First month without Bisu? He has 13-12 vs this top5, so he probably just hasn't played enough. 40-25 vs subpar opposition would be enough for moving Rain.
On February 01 2017 14:33 aedeph wrote: First month without Bisu? He has 13-12 vs this top5, so he probably just hasn't played enough. 40-25 vs subpar opposition would be enough for moving Rain.
Bisu promised his viwers that he's going to practice hard and be in form again.
Has there been any talk of getting new maps into the scene? It's sort of tough without any regulating body to force the change but maybe some new maps could adjust for some of the modern imbalances. I'm sure Earthattack or Rose of dream or some Korean mapmaker is still willing to put stuff out there.
On February 01 2017 17:18 neobowman wrote: Has there been any talk of getting new maps into the scene? It's sort of tough without any regulating body to force the change but maybe some new maps could adjust for some of the modern imbalances. I'm sure Earthattack or Rose of dream or some Korean mapmaker is still willing to put stuff out there.
There is something truly amazing about Last's game play. So calm and calculated, always following the path to get the advantage and win in a long run. At the same time he's impossible to be copied. :D
On February 01 2017 14:13 classicyellow83 wrote: Flash haters are using this month's win rate and losing to Last 3-4 to shit on Flash. Nothing new.
How can someone hate Flash or any streamer, for that matter, is beyond me. Don't look at the stream, I can understand that. But to take the time to log in there and spread ridiculous insults, that makes no sense. The streamers like BW, the viewers like BW, that's all there is to it - everyone involved enjoys the game. Where is the place for hate?
As for the ranks. Wow, Last looks so solid. I don't play terran but I am in awe of the terran players, they are the master race in BW, imo.
On February 01 2017 14:33 aedeph wrote: First month without Bisu? He has 13-12 vs this top5, so he probably just hasn't played enough. 40-25 vs subpar opposition would be enough for moving Rain.
Bisu promised his viwers that he's going to practice hard and be in form again.
He was demolished by Sea on January, 2nd, so he is practicing in the dark or just take a month for rest. Could you please provide his stats this month?
On February 02 2017 03:19 friendbg wrote: Someone needs to dethrone terran from the top spot
Almost impossible even disregarding the skill of Flash and Last. Zergs get nuked in ZvT, Protosses get nuked in PvZ. Meanwhile Terran's only "bad" matchup is pretty close to 50-50%. The more games are played the more likely it is that Terrans emerge on top.
On February 01 2017 14:33 aedeph wrote: First month without Bisu? He has 13-12 vs this top5, so he probably just hasn't played enough. 40-25 vs subpar opposition would be enough for moving Rain.
Bisu promised his viwers that he's going to practice hard and be in form again.
He was demolished by Sea on January, 2nd, so he is practicing in the dark or just take a month for rest. Could you please provide his stats this month?
On February 02 2017 03:19 friendbg wrote: Someone needs to dethrone terran from the top spot
Almost impossible even disregarding the skill of Flash and Last. Zergs get nuked in ZvT, Protosses get nuked in PvZ. Meanwhile Terran's only "bad" matchup is pretty close to 50-50%. The more games are played the more likely it is that Terrans emerge on top.
Spot on. I don't hate Flash, and I certainly don't hate terran progamers in general, but whatever the combination of map pools and balance and whatnot, I really kind of hate the Terran race and have for many years because of this. It's no coincidence so many bonjwas were Terran as opposed to the other races (at least that I can logically see).
On February 02 2017 03:50 Jae Zedong wrote: Zergs get nuked in ZvT, Protosses get nuked in PvZ. Meanwhile Terran's only "bad" matchup is pretty close to 50-50%.
Zerg found in both MUs. But it's a terran a problem here?
BW forums have gotten super balance whiny lately it's pretty unpleasant, I definitely miss when that was discouraged or at least rare.
Like you guys realize Flash and Last are badly skewing the vT win rates, and they have approximately the same win rates in TvT as they do in TvZ and TvP - meaning it's a result of the players being OP, not the race? The data only shows that players do poorly against Flash and Last, not vs. Terran in general. Yank their games against those two players and everyone's win rate vs Terran looks completely reasonable.
On February 03 2017 01:03 JungleTerrain wrote: Just a question but who was the most accomplished ZvTer in history and what was his winrate?
You've touched upon a very important point here. There has never been a ZvT specialist. ZvT specialist meaning having significantly higher winrates in ZvT than other matchups (apart from short bursts of dominance when new builds are discovered). We have TvZ specialists, ZvP, TvP, PvT, hell even PvZ (Bisu). But there has never been a Zerg successfully being a ZvT specialist at the highest level over long periods of time.
Closest we've had during the last 10 years was when Jaedong broke onto the scene, but that honeymoon was soon over. Ever since then ZvT has been Jaedong's worst matchup just like virtually any other Zerg ever.
YellOw[ArnC]'s best match up only good match up was ZvT. He even kicked Flash out of the MSL of 2008 by defeating him 2 times in a row. (I think that's just before Flash became the ultimate weapon. However still Flash and Flash was good before winning medals too.)
On February 03 2017 01:29 Peeano wrote: YellOw[ArnC]'s best match up only good match up was ZvT
Boxer era player. A legend who was good at 1 base plays but lost 10 of his last 15 ZvTs. There's a reason I said "last 10 years" because at some point it's like a different game. But fair point.
On February 03 2017 01:29 Peeano wrote: YellOw[ArnC]'s best match up only good match up was ZvT
Boxer era player. A legend who was good at 1 base plays but lost 10 of his last 15 ZvTs. There's a reason I said "last 10 years" because at some point it's like a different game. But fair point.
You're mistaking Yellow for Yarnc. Yarnc was a much more modern-era player.
But yeah. Compare the number of TvZ specialists to the number of ZvT specialists.
On February 03 2017 01:03 JungleTerrain wrote: Just a question but who was the most accomplished ZvTer in history and what was his winrate?
You've touched upon a very important point here. There has never been a ZvT specialist. ZvT specialist meaning having significantly higher winrates in ZvT than other matchups (apart from short bursts of dominance when new builds are discovered). We have TvZ specialists, ZvP, TvP, PvT, hell even PvZ (Bisu). But there has never been a Zerg successfully being a ZvT specialist at the highest level over long periods of time.
Closest we've had during the last 10 years was when Jaedong broke onto the scene, but that honeymoon was soon over. Ever since then ZvT has been Jaedong's worst matchup just like virtually any other Zerg ever.
Incorrect. Savior's best MU by far was ZvT.
ZvZ: 58% ZvP: 55% ZvT: 66%
From 2004-2007 he averaged a 72% win ratio vs. Terran and a 61.5% win ratio vs. everything else. Savior reached bonjwa status on the back of his vT specifically.
And yes if you're looking for a more modern player Yarnc is a good example. See above, Yarnc is not Yellow.
