defense and (best case scenario) prevent him from expanding twice right off the bat. If P does FE it's only natural for Z to doublexp and be set for the entire game, this is the place that should be looked upon in the first place. Just like before, when all the Zs were doing the FE and were occasionally punished by a group of zealots entering their nat right when the hatch there has completed morphing. Look at them now, they don't even make sunkens early game. You just can't let the Zerg roam free early-mid game because when their tech is done they're gonna outproduce you (it's easier/faster for them to replenish their armies) and you're fucked.
Well, I agree that this is a shift in the metagame, but I don't think its just going to pass by that easy, not when stats are above 60%, that's huge! Sure, the race-imbalances exist and I accept that, I just can't see a simple way back when the game have a natural Z>P. This little shift have changed it to P<<Z=T=P which makes the whole game towards Zerg>all.
The game has evolved for 10 years and SC2 is knocking at the door, I really don't think the BW-scene has that many seasons left. I want these last seasons to be fair and balanced, I want the last days of BW to be epic battles where the best players duke it out without any major imbalances! I really don't think there's time to wait for a new Revolutionist... The best way to balance up the game again must be to change the maps. The sooner people recognize all this, the sooner we'll see a change in the imba Z>all Pro-scene.
Didn't Artosis put something out a while ago that stats are only half the story, and that if the world's best players are Terrans, then Terran matchups should be favored and so on and so forth. So if our best player in the world is a Zerg, and a lot of good Zergs are blooming as well (Calm, EffOrt, ZerO, Kwanro, Yarnc, Luxury), then it would make sense that the Zerg matchups are favored?
On October 16 2009 07:53 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote: Didn't Artosis put something out a while ago that stats are only half the story, and that if the world's best players are Terrans, then Terran matchups should be favored and so on and so forth. So if our best player in the world is a Zerg, and a lot of good Zergs are blooming as well (Calm, EffOrt, ZerO, Kwanro, Yarnc, Luxury), then it would make sense that the Zerg matchups are favored?
On October 16 2009 09:17 d_so wrote: who was that toss that crushed jaedong with a 3 gate? 4 gate? dragoon range rush. i think that was 1 base play and it was ownage
toss should at least mix in those strats to keep zerg honest
On October 16 2009 09:17 d_so wrote: who was that toss that crushed jaedong with a 3 gate? 4 gate? dragoon range rush. i think that was 1 base play and it was ownage
toss should at least mix in those strats to keep zerg honest
Movie i believe - goon timing attack
4 gate before stargate, it was an fe build. i remember b/c i was shouting at the screen WTFWTFWTF to the alarm of my suite mates.
Old ass build... Even I used that back in the WGT days, sometimes with stargate bluff, canceling after ovi leaves... Problem with that build is that its all-in. No coming back if it fails.
On October 16 2009 09:17 d_so wrote: who was that toss that crushed jaedong with a 3 gate? 4 gate? dragoon range rush. i think that was 1 base play and it was ownage
toss should at least mix in those strats to keep zerg honest
it was mOvie yo. He also does an impressive corsair reaver. I agree with this 100%. I mean Stork beat JD with a 1 gate tech (or 1 gate into expansion or something, but the point is it was 8 pylon 10 gate, not a fast nexus)!
On October 16 2009 07:53 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote: Didn't Artosis put something out a while ago that stats are only half the story, and that if the world's best players are Terrans, then Terran matchups should be favored and so on and so forth. So if our best player in the world is a Zerg, and a lot of good Zergs are blooming as well (Calm, EffOrt, ZerO, Kwanro, Yarnc, Luxury), then it would make sense that the Zerg matchups are favored?
-> Could be blatantly misinterpreting the blog.
And how do we know a player is good, unless judging by results? Which doesn't really help. "Protoss players aren't doing well, so they are bad, and shouldn't do well. Zerg players are doing well, so they are good, and should be doing well."
On October 16 2009 11:31 koreasilver wrote: Slowzealots straggling behind goons in big fights = dead goons, dead zealots.
Not to mention no corsairs with his army to ward off the mutalisks even though Bisu, unlike a lot of other protoss players, managed to prevent them from dying.
I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Movie probably has the second, and at the very least, the third best PvZ in the game today. .
That JD game is not particularly representative however, Movie's traditional style is a hyper-agressive sair/reaver harass into DT harass, into possibly more of both. This style is actually highly mobile and usually gives the zerg he's facing fits trying to guess where his shuttles are at any given moment. I think Movie is one of the few players who takes the fight to the zerg, as opposed to the other way around.
Yeah, think that Movie vs Calm game on HBR is a proof of the wicked imbalance in this matchup... That 3rd base is so hard to take and hold, it doesn't matter how awesome your harass is.
Movie threw that game away to Calm. He would have won if he just waited to attack with a full army with HT's. In Calm's interview he said the only reason he won was cause he basically went all in hydras at that point and Movie kept throwing his units into them.
On October 15 2009 02:55 Kullosus wrote: Look at GomTV Classic Season 2. Nothing but Protoss, In fact it where Bisu asserted his dominance over zergs by defeating Jaedong
Bisu never beat JD that GOM season.
(He then proceeded to lose to JD in the special event)
And thats some how negates the fact that there was I think 1 Zerg in the round of 16 and I think 3 Terran? Its clearly possible for Protoss to dominate.
On September 25 2009 17:32 baubo wrote: I kind of wish progamer protosses would play something other than standard FE->Starport/Citadel->dts. It's predictability allows zergs to counter against it way too easily.
Personally, it's really frustrating to watch a PvZ as a protoss fan, because basically the zerg is the one that can do all the cute rushes and tricks for basically the first 10 minutes of the game. While the protoss has this one build that only works if everything the zerg tries fails.
The reason why most Toss play that opening in mos games on most maps is because it works during their practice sessions. It's really that simple. In other words other strategies have worse win rates.
On October 17 2009 00:56 Camlito wrote: it was Tempest who defeated Jaedong, and that is like the equivalent of Shine > Bisu lol.
3 Tosses defeated JD in bo3s that season. Han in the offlines 2-1, Free in MSL ro16 2-1, and Tempest in GOM ro16 2-1, it was the biggest down in JD's career, if not for that season everyone would be chanting bonjwa right now.
On October 17 2009 00:56 Camlito wrote: it was Tempest who defeated Jaedong, and that is like the equivalent of Shine > Bisu lol.
3 Tosses defeated JD in bo3s that season. Han in the offlines 2-1, Free in MSL ro16 2-1, and Tempest in GOM ro16 2-1, it was the biggest down in JD's career, if not for that season everyone would be chanting bonjwa right now.
maybe thats because JD's ZvP is his only weakness?
On October 17 2009 00:56 Camlito wrote: it was Tempest who defeated Jaedong, and that is like the equivalent of Shine > Bisu lol.
3 Tosses defeated JD in bo3s that season. Han in the offlines 2-1, Free in MSL ro16 2-1, and Tempest in GOM ro16 2-1, it was the biggest down in JD's career, if not for that season everyone would be chanting bonjwa right now.
maybe thats because JD's ZvP is his only weakness?
lol to call it a weakness when he is a favourite over every single toss other than bisu in bo3/5 is a overstatement, and not like Bisu>JD, its Bisu=JD
I just think that the new mass hydra + ~6 muta to snipe the high templar is insanely powerful. Relating to another thread, I think that most P make dts to scout and delay the hydra army , but making these dts into a dark archon for maelstrom instead of sacrificing them for a couple of drone kills is better.
As seen in bisu vs. shine and the US WCGs, even mass dragoon + templar won't protect the templar from being sniped by muta, and the P has to turn them into archons, which are useless against the hydra army that follows the muta snipe.
The mass Hydra isn`t really such an easy stuff as it seems : |
/rant
You just make those 42-45 drones , start hydra production ( or muta ) and just macro + upgrades . Then snipe those ht`s and a move. Remember 1 more drone round for 4th, lurkers on time etc and ...................
a) You win vs noob.
b) You lose vs gosu or n00b for some GODDAMN UNKNOWN fucking reason cuz your hydras get owned by his stormless army.
Like I played a game today - went speedlings and owned like 6-7 probes . Then made those 45drones , denyied any zeala harras and did everything this build includes. No extra cash or any other bullshit to screw it up .He moves out attempting to take 3rd. Then I sniped those freakin HT`s and .................. wat ? My hydras in a proper formation got overhwelmed and I had to run the fuck out. Just ........ wat ?
If my hydras can`t even take his stormless army macroed after losing 6-7 PROBES + who knows how much mining time + canon in main so early ............. then how can they fight a protoss army macroed up without this huge disatvatanges early on ? I`m stucked, don`t know how the hell is it supposed to work.
Not to even mention that those templars aren`t given away for free muta sniping by every protoss and in case they are not , u r screwed.
On October 17 2009 01:41 samachking wrote: lol to call it a weakness when he is a favourite over every single toss other than bisu in bo3/5 is a overstatement, and not like Bisu>JD, its Bisu=JD
Not to derail, I'd say something like, Bo1 Bisu > JD, Bo3 Bisu = JD, Bo5 Bisu < JD.
On October 17 2009 03:00 UFO wrote: The mass Hydra isn`t really such an easy stuff as it seems : |
/rant
You just make those 42-45 drones , start hydra production ( or muta ) and just macro + upgrades . Then snipe those ht`s and a move. Remember 1 more drone round for 4th, lurkers on time etc and ...................
a) You win vs noob.
b) You lose vs gosu or n00b for some GODDAMN UNKNOWN fucking reason cuz your hydras get owned by his stormless army.
Like I played a game today - went speedlings and owned like 6-7 probes . Then made those 45drones , denyied any zeala harras and did everything this build includes. No extra cash or any other bullshit to screw it up .He moves out attempting to take 3rd. Then I sniped those freakin HT`s and .................. wat ? My hydras in a proper formation got overhwelmed and I had to run the fuck out. Just ........ wat ?
If my hydras can`t even take his stormless army macroed after losing 6-7 PROBES + who knows how much mining time + canon in main so early ............. then how can they fight a protoss army macroed up without this huge disatvatanges early on ? I`m stucked, don`t know how the hell is it supposed to work.
Not to even mention that those templars aren`t given away for free muta sniping by every protoss and in case they are not , u r screwed.
Yeah right like your army got owned by a stormless protoss army. Unless you didn't macro properly, didn't micro, your army was out of position, you were battling uphill from the bottom vs ranged goons and zealots, and also realized that you forgot to send 1 of your many control groups of hydra. Then i'll believe you lost.
On October 17 2009 01:41 samachking wrote: lol to call it a weakness when he is a favourite over every single toss other than bisu in bo3/5 is a overstatement, and not like Bisu>JD, its Bisu=JD
Not to derail, I'd say something like, Bo1 Bisu > JD, Bo3 Bisu = JD, Bo5 Bisu < JD.
Jaedong's rage only begins after losing the first game.
On October 17 2009 03:00 UFO wrote: The mass Hydra isn`t really such an easy stuff as it seems : |
/rant
You just make those 42-45 drones , start hydra production ( or muta ) and just macro + upgrades . Then snipe those ht`s and a move. Remember 1 more drone round for 4th, lurkers on time etc and ...................
a) You win vs noob.
b) You lose vs gosu or n00b for some GODDAMN UNKNOWN fucking reason cuz your hydras get owned by his stormless army.
Like I played a game today - went speedlings and owned like 6-7 probes . Then made those 45drones , denyied any zeala harras and did everything this build includes. No extra cash or any other bullshit to screw it up .He moves out attempting to take 3rd. Then I sniped those freakin HT`s and .................. wat ? My hydras in a proper formation got overhwelmed and I had to run the fuck out. Just ........ wat ?
If my hydras can`t even take his stormless army macroed after losing 6-7 PROBES + who knows how much mining time + canon in main so early ............. then how can they fight a protoss army macroed up without this huge disatvatanges early on ? I`m stucked, don`t know how the hell is it supposed to work.
Not to even mention that those templars aren`t given away for free muta sniping by every protoss and in case they are not , u r screwed.
Yeah right like your army got owned by a stormless protoss army. Unless you didn't macro properly, didn't micro, your army was out of position, you were battling uphill from the bottom vs ranged goons and zealots, and also realized that you forgot to send 1 of your many control groups of hydra. Then i'll believe you lost.
He could also have been playing 3 base zerg vs 3 base toss.
It's not a very "scholarly" oppinion maybe, but I remember when we had 1 Z of top 10 (6 P) and 4/4 P in final four in Gom. P killed Z left and right then, didn't they?
On October 17 2009 03:49 Elroi wrote: It's not a very "scholarly" oppinion maybe, but I remember when we had 1 Z of top 10 (6 P) and 4/4 P in final four in Gom. P killed Z left and right then, didn't they?
I think it was 6/8 in Ro8 in MSL and 4/4 in semis. Also, I remember there being a distinct lack of whining from Z players.
I think the point is it wasn't that long ago, and the fact that the matchup is evolving back toward the zerg isn't a problem because the pendulum *will* swing back.
On October 17 2009 03:53 Hot_Bid wrote: I think it was 6/8 in Ro8 in MSL and 4/4 in semis. Also, I remember there being a distinct lack of whining from Z players.
Hey, that's assuming that all those that are whining play protoss.
If you're talking about progamers, well, we all know Bisu whines more about balance than most of his counterparts, so it shouldn't be surprising.
On October 17 2009 03:49 Elroi wrote: It's not a very "scholarly" oppinion maybe, but I remember when we had 1 Z of top 10 (6 P) and 4/4 P in final four in Gom. P killed Z left and right then, didn't they?
I think it was 6/8 in Ro8 in MSL and 4/4 in semis. Also, I remember there being a distinct lack of whining from Z players.
After JD lost to Tempest in GOM, there were quite a few whine threads, mostly focused around how medusa and destination were super favored p against z, because "it is too hard for zerg to take a 3rd gas." This was during the very short reign of 4-gate archon zealot, too, which was touted as the "perfect PvZ." That didn't even last one season. How long has 3-hatch spire 5-hatch hydra been a staple zerg strat, with no clear counters in sight?
On October 17 2009 03:49 Elroi wrote: It's not a very "scholarly" oppinion maybe, but I remember when we had 1 Z of top 10 (6 P) and 4/4 P in final four in Gom. P killed Z left and right then, didn't they?
I think it was 6/8 in Ro8 in MSL and 4/4 in semis. Also, I remember there being a distinct lack of whining from Z players.
After JD lost to Tempest in GOM, there were quite a few whine threads, mostly focused around how medusa and destination were super favored p against z, because "it is too hard for zerg to take a 3rd gas." This was during the very short reign of 4-gate archon zealot, too, which was touted as the "perfect PvZ." That didn't even last one season. How long has 3-hatch spire 5-hatch hydra been a staple zerg strat, with no clear counters in sight?
I personally don't remember this kind of crap . Just a threat that disscused a possible counter to the 4 - gate archon push and that JD was in a slump . I remember a lot of terran players whineing about Medusa :D but wih good reason the terrain was unbuildable and there were little variation on strategys that could be used .
On October 16 2009 07:53 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote: Didn't Artosis put something out a while ago that stats are only half the story, and that if the world's best players are Terrans, then Terran matchups should be favored and so on and so forth. So if our best player in the world is a Zerg, and a lot of good Zergs are blooming as well (Calm, EffOrt, ZerO, Kwanro, Yarnc, Luxury), then it would make sense that the Zerg matchups are favored?
-> Could be blatantly misinterpreting the blog.
Yeah and I think its very true I mean if you think about it, which promising players does Protoss have? Basically just movie.. (and maaaaaybe violet, he is at least talented but too early to say if he ever will get to top lvl) And thats basically it, other than that we still have the dragons but they are all quite far away from playing at their top lvl, except for bisu. Maybe stork and jangbi will pull themselves together and play some good starcraft this season but then again PvZ was always their weakest matchup.
Movie is already A - class and really good in my opinion . I have a good impression from Stats from his recent games he could become a force . Violet has good PvP , but i think he is lacking in the other MUs still . Tempest and Horang2 needs to up their level of play a bit . Perfectman needs to show-off some more . BackHo is an A - class player on the level of Movie i don't know why people don't consider him a promising player .
On October 17 2009 03:54 NovaTheFeared wrote: I think the point is it wasn't that long ago, and the fact that the matchup is evolving back toward the zerg isn't a problem because the pendulum *will* swing back.
Ok, that pendum is kinda wierd when it stays 2 months with toss and 8 month with Zerg...
I was trying to keep an open mind on this but watching 3 base Shine walk over 3 base Bisu makes me think something's gone wrong. I wonder if Protoss need to reexamine their choice of production building placement? Perhaps try to place 2 HT gateways that are in a safer position covered by expansion cannons or something so they don't have to make the trip from main to natural where many seem to get sniped. Maelstrom certainly seems like a good idea but it's hard to believe the pros haven't practised heavily with it and found it doesn't work out.
For me in the last few months zerg have enhanced a few things against Protoss :
1) Scourges against corsairs instead of using early hydras to defend overlords 2) Sim city on 2nd and 3rd base to deflect zeals rush efficiently 3) HP snipping with Mutas
Now can someone tell me why Protoss keep going corsair against Zerg?
Before corsairs were used to kill 1-2 overlord and to scout if zerg was going spire or hydraden. Now zergs go both anyways... I'm not talking about going 5-6 +1 corsairs to try to sneak in dts. I'm talking about the build I often see where protoss goes 1 corsair and zerg has spire so fast that he can't even kill an overlord before being chased out by scourges. Why don't they skip corsair (they can still make a quick goon to scare off overlords) and keep the extra gas/min to get a quicker Zeal Archon rush or get one DA to protect against muta snipping?
I mean if you think about it, which promising players does Protoss have?
Movie, violet, Perfectman, Tempest and Stats. Obviously most of them are no where near the top but I'd say they were the future top toss.
Tempest and Perfectman really aren't very good. Perfectman is way too new to tell. Almost all the new toss have at least 1 weak matchup.
Violet definitely has the best pvp of any of the neo-gen toss, the only one close is Guemchi and Guemchi seems to have peaked in his play. Violet is much more consistent in PvZ than Movie, but PvT is very untested. If he beats Skyhigh in the MST, Violet will appear to be much stronger than we're giving him credit for.
Movie is just wildly inconsistent PvZ and PvT. His pvp isn't good at all. He can beat almost anyone PvZ and lose to almost anyone in it. PvT is similar but a bit less flukeish - I don't think he would ever beat Flash.
Stats seems really strong, but is really untested like Perfectman is.
The 6 dragons are for the most part, worse than the neo-gen toss in most matchups. The top 7 Toss players, by overall elo, are Bisu, Kal, Stork, Jangbi, Horang2, Free, and Violet. Just look at the vZ elo from that - Bisu is 2155, Stork is 2101, Violet is 2100. Kal and Free are lower than Violet in the matchup, which is just bizarre.
For PvP, Bisu is 2256, Kal(!) is 2136, Horang2 is 2116. Kal was always the dragon who was the worst at PvP, and now he's #2?
PvT is a bit more even, with the top 6 being dragons - Bisu, Stork, Jangbi, Free, Kal, Best, at 2120. The next neogen toss on the list is m18m, but he doesn't really count. Guemchi shows up at 2048, then Horang2 and Stats.
Basically, the big gap between the dragons and the new toss is PvT, which is backed up by the strongest terrans looking really weak in tvp, especially Fantasy. Flash has been very vulnerable to the dragons this year, losing games to Stork and Jangbi like they were nothing. Of the neo-gen, I'd say Stats is the only one who seems to be strongest PvT.
I mean if you think about it, which promising players does Protoss have?
Movie, violet, Perfectman, Tempest and Stats. Obviously most of them are no where near the top but I'd say they were the future top toss.
Tempest and Perfectman really aren't very good. Perfectman is way too new to tell. Almost all the new toss have at least 1 weak matchup.
Violet definitely has the best pvp of any of the neo-gen toss, the only one close is Guemchi and Guemchi seems to have peaked in his play. Violet is much more consistent in PvZ than Movie, but PvT is very untested. If he beats Skyhigh in the MST, Violet will appear to be much stronger than we're giving him credit for.
Movie is just wildly inconsistent PvZ and PvT. His pvp isn't good at all. He can beat almost anyone PvZ and lose to almost anyone in it. PvT is similar but a bit less flukeish - I don't think he would ever beat Flash.
Stats seems really strong, but is really untested like Perfectman is.
The 6 dragons are for the most part, worse than the neo-gen toss in most matchups. The top 7 Toss players, by overall elo, are Bisu, Kal, Stork, Jangbi, Horang2, Free, and Violet. Just look at the vZ elo from that - Bisu is 2155, Stork is 2101, Violet is 2100. Kal and Free are lower than Violet in the matchup, which is just bizarre.
For PvP, Bisu is 2256, Kal(!) is 2136, Horang2 is 2116. Kal was always the dragon who was the worst at PvP, and now he's #2?
PvT is a bit more even, with the top 6 being dragons - Bisu, Stork, Jangbi, Free, Kal, Best, at 2120. The next neogen toss on the list is m18m, but he doesn't really count. Guemchi shows up at 2048, then Horang2 and Stats.
Basically, the big gap between the dragons and the new toss is PvT, which is backed up by the strongest terrans looking really weak in tvp, especially Fantasy. Flash has been very vulnerable to the dragons this year, losing games to Stork and Jangbi like they were nothing. Of the neo-gen, I'd say Stats is the only one who seems to be strongest PvT.
The last 2 PvZ from Movie against Saint and Calm are quite impressive...
I agree for Tempest he's been here a while and never did rise... Probably too late for him.
On October 17 2009 08:08 Beamo wrote: For me in the last few months zerg have enhanced a few things against Protoss :
1) Scourges against corsairs instead of using early hydras to defend overlords 2) Sim city on 2nd and 3rd base to deflect zeals rush efficiently 3) HP snipping with Mutas
Now can someone tell me why Protoss keep going corsair against Zerg?
Before corsairs were used to kill 1-2 overlord and to scout if zerg was going spire or hydraden. Now zergs go both anyways... I'm not talking about going 5-6 +1 corsairs to try to sneak in dts. I'm talking about the build I often see where protoss goes 1 corsair and zerg has spire so fast that he can't even kill an overlord before being chased out by scourges. Why don't they skip corsair (they can still make a quick goon to scare off overlords) and keep the extra gas/min to get a quicker Zeal Archon rush or get one DA to protect against muta snipping?
Can someone enlighten me ?
Two reasons:
1) If the Protoss gets his Probe killed earlier, a hydra cannon break is always possible, so Protoss needs a scout.
2) Without a Stargate, Zerg will notice and just go 3-hatch 9 muta. During that stage of the game, Zerg will pull way ahead from harassing and picking off templars.
The reason why the Zeal Archon rush has been effective lately is because of the Zergs that go 5-hatch hydra blindly without thinking of switching tech. Muta micro >>>>> Zeal Archon, at least at the pro level.
On October 17 2009 08:08 Beamo wrote: For me in the last few months zerg have enhanced a few things against Protoss :
1) Scourges against corsairs instead of using early hydras to defend overlords 2) Sim city on 2nd and 3rd base to deflect zeals rush efficiently 3) HP snipping with Mutas
Now can someone tell me why Protoss keep going corsair against Zerg?
Before corsairs were used to kill 1-2 overlord and to scout if zerg was going spire or hydraden. Now zergs go both anyways... I'm not talking about going 5-6 +1 corsairs to try to sneak in dts. I'm talking about the build I often see where protoss goes 1 corsair and zerg has spire so fast that he can't even kill an overlord before being chased out by scourges. Why don't they skip corsair (they can still make a quick goon to scare off overlords) and keep the extra gas/min to get a quicker Zeal Archon rush or get one DA to protect against muta snipping?
Can someone enlighten me ?
Two reasons:
1) If the Protoss gets his Probe killed earlier, a hydra cannon break is always possible, so Protoss needs a scout.
2) Without a Stargate, Zerg will notice and just go 3-hatch 9 muta. During that stage of the game, Zerg will pull way ahead from harassing and picking off templars.
The reason why the Zeal Archon rush has been effective lately is because of the Zergs that go 5-hatch hydra blindly without thinking of switching tech. Muta micro >>>>> Zeal Archon, at least at the pro level.
1) isn't the corsair scouting a bit late to really block a hydra canon break ?
2) Ok so the corsair is in time to see if a 3 hatch 9 mutas is being made giving him time to make canons and additional cors if needed... Makes sense
I mean if you think about it, which promising players does Protoss have?
Movie, violet, Perfectman, Tempest and Stats. Obviously most of them are no where near the top but I'd say they were the future top toss.
To use the words of Testie (he didn't say that, he said it in different context but it suits here perfectly)... BeSt is going to look at his recent performance and say: Fuck that! Time to be awesome again! And he's going to destroy. You heard it here first.
Making the third gas less easy to take would make PvZ a little less difficult I think, like Match Point has a mineral third instead of a gas third and P have a much better time
On October 17 2009 14:51 ArvickHero wrote: Making the third gas less easy to take would make PvZ a little less difficult I think, like Match Point has a mineral third instead of a gas third and P have a much better time
Yep, several others have already made this analysis. A mineral-only third (and much harder-to-take fourth) prevents zerg from having the kitchen sink to throw at the P within minutes. And if it's easy to defend (like Match Point), P can actually get to a third base too for a change, which allows them to survive into the late game. Of course, protoss units cost gas too, but protoss can do much more with the extra minerals. A third gas that is easy to defend for protoss too might not be a bad deal either.
I mean if you think about it, which promising players does Protoss have?
Movie, violet, Perfectman, Tempest and Stats. Obviously most of them are no where near the top but I'd say they were the future top toss.
I wasnt aware people are actually serious about perfectman ^^ Why, cause he beat Iris once? It is way too early to even mention this guy.
I already mentioned movie and violet, and about the others, horang2 and backho included, do you really see them winning any starleagues soon? Just compare that list to calm effort kwanro zero - two of those players already ARE S-class, the other two also are quite accomplished already, more accomplished then any of those tosses you mention
Of course there are very talented Protoss players, but the point is that right now the Zerg players are simply better.
people should probably stop splashing the phrase "S-class" around. thats for flash, jaedong, stork, bisu and fantasy. until a player can hang with these guys, they ain't S-class
On October 17 2009 20:32 nebffa wrote: people should probably stop splashing the phrase "S-class" around. thats for flash, jaedong, stork, bisu and fantasy. until a player can hang with these guys, they ain't S-class
On October 17 2009 03:54 NovaTheFeared wrote: I think the point is it wasn't that long ago, and the fact that the matchup is evolving back toward the zerg isn't a problem because the pendulum *will* swing back.
There isn't an unlimited amount of possible viable strategies though, so it might not. Personally i think Zerg is inherently better when played at such a high level and as time passes its getting more and more clear. With modern scourge control, lurker spread, muta micro, defiler usage etc etc it seems unlikely to me that there will be another era of Protoss dominance unless theres somehow some very heavily P favoured maps used in the future.
Edit: also the same thing i believe is definitely noticeable in ZvT as well with Z currently in a better position than usual. T being more flexible though means its probably more likely for the matchup to swing back.
On October 17 2009 03:54 NovaTheFeared wrote: I think the point is it wasn't that long ago, and the fact that the matchup is evolving back toward the zerg isn't a problem because the pendulum *will* swing back.
There isn't an unlimited amount of possible viable strategies though, so it might not. Personally i think Zerg is inherently better when played at such a high level and as time passes its getting more and more clear. With modern scourge control, lurker spread, muta micro, defiler usage etc etc it seems unlikely to me that there will be another era of Protoss dominance unless theres somehow some very heavily P favoured maps used in the future.
Edit: also the same thing i believe is definitely noticeable in ZvT as well with Z currently in a better position than usual. T being more flexible though means its probably more likely for the matchup to swing back.
Cool, I can use arbitrary ideas to support my facts too. With modern corsair, shuttle control, and high templar and arbiter accuracy, it seems unlikely that protoss will ever lose again.
On October 17 2009 20:32 nebffa wrote: people should probably stop splashing the phrase "S-class" around. thats for flash, jaedong, stork, bisu and fantasy. until a player can hang with these guys, they ain't S-class
On October 17 2009 20:32 nebffa wrote: people should probably stop splashing the phrase "S-class" around. thats for flash, jaedong, stork, bisu and fantasy. until a player can hang with these guys, they ain't S-class
calm has won a starleague, fantasy hasn't.
Such a bad argument. cant believe it. forGG has won a starleague as well is he better than fantasy? Than JD, than stork? Than anybody?
This is just personal opinion not facts just like i said so your sarcastic comment isn't really needed. Of course P players are getting better overall too, but i think the advantages of better control of those units do not match up to the advantages of this higher level of Z play. I'm not saying its going to be impossible to win but just it'll be slightly more tilted in Z's favour overall as the skill level gets higher and higher. You can try to explain to me why i'm wrong if you want, but i don't know why people just assume it will always swing back to P's favour at some point.
edit: also i don't see how its arbitrary, i was pointing out a few things which have clearly got a lot better recently and are directly effecting the matchup. scourge/muta in particular are definitely a lot more dangerous than they used to be, and P doesn't have an equivalent improvement possible imo. sair/ht usage for example, even as it gets better its not going to effect the matchup as much as the former.
7mk I was talking about future top Protoss who are still fairly new, you're listing very experienced Zerg. I also made no comparison to other races, so what's the relevance? If these guys are not the future top P then who is? Bisu and Stork can't carry on for ever. Kal will be Mr. Solid but nothing special.
On October 17 2009 20:32 nebffa wrote: people should probably stop splashing the phrase "S-class" around. thats for flash, jaedong, stork, bisu and fantasy. until a player can hang with these guys, they ain't S-class
calm has won a starleague, fantasy hasn't.
Such a bad argument. cant believe it. forGG has won a starleague as well is he better than fantasy? Than JD, than stork? Than anybody?
Put it this way: Calm JUST won a starleague. Fantasy couldn't even make it to the Ro16 for that same league. If Fantasy is S-Class, Calm is too. Nothing more, nothing less. The rest of that argument was just fallacious slippery slope crap.
On October 17 2009 20:32 nebffa wrote: people should probably stop splashing the phrase "S-class" around. thats for flash, jaedong, stork, bisu and fantasy. until a player can hang with these guys, they ain't S-class
calm has won a starleague, fantasy hasn't.
Such a bad argument. cant believe it. forGG has won a starleague as well is he better than fantasy? Than JD, than stork? Than anybody?
Put it this way: Calm JUST won a starleague. Fantasy couldn't even make it to the Ro16 for that same league. If Fantasy is S-Class, Calm is too. Nothing more, nothing less. The rest of that argument was just fallacious slippery slope crap.
This argument is also fallacious.
The better player does not always win 100% of the time with no exceptions. If that was true, the argument for Calm would be much simpler than that. Calm beat Jaedong, therefore Calm is better than Jaedong.
In the short term (such as one starleague), worse players routinely advance farther than better players. Consider that in the same starleague, Canata, Iris, and Zero advanced farther than Flash and fantasy. Since Flash is S-class, does that make Canata S-class?
Players do not have equally difficult draws. Fantasy lost to Bisu in the ro16. Calm beat forgg in the ro16. Nobody would say the two had equally difficult opponents.
On October 17 2009 20:32 nebffa wrote: people should probably stop splashing the phrase "S-class" around. thats for flash, jaedong, stork, bisu and fantasy. until a player can hang with these guys, they ain't S-class
calm has won a starleague, fantasy hasn't.
Such a bad argument. cant believe it. forGG has won a starleague as well is he better than fantasy? Than JD, than stork? Than anybody?
Put it this way: Calm JUST won a starleague. Fantasy couldn't even make it to the Ro16 for that same league. If Fantasy is S-Class, Calm is too. Nothing more, nothing less. The rest of that argument was just fallacious slippery slope crap.
Funny, I don't remember seeing Calm in the last OSL. Yet Fantasy made it to the semis and lost to the winner. Calm isn't S-class period.
On October 17 2009 20:32 nebffa wrote: people should probably stop splashing the phrase "S-class" around. thats for flash, jaedong, stork, bisu and fantasy. until a player can hang with these guys, they ain't S-class
calm has won a starleague, fantasy hasn't.
Such a bad argument. cant believe it. forGG has won a starleague as well is he better than fantasy? Than JD, than stork? Than anybody?
Put it this way: Calm JUST won a starleague. Fantasy couldn't even make it to the Ro16 for that same league. If Fantasy is S-Class, Calm is too. Nothing more, nothing less. The rest of that argument was just fallacious slippery slope crap.
Funny, I don't remember seeing Calm in the last OSL. Yet Fantasy made it to the semis and lost to the winner. Calm isn't S-class period.
And that winner who beat Fantasy was beaten 3-1 by Calm the very next day. :D
On October 17 2009 20:32 nebffa wrote: people should probably stop splashing the phrase "S-class" around. thats for flash, jaedong, stork, bisu and fantasy. until a player can hang with these guys, they ain't S-class
sorry but both effort and calm > stork atm. They can certainly "hang" with these guys, you do remember who knocked out jaedong in the msl, or who knocked him out of gom, right? Anyways, theres no further point in discussing whos S-class or not, theres no clear objective definition, in my opinion they both are, in others they might not be.