On February 03 2017 01:07 kogeT wrote: Jaedong with 63% winrate.
Y'all got a few nice counter examples, but most of them are over the 10 year mark and the bottom line still stands: ZvT is friggin hard and there's barely a Zerg in the modern era who doesn't have disproportionately bad results in it. ZvT specialists are barely even a thing, and that's saying something. Compare it to the number of other specialists. Terrans are always the thorn in Zerg's side.
Jaedong's ZvZ and ZvP are insane, he only lost a single BO5 ZvP in his entire career. If ZvT wasn't in the game I'm pretty sure he'd be heralded as the unrivalled eternal bonjwa to out-bonjwa all other bonjwas who ever played the game.
Savior was a great player in his time but I think some of his success was popularizing the 3 hatch mutalisk build in ZvT which caused a lot of Terrans to adapt. Which to note is the last innovation to the ZvT match-up from the Zerg side, really.
On February 03 2017 02:22 Jae Zedong wrote: Y'all got a few nice counter examples, but most of them are over the 10 year mark and the bottom line still stands: ZvT is friggin hard and there's barely a Zerg in the modern era who doesn't have disproportionately bad results in it. ZvT specialists are barely even a thing, and that's saying something. Compare it to the number of other specialists. Terrans are always the thorn in Zerg's side.
Jaedong's ZvZ and ZvP are insane, he only lost a single BO5 ZvP in his entire career. If ZvT wasn't in the game I'm pretty sure he'd be heralded as the unrivalled eternal bonjwa to out-bonjwa all other bonjwas who ever played the game.
Savior and Yarnc are both under your arbitrary 10 year line. Plus everything from about 2012 on doesn't even really count if we're talking about pro records. If you're literally only talking about "Modern" zergs then Yarnc definitely fits the bill.
You're absolutely right that Terran is not commonly a zerg player's best matchup but it's dishonest to claim that no zergs existed who dominated Terrans. It happened, and they were not fluke players with tiny sample sizes.
Just look at his name to understand why he does this in so many threads. There is no convincing a devout Zerg like him. It's much easier to cry imba than it is to improve yourself or admit that you're wrong.
On February 03 2017 01:03 JungleTerrain wrote: Just a question but who was the most accomplished ZvTer in history and what was his winrate?
You've touched upon a very important point here. There has never been a ZvT specialist. ZvT specialist meaning having significantly higher winrates in ZvT than other matchups (apart from short bursts of dominance when new builds are discovered). We have TvZ specialists, ZvP, TvP, PvT, hell even PvZ (Bisu). But there has never been a Zerg successfully being a ZvT specialist at the highest level over long periods of time.
Closest we've had during the last 10 years was when Jaedong broke onto the scene, but that honeymoon was soon over. Ever since then ZvT has been Jaedong's worst matchup just like virtually any other Zerg ever.
Incorrect. Savior's best MU by far was ZvT.
ZvZ: 58% ZvP: 55% ZvT: 66%
From 2004-2007 he averaged a 72% win ratio vs. Terran and a 61.5% win ratio vs. everything else. Savior reached bonjwa status on the back of his vT specifically.
And yes if you're looking for a more modern player Yarnc is a good example. See above, Yarnc is not Yellow.
I'm checking TLPD and Savior's numbers between January 1st 2004 and January 1st 2008 are
So I don't get where your numbers are coming from.
On February 03 2017 03:00 Jealous wrote: Just look at his name to understand why he does this in so many threads. There is no convincing a devout Zerg like him. It's much easier to cry imba than it is to improve yourself or admit that you're wrong.
Cmon dude you're contributing less than the guys you're talking about. There ARE legitimate balance discussions that can be had. There is no competitive game/sport in which balancing odds and making things fair isn't a huge part of the discussion. There are notable imbalances in the game right now and there's nothing wrong with just talking about it.
Read back 3 pages. There is more whining about people balance whining then actually balance whining. Oh the irony :D. Look, Terran looks exceptionally strong vs zergs these days. The maps are good and the Zergs haven't had a strong leader in the past year. But they won in 3 of the last 4 premier finals and also took home two golds. I think whenever you feel one race is OP in comparison to another after a game or a tournament then that is a huge compliment to the players but is not enough to say a lot about the state of the game.
I don't understand balance whining at all. No matchup exists in a vacuum, you always play on maps. The solution to the current statistical slant in TvZ is to start phasing in maps that are slightly more favorable to zerg.
Read back 3 pages. There is more whining about people balance whining then actually balance whining. Oh the irony :D. Look, Terran looks exceptionally strong vs zergs these days. The maps are good and the Zergs haven't had a strong leader in the past year. But they won in 3 of the last 4 premier finals and also took home two golds. I think whenever you feel one race is OP in comparison to another after a game or a tournament then that is a huge compliment to the players but is not enough to say a lot about the state of the game.
I don't think anyone should be saying much about the JvF semis overall because it was obvious that Flash was just plainly the superior player. That said, the trend is there as of late and I really think that Afreeca should probably do something with the maps to help the situation asap. And I mean this just as much for PvZ as I do for ZvT. Protoss is doing rather poorly against Zerg at the moment.
On February 03 2017 03:16 LightSpectra wrote: I don't understand balance whining at all. No matchup exists in a vacuum, you always play on maps. The solution to the current statistical slant in TvZ is to start phasing in maps that are slightly more favorable to zerg.
When the imbalance spans across the entire history of the game, it does go a bit beyond maps I feel.
That said, you are right in that the current solution is to introduce maps. We really have had a huge lack of new maps for a good long while now.
Top 5: 2/5 players are Zerg. Cool. Top 10: 5/10. Wow, Zergs sure are great. Top 15: 5/15. Oh wait. Top 20: 6/20. Hmmm....
I'm not saying that 20 is the magic number that we should take. That would be ridiculous. Once you go beyond 20, Zergs start to even out. I'm just pointing out that this isn't necessarily the best metric for deciding whether things are balanced or not. Overall winrate should be a much better indicator with a bigger sample size and less arbitrary cutoff points.
On February 03 2017 03:17 neobowman wrote: Let's play the arbitrary cutoffs game.
Top 5: 2/5 players are Zerg. Cool. Top 10: 5/10. Wow, Zergs sure are great. Top 15: 5/15. Oh wait. Top 20: 6/20. Hmmm....
I'm not saying that 20 is the magic number that we should take. That would be ridiculous. Once you go beyond 20, Zergs start to even out. I'm just pointing out that this isn't necessarily the best metric for deciding whether things are balanced or not. Overall winrate should be a much better indicator with a bigger sample size and less arbitrary cutoff points.
Besides, those players were the best Zerg players of their time, with the exception of Yarnc. He's so far the only "ZvT sniper". He's the only player that has a singificantly higher ZvT peak ELO than his other peak ELOs.
lol at people bringing up statistics from long time ago. Please bring up statistics when late mech truly begins to be established in heart of Fighting spirit. You'll see how serious the imbalance is.