On October 17 2009 23:24 ix wrote: 7mk I was talking about future top Protoss who are still fairly new, you're listing very experienced Zerg. I also made no comparison to other races, so what's the relevance? If these guys are not the future top P then who is? Bisu and Stork can't carry on for ever. Kal will be Mr. Solid but nothing special.
youre missing the point. This is about why Z>P atm, and imo one of the main reasons is that right now Zerg players are simply better than their P counterparts. Yes those players are the future of Protoss..... and? They are not at the top right now, the Zerg I mentioned are, thats my entire point.
The better player does not always win 100% of the time with no exceptions. If that was true, the argument for Calm would be much simpler than that. Calm beat Jaedong, therefore Calm is better than Jaedong.
Hm, agreed. The better player doesn't always win 100% of the time, but take it into context: Calm beat JD 3-1 in his best matchup, but it was after the proleague loss so JD was probably a bit out of it. Then, Fantasy lost to JD 3-1 in TvZ (historically imba matchup for T) after JD lost to both Fantasy and Calm.
In the short term (such as one starleague), worse players routinely advance farther than better players. Consider that in the same starleague, Canata, Iris, and Zero advanced farther than Flash and fantasy. Since Flash is S-class, does that make Canata S-class?
Well, either way, we must have some arbitrary standards for who is in the S-Class correct? It's either arbitrarily chosen standards or subjective ideals. If it's opinions about who is in the S-class, then back it up. Why is it that Fantasy should be in the S-class but not Calm? What has Fantasy achieved over Calm?
Players do not have equally difficult draws. Fantasy lost to Bisu in the ro16. Calm beat forgg in the ro16. Nobody would say the two had equally difficult opponents.
No, but Calm also had to go up against Effort and JD, both of whom had quite impressive ZvZ records at the time. You have to acknowledge the fact that Calm played some very impressive opponents in his run to the MSL too. =/
Anyway, the question is what has fantasy accomplished that sets him a class above calm? What has he accomplished that allows him to be S-Class but doesn't allow calm to be as well?
First of all even though this is my first post i have been watching pro Starcraft for about a year now so I'm not a complete and total newb to this.
Well, either way, we must have some arbitrary standards for who is in the S-Class correct? It's either arbitrarily chosen standards or subjective ideals. If it's opinions about who is in the S-class, then back it up. Why is it that Fantasy should be in the S-class but not Calm? What has Fantasy achieved over Calm?
No, but Calm also had to go up against Effort and JD, both of whom had quite impressive ZvZ records at the time. You have to acknowledge the fact that Calm played some very impressive opponents in his run to the MSL too. =/
Anyway, the question is what has fantasy accomplished that sets him a class above calm? What has he accomplished that allows him to be S-Class but doesn't allow calm to be as well?
Well I personally think that to be considered S-class you must either have a 60%+ win rate in that MU or go into any game against another S-class player as at worst a slight underdog. for example Bisu vs Jaedong, I'm reasonably sure that assuming we use balanced maps and not HBR-type toss graveyards, the general consensus is its pretty even, some might call JD a slight favorite and some would say Bisu is the slight favorite. Same with Bisu vs Flash or Flash vs Jaedong. If you put like Calm vs Flash/Bisu on the other hand, most non-fanboys would agree that Calm more than a slight underdog and it would be somewhat of an upset if he won. I'd say that Jaedong Flash Bisu are the only all-around S-class players but some people have like 1 S-class MU that gets them alot of attention.
On your question on what allows Fantasy to be S-class and Calm not, well Fantasy is a god at TvP and TvT, has been for a while with ~62% win rate in both MU's. Same can be said of Storks ridiculous 67% PvT win rate which is definitely S-class. But I just think that Calm hasn't been good long enough to call him S-class. Hes been a solid above average Proleague Zerg and pretty fail in starleagues minus last seasons MSL, and with the likes of luxury and forGG roaming around, 1 SL win isnt really enough justification to put someone on S-class. And although Fantasy hasn't won an OSL, hes finished 2nd twice and made it to the semifinals in his 3rd go at it. And he lost to Stork(Best PvTer in the history of the game) and Jaedong(Best Zerg ever to play the game) 2-3. I mean if he plays anyone but those two he probably wins at least one OSL, although that's conjecture so don't quote me on that. Anyways Fantasy has shown a really high level of play for 3 straight seasons now and that Consistency is better than temporary brilliance and you don't get more consistent than 2nd, 2nd, top 4.
Back to Calm though, hes done really nothing to deserve status as more than normal A-class other than riding ZvZ into an MSL title, and ZvZ is by far the most volatile and random of the 6 MU's in Starcraft. Not to take anything away from Calm as its a pretty big accomplishment to beat JD and Effort back-to-back in any case, but ZvZ at that level is really 50-50 or 55-45 at best with build order playing a huge part (Especially if you are Effort and 12-hatch vs 9-Pool speed 2 games in a row) Plus his 55% win rates in everything are REALLY meh. He's just not great at anything. If Calm can show the same level of play this season as he did last season i think he has an argument (This goes for Effort to, as even though hes 60%+ in ALL his MU's he hasnt really played all that many games and has failed pretty hard in SL's) Like right now there is literally NOTHING that separates Calm from forGG and Luxury except that Calm's win happened more recently so we remember it better.
And i just realized this is completely off-topic from the OP of Z>>>>>>P.
Back to the original topic though, the last few PvZ's I've seen have had the zerg go 3-base mass hydras, make 9 mutas, suicide them to kill some Templar them then A-move Hydras to completely roll the Protoss army. For example Bisu had like 2 control groups of goons plus some decent if not great storms on the Mutas and still lost all his temps and proceeded to get rolled. Hyuk lost all his Mutas, left Stork with a few Templar, threw away all his lurks without killing anything, and still rolled over Stork. I mean it seems like a really simple formula that always works, and if Bisu cant stop Shine from doing and Stork cant stop Hyuk from doing i think there's gotta be something wrong.
The thing I'm hoping may give protoss a chance is dark archons. Protoss was doing well.. before every zerg learned how to WALL... and now protoss for the most part can't seem to do any successful timing attacks to stop zerg powering off three hatcheries.
maybe Dark Archons-Maelstrom-Archons to stop the currently successful-every-game strategy of powering hydras and suiciding mutas to kill templars. What Jangbi was doing in his first game this season but got killed by no defense in his main. ..
That or another variation of corsair-reaver ->(maybe) carriers..
edit: oh and I just want to say - the better player wins is such a naive thought.
Just don't make so many maps with an easy 3rd gas, that way Zerg won't have enough gas to make 9 mutas and a big hydra army at the same time. It's like theoretically debating on Zergs dominating Terrans on maps with easy five gases, it's really more of a map imbalance that needs to be fixed.
On October 18 2009 13:06 Chen wrote: First of all even though this is my first post i have been watching pro Starcraft for about a year now so I'm not a complete and total newb to this.
Well, either way, we must have some arbitrary standards for who is in the S-Class correct? It's either arbitrarily chosen standards or subjective ideals. If it's opinions about who is in the S-class, then back it up. Why is it that Fantasy should be in the S-class but not Calm? What has Fantasy achieved over Calm?
No, but Calm also had to go up against Effort and JD, both of whom had quite impressive ZvZ records at the time. You have to acknowledge the fact that Calm played some very impressive opponents in his run to the MSL too. =/
Anyway, the question is what has fantasy accomplished that sets him a class above calm? What has he accomplished that allows him to be S-Class but doesn't allow calm to be as well?
Well I personally think that to be considered S-class you must either have a 60%+ win rate in that MU or go into any game against another S-class player as at worst a slight underdog. for example Bisu vs Jaedong, I'm reasonably sure that assuming we use balanced maps and not HBR-type toss graveyards, the general consensus is its pretty even, some might call JD a slight favorite and some would say Bisu is the slight favorite. Same with Bisu vs Flash or Flash vs Jaedong. If you put like Calm vs Flash/Bisu on the other hand, most non-fanboys would agree that Calm more than a slight underdog and it would be somewhat of an upset if he won. I'd say that Jaedong Flash Bisu are the only all-around S-class players but some people have like 1 S-class MU that gets them alot of attention.
On your question on what allows Fantasy to be S-class and Calm not, well Fantasy is a god at TvP and TvT, has been for a while with ~62% win rate in both MU's. Same can be said of Storks ridiculous 67% PvT win rate which is definitely S-class. But I just think that Calm hasn't been good long enough to call him S-class. Hes been a solid above average Proleague Zerg and pretty fail in starleagues minus last seasons MSL, and with the likes of luxury and forGG roaming around, 1 SL win isnt really enough justification to put someone on S-class. And although Fantasy hasn't won an OSL, hes finished 2nd twice and made it to the semifinals in his 3rd go at it. And he lost to Stork(Best PvTer in the history of the game) and Jaedong(Best Zerg ever to play the game) 2-3. I mean if he plays anyone but those two he probably wins at least one OSL, although that's conjecture so don't quote me on that. Anyways Fantasy has shown a really high level of play for 3 straight seasons now and that Consistency is better than temporary brilliance and you don't get more consistent than 2nd, 2nd, top 4.
Back to Calm though, hes done really nothing to deserve status as more than normal A-class other than riding ZvZ into an MSL title, and ZvZ is by far the most volatile and random of the 6 MU's in Starcraft. Not to take anything away from Calm as its a pretty big accomplishment to beat JD and Effort back-to-back in any case, but ZvZ at that level is really 50-50 or 55-45 at best with build order playing a huge part (Especially if you are Effort and 12-hatch vs 9-Pool speed 2 games in a row) Plus his 55% win rates in everything are REALLY meh. He's just not great at anything. If Calm can show the same level of play this season as he did last season i think he has an argument (This goes for Effort to, as even though hes 60%+ in ALL his MU's he hasnt really played all that many games and has failed pretty hard in SL's) Like right now there is literally NOTHING that separates Calm from forGG and Luxury except that Calm's win happened more recently so we remember it better.
And i just realized this is completely off-topic from the OP of Z>>>>>>P.
Back to the original topic though, the last few PvZ's I've seen have had the zerg go 3-base mass hydras, make 9 mutas, suicide them to kill some Templar them then A-move Hydras to completely roll the Protoss army. For example Bisu had like 2 control groups of goons plus some decent if not great storms on the Mutas and still lost all his temps and proceeded to get rolled. Hyuk lost all his Mutas, left Stork with a few Templar, threw away all his lurks without killing anything, and still rolled over Stork. I mean it seems like a really simple formula that always works, and if Bisu cant stop Shine from doing and Stork cant stop Hyuk from doing i think there's gotta be something wrong.
On October 18 2009 13:06 Chen wrote: First of all even though this is my first post i have been watching pro Starcraft for about a year now so I'm not a complete and total newb to this.
Well, either way, we must have some arbitrary standards for who is in the S-Class correct? It's either arbitrarily chosen standards or subjective ideals. If it's opinions about who is in the S-class, then back it up. Why is it that Fantasy should be in the S-class but not Calm? What has Fantasy achieved over Calm?
No, but Calm also had to go up against Effort and JD, both of whom had quite impressive ZvZ records at the time. You have to acknowledge the fact that Calm played some very impressive opponents in his run to the MSL too. =/
Anyway, the question is what has fantasy accomplished that sets him a class above calm? What has he accomplished that allows him to be S-Class but doesn't allow calm to be as well?
Well I personally think that to be considered S-class you must either have a 60%+ win rate in that MU or go into any game against another S-class player as at worst a slight underdog. for example Bisu vs Jaedong, I'm reasonably sure that assuming we use balanced maps and not HBR-type toss graveyards, the general consensus is its pretty even, some might call JD a slight favorite and some would say Bisu is the slight favorite. Same with Bisu vs Flash or Flash vs Jaedong. If you put like Calm vs Flash/Bisu on the other hand, most non-fanboys would agree that Calm more than a slight underdog and it would be somewhat of an upset if he won. I'd say that Jaedong Flash Bisu are the only all-around S-class players but some people have like 1 S-class MU that gets them alot of attention.
On your question on what allows Fantasy to be S-class and Calm not, well Fantasy is a god at TvP and TvT, has been for a while with ~62% win rate in both MU's. Same can be said of Storks ridiculous 67% PvT win rate which is definitely S-class. But I just think that Calm hasn't been good long enough to call him S-class. Hes been a solid above average Proleague Zerg and pretty fail in starleagues minus last seasons MSL, and with the likes of luxury and forGG roaming around, 1 SL win isnt really enough justification to put someone on S-class. And although Fantasy hasn't won an OSL, hes finished 2nd twice and made it to the semifinals in his 3rd go at it. And he lost to Stork(Best PvTer in the history of the game) and Jaedong(Best Zerg ever to play the game) 2-3. I mean if he plays anyone but those two he probably wins at least one OSL, although that's conjecture so don't quote me on that. Anyways Fantasy has shown a really high level of play for 3 straight seasons now and that Consistency is better than temporary brilliance and you don't get more consistent than 2nd, 2nd, top 4.
Back to Calm though, hes done really nothing to deserve status as more than normal A-class other than riding ZvZ into an MSL title, and ZvZ is by far the most volatile and random of the 6 MU's in Starcraft. Not to take anything away from Calm as its a pretty big accomplishment to beat JD and Effort back-to-back in any case, but ZvZ at that level is really 50-50 or 55-45 at best with build order playing a huge part (Especially if you are Effort and 12-hatch vs 9-Pool speed 2 games in a row) Plus his 55% win rates in everything are REALLY meh. He's just not great at anything. If Calm can show the same level of play this season as he did last season i think he has an argument (This goes for Effort to, as even though hes 60%+ in ALL his MU's he hasnt really played all that many games and has failed pretty hard in SL's) Like right now there is literally NOTHING that separates Calm from forGG and Luxury except that Calm's win happened more recently so we remember it better.
And i just realized this is completely off-topic from the OP of Z>>>>>>P.
Back to the original topic though, the last few PvZ's I've seen have had the zerg go 3-base mass hydras, make 9 mutas, suicide them to kill some Templar them then A-move Hydras to completely roll the Protoss army. For example Bisu had like 2 control groups of goons plus some decent if not great storms on the Mutas and still lost all his temps and proceeded to get rolled. Hyuk lost all his Mutas, left Stork with a few Templar, threw away all his lurks without killing anything, and still rolled over Stork. I mean it seems like a really simple formula that always works, and if Bisu cant stop Shine from doing and Stork cant stop Hyuk from doing i think there's gotta be something wrong.
The metagame changes constantly, a year ago Protoss was dominating everything. It's inevitably that one day a Protoss will find a good counter to the mass hydras followed by the HT sniping.
Everyone crying about this has no sense of Starcraft history.
On October 19 2009 09:34 Noah wrote: ZvP isn't imbalanced, the current map pool is.
The metagame changes constantly, a year ago Protoss was dominating everything. It's inevitably that one day a Protoss will find a good counter to the mass hydras followed by the HT sniping.
Everyone crying about this has no sense of Starcraft history.
If you are going to use metagame to claim that you can't call the races imbalanced, then you can't call the maps imbalanced either. I think Rush Hour 3 showed this..
It comes down to finding a counter for the current auto-win strat though, just like how proper zerg walling was the counter to the zealots + 2 archon attack that was beating so many zerg..
ZvP is one of the better balanced matchups, stop complaining. While I agree that no human-made RTS can perfectly be balanced, its good enough I guess. And there is nothing we can do about it now. (or else I would have written a 20 page analysis essay to Blizzard about how TvZ is imba favor of T lol)
On October 19 2009 09:34 Noah wrote: ZvP isn't imbalanced, the current map pool is.
The metagame changes constantly, a year ago Protoss was dominating everything. It's inevitably that one day a Protoss will find a good counter to the mass hydras followed by the HT sniping.
Everyone crying about this has no sense of Starcraft history.
If you are going to use metagame to claim that you can't call the races imbalanced, then you can't call the maps imbalanced either. I think Rush Hour 3 showed this..
It comes down to finding a counter for the current auto-win strat though, just like how proper zerg walling was the counter to the zealots + 2 archon attack that was beating so many zerg..
Actually I can. Because the maps, unlike the metagame, can be made to cater to a race's strengths and weaknesses. Create a map with a narrow funnel between two bases, without any room for flanking, and have a TvP on it. You'll see map balance affect the game in a way that the metagame will never do.
If a shift in the metagame ends up changing the balance of the map that just means that the map were never that imbalanced to begin with.
On October 19 2009 09:55 AzureEye wrote: ZvP is one of the better balanced matchups, stop complaining. While I agree that no human-made RTS can perfectly be balanced, its good enough I guess. And there is nothing we can do about it now. (or else I would have written a 20 page analysis essay to Blizzard about how TvZ is imba favor of T lol)
How can ZvP be one of the better matchups when there are only 3 MUs? And I think that alot of people are forgetting that certain MUs are catered for certain races to win. P>T , T>Z , Z>P
On October 17 2009 20:32 nebffa wrote: people should probably stop splashing the phrase "S-class" around. thats for flash, jaedong, stork, bisu and fantasy. until a player can hang with these guys, they ain't S-class
calm has won a starleague, fantasy hasn't.
Such a bad argument. cant believe it. forGG has won a starleague as well is he better than fantasy? Than JD, than stork? Than anybody?
Put it this way: Calm JUST won a starleague. Fantasy couldn't even make it to the Ro16 for that same league. If Fantasy is S-Class, Calm is too. Nothing more, nothing less. The rest of that argument was just fallacious slippery slope crap.
Hahaha, this is such a bad argument. I don't see you convincing anyone with that.
Face it, when it comes down to who the people like more and remember better, it will be someone who can stand out from the rest. I'm probably not the only one that thinks that Calm is pretty normal, regular. Notice that I'm not rating him on a scale of good to bad. It really takes more than just winning a SL for a player to be considered S-class.
On October 19 2009 09:34 Noah wrote: ZvP isn't imbalanced, the current map pool is.
The metagame changes constantly, a year ago Protoss was dominating everything. It's inevitably that one day a Protoss will find a good counter to the mass hydras followed by the HT sniping.
Everyone crying about this has no sense of Starcraft history.
What map elements make it imbalanced then? And why exactly are they losing on EVERY map? Its been shown by stats that a previously considered 'balanced' map such as Destination has got just as bad stats for PvZ for the last few months as everything else. Its not the maps. Theres no sign of a metagame change happening yet although its possible maybe with the help of DAs like people have been saying. History doesn't matter because there is not unlimited innovation possible in the game.
You know it is infact possible, although nobody likes to hear it, that 5hatch hydra with HT sniping is slightly imbalanced and overly difficult to stop in a straight-up game (at this very high pro level of course). I know people will immediately get defensive about it insisting the game will always be balanced but it IS POSSIBLE. Keep in mind when they balanced the game they probably didn't have in mind Zerg players who would have such high skill levels in the future and be able to do what they are doing now. We are reaching high level play by many Zergs that has not been before, prehaps excluding a few brilliant games by certain players.
Personally, I see a lot of potential in the "Forge FE into 2-gate Speedlots" build. It seems to hit the vulnerable point in the 3-hatch Spire/5-hatch Hydra build and buys the Protoss valuable time. However, it is possible I am overestimating the build or that the build is still not refined since Protoss are still losing in general.
On October 19 2009 09:34 Noah wrote: ZvP isn't imbalanced, the current map pool is.
The metagame changes constantly, a year ago Protoss was dominating everything. It's inevitably that one day a Protoss will find a good counter to the mass hydras followed by the HT sniping.
Everyone crying about this has no sense of Starcraft history.
What map elements make it imbalanced then? And why exactly are they losing on EVERY map? Its been shown by stats that a previously considered 'balanced' map such as Destination has got just as bad stats for PvZ for the last few months as everything else. Its not the maps. Theres no sign of a metagame change happening yet although its possible maybe with the help of DAs like people have been saying. History doesn't matter because there is not unlimited innovation possible in the game.
You know it is infact possible, although nobody likes to hear it, that 5hatch hydra with HT sniping is slightly imbalanced and overly difficult to stop in a straight-up game (at this very high pro level of course). I know people will immediately get defensive about it insisting the game will always be balanced but it IS POSSIBLE. Keep in mind when they balanced the game they probably didn't have in mind Zerg players who would have such high skill levels in the future and be able to do what they are doing now. We are reaching high level play by many Zergs that has not been before, prehaps excluding a few brilliant games by certain players.
Take note that of the current map pool its Match Point that has the most balanced PvZ, due to the third being taken is a mineral expo instead of a gas expo. Zergs have learned to abuse the easy third gas with an excellent BO and good simcities, with the easy third giving them enough excess gas to trade a group of mutas for several high templars while still having a huge hydra/lurker/ling army that just rolls over the Protoss army.
Zergs got really good at using mutas. Even after the sim-city use, it was still okay, but recently the mutas have been nonstop. Silver lining, when the protoss negates muta use, zerg almost always loses.
I've noticed that going lurker first has become popular lately too. They drone up more than usual and then bust out with an ungodly amount of hydras with a control group of mutas.
On October 19 2009 09:34 Noah wrote: ZvP isn't imbalanced, the current map pool is.
The metagame changes constantly, a year ago Protoss was dominating everything. It's inevitably that one day a Protoss will find a good counter to the mass hydras followed by the HT sniping.
Everyone crying about this has no sense of Starcraft history.
What map elements make it imbalanced then? And why exactly are they losing on EVERY map? Its been shown by stats that a previously considered 'balanced' map such as Destination has got just as bad stats for PvZ for the last few months as everything else. Its not the maps. Theres no sign of a metagame change happening yet although its possible maybe with the help of DAs like people have been saying. History doesn't matter because there is not unlimited innovation possible in the game.
You know it is infact possible, although nobody likes to hear it, that 5hatch hydra with HT sniping is slightly imbalanced and overly difficult to stop in a straight-up game (at this very high pro level of course). I know people will immediately get defensive about it insisting the game will always be balanced but it IS POSSIBLE. Keep in mind when they balanced the game they probably didn't have in mind Zerg players who would have such high skill levels in the future and be able to do what they are doing now. We are reaching high level play by many Zergs that has not been before, prehaps excluding a few brilliant games by certain players.
Right now you are assuming that we've reached the peak of the ZvP metagame, which is something I strongly disagree on. There's been so extremely many changes to the metagame that it's just dumb to consider the metagame we have today to be final. I admit that right now Zerg is one step ahead due to a brilliant BO, but there is no way in hell I see this situation being the same in 6 months. All it takes is for one person to spot a well concealed weakness in the currently "overpowered" Zerg tactic, and then Protoss will for sure start to give it back to the Zerg players.
The main reason for Zergs spell of dominance on this newer map pool is that almost every single map has easily taken third gas expansions for both players. This is something that the Zerg can capitalize on more than Protoss.
On October 19 2009 12:12 koreasilver wrote: I've noticed that going lurker first has become popular lately too. They drone up more than usual and then bust out with an ungodly amount of hydras with a control group of mutas.
I think that's just more due to predictability of most P's only making 1-2 sairs early game though. There's no fear of going lurker first if the P barely makes any sairs.
On October 15 2009 14:15 blue_arrow wrote: i don't know if anyone has brought this up yet, but i remember reading in some coach/player interviews a couple months back about how the toss player has to prepare more than a zerg player in PvZ, so wouldn't this definately imply imbalance? unless, of course, the zerg doesn't gain anything from preparing as much as the toss, but i just don't see why that would be.
Specifically these responses, including the one I mentioned, are of interest to me:
What's the reason for Jangbi and not Stork? I was very certain STX will send Calm. Even though we have many choices for Ace, I feel he's their only Ace against us. In PvZ, the protoss has to prepare quite heavily. For this reason, I chose Jangbi. Plus Coliseum is a map Jangbi prepared for.
The maps seem to be zerg-favored The maps last PL season were all zerg-favored. This is our biggest obstacle, because protoss is our best race. This is what I knew even when facing STX, because we're fighting an uphill battle relying on protosses.
Even though he lost yesterday, Stork came back and won today. Even in yesterday's match, he would've won if the Nexus didn't get taken down. Of course, this is his fault. But he is in shape. And he's very important for us. Protoss players tend to be very picky about maps. But Stork isn't. This is very helpful for me as a coach.
I'm fairly certain that I've read other similar responses (also stating that toss has to prepare more than zerg in PvZ) in some other coach interview and at least 1 other player interview.
I'm not sure how much validity can be placed into a coach's/players statements regarding these issues, especially considering their positions.
Also I remember a recent WCG Stork interview which mentioned something about a (joking?) discussion with Bisu about how zerg is difficult to play against. That interview I would definately consider as lacking in validity though.
Just something to add: I personally understand that the main thing that determines racial dominance in a matchup are the trends in strategies and the condition of the race's players in a given timeframe, however, I still believe that Protoss players have a harder time maintaining and developing this dominance, especially in PvZ. For example, Bisu's reign as best player following Savior didn't last very long, the Six dragons didn't last very long either and quickly devolved into the 'Taek-Bang Era', which now itself has seemed to have died with Stork not doing that great. Why is this? Is it because of a relative lack of the number/quality of Protoss strategists/innovators? (i would define july, savior?, jaedong, oov, boxer, fantasy?, flash, bisu, stork? as the capable and current strategy-makers and innovators) or do toss players just not try as hard? Do map-makers just dislike toss dominance and thus alter maps ASAP to fit zerg and terran players whilst be slow to alter maps in favor of toss players? Also I want to take into account that because the maps are so new, maybe the balances simply have yet to settle. Maybe the need for innovation simply hasn't been enough so far? Is PvZ actually imbalanced to the point that zerg players really can prepare less than toss players for an equal chance at winning? I don't know. Who knows?
On October 19 2009 14:34 below66 wrote: sc2 is almost out, lets hope its more balanced -.-
Beta isn't even out, and after Beta its like another 6 months or more until actual release, then another few months to balance it for professional play. since a season lasts ~3 months there are easily 3-4 more OSL's/MSL's left before SC2.
On October 19 2009 09:34 Noah wrote: ZvP isn't imbalanced, the current map pool is.
The metagame changes constantly, a year ago Protoss was dominating everything. It's inevitably that one day a Protoss will find a good counter to the mass hydras followed by the HT sniping.
Everyone crying about this has no sense of Starcraft history.
What map elements make it imbalanced then? And why exactly are they losing on EVERY map? Its been shown by stats that a previously considered 'balanced' map such as Destination has got just as bad stats for PvZ for the last few months as everything else. Its not the maps. Theres no sign of a metagame change happening yet although its possible maybe with the help of DAs like people have been saying. History doesn't matter because there is not unlimited innovation possible in the game.
You know it is infact possible, although nobody likes to hear it, that 5hatch hydra with HT sniping is slightly imbalanced and overly difficult to stop in a straight-up game (at this very high pro level of course). I know people will immediately get defensive about it insisting the game will always be balanced but it IS POSSIBLE. Keep in mind when they balanced the game they probably didn't have in mind Zerg players who would have such high skill levels in the future and be able to do what they are doing now. We are reaching high level play by many Zergs that has not been before, prehaps excluding a few brilliant games by certain players.
Take note that of the current map pool its Match Point that has the most balanced PvZ, due to the third being taken is a mineral expo instead of a gas expo. Zergs have learned to abuse the easy third gas with an excellent BO and good simcities, with the easy third giving them enough excess gas to trade a group of mutas for several high templars while still having a huge hydra/lurker/ling army that just rolls over the Protoss army.
I think given the current meta-game of PvZ, a hard to defend 3rd gas for zerg will definitely turn the tide. Right now, zergs can literally get away with a few lings and a sunken to defend the 3rd, using sim city to protect against the first wave of speedlots. If the 3rd gas can't easily be walled off, I'd expect zergs to be less greedy mid-game in terms of economy and play more honest.
Three base Zerg appears to be stronger than two base Protoss, unless the Protoss can harass/attack to keep the drone count down... and most of the recent Zerg advancements seem to be about shutting down the timing attacks and harassment efforts. It seems to be very difficult for Protoss to move out and establish a third once the Zerg has hydra+lurker+muta with fast overlords.
So... can Protoss take their own fast third to counter the Zerg's? (Triggered upon scouting three hatch spire with the corsair, probably.)
On October 19 2009 16:07 Severedevil wrote: Three base Zerg appears to be stronger than two base Protoss, unless the Protoss can harass/attack to keep the drone count down... and most of the recent Zerg advancements seem to be about shutting down the timing attacks and harassment efforts. It seems to be very difficult for Protoss to move out and establish a third once the Zerg has hydra+lurker+muta with fast overlords.
So... can Protoss take their own fast third to counter the Zerg's? (Triggered upon scouting three hatch spire with the corsair, probably.)
With modern corsair, shuttle control, and high templar and arbiter accuracy, it seems unlikely that protoss will ever lose again.
quote from chill.
as you can see the obvious mentality of modern PvZ ( in my opinion of course ) is reliant on Micro, macro, and multitasking.
templar = micro temp drop= micro and luck reaver sair= a butt load of multitasking corsair = multitasking shuttle control = micro and macro because you need stuff to up in it.
hmm micro, macro, and multitasking. well thats Bisu. now we understand PvZ. good Ps need a inherit talent not based on the game balance but the individual skill of the player in those certain KEY areas. NOT just some skill btw the ammount of skill needed will need to be a overwhelming amount of it. saying that you need a overwhelming amount of skill in those certain areas because, you need more multitasking skills than your opponent because if you both multitask at the same rate of course it will be a draw =P
therefore, it is freaking obvious why Bisu and stork are the only really well preforming protoss atm (stork is iff atm ) and the new Protoss players are looking shakeey.
Because as we all should realize talent like Bisu doesnt come around very often.
NOW on the other hand. there are far more promising players from both T and Z.
calm effort kwanro zero and RorO ( why RorO? because that son of a muta already got my anti team - 14 points are you freaking serious!!!! )
skyhigh, Canata HiyA go.go.
not saying Z and T is easier. however i am saying to play P at the highest level with the current "standard build" ( cannon FE ) it requires a extremely talented person to pull off.
Now with that out of the way. with the current maps and Builds. ( good sim city and build order ) 3 base Z is slightly stronger than 2 base P.
we can debate this all we want however at the current pro statistics i think Z has some push over the match up. due to a lot of factors.
P needs a whole new build. like the bisu build that will revolutionize the match up. in the Bisu build, it has exhausted its tech tree. DT tired it , revers tried it, scouts tried it, scouts laff, archon zealot tried it, goom temp tried it. can you name any more? carriers? thats expensive never tried it tho =) ( however plague, hydra and a butt load of scourge makes it not so favorable ) arbiters? never tried it ( takes a lot of gas which you NEED to spend on temps, they have overlords and recall is the only real advantage i see )
what i am thinking is a whole new build entirely OR making the maps P favored with a harder third, to even out the inherit 3baseZ > 2base P ( even if it is a slight > by .05% or ever .1% stronger it still counts especially with peopel with equal skill ) this is my opinion that 3 base Z is stronger than 2 base P however i think it holds some water, even itf it is very little water, or a whole damn dam.
theorycraft at its most general. fantastic aint it.
On October 19 2009 16:07 Severedevil wrote: Three base Zerg appears to be stronger than two base Protoss, unless the Protoss can harass/attack to keep the drone count down... and most of the recent Zerg advancements seem to be about shutting down the timing attacks and harassment efforts. It seems to be very difficult for Protoss to move out and establish a third once the Zerg has hydra+lurker+muta with fast overlords.
So... can Protoss take their own fast third to counter the Zerg's? (Triggered upon scouting three hatch spire with the corsair, probably.)
Yeah I hope SC2 is more balanced in alot of aspects. It will be refreshing to have a new game because I have found myself more and more bored of Starcraft the last couple of months. Too many games, and the old imbalances rear their ugly heads. ZvP, PvT especially. I've followed SC for 8 years now and have probably watched 10 k replays or whatever.
My issues with the matchups are these:
ZvP: Tech switches, i.e. mutas that take protoss by surprise and rape their main. "Power overwhelming", the mass of units that zerg can continually make and throw at protoss. The micro needed is much bigger for protoss, while their units are also more fragile. Drops...zerg drops are just ridiculous sometimes. Cracklings kill stuff in a matter of seconds, and there's not really that much protoss can do to protect against it. The fact that corsairs can't attack ground is also a huge disadvantage compared to mutas. Zerg units are just too cheap and good against protoss. I watched the game between Stork and Hyuk, a game Stork should have the upper hand in by far if you compare these players general skill. However Hyuk took him down quite easily, due to the nature of ZvP. Would he have been a mediocre Terran, Stork would've had the game in the bag.
Protoss needs to use reavers more all the time imo. They are kind of streaky though and the scarabs live a life of their own but I still think that reavers can turn around ZvP. Then again I feel that this matchup is too imbalanced in general so I dunno what to do about it.
PvT: How easily terran can screw up, and if their army is mispositioned in the slightest way, they can get utterly destroyed by a 1a2a3a protoss army. Protoss units in general are very strong against terran. Terran needs to micro alot; place mines, siege/unsiege, get in good position, pray for mines to blow up stuff good. Protoss pretty much just needs to flank and go in. And while a good sized terran army can get scary, arbiters totally rape this matchup. These units are way too good imo; you have stasis, that can immobilize so many tanks with just one spell. Now, if you have 2-3 arbiters, goodbye tanks. And terran needs to have a couple of sci vessels out there and be proactive in EMP:ing arbiters, and EMP is a slow spell etc. It's not that easy in the actual game setting.
So ok, only stasis I guess could work. However, they also make units invisible, and have no time for their invisibility like wraiths do. I think it should be energy based. And finally the terran killer recall that is just too good of a spell, considering how easy it is to pull off. You just fly in and recall a bunch of units into terrans undefended main while he is out trying to position his army. It's ridiculous, I dunno how many PvT's I've seen where protoss doesn't really do anything in the game but defending and terrans is trying to push into his natural and then he recalls in terran main and GG. Wtf? Also, a couple of turrets and mines doesn't defend at all against recall most of the times, so it's really hard to anything useful against. Protoss also get arbiters so early nowadays which makes it even harder for T.
I think recall should be limited to a much smaller amount of units, cloaking should have a timer and stasis should also affect a smaller group of units. With these fixes the matchup would be more even.
On October 19 2009 11:55 ArvickHero wrote: Take note that of the current map pool its Match Point that has the most balanced PvZ, due to the third being taken is a mineral expo instead of a gas expo. Zergs have learned to abuse the easy third gas with an excellent BO and good simcities, with the easy third giving them enough excess gas to trade a group of mutas for several high templars while still having a huge hydra/lurker/ling army that just rolls over the Protoss army.
True, i agree that does make it easier for toss. But from the games i've seen even ones which had a distant 3rd/4th Zerg can still manage to play very defensive and win from 4gas, such as Zero vs Stats on Moon Glaive and i remember another one, Jaedong vs somebody on Byzantium 3 i think last season. But yeah i bet it would help at least. As people have said its these modern simcities really making a difference that seemingly can't be broken without the P losing most of their ball.
And Avidkeystamper i agree about the mutas, its funny these days how even archons are rarely enough to help. Also i agree with the premise maybe reavers would help more to help stop these mass hydra pushes, and for some harass. Just the scourge really being the problem for that.. it was really nice seeing Backho almost come back against Calm using them, shame it didn't work.
Good to see some better discussion over the last page than some ridiculous arguing about made up classes
I think recall should be limited to a much smaller amount of units, cloaking should have a timer and stasis should also affect a smaller group of units. With these fixes the matchup would be more even.
then every TvP would be the T turtling in his base until 200/200.
On October 19 2009 19:19 Foucault wrote: Yeah I hope SC2 is more balanced in alot of aspects. It will be refreshing to have a new game because I have found myself more and more bored of Starcraft the last couple of months. Too many games, and the old imbalances rear their ugly heads. ZvP, PvT especially. I've followed SC for 8 years now and have probably watched 10 k replays or whatever.
Your list of suggestions is well-intentioned, but IMO, any change to the actual mechanics is too much. Just look at some of the new PL maps. Minute changes to a map can alter the "old imbalanced". How much difference do you think an actual change to the mechanics would make? The effects would be far greater than you would ever want.
What if all protosses rushed to pylon the zerg's nat and that became the standard? This way you limit the zerg's openings to 9pool, overpool and in-hatch. The number of scenarios to deal with shrinks, it's 100 min but you will probably save your probe scout as a result.
No it's not. Doing it every game out of sheer habit is a waste. But if the zerg late pools, pylon that nat, follow the drone to third. Don't let them put down a hatchery, it is not a waste. You just don't like it because you're zerg. ^_^
On October 20 2009 07:55 I_are_n00b wrote: What if all protosses rushed to pylon the zerg's nat and that became the standard? This way you limit the zerg's openings to 9pool, overpool and in-hatch. The number of scenarios to deal with shrinks, it's 100 min but you will probably save your probe scout as a result.
It's a waste because it really doesn't make a difference if you pylon'd his nat in any game. Either he 9 pools and you've wasted 25 minerals (supposing you canceled) or he just expands to his third, which you really can't capitalize on if you've Forge FE'd. The only thing you get out of it is a delayed expansion for the Zerg, which really isn't enough to help balance the MU in any way.
Another suggestion for balancing PvZ is increasing mineral count in bases/natural, but keeping the easy third gas. 1 more mineral patch could do wonders for Protoss, maybe it'll be enough to balance the matchup
On October 20 2009 08:50 ArvickHero wrote: Another suggestion for balancing PvZ is increasing mineral count in bases/natural, but keeping the easy third gas. 1 more mineral patch could do wonders for Protoss, maybe it'll be enough to balance the matchup
On October 20 2009 08:12 selboN wrote: No it's not. Doing it every game out of sheer habit is a waste. But if the zerg late pools, pylon that nat, follow the drone to third. Don't let them put down a hatchery, it is not a waste. You just don't like it because you're zerg. ^_^
Uh I play PvZ and ZvP and i'm telling you straight up that manner pylon on a zerg is an absolute waste. There is no practical reason to even entertain the notion of doing it.
On October 20 2009 08:50 ArvickHero wrote: Another suggestion for balancing PvZ is increasing mineral count in bases/natural, but keeping the easy third gas. 1 more mineral patch could do wonders for Protoss, maybe it'll be enough to balance the matchup
Could you elaborate on this? I'm a noob :[
I might be wrong, but back when the Protosses were raping Zergs, Kim Carry attributed this to the recent map trend of a high mineral count and started advocating for lower mineral counts in maps to "balance ZvP". I'm pretty sure this was before everything that destroys Protoss now, abusing easy third gas+simcity+muta sniping was discovered.
Also, Stork stated in an interview it was really hard to play on Tears of the Protoss mostly because of the low mineral count, along with the double natural entrance which made Forge FE unviable. It seems like mineral count really affects the PvZ MU the most. Take Longinus as an example, it's considered a Protoss favored map against Zerg, and it also has 10 mineral patches in the main (I don't really know the map myself, so probably there are other things that make it a P map).
On October 18 2009 12:05 ghrur wrote: Anyway, the question is what has fantasy accomplished that sets him a class above calm? What has he accomplished that allows him to be S-Class but doesn't allow calm to be as well?
This is a good point. To me it says more about fantasy..
I don't want to make a concrete "rule" for an arbitrary distinction, but it's reasonable to say someone isn't really S-class if they haven't won a Starleague. Maybe it indicates that, even though they have great ability, and are on par with S-class players in proleague, they don't have the top level of mental strength to win a starleague finals.
fantasy's finals losses came as drawing even from 0-2 to force a 5th set vs Stork, only to not be able to complete the comeback. Then taking 2-0 lead against Jaedong and not being able to finish the set in 3 chances.
On October 20 2009 08:12 selboN wrote: No it's not. Doing it every game out of sheer habit is a waste. But if the zerg late pools, pylon that nat, follow the drone to third. Don't let them put down a hatchery, it is not a waste. You just don't like it because you're zerg. ^_^
Uh I play PvZ and ZvP and i'm telling you straight up that manner pylon on a zerg is an absolute waste. There is no practical reason to even entertain the notion of doing it.
Are you by any chance bad? I'm not saying do it every time. I'm saying do it when the opportunity presents itself.
On October 20 2009 08:12 selboN wrote: No it's not. Doing it every game out of sheer habit is a waste. But if the zerg late pools, pylon that nat, follow the drone to third. Don't let them put down a hatchery, it is not a waste. You just don't like it because you're zerg. ^_^
Uh I play PvZ and ZvP and i'm telling you straight up that manner pylon on a zerg is an absolute waste. There is no practical reason to even entertain the notion of doing it.
Are you by any chance bad? I'm not saying do it every time. I'm saying do it when the opportunity presents itself.
Yeah, you show 'em! Manner pylons are great in PvZ. I mean, in order to render them completely useless, Zerg would need a cheap, low-tech unit capable of taking down pylons really fast, while simultaneously by its very existence be a threat to the Protoss bases, forcing them to spend minerals on defenses. Additionally, this unit's name would have to start with 'zerg' and rhyme with 'ling'.
Now where on earth would Zergs get that kind of unit?
On October 20 2009 09:51 Zato-1 wrote: Yeah, you show 'em! Manner pylons are great in PvZ. I mean, in order to render them completely useless, Zerg would need a cheap, low-tech unit capable of taking down pylons really fast, while simultaneously by its very existence be a threat to the Protoss bases, forcing them to spend minerals on defenses. Additionally, this unit's name would have to start with 'zerg' and rhyme with 'ling'.
Now where on earth would Zergs get that kind of unit?
BIIIIG misunderstanding. Hes talking about delaying the zergs nat with a pylon if they 12 hatch, you're talking about manner pylons like in PvP.
I see pros manner pylon the zerg if the opportunity of a 12 hatch and already delaying with the probe presents itself. It's highly situational, but saying that "There is no practical reason to even entertain the notion of doing it." isn't true.
PVZ tech gets you all the prereqs fast, and an arbiter camped over a nexus like a corsair would cloak all toss' probes and templar helping against the muta harras.
On October 20 2009 10:37 DM20 wrote: Would arbiters ever be viable in pvz?
PVZ tech gets you all the prereqs fast, and an arbiter camped over a nexus like a corsair would cloak all toss' probes and templar helping against the muta harras.
On October 20 2009 08:13 zulu_nation8 wrote: its a waste if you actually build the pylon and not cancel it, its a waste for anything but vs 12 hatch.
Is a manner pylon even worth it against 12 hatch? Early game protoss BO is based on the zerg opening anyway. Zerg can just go pool first, and force toss to go forge->Nex->cannons before teching. OTOH, 14 Nex > 12 Hatch.
On October 20 2009 10:37 DM20 wrote: Would arbiters ever be viable in pvz?
PVZ tech gets you all the prereqs fast, and an arbiter camped over a nexus like a corsair would cloak all toss' probes and templar helping against the muta harras.
Or would that be to much wasted gas early on?
Defending templars at your base is useless because the zerg can always wait until you push out before sniping. And the gas consumption is WAY too high. Not to mention arbiters are slow as hell to make.
You can basically get DA + mass corsairs for the same price.
On October 20 2009 08:12 selboN wrote: No it's not. Doing it every game out of sheer habit is a waste. But if the zerg late pools, pylon that nat, follow the drone to third. Don't let them put down a hatchery, it is not a waste. You just don't like it because you're zerg. ^_^
Uh I play PvZ and ZvP and i'm telling you straight up that manner pylon on a zerg is an absolute waste. There is no practical reason to even entertain the notion of doing it.
Are you by any chance bad? I'm not saying do it every time. I'm saying do it when the opportunity presents itself.
Yeah, you show 'em! Manner pylons are great in PvZ. I mean, in order to render them completely useless, Zerg would need a cheap, low-tech unit capable of taking down pylons really fast, while simultaneously by its very existence be a threat to the Protoss bases, forcing them to spend minerals on defenses. Additionally, this unit's name would have to start with 'zerg' and rhyme with 'ling'.
Now where on earth would Zergs get that kind of unit?
Good see D- players still sportin' their opinion. Keep it up!
On October 20 2009 11:03 Elite00fm wrote: I don't see why this is a thread, statistically ZvP is more balanced than PvT and TvZ.
have u even read this thread at all? honestly
Not entirely. The thread is a joke, you can't just grab a few maps, look at recent results and say "lol imbalanced." If OP actually wants to prove something then what he should do is actually analyze winrates for zvp for the past 6 months or w/e, then compare this figure to TvZ and PvT to see if the win rate discrepancy is significantly (statistically speaking) higher than the other non mirror MUs. If it is in fact imbalanced then the OP should then search for variables that would skew the data (for example, let's say JaeDong accounted for 20% of all zerg wins or something, this doesn't mean zvp is imba, it just means jaedong is ridiculously good lol. Or if for an unusually long period of time certain coaches sent out very new, weak protoss players, a number significantly higher than zergs, who all lost an extremely high % of their games. There are many outside variables that would have to be checked for in order for ZvP to be acually declared "imbalanced").
On October 20 2009 11:32 zulu_nation8 wrote: motbob if i tell you to flip a coin 10 times but in those 10 times, 7 were heads, 3 were tails, would you call coin flipping imbalanced?
On October 20 2009 11:32 zulu_nation8 wrote: motbob if i tell you to flip a coin 10 times but in those 10 times, 7 were heads, 3 were tails, would you call coin flipping imbalanced?
What if I were to flip the same coin 100 times, with 70 heads?
On October 20 2009 11:32 zulu_nation8 wrote: motbob if i tell you to flip a coin 10 times but in those 10 times, 7 were heads, 3 were tails, would you call coin flipping imbalanced?
What if I were to flip the same coin 100 times, with 70 heads?
On October 20 2009 11:32 zulu_nation8 wrote: motbob if i tell you to flip a coin 10 times but in those 10 times, 7 were heads, 3 were tails, would you call coin flipping imbalanced?
What if I were to flip the same coin 100 times, with 70 heads?
you should clearly make a thread about coin flipping imbalance then
On October 20 2009 11:32 zulu_nation8 wrote: motbob if i tell you to flip a coin 10 times but in those 10 times, 7 were heads, 3 were tails, would you call coin flipping imbalanced?
What if I were to flip the same coin 100 times, with 70 heads?
you should clearly make a thread about coin flipping imbalance then
What the hell? Who brought up coin-flipping in the first place? Don't just dismiss the line of reasoning you started.
how am i dismissing the line of reasoning? I'm saying 1, your sample size is bad, 2, when something that looks very much like variance occurs in a set of data you ignore everything and jump to the conclusion that something is "imbalanced." If what you actually wanted to bring to attention at first is indeed variance then you should be using words like trends, shift, or whatever, and not "imbalance."
On October 20 2009 12:30 zulu_nation8 wrote: how am i dismissing the line of reasoning? I'm saying 1, your sample size is bad, 2, when something that looks very much like variance occurs in a set of data you ignore everything and jump to the conclusion that something is "imbalanced." If what you actually wanted to bring to attention at first is indeed variance then you should be using words like trends, shift, or whatever, and not "imbalance."
Is this what all of your hostility in this thread comes from? The fact that I used one word instead of another? Fine. I wish I hadn't named this thread what I did.
My sample size is most definitely big enough for this difference in zerg winrate to be statistically significant. Unfortunately, I've only been able to calculate winrate on individual maps, as TLPD doesn't allow you to sort by matchup when you're looking at all the matches in the database.
On October 20 2009 12:30 zulu_nation8 wrote: how am i dismissing the line of reasoning? I'm saying 1, your sample size is bad, 2, when something that looks very much like variance occurs in a set of data you ignore everything and jump to the conclusion that something is "imbalanced." If what you actually wanted to bring to attention at first is indeed variance then you should be using words like trends, shift, or whatever, and not "imbalance."
Is this what all of your hostility in this thread comes from? The fact that I used one word instead of another? Fine. I wish I hadn't named this thread what I did.
My sample size is most definitely big enough for this difference in zerg winrate to be statistically significant. Unfortunately, I've only been able to calculate winrate on individual maps, as TLPD doesn't allow you to sort by matchup when you're looking at all the matches in the database.
show me your calculations that show the difference to be statistically significant
On October 20 2009 12:30 zulu_nation8 wrote: how am i dismissing the line of reasoning? I'm saying 1, your sample size is bad, 2, when something that looks very much like variance occurs in a set of data you ignore everything and jump to the conclusion that something is "imbalanced." If what you actually wanted to bring to attention at first is indeed variance then you should be using words like trends, shift, or whatever, and not "imbalance."
Is this what all of your hostility in this thread comes from? The fact that I used one word instead of another? Fine. I wish I hadn't named this thread what I did.
My sample size is most definitely big enough for this difference in zerg winrate to be statistically significant. Unfortunately, I've only been able to calculate winrate on individual maps, as TLPD doesn't allow you to sort by matchup when you're looking at all the matches in the database.
show me your calculations that show the difference to be statistically significant
Like I said, I can't do it for the whole matchup without a lot of work. But I can do it for the combined stats of Neo Medusa, Destination, and Outsider since March (those are the only stats I have handy). BRB.
Ah, I'm on a Mac right now so I don't have access to Stata. This might have to wait.
I think race mu imbalances are irrelevant and it's all map dependant. Like you can make any map you want and have be super imbalanced towards any race in any mu you want. I think map makers have for a long time tried to find a map model that will give as balanced as possible results and their current model (desti/medusa macro maps) is slightly skewed and needs more tweaking
On October 20 2009 12:30 zulu_nation8 wrote: how am i dismissing the line of reasoning? I'm saying 1, your sample size is bad, 2, when something that looks very much like variance occurs in a set of data you ignore everything and jump to the conclusion that something is "imbalanced." If what you actually wanted to bring to attention at first is indeed variance then you should be using words like trends, shift, or whatever, and not "imbalance."
Is this what all of your hostility in this thread comes from? The fact that I used one word instead of another? Fine. I wish I hadn't named this thread what I did.
My sample size is most definitely big enough for this difference in zerg winrate to be statistically significant. Unfortunately, I've only been able to calculate winrate on individual maps, as TLPD doesn't allow you to sort by matchup when you're looking at all the matches in the database.
show me your calculations that show the difference to be statistically significant
Like I said, I can't do it for the whole matchup without a lot of work. But I can do it for the combined stats of Neo Medusa, Destination, and Outsider since March (those are the only stats I have handy). BRB.
Ah, I'm on a Mac right now so I don't have access to Stata. This might have to wait.
wow nice dodge
What kind of tests are you possible running that can't be done through any kind of excel clone? You don't need stata for algebra
OK I just found a much easier way to compile map matchup data! So when I get access to Stata, I'll have better data. I'll do this for all stats since March 1st, 2009.
Byzantium 3: 25-13 Byzantium 2: 30-11 Tears of the Moon: 1-0 New Autumn Wind: 3-1 Medusa: 34-23 Tau Cross: 7-7 Carthage 2: 2-4 Carthage: 0-1 Battle Royale: 4-5 Holy World: 4-3 Shades of Twilight: 1-3 Colosseum II: 2-4 Andromeda: 7-19 (?????) Neo Harmony: 5-0 God's Garden: 56-44 Carthage 3: 1-0 Outsider: 41-27 Neo Medusa: 34-25 Return of the King: 47-22 Eye of the Storm: 1-1 El Niño: 1-1 Destination: 110-72 (this changed significantly since the time of the OP... EVER OSL prelims used it) Tornado: 5-1 Outsider SE: 2-0 Moon Glaive: 2-3 Match Point: 3-4 Heartbreak Ridge: 90-64 Fighting Spirit: 6-3
On October 20 2009 12:30 zulu_nation8 wrote: how am i dismissing the line of reasoning? I'm saying 1, your sample size is bad, 2, when something that looks very much like variance occurs in a set of data you ignore everything and jump to the conclusion that something is "imbalanced." If what you actually wanted to bring to attention at first is indeed variance then you should be using words like trends, shift, or whatever, and not "imbalance."
Is this what all of your hostility in this thread comes from? The fact that I used one word instead of another? Fine. I wish I hadn't named this thread what I did.
My sample size is most definitely big enough for this difference in zerg winrate to be statistically significant. Unfortunately, I've only been able to calculate winrate on individual maps, as TLPD doesn't allow you to sort by matchup when you're looking at all the matches in the database.
show me your calculations that show the difference to be statistically significant
Like I said, I can't do it for the whole matchup without a lot of work. But I can do it for the combined stats of Neo Medusa, Destination, and Outsider since March (those are the only stats I have handy). BRB.
Ah, I'm on a Mac right now so I don't have access to Stata. This might have to wait.
wow nice dodge
What kind of tests are you possible running that can't be done through any kind of excel clone? You don't need stata for algebra
If you can do a probit test w/o a stats program, be my guest. I only know how to do it with Stata, sorry :\
EDIT: shouldn't be a probit test, actually. One sec... trying to figure out what test I need to run. I might be able to just do it in excel.
There are two issues. The first is what you mean by imbalance. If by imbalance you mean an advantage given to a certain race through how the game is designed, or some innate problem within the gameplay mechanics of starcraft, and thus something which should reveal itself in good statistical analysis, then and only then the term "statistically significant" comes into play here. You would need a large and significant enough sample to be able to call a game imbalanced, and hopefully you agree that 200 games played on three maps is not a big enough sample size from which to make any statements regarding the game engine of BW.
If this is not what you mean by imbalance, in that you only use the word in a casual sense to describe exactly what you presented in the op; how progamer zergs have been winning more games on destination, medusa, and heartbreak over a certain period of time, then you should have never used the word imbalance to begin with, and clarify in your op the exact conditions of your data. The only question that should be asked would then be, "why have progamer zergs been winning more games on destination, medusa, and heartbreak over the last however long months?" Some explanations could be that the six dragons started playing wow, or that the 3 hatch to 5 hatch build is hard to play against. Whatever the explanation is, you would have to present addition evidence, and you haven't.
On October 20 2009 13:58 zulu_nation8 wrote: There are two issues. The first is what you mean by imbalance. If by imbalance you mean an advantage given to a certain race through how the game is designed, or some innate problem within the gameplay mechanics of starcraft, and thus something which should reveal itself in good statistical analysis, then and only then the term "statistically significant" comes into play here. You would need a large and significant enough sample to be able to call a game imbalanced, and hopefully you agree that 200 games played on three maps is not a big enough sample size from which to make any statements regarding the game engine of BW.
If this is not what you mean by imbalance, in that you only use the word in a casual sense to describe exactly what you presented in the op; how progamer zergs have been winning more games on destination, medusa, and heartbreak over a certain period of time, then you should have never used the word imbalance to begin with, and clarify in your op the exact conditions of your data. The only question that should be asked would then be, "why have progamer zergs been winning more games on destination, medusa, and heartbreak over the last however long months?" Some explanations could be that the six dragons started playing wow, or that the 3 hatch to 5 hatch build is hard to play against. Whatever the explanation is, you would have to present addition evidence, and you haven't.
I'm done talking to you. You obviously haven't been reading my posts, such as the FUCKING OP, which clearly states that I think maps can correct any imbalance, which means that I OBVIOUSLY don't mean that I think there's "an advantage given to a certain race through how the game is designed" since I think that maps are what make the difference! And as for your second point, take a look at this post that I made one fucking hour ago:
On October 20 2009 12:30 zulu_nation8 wrote: how am i dismissing the line of reasoning? I'm saying 1, your sample size is bad, 2, when something that looks very much like variance occurs in a set of data you ignore everything and jump to the conclusion that something is "imbalanced." If what you actually wanted to bring to attention at first is indeed variance then you should be using words like trends, shift, or whatever, and not "imbalance."
Is this what all of your hostility in this thread comes from? The fact that I used one word instead of another? Fine. I wish I hadn't named this thread what I did.
I already admitted that the word "imbalanced" is not the ideal one here.
On October 20 2009 13:58 zulu_nation8 wrote: There are two issues. The first is what you mean by imbalance. If by imbalance you mean an advantage given to a certain race through how the game is designed, or some innate problem within the gameplay mechanics of starcraft, and thus something which should reveal itself in good statistical analysis, then and only then the term "statistically significant" comes into play here. You would need a large and significant enough sample to be able to call a game imbalanced, and hopefully you agree that 200 games played on three maps is not a big enough sample size from which to make any statements regarding the game engine of BW.
If this is not what you mean by imbalance, in that you only use the word in a casual sense to describe exactly what you presented in the op; how progamer zergs have been winning more games on destination, medusa, and heartbreak over a certain period of time, then you should have never used the word imbalance to begin with, and clarify in your op the exact conditions of your data. The only question that should be asked would then be, "why have progamer zergs been winning more games on destination, medusa, and heartbreak over the last however long months?" Some explanations could be that the six dragons started playing wow, or that the 3 hatch to 5 hatch build is hard to play against. Whatever the explanation is, you would have to present addition evidence, and you haven't.
I'm done talking to you. You obviously haven't been reading my posts, such as the FUCKING OP, which clearly states that I think maps can correct any imbalance, which means that I OBVIOUSLY don't mean that I think there's "an advantage given to a certain race through how the game is designed" since I think that maps are what make the difference! And as for your second point, take a look at this post that I made one fucking hour ago:
On October 20 2009 12:30 zulu_nation8 wrote: how am i dismissing the line of reasoning? I'm saying 1, your sample size is bad, 2, when something that looks very much like variance occurs in a set of data you ignore everything and jump to the conclusion that something is "imbalanced." If what you actually wanted to bring to attention at first is indeed variance then you should be using words like trends, shift, or whatever, and not "imbalance."
Is this what all of your hostility in this thread comes from? The fact that I used one word instead of another? Fine. I wish I hadn't named this thread what I did.
I already admitted that the word "imbalanced" is not the ideal one here.
you said that maps will "correct" imbalance? I don't understand how thats relevant at all to what I said? Whats the imbalance maps are correcting? If you're saying that the idea of imbalance wouldn't occur outside of maps then that would also be pretty stupid.
Yes you realize that you used the wrong word, but I don't think you understand why, thus I explained to you, it's not a simple "misuse", it's a misunderstanding of concept.
On October 20 2009 14:09 heyoka wrote: Your standard deviation is .49? I don't think you have the slightest clue what you're measuring man.
Don't be condescending; I'm an econ major. I'm measuring 1's and 0's. 1's are zerg wins and 0's are protoss wins. I put them seperately in a column in Excel and took the stdev of the column. Excel spat out .49
On October 20 2009 14:18 zulu_nation8 wrote: why would the null hypothesis be 50% though? I'm pretty sure the mean of zvp stats in every 7 month period in progaming is not 50%?
The concept of a null hypothesis works like this: I believe that the true win rate of zergs against Protoss is something greater than 50%. I have data to support this theory. The data gives me a figure of ~59%, but that stat MAY be due to chance. That's why I use the null hypothesis: "What is the chance that ZvP is actually totally balanced since March 1st, and the data is just a fluke?" The z-test tests the likelyhood that the data is a fluke.
The result was that it's very unlikely that ZvP is actually 50% and that the data was a fluke.
On October 20 2009 14:19 heyoka wrote: And you don't think there is anything wrong with your null hypothesis being "Distribution = .5" and then using a standard deviation of .49?
(for what its worth your null should also be "this <time period> is different than the previous history of progaming" - where ZvP is actually like 53% but thats a minor issue)
I think the only way we are going to resolve this is if you do the test and try to prove me wrong, cause I don't know where you're going with this.
On October 20 2009 14:44 Elite00fm wrote: set null hypothesis to the winrate zerg had for the past 5 years or so before march 1st of this year
should it be that or the average of the zvp stats over every 7 month period ever in progaming? Since it should be the same sample sizes?
No. Elite's suggestion is OK because it compares the recent win rate to the historical ZvP winrate, which might actually serve the purposes of this thread better. My method compares the recent winrate to a rate of 50%. But your suggestion doesn't make that much sense... a rate is a rate.
On October 20 2009 14:59 heyoka wrote: Is a rate still a rate when you estimate the average at 50% but then go on to say your expected variance is from 1% to 99%?
Standard deviation means how far the mean % from other samples of 800 games in the history of progaming can deviate from the null hypothesis. Which should be something like .05 or .1. What your test proved was that basically your numbers are wrong.
On October 20 2009 15:22 zulu_nation8 wrote: Standard deviation means how far the mean % from other samples of 800 games in the history of progaming can deviate from the null hypothesis. Which should be something like .05 or .1. What your test proved was that basically your numbers are wrong.
Go into excel and use the command stdev on a bunch of numbers. That's the standard deviation I'm talking about. You plug that into this equation (for omega):
Please don't criticize my methods again until you do a statistical test of your own. After all, you said you would.
If the purpose is to prove that Zergs have had the advantage over Protoss players the last 3 months or whatever time period, why isn't a null hypothesis of winrate = 50% ideal for that purpose?
If we use the historical average, we invite the argument that Zergs have had a historical advantage over Protoss players, which would corrupt our test. The goal for mapmakers should be 50% winrates over time for each race in all three matchups - why shouldn't we measure their results against that goal?
On October 20 2009 15:44 Matrijs wrote: If the purpose is to prove that Zergs have had the advantage over Protoss players the last 3 months or whatever time period, why isn't a null hypothesis of winrate = 50% ideal for that purpose?
If we use the historical average, we invite the argument that Zergs have had a historical advantage over Protoss players, which would corrupt our test. The goal for mapmakers should be 50% winrates over time for each race in all three matchups - why shouldn't we measure their results against that goal?
Because the game has always been slightly T>Z>P>T, and this sort of equilibrium has been deemed balanced. It is already assumed that zergs have had a historical advantage over protoss, what we are trying to determine is if in the past 7 months is if this increased winrate of the zergs is so much more than the historical figure that the probability of this occurring to do variance is very small, and if infact an imbalance has emerged in the matchup.
On October 20 2009 15:44 Matrijs wrote: If the purpose is to prove that Zergs have had the advantage over Protoss players the last 3 months or whatever time period, why isn't a null hypothesis of winrate = 50% ideal for that purpose?
If we use the historical average, we invite the argument that Zergs have had a historical advantage over Protoss players, which would corrupt our test. The goal for mapmakers should be 50% winrates over time for each race in all three matchups - why shouldn't we measure their results against that goal?
Because the game has always been slightly T>Z>P>T, and this sort of equilibrium has been deemed balanced. It is already assumed that zergs have had a historical advantage over protoss, what we are trying to determine is if in the past 7 months is if this increased winrate of the zergs is so much more than the historical figure that the probability of this occurring to do variance is very small, and if infact an imbalance has emerged in the matchup.
I don't see this as a particularly compelling argument. If maps are sufficient to significantly alter, and even reverse, the T>Z>P>T historical pattern of imbalance, why should we accept that imbalance? Why shouldn't we aim for T=Z=P=T?
The null hypothesis would be that the Zerg winrate over the sampled period equals the historical rate, which we will approximate conservatively as 55%.
The alternative hypothesis would be that the Zerg winrate over the sampled period exceeds the historical rate.
By my calculation, that test gives us a z-value around 2.5, which is easily high enough to conclude that the current Zerg winrate exceeds the historical rate, even given the conservative assumption of a 55% historical winrate.
Edit: Including my calculations so others can check my work: Standard error = sqrt((.55)(.45)/855) ~ .01701 Z-value = (.5921-.55)/.01701 ~ 2.475
On October 20 2009 16:21 Elite00fm wrote: How did you get that standard error?
The formula's in the link I posted.
SE = square root (p(q)/n)
where p = population proportion (here, the estimated historical Zerg winrate, .55), q = (p-1) and n = sample size (855 games sampled)
So, it seems to me that, yes, something has changed recently. I see several possibilities: 1) Metagame shift. Protoss players may be struggling to find a good counter for the current popular 3 hatch spire to 5 hatch hydra build. This could be either a temporary effect, which will disappear or reverse itself once Protoss players discover an effective counter, or it could be a permanent effect, if the matchup is sufficiently "played out" strategically. 2) Maps. The new maps may be more Zerg-favored in this matchup than previous maps. 3) Mechanics. No one denies that the mechanics of modern pro players are vastly superior to those in the past. It may be that improved mechanics have more of a positive impact on a Zerg's effectiveness than they do on that of a Protoss.
The bottom line, it seems to me, is that unless we see a reversal of the trend over the next few months, tournament and league organizers should start looking at ways to tweak the existing map pool to bring the matchup back into balance, regardless of the cause. A 60% win rate for one race over another is just bad for the game at the competitive level.
On October 20 2009 15:22 zulu_nation8 wrote: Standard deviation means how far the mean % from other samples of 800 games in the history of progaming can deviate from the null hypothesis. Which should be something like .05 or .1. What your test proved was that basically your numbers are wrong.
Go into excel and use the command stdev on a bunch of numbers. That's the standard deviation I'm talking about. You plug that into this equation (for omega):
Please don't criticize my methods again until you do a statistical test of your own. After all, you said you would.
motbob i think its pretty obvious a standard deviation of 50% is wrong, the sooner you realize this and drop the im an econ major i know stats attitude, the faster we can move on.
A win is not 100%, and a loss is not 0%, that would be the standard deviation if brood war had like 80% half wins or something, even then that would not make sense since there would be no statistical significance since EVERYTHING would fall under the range of 0 and 1, thats why your numbers are so messed up.
On October 20 2009 13:26 motbob wrote: OK I just found a much easier way to compile map matchup data! So when I get access to Stata, I'll have better data. I'll do this for all stats since March 1st, 2009.
Byzantium 3: 25-13 Byzantium 2: 30-11 Tears of the Moon: 1-0 New Autumn Wind: 3-1 Medusa: 34-23 Tau Cross: 7-7 Carthage 2: 2-4 Carthage: 0-1 Battle Royale: 4-5 Holy World: 4-3 Shades of Twilight: 1-3 Colosseum II: 2-4 Andromeda: 7-19 (?????) Neo Harmony: 5-0 God's Garden: 56-44 Carthage 3: 1-0 Outsider: 41-27 Neo Medusa: 34-25 Return of the King: 47-22 Eye of the Storm: 1-1 El Niño: 1-1 Destination: 110-72 (this changed significantly since the time of the OP... EVER OSL prelims used it) Tornado: 5-1 Outsider SE: 2-0 Moon Glaive: 2-3 Match Point: 3-4 Heartbreak Ridge: 90-64 Fighting Spirit: 6-3
Overall: 524-361, or 59.21%
the variable we are discussing here is binary, hence the estimator of the mean is the proportion p = 524/(524+361) = 0.592. the sample size is large enough to use a normal approximation.
if we assume a null-hypothesis of a balanced winrate of p0 = 50%, then in the corresponding test we need to use this p0 and not p in the formula for the standard deviation!