On February 03 2017 09:33 Shinokuki wrote: lol at people bringing up statistics from long time ago. Please bring up statistics when late mech truly begins to be established in heart of Fighting spirit. You'll see how serious the imbalance is.
On February 03 2017 02:23 SCC-Faust wrote: Savior was a great player in his time but I think some of his success was popularizing the 3 hatch mutalisk build in ZvT which caused a lot of Terrans to adapt. Which to note is the last innovation to the ZvT match-up from the Zerg side, really.
It wasn't so much the terrans adapting as it was KeSPA putting in the most retardedly designed maps (Monty Hall? Hitchhiker?) in leagues just to drop his winrate.
On February 03 2017 03:17 neobowman wrote: Let's play the arbitrary cutoffs game.
Top 5: 2/5 players are Zerg. Cool. Top 10: 5/10. Wow, Zergs sure are great. Top 15: 5/15. Oh wait. Top 20: 6/20. Hmmm....
I'm not saying that 20 is the magic number that we should take. That would be ridiculous. Once you go beyond 20, Zergs start to even out. I'm just pointing out that this isn't necessarily the best metric for deciding whether things are balanced or not. Overall winrate should be a much better indicator with a bigger sample size and less arbitrary cutoff points.
Okay let's play the game. There are 3 races Z,T,P, for perfect balance, each race should have 1/3 of the spots.
Top 5: 2/5 players are zerg --> cool, zerg have 2 out of 5 slots, which leaves 3 for T and P. Meaning zerg is most likely tied for 1st place top 10 : 5/10 players are zerg --> Heavy imbalance. too many zergs. Zerg alone is as strong as both the other races combined top 15: 5/15 --> perfect balance. Top 20 : 6/20 --> still perfect balance, with 6 being zerg, 7 some other race, 7 some other race (Assuming the split is even). Though even if the split isn't even, it still doesn't make the zerg the weakest race, because if 10 of the 20 are terran, then that leaves protoss with only 4 spots, which makes them the weakest.
so.. what exactly is the point of your cutoff game?
On February 03 2017 02:23 SCC-Faust wrote: Savior was a great player in his time but I think some of his success was popularizing the 3 hatch mutalisk build in ZvT which caused a lot of Terrans to adapt. Which to note is the last innovation to the ZvT match-up from the Zerg side, really.
I don't know, man. I remember playing 3hatch mutalisk ZvT as early as 2002 on Battle.net in a game with korean observers. I remember it because they noted (not sure whether mockingly or not) that I played an old build. I placed 3rd hatch after reaching 14 limit. At some point I thought that the new build they referred to was to place the 3rd hatch on 13 limit, not on 14.
On February 03 2017 02:23 SCC-Faust wrote: Savior was a great player in his time but I think some of his success was popularizing the 3 hatch mutalisk build in ZvT which caused a lot of Terrans to adapt. Which to note is the last innovation to the ZvT match-up from the Zerg side, really.
I don't know, man. I remember playing 3hatch mutalisk ZvT as early as 2002 on Battle.net in a game with korean observers. I remember it because they noted (not sure whether mockingly or not) that I played an old build. I placed 3rd hatch after reaching 14 limit. At some point I thought that the new build they referred to was to place the 3rd hatch on 13 limit, not on 14.
The key difference is that muta stacking wasn't invented yet in 2002, so even if 3 hatch muta had been tried at that point it wasn't viable at the top level. In essence they are two completely different things.
On February 03 2017 02:23 SCC-Faust wrote: Savior was a great player in his time but I think some of his success was popularizing the 3 hatch mutalisk build in ZvT which caused a lot of Terrans to adapt. Which to note is the last innovation to the ZvT match-up from the Zerg side, really.
It wasn't so much the terrans adapting as it was KeSPA putting in the most retardedly designed maps (Monty Hall? Hitchhiker?) in leagues just to drop his winrate.
On February 03 2017 03:17 neobowman wrote: Let's play the arbitrary cutoffs game.
Top 5: 2/5 players are Zerg. Cool. Top 10: 5/10. Wow, Zergs sure are great. Top 15: 5/15. Oh wait. Top 20: 6/20. Hmmm....
I'm not saying that 20 is the magic number that we should take. That would be ridiculous. Once you go beyond 20, Zergs start to even out. I'm just pointing out that this isn't necessarily the best metric for deciding whether things are balanced or not. Overall winrate should be a much better indicator with a bigger sample size and less arbitrary cutoff points.
Okay let's play the game. There are 3 races Z,T,P, for perfect balance, each race should have 1/3 of the spots.
Top 5: 2/5 players are zerg --> cool, zerg have 2 out of 5 slots, which leaves 3 for T and P. Meaning zerg is most likely tied for 1st place top 10 : 5/10 players are zerg --> Heavy imbalance. too many zergs. Zerg alone is as strong as both the other races combined top 15: 5/15 --> perfect balance. Top 20 : 6/20 --> still perfect balance, with 6 being zerg, 7 some other race, 7 some other race (Assuming the split is even). Though even if the split isn't even, it still doesn't make the zerg the weakest race, because if 10 of the 20 are terran, then that leaves protoss with only 4 spots, which makes them the weakest.
so.. what exactly is the point of your cutoff game?
He was arguing that since the top 10 had 5 zergs, that's the metric that can be used to determine balance. That's silly since I can use arbitrary cutoffs point to find essentially any conclusion I want.
On February 04 2017 01:22 neobowman wrote: He was arguing that since the top 10 had 5 zergs, that's the metric that can be used to determine balance. That's silly since I can use arbitrary cutoffs point to find essentially any conclusion I want. Tldr: Not a good metric for balance.
I'm won't even deny the old good T>Z>P>T, but it's small enough so that it's pathetic to justify balance whine (on multiple threads lately). People are ignoring BW history and making claims like it's impossible to be good at PvZ or ZvT, so let's just blame our favorite player losses on balance. At least that's my opinion, ex-pros tend to differ it seems.
On February 04 2017 03:16 ortseam wrote:At least that's my opinion, ex-pros tend to differ it seems.
Well perhaps that should be your cue that you are wrong then. I don't see anyone making those claims that you're so vehemently attacking, that's just straw man at its finest. You said yourself that you agree that T>Z and Z>P, that's all that matters and I'm glad you realize this.
Those claims are verifiably false without mentioning the associated map.
Z = P on fighting spirit. T > Z on fighting spirit. T > P on fighting spirit.
There's no such thing as an inherent advantage since noone can play starcraft without playing it on a map.