If you guys still have trouble doubting the significance, ask yourself why we even need statistics in such a simple case. These numbers are small enough and the question simple enough that we don't need any fancy approximations or limits of the binomial distribution.
ZvP stats are 524-361
If you flip a coin 885 times, the chance of heads coming up 361 times or less is
(Sum(i=0 to 361) (885 C i))/(2^885)
If the coin has, say, a historical 47% chance of heads, then the chance of heads coming up 361 times or less is
Sum(i=0 to 361) (885 C i) * (.47)^i*(.53)^(885-i)
Someone can figure these out in 10 seconds with their TI-89 or Mathematica... unfortunately I can't right now. No need to hide behind fancy stats here!
Figure out the mean for progaming ZvPs, and when I get home I will calculate my weighted coin scenario with that mean instead of 47% for you! I will tell the exact chance that given your mean protoss will have won as many games as they did or less, not even a statistical approximation.
On October 21 2009 01:43 zulu_nation8 wrote: can you explain to me why 1-P0 is the SD
short answer: because the number of zerg wins (lets call it X) follows a binomial distribution and the estimator for the variance of the winning percentage (X/n, where X = number of wins) is p*(1-p)/n.
(veeery) long answer: in statistical hypothesis testing we compute how likely or unlikely the observed outcome would be if the null-hypothesis was true. obviously, to do that we need to know the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of the null-distribution.
to provide a unifying framework and for historical reasons (times when ppl had no support of powerful computers and had to do things by hand), a normal approximation is used so that instead of the "true null distribition" we can use the well-known cdf of a standard normal distribution to compute the p-value. to do that, we need to know the variance/standard deviation under the null-hypothesis.
the decisive thing about all that: we only use the normal distribution for the p-value, but the standard deviation still is that of the null-distribution. and the sd of the null distribution (which is scaled binomial here) is sqrt(p0*(1-p0)/n).
edit: read my previous post guys, i already conducted the test with the correct sd for a null-hypothesis of a historical zvp percentage of 55% and still it is highly significant!
during the last 7 months the zvp winning percentage is highly significant above 55%!
I'm working on getting access to TLPD, also remember there are 30k games on TLPD and only recently did it record offline and prelim games, so the overall # of games played in progaming is much larger. I don't think 800 games would be significant in this case, unless we remove the offline prelim games and only count tv games, actually even then the sample size would probably still be too small.
On October 20 2009 15:22 zulu_nation8 wrote: Standard deviation means how far the mean % from other samples of 800 games in the history of progaming can deviate from the null hypothesis. Which should be something like .05 or .1. What your test proved was that basically your numbers are wrong.
Go into excel and use the command stdev on a bunch of numbers. That's the standard deviation I'm talking about. You plug that into this equation (for omega):
Please don't criticize my methods again until you do a statistical test of your own. After all, you said you would.
motbob i think its pretty obvious a standard deviation of 50% is wrong, the sooner you realize this and drop the im an econ major i know stats attitude, the faster we can move on.
A win is not 100%, and a loss is not 0%, that would be the standard deviation if brood war had like 80% half wins or something, even then that would not make sense since there would be no statistical significance since EVERYTHING would fall under the range of 0 and 1, thats why your numbers are so messed up.
You are making a fool out of yourself. Stop trying to pretend you know more about stats than me. You're tripped over your terminology and your methodology ever since we started having this discussion. You continually make basic mistakes like confusing standard deviation with standard error. I'm going to say it again: either do a statistical test of your own or stop trying to criticize my methods.
motbob I'm going to try to explain exactly why your standard deviation is wrong, since zulu won't do it. I think what you did is to calculate the standard deviation of the variable zerg win, which is a binary variable you defined (I picked the name for exposition's sake) that equals 1 if Zerg wins a ZvP and 0 if Protoss wins. You correctly calculated the standard deviation of this variable — we'd expect it to be near .5 because the mean of zerg win is about .5, and so each instance of zerg win is about .5 from that mean.
However, this standard deviation is not the standard deviation relevant to your test for determining whether the recent Z>P trend is significantly anomalous. The variable you are examining in that test is not zerg win, but ZvP balance over a several-month period, another variable which I'll call balance. Therefore the standard deviation you must use in your test is the standard deviation of balance—that is, the error of several-month ZvP balance from the mean several-month ZvP balance. You can NOT use the standard deviation of zerg win, which has no place in your calculation.
On October 21 2009 02:03 JWD wrote: motbob I'm going to try to explain exactly why your standard deviation (technically it's a standard error, since standard deviation is a "true", unascertainable value and we are just estimating it) is wrong, since zulu won't do it. I think what you did is to calculate the standard error of the variable zerg win, which is a binary variable you defined (I picked the name for exposition's sake) that equals 1 if Zerg wins a ZvP and 0 if Protoss wins. You correctly calculated the standard error of this variable — we'd expect it to be near .5 because the mean of zerg win is about .5, and so each instance of zerg win is about .5 from that mean.
However, this standard error is not the standard error relevant to your test for determining whether the recent Z>P trend is significantly anomalous. The variable you are examining in that test is not zerg win, but ZvP balance over a several-month period, another variable which I'll call balance. Therefore the standard error you must use in your test is the standard error of balance—that is, the error of several-month ZvP balance from the mean several-month ZvP balance. You can NOT use the standard error of zerg win, which has no place in your calculation.
u should read my last 2 posts. in the first one i conducted the correct tests. in the second one i explained in detail why the standard error i was using is the correct one. and no, it is not hard to compute the sd of "balance". once we get a certain zvp winning percentage as the "historical balance", the sd needed in our test is simply sqrt[p*(1-p)/n]. i already tried it with 55%, so if the historical zvp stats are not higher than 55%, then the outcome of the last 7 months differs significantly.
im a statistics major close to graduating, so u can believe me
On October 20 2009 15:22 zulu_nation8 wrote: Standard deviation means how far the mean % from other samples of 800 games in the history of progaming can deviate from the null hypothesis. Which should be something like .05 or .1. What your test proved was that basically your numbers are wrong.
Go into excel and use the command stdev on a bunch of numbers. That's the standard deviation I'm talking about. You plug that into this equation (for omega):
Please don't criticize my methods again until you do a statistical test of your own. After all, you said you would.
motbob i think its pretty obvious a standard deviation of 50% is wrong, the sooner you realize this and drop the im an econ major i know stats attitude, the faster we can move on.
A win is not 100%, and a loss is not 0%, that would be the standard deviation if brood war had like 80% half wins or something, even then that would not make sense since there would be no statistical significance since EVERYTHING would fall under the range of 0 and 1, thats why your numbers are so messed up.
You are making a fool out of yourself. Stop trying to pretend you know more about stats than me. You're tripped over your terminology and your methodology ever since we started having this discussion. You continually make basic mistakes like confusing standard deviation with standard error. I'm going to say it again: either do a statistical test of your own or stop trying to criticize my methods.
first of all motbob, i think you should calm down. I learned this stuff in a psych 101 class 3 years ago so I assume it's pretty basic stuff and nothing to get worked up about. You plugged in .49 for standard deviation, not standard deviation, SE = SD/root(885). I had no idea how you got the number but just by common sense you should see that a SD of 50% for a null of 50% is wrong. I plan to do the test when I get access to TLPD. But you really should calm down or else this will go nowhere.
On October 21 2009 02:03 JWD wrote: motbob I'm going to try to explain exactly why your standard deviation (technically it's a standard error, since standard deviation is a "true", unascertainable value and we are just estimating it) is wrong, since zulu won't do it. I think what you did is to calculate the standard error of the variable zerg win, which is a binary variable you defined (I picked the name for exposition's sake) that equals 1 if Zerg wins a ZvP and 0 if Protoss wins. You correctly calculated the standard error of this variable — we'd expect it to be near .5 because the mean of zerg win is about .5, and so each instance of zerg win is about .5 from that mean.
However, this standard error is not the standard error relevant to your test for determining whether the recent Z>P trend is significantly anomalous. The variable you are examining in that test is not zerg win, but ZvP balance over a several-month period, another variable which I'll call balance. Therefore the standard error you must use in your test is the standard error of balance—that is, the error of several-month ZvP balance from the mean several-month ZvP balance. You can NOT use the standard error of zerg win, which has no place in your calculation.
u should read my last 2 posts. in the first one i conducted the correct tests. in the second one i explained in detail why the standard error i was using is the correct one. and no, it is not hard to compute the sd of "balance". once we get a certain zvp winning percentage as the "historical balance", the sd needed in our test is simply sqrt[p*(1-p)/n]. i already tried it with 55%, so if the historical zvp stats are not higher than 55%, then the outcome of the last 7 months differs significantly.
im a statistics major close to graduating, so u can believe me
Yep, your calculations look good. Bottom line is yes, the recent ZvP trend is statistically significant. This shouldn't be very surprising.
On October 20 2009 15:22 zulu_nation8 wrote: Standard deviation means how far the mean % from other samples of 800 games in the history of progaming can deviate from the null hypothesis. Which should be something like .05 or .1. What your test proved was that basically your numbers are wrong.
Go into excel and use the command stdev on a bunch of numbers. That's the standard deviation I'm talking about. You plug that into this equation (for omega):
Please don't criticize my methods again until you do a statistical test of your own. After all, you said you would.
motbob i think its pretty obvious a standard deviation of 50% is wrong, the sooner you realize this and drop the im an econ major i know stats attitude, the faster we can move on.
A win is not 100%, and a loss is not 0%, that would be the standard deviation if brood war had like 80% half wins or something, even then that would not make sense since there would be no statistical significance since EVERYTHING would fall under the range of 0 and 1, thats why your numbers are so messed up.
You are making a fool out of yourself. Stop trying to pretend you know more about stats than me. You're tripped over your terminology and your methodology ever since we started having this discussion. You continually make basic mistakes like confusing standard deviation with standard error. I'm going to say it again: either do a statistical test of your own or stop trying to criticize my methods.
first of all motbob, i think you should calm down. I learned this stuff in a psych 101 class 3 years ago so I assume it's pretty basic stuff and nothing to get worked up about. You plugged in .49 for standard deviation, not standard deviation, SE = SD/root(885). I had no idea how you got the number but just by common sense you should see that a SD of 50% for a null of 50% is wrong. I plan to do the test when I get access to TLPD. But you really should calm down or else this will go nowhere.
dude
it's binary data, the data points are either a 1 or 0. Of course the stdev is going to be ~.5! Punch a bunch of binary data into excel and use excel to get the stdev of that data. It will give you a value of about .5
On October 20 2009 15:22 zulu_nation8 wrote: Standard deviation means how far the mean % from other samples of 800 games in the history of progaming can deviate from the null hypothesis. Which should be something like .05 or .1. What your test proved was that basically your numbers are wrong.
Go into excel and use the command stdev on a bunch of numbers. That's the standard deviation I'm talking about. You plug that into this equation (for omega):
Please don't criticize my methods again until you do a statistical test of your own. After all, you said you would.
motbob i think its pretty obvious a standard deviation of 50% is wrong, the sooner you realize this and drop the im an econ major i know stats attitude, the faster we can move on.
A win is not 100%, and a loss is not 0%, that would be the standard deviation if brood war had like 80% half wins or something, even then that would not make sense since there would be no statistical significance since EVERYTHING would fall under the range of 0 and 1, thats why your numbers are so messed up.
You are making a fool out of yourself. Stop trying to pretend you know more about stats than me. You're tripped over your terminology and your methodology ever since we started having this discussion. You continually make basic mistakes like confusing standard deviation with standard error. I'm going to say it again: either do a statistical test of your own or stop trying to criticize my methods.
first of all motbob, i think you should calm down. I learned this stuff in a psych 101 class 3 years ago so I assume it's pretty basic stuff and nothing to get worked up about. You plugged in .49 for standard deviation, not standard deviation, SE = SD/root(885). I had no idea how you got the number but just by common sense you should see that a SD of 50% for a null of 50% is wrong. I plan to do the test when I get access to TLPD. But you really should calm down or else this will go nowhere.
dude
it's binary data, the data points are either a 1 or 0. Of course the stdev is going to be ~.5! Punch a bunch of binary data into excel and use excel to get the stdev of that data. It will give you a value of about .5
motbob read my post, you calculated the figure correctly, but that's not the proper figure for your test.
I would just note the number of "zvp is imba" posts in the past 3 months. Over the same period I haven't seen any posts claiming the opposite. I am not saying that having many posts on a topic makes it a valid argument, but at the very least in terms of perception something is certainly going on.
On October 21 2009 02:03 JWD wrote: motbob I'm going to try to explain exactly why your standard deviation (technically it's a standard error, since standard deviation is a "true", unascertainable value and we are just estimating it) is wrong, since zulu won't do it. I think what you did is to calculate the standard error of the variable zerg win, which is a binary variable you defined (I picked the name for exposition's sake) that equals 1 if Zerg wins a ZvP and 0 if Protoss wins. You correctly calculated the standard error of this variable — we'd expect it to be near .5 because the mean of zerg win is about .5, and so each instance of zerg win is about .5 from that mean.
However, this standard error is not the standard error relevant to your test for determining whether the recent Z>P trend is significantly anomalous. The variable you are examining in that test is not zerg win, but ZvP balance over a several-month period, another variable which I'll call balance. Therefore the standard error you must use in your test is the standard error of balance—that is, the error of several-month ZvP balance from the mean several-month ZvP balance. You can NOT use the standard error of zerg win, which has no place in your calculation.
...I don't have a choice as to which SE I use in my test. SE is SD (of my data) divided by sqrt(n). I can't change it.
I can change my null hypothesis though... are you saying my null hypothesis should be the historical winrate instead of 50%?
On October 21 2009 02:03 JWD wrote: motbob I'm going to try to explain exactly why your standard deviation (technically it's a standard error, since standard deviation is a "true", unascertainable value and we are just estimating it) is wrong, since zulu won't do it. I think what you did is to calculate the standard error of the variable zerg win, which is a binary variable you defined (I picked the name for exposition's sake) that equals 1 if Zerg wins a ZvP and 0 if Protoss wins. You correctly calculated the standard error of this variable — we'd expect it to be near .5 because the mean of zerg win is about .5, and so each instance of zerg win is about .5 from that mean.
However, this standard error is not the standard error relevant to your test for determining whether the recent Z>P trend is significantly anomalous. The variable you are examining in that test is not zerg win, but ZvP balance over a several-month period, another variable which I'll call balance. Therefore the standard error you must use in your test is the standard error of balance—that is, the error of several-month ZvP balance from the mean several-month ZvP balance. You can NOT use the standard error of zerg win, which has no place in your calculation.
...I don't have a choice as to which SE I use in my test. SE is SD (of my data) divided by sqrt(n). I can't change it.
I can change my null hypothesis though... are you saying my null hypothesis should be the historical winrate instead of 50%?
yeah I confused standard error and stdev, and just edited to fix that…no that's not what I'm saying.
I'm too rusty on stats to make any further useful contributions to this thread, but I'm pretty sure I explained your problem right motbob
On October 21 2009 02:03 JWD wrote: motbob I'm going to try to explain exactly why your standard deviation (technically it's a standard error, since standard deviation is a "true", unascertainable value and we are just estimating it) is wrong, since zulu won't do it. I think what you did is to calculate the standard error of the variable zerg win, which is a binary variable you defined (I picked the name for exposition's sake) that equals 1 if Zerg wins a ZvP and 0 if Protoss wins. You correctly calculated the standard error of this variable — we'd expect it to be near .5 because the mean of zerg win is about .5, and so each instance of zerg win is about .5 from that mean.
However, this standard error is not the standard error relevant to your test for determining whether the recent Z>P trend is significantly anomalous. The variable you are examining in that test is not zerg win, but ZvP balance over a several-month period, another variable which I'll call balance. Therefore the standard error you must use in your test is the standard error of balance—that is, the error of several-month ZvP balance from the mean several-month ZvP balance. You can NOT use the standard error of zerg win, which has no place in your calculation.
u should read my last 2 posts. in the first one i conducted the correct tests. in the second one i explained in detail why the standard error i was using is the correct one. and no, it is not hard to compute the sd of "balance". once we get a certain zvp winning percentage as the "historical balance", the sd needed in our test is simply sqrt[p*(1-p)/n]. i already tried it with 55%, so if the historical zvp stats are not higher than 55%, then the outcome of the last 7 months differs significantly.
im a statistics major close to graduating, so u can believe me
I'm having trouble believing that the trend is significant not because I don't trust your math but just by what I remember. I'm very confident there has been similar trends in the past over similar samples, and if we were to look at the stats of other matchups, something like 59% over 7 months really shouldnt be very surprising.
Also, can you explain what 885 means in the equation? Like if the overall games are 30k+, is there a way to include the size of the sample?
It really doesn't matter how many games were played in the past Zulu_nation.
Like if you roll a dice 3 billion times you can get a good idea of how its weighted.
If you change something and then roll it a million times you can still get a good idea of whether the weighting significantly changed, even though a million is a tiny fraction of 3 billion.
On October 21 2009 02:03 JWD wrote: motbob I'm going to try to explain exactly why your standard deviation (technically it's a standard error, since standard deviation is a "true", unascertainable value and we are just estimating it) is wrong, since zulu won't do it. I think what you did is to calculate the standard error of the variable zerg win, which is a binary variable you defined (I picked the name for exposition's sake) that equals 1 if Zerg wins a ZvP and 0 if Protoss wins. You correctly calculated the standard error of this variable — we'd expect it to be near .5 because the mean of zerg win is about .5, and so each instance of zerg win is about .5 from that mean.
However, this standard error is not the standard error relevant to your test for determining whether the recent Z>P trend is significantly anomalous. The variable you are examining in that test is not zerg win, but ZvP balance over a several-month period, another variable which I'll call balance. Therefore the standard error you must use in your test is the standard error of balance—that is, the error of several-month ZvP balance from the mean several-month ZvP balance. You can NOT use the standard error of zerg win, which has no place in your calculation.
...I don't have a choice as to which SE I use in my test. SE is SD (of my data) divided by sqrt(n). I can't change it.
I can change my null hypothesis though... are you saying my null hypothesis should be the historical winrate instead of 50%?
yeah I confused standard error and stdev, and just edited to fix that…no that's not what I'm saying.
I'm too rusty on stats to make any further useful contributions to this thread, but I'm pretty sure I explained your problem right motbob
motbob just think of it like this, how can the MEAN of zerg win% ever be 100% over similar samples? Surely theres never been a period in progaming when zerg has won every game vs toss over 800 games?
On October 21 2009 02:03 JWD wrote: motbob I'm going to try to explain exactly why your standard deviation (technically it's a standard error, since standard deviation is a "true", unascertainable value and we are just estimating it) is wrong, since zulu won't do it. I think what you did is to calculate the standard error of the variable zerg win, which is a binary variable you defined (I picked the name for exposition's sake) that equals 1 if Zerg wins a ZvP and 0 if Protoss wins. You correctly calculated the standard error of this variable — we'd expect it to be near .5 because the mean of zerg win is about .5, and so each instance of zerg win is about .5 from that mean.
However, this standard error is not the standard error relevant to your test for determining whether the recent Z>P trend is significantly anomalous. The variable you are examining in that test is not zerg win, but ZvP balance over a several-month period, another variable which I'll call balance. Therefore the standard error you must use in your test is the standard error of balance—that is, the error of several-month ZvP balance from the mean several-month ZvP balance. You can NOT use the standard error of zerg win, which has no place in your calculation.
u should read my last 2 posts. in the first one i conducted the correct tests. in the second one i explained in detail why the standard error i was using is the correct one. and no, it is not hard to compute the sd of "balance". once we get a certain zvp winning percentage as the "historical balance", the sd needed in our test is simply sqrt[p*(1-p)/n]. i already tried it with 55%, so if the historical zvp stats are not higher than 55%, then the outcome of the last 7 months differs significantly.
im a statistics major close to graduating, so u can believe me
I'm having trouble believing that the trend is significant not because I don't trust your math but just by what I remember. I'm very confident there has been similar trends in the past over similar samples, and if we were to look at the stats of other matchups, something like 59% over 7 months really shouldnt be very surprising.
Also, can you explain what 885 means in the equation? Like if the overall games are 30k+, is there a way to include the size of the sample?
885 is the number of ZvPs played since March 1st. We plug it into the z test equation for n.
On October 21 2009 02:03 JWD wrote: motbob I'm going to try to explain exactly why your standard deviation (technically it's a standard error, since standard deviation is a "true", unascertainable value and we are just estimating it) is wrong, since zulu won't do it. I think what you did is to calculate the standard error of the variable zerg win, which is a binary variable you defined (I picked the name for exposition's sake) that equals 1 if Zerg wins a ZvP and 0 if Protoss wins. You correctly calculated the standard error of this variable — we'd expect it to be near .5 because the mean of zerg win is about .5, and so each instance of zerg win is about .5 from that mean.
However, this standard error is not the standard error relevant to your test for determining whether the recent Z>P trend is significantly anomalous. The variable you are examining in that test is not zerg win, but ZvP balance over a several-month period, another variable which I'll call balance. Therefore the standard error you must use in your test is the standard error of balance—that is, the error of several-month ZvP balance from the mean several-month ZvP balance. You can NOT use the standard error of zerg win, which has no place in your calculation.
...I don't have a choice as to which SE I use in my test. SE is SD (of my data) divided by sqrt(n). I can't change it.
I can change my null hypothesis though... are you saying my null hypothesis should be the historical winrate instead of 50%?
yeah I confused standard error and stdev, and just edited to fix that…no that's not what I'm saying.
I'm too rusty on stats to make any further useful contributions to this thread, but I'm pretty sure I explained your problem right motbob
motbob just think of it like this, how can the MEAN of zerg win% ever be 100% over similar samples? Surely theres never been a period in progaming when zerg has won every game vs toss over 800 games?
Uh yeah this is true but I dunno why it's relevant. Again, I think you're confusing the standard error involved in a statistical test with the standard deviation of a population.
On October 21 2009 02:26 Muirhead wrote: It really doesn't matter how many games were played in the past Zulu_nation.
Like if you roll a dice 3 billion times you can get a good idea of how its weighted.
If you change something and then roll it a million times you can still get a good idea of whether the weighting significantly changed, even though a million is a tiny fraction of 3 billion.
ok let me relearn this stuff and I'll get back to you.
On October 21 2009 02:03 JWD wrote: motbob I'm going to try to explain exactly why your standard deviation (technically it's a standard error, since standard deviation is a "true", unascertainable value and we are just estimating it) is wrong, since zulu won't do it. I think what you did is to calculate the standard error of the variable zerg win, which is a binary variable you defined (I picked the name for exposition's sake) that equals 1 if Zerg wins a ZvP and 0 if Protoss wins. You correctly calculated the standard error of this variable — we'd expect it to be near .5 because the mean of zerg win is about .5, and so each instance of zerg win is about .5 from that mean.
However, this standard error is not the standard error relevant to your test for determining whether the recent Z>P trend is significantly anomalous. The variable you are examining in that test is not zerg win, but ZvP balance over a several-month period, another variable which I'll call balance. Therefore the standard error you must use in your test is the standard error of balance—that is, the error of several-month ZvP balance from the mean several-month ZvP balance. You can NOT use the standard error of zerg win, which has no place in your calculation.
u should read my last 2 posts. in the first one i conducted the correct tests. in the second one i explained in detail why the standard error i was using is the correct one. and no, it is not hard to compute the sd of "balance". once we get a certain zvp winning percentage as the "historical balance", the sd needed in our test is simply sqrt[p*(1-p)/n]. i already tried it with 55%, so if the historical zvp stats are not higher than 55%, then the outcome of the last 7 months differs significantly.
im a statistics major close to graduating, so u can believe me
I'm having trouble believing that the trend is significant not because I don't trust your math but just by what I remember. I'm very confident there has been similar trends in the past over similar samples, and if we were to look at the stats of other matchups, something like 59% over 7 months really shouldnt be very surprising.
Also, can you explain what 885 means in the equation? Like if the overall games are 30k+, is there a way to include the size of the sample?
i was refering to the figures from the last page, which are the figures for the last 7 months, progaming only. there we had 524 zerg wins to 361 toss wins. thats 885 games played. thats the sample from which we estimate the winning percentage of the last 7 months. in the tests conducted so far, we assume that the historical balance with which we compare the last 7 months is given. if u want to include the uncertainty involved because we estimate this historical balance zvp winning ratio from data, u would have to conduct a two-sample-test. but as u said, there are like several thousands of games from which we would estimate the historical percentage, thus the uncertainty involved in this estimation is negligible.
but u are right in one point: the metagame has always been shifting, it goes up and down. comparing with the average of these up and down movements can be misleading. the decisive question is if the current shift in metagame in favour of zerg is more severe than previous shifts. in other words: is it even worse than the previous bad times for protoss, or is it comparable to them?
On October 21 2009 02:03 JWD wrote: motbob I'm going to try to explain exactly why your standard deviation (technically it's a standard error, since standard deviation is a "true", unascertainable value and we are just estimating it) is wrong, since zulu won't do it. I think what you did is to calculate the standard error of the variable zerg win, which is a binary variable you defined (I picked the name for exposition's sake) that equals 1 if Zerg wins a ZvP and 0 if Protoss wins. You correctly calculated the standard error of this variable — we'd expect it to be near .5 because the mean of zerg win is about .5, and so each instance of zerg win is about .5 from that mean.
However, this standard error is not the standard error relevant to your test for determining whether the recent Z>P trend is significantly anomalous. The variable you are examining in that test is not zerg win, but ZvP balance over a several-month period, another variable which I'll call balance. Therefore the standard error you must use in your test is the standard error of balance—that is, the error of several-month ZvP balance from the mean several-month ZvP balance. You can NOT use the standard error of zerg win, which has no place in your calculation.
...I don't have a choice as to which SE I use in my test. SE is SD (of my data) divided by sqrt(n). I can't change it.
I can change my null hypothesis though... are you saying my null hypothesis should be the historical winrate instead of 50%?
yeah I confused standard error and stdev, and just edited to fix that…no that's not what I'm saying.
I'm too rusty on stats to make any further useful contributions to this thread, but I'm pretty sure I explained your problem right motbob
motbob just think of it like this, how can the MEAN of zerg win% ever be 100% over similar samples? Surely theres never been a period in progaming when zerg has won every game vs toss over 800 games?
Uh yeah this is true but I dunno why it's relevant. Again, I think you're confusing the standard error involved in a statistical test with the standard deviation of a population.
no im not, like JWD says, your standard deviation is the mean of zerg winning, so of course zerg can only win or not win, and not 80% win. What we're actually calculating is the mean of the zerg win RATIO, in that case the SD would be something like how far on average does the zvp % deviate from the overall historical mean of say 55% over similar 855 game samples.
On October 21 2009 02:03 JWD wrote: motbob I'm going to try to explain exactly why your standard deviation (technically it's a standard error, since standard deviation is a "true", unascertainable value and we are just estimating it) is wrong, since zulu won't do it. I think what you did is to calculate the standard error of the variable zerg win, which is a binary variable you defined (I picked the name for exposition's sake) that equals 1 if Zerg wins a ZvP and 0 if Protoss wins. You correctly calculated the standard error of this variable — we'd expect it to be near .5 because the mean of zerg win is about .5, and so each instance of zerg win is about .5 from that mean.
However, this standard error is not the standard error relevant to your test for determining whether the recent Z>P trend is significantly anomalous. The variable you are examining in that test is not zerg win, but ZvP balance over a several-month period, another variable which I'll call balance. Therefore the standard error you must use in your test is the standard error of balance—that is, the error of several-month ZvP balance from the mean several-month ZvP balance. You can NOT use the standard error of zerg win, which has no place in your calculation.
...I don't have a choice as to which SE I use in my test. SE is SD (of my data) divided by sqrt(n). I can't change it.
I can change my null hypothesis though... are you saying my null hypothesis should be the historical winrate instead of 50%?
yeah I confused standard error and stdev, and just edited to fix that…no that's not what I'm saying.
I'm too rusty on stats to make any further useful contributions to this thread, but I'm pretty sure I explained your problem right motbob
motbob just think of it like this, how can the MEAN of zerg win% ever be 100% over similar samples? Surely theres never been a period in progaming when zerg has won every game vs toss over 800 games?
Uh yeah this is true but I dunno why it's relevant. Again, I think you're confusing the standard error involved in a statistical test with the standard deviation of a population.
no im not, like JWD says, your standard deviation is the mean of zerg winning
let me explain that, your SD is how far your data deviates from the possible outcomes, out of win or not win, for a zerg progamer when he enters a 1v1 starcraft game, whereas the rest of your equation is calculating the win ratio of a certain number of games, and basically not binary data.
motbob honestly i probably havent used a calculator in three years and Im also not an econ major so I understand why you wouldnt believe me but please, just use common sense, how can the standard deviation be 50% in this case? How is that possible? The SD is a mean.
Should just get all the TLPD data and calcaute the probability of a P's win chance being 48-52% (or some other arbitrary range) at each time period, using data from x months to the left and right of said time period given the win% in that time period, but I guess zulu is working on getting the data for that.
On October 21 2009 02:49 zulu_nation8 wrote: motbob honestly i probably havent used a calculator in three years and Im also not an econ major so I understand why you wouldnt believe me but please, just use common sense, how can the standard deviation be 50% in this case? How is that possible? The SD is a mean.
On October 20 2009 13:26 motbob wrote: OK I just found a much easier way to compile map matchup data! So when I get access to Stata, I'll have better data. I'll do this for all stats since March 1st, 2009.
Byzantium 3: 25-13 Byzantium 2: 30-11 Tears of the Moon: 1-0 New Autumn Wind: 3-1 Medusa: 34-23 Tau Cross: 7-7 Carthage 2: 2-4 Carthage: 0-1 Battle Royale: 4-5 Holy World: 4-3 Shades of Twilight: 1-3 Colosseum II: 2-4 Andromeda: 7-19 (?????) Neo Harmony: 5-0 God's Garden: 56-44 Carthage 3: 1-0 Outsider: 41-27 Neo Medusa: 34-25 Return of the King: 47-22 Eye of the Storm: 1-1 El Niño: 1-1 Destination: 110-72 (this changed significantly since the time of the OP... EVER OSL prelims used it) Tornado: 5-1 Outsider SE: 2-0 Moon Glaive: 2-3 Match Point: 3-4 Heartbreak Ridge: 90-64 Fighting Spirit: 6-3
Overall: 524-361, or 59.21%
the variable we are discussing here is binary, hence the estimator of the mean is the proportion p = 524/(524+361) = 0.592. the sample size is large enough to use a normal approximation.
if we assume a null-hypothesis of a balanced winrate of p0 = 50%, then in the corresponding test we need to use this p0 and not p in the formula for the standard deviation!
On October 21 2009 02:50 EtherealDeath wrote: Should just get all the TLPD data and calcaute the probability of a P's win chance being 48-52% (or some other arbitrary range) at each time period, using data from x months to the left and right of said time period given the win% in that time period, but I guess zulu is working on getting the data for that.
Im gonna use # of games instead of time period, and the # of games would be a number roughly equivalent to the number of games in a season.
On October 21 2009 02:50 EtherealDeath wrote: Should just get all the TLPD data and calcaute the probability of a P's win chance being 48-52% (or some other arbitrary range) at each time period, using data from x months to the left and right of said time period given the win% in that time period, but I guess zulu is working on getting the data for that.
if u get that data, could u plz send it to me aswell? id like to draw some graphs to see the development over time^^
On October 21 2009 02:44 zulu_nation8 wrote: let me explain that, your SD is how far your data deviates from the possible outcomes, out of win or not win, for a zerg progamer when he enters a 1v1 starcraft game, whereas the rest of your equation is calculating the win ratio of a certain number of games, and basically not binary data.
No it isn't, that's the standard error. The standard error is the SD divided by sqrt(n). That's what I've been trying to tell you.
On October 21 2009 02:50 EtherealDeath wrote: Should just get all the TLPD data and calcaute the probability of a P's win chance being 48-52% (or some other arbitrary range) at each time period, using data from x months to the left and right of said time period given the win% in that time period, but I guess zulu is working on getting the data for that.
if u get that data, could u plz send it to me aswell? id like to draw some graphs to see the development over time^^
Well my web programming is nonexistent, but I'd imagine that you would direct your code to http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/games/ and grab data from winner/loser, and then since each the data in each field happens to have race encoded, that would work. But yea, someone do it plz =)
This statistics talk is really over the top and silly. You only need to WATCH THE GAMES to get an idea of this topic. The point shouldn't be trying to prove things with pointless statistics but actual game analysis, we all know Zerg is doing better lately its plainly obvious but just point out the reasons why and what can change it.
On October 21 2009 03:14 zulu_nation8 wrote: ok motbob you win, the standard deviation is clearly 50% from a mean of 55%.
Actually yeah it is. Like I said, go to excel and punch in a bunch of binary data if you don't believe me. You might think that "common sense" tells you that that's impossible, but it's not. Go try it.
On October 21 2009 03:14 zulu_nation8 wrote: ok motbob you win, the standard deviation is clearly 50% from a mean of 55%.
K, so.
Motbob's standard deviation is fucking crazzzzy because it appears Excel decided to use the % wins on each individual map as its individual data points (obviously since we do not have any other 7 month periods of data looked up, that was the only option). Of course, many of the maps do not have enough games to be relevant, but the point is: MAPS ARE IMPORTANT TO BALANCE therefore standard deviation is ridiculous as you have noted.
Now you may also have noticed that another analysis was done using the entire set of games, all 885 of them, and calculating the probability of something even more extreme occurring (that would be the p-value), which turned out to be really ridiculously low. In other words, the probability of zerg winning at least 59.21% of the games when they are supposed to win 50% (I think 53% was actually used as the null hypothesis) is really really low, aka unexpected. Of course, this analysis does NOT take maps into consideration and instead treats individual game as purely identical.
So result? Chances of zerg winning so much = low as hell if ZvP is supposed to be balanced Maps important? Yes, they heavily affect the win%
Of course, relative player skill is not taken into account by this model. If you want a more accurate one, go find all the elos involved in every game and post it plz, cause I don't know that TLPD has a convenient interface for doing so.
On October 21 2009 03:14 zulu_nation8 wrote: ok motbob you win, the standard deviation is clearly 50% from a mean of 55%.
Actually yeah it is. Like I said, go to excel and punch in a bunch of binary data if you don't believe me. You might think that "common sense" tells you that that's impossible, but it's not. Go try it.
the formula for standard deviation is sqrt(p*(1-p)). its pure coincidence that for p close to 0.5, this sd is about the same as p itself. an example:
On October 21 2009 03:14 zulu_nation8 wrote: ok motbob you win, the standard deviation is clearly 50% from a mean of 55%.
K, so.
Motbob's standard deviation is fucking crazzzzy because it appears Excel decided to use the % wins on each individual map as its individual data points (obviously since we do not have any other 7 month periods of data looked up, that was the only option). Of course, many of the maps do not have enough games to be relevant, but the point is: MAPS ARE IMPORTANT TO BALANCE therefore standard deviation is ridiculous as you have noted.
Actually, I used 885 data points in my test, just like the other study. I didn't break it down by maps or anything. I just had one column full of 1's and 0's.
On October 21 2009 03:14 zulu_nation8 wrote: ok motbob you win, the standard deviation is clearly 50% from a mean of 55%.
K, so.
Motbob's standard deviation is fucking crazzzzy because it appears Excel decided to use the % wins on each individual map as its individual data points (obviously since we do not have any other 7 month periods of data looked up, that was the only option). Of course, many of the maps do not have enough games to be relevant, but the point is: MAPS ARE IMPORTANT TO BALANCE therefore standard deviation is ridiculous as you have noted.
I think that would be a way to see if a certain map is actually significant imbalanced compared to the other maps played in the same period? That would be a good test if maps are we are trying to focus on. And of course we would need to set a minimum number of games played.
On October 21 2009 03:14 zulu_nation8 wrote: ok motbob you win, the standard deviation is clearly 50% from a mean of 55%.
K, so.
Motbob's standard deviation is fucking crazzzzy because it appears Excel decided to use the % wins on each individual map as its individual data points (obviously since we do not have any other 7 month periods of data looked up, that was the only option). Of course, many of the maps do not have enough games to be relevant, but the point is: MAPS ARE IMPORTANT TO BALANCE therefore standard deviation is ridiculous as you have noted.
Actually, I used 885 data points in my test, just like the other study. I didn't break it down by maps or anything. I just had one column full of 1's and 0's.
ok i'll try to explain it in another way, the null hypothesis you used is a percentage, but the data points are not percentages. Therefore your SD is wrong.
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
On October 21 2009 03:14 zulu_nation8 wrote: ok motbob you win, the standard deviation is clearly 50% from a mean of 55%.
K, so.
Motbob's standard deviation is fucking crazzzzy because it appears Excel decided to use the % wins on each individual map as its individual data points (obviously since we do not have any other 7 month periods of data looked up, that was the only option). Of course, many of the maps do not have enough games to be relevant, but the point is: MAPS ARE IMPORTANT TO BALANCE therefore standard deviation is ridiculous as you have noted.
Actually, I used 885 data points in my test, just like the other study. I didn't break it down by maps or anything. I just had one column full of 1's and 0's.
Oh, well if you do it that way then the standard deviation isn't really meaningful I don't think. I'd prefer the p-value instead :O
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
On October 21 2009 03:14 zulu_nation8 wrote: ok motbob you win, the standard deviation is clearly 50% from a mean of 55%.
K, so.
Motbob's standard deviation is fucking crazzzzy because it appears Excel decided to use the % wins on each individual map as its individual data points (obviously since we do not have any other 7 month periods of data looked up, that was the only option). Of course, many of the maps do not have enough games to be relevant, but the point is: MAPS ARE IMPORTANT TO BALANCE therefore standard deviation is ridiculous as you have noted.
Actually, I used 885 data points in my test, just like the other study. I didn't break it down by maps or anything. I just had one column full of 1's and 0's.
Oh, well if you do it that way then the standard deviation isn't really meaningful I don't think. I'd prefer the p-value instead :O
when comparing with a truly balanced 50% chance to win, the p-value is 0. when comparing with historical imbalances, (which we dont know, so i substituted 55% for the historical "race imbalance equilibrium"), its 0.0059.
Would be cool though to get the race matchup elo of each player in each game and then use that to determine the probability of the zerg winning each game, and then use that to determine the probability of zerg winning at least as many games as they did. If only there were a simple to use automated process for this...
EDIT: wait nvm, the matchup elo of each player itself would be dependent on the balance, and then I am not sure how you resolve this interdepency of variables >.>
Perhaps instead we look at the matchup elos of the players of each race, and compare the resulting distributions?
EDIT2: need more minor league games, there aren't THAT many players with enough games for me to trust in their elo -.-
On October 21 2009 03:14 zulu_nation8 wrote: ok motbob you win, the standard deviation is clearly 50% from a mean of 55%.
K, so.
Motbob's standard deviation is fucking crazzzzy because it appears Excel decided to use the % wins on each individual map as its individual data points (obviously since we do not have any other 7 month periods of data looked up, that was the only option). Of course, many of the maps do not have enough games to be relevant, but the point is: MAPS ARE IMPORTANT TO BALANCE therefore standard deviation is ridiculous as you have noted.
Actually, I used 885 data points in my test, just like the other study. I didn't break it down by maps or anything. I just had one column full of 1's and 0's.
Oh, well if you do it that way then the standard deviation isn't really meaningful I don't think. I'd prefer the p-value instead :O
when comparing with a truly balanced 50% chance to win, the p-value is 0. when comparing with historical imbalances, (which we dont know, so i substituted 55% for the historical "race imbalance equilibrium"), its 0.0059.
On October 21 2009 03:46 EtherealDeath wrote: Would be cool though to get the race matchup elo of each player in each game and then use that to determine the probability of the zerg winning each game, and then use that to determine the probability of zerg winning at least as many games as they did. If only there were a simple to use automated process for this...
EDIT: wait nvm, the matchup elo of each player itself would be dependent on the balance, and then I am not sure how you resolve this interdepency of variables >.>
Perhaps instead we look at the matchup elos of the players of each race, and compare the resulting distributions?
EDIT2: need more minor league games, there aren't THAT many players with enough games for me to trust in their elo -.-
Hahahaha statistics nerds unite! This whole concept would make for a really cool empirical paper... I wouldn't want to try to do literature review though LOL
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
On October 21 2009 03:46 EtherealDeath wrote: Would be cool though to get the race matchup elo of each player in each game and then use that to determine the probability of the zerg winning each game, and then use that to determine the probability of zerg winning at least as many games as they did. If only there were a simple to use automated process for this...
EDIT: wait nvm, the matchup elo of each player itself would be dependent on the balance, and then I am not sure how you resolve this interdepency of variables >.>
Perhaps instead we look at the matchup elos of the players of each race, and compare the resulting distributions?
EDIT2: need more minor league games, there aren't THAT many players with enough games for me to trust in their elo -.-
Hahahaha statistics nerds unite! This whole concept would make for a really cool empirical paper... I wouldn't want to try to do literature review though LOL
I'm a comp sci nerd who took stats for fun with my friend who is a stats major ;(
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
On October 21 2009 03:46 EtherealDeath wrote: Would be cool though to get the race matchup elo of each player in each game and then use that to determine the probability of the zerg winning each game, and then use that to determine the probability of zerg winning at least as many games as they did. If only there were a simple to use automated process for this...
still, there would remain the question how to scale elo differences. same elo means winning percentage of 50%, obviously. but how strong is the effect of lets say 50 points difference in elo? and does the effect of elo differences change for different elo regions?
to tackle this, u would need to perform a logistic regression
that would surely be interesting, but i dont think many guys would understand it, especially if the effect of elo differences is not constant over time, ie would have to be modelled nonparametrically.
On October 21 2009 03:46 EtherealDeath wrote: Would be cool though to get the race matchup elo of each player in each game and then use that to determine the probability of the zerg winning each game, and then use that to determine the probability of zerg winning at least as many games as they did. If only there were a simple to use automated process for this...
still, there would remain the question how to scale elo differences. same elo means winning percentage of 50%, obviously. but how strong is the effect of lets say 50 points difference in elo? and does the effect of elo differences change for different elo regions?
to tackle this, u would need to perform a logistic regression
that would surely be interesting, but i dont think many guys would understand it, especially if the effect of elo differences is not constant over time, ie would have to be modelled nonparametrically.
Well, about the thought concerning graphing player elos instead. Presumably the charts should look pretty similar if ZvP were balanced. Now, since we don't have enough pro games to do this well, what if we took every A level and above ICCUP game as well? Don't know how closely that skill level compares to the average progamer though.
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
If it were insignificant, then almost certainly the historical chance of a zerg beating a toss is pretty high, more so than you would expect if the matchup were balanced. The test black gun did was to determine the probability that zerg wins at least as much as they do, assuming they have an expected win % of 55%. That probability turned out to be just under 0.6%, which means for the usual significance levels, the null hypothesis of 55% must be rejected, and replaced by something higher.
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
If it were insignificant, then almost certainly the historical chance of a zerg beating a toss is pretty high, more so than you would expect if the matchup were balanced. The test black gun did was to determine the probability that zerg wins at least as much as they do, assuming they have an expected win % of 55%. That probability turned out to be just under 0.6%, which means for the usual significance levels, the null hypothesis of 55% must be rejected, and replaced by something higher.
ok but im still having trouble understanding how, if zerg is expected to win 55% of games, and they win 59% over 800 chances, theres a 0.6% chance of that happening. It would seem that it happens all the time in BW. Of course if you were to have a two sided coin and say heads is expected to come 55% of the time, it would see very improbable to get 59% over 800 times. So what would this mean to BW? That each game can not be counted as a separate event?
I don't think using ZvP ELOs to do this would work Intuitively, it seems that correcting for the ELO difference would "cancel out" any difference from the ZvP winrate from 50%... I dunno.
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
If it were insignificant, then almost certainly the historical chance of a zerg beating a toss is pretty high, more so than you would expect if the matchup were balanced. The test black gun did was to determine the probability that zerg wins at least as much as they do, assuming they have an expected win % of 55%. That probability turned out to be just under 0.6%, which means for the usual significance levels, the null hypothesis of 55% must be rejected, and replaced by something higher.
So what would this mean to BW? That each game can not be counted as a separate event?
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
If it were insignificant, then almost certainly the historical chance of a zerg beating a toss is pretty high, more so than you would expect if the matchup were balanced. The test black gun did was to determine the probability that zerg wins at least as much as they do, assuming they have an expected win % of 55%. That probability turned out to be just under 0.6%, which means for the usual significance levels, the null hypothesis of 55% must be rejected, and replaced by something higher.
So what would this mean to BW? That each game can not be counted as a separate event?
Sorry... not sure what this means
it means youre ignoring that not every game is played under the same conditions like a coin flip, if the test is to become more accurate, factors such as map, time, tv/non tv games would have to be taken under consideration, for example delete all the non official games from the 855 games and do another z-test and see what comes out.
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
If it were insignificant, then almost certainly the historical chance of a zerg beating a toss is pretty high, more so than you would expect if the matchup were balanced. The test black gun did was to determine the probability that zerg wins at least as much as they do, assuming they have an expected win % of 55%. That probability turned out to be just under 0.6%, which means for the usual significance levels, the null hypothesis of 55% must be rejected, and replaced by something higher.
ok but im still having trouble understanding how, if zerg is expected to win 55% of games, and they win 59% over 800 chances, theres a 0.6% chance of that happening. It would seem that it happens all the time in BW. Of course if you were to have a two sided coin and say heads is expected to come 55% of the time, it would see very improbable to get 59% over 800 times. So what would this mean to BW? That each game can not be counted as a separate event?
Well, one problem I see with using all the data in TLPD and then constructing a probability distribution out of that are the map changes, and the changes in the metagame. It's not quite the same coin that we keep flipping, it changes over time. Though, if we consider that the metagame is mostly influenced by the maps (eh may or may not be true, but simplifies analysis), we could use that data to get the effect that maps have on the game. Of course, if the data were pretty consistent over the entire TLPD history, then ZvP is really balanced regardless of the maps, but I think we all know that's not true.
It's one of the reasons I prefer using just this 7 month period, with more or less consistent maps. Now we are flipping the same coin, and it seems to be zerg tilted.
One thing you can use though, using all the games, is to calculate the probability of zerg's win % being under 50% at any point in time, and compare that to toss's. Off the top of my head, they should be relatively close if it the chance/magnitude of map imbalance were not tilted toward zerg, but I'd have to be more careful about that before saying anything conclusive. Too many possible pitfalls.
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
If it were insignificant, then almost certainly the historical chance of a zerg beating a toss is pretty high, more so than you would expect if the matchup were balanced. The test black gun did was to determine the probability that zerg wins at least as much as they do, assuming they have an expected win % of 55%. That probability turned out to be just under 0.6%, which means for the usual significance levels, the null hypothesis of 55% must be rejected, and replaced by something higher.
So what would this mean to BW? That each game can not be counted as a separate event?
Sorry... not sure what this means
it means youre ignoring that not every game is played under the same conditions like a coin flip, if the test is to become more accurate, factors such as map, time, tv/non tv games would have to be taken under consideration, for example delete all the non official games from the 855 games and do another z-test and see what comes out.
We could just do say... HBR only, or Desti only and see. I don't have any stats software with me though ;/ Pretty sure the stats will come out heavily zerg favored though.
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
If it were insignificant, then almost certainly the historical chance of a zerg beating a toss is pretty high, more so than you would expect if the matchup were balanced. The test black gun did was to determine the probability that zerg wins at least as much as they do, assuming they have an expected win % of 55%. That probability turned out to be just under 0.6%, which means for the usual significance levels, the null hypothesis of 55% must be rejected, and replaced by something higher.
ok but im still having trouble understanding how, if zerg is expected to win 55% of games, and they win 59% over 800 chances, theres a 0.6% chance of that happening. It would seem that it happens all the time in BW. Of course if you were to have a two sided coin and say heads is expected to come 55% of the time, it would see very improbable to get 59% over 800 times. So what would this mean to BW? That each game can not be counted as a separate event?
Well, one problem I see with using all the data in TLPD and then constructing a probability distribution out of that are the map changes, and the changes in the metagame. It's not quite the same coin that we keep flipping, it changes over time. Though, if we consider that the metagame is mostly influenced by the maps (eh may or may not be true, but simplifies analysis), we could use that data to get the effect that maps have on the game. Of course, if the data were pretty consistent over the entire TLPD history, then ZvP is really balanced regardless of the maps, but I think we all know that's not true.
It's one of the reasons I prefer using just this 7 month period, with more or less consistent maps. Now we are flipping the same coin, and it seems to be zerg tilted.
One thing you can use though, using all the games, is to calculate the probability of zerg's win % being under 50% at any point in time, and compare that to toss's. Off the top of my head, they should be relatively close if it the chance/magnitude of map imbalance were not tilted toward zerg, but I'd have to be more careful about that before saying anything conclusive. Too many possible pitfalls.
Lots of factors would have to be limited I agree. A test would have to be done by time, and another by maps I guess. Also we have to set the standard for tv/non tv games, minor league/non minor league games, prelim/no prelim, etc.
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
If it were insignificant, then almost certainly the historical chance of a zerg beating a toss is pretty high, more so than you would expect if the matchup were balanced. The test black gun did was to determine the probability that zerg wins at least as much as they do, assuming they have an expected win % of 55%. That probability turned out to be just under 0.6%, which means for the usual significance levels, the null hypothesis of 55% must be rejected, and replaced by something higher.
So what would this mean to BW? That each game can not be counted as a separate event?
Sorry... not sure what this means
it means youre ignoring that not every game is played under the same conditions like a coin flip, if the test is to become more accurate, factors such as map, time, tv/non tv games would have to be taken under consideration, for example delete all the non official games from the 855 games and do another z-test and see what comes out.
I don't see any evidence that playing on TV/ not playing on TV would have any impact to skew the results towards zerg or towards protoss. In the absence of any such evidence, there's no reason to redo the test.
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
If it were insignificant, then almost certainly the historical chance of a zerg beating a toss is pretty high, more so than you would expect if the matchup were balanced. The test black gun did was to determine the probability that zerg wins at least as much as they do, assuming they have an expected win % of 55%. That probability turned out to be just under 0.6%, which means for the usual significance levels, the null hypothesis of 55% must be rejected, and replaced by something higher.
So what would this mean to BW? That each game can not be counted as a separate event?
Sorry... not sure what this means
it means youre ignoring that not every game is played under the same conditions like a coin flip, if the test is to become more accurate, factors such as map, time, tv/non tv games would have to be taken under consideration, for example delete all the non official games from the 855 games and do another z-test and see what comes out.
We could just do say... HBR only, or Desti only and see. I don't have any stats software with me though ;/ Pretty sure the stats will come out heavily zerg favored though.
It would come out zerg favored but I highly doubt Desti would be called an "imbalanced map." Since the standard deviation for all maps with a minimum of like 30 games played would be much higher than 5% or whatever Desti is from 55%.
zulu_nation8 you're not adding anything to the discussion with your random comments. Read up on some basic statistics if you want to try to disprove what people have done so far.
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
If it were insignificant, then almost certainly the historical chance of a zerg beating a toss is pretty high, more so than you would expect if the matchup were balanced. The test black gun did was to determine the probability that zerg wins at least as much as they do, assuming they have an expected win % of 55%. That probability turned out to be just under 0.6%, which means for the usual significance levels, the null hypothesis of 55% must be rejected, and replaced by something higher.
So what would this mean to BW? That each game can not be counted as a separate event?
Sorry... not sure what this means
it means youre ignoring that not every game is played under the same conditions like a coin flip, if the test is to become more accurate, factors such as map, time, tv/non tv games would have to be taken under consideration, for example delete all the non official games from the 855 games and do another z-test and see what comes out.
We could just do say... HBR only, or Desti only and see. I don't have any stats software with me though ;/ Pretty sure the stats will come out heavily zerg favored though.
It would come out zerg favored but I highly doubt Desti would be called an "imbalanced map." Since the standard deviation for all maps with a minimum of like 30 games played would be much higher than 5% or whatever Desti is from 55%.
Eh yeah I suppose the p-value might not be low enough to reject the 55% hypothesis using any reasonable alpha.
On October 21 2009 03:34 Day[9] wrote: i'm reading so much about standard deviation
what happened to null hypothesis tests? : [
they were performed
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
If it were insignificant, then almost certainly the historical chance of a zerg beating a toss is pretty high, more so than you would expect if the matchup were balanced. The test black gun did was to determine the probability that zerg wins at least as much as they do, assuming they have an expected win % of 55%. That probability turned out to be just under 0.6%, which means for the usual significance levels, the null hypothesis of 55% must be rejected, and replaced by something higher.
So what would this mean to BW? That each game can not be counted as a separate event?
Sorry... not sure what this means
it means youre ignoring that not every game is played under the same conditions like a coin flip, if the test is to become more accurate, factors such as map, time, tv/non tv games would have to be taken under consideration, for example delete all the non official games from the 855 games and do another z-test and see what comes out.
I don't see any evidence that playing on TV/ not playing on TV would have any impact to skew the results towards zerg or towards protoss. In the absence of any such evidence, there's no reason to redo the test.
do it with only official games and you'll see that the Z score will be much lower, theres your evidence that its a factor to be considered, actually i'll do it when I have time since youre still not getting why your SD is wrong.
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
If it were insignificant, then almost certainly the historical chance of a zerg beating a toss is pretty high, more so than you would expect if the matchup were balanced. The test black gun did was to determine the probability that zerg wins at least as much as they do, assuming they have an expected win % of 55%. That probability turned out to be just under 0.6%, which means for the usual significance levels, the null hypothesis of 55% must be rejected, and replaced by something higher.
So what would this mean to BW? That each game can not be counted as a separate event?
Sorry... not sure what this means
it means youre ignoring that not every game is played under the same conditions like a coin flip, if the test is to become more accurate, factors such as map, time, tv/non tv games would have to be taken under consideration, for example delete all the non official games from the 855 games and do another z-test and see what comes out.
We could just do say... HBR only, or Desti only and see. I don't have any stats software with me though ;/ Pretty sure the stats will come out heavily zerg favored though.
It would come out zerg favored but I highly doubt Desti would be called an "imbalanced map." Since the standard deviation for all maps with a minimum of like 30 games played would be much higher than 5% or whatever Desti is from 55%.
the result: the zvp winning percentage of the last 7 months significantly exceeds 55%. so even if the historical race imbalance would be as high as 55% zerg wins, the recent trend would still be much higher than that, so that it cant be explained as a fluke.
if i was to plot the data of zvp win % over every 800 games in the history of bw, and find the standard deviation. And then plug that into a z test for the current 800 game period and have the null be 55%, would that be a better test to explain if the current trend is significant?
I'd imagine that taking games in a 400 game radius around each game, and plotting the win % in that range continuously would be better. That way, we have ~30k data points.
right so if the current sample comes out as insignificant what would that mean? And what does the test black gun did mean over a sample of 800 games?
If it were insignificant, then almost certainly the historical chance of a zerg beating a toss is pretty high, more so than you would expect if the matchup were balanced. The test black gun did was to determine the probability that zerg wins at least as much as they do, assuming they have an expected win % of 55%. That probability turned out to be just under 0.6%, which means for the usual significance levels, the null hypothesis of 55% must be rejected, and replaced by something higher.
So what would this mean to BW? That each game can not be counted as a separate event?
Sorry... not sure what this means
it means youre ignoring that not every game is played under the same conditions like a coin flip, if the test is to become more accurate, factors such as map, time, tv/non tv games would have to be taken under consideration, for example delete all the non official games from the 855 games and do another z-test and see what comes out.
I don't see any evidence that playing on TV/ not playing on TV would have any impact to skew the results towards zerg or towards protoss. In the absence of any such evidence, there's no reason to redo the test.
do it with only official games and you'll see that the Z score will be much lower, theres your evidence that its a factor to be considered, actually i'll do it when I have time since youre still not getting why your SD is wrong.
I'm not getting it cause you're not doing your own test and showing me. Until you do that I'll never understand.
with a complete dataset from tlpd, one could perform a logistic regression with elo, maps and time as covariates. thus we could distinguish the effects of these factors. time would account for the metagame shifts.
edit: with the corresponding dataset i could easily carry out this stuff, i got access to stats software and know what im doing and so on
How would you use ELO exactly? Wouldn't you need to compare PvZ ELO with the other matchup ELOs to get some idea of the historic differences, otherwise a shift in the PvZ meta game will be hidden by the apparently higher ELOs of the Zerg players.
I am going to do this step by step so that there's no question that I'm doing it right. Here we go! Remember, this is a test to see whether the zerg winrate on Destination since March 1st is significantly different from a) the historical zerg win rate against P or b) a hypothetical 50% winrate.
Wikipedia has a great screenshot of the formula for a z-test:
In this equation, we're looking for a z value that has an absolute value greater than 2. In that case, the p-value would be less than 0.05, which is what most statisticians take to be statistically significant.
The x with the bar over it is the mean of our data. Our data is a bunch of zeros and ones corresponding to the wins and losses of zergs against protoss. Therefore, the mean of our data will be equal to the winrate of ZvP. Let's head over to excel.
In Excel, I punch in our data points. We have one data point for each game: a 1 if the zerg wins, and a 0 if the zerg loses. That means that we're going to have 110+72=182 rows in the column we're using. 110 of those rows will contain a 1, and 72 of the rows will contain a 0. It doesn't matter what order the numbers are in.
Now I'm going to type in the formula "=average(A1:A182)" to get the average of this data. The average is 0.604395604. I have put it in cell B182.
μ0 is the hypothesized population mean. This is where we plug in the null hypothesis. Do I want to use 50% or the historical zerg winrate? I'll do a test with both, and I'll assume the historical zerg winrate to be 53%. I have put 0.5 in cell C182 and 0.53 in cell D182.
σ is the population standard deviation. Getting this is very simple now that we have our data plugged into excel. I'm going to type in the formula "=stdev(A1:A182)" to get the population standard deviation. It's 0.490329033, and it's in cell E182.
n is the number of data points, or 182. I put 182 in cell F182.
Now that we have all the varibles, we can do the test! I'm going to type in the formula at the very top of this post into excel: "=(B182-C182)/(E182/SQRT(F182))"
Excel spits out a result of 2.872303303, which gives a p-value of less than 0.05.
If we use the historical estimate of the zerg winrate, excel spits out a z-value of 2.046894038, which is still statistically significant.
If we were to use a historical zerg winrate of 55%, excel would NOT give us a statistically significant result.
The bottom line here is that, despite what Day[9] said in his video analysis of Bisu's recent ZvP loss to Shine, the recent higher rate of Zerg wins in the matchup is not a coincidence. It cannot be attributed to random factors. What this means is that there's something going on that's changing the "natural" ZvP win rate.
I don't have the kind of expert qualifications necessary to undertake match analysis of recent games to try to figure out what the problem is, but I would point out one thing: I don't think it's the maps.
Consider: if we were to expect that particular maps are making a difference, we would probably see that the newer maps are where the zergs are piling up wins, and that the older maps have lower Zerg win rates. That's just not what we observe. Destination is a relatively old map - it dates back prior to the surge in Zerg wins. We would expect a lowish Zerg win rate - instead, we see Zerg winning at a 60% clip. Heartbreak Ridge is a new map, we should expect a high zerg win rate - instead we see only 58%, lower than the mean. God's Garden is a new map - only a 56% win rate. Outsider is 60% for Zerg, but it's the exception, not the rule. We can see the same thing happening in maps with new versions. Medusa has a higher Zerg win rate than Neo Medusa over the period we're studying. Byzantium 2 has a higher Zerg win rate than Byzantium 3. It seems to me that you could make a strong case that the win rates on the new maps aren't all that much different from the win rates on the old maps.
On October 21 2009 05:46 heyoka wrote: YOUR STANDARD DEVIATION CANNOT BE 49%
THAT IS NOT YOUR VARIATION
YOU ARE LOOKING AT ONE DATA POINT
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY I CAN SAY THIS SIMPLY, UNLESS I DO IT IN CAPS PLUS BOLD
you didnt bold newb!
btw i took stats like a year ago and i'm terrible at math but i'm pretty sure you're supposed to have a control group in order to prove anything and that's pretty much impossible because it's impossible to control / keep external factors constant so all this math seems kind of useless.
On October 21 2009 05:46 Matrijs wrote: The bottom line here is that, despite what Day[9] said in his video analysis of Bisu's recent ZvP loss to Shine, the recent higher rate of Zerg wins in the matchup is not a coincidence. It cannot be attributed to random factors. What this means is that there's something going on that's changing the "natural" ZvP win rate.
I don't have the kind of expert qualifications necessary to undertake match analysis of recent games to try to figure out what the problem is, but I would point out one thing: I don't think it's the maps.
Consider: if we were to expect that particular maps are making a difference, we would probably see that the newer maps are where the zergs are piling up wins, and that the older maps have lower Zerg win rates. That's just not what we observe. Destination is a relatively old map - it dates back prior to the surge in Zerg wins. We would expect a lowish Zerg win rate - instead, we see Zerg winning at a 60% clip. Heartbreak Ridge is a new map, we should expect a high zerg win rate - instead we see only 58%, lower than the mean. God's Garden is a new map - only a 56% win rate. Outsider is 60% for Zerg, but it's the exception, not the rule. We can see the same thing happening in maps with new versions. Medusa has a higher Zerg win rate than Neo Medusa over the period we're studying. Byzantium 2 has a higher Zerg win rate than Byzantium 3. It seems to me that you could make a strong case that the win rates on the new maps aren't all that much different from the win rates on the old maps.
u forget one thing: that it might take time until a race figures out how to abuse the maps to win. maybe the maps had what it needs to be imba in zvp, but it was so subtle that the zergs needed several months to figure it out. for example hbr: first it was good for protoss. then came lurker contain and it was relatively balanced. then came the abuse of the excess gas for muta snipes which make mass hydra roll any protoss army. hbr turned into a protoss graveyard. the map hasnt changed, it had the potential to be a protoss graveyard since the very beginning, zergs just didnt know.
on the other hand, maybe the maps do allow for a good protoss counter to 5hatch hydra with muta snipe, and the tosses just dont know yet.
On October 21 2009 05:46 heyoka wrote: YOUR STANDARD DEVIATION CANNOT BE 49%
THAT IS NOT YOUR VARIATION
YOU ARE LOOKING AT ONE DATA POINT
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY I CAN SAY THIS SIMPLY, UNLESS I DO IT IN CAPS PLUS BOLD
Take it up with the programmers of Excel, not me. As you can see below, I'm asking Excel to give me the standard deviation of the dataset, and it's giving me ~0.49
On October 21 2009 05:46 Matrijs wrote: The bottom line here is that, despite what Day[9] said in his video analysis of Bisu's recent ZvP loss to Shine, the recent higher rate of Zerg wins in the matchup is not a coincidence. It cannot be attributed to random factors. What this means is that there's something going on that's changing the "natural" ZvP win rate.
I don't have the kind of expert qualifications necessary to undertake match analysis of recent games to try to figure out what the problem is, but I would point out one thing: I don't think it's the maps.
Consider: if we were to expect that particular maps are making a difference, we would probably see that the newer maps are where the zergs are piling up wins, and that the older maps have lower Zerg win rates. That's just not what we observe. Destination is a relatively old map - it dates back prior to the surge in Zerg wins. We would expect a lowish Zerg win rate - instead, we see Zerg winning at a 60% clip. Heartbreak Ridge is a new map, we should expect a high zerg win rate - instead we see only 58%, lower than the mean. God's Garden is a new map - only a 56% win rate. Outsider is 60% for Zerg, but it's the exception, not the rule. We can see the same thing happening in maps with new versions. Medusa has a higher Zerg win rate than Neo Medusa over the period we're studying. Byzantium 2 has a higher Zerg win rate than Byzantium 3. It seems to me that you could make a strong case that the win rates on the new maps aren't all that much different from the win rates on the old maps.
u forget one thing: that it might take time until a race figures out how to abuse the maps to win. maybe the maps had what it needs to be imba in zvp, but it was so subtle that the zergs needed several months to figure it out. for example hbr: first it was good for protoss. then came lurker contain and it was relatively balanced. then came the abuse of the excess gas for muta snipes which make mass hydra roll any protoss army. hbr turned into a protoss graveyard. the map hasnt changed, it had the potential to be a protoss graveyard since the very beginning, zergs just didnt know.
on the other hand, maybe the maps do allow for a good protoss counter to 5hatch hydra with muta snipe, and the tosses just dont know yet.
My argument still holds. If the current higher rate is attributable to maps, it has to be the result of new maps influencing the overall win rate, which just doesn't seem to be happening. The win rate has increased on old maps, too, which implicates some other factor.
On October 21 2009 05:46 heyoka wrote: YOUR STANDARD DEVIATION CANNOT BE 49%
THAT IS NOT YOUR VARIATION
YOU ARE LOOKING AT ONE DATA POINT
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY I CAN SAY THIS SIMPLY, UNLESS I DO IT IN CAPS PLUS BOLD
Take it up with the programmers of Excel, not me. As you can see below, I'm asking Excel to give me the standard deviation of the dataset, and it's giving me ~0.49
use a small dataset: 10 data points, 8 times a "1", 2 times a "0". the percentage is 0.8. look what excel tells u about the sd.
On October 21 2009 05:46 heyoka wrote: YOUR STANDARD DEVIATION CANNOT BE 49%
THAT IS NOT YOUR VARIATION
YOU ARE LOOKING AT ONE DATA POINT
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY I CAN SAY THIS SIMPLY, UNLESS I DO IT IN CAPS PLUS BOLD
you didnt bold newb!
btw i took stats like a year ago and i'm terrible at math but i'm pretty sure you're supposed to have a control group in order to prove anything and that's pretty much impossible because it's impossible to control / keep external factors constant so all this math seems kind of useless.
Nah, you're thinking of controlled experiments. This is just data analysis.