On February 01 2017 02:02 B-royal wrote: Why are some mindlessly repeating "ZvP is zerg favoured" (been seeing it too often lately). Post-Kespa stats for fighting spirit:
On February 04 2017 04:21 B-royal wrote:There's no such thing as an inherent advantage since noone can play starcraft without playing it on a map.
"There's no such thing as pineapples being bigger than potatoes. If you plant a pineapple and potato in Latvia, pineapple will die. Only potato left. Latvia is the problem".
Let me tell you of a little game called Heroes of Might and Magic 3. It's a really cool game from the same era as Starcraft that still has a competitive scene. There are various factions to choose from and guess what? They aren't balanced at all. Necropolis is so good that it's simply banned in competitive play. If it were allowed, it would stomp almost every game. That's how good it is. Guess what's also possible? To make some kind of convoluted map that sacrifices good gameplay just to punish Necropolis and hide how good it is. That wouldn't make Necropolis not imbalanced, it would just be an ugly combover.
It is possible to have a competitive game with imbalances, but that requires actually acknowledging the imbalance so it can be worked around. Pretending everything is fine and dandy won't lead to better maps in tournament to better adress ZvT and PvZ. And that is just what we need right now.
On February 01 2017 02:02 B-royal wrote: Why are some mindlessly repeating "ZvP is zerg favoured" (been seeing it too often lately). Post-Kespa stats for fighting spirit:
On February 04 2017 05:22 onlystar wrote: fighting spirit is one of the most impactfull maps in star probably after lost temple,
people that dont understand that didn play any serious ladder or get in touch with the korean scene
Who is denying that? No one's denying that. Doesn't mean we should be taking either it or Lost Temple as the only test cases for balance and ignore every other map that exists.
On February 03 2017 03:12 BisuDagger wrote: Read back 3 pages. There is more whining about people balance whining then actual balance whining. Oh the irony :D.
On February 04 2017 04:21 B-royal wrote: Those claims are verifiably false without mentioning the associated map.
Z = P on fighting spirit. T > Z on fighting spirit. T > P on fighting spirit.
There's no such thing as an inherent advantage since noone can play starcraft without playing it on a map.
On February 01 2017 02:02 B-royal wrote: Why are some mindlessly repeating "ZvP is zerg favoured" (been seeing it too often lately). Post-Kespa stats for fighting spirit:
Example: Island map where only the center of the map contains minerals and you don't receive a shuttle or ventral sacs from the start.
My entire position is that there's no such thing as an inherent advantage because you can't play the game in a vacuum i.e. not on a map. As soon as the map comes into the picture, it's both units and the map features, which are inextricably connected, that determine the balance.
This is obvious from the fact that there's plenty of maps that go against the putative race imbalance.
One important thing is that my statement entails equal opportunity for both players. We are not in a situation where one race starts the game with a single worker because 1 marine can handle 10 zerglings for example. Since we are arguing about subtleties I think my statements holds up.
And you are right, there are other maps than Fighting Spirit. But my point is that there is no overarching balance pattern for the different races, it's map specific. So why not change the maps to have features so we end up with a perfect balance instead of arguing that terran or zerg is just broken.
Now some things that just came to mind are:
1) Just because something is impossible to prove doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
But this is irrelevant for me perhaps since the burden of proof would be on you to show that there is an inherent advantage.
2) If a marine would do 10 000 damage a shot and siege tanks would shoot nukes, I guess you could say terran will have an inherent advantage if all else stayed the same.
This could still be counteracted with maps in an ideal world (extractor an absurd distance from the CC surrounded by unbuildable terrain, island map, miss chances everywhere, who knows lol...)
On February 04 2017 05:22 onlystar wrote: fighting spirit is one of the most impactfull maps in star probably after lost temple,
people that dont understand that didn play any serious ladder or get in touch with the korean scene
Who is denying that? No one's denying that. Doesn't mean we should be taking either it or Lost Temple as the only test cases for balance and ignore every other map that exists.
i leave balance debating to ignorant foreigners who have a poor understanding of the game and korean scene
On February 03 2017 02:23 SCC-Faust wrote: Savior was a great player in his time but I think some of his success was popularizing the 3 hatch mutalisk build in ZvT which caused a lot of Terrans to adapt. Which to note is the last innovation to the ZvT match-up from the Zerg side, really.
I don't know, man. I remember playing 3hatch mutalisk ZvT as early as 2002 on Battle.net in a game with korean observers. I remember it because they noted (not sure whether mockingly or not) that I played an old build. I placed 3rd hatch after reaching 14 limit. At some point I thought that the new build they referred to was to place the 3rd hatch on 13 limit, not on 14.
The key difference is that muta stacking wasn't invented yet in 2002, so even if 3 hatch muta had been tried at that point it wasn't viable at the top level. In essence they are two completely different things.
On February 04 2017 07:28 B-royal wrote: My entire position is that there's no such thing as an inherent advantage because you can't play the game in a vacuum i.e. not on a map. As soon as the map comes into the picture, it's both units and the map features, which are inextricably connected, that determine the balance.
Huh? There can't be any racial matchup advantages because the game is played on maps? That's an odd thing to say. I used to work in the game industry, and I think any designer who said that in a meeting would be laughed out of said meeting. Or at least the producer would give him a hairy eyeball and ask him if he'd had drinks at lunch.
It seems that what you mean to say, but are saying in an odd/overstated way, is that maps are part of the overall balance situation. If so, I think most everyone's already on board with that already/agrees with you. Maps do impact balance, but so do the races themselves, obviously.
This is obvious from the fact that there's plenty of maps that go against the putative race imbalance.
Sure, plenty of maps do, but have you bothered to see exactly *how many* do? And compared that to how many fit the T>Z>P>T model, that so many cite?
For instance, intrigued by what you wrote above, I looked at some ICCup data that Birdie originally posted on his site, that covered roughly 177k games in total. For maps that saw at least 100 plays of a particular matchup, here's how many maps were over a 50% win-rate for a particular race in said matchup:
ZvP: 19-5 (that is, 19 maps with 100+ games in this matchup where Z won more than 50% of the time vs P, and 5 maps where the opposite was true)
PvT: 17-5
TvZ: 6-16 (which actually does go against traditional imba)
So, okay... if there can be no race/unit-stats imba because it's 'all maps', then how come, in all three matchups, there seems to be a lot more maps where one side of the matchup wins a majority of games vs the other way around?
Again, not saying maps are not a factor. No one reasonable would say that. Just saying they're not the ONLY factor.
And you are right, there are other maps than Fighting Spirit. But my point is that there is no overarching balance pattern for the different races, it's map specific. So why not change the maps to have features so we end up with a perfect balance instead of arguing that terran or zerg is just broken.
See above. And also, and maybe even more importantly... if there were only ONE imba matchup, it would likely be fairly easy to fix it through maps. And that'd be wonderful. But, there are apparently *three* imba matchups (perhaps not very imba, but imba enough to be a thing). And things you do to fix/improve one matchup, whether changes to unit stats or to maps, usually affect the other matchups. For instance, make it easy for Zerg to get and hold a third gas, and you help them vs T, but you also help them vs P as well.
If it were easy to fix imba through maps alone, I suspect it would've already been done definitively and consistently by now.
2) If a marine would do 10 000 damage a shot and siege tanks would shoot nukes, I guess you could say terran will have an inherent advantage if all else stayed the same.
This could still be counteracted with maps in an ideal world (extractor an absurd distance from the CC surrounded by unbuildable terrain, island map, miss chances everywhere, who knows lol...)
You would torture the game beyond recognition trying to use maps alone to compensate for unit stats that broken.
If balance is a partnership between race stats/properties and maps, then the best course would seem to be to adjust both, and not ignore one or the other. When SC 1.00 was released and found to be pretty damn imba, Blizzard did not try to fix it with maps alone... they put out four separate balance patches, and made roughly 100 balance changes to the game.
I remember the BW lead designer posting on the Bliz forums back in '98/'99, after 1.04 came out and some ppl, being furious about the changes, were up in arms... and he cited things that he said were definitively big problems, such as the pre-1.04 Zerg larva spawn rate, that simply could not have been fixed by maps, but had to be patched.
Maps very much matter. But other things do as well. And another nice thing about addressing both unit stats AND maps... if you do *both*, you probably don't have to change either one nearly as much.
On February 03 2017 03:12 BisuDagger wrote: Read back 3 pages. There is more whining about people balance whining then actual balance whining. Oh the irony :D.
a few pages back [[starlight]] proposed a buff to corsairs.. that is the level we are dealing with, if someone thinks corsairs need a buff they have no grasp on the game.
On February 04 2017 04:21 B-royal wrote:There's no such thing as an inherent advantage since noone can play starcraft without playing it on a map.
"There's no such thing as pineapples being bigger than potatoes. If you plant a pineapple and potato in Latvia, pineapple will die. Only potato left. Latvia is the problem".
Let me tell you of a little game called Heroes of Might and Magic 3. It's a really cool game from the same era as Starcraft that still has a competitive scene. There are various factions to choose from and guess what? They aren't balanced at all. Necropolis is so good that it's simply banned in competitive play. If it were allowed, it would stomp almost every game. That's how good it is. Guess what's also possible? To make some kind of convoluted map that sacrifices good gameplay just to punish Necropolis and hide how good it is. That wouldn't make Necropolis not imbalanced, it would just be an ugly combover.
It is possible to have a competitive game with imbalances, but that requires actually acknowledging the imbalance so it can be worked around. Pretending everything is fine and dandy won't lead to better maps in tournament to better adress ZvT and PvZ. And that is just what we need right now.
This may have been the worst gaming analogy possible.
On February 04 2017 15:49 onlystar wrote: a few pages back [[starlight]] proposed a buff to corsairs.. that is the level we are dealing with, if someone thinks corsairs need a buff they have no grasp on the game.
Actually, that wasn't me, I don't believe that sairs need any buffs. Might've been NeoB.
In fact, I don't think it's even this thread. It might be the closed one. Go back and see.
btw, what happened to "i leave balance debating to ignorant foreigners who have a poor understanding of the game and korean scene". That sure lasted a long time, huh?
On February 04 2017 15:49 onlystar wrote: a few pages back [[starlight]] proposed a buff to corsairs.. that is the level we are dealing with, if someone thinks corsairs need a buff they have no grasp on the game.
Actually, that wasn't me, I don't believe that sairs need any buffs. Might've been NeoB.
In fact, I don't think it's even this thread. It might be the closed one. Go back and see.
btw, what happened to "i leave balance debating to ignorant foreigners who have a poor understanding of the game and korean scene". That sure lasted a long time, huh?
Sigh.
Check onlystar's history, literally 50% of his posts are "omg stahp having balance discussions". He's a frequent visitor of every balance thread made over the last several months. So much for leaving balance discussions alone
I'm glad we're finally at a point where most of us realize we can't just put our head in the sand anymore and pretend everything's fine. Brood War is the best game ever but that doesn't mean it has perfect balance. Anyone denying that can go ahead with their canned responses about "Zurgs jest need 2 innovate!!!1!" and "just make absurd maps to comb over the real problem" and "look at these meaningless statistics I've contorted to align with my existing opinion". The mental gymnastics some people go to is amusing.
So let's take this from the beginning. This is how BW works:
T>Z>P
To perpetuate the "BW is perfectly balanced" meme, people put the P>T at the end, but that wasn't the case past 2003 or so (when Terrans learned how to play). If P>T exists, it's much smaller than the two other imbalances.
Maps balanced the game somewhat, with features bad for some races and good for others. The real reason the best player wins nearly all the time is because the skill ceiling is a hell of a lot higher than sc2's is. This allows good players to simply overcome any obstacle through sheer skill.
Take Chess for example. Chess is objectively imbalanced (White is better), although this difference is nearly imperceptible at lower levels. Magnus Carlsen could play Black, give up a rook, be blindfolded and still beat any amateur easily.
But when you look at the really high level matches, playing White is a huge advantage. Chess players are so good at abusing that advantage that anyone playing Black essentially has only one goal: to get a draw. Every move from the beginning of the game for the Black player is intended to steer the game into a draw, that's how big the disadvantage is.
What does this tell us about BW? It tells us that for anyone in this forum, balance will hardly matter because we're not good enough. But when you look at players as good as Flash, Jaedong, Stork, that's when those things become apparent. And what's even funnier is that ex-pros are a lot more willing to talk about these problems than foreign chobos who pros could beat with one hand.
What we need in the immediate future is better maps to mask the problem. It's not a perfect solution but it might be all we're going to get for now. And I have the perfect slogan for this project: We Shall Overcomb™
On February 04 2017 04:21 B-royal wrote:There's no such thing as an inherent advantage since noone can play starcraft without playing it on a map.
"There's no such thing as pineapples being bigger than potatoes. If you plant a pineapple and potato in Latvia, pineapple will die. Only potato left. Latvia is the problem".
Let me tell you of a little game called Heroes of Might and Magic 3. It's a really cool game from the same era as Starcraft that still has a competitive scene. There are various factions to choose from and guess what? They aren't balanced at all. Necropolis is so good that it's simply banned in competitive play. If it were allowed, it would stomp almost every game. That's how good it is. Guess what's also possible? To make some kind of convoluted map that sacrifices good gameplay just to punish Necropolis and hide how good it is. That wouldn't make Necropolis not imbalanced, it would just be an ugly combover.
It is possible to have a competitive game with imbalances, but that requires actually acknowledging the imbalance so it can be worked around. Pretending everything is fine and dandy won't lead to better maps in tournament to better adress ZvT and PvZ. And that is just what we need right now.