On October 21 2009 05:46 heyoka wrote: YOUR STANDARD DEVIATION CANNOT BE 49%
THAT IS NOT YOUR VARIATION
YOU ARE LOOKING AT ONE DATA POINT
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY I CAN SAY THIS SIMPLY, UNLESS I DO IT IN CAPS PLUS BOLD
Take it up with the programmers of Excel, not me. As you can see below, I'm asking Excel to give me the standard deviation of the dataset, and it's giving me ~0.49
use a small dataset: 10 data points, 8 times a "1", 2 times a "0". the percentage is 0.8. look what excel tells u about the sd.
It gives an SD of 0.421637021... but I don't see why that's relevant.
On October 21 2009 05:46 heyoka wrote: YOUR STANDARD DEVIATION CANNOT BE 49%
THAT IS NOT YOUR VARIATION
YOU ARE LOOKING AT ONE DATA POINT
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY I CAN SAY THIS SIMPLY, UNLESS I DO IT IN CAPS PLUS BOLD
you didnt bold newb!
btw i took stats like a year ago and i'm terrible at math but i'm pretty sure you're supposed to have a control group in order to prove anything and that's pretty much impossible because it's impossible to control / keep external factors constant so all this math seems kind of useless.
Nah, you're thinking of controlled experiments. This is just data analysis.
yeah but all of your data doesnt really prove a point because it's not taking into account factors other than win/lose so there's really no point.
On October 21 2009 05:46 heyoka wrote: YOUR STANDARD DEVIATION CANNOT BE 49%
THAT IS NOT YOUR VARIATION
YOU ARE LOOKING AT ONE DATA POINT
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY I CAN SAY THIS SIMPLY, UNLESS I DO IT IN CAPS PLUS BOLD
you didnt bold newb!
btw i took stats like a year ago and i'm terrible at math but i'm pretty sure you're supposed to have a control group in order to prove anything and that's pretty much impossible because it's impossible to control / keep external factors constant so all this math seems kind of useless.
Nah, you're thinking of controlled experiments. This is just data analysis.
yeah but all of your data doesnt really prove a point because it's not taking into account factors other than win/lose so there's really no point.
I'm just trying to show that it's not a coincidence that zergs have been winning. It's not random chance. There's an "external factor," as you put it.
On October 21 2009 05:46 heyoka wrote: YOUR STANDARD DEVIATION CANNOT BE 49%
THAT IS NOT YOUR VARIATION
YOU ARE LOOKING AT ONE DATA POINT
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY I CAN SAY THIS SIMPLY, UNLESS I DO IT IN CAPS PLUS BOLD
you didnt bold newb!
btw i took stats like a year ago and i'm terrible at math but i'm pretty sure you're supposed to have a control group in order to prove anything and that's pretty much impossible because it's impossible to control / keep external factors constant so all this math seems kind of useless.
Nah, you're thinking of controlled experiments. This is just data analysis.
yeah but all of your data doesnt really prove a point because it's not taking into account factors other than win/lose so there's really no point.
I'm just trying to show that it's not a coincidence that zergs have been winning. It's not random chance. There's an "external factor," as you put it.
a large part of that is probably maps so why is everyone flopping their math-dicks around.
also the largest external factor SKILL LOL SO EZ GTFO PROTOSS NEWBS
Okay guys, the calculation that motbob did and the one Black Gun did are the same, and correct.
59% over 885 games vs an expected 50% (or an expected 55%) is statistically significant. That should be common sense. Think about flipping a coin 885 times and getting heads almost 6/10 times.
motbob, you just did a bad job in explaining/justifying your process. .49 is the standard deviation of ONE zvp game; .49/sqrt(885) is the standard deviation of 885 zvp games. That is what jwd/heyoka were trying to say.
Also, pointing to a big column of excel data for your evidence is somewhat unnecessary, and kind of undermined your credibility as someone with a good grasp of stat. The standard deviation of a single bernoulli event is sqrt(p(1-p)), which is the same as what that excel calculation was doing.
On October 21 2009 06:58 Gustav_Wind wrote: The standard deviation for a single event that has 55% probability is in fact 0.49. That is obtained by the simple calculation sqrt(p(1-p)). To get the standard deviation that we want to use in calculating z-score, divide that value by the square root of the sample size. so .49/sqrt(885).
It's more correct to call this the standard error...
There's a subtle but important difference. Calling both of these things the standard deviation would be really confusing. So most statisticians call the SD of the sampling distribution (which is SD_pop/sqrt(n)) the "standard error" in order to reduce that confusion.
Also, pointing to a big column of excel data for your evidence is somewhat unnecessary, and kind of undermined your credibility as someone with a good grasp of stat. The standard deviation of a single bernoulli event is sqrt(p(1-p)), which is the same as what that excel calculation was doing.
*shrug* I'm used to working w/ excel spreadsheets w/ data sets that aren't just filled with binary data. So it's second nature for me to just draw up a data set and use the Excel command. It only took 30 seconds to create the data set of 1's and 0's. Note that I didn't just use Excel to get the stdev... Excel also makes it really easy to take all the variables and do the z-test itself.
On October 21 2009 06:58 Gustav_Wind wrote: The standard deviation for a single event that has 55% probability is in fact 0.49. That is obtained by the simple calculation sqrt(p(1-p)). To get the standard deviation that we want to use in calculating z-score, divide that value by the square root of the sample size. so .49/sqrt(885).
It's more correct to call this the standard error...
There's a subtle but important difference. Calling both of these things the standard deviation would be really confusing. So most statisticians call the SD of the sampling distribution (which is SD_pop/sqrt(n)) the "standard error" in order to reduce that confusion.
Also, pointing to a big column of excel data for your evidence is somewhat unnecessary, and kind of undermined your credibility as someone with a good grasp of stat. The standard deviation of a single bernoulli event is sqrt(p(1-p)), which is the same as what that excel calculation was doing.
*shrug* I'm used to working w/ excel spreadsheets w/ data sets that aren't just filled with binary data. So it's second nature for me to just draw up a data set and use the Excel command. It only took 30 seconds to create the data set of 1's and 0's. Note that I didn't just use Excel to get the stdev... Excel also makes it really easy to take all the variables and do the z-test itself.
As I understand it, standard error is used as an estimate of the standard deviation of the true population, right?
But we are assuming that p = .55 in our null hypothesis test, aren't we? So isn't it fine to use the term standard deviation since we can derive that from our assumption?
And .49 and .49/sqrt(885) are both standard deviations. .49 is the standard deviation of the variable (one zvp game), whereas .49/sqrt(885) is the standard deviation of the variable (number of zvp wins in 885 games/885), or in other words, the ratio of zvp wins in 885 games.
On October 21 2009 06:58 Gustav_Wind wrote: Okay guys, the calculation that motbob did and the one Black Gun did are the same, and correct.
59% over 885 games vs an expected 50% (or an expected 55%) is statistically significant. That should be common sense. Think about flipping a coin 885 times and getting heads almost 6/10 times.
motbob, you just did a bad job in explaining/justifying your process. .49 is the standard deviation of ONE zvp game; .49/sqrt(885) is the standard deviation of 885 zvp games. That is what jwd/heyoka were trying to say.
Also, pointing to a big column of excel data for your evidence is somewhat unnecessary, and kind of undermined your credibility as someone with a good grasp of stat. The standard deviation of a single bernoulli event is sqrt(p(1-p)), which is the same as what that excel calculation was doing.
the figures are very close to each other and our tests came to the same conclusion, but still they were not the same. in particular, the correct test in our case here does NOT require standard errors, ie does not involve estimated standard deviations. the base distribution is bernoulli/binomial/scaled binomial, whatever, but it is not normal. in the distributions we are using here, the parameter of interest (the success probability) also determines the sd of the null-distribution, therefore it does not have to be estimated in order to compute our test statistic. we do not need standard errors here.
(when the distribution of the data itself is normal, the sd is a nuissance parameter which is independent from the parameter of interest. in particular, this means that a null-hypothesis about the mean, the parameter of interest, does not give info about the sd, so if the sd of the null-distribution is not known beforehand we must plug in the standard error, ie the estimated sd. this increases the uncertainty and this increased uncertainty must be addressed by using the t- instead of the normal-distribution.)
but lets finish the stat discussions and continue with whining about how hard pvz is. *gg*
On October 21 2009 06:58 Gustav_Wind wrote: The standard deviation for a single event that has 55% probability is in fact 0.49. That is obtained by the simple calculation sqrt(p(1-p)). To get the standard deviation that we want to use in calculating z-score, divide that value by the square root of the sample size. so .49/sqrt(885).
It's more correct to call this the standard error...
There's a subtle but important difference. Calling both of these things the standard deviation would be really confusing. So most statisticians call the SD of the sampling distribution (which is SD_pop/sqrt(n)) the "standard error" in order to reduce that confusion.
Also, pointing to a big column of excel data for your evidence is somewhat unnecessary, and kind of undermined your credibility as someone with a good grasp of stat. The standard deviation of a single bernoulli event is sqrt(p(1-p)), which is the same as what that excel calculation was doing.
*shrug* I'm used to working w/ excel spreadsheets w/ data sets that aren't just filled with binary data. So it's second nature for me to just draw up a data set and use the Excel command. It only took 30 seconds to create the data set of 1's and 0's. Note that I didn't just use Excel to get the stdev... Excel also makes it really easy to take all the variables and do the z-test itself.
As I understand it, standard error is used as an estimate of the standard deviation of the true population, right?
But we are assuming that p = .55 in our null hypothesis test, aren't we? So isn't it fine to use the term standard deviation since we can derive that from our assumption?
And .49 and .49/sqrt(885) are both standard deviations. .49 is the standard deviation of the variable (one zvp game), whereas .49/sqrt(885) is the standard deviation of the variable (number of zvp wins in 885 games/885), or in other words, the ratio of zvp wins in 885 games.
For your second point, yes, they're both standard deviations. But it's less confusing if we call the SD/sqrt(n) figure the standard error.
I'm less sure about your first point. I was always taught to use bootstrapping from the existing data to get the SD, not to get the SD from the null hypothesis. I'll try to figure out which method is correct when I'm free in 2 hours.
One thing i dont understand is why this is such a huge deal. It seems every race *at some point* goes through this. I think a large part of certain race dominance is the players. Ok, sure maps will definately tilt the favor even more. But saying the race is better, by itself, is not correct. All yer math stuff hurts my simple brain.
OK, my econometrics textbook says that my way is correct but I think it might be wrong and I think that thus I did the test slightly wrong. I can see why your method of getting the SD from the null hypothesis is better than the way I'm doing it. I'll keep doing research.
On October 21 2009 09:00 motbob wrote: OK, my econometrics textbook says that my way is correct but I think it might be wrong and I think that thus I did the test slightly wrong. I can see why your method of getting the SD from the null hypothesis is better than the way I'm doing it. I'll keep doing research.
you're doing a very simple stats equation. too simple to try and explain anything about ZvP except that it historically favors Z (if you got that part right i don't know) but that's it. it's not explaining anything. it's like if i went up and told you the sky is blue and then wrote up a giant equation and was like "yo bitch ur wrong sky's blue" and you were like "wtf kid i didnt say the sky isnt blue".
On October 21 2009 09:00 motbob wrote: OK, my econometrics textbook says that my way is correct but I think it might be wrong and I think that thus I did the test slightly wrong. I can see why your method of getting the SD from the null hypothesis is better than the way I'm doing it. I'll keep doing research.
you're doing a very simple stats equation. too simple to try and explain anything about ZvP except that it historically favors Z (if you got that part right i don't know) but that's it. it's not explaining anything. it's like if i went up and told you the sky is blue and then wrote up a giant equation and was like "yo bitch ur wrong sky's blue" and you were like "wtf kid i didnt say the sky isnt blue".
No. What his data show is that the recent trend of a higher than historical Zerg winning rate cannot be explained by purely random variation. He's demonstrated that a real trend exists, and now the only remaining question is the cause - what changed about seven months ago to cause this trend?
On October 21 2009 08:04 DyEnasTy wrote: One thing i dont understand is why this is such a huge deal. It seems every race *at some point* goes through this. I think a large part of certain race dominance is the players. Ok, sure maps will definately tilt the favor even more. But saying the race is better, by itself, is not correct. All yer math stuff hurts my simple brain.
Because its possible we are reaching a point in the metagame where almost the most effective strategy has actually been found and mechanics being at the high level they are, its hard for anyone to fight against it.
On October 21 2009 08:04 DyEnasTy wrote: One thing i dont understand is why this is such a huge deal. It seems every race *at some point* goes through this. I think a large part of certain race dominance is the players. Ok, sure maps will definately tilt the favor even more. But saying the race is better, by itself, is not correct. All yer math stuff hurts my simple brain.
Because its possible we are reaching a point in the metagame where almost the most effective strategy has actually been found and mechanics being at the high level they are, its hard for anyone to fight against it.
quite a hopeless point of view imho. it would imply that after 10 years of constant evolution and volatility around a very good balance, the metagame had stopped evolving and in the very end, sc remains imbalanced. (59:41 is a magnitude of imbalance that flaws the game if it stays like this in the long run.)
imho there will be a way to overcome the current problems in pvz, but im unsure about how long it will take until things get back to "normality" again. i really hope we dont need a metagame change as massive as bisus forge FE revolution.
On October 21 2009 08:04 DyEnasTy wrote: One thing i dont understand is why this is such a huge deal. It seems every race *at some point* goes through this. I think a large part of certain race dominance is the players. Ok, sure maps will definately tilt the favor even more. But saying the race is better, by itself, is not correct. All yer math stuff hurts my simple brain.
Because its possible we are reaching a point in the metagame where almost the most effective strategy has actually been found and mechanics being at the high level they are, its hard for anyone to fight against it.
quite a hopeless point of view imho. it would imply that after 10 years of constant evolution and volatility around a very good balance, the metagame had stopped evolving and in the very end, sc remains imbalanced. (59:41 is a magnitude of imbalance that flaws the game if it stays like this in the long run.)
imho there will be a way to overcome the current problems in pvz, but im unsure about how long it will take until things get back to "normality" again. i really hope we dont need a metagame change as massive as bisus forge FE revolution.
That wasn't even the "revolution." The revolution was simply realizing how useful and important sairs are.
On October 21 2009 08:04 DyEnasTy wrote: One thing i dont understand is why this is such a huge deal. It seems every race *at some point* goes through this. I think a large part of certain race dominance is the players. Ok, sure maps will definately tilt the favor even more. But saying the race is better, by itself, is not correct. All yer math stuff hurts my simple brain.
Because its possible we are reaching a point in the metagame where almost the most effective strategy has actually been found and mechanics being at the high level they are, its hard for anyone to fight against it.
quite a hopeless point of view imho. it would imply that after 10 years of constant evolution and volatility around a very good balance, the metagame had stopped evolving and in the very end, sc remains imbalanced. (59:41 is a magnitude of imbalance that flaws the game if it stays like this in the long run.)
imho there will be a way to overcome the current problems in pvz, but im unsure about how long it will take until things get back to "normality" again. i really hope we dont need a metagame change as massive as bisus forge FE revolution.
That wasn't even the "revolution." The revolution was simply realizing how useful and important sairs are.
maybe, but psychologically it was the turning point. bisu took down the tormentor of protoss, emerged as the new general leading the pvz front and offered every1 a new approach to pvz that had lots of potential (pre bisu-vs-savior it wasnt recognized how powerful and versatile forge FE into fast corsairs can be).
On October 21 2009 09:00 motbob wrote: OK, my econometrics textbook says that my way is correct but I think it might be wrong and I think that thus I did the test slightly wrong. I can see why your method of getting the SD from the null hypothesis is better than the way I'm doing it. I'll keep doing research.
you're doing a very simple stats equation. too simple to try and explain anything about ZvP except that it historically favors Z (if you got that part right i don't know) but that's it. it's not explaining anything. it's like if i went up and told you the sky is blue and then wrote up a giant equation and was like "yo bitch ur wrong sky's blue" and you were like "wtf kid i didnt say the sky isnt blue".
No. What his data show is that the recent trend of a higher than historical Zerg winning rate cannot be explained by purely random variation. He's demonstrated that a real trend exists, and now the only remaining question is the cause - what changed about seven months ago to cause this trend?
build orders, maps, could be because bisu started throwing games for money, etc, etc. I don't think anyone disagrees progaming is in a trend that is "statistically significant" if you ignore every variable and assume the data of 855 games is over a normal distribution, its obviously not, so we need to control as many variables as possible and compare similar samples, until then all the z-tests are meaningless.
On October 21 2009 09:00 motbob wrote: OK, my econometrics textbook says that my way is correct but I think it might be wrong and I think that thus I did the test slightly wrong. I can see why your method of getting the SD from the null hypothesis is better than the way I'm doing it. I'll keep doing research.
you're doing a very simple stats equation. too simple to try and explain anything about ZvP except that it historically favors Z (if you got that part right i don't know) but that's it. it's not explaining anything. it's like if i went up and told you the sky is blue and then wrote up a giant equation and was like "yo bitch ur wrong sky's blue" and you were like "wtf kid i didnt say the sky isnt blue".
No. What his data show is that the recent trend of a higher than historical Zerg winning rate cannot be explained by purely random variation. He's demonstrated that a real trend exists, and now the only remaining question is the cause - what changed about seven months ago to cause this trend?
build orders, maps, could be because bisu started throwing games for money, etc, etc. I don't think anyone disagrees progaming is in a trend that is "statistically significant" if you ignore every variable and assume the data of 855 games is over a normal distribution, its obviously not, so we need to control as many variables as possible and compare similar samples, until then all the z-tests are meaningless.
1) Build orders. You could be referring to one of two things here - bad luck in build orders (like the old ideas about ZvZ being a highly luck-based matchup due to build order victories), or a metagame shift wherein Protoss players haven't found an effective counter to the most recent Zerg innovations. The first is definitely out - that would be a random variable which is excluded by our test. The second is possible, but might either be a temporary problem, solved by Protoss innovation, or a permanent and inherent problem with the matchup that can only be solved through adjustment of maps to give Protoss players a better chance. 2) Maps. It's pretty clear that maps aren't the problem. Go back and look at motbob's list of ZvP records broken down by map. The major new maps (Heartbreak Ridge, God's Garden, and Outsider) aren't more Zerg favoring than the older ones (Destination, Byzantium, Medusa), which seems to indicate that some other factor is at work. 3) Outside influence (i.e. players throwing games). Again, highly unlikely. No one player could affect the matchup's statistics this much, and there's no reason to believe that Protoss players are more susceptible to outside influence than Zerg players.
The evidence, it seems to me, strongly points to a general, non-map-based strategic advantage that Zerg has developed in this matchup recently. If Protoss players can find a way to counter this advantage, there's no problem. If they can't, the maps should be adjusted to bring the matchup closer to a 50% win rate. A 6:4 advantage for one race over another over a long a period of time is just bad for the game.
I have the newest version of STATA software for you guys to think about even more complicated shit LOLOLOL... Btw, I personally think proving current ZvsP is off the trend is equally impossible as proving that the ZvsP is imbalance, because you then have to try to design a perfect experiment that would help you separate out the other factors that come into play beside the nature of the matchup.
On October 21 2009 09:00 motbob wrote: OK, my econometrics textbook says that my way is correct but I think it might be wrong and I think that thus I did the test slightly wrong. I can see why your method of getting the SD from the null hypothesis is better than the way I'm doing it. I'll keep doing research.
you're doing a very simple stats equation. too simple to try and explain anything about ZvP except that it historically favors Z (if you got that part right i don't know) but that's it. it's not explaining anything. it's like if i went up and told you the sky is blue and then wrote up a giant equation and was like "yo bitch ur wrong sky's blue" and you were like "wtf kid i didnt say the sky isnt blue".
No. What his data show is that the recent trend of a higher than historical Zerg winning rate cannot be explained by purely random variation. He's demonstrated that a real trend exists, and now the only remaining question is the cause - what changed about seven months ago to cause this trend?
build orders, maps, could be because bisu started throwing games for money, etc, etc. I don't think anyone disagrees progaming is in a trend that is "statistically significant" if you ignore every variable and assume the data of 855 games is over a normal distribution, its obviously not, so we need to control as many variables as possible and compare similar samples, until then all the z-tests are meaningless.
1) Build orders. You could be referring to one of two things here - bad luck in build orders (like the old ideas about ZvZ being a highly luck-based matchup due to build order victories), or a metagame shift wherein Protoss players haven't found an effective counter to the most recent Zerg innovations. The first is definitely out - that would be a random variable which is excluded by our test. The second is possible, but might either be a temporary problem, solved by Protoss innovation, or a permanent and inherent problem with the matchup that can only be solved through adjustment of maps to give Protoss players a better chance. 2) Maps. It's pretty clear that maps aren't the problem. Go back and look at motbob's list of ZvP records broken down by map. The major new maps (Heartbreak Ridge, God's Garden, and Outsider) aren't more Zerg favoring than the older ones (Destination, Byzantium, Medusa), which seems to indicate that some other factor is at work. 3) Outside influence (i.e. players throwing games). Again, highly unlikely. No one player could affect the matchup's statistics this much, and there's no reason to believe that Protoss players are more susceptible to outside influence than Zerg players.
The evidence, it seems to me, strongly points to a general, non-map-based strategic advantage that Zerg has developed in this matchup recently. If Protoss players can find a way to counter this advantage, there's no problem. If they can't, the maps should be adjusted to bring the matchup closer to a 50% win rate. A 6:4 advantage for one race over another over a long a period of time is just bad for the game.
what about individual players? practice times? team makeup? map trends, style shifts, build order revelations? there are a lot of things aren't being taken into account that should be.
On October 21 2009 09:00 motbob wrote: OK, my econometrics textbook says that my way is correct but I think it might be wrong and I think that thus I did the test slightly wrong. I can see why your method of getting the SD from the null hypothesis is better than the way I'm doing it. I'll keep doing research.
you're doing a very simple stats equation. too simple to try and explain anything about ZvP except that it historically favors Z (if you got that part right i don't know) but that's it. it's not explaining anything. it's like if i went up and told you the sky is blue and then wrote up a giant equation and was like "yo bitch ur wrong sky's blue" and you were like "wtf kid i didnt say the sky isnt blue".
No. What his data show is that the recent trend of a higher than historical Zerg winning rate cannot be explained by purely random variation. He's demonstrated that a real trend exists, and now the only remaining question is the cause - what changed about seven months ago to cause this trend?
build orders, maps, could be because bisu started throwing games for money, etc, etc. I don't think anyone disagrees progaming is in a trend that is "statistically significant" if you ignore every variable and assume the data of 855 games is over a normal distribution, its obviously not, so we need to control as many variables as possible and compare similar samples, until then all the z-tests are meaningless.
1) Build orders. You could be referring to one of two things here - bad luck in build orders (like the old ideas about ZvZ being a highly luck-based matchup due to build order victories), or a metagame shift wherein Protoss players haven't found an effective counter to the most recent Zerg innovations. The first is definitely out - that would be a random variable which is excluded by our test. The second is possible, but might either be a temporary problem, solved by Protoss innovation, or a permanent and inherent problem with the matchup that can only be solved through adjustment of maps to give Protoss players a better chance. 2) Maps. It's pretty clear that maps aren't the problem. Go back and look at motbob's list of ZvP records broken down by map. The major new maps (Heartbreak Ridge, God's Garden, and Outsider) aren't more Zerg favoring than the older ones (Destination, Byzantium, Medusa), which seems to indicate that some other factor is at work. 3) Outside influence (i.e. players throwing games). Again, highly unlikely. No one player could affect the matchup's statistics this much, and there's no reason to believe that Protoss players are more susceptible to outside influence than Zerg players.
The evidence, it seems to me, strongly points to a general, non-map-based strategic advantage that Zerg has developed in this matchup recently. If Protoss players can find a way to counter this advantage, there's no problem. If they can't, the maps should be adjusted to bring the matchup closer to a 50% win rate. A 6:4 advantage for one race over another over a long a period of time is just bad for the game.
what about individual players? practice times? team makeup? map trends, style shifts, build order revelations? there are a lot of things aren't being taken into account that should be.
Nothing should be taken into account unless it would favor one race over another. There's no reason why any of those things would favor one race over another, except maps. And figuring out how things like "build order shifts" might affect the matchup is sort of the point of this thread O.o but it doesn't mean it has a place in any statistical analysis.
On October 21 2009 09:00 motbob wrote: OK, my econometrics textbook says that my way is correct but I think it might be wrong and I think that thus I did the test slightly wrong. I can see why your method of getting the SD from the null hypothesis is better than the way I'm doing it. I'll keep doing research.
you're doing a very simple stats equation. too simple to try and explain anything about ZvP except that it historically favors Z (if you got that part right i don't know) but that's it. it's not explaining anything. it's like if i went up and told you the sky is blue and then wrote up a giant equation and was like "yo bitch ur wrong sky's blue" and you were like "wtf kid i didnt say the sky isnt blue".
No. What his data show is that the recent trend of a higher than historical Zerg winning rate cannot be explained by purely random variation. He's demonstrated that a real trend exists, and now the only remaining question is the cause - what changed about seven months ago to cause this trend?
build orders, maps, could be because bisu started throwing games for money, etc, etc. I don't think anyone disagrees progaming is in a trend that is "statistically significant" if you ignore every variable and assume the data of 855 games is over a normal distribution, its obviously not, so we need to control as many variables as possible and compare similar samples, until then all the z-tests are meaningless.
1) Build orders. You could be referring to one of two things here - bad luck in build orders (like the old ideas about ZvZ being a highly luck-based matchup due to build order victories), or a metagame shift wherein Protoss players haven't found an effective counter to the most recent Zerg innovations. The first is definitely out - that would be a random variable which is excluded by our test. The second is possible, but might either be a temporary problem, solved by Protoss innovation, or a permanent and inherent problem with the matchup that can only be solved through adjustment of maps to give Protoss players a better chance. 2) Maps. It's pretty clear that maps aren't the problem. Go back and look at motbob's list of ZvP records broken down by map. The major new maps (Heartbreak Ridge, God's Garden, and Outsider) aren't more Zerg favoring than the older ones (Destination, Byzantium, Medusa), which seems to indicate that some other factor is at work. 3) Outside influence (i.e. players throwing games). Again, highly unlikely. No one player could affect the matchup's statistics this much, and there's no reason to believe that Protoss players are more susceptible to outside influence than Zerg players.
The evidence, it seems to me, strongly points to a general, non-map-based strategic advantage that Zerg has developed in this matchup recently. If Protoss players can find a way to counter this advantage, there's no problem. If they can't, the maps should be adjusted to bring the matchup closer to a 50% win rate. A 6:4 advantage for one race over another over a long a period of time is just bad for the game.
what about individual players? practice times? team makeup? map trends, style shifts, build order revelations? there are a lot of things aren't being taken into account that should be.
Nothing should be taken into account unless it would favor one race over another. There's no reason why any of those things would favor one race over another, except maps. And figuring out how things like "build order shifts" might affect the matchup is sort of the point of this thread O.o but it doesn't mean it has a place in any statistical analysis.
Individual players definitely account for one race being favored over another: Bisu's recent vZ games haven't been great, as in all of them he makes noticeable mistakes. The top 7 protosses at the moment have either always sucked v zerg (Jangbi Stork BackHo) or are just falling off in their general play vs Zerg (Bisu, and especially Kal BeSt and Free)
I would not think it unreasonable that when Bisu's PvZ falls off, the weaker Protoss members of his team would fall off too (and likewise for all teams), but that's more speculation than anything else.
On October 21 2009 12:30 zulu_nation8 wrote: yea skill level certainly doesn't affect the outcome of a game.
Skill doesn't affect one race over another, which means it doesn't have to be taken into account in a statistical analysis.
EDIT: unwise -_-
3 good zerg players 3 bad protoss players z v p 3 - 0 z imba vs p = true
Of course it matters. You can pretend it doesn't but it does. Always. Skill level difference in the games must be taken into account for accurate analysis.
On October 21 2009 12:30 zulu_nation8 wrote: yea skill level certainly doesn't affect the outcome of a game.
Skill doesn't affect one race over another, which means it doesn't have to be taken into account in a statistical analysis.
EDIT: unwise -_-
skill affects the outcome of the game, which is what you're plotting.
yes but if the independent variable doesn't affect one race over the other the coefficient in the regression would be zero... so it wouldn't affect anything.
Now normally I would say "well, whatever, there's no harm in adjusting for skill on the off-chance that the coefficient might not be zero" but there's no easy way to measure player skill.
Uh, actually, I think I might be wrong about that. I just had an inspiration about maybe how to measure for skill without majorly fucking up the data (which would happen if we used ZvP ELO)
On October 21 2009 12:30 zulu_nation8 wrote: yea skill level certainly doesn't affect the outcome of a game.
Skill doesn't affect one race over another, which means it doesn't have to be taken into account in a statistical analysis.
EDIT: unwise -_-
3 good zerg players 3 bad protoss players z v p 3 - 0 z imba vs p = true
Of course it matters. You can pretend it doesn't but it does. Always. Skill level difference in the games must be taken into account for accurate analysis.
WTF this argument makes no sense. If there are an equal amount of good zergs and good protosses in the world, this effect will have no effect overall.
I think we have to assume however that the skill levels of the players should be approximately equal across this large of a population, so long as we have a large enough n value for our population we assume a normal curve.
Anyways I have no idea why everyone is doing all these strange tests when a simple 1 proportion z-test is all thats needed to analyze the data.
So all conditions are met for a 1-prop z-test including a large enough n value.
So we run the test using n=885 x=524 proportion of .5 normally
Null hypothesis that the the proportion is greater than .5
We wind up with a z score of 5.479 Which gives us a probability of 2.14e-8 Which means that there is an incredibly tiny chance of this proportion occuring completely due to chance and thus ZvP must be inbalanced.
On October 21 2009 13:17 Traveler wrote: Anyways I have no idea why everyone is doing all these strange tests when a simple 1 proportion z-test is all thats needed to analyze the data.
Heh. That's a fair question but if you look a few pages back a bunch of us did z-tests. Unfortunately it didn't convince anyone
On October 21 2009 09:00 motbob wrote: OK, my econometrics textbook says that my way is correct but I think it might be wrong and I think that thus I did the test slightly wrong. I can see why your method of getting the SD from the null hypothesis is better than the way I'm doing it. I'll keep doing research.
The standard deviation (as you are using it per observation) from the null hypothesis is also .49, so in this case the difference is moot.
On October 21 2009 12:20 mahnini wrote: what about individual players? practice times? team makeup? map trends, style shifts, build order revelations? there are a lot of things aren't being taken into account that should be.
Ideally, I agree with all of this.
Realistically, there isn't (and won't be) enough data to account for all of the variables.
What I'd do is this:
1) Treat Maps as if they are a part of the "balance" being measured.
I think it's universally agreed that the balance of any matchup is influenced by the maps. Saying "Z>P" kinda implies that "Z>P on the maps that are being used in progaming," because obviously P>>Z on something like FPM (as a ridiculous example) and Z>>P on a map like TotM. In practice, balance can be tweaked by either making map changes that favor one race over another, or by modifying unit stats, so they are different tools for doing a similar job.
Since Blizzard is not going to repatch the game (balance-wise), if an imbalance is found then the only way to fix it will be through the maps, regardless of whether the imbalance was somehow found to be more due to maps or more due to some theorycraft issue of how the units/timings interact. (maps change possible timings and unit combinations anyway)
2) Treat Player / Practice / Team / Style / BO as a part of "skill"
If Bisu uses the "Bisu build" to win 65% pvz, while Stork uses the "Stork build" to win only 45% pvz, then the player style is already built into any reasonable way we have of measuring that player's skill in the matchup. In fact, if Stork tried "Bisu style" pvz, he wouldn't be as good at it (it's not what he usually does), and therefore you'd almost have to treat Stork playing like Bisu as if he's a different player than Stork doing Stork-style. There's really no way to separate style from skill. We can assume that players use a style that fits their individual abilities the best.
Same goes for BO. Also using a non-optimal build order in one game (say the threat of going 9-pool to prevent P from just going 14 nex, or occasionally going 9/10 gate to prevent the Z from using a super-greedy build of their own).
Furthermore, I think we can assume that progamers are using the best mix of builds and strategies that a gamer today can reasonably employ. Maybe in the future there will be better metagame, but in the present this is as close to optimal on both sides as we have.
Practice, team, coaching... these all directly influence a player's real skill. Maybe a player who doesn't practice enough won't achieve his full potential, or a player who practices too much might not be rested enough to play at peak efficiency, but again this is already so deeply built into the "player" variable that it's an exercise in futility to try to separate it out. If Jaedong frequently plays in an exhausted state from over-practice, it'll already show up in his elo or whatever is being used to gauge player skill.
A test I'd like to see is to take the data that was already analyzed, and add a column for the P's ELO and the Z's ELO (perhaps once with overall elo, once with matchup-specific elo. The latter might seem preferable, but I think it could also suffer from directly influencing the dependent variable -- ie, suppose hypothetically the matchup is imbalanced, then ZvP elos are going to be artificially inflated even more than overall Z elos, so the inflated elo will appear to explain the winrate)
B and C would tell us if the bias changes as the skill level of both players increases/decreases. I have a pet theory that PvZ becomes relatively harder for the P as both players get better, even within the ranks of progamers (most would agree this is the case within a group of low-skill players, so I see no reason why the same trend wouldn't exist at least somewhat within a group of high-skill players), this would be a way to test that.