This may have been the worst gaming analogy possible.
Huh? I thought the HoMM3 analogy was very good. I've tried to imagine how to make a HoMM3 map that was balanced for all races and it would involve covering everything in swamps and putting swamp unit dwellings everywhere (so that one of the worst factions would have a chance versus the undead). It shows that if map designers have to routinely twist themselves into pretzels to make things fair, there is probably an inherent imbalance in the factions. The more twisty the pretzels, the bigger the imbalance.
Like someone else said, if you doubled the DPS of tanks, you could still maybe make balanced BW maps (somehow?) by abusing every known terrain feature that benefits other races over Terrans. The fact that you could make balanced maps wouldn't mean the game was still balanced --- on the contrary, every person who loves the current BW balance (including me) would know the game had been broken.
The quoted analogy does not show (nor attempt to show) that BW is imbalanced. It just shows that Statement A, "there's no such thing as inherent advantage because there's always maps," isn't the whole story. It might be more accurate to say Statement B: "there's no such thing as effective imbalance because any inherent imbalance is small enough that maps can take care of it." I'm guessing that Jae Zedong doesn't agree with B, but you can't blame him for disagreeing with A, which is too categorical.
I think it's interesting that certain map features are necessary for effective racial balance, e.g., a natural expansion with only one entrance that's not too wide. If the game were perfectly balanced in a theoretical sense (which is likely an unattainable goal), you could play fair games on Blaze, Tears of the Protoss, or Crystallis. Although BW's balance is a great thing that I wouldn't change (and I know that very few people on here would), there are still some pretzels being made by the map designers... just not very twisty ones, like the ones HoMM3 would require.
Take this with a grain of salt since I only play T and P, and don't really understand Zerg as well. I honestly feel like Zerg is the hardest race and actually requires the most multitasking, and potentially has the highest skill ceiling out of the 3 races. The reason I believe this is that Zerg economy is so flexible, it can switch from full econ mode to full army macro in an instant, army control is much harder too since on average Zerg units are worth less population (for example zerglings, 1 is worth .5 population). What this translates to is usually not enough hot keys to even be able to effectively control all the units the Zerg player produces. Also, Zerg have the most mobility out of the 3 races, which in my mind allows for the most opportunities for counter play. You have more outpositioning and flanking and harassing potential than T and P, but it requires a ton of multitasking to achieve. Also I feel like lurker and ling army movements are really difficult (maybe this is cuz I don't play Zerg :0)... having to balance zergling's mobility with lurkers' lack of it... just a pain. But when done right you can obliterate an entire army. Idk, you can argue that T has a higher skill ceiling for different reasons, the death ball, tanks op, and all that. My counter argument to T having a higher ceiling is that a Zerg, using superior mobility, has the ability to spread the Terran thin, and since Terran units become strong in bigger numbers (death balls), this would allow Zerg to win with what people would call "divide and conquer" tactics. This works in real warfare, and in BW as well. Obviously I'm not taking into account things such as outsmarting another player, countering builds, vision, information, denial of information, cheesy strategy, player "game sense", map balance, occasional luck, etc. that all fall outside the definition of pure mechanical skill. So maybe you can just disregard everything else I said lol. In the end, it comes down to the players, and assuming they aren't close to perfection, there is still more potential to increase "skill". Maybe I'm envisioning a level of skill that is even higher than the progamers (which might be impossible to get to). Maybe the term "skill" needs to be more properly defined, anyways. Maybe at the human skill ceiling (of the progamers), Terran comes out a little on top, but in actuality Zerg has the higher potential skill ceiling. Maybe I'm brushing up against balance here, although I don't intend to. These are just some of my thoughts.
On February 04 2017 20:20 Jae Zedong wrote: Check onlystar's history, literally 50% of his posts are "omg stahp having balance discussions". He's a frequent visitor of every balance thread made over the last several months. So much for leaving balance discussions alone
I know, right? He was so upset he even sent me a nasty PM, lol.
Do not understand ppl who get upset because a conversation is going on that they don't like. What is difficult about not clicking on a thread you dislike? Derp.
I'm glad we're finally at a point where most of us realize we can't just put our head in the sand anymore and pretend everything's fine. Brood War is the best game ever but that doesn't mean it has perfect balance. Anyone denying that can go ahead with their canned responses about "Zurgs jest need 2 innovate!!!1!" and "just make absurd maps to comb over the real problem" and "look at these meaningless statistics I've contorted to align with my existing opinion". The mental gymnastics some people go to is amusing.
I think some ppl get the wrong idea about balance discussions... they somehow think that anyone who acknowledges even slight imba is somehow blaming every loss they've ever had and every result of every pro game on said imba, when that is not the case at all.
And if most everyone acknowledged the slight imba, there'd probably be more of a chance of maps consistently being designed to minimize it (though that's very hard to do across multiple matchups, and isn't a full solution on its own).
It would of course also be nice if Bliz did something on the unit stats side of things, but I'm not hopeful there. Probably the only balance change we'll ever see out of 'em is if they fix the valk sprite bug... which isn't a 'true' balance change, but would act like one in some situations, since valks firing is obviously a huge upgrade in effectiveness over not firing. But technically, it'd just be a bug fix.
Too bad, though. Bliz got balance at least in the ballpark with 1.08, they likely wouldn't have to do all that much to reduce imba to the point where no one could reasonably complain about it anymore.
It would of course also be nice if Bliz did something on the unit stats side of things, but I'm not hopeful there. Probably the only balance change we'll ever see out of 'em is if they fix the valk sprite bug... which isn't a 'true' balance change, but would act like one in some situations, since valks firing is obviously a huge upgrade in effectiveness over not firing. But technically, it'd just be a bug fix.
If you really wanted to try out just unit stat changes, you can literally just make a UMS map that plays as a Melee or 1v1 map, and change the stats of whatever units you want. I know before people also had some discussion on starting queen energy or w/e, this can also possibly be mimicked in a UMS map, possibly using locations centered on queens with certain conditions, some hyper triggers to make it run smoothly, or maybe just changing the max energy on units so that they start at the same percentage of total energy, but at a higher numerical value of energy. Of course that would allow units to hold way more spells for broodling, ensnare, etc. so might not be indicative of balance. Anyways, this is a way you can see what increasing mutalisk damage to 10 instead of 9 would mean, or maybe giving lings an extra 3 hp, or even adjusting build times. My point is, you can mimic what a blizzard balance patch would look like. On top of that, you can make the map an observer/player map so people can watch. I have an unprotected version of Fighting Spirit, and I could do something with that. Idk could be fun!
What does this tell us about BW? It tells us that for anyone in this forum, balance will hardly matter because we're not good enough. But when you look at players as good as Flash, Jaedong, Stork, that's when those things become apparent. And what's even funnier is that ex-pros are a lot more willing to talk about these problems than foreign chobos who pros could beat with one hand.
That's not true, even at my level (C on iccup) I ran into the issue that it's much harder to play ZvT on FS than ZvP. That is despite having so much more practice in ZvT due to having only T practice partners. This is because you can get a third base up against a 2 base Protoss right away, but you are not guaranteed that against a Terran.
It's an uphill battle from the very start.
On February 04 2017 23:40 Jae Zedong wrote: What we need in the immediate future is better maps to mask the problem. It's not a perfect solution but it might be all we're going to get for now. And I have the perfect slogan for this project: We Shall Overcomb™
Sure, just give a back expansion that has nothing but a gas in it. I mean, that would benefit Zerg in TvZ, and Protoss in PvZ (infinity storms/reavers/corsairs)
Sure, just give a back expansion that has nothing but a gas in it. I mean, that would benefit Zerg in TvZ, and Protoss in PvZ (infinity storms/reavers/corsairs)
It would WORK, but that's an ugly solution.
This is an interesting point from a mapmaker's perspective...
Why don't we just add two geysers in the main and start the races out with more workers so Zerg doesn't have to ramp up so hard to get an economy going in ZvT and Protoss isn't forced to do the monotonous fast expand to even try to compete with Zerg in PvZ?
On February 07 2017 03:09 SCC-Faust wrote: Why don't we just add two geysers in the main and start the races out with more workers so Zerg doesn't have to ramp up so hard to get an economy going in ZvT and Protoss isn't forced to do the monotonous fast expand to even try to compete with Zerg in PvZ?
This. This is a solid meme.
So if people feel like gas is the real issue, yeah honestly, let's try to get map makers to toss another gas inside the mains. Hell, do what Vampire did with the double gas system with the same amount of minerals. Yeah, strategies are massively changed and even Terran strategies are also changed, but we can see how the meta shapes out.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Vampire for those who want to take a look at the map. We can start with just adding a geyser to the main mineral line, or we could go with the idea of an extra gas geyser somewhere else in the base which is better for Zergs since Terran and Protoss are most likely not going to just spend 400 minerals to get a 3rd gas while Zergs can use their macro hatch as the gas collector. Would be very interesting.
Terran is the hardest race because they consist of 100% ranged units which require the most micro to be effective. Second is Zerg. What we're seeing as the domination of Terran followed by Zerg on the top, is the reflection of the fact that Terran scales the most with mechanical micro+macromanagement
On February 07 2017 12:33 Terrorbladder wrote: Terran is the hardest race because they consist of 100% ranged units which require the most micro to be effective.
The hell? Zerglings are some of the most micro intensive units in the game. Especially since they have to overcome the intricate pathing algorithms of BW which ranged units can partially sidestep by not having to move all the way up to the unit they want to attack.
Try a-moving 12 marines and a-moving 16 zerglings against eachother. The lings will stumble upon eachother and the marines will murder them. Now try microing the lings so they get good angles and contact area. Suddenly the lings win.
I'm not even debating your main point that Terran is a hard race, because it is. But it's not because they have "ranged units", lol.
On February 07 2017 19:55 classicyellow83 wrote: I think Bisu is on hard training mode. He's been on Fish everyday, but not streaming. Hopefully he gets his form back soon.
That's awesome that he's willing to forgo streaming money for a while in order to focus 100% on training. I really respect that.
On February 07 2017 19:55 classicyellow83 wrote: I think Bisu is on hard training mode. He's been on Fish everyday, but not streaming. Hopefully he gets his form back soon.
I guess getting humiliated by Sea like that was a wakeup call.
But then again, getting spanked hard by Hero in the SSL11 Final was also a wakeup call... and that was awhile ago.
Bisu seems to have devolved into that kind of player who looks good right up until he plays someone good in a high-pressure series... and then he gets demolished.
It would of course also be nice if Bliz did something on the unit stats side of things, but I'm not hopeful there. Probably the only balance change we'll ever see out of 'em is if they fix the valk sprite bug... which isn't a 'true' balance change, but would act like one in some situations, since valks firing is obviously a huge upgrade in effectiveness over not firing. But technically, it'd just be a bug fix.
If you really wanted to try out just unit stat changes, you can literally just make a UMS map that plays as a Melee or 1v1 map, and change the stats of whatever units you want. I know before people also had some discussion on starting queen energy or w/e, this can also possibly be mimicked in a UMS map, possibly using locations centered on queens with certain conditions, some hyper triggers to make it run smoothly, or maybe just changing the max energy on units so that they start at the same percentage of total energy, but at a higher numerical value of energy. Of course that would allow units to hold way more spells for broodling, ensnare, etc. so might not be indicative of balance.
Anyways, this is a way you can see what increasing mutalisk damage to 10 instead of 9 would mean, or maybe giving lings an extra 3 hp, or even adjusting build times. My point is, you can mimic what a blizzard balance patch would look like.
On top of that, you can make the map an observer/player map so people can watch. I have an unprotected version of Fighting Spirit, and I could do something with that. Idk could be fun!
It could be kinda fun, but the problem (beyond that, IIRC, the UMS editor can't make all the kinds of changes you might want or need to make, such as say spell effects, splash radius, cooldown, attack range, etc), is that everyone has a different idea of what a patch should have in it. Except for the ppl who think *any* patch is heresy, of course.
So, whose patch gets tested? Yours? Mine? NeoBowman's? Any of 1000 other people's? And would there be the resources needed to playtest it thoroughly enough? Does anyone know any Korean pros who'd be willing to test? And why should they listen to anyone on TL? IOW, it doesn't really get us too far... Bliz would have to do it, they have the resources, they have the legitimacy (sort of... the SC2 balancing process kinda put a question mark on that).
Though I guess it could still be a fun thing on the side for a few interested players to do. Who knows, with enough time and effort, maybe they could come up with something that significantly betters 1.08 balance... at least for the level of player who would be playtesting such a patch.
Terran produces the least HP per supply on average, according to unit stats. Zerg actually produces the most. Even the Zerg's most basic attacking unit, the Zergling, is actually 70 HP for 1 supply.
On February 07 2017 21:28 Terrorbladder wrote: Terran produces the least HP per supply on average, according to unit stats. Zerg actually produces the most.
Any reason why we should be looking at that stat in particular? What about DPS per cost? Seems random.
Even the Zerg's most basic attacking unit, the Zergling, is actually 70 HP for 1 supply.
Which puts Zerg in ... second place after Protoss?
I don't think the races are comparable in this way. How could you account for, say, Medics, Lurkers, or Reavers?
EDIT: Agreed with FlashFTW on experimenting with resource allocation. Isn't Outsider a pretty balanced map? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember its balance stats to be at least as good as those of the infinitely played maps (Python, FS, CB), and its resource layout is pretty original. It's also a super entertaining map. To test and refine such ideas is good for BW's long-term health IMO.