I don't know if anyone has time to do that... honestly I don't want to type in 1700+ elo entries, although once that's done, finding the equation is simple with about any software.
ok this is going to depend a lot on whether I can get TLPD data in raw form or not.
...but if I do get this data, here's what I'll do.
I'll run a probit regression model with a shitload of variables. I'll have a variable for Z player ELO and P player ELO. I'll have a seperate variable for each map (with entries 1 or 0). I'll add more as people suggest them (although I think signet's post above is very smart and I'll probably be using his "lumping" method of counting a bunch of different things under skill)
One of the variables will be a binary variable about whether the match was played after March 1st, 2009. The purpose of the regression will be to see whether this variable is statistically significant.
The way probit works is that it finds the probability that the dependent variable (whether the zerg won or not) is 1. It measures how the independent variables (maps and such) affect this.
Anyway, that's my plan. I'll carry it out if I can get TLPD data.
On October 21 2009 13:17 Traveler wrote: I think we have to assume however that the skill levels of the players should be approximately equal across this large of a population, so long as we have a large enough n value for our population we assume a normal curve.
Anyways I have no idea why everyone is doing all these strange tests when a simple 1 proportion z-test is all thats needed to analyze the data.
So all conditions are met for a 1-prop z-test including a large enough n value.
So we run the test using n=885 x=524 proportion of .5 normally
Null hypothesis that the the proportion is greater than .5
We wind up with a z score of 5.479 Which gives us a probability of 2.14e-8 Which means that there is an incredibly tiny chance of this proportion occuring completely due to chance and thus ZvP must be inbalanced.
Look at my post on page 33. I did this, only I used .55 as the normal proportion, because what we're really trying to find out is whether or not ZvP is MORE imbalanced than it has been historically. The results clearly show that ZvP is, in fact, more Zerg-favored now than it has been historically. The only remaining question is why.
It's not player skill - we've accounted for that variable by including a wide selection of Zerg and Protoss pro gamers. I don't think it's the maps - just looking at the map breakdown over the period, we can see that the newer maps aren't any more Zerg-favored than the old maps, which indicates that something else is at work here. This leads us to general strategic advantage. Clearly, Zerg pro players have relatively recently worked out a consistently effective strategy that Protoss players haven't figured out how to counter. It remains to be seen if they will be able to figure out how to counter it. That said, even if we think that they will somewhere in the future, the statistics today justify an adjustment to the map pool to bring the matchup closer to 50%.
On October 21 2009 13:17 Traveler wrote: I think we have to assume however that the skill levels of the players should be approximately equal across this large of a population, so long as we have a large enough n value for our population we assume a normal curve.
Anyways I have no idea why everyone is doing all these strange tests when a simple 1 proportion z-test is all thats needed to analyze the data.
So all conditions are met for a 1-prop z-test including a large enough n value.
So we run the test using n=885 x=524 proportion of .5 normally
Null hypothesis that the the proportion is greater than .5
We wind up with a z score of 5.479 Which gives us a probability of 2.14e-8 Which means that there is an incredibly tiny chance of this proportion occuring completely due to chance and thus ZvP must be inbalanced.
It's not player skill - we've accounted for that variable by including a wide selection of Zerg and Protoss pro gamers.
most of the perceived imbalance will come from the same zerg players though as they will be the ones who are used more often in proleague or advance farther in individual league and thus play more games. unless you are cherry picking data it would be near impossible to get a truly random assortment of players anyway simply due to more wins = more playtime.
On October 21 2009 13:37 motbob wrote: ok this is going to depend a lot on whether I can get TLPD data in raw form or not.
...but if I do get this data, here's what I'll do.
I'll run a probit regression model with a shitload of variables. I'll have a variable for Z player ELO and P player ELO. I'll have a seperate variable for each map (with entries 1 or 0). I'll add more as people suggest them (although I think signet's post above is very smart and I'll probably be using his "lumping" method of counting a bunch of different things under skill)
One of the variables will be a binary variable about whether the match was played after March 1st, 2009. The purpose of the regression will be to see whether this variable is statistically significant.
The way probit works is that it finds the probability that the dependent variable (whether the zerg won or not) is 1. It measures how the independent variables (maps and such) affect this.
Anyway, that's my plan. I'll carry it out if I can get TLPD data.
Isnt it that the variable of your interest captures also everything that happens after March 1st, assuming the map and skills are fixed? How do you explain after that which one (in alot of factors) after that point of time that seems to affect the prob? Inclusion of Interactive terms?
On October 21 2009 13:37 motbob wrote: ok this is going to depend a lot on whether I can get TLPD data in raw form or not.
...but if I do get this data, here's what I'll do.
I'll run a probit regression model with a shitload of variables. I'll have a variable for Z player ELO and P player ELO. I'll have a seperate variable for each map (with entries 1 or 0). I'll add more as people suggest them (although I think signet's post above is very smart and I'll probably be using his "lumping" method of counting a bunch of different things under skill)
One of the variables will be a binary variable about whether the match was played after March 1st, 2009. The purpose of the regression will be to see whether this variable is statistically significant.
The way probit works is that it finds the probability that the dependent variable (whether the zerg won or not) is 1. It measures how the independent variables (maps and such) affect this.
Anyway, that's my plan. I'll carry it out if I can get TLPD data.
Isnt it that the variable of your interest captures also everything that happens after March 1st, assuming the map and skills are fixed? How do you explain after that which one (in alot of factors) after that point of time that seems to affect the prob? Inclusion of Interactive terms?
If I understand correctly, then you have the binary variable that tells you that whether the match played after March 1st will make a difference in affecting the prob of z winning against p. But the question is which factor that happens after March 1st actually significantly lead to such a variation in prob of winning. For instance if maps are important then you interact map variables with the time dummy to know whether it is the case.
On October 21 2009 14:53 economist_ wrote: If I understand correctly, then you have the binary variable that tells you that whether the match played after March 1st will make a difference in affecting the prob of z winning against p. But the question is which factor that happens after March 1st actually significantly lead to such a variation in prob of winning. For instance if maps are important then you interact map variables with the time dummy to know whether it is the case.
Stata will spit out what effect that it thinks the maps have on the winrate of Z... and whatever it spits out for my time dummy should be corrected for the things like maps etc.
But it doesnt spit out the effect of both maps and time dummy, i.e the maps effect after March 1st, if there is any differences in map effects before and after March 1st.
On October 21 2009 15:31 economist_ wrote: But it doesnt spit out the effect of both maps and time dummy, i.e the maps effect after March 1st, if there is any differences in map effects before and after March 1st.
OH you're saying that since some maps were only used after March 1st then that might skew the results.
Wow thanks, I'll have to work out how to fix that. What exactly is the variable that you think I should add to the regression?
On October 21 2009 13:17 Traveler wrote: I think we have to assume however that the skill levels of the players should be approximately equal across this large of a population, so long as we have a large enough n value for our population we assume a normal curve.
Anyways I have no idea why everyone is doing all these strange tests when a simple 1 proportion z-test is all thats needed to analyze the data.
So all conditions are met for a 1-prop z-test including a large enough n value.
So we run the test using n=885 x=524 proportion of .5 normally
Null hypothesis that the the proportion is greater than .5
We wind up with a z score of 5.479 Which gives us a probability of 2.14e-8 Which means that there is an incredibly tiny chance of this proportion occuring completely due to chance and thus ZvP must be inbalanced.
It's not player skill - we've accounted for that variable by including a wide selection of Zerg and Protoss pro gamers.
most of the perceived imbalance will come from the same zerg players though as they will be the ones who are used more often in proleague or advance farther in individual league and thus play more games. unless you are cherry picking data it would be near impossible to get a truly random assortment of players anyway simply due to more wins = more playtime.
The same holds true for Protoss players, though. The best Protoss players will be used more often in proleague and will advance farther in individual leagues and will thus play more games. There's no reason to think either that this has changed from the way it was historically or that it would be different for Zerg players than it is for Protoss players.
The argument that it is player skill, when stated fully, is clearly wrong. The argument runs that, all of a sudden, about 7 months ago, all or most Zerg players suddenly got a lot better and/or all or most Protoss players suddenly got a lot worse. What, did the Protoss players all get together and agree not to practice for a while? Did the Zerg players all get together and suddenly decide that they needed to practice ZvP a lot more than they ever had before? It's just implausible. A shift in the metagame as a result of some new strategy being adopted by Zerg players is a much more plausible alternative, and I think it's the best explanation.
If, lets assume, for some reason that all Zerg players due to linkage to the overmind has 2x the "raw skill" of Protoss players and win all their matches. Even in such a situation, it would make sense to use maps that favors the protoss so that they can win otherwise the scene would be boring.
Sure, professional leagues should reward skill, but the most important part is generate entertainment.
So if we are getting a ton of ZvZ, it is time to do something about it. -------- There is frankly, no complete way to measure skill across race boundaries anyways. One could not say that Bisu is more skilled than Jaedong or even, hell, Hyuk since the skills just don't translate perfect over. To be truly honest one would have to guess statistically with assumptions like (players join all three races with roughly equal potential and their training is equally efficient and so on) which breaks down when dealing with small samples of something like the top of the progaming scene.
On October 21 2009 15:31 economist_ wrote: But it doesnt spit out the effect of both maps and time dummy, i.e the maps effect after March 1st, if there is any differences in map effects before and after March 1st.
OH you're saying that since some maps were only used after March 1st then that might skew the results.
Wow thanks, I'll have to work out how to fix that. What exactly is the variable that you think I should add to the regression?
You simply interact map variable with time dummy to come up with new variable, and adding this new variable to the equation will correct the effect of certain map not played before (or after) March 1st on the outcome. This would also differentiate the impact of map before and after March 1st on the outcome if that map was played both before and after. I am just taking map as an example and its not very strong hypo as there is little difference in effect before and after. Similar logic could be applied to players skills as well as practice time, type of league...
Though this is worth pursuing, I dont think the results would be convincing people. You have so many things to control for and most of them might be mismeasured. The measure of skills would be resulting in a HUGE debate. Even the selection of time of March 1st has not been discussed yet or I may overlook the stats posted already
Ever since the Fall of Bisu in this OSL, people have been calling you the 'Last Hope' How do you feel about the recent PvZ?
"At first I thought Zerg was imbalanced and overpowered. But ever since I started practicing hard, I started to realize it wasn't that Zerg was imbalanced but rather it was the Zerg Players were alot more skilled than Protoss Players at this point of time.
I will practice hard and show a better self this season"
On October 21 2009 21:00 Ota Solgryn wrote: About todays OSL games. + Show Spoiler +
Stork Mini Interview
Ever since the Fall of Bisu in this OSL, people have been calling you the 'Last Hope' How do you feel about the recent PvZ?
"At first I thought Zerg was imbalanced and overpowered. But ever since I started practicing hard, I started to realize it wasn't that Zerg was imbalanced but rather it was the Zerg Players were alot more skilled than Protoss Players at this point of time.
I will practice hard and show a better self this season"
Now a pro said it. End of topic.
It's impossible to take Koreans at their word in an interview, on a topic as testy as this one. Do you really think he would have answered + Show Spoiler +
"yes the matchup is massively imbalanced, but I won anyway"?
On October 21 2009 21:00 Ota Solgryn wrote: About todays OSL games. + Show Spoiler +
Stork Mini Interview
Ever since the Fall of Bisu in this OSL, people have been calling you the 'Last Hope' How do you feel about the recent PvZ?
"At first I thought Zerg was imbalanced and overpowered. But ever since I started practicing hard, I started to realize it wasn't that Zerg was imbalanced but rather it was the Zerg Players were alot more skilled than Protoss Players at this point of time.
I will practice hard and show a better self this season"
Now a pro said it. End of topic.
It's impossible to take Koreans at their word in an interview, on a topic as testy as this one. Do you really think he would have answered + Show Spoiler +
"yes the matchup is massively imbalanced, but I won anyway"?
Well it was more honest than normally and he did say that he + Show Spoiler +
at first thought the matchup was imba, AND that he thinks the zerg players are just better.
On October 21 2009 21:00 Ota Solgryn wrote: About todays OSL games. + Show Spoiler +
Stork Mini Interview
Ever since the Fall of Bisu in this OSL, people have been calling you the 'Last Hope' How do you feel about the recent PvZ?
"At first I thought Zerg was imbalanced and overpowered. But ever since I started practicing hard, I started to realize it wasn't that Zerg was imbalanced but rather it was the Zerg Players were alot more skilled than Protoss Players at this point of time.
I will practice hard and show a better self this season"
Now a pro said it. End of topic.
It's impossible to take Koreans at their word in an interview, on a topic as testy as this one. Do you really think he would have answered + Show Spoiler +
"yes the matchup is massively imbalanced, but I won anyway"?
no matter how much you will whine and how much you are right blizzard wont change ballance, they dont care anymore if you would whine like that 8-9 year ago then probably today's ballance would be diffrent
i still don't understand why the community (or kespa) doesn't take into their hands to further balance the game *cough* scouts. i guess they can't really bother anymore, especially since sc2 is on the horizon (this century for sure).
On October 22 2009 02:38 anotherone wrote: no matter how much you will whine and how much you are right blizzard wont change ballance, they dont care anymore if you would whine like that 8-9 year ago then probably today's ballance would be diffrent
I don't think anyone wants Blizzard to do anything, nor do they expect them to. Maps are the main balancing point in this current age. That, and styles are what dictate the progamer statistics in matchups.
For 99% of the population, protoss is the easiest race to play / win with.
Change the game again so that the 1% population can be happy?
lol that was a dumbass thread XD
maybe toss its easiest race to start playing sc:bw because the macro issues.. but in a mid-pro level, all know about the zerg imbalance... pvz its the hardest match ever. pvt its gosu and very balanced.
On September 25 2009 17:12 motbob wrote: EDIT2: Since about page 30 this thread has turned into a haven for statistics nerds! Enter at your own risk.
Hey I'm not a statistics nerd :O Don't make me turn you into an unobserved qbit motbob ^o^
On topic though, we will probably end up with a result concerning how likely it is that one race is more difficult to play with in terms of metagame/mechanics combo (on the pro level of each time period) rather than which is inherently imbalanced (as that should assume perfect play). Slightly different results, but I think the former is what any statistical analysis would actually turn up, unless we assume that people who play protoss are inherently more fail than people who play zerg.
On October 21 2009 09:00 motbob wrote: OK, my econometrics textbook says that my way is correct but I think it might be wrong and I think that thus I did the test slightly wrong. I can see why your method of getting the SD from the null hypothesis is better than the way I'm doing it. I'll keep doing research.
you're doing a very simple stats equation. too simple to try and explain anything about ZvP except that it historically favors Z (if you got that part right i don't know) but that's it. it's not explaining anything. it's like if i went up and told you the sky is blue and then wrote up a giant equation and was like "yo bitch ur wrong sky's blue" and you were like "wtf kid i didnt say the sky isnt blue".
No. What his data show is that the recent trend of a higher than historical Zerg winning rate cannot be explained by purely random variation. He's demonstrated that a real trend exists, and now the only remaining question is the cause - what changed about seven months ago to cause this trend?
build orders, maps, could be because bisu started throwing games for money, etc, etc. I don't think anyone disagrees progaming is in a trend that is "statistically significant" if you ignore every variable and assume the data of 855 games is over a normal distribution, its obviously not, so we need to control as many variables as possible and compare similar samples, until then all the z-tests are meaningless.
1) Build orders. You could be referring to one of two things here - bad luck in build orders (like the old ideas about ZvZ being a highly luck-based matchup due to build order victories), or a metagame shift wherein Protoss players haven't found an effective counter to the most recent Zerg innovations. The first is definitely out - that would be a random variable which is excluded by our test. The second is possible, but might either be a temporary problem, solved by Protoss innovation, or a permanent and inherent problem with the matchup that can only be solved through adjustment of maps to give Protoss players a better chance. 2) Maps. It's pretty clear that maps aren't the problem. Go back and look at motbob's list of ZvP records broken down by map. The major new maps (Heartbreak Ridge, God's Garden, and Outsider) aren't more Zerg favoring than the older ones (Destination, Byzantium, Medusa), which seems to indicate that some other factor is at work. 3) Outside influence (i.e. players throwing games). Again, highly unlikely. No one player could affect the matchup's statistics this much, and there's no reason to believe that Protoss players are more susceptible to outside influence than Zerg players.
The evidence, it seems to me, strongly points to a general, non-map-based strategic advantage that Zerg has developed in this matchup recently. If Protoss players can find a way to counter this advantage, there's no problem. If they can't, the maps should be adjusted to bring the matchup closer to a 50% win rate. A 6:4 advantage for one race over another over a long a period of time is just bad for the game.
what about individual players? practice times? team makeup? map trends, style shifts, build order revelations? there are a lot of things aren't being taken into account that should be.
Exactly. Basically, this is impossible to quantify and it seems like people as usual want fast and easy facts, although those stats lack validity in reality. One can't assume that the matchups are 100% balanced because alot of stats talk against it. And saying that it's all about the maps is kind of ridiculous too because that implies that Blizzard managed to make three vastly different races completely even in a godlike way, which just has to be false. Also this argument doesn't hold up with what you Mahnini, wrote above.
I recall both Jju and Savior saying that ZvP is easy. I can see a protoss player saying PvT is easy, but I can't see a Terran or Protoss at pro level say that TvP or PvZ is easy.
What's easier about certain matchups in my opinion? Some requires alot less precision and multi-tasking compared to what their opponent needs to do. We've all seen the numerous zergling/hydra breaks in early/mid ZvP and it seems like basically any protoss can die to this to any zerg progamer. Protoss is really fragile against zerg and depend alot on building placement early game and must position their army very well and have the exactly right mix of units, while zerg in general do well with lings/hydra against almost anything if they have enough units.
Bisu is good at PvZ because he had a sick build, but most importantly because he has sick control too, speed and multi-tasking. Bisu is exceptional at PvZ, while almost no other protoss has ever been. Alot of zergs are at least good/very good at ZvP statistically. Now some people might say that it's because "protoss isn't playing good right now". What does it even mean? After all these years of Starcraft and considering how many games progamers have played, protoss should be able to be even with zerg but they aren't. This in my opinion, together with the recent trend of quite big maps that zerg can expo all over on, makes ZvP even harder for protoss than ever. They just have a harder time versus zerg than the other way around, and mind you, this is not a new problem. Although protoss has been stronger in different periods of time, zergs have pretty much figured out what I think is the last protoss revival there will be in PvZ.
On October 22 2009 05:49 Foucault wrote: And saying that it's all about the maps is kind of ridiculous too because that implies that Blizzard managed to make three vastly different races completely even in a godlike way, which just has to be false.
Er, I think maps having an influence on balance means exactly the opposite thing. Speaking of race strengths and weaknesses only makes sense relative to the maps on which they are played (availability of siege positions for terrans, expansions for zerg, etc). Blizzard adjusted the races' abilities so as to make them roughly balanced on the original campaigns and multiplayer maps, relative to 1998 skills and strategies. Since then, map makers have continually adapted their maps to the same old race abilities as well as the players' evolving skills and strategies. Any perceived godlike balance in Starcraft depends on the map makers' ability to pull this off, and it's obviously easier to fail than succeed -- especially with a rapidly changing metagame.
That said, maps are surely not the entire explanation.
On October 22 2009 05:49 Foucault wrote: And saying that it's all about the maps is kind of ridiculous too because that implies that Blizzard managed to make three vastly different races completely even in a godlike way, which just has to be false.
Er, I think maps having an influence on balance means exactly the opposite thing. Speaking of race strengths and weaknesses only makes sense relative to the maps on which they are played (availability of siege positions for terrans, expansions for zerg, etc). Blizzard adjusted the races' abilities so as to make them roughly balanced on the original campaigns and multiplayer maps, relative to 1998 skills and strategies. Since then, map makers have continually adapted their maps to the same old race abilities as well as the players' evolving skills and strategies. Any perceived godlike balance in Starcraft depends on the map makers' ability to pull this off, and it's obviously easier to fail than succeed -- especially with a rapidly changing metagame.
That said, maps are surely not the entire explanation.
On October 21 2009 13:37 motbob wrote: ok this is going to depend a lot on whether I can get TLPD data in raw form or not.
...but if I do get this data, here's what I'll do.
I'll run a probit regression model with a shitload of variables. I'll have a variable for Z player ELO and P player ELO. I'll have a seperate variable for each map (with entries 1 or 0). I'll add more as people suggest them (although I think signet's post above is very smart and I'll probably be using his "lumping" method of counting a bunch of different things under skill)
One of the variables will be a binary variable about whether the match was played after March 1st, 2009. The purpose of the regression will be to see whether this variable is statistically significant.
The way probit works is that it finds the probability that the dependent variable (whether the zerg won or not) is 1. It measures how the independent variables (maps and such) affect this.
Anyway, that's my plan. I'll carry it out if I can get TLPD data.
Sounds like a good model. By looking at elo rather than treating each player separately, you're giving the model more degrees of freedom (than if it treated each player as a binary variable), so you have the ability to take maps into account. That didn't dawn on me until you mentioned it.
If you are able to get a hold of the raw data, can you PM me -- maybe I can get it from you over gmail or something? There's some models I'd like to tinker with as well, but typing all this stuff in would be a real hassle.
Elo is constructed so that a difference between two players' elo scores of X implies that the stronger player will win 1/(1+10^(-X/400)) percent of the time. Obviously winrate is not linearly proportional to elo difference.
The model *might* be better off regressing: * predicted winrate for the zerg player, based solely on both players' ELO ratings * zerg player's actual ELO (protoss elo would be redundant, since it is used to generate the above variable)
rather than: * Z elo * P elo
I can't say for certain. Throwing it out there in case the one way blows up!
(if it's useful, TLPD uses a K value of roughly 20)
On ICCup you can hardly tell what brand of cheese a Z is going to hit you with. You can scout an all-in ling but good luck finding out if he's all-in Hydra. DTs harass is useless anymore. Scourges to deal with Corsairs make early HT drop economic harassment risky...especially considering that you NEED your HT early anyways. Sim city makes timing attacks extremely difficult to pull off. I've always been a P user and my ratio PvZ is bad...so I give Z a try and I'm 2:1 ZvP, 5 Hatch Hydra/Muta no effort...
I don't want to say the match up is imbalanced. Maybe it's the maps, maybe it's the current builds. But right now it's just ridiculous how many directions a Zerg can take the game compared to the one opening a Protoss has, that a Zerg knows the Protoss is always going to go because it's all Protoss can do.
Well, it depends, what rank are you? And if you're doing all the harassment, are you doing it during a battle or just when he's sitting as his bases macroing?
ever play a top notch expanding protoss with carrier/sair/temp/da combo? i'd like to see you play zerg under those circumstances and say zerg dominates toss. The game depends on the circumstances. I am almost a strictly zerg player and a very good one even if i do say so myself. I raise the ranks easily. I know i dominate protoss when they expand slowly. When they expand and harass well, it balances it out. Protoss can overtake the zerg if the zerg isn't careful. If you get into a late game with equal bases, protoss vs zerg is the most balanced matchup after the pvp zvz tvt matchups. If you are a toss and feel like you're getting dominated, you're in the habit of not expanding at the right time to keep up with zerg. The matchup tips either way VERY easily, and that's where you're having troubles. Good luck.
There are several ways Protoss can play out a Forge FE opening. But it does seem like maps are much more balanced if Protoss has decent alternatives to Forge FE. (And ideally, if there's not an easy spot for lurkers to shoot into your probe lines. It's easier to play if quick lurkers aren't a serious threat.)
So... is there a solution to the hideous rape that is muta/scourge? Six corsairs are clearly insufficient, as Zerg can match the +1 air attack with +1 air carapace (and then beat it with +2, because Protoss's +2 requires a Fleet Beacon) and have complete air control if he sends in a few mutas first to tank for his scourge.
Does Protoss just have to wait for 12-18 corsairs if the opponent fights for air dominance?
On December 18 2009 20:40 Severedevil wrote: So... is there a solution to the hideous rape that is muta/scourge? Six corsairs are clearly insufficient, as Zerg can match the +1 air attack with +1 air carapace (and then beat it with +2, because Protoss's +2 requires a Fleet Beacon) and have complete air control if he sends in a few mutas first to tank for his scourge.
Does Protoss just have to wait for 12-18 corsairs if the opponent fights for air dominance?
Click T on there mutalisks with a high templar, or better yet click M(or R, don't know the hotkey) on 2 templars and click the middle of the mutas.
watch the movie vs zero OSL Ro16 game and you'll understand
seriously so imba!!!
ye >____> 1a2a3a4a win... so sad. Oh and movie had 170 apm that game ROFL?
Seriously Stop trolling Movie had 270 apm that game and Zero fucked up the game by funnelling 3 groups of hydras through a small choke vs goon/reaver and stacking lurks vs reavers
Movie style is quite gimmicky and allinish and if you defend vs the harass well you can counter it quite easily by powering 3base since he gets a extremely late 3rd, his play is pretty much a 2base power hanbang all in. Here is how to counter Movie 101
On December 18 2009 20:40 Severedevil wrote: So... is there a solution to the hideous rape that is muta/scourge? Six corsairs are clearly insufficient, as Zerg can match the +1 air attack with +1 air carapace (and then beat it with +2, because Protoss's +2 requires a Fleet Beacon) and have complete air control if he sends in a few mutas first to tank for his scourge.
Does Protoss just have to wait for 12-18 corsairs if the opponent fights for air dominance?
Click T on there mutalisks with a high templar, or better yet click M(or R, don't know the hotkey) on 2 templars and click the middle of the mutas.
They complement corsairs pretty well.
Good point.
I also forgot that you can click B and then C a few times, and you will have a huge block of photon cannons, thereby negating mutalisk.
Q: You have a match vs Bisu tomorrow. A: I think he’s the best PvZ player. I think I was lucky when we last met, so I’m preparing hard for this meeting.I think it’s going to be a difficult duel, but Zerg vs Protoss is so favorable for zerg these days that I think I can win.
On December 18 2009 21:47 Foucault wrote: Yeah there is an imbalance to ZvP. You guys serious? Even a couple of progamer zergs (Savior and Jju comes to mind) have said that ZvP is EZ.
If you can't see that ZvP is imbalanced you're either a zerg player, play at low levels or haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years.
Yes but it's only imbalanced at higher up levels, and the imbalance is more maps allowing for it to happen.
The reason i respond and get annoyed to people who complain about pvz constantly is because half of them try to use it as an excuse for why they lose PvZ at lower levels
EDIT: Also savior and calm said ZvT is hard for zerg, to combat JJu and Shine saying its easy for zerg vs protoss. Do you see 50 threads and posts every time a terran beats a zerg?
On December 18 2009 20:40 Severedevil wrote: So... is there a solution to the hideous rape that is muta/scourge? Six corsairs are clearly insufficient, as Zerg can match the +1 air attack with +1 air carapace (and then beat it with +2, because Protoss's +2 requires a Fleet Beacon) and have complete air control if he sends in a few mutas first to tank for his scourge.
Does Protoss just have to wait for 12-18 corsairs if the opponent fights for air dominance?
Click T on there mutalisks with a high templar, or better yet click M(or R, don't know the hotkey) on 2 templars and click the middle of the mutas.
They complement corsairs pretty well.
Good point.
I also forgot that you can click B and then C a few times, and you will have a huge block of photon cannons, thereby negating mutalisk and any chance of securing a third base
On December 18 2009 21:47 Foucault wrote: Yeah there is an imbalance to ZvP. You guys serious? Even a couple of progamer zergs (Savior and Jju comes to mind) have said that ZvP is EZ.
If you can't see that ZvP is imbalanced you're either a zerg player, play at low levels or haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years.
Are you serious? You must be a protoss player for that kind of ignorance imo. You must not realize that some people think certain matchups are easier to people. I struggle very much at zvz and my zvp goes off and on to either I am doing good vs protoss's or I lose to them a lot. Man your post lmao.
Are you serious? You must be a protoss player for that kind of ignorance imo. You must not realize that some people think certain matchups are easier to people. I struggle very much at zvz and my zvp goes off and on to either I am doing good vs protoss's or I lose to them a lot. Man your post lmao.
I think we are talking about the progamer scene and not about some wannabe sc player.
On December 18 2009 21:47 Foucault wrote: Yeah there is an imbalance to ZvP. You guys serious? Even a couple of progamer zergs (Savior and Jju comes to mind) have said that ZvP is EZ.
If you can't see that ZvP is imbalanced you're either a zerg player, play at low levels or haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years.
EDIT: Also savior and calm said ZvT is hard for zerg, to combat JJu and Shine saying its easy for zerg vs protoss. Do you see 50 threads and posts every time a terran beats a zerg?
Yup, but ZvT isn't as hard as PvZ is, especially on these new bigger maps. When zerg can take 3-4 gas on his side of the map while terran is pumping of two bases, things could get serious fast for terran. There's a reason we're seeing so many ZvT:s with Ultralisks on big maps, and that's because it's relatively easy for zerg to secure alot of gas.
Zerg has lurkers, defilers and ultralisks; three units that really can own a terran hard. What does protoss have against zerg? Reaver, sure. DT:s, sure. But DT:s usually don't make that much damage because of all the overlords spying everywhere. The other protoss units are so fragile and susceptible to flanks and getting surrounded. You can often see zerg basically running protoss over with units while protoss is microing hard and working on his unit composition. Zerg just sends in hydras and lings in masses, not to mention the hydra cannon-breaks, I've stopped counting the amount of times I've seen that. It's ridiculous how a so-so zerg can own a superior protoss with these builds.
Anyways, back to my point about ZvT. Lurkers are a very strong unit against terran and usually keeps him at bay until defiler arrives, then just turtle up on your bases and tech to ultras. Ultras in ZvT I feel are a little bit like carriers in PvT, VERY powerful units. When I see lots of ultras pop out I'm usually pretty sure that the zerg will win the game. Also, Terran needs to multi-task, and micro hard in ZvT. Besides muta harass, there is not the same emphasis on micro in ZvT. Zerg doesn't have to move around 5 control groups of units all the time, units that die to one lurker spine attack.
Btw, I'm oversimplifying etc. I know ZvT is hard, but not as hard as PvZ imo. If zerg can hold their own in early/mid-game ZvT, ultras arrive to save the day. Defilers and dark swarm are also super good against Terran.
On December 18 2009 21:47 Foucault wrote: Yeah there is an imbalance to ZvP. You guys serious? Even a couple of progamer zergs (Savior and Jju comes to mind) have said that ZvP is EZ.
If you can't see that ZvP is imbalanced you're either a zerg player, play at low levels or haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years.
Are you serious? You must be a protoss player for that kind of ignorance imo. You must not realize that some people think certain matchups are easier to people. I struggle very much at zvz and my zvp goes off and on to either I am doing good vs protoss's or I lose to them a lot. Man your post lmao.
Then I guess you fall into the "play at low levels" and/or "haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years" categories?
On December 18 2009 21:47 Foucault wrote: Yeah there is an imbalance to ZvP. You guys serious? Even a couple of progamer zergs (Savior and Jju comes to mind) have said that ZvP is EZ.
If you can't see that ZvP is imbalanced you're either a zerg player, play at low levels or haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years.
Are you serious? You must be a protoss player for that kind of ignorance imo. You must not realize that some people think certain matchups are easier to people. I struggle very much at zvz and my zvp goes off and on to either I am doing good vs protoss's or I lose to them a lot. Man your post lmao.
On December 18 2009 23:46 stormtemplar wrote: Random Idea, instead of arguing about if it is imba (Cuz most people realize it is) lets discuss what the heck toss can do. Two strong optionns are a goon reaver push, and sair reaver. Any other ideas?
Stork is claiming to have a revolutionary build, I don't think he played it though b/c he lost to only decently played mass muta
maybe the muta were an attempt to throw stork off his game, thus making him unable to preform said legendary build. Maybe the revolutionary build is to claim you have a revolutionary build.
On December 18 2009 23:43 Gregsen wrote: TvP is way more inbalanced (for terran) these days than PvZ imho...I wonder why nobody talks about that.
are you fucking serious? Terrans are bawwwwwing about it in almost every thread
Because it simply is like that. The only thing Terran can do most of the time, is adapt. Also Protoss can take a lot of risks, for example with Reaver opening, without losing too much in the end.
On December 18 2009 23:46 stormtemplar wrote: Random Idea, instead of arguing about if it is imba (Cuz most people realize it is) lets discuss what the heck toss can do. Two strong optionns are a goon reaver push, and sair reaver. Any other ideas?
Tell them you're kinda famous and ask for a free win.
In all seriousness, there's really no strong counter to the 3 hatch spire strat right now, and the only real good way of winning against Zerg right now is to be unpredictable and use all sorts of super early timing attacks. As Nony said, Protoss don't really have a "map" that they can follow to deal with the current Zerg trend, because Zerg can make unit transitions much faster than Protoss can. That and muta micro is simply too good right now, but both High Templar and reavers (the units that can really handle mass hydra) are extremely vulnerable to muta snipes.
I think that is why people have a harder time with ZvP on lower levels but at progamer levels it's different. The current Zerg metagame hinges heavily on strong muta micro to snipe any Protoss units that could destroy mass hydra, and then overwhelming the opponent with mass hydra. There really isn't a hard counter to this right now, but hopefully Stork has something really clever up his sleeve.
Nowadays zergs just take the 3rd gas using their 3rd hat far away and build a sim city for imba gas, and behind them a main gives the 4th gas. Its cheating when toss has 2 gas vs infinte gas, and the available expos near protosses' main are mineral-only. HTs are ineffective against lurker contains and good hydra micro. Basically 5-8 lurkers contain the whole protoss ball and put them behind economically when the ball is useless. After that cows and defilers come out non stop and its gg.
Its either they get sniped by suicidal muta and 1a2a3a4a5a hydra mass. On 4p maps with easy to secure additional gas they do 3 hatch spire into 5 hatch macro and 4 gas camp to hive and role toss over with cracks/ultra so temps do absolutly nothing here. Such a boring thing, take a nat with your 3th hatch get a spire to deflect sair/dt harras and get 1m hatch on the empty main and other in block positions together with evo/den and just power like mad.
wow seriously 44 pages of this? more practice less posting and maybe the balance will shift (although probably this is actually full of zergs trolling)
I feel really left out of everyone saying ZvP is imba, cuz I get fucking owned by tosses w/ like 100 APM and a whole ICCUP rank lower than me (im currently C-, but i get owned by some D+ dudes w/ only like 150 APM)
On December 19 2009 04:03 NeCroPoTeNce wrote: I feel really left out of everyone saying ZvP is imba, cuz I get fucking owned by tosses w/ like 100 APM and a whole ICCUP rank lower than me (im currently C-, but i get owned by some D+ dudes w/ only like 150 APM)
On December 19 2009 04:03 NeCroPoTeNce wrote: I feel really left out of everyone saying ZvP is imba, cuz I get fucking owned by tosses w/ like 100 APM and a whole ICCUP rank lower than me (im currently C-, but i get owned by some D+ dudes w/ only like 150 APM)
On December 18 2009 23:35 Foucault wrote: Yeah there is an imbalance to ZvP. You guys serious? Even a couple of progamer zergs (Savior and Jju comes to mind) have said that ZvP is EZ.
If you can't see that ZvP is imbalanced you're either a zerg player, play at low levels or haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years.
ZvT and TvP are also slightly imbalanced. Its been that way forever. However, what's really happened is that Z's have equalized the ZvT matchup in the past 2.5 years because of muta stacking, and that same innovation has helped them in ZvP. Meanwhile P's have pulled further ahead in the PvT matchup since 2 years ago thanks to better use of tech timings which T can't match.
In other words, the modern era of zerg is simply the result of the muta stacking bug being brought to its full potential (or closer to it, anyhow).
Everyone says that every match up is imbalanced. It is just about how bad you really are. I'm surprised some of the people who play BW haven't said the mirror match ups are imbalanced. LOL
On December 19 2009 05:01 MuscLe wrote: Everyone says that every match up is imbalanced. It is just about how bad you really are. I'm surprised some of the people who play BW haven't said the mirror match ups are imbalanced. LOL
On December 18 2009 23:35 Foucault wrote: Yeah there is an imbalance to ZvP. You guys serious? Even a couple of progamer zergs (Savior and Jju comes to mind) have said that ZvP is EZ.
If you can't see that ZvP is imbalanced you're either a zerg player, play at low levels or haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years.
ZvT and TvP are also slightly imbalanced. Its been that way forever. However, what's really happened is that Z's have equalized the ZvT matchup in the past 2.5 years because of muta stacking, and that same innovation has helped them in ZvP. Meanwhile P's have pulled further ahead in the PvT matchup since 2 years ago thanks to better use of tech timings which T can't match.
In other words, the modern era of zerg is simply the result of the muta stacking bug being brought to its full potential (or closer to it, anyhow).
Very good point about muta stacking. It has done so much for zerg, like how easy would it be to kill temps without being able to stack mutas
In all the "harder" matchups I also feel that the race at an disadvantage has to be much more delicate with micro and minor slip-ups that their opponent usually can afford, can own them hard.
On December 18 2009 23:35 Foucault wrote: Yeah there is an imbalance to ZvP. You guys serious? Even a couple of progamer zergs (Savior and Jju comes to mind) have said that ZvP is EZ.
If you can't see that ZvP is imbalanced you're either a zerg player, play at low levels or haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years.
ZvT and TvP are also slightly imbalanced. Its been that way forever. However, what's really happened is that Z's have equalized the ZvT matchup in the past 2.5 years because of muta stacking, and that same innovation has helped them in ZvP. Meanwhile P's have pulled further ahead in the PvT matchup since 2 years ago thanks to better use of tech timings which T can't match.
In other words, the modern era of zerg is simply the result of the muta stacking bug being brought to its full potential (or closer to it, anyhow).
Ps innovated to keep up with zergs...namely the forge expansion and the Bisu build, and all the other cute timing builds since.
Zs have been countering these with tighter defense and better mechanics. There's not really any raw innovation...just much more solid play.
I doubt it's that T's can't match P's tech timings...just give it a while. The match isn't as out of whack as the other matchups atm.
You know your build is shit when you lose to pure scourge-muta in a thirty minute game. Stork better bust out that "revolutionary build" reeeeaaaaal soon.
I only read the first five pages, not all forty-five, so forgive me, but I feel like the main issues are things like this:
1- We try to judge the balance of the races based on the possible, which means only the best. Take away one or two protoss players and we would see huge imbalance, but because of them we say it was balanced, but now it's not. This is a huge problem because normally to make statistical arguments you need larger sample sizes than a couple of players' handful of games. That "60%" is often a false 60%, it's like 60% +/- 20%, which is ridiculous.
2- Let's say the game is balanced for pros. Doesn't that mean it could be horribly imbalanced for top foreigners? Do we not care about that? I mean, what if SC was basically broken (which it's not, but imagine) except for top koreans? I think we would still want it fixed. What this means is that judging by the top has some flaws with it. We should care about how the game plays out at some other levels as well. It's not enough to say "well if you were pro, it would be balanced." After all this is a game for us all. I think it's okay if the game is imbalanced at beginner levels but at some point I think you want all races to be viable.
3- On the other hand, don't we all choose which race we play? If it's so damned imba then you picked the wrong race, sorry. No one made you play it. What this means is that this debate isn't really about fairness, it's about improving an already great game--the idea that not enough races are viable at enough levels. It's almost trivial, really. If the game was reduced to two races at the top level, or the beginner level for that matter, it's still a good game, and complaining is only wishing it could be 'even better'--hardly the imperative that these imba debates make it out to be.
4- A lot of people in this thread have said "why don't pros try X Y Z." Come on! They train! They have practice parters! I'm sure they've tried DA builds and etc., and they fail. That's why they don't try them in matches. If you can't do it to your practice guy, you aren't going to try it on TV, sorry...
5- We could advance much further in balancing SC if we held regular experimental tournaments or leagues, but no one is _that_ interested in improving PvZ. For instance, if we made some building faster or cheaper, or some upgrade already-researched, it might still be fair for Z, but helping P. We don't discover options like this, so we can't propose them. No one cares enough, and if we don't do it Blizzard sure won't. In fact, Korean leagues might have the biggest incentive to find ideas like this, but I think they'd rather not as well. There's a simple formula for considering changes to balance: if you can give a race something for free, will it be imba the other way? If the answer is "gee, almost definitely not," then that is a good change to try out. And, if you can think of dozens of ideas like this for one race (say P) then, even though P aren't really struggling, this is still a strong indicator that the balance can be improved in their favor. But again, this is unlikely to happen at all... if so, then why talk about balance? Perhaps for maps (see below).
6- Similarly, we _could_ make good maps for PvZ alone. They would still be usable for PvP and ZvZ TvT and for other matchups we'd have to decide ourselves. But, allow leagues to use different maps for PvZ and you can have better games, easily. Good PvZ maps are entirely possible if you aren' compromising the PvZ balance for PvT and TvZ considerations. Have a league or tourney where some maps are PvZ-only and you can fix the matchup. This could improve all matchups, really, but again it's not being considered.
I'm not a very good player so forgive me if I'm way off, but I did not see many people saying these kinds of points. Am I way off?
If starcraft - or any zero-sum asymmetric game for that matter - could be played frame by frame, and making a perfect game possible, only one race or character would be viable.
On December 19 2009 06:01 zulu_nation8 wrote: jensofsweden i'll give you $100 esports dollars if you never post in this thread again
Thanks for contributing!
Adress my arguments but don't post silly one-liners for no apparent reason, especially when I outlined my thoughts on ZvP.
lol...
...I really don't want to get into balance arguments because each race is imbalanced in some way against the other, and that's fine (heaven forbid that we only get mirror matchups in starcraft). But seriously, what you're saying is just plain stupid: ("Zerg doesn't have to move around 5 control groups of units all the time" ...seriously...??)
Yup, but ZvT isn't as hard as PvZ is, especially on these new bigger maps. When zerg can take 3-4 gas on his side of the map while terran is pumping of two bases, things could get serious fast for terran. There's a reason we're seeing so many ZvT:s with Ultralisks on big maps, and that's because it's relatively easy for zerg to secure alot of gas.
Zerg has lurkers, defilers and ultralisks; three units that really can own a terran hard. What does protoss have against zerg? Reaver, sure. DT:s, sure. But DT:s usually don't make that much damage because of all the overlords spying everywherebut if a zerg happens to forget an overlord somewhere, then it's game over, whereas if protoss loses a DT, it's negligible. And since there only seems to be two units the protoss arsenal that can keep up with zerg, maybe they should make another one that can kill 6 hydras or 12 lings or infinite stacked mutas with an AoE spell for 75 mana.... The other protoss units are so fragile and susceptible to flanks and getting surroundedbut all zerg needs to do this is 1a2a3a, no micro required, right?. You can often see zerg basically running protoss over with units while protoss is microing hard and working on his unit compositionso hard to move your 4 control group army in a ball, not to mention that APM-intensive task of "working on your unit composition". Zerg just sends in hydras and lings in massesnot that oh-so-deadly hydra/ling unit combination again!!, not to mention the hydra cannon-breaksgod forbid blizzard give zerg ONE pre-hive unit that can actually stand a chance against a turtling protoss, I've stopped counting the amount of times I've seen that. It's ridiculous how a so-so zerg can own a superior protoss with these builds.
Anyways, back to my point about ZvT. Lurkers are a very strong unit against terran and usually keeps him at bay until defiler arrivesI'm glad zergs have one unit that allows them to survive until lategame ... "usually", then just turtle up on your bases and tech to ultras. Ultras in ZvT I feel are a little bit like carriers in PvT, VERY powerful units. When I see lots of ultras pop out I'm usually pretty sure that the zerg will win the gamewhich nearly balances out how vessel clouds can kill your 2400/2400 worth of ultras for 75x2 mana per cast and how a single dropship can win you the game. Also, Terran needs to multi-task, and micro hard in ZvT. Besides muta harass, there is not the same emphasis on micro in ZvTIt must be nice to be able to sit around a ball of units that can two-shot lurkers and have approximately infinite range and 1t2t3t4t and wait for your opponent to execute a perfect flank at their natural. Zerg doesn't have to move around 5 control groups of units all the timelol??? troll?, units that die to one lurker spine attackwhich is so unfortunate even though zerglings don't even get to get a hit off of a marine before they die.
Btw, I'm oversimplifying etc. I know ZvT is hard, but not as hard as PvZ imo. If zerg can hold their own in early/mid-game ZvT, ultras arrive to save the day. Defilers and dark swarm are also super good against Terran.
On December 19 2009 11:40 old times sake wrote: I only read the first five pages, not all forty-five, so forgive me, but I feel like the main issues are things like this:
1- We try to judge the balance of the races based on the possible, which means only the best. Take away one or two protoss players and we would see huge imbalance, but because of them we say it was balanced, but now it's not. This is a huge problem because normally to make statistical arguments you need larger sample sizes than a couple of players' handful of games. That "60%" is often a false 60%, it's like 60% +/- 20%, which is ridiculous.
2- Let's say the game is balanced for pros. Doesn't that mean it could be horribly imbalanced for top foreigners? Do we not care about that? I mean, what if SC was basically broken (which it's not, but imagine) except for top koreans? I think we would still want it fixed. What this means is that judging by the top has some flaws with it. We should care about how the game plays out at some other levels as well. It's not enough to say "well if you were pro, it would be balanced." After all this is a game for us all. I think it's okay if the game is imbalanced at beginner levels but at some point I think you want all races to be viable.
3- On the other hand, don't we all choose which race we play? If it's so damned imba then you picked the wrong race, sorry. No one made you play it. What this means is that this debate isn't really about fairness, it's about improving an already great game--the idea that not enough races are viable at enough levels. It's almost trivial, really. If the game was reduced to two races at the top level, or the beginner level for that matter, it's still a good game, and complaining is only wishing it could be 'even better'--hardly the imperative that these imba debates make it out to be.
4- A lot of people in this thread have said "why don't pros try X Y Z." Come on! They train! They have practice parters! I'm sure they've tried DA builds and etc., and they fail. That's why they don't try them in matches. If you can't do it to your practice guy, you aren't going to try it on TV, sorry...
5- We could advance much further in balancing SC if we held regular experimental tournaments or leagues, but no one is _that_ interested in improving PvZ. For instance, if we made some building faster or cheaper, or some upgrade already-researched, it might still be fair for Z, but helping P. We don't discover options like this, so we can't propose them. No one cares enough, and if we don't do it Blizzard sure won't. In fact, Korean leagues might have the biggest incentive to find ideas like this, but I think they'd rather not as well. There's a simple formula for considering changes to balance: if you can give a race something for free, will it be imba the other way? If the answer is "gee, almost definitely not," then that is a good change to try out. And, if you can think of dozens of ideas like this for one race (say P) then, even though P aren't really struggling, this is still a strong indicator that the balance can be improved in their favor. But again, this is unlikely to happen at all... if so, then why talk about balance? Perhaps for maps (see below).
6- Similarly, we _could_ make good maps for PvZ alone. They would still be usable for PvP and ZvZ TvT and for other matchups we'd have to decide ourselves. But, allow leagues to use different maps for PvZ and you can have better games, easily. Good PvZ maps are entirely possible if you aren' compromising the PvZ balance for PvT and TvZ considerations. Have a league or tourney where some maps are PvZ-only and you can fix the matchup. This could improve all matchups, really, but again it's not being considered.
I'm not a very good player so forgive me if I'm way off, but I did not see many people saying these kinds of points. Am I way off?
Some it makes sense to me (ie #4), but the changes you suggest are way too drastic. It would be ruining what people have worked towards if maps were made "just for PvZ". If the map makers are the ones making all the changes, players won't have to, and an essential part of the game is lost. I also don't agree with changing the game so that it is more balanced at low levels. It has been proven over and over again as chill said earlier, that things like this happen, and as soon as toss gets a grip on ZvP, some other matchup will be "omg soooooo imba" and people will complain about that. This will work itself out eventually
I don't think you can suggest that balance should only come from the players. This wouldn't work if we stuck to your advice when all we played were Blizzard maps. Fact is, players push maps to their limits, but they are constantly getting new maps. I don't think it's a big change to split PvZ maps off from TvP/TvZ maps. It would result in better possible maps. TvP-TvZ maps that can ignore PvZ would perhaps keep the balance the same but make better games nonetheless. This isn't limited to balance, really. TV leagues should really consider this because they can push the edge of maximizing TV quality this way--balance aside. When you try to make something all-purpose you clearly are making it inferior for any specific purposes. Right now maps are all swiss-army knives, when maybe some matchups need a little more attention. This is one option for PvZ.
On December 18 2009 23:35 Foucault wrote: Yeah there is an imbalance to ZvP. You guys serious? Even a couple of progamer zergs (Savior and Jju comes to mind) have said that ZvP is EZ.
If you can't see that ZvP is imbalanced you're either a zerg player, play at low levels or haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years.
ZvT and TvP are also slightly imbalanced. Its been that way forever. However, what's really happened is that Z's have equalized the ZvT matchup in the past 2.5 years because of muta stacking, and that same innovation has helped them in ZvP. Meanwhile P's have pulled further ahead in the PvT matchup since 2 years ago thanks to better use of tech timings which T can't match.
In other words, the modern era of zerg is simply the result of the muta stacking bug being brought to its full potential (or closer to it, anyhow).
Ps innovated to keep up with zergs...namely the forge expansion and the Bisu build, and all the other cute timing builds since.
Zs have been countering these with tighter defense and better mechanics. There's not really any raw innovation...just much more solid play.
Right. All I'm saying is the power of the modern zerg play is based on the power of the muta stacking bug, and without it I think even with tight play and better mechanics ZvP would be a closer if not even matchup (of course, its still pretty close all things considered).
On December 18 2009 23:35 Foucault wrote: Yeah there is an imbalance to ZvP. You guys serious? Even a couple of progamer zergs (Savior and Jju comes to mind) have said that ZvP is EZ.
If you can't see that ZvP is imbalanced you're either a zerg player, play at low levels or haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years.
ZvT and TvP are also slightly imbalanced. Its been that way forever. However, what's really happened is that Z's have equalized the ZvT matchup in the past 2.5 years because of muta stacking, and that same innovation has helped them in ZvP. Meanwhile P's have pulled further ahead in the PvT matchup since 2 years ago thanks to better use of tech timings which T can't match.
In other words, the modern era of zerg is simply the result of the muta stacking bug being brought to its full potential (or closer to it, anyhow).
Ps innovated to keep up with zergs...namely the forge expansion and the Bisu build, and all the other cute timing builds since.
Zs have been countering these with tighter defense and better mechanics. There's not really any raw innovation...just much more solid play.
Right. All I'm saying is the power of the modern zerg play is based on the power of the muta stacking bug, and without it I think even with tight play and better mechanics ZvP would be a closer if not even matchup (of course, its still pretty close all things considered).
This might be something that Blizzard would consider partially nerfing. It's weird and not part of the original design, although it may tilt the balance too far if you take it away completely.
Another thing to consider that sounds very patch-like would be to improve Reaver AI--but not too much of course. Pros are uncomfortable with Reavers because they are so damn unreliable. Reavers used to be better (too good), long long ago. A middle ground would be nice.
Unfortunately, taking away muta stacking would make modern ZvT insanely bad for Zerg. Its way more important in that matchup than it is in ZvP, so actually protoss wouldn't even benefit as much as terrans would. On top of that its an exciting mechanic for viewers.
I can get behind fixing Reaver AI. It really should be fixed. But its pretty much not gonna happen. Of course, amusingly fixing Reaver AI probably fucks over Terrans a bit in PvT, so even that has side consequences. That's the hard part, boosting PvZ without altering anything else. The best answer is really probably to just un-nerf psi storm.
You are 100% onto something there. Changing one matchup almost always effects another. Changes that effect a single matchup are gold for this reason, and if there are ones in the past, we should consider reversing them (if they are to the side we need) or increasing them (if they are to the side we are reducing). The Psi storm nerf is one such example--reverse it, good idea.
Some other past balance changes that I recall were primarily for this matchup: -shifting zealot shields/hp around, to effect how they worked vs hydras (was done in the past) -increased hydra build time (could reverse it partially, shouldn't break zvt at all) -photon cannon improved (I kind of hate photons being even stronger so I wouldn't like this angle)
I don't think un-nerfing storm would change very much; like people said, people are just better at dodging storm these days. What if High Templar got a little speed boost?
I like #1 and #2 but not #3, you should make a separate thread and elaborate on those ideas. I think some of the Blizzard guys do read the strategy forum.
This is still going on? lol i hope all you protoss crybabies realize that zvt is the most imba match up ever. pvz doesn't hold a candle to that.
As for your balance fixes- they are all pointless. Doing anything will make PvT even more of a cakewalk for protoss. I don't understand why players of your caliber complain about imbalance, when at your level of play it makes no difference.
Remember when savior was crushing all of the protoss players? Remember when protoss didn't stand a chance? Where no one was going to beat him? Then suddenly a huge shift in favor of protoss? I am just waiting for the next big thing to come around. Low rank players should spend more time practicing than discussing balance issues. Leave that to the pros and the coaches.
Talking about the muta bug is a complete waste of time. Don't you find it odd that the only protoss lynchpin in your entire game is templar? perhaps you should re evaluate the way you play, not what zerg has. You think you have it bad when a hydra (75/25) can out DPS anything you have? Imagine the zerg point of view playing terran- Marine(50) has a higher dps than anything the zerg can throw at it. Coupled with medics- it's crazy how cost effective that shit is. Yet some how zerg finds a way through superior tech to win some zvt.
Perhaps you should think of the same?
Lastly- I find it rather obtuse that people still discredit the DA in effectiveness. We have seen it's use multiple times, and frankly it's extremely effective. Talking about reaver AI and all other balance issues are a complete waste.
PS- Don't forget that stork and bisu are still ripping the scene up. And you have yet to see anything of storks new idea. As i said before, leave it to the pros.
On December 20 2009 15:51 stormtemplar wrote: I like how you talk about how we are cry babies, then whine about how imba zvt is. Also in terms of the marine, my question is, do the protoss have a practical spell that nullifies hydra damage the way dark swarm nullifies rines?
stasis your stuff and it wont get damaged ez or maelstrom the hydras
Ok, I'm only doing this because the last 20 pages or so of statistics really pissed me off.
Standard Deviation, (straight off wikipedia): In simple terms, it shows how much variation there is from the "average" (mean). It may be thought of as the average difference of the scores from the mean of distribution, how far they are away from the mean. A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean, whereas high standard deviation indicates that the data are spread out over a large range of values.
The formula to calculate Standard Deviation: \sigma(r) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N-1} \sum_{i=1}^N (x_i - r)^2}. where i=term #, N=number of terms, r=mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
The Standard Deviation calculates the difference each term is from the average, (hence (x_i - r)^2), divides it by the number of terms - 1, and takes the square root. In the case where Standard Deviation is zero, each term will be exactly the same as the mean, and each (x_i - r)^2 will equal zero. In this case, we're taking each term, either a 1 or a 0, and subtracting our average, say .6 or so, from it. Of course we're going to get huge numbers. You calculated the sum of each term's difference from .6, but none of the terms were .6! Each term produces a ridiculous STDEV, giving you your imbalanced result, and undermining the rest of your work.
On December 20 2009 15:20 zulu_nation8 wrote: I like #1 and #2 but not #3, you should make a separate thread and elaborate on those ideas. I think some of the Blizzard guys do read the strategy forum.
Could you clarify what you meant? I personally don't think the Hydra should be made any weaker or the Photon any stronger. Reaver AI being fixed and High Templars moving slightly faster (with 'Storm un-nerfed)--what do you think of those? Would these alone ruin PvT? Would they be too much? Or not enough? I want to be clear on what you meant, and what other ideas we can put down, before starting a new thread about it because I think the flamewars would just be repeated in a new thread... I have seen good reasons for tweaking PvZ in this thread but they are not exactly unanimous.
Terran bunkers need to be 125 minerals, and take 25% longer to build.
All this balance talk is just useless. Blizzard hasn't changed anything in 7+ years and there is no reason to change anything today, especially when SC2 is coming out.
On December 20 2009 15:20 zulu_nation8 wrote: I like #1 and #2 but not #3, you should make a separate thread and elaborate on those ideas. I think some of the Blizzard guys do read the strategy forum.
Could you clarify what you meant? I personally don't think the Hydra should be made any weaker or the Photon any stronger. Reaver AI being fixed and High Templars moving slightly faster (with 'Storm un-nerfed)--what do you think of those? Would these alone ruin PvT? Would they be too much? Or not enough? I want to be clear on what you meant, and what other ideas we can put down, before starting a new thread about it because I think the flamewars would just be repeated in a new thread... I have seen good reasons for tweaking PvZ in this thread but they are not exactly unanimous.
I just meant I like the sound of #1 and #2, as to what impact on the game you think these changes would have, you need to put that into your post.
On December 20 2009 15:20 zulu_nation8 wrote: I like #1 and #2 but not #3, you should make a separate thread and elaborate on those ideas. I think some of the Blizzard guys do read the strategy forum.
Could you clarify what you meant? I personally don't think the Hydra should be made any weaker or the Photon any stronger. Reaver AI being fixed and High Templars moving slightly faster (with 'Storm un-nerfed)--what do you think of those? Would these alone ruin PvT? Would they be too much? Or not enough? I want to be clear on what you meant, and what other ideas we can put down, before starting a new thread about it because I think the flamewars would just be repeated in a new thread... I have seen good reasons for tweaking PvZ in this thread but they are not exactly unanimous.
I just meant I like the sound of #1 and #2, as to what impact on the game you think these changes would have, you need to put that into your post.
I think people are too biased. I am a protoss player, and never I felt PvZ was imbalanced. All this talk must emerge from players who get frustrated after losing to some all-in bs. Happens to all of you. Twice I have lost to a zerg who went 5-6p, and after successfully defending, I lost the game due to some unpredictable next move. There is an element of luck in starcraft, but regardless, I could have won both games if I had played better. You lose a game badly, odds are the other player is just more experienced than you are.
PvZ is not much harder than TvP.
If you re losing too much, practice more. Simple and easy.
On December 21 2009 10:28 Leath wrote: I think people are too biased. I am a protoss player, and never I felt PvZ was imbalanced. All this talk must emerge from players who get frustrated after losing to some all-in bs. Happens to all of you. Twice I have lost to a zerg who went 5-6p, and after successfully defending, I lost the game due to some unpredictable next move. There is an element of luck in starcraft, but regardless, I could have won both games if I had played better. You lose a game badly, odds are the other player is just more experienced than you are.
PvZ is not much harder than TvP.
If you re losing too much, practice more. Simple and easy.
You guys don't realize how many people you're insulting when you accuse them of being bad Protoss players mad because they lost games. 46 pages of people making other arguments, and you are pissing all over them saying they are just mad noobs. It's always easy to dismiss an opinion you disagree with by attacking the motives of that person. It's a cop-out. It shouldn't be allowed, except in extreme circumstances where the situation is so unusual that the motives really come into play, for instance if someone hates gay people and the best explanation is that they are a closeted homosexual. But in a case like this, people are talking about SC and progaming, they give arguments and evidence, and you throw that back in their face basically saying they are whiney noobs who fool themselves because they hate losing. It shouldn't be allowed. It's poor form and it just causes more and more flamewars while ignoring the actual substance. No where have I even said I think PvZ is imba. I'm not a Protoss player either. So what's your theory now? Maybe my gay lover is a Protoss player! Yeah, that must be it...
Why don't you find some of the better posts in this 46 page monster who support the idea that pro P needs some help against Z to make a better game, and respond to them instead? Respond to the strongest form of the argument, not the weakest. Not a straw man...
On December 21 2009 10:52 SuperJongMan wrote: Do these people even play starcraft?
No, they don't. Everyone who disagrees with you is a deluded newbie. They weren't talking about Pro gaming or anything in this thread. It was an optical illusion.
edit: Good post BTW. When you disagree with people it's helpful to just flat out insult them in a 1-liner and offer nothing else. You should write a guide on how to contribute to a 46-page thread.
Guys, just play better. Zerg did it by sniping HTs left and right. You guys have to understand that HT sniping are HARD! Its very hard to click precisely on the HT templar (its such a small units) without clicking on the ground or another units while macroing, manage your resources AND control your army around. The Zergs have found their 'best' way of beating Protoss, now its Protosses' turn to return the favor by twitching their own way of playing.
On December 21 2009 14:54 Xiphos wrote: Guys, just play better. Zerg did it by sniping HTs left and right. You guys have to understand that HT sniping are HARD! Its very hard to click precisely on the HT templar (its such a small units) without clicking on the ground or another units while macroing, manage your resources AND control your army around. The Zergs have found their 'best' way of beating Protoss, now its Protosses' turn to return the favor by twitching their own way of playing.
You didn't watch TL Arena II when Cloud got his HTs sniped by a D player. Dude, you have no idea how easy it is.
Anyways, wouldn't the standard deviation of a binary data set be essentially meaningless? That is, considering that "win" and "lose" aren't really numerical data values, but rather nominal values coded to numbers, the standard deviation of those values produces a number that doesn't represent anything useful. We could have coded "win" to .1 and "lose" to 0 and still had a standard deviation, but it would also still mean nothing. The standard deviation, as I'm sure you know, is a measure of the average amount a set of numbers vary from the average value (the mean), though it is not that average variation itself. However, when the average value means nothing neither does the SD. As zulu_nation8 pointed out .5921 is not the average value of the wins and losses. In terms of our actual data points, which are "win" and "lose," there is no in-between where anything other than "win" and "lose" can mean anything. In fact, the only reason that happens to have been the percentage of games won is because we coded the nominal values to one and zero so that the sum of the values ended up being the number of wins. If wins had been 1 and losses -1 then we would have avoided the coincidence.
In short, the standard deviation should only be used for interval or ratio data, where the distance between values has meaning.
The only thing that matters is the percentage of games won, so we should use a one proportion z test:
It is significant, that is clear, but the math in here got pretty off track except for Matrijs on page 33 and Traveler on page 40, both of whom were either ignored or misread. And I'm looking at you when I say that Motbob:
Traveler: Anyways I have no idea why everyone is doing all these strange tests when a simple 1 proportion z-test is all thats needed to analyze the data.
Motbob: Heh. That's a fair question but if you look a few pages back a bunch of us did z-tests. Unfortunately it didn't convince anyone
You'd done the wrong type of test for the data you had. On page 38 Black Gun had pointed out that the data was not normal, and zulu_nation8 repeated it a page later, but you ignored that. As an econ major that's not so good. Though to be fair Traveler also assumed the data was normally distributed, which ironically would have made his test impossible if it were true. mIniAtURe on 46 was getting at the problem, but didn't quite grasp it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stats aside, as much as I dislike anything that handicaps Zerg considering that I am a Zerg player, I do agree that something needs to change, though I'm not sure what might be changed that wouldn't adversely impact the other matchups. My preferred change would probably have to do with improving corsairs given that corsairs are so rare in anything other than PvZ. Perhaps lower the cost and time of the Disruption Web upgrade? I'd like to see that used more. Though that might just lead to them being used in PvT...maybe a slightly faster attack rate, or larger splash radius?
On December 21 2009 17:48 Un Gato wrote: Stats aside, as much as I dislike anything that handicaps Zerg considering that I am a Zerg player, I do agree that something needs to change, though I'm not sure what might be changed that wouldn't adversely impact the other matchups. My preferred change would probably have to do with improving corsairs given that corsairs are so rare in anything other than PvZ. Perhaps lower the cost and time of the Disruption Web upgrade? I'd like to see that used more. Though that might just lead to them being used in PvT...maybe a slightly faster attack rate, or larger splash radius?
My personal PvZ frustration is that Zerg can get +2 air carapace with only a lair, whereas Protoss has to buy an expensive and not very useful Fleet Beacon for +2 air weapons. (Which in turn makes muta/scourge very hard to combat with Protoss air, allowing nasty templar snipes/muta backstabs and drastically reducing Protoss harassment.) If Stargate allowed +2 air weapons, and Citadel allowed +2 ground weapons, I'd be happy. (Or improve the Fleet Beacon as a choice - buff scouts, reduce the cost on Fleet Beacon + Scout Speed + D-Web.)
Actually, I remember seeing someone post a Scout build based on forge fe not too long ago for use against Zerg. If Scouts were buffed so that his build was truly viable I would think that would be the best possible balancing mechanism: enable an entirely new competitive strategy.
Lower scout build time, perhaps shave the cost. Make this build faster to implement so that a good Zerg can't just hydra his way out of it damage-free.
On December 21 2009 14:54 Xiphos wrote: Guys, just play better. Zerg did it by sniping HTs left and right. You guys have to understand that HT sniping are HARD! Its very hard to click precisely on the HT templar (its such a small units) without clicking on the ground or another units while macroing, manage your resources AND control your army around. The Zergs have found their 'best' way of beating Protoss, now its Protosses' turn to return the favor by twitching their own way of playing.
LOL
it's not hard man, seriously. While everyone can misclick, it's relatively easy to do.
This is the dumbest thread. If anything, we need a TvZ is imbalanced thread. ZvP? Pretty balanced imo. Whats the point of complaining about PvZ? Its pretty balanced, and this is coming from a P player.
On December 21 2009 14:54 Xiphos wrote: Guys, just play better.
This is about the pro scene. I think they know about that idea already.
Yeah, we're talking about players who practice 8+ hours/day. Shit is still imbalanced and it's not because they play bad or don't practice enough.
One thing with the new maps is that alot of them are quite big. This is good for ZvT (secure many expos due to distance), and ZvP (in this matchup zerg is also able to secure a gazillion bases due to map distance). This is also why Protoss owns terran so hard on big maps like Andromeda etc
EPT
(not questioning them just cant find them on iccup site)
.
![[image loading]](http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/4984/balanceat5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/f/b/afbae1fd562813a91221818647285b51.png)
![[image loading]](http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c372/motbob/excel.png)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/2/d/62d59e17e2e75373e1b0fd7077ec3622.png)