Is there a way for someone who isn't able to speak/read korean to find these statistics on that site? I mean as long as i have the post in korean i can figure out players, etc myself. Getting there is the hard part though i think :D I appreciate your monthly posts a lot but sometimes i wanna be more up to date i guess. Thanks for any help!
This response was mostly prompted by terrorbladder's post:
I'm currently playing both zerg and terran and feel terran is easier to learn (ZvT vs TvZ), and easier to win games with. Here's a detailed list of why I think this is the case (for me):
====DISCLAIMER: Not at all talking about BALANCE herel. I'm detailing my personal experience!====
* Terran's economy is very streamlined. You keep pressing 5s, 6s until you have 45 or so SCVs and then you add some more if you want to get a 3rd, which is not even a necessity.
* Terran's defense on a map like Fighting Spirit is considerably easier in the early stages of the game. Placing a supply depot at your natural, can already prevent any zergling all-in as long as you stay on your toes (i.e. don't lose your entire marine force outside your natural to 36 lings).
* Terran's macro is more streamlined. Going back to one location (saved on a location hotkey) that fits all of your barracks, factory and starport and produce units from comes more naturally than macroing from 3 locations (main - natural - third).
* Terran often has the momentum in the game. It's just the way the match-up goes. Terran moves out towards zerg's natural, zerg has to respond and build sunkens. Terran moves out to zerg's third, zerg has to have his lurkers in place. Terran comes with vessels and tanks, zerg needs to have his defiler. Terran's dropships are at the edges of zerg's bases, zerg has to have scourge ready and respond immediately.
There's more risk for zerg involved here as it's happening on the zerg's doorstep. If zerg responds appropriately and terran slips up, terran has lost some momentum that's for sure, but he doesn't take as much damage as when zerg would slip up.
* There's a lot of effective terran build orders and no way to identify which one the terran's doing. Terran can, with proper micro, have an SCV in zerg's base for quite some time. Terran has scans to check whether zerg's going mutalisks or lurkers. You can also see with scans how many drones the zerg has mining and deduce whether he will have a lot of zerglings or not.
How will zerg tell whether terran has one barracks before gas or two? How will zerg tell whether terran's going for early +1 or not? How will zerg tell what terran's doing if he's one basing? Is it a tank push, is it a drop, is it a sunken break build, is it wraiths,... Of course I know not all of these require different responses per se, and not all of these are as effective. But we're talking about learning the race here and not about professionals.
* Microing marines is an easy to learn, hard to master ability. It's why even D+/C- level players can have decent micro with a control group when they put their attention to it. The problem is that they do not have the multitasking required to keep producing marines, to add their starport, to not get supply blocked, to keep an eye on those dropships,...
Zerg on the other hand... Mutalisk micro is not an easy to learn, hard to master ability. It's hard to learn, hard to master. It's why even C and B level zergs still have horrible mutalisk micro. Of course terran's +1 range upgrade plays a large role in this.
* Terran's early cheeses feel stronger than zerg's early cheeses. 8 rax with SCVs or BBS make my heart pound in my chest every time, that's how hard it is to consistently stop them. Executing them doesn't make me feel the same, especially because you're again on Zerg's doorstep. At the 7 o'clock position on FS you can even get a full wall-off after doing an 8 rax. At the other spots you often just have to build a bunker and you'll be safe to expand yourself as long as you keep scouting to know whether he's all-inning or not.
* The simple fact that most of terran's units have a longer range than zerg's, and its important spellcaster is flying instead of a ground unit. Small mistakes more often result in Zerg losing units than Terran. I've lost plenty of games because dumb defilers won't just fly over to cast their dark swarm :D In a regular game there's often not even a way for terran to lose a science vessel aside from against scourge! Every single terran unit on the other hand (aside from medics) can take out a defiler.
I think that's covered a lot of aspects on why Zerg has so far been much more of a struggle to learn than Terran for me (at least for ZvT and TvZ). I am not making any claims at all about PvT, PvZ, TvT and ZvZ although I have a feeling that TvT might be easier to improve at than ZvZ.
Admittedly learning terran might have been made easier because I already had some experience with playing zerg!
On February 23 2017 00:43 B-royal wrote: This response was mostly prompted by terrorbladder's post:
I'm currently playing both zerg and terran and feel terran is easier to learn (ZvT vs TvZ), and easier to win games with. Here's a detailed list of why I think this is the case (for me):
====DISCLAIMER: Not at all talking about BALANCE herel. I'm detailing my personal experience!====
* Terran's economy is very streamlined. You keep pressing 5s, 6s until you have 45 or so SCVs and then you add some more if you want to get a 3rd, which is not even a necessity.
* Terran's defense on a map like Fighting Spirit is considerably easier in the early stages of the game. Placing a supply depot at your natural, can already prevent any zergling all-in as long as you stay on your toes (i.e. don't lose your entire marine force outside your natural to 36 lings).
* Terran's macro is more streamlined. Going back to one location (saved on a location hotkey) that fits all of your barracks, factory and starport and produce units from comes more naturally than macroing from 3 locations (main - natural - third).
* Terran often has the momentum in the game. It's just the way the match-up goes. Terran moves out towards zerg's natural, zerg has to respond and build sunkens. Terran moves out to zerg's third, zerg has to have his lurkers in place. Terran comes with vessels and tanks, zerg needs to have his defiler. Terran's dropships are at the edges of zerg's bases, zerg has to have scourge ready and respond immediately.
There's more risk for zerg involved here as it's happening on the zerg's doorstep. If zerg responds appropriately and terran slips up, terran has lost some momentum that's for sure, but he doesn't take as much damage as when zerg would slip up.
* There's a lot of effective terran build orders and no way to identify which one the terran's doing. Terran can, with proper micro, have an SCV in zerg's base for quite some time. Terran has scans to check whether zerg's going mutalisks or lurkers. You can also see with scans how many drones the zerg has mining and deduce whether he will have a lot of zerglings or not.
How will zerg tell whether terran has one barracks before gas or two? How will zerg tell whether terran's going for early +1 or not? How will zerg tell what terran's doing if he's one basing? Is it a tank push, is it a drop, is it a sunken break build, is it wraiths,... Of course I know not all of these require different responses per se, and not all of these are as effective. But we're talking about learning the race here and not about professionals.
* Microing marines is an easy to learn, hard to master ability. It's why even D+/C- level players can have decent micro with a control group when they put their attention to it. The problem is that they do not have the multitasking required to keep producing marines, to add their starport, to not get supply blocked, to keep an eye on those dropships,...
Zerg on the other hand... Mutalisk micro is not an easy to learn, hard to master ability. It's hard to learn, hard to master. It's why even C and B level zergs still have horrible mutalisk micro. Of course terran's +1 range upgrade plays a large role in this.
* Terran's early cheeses feel stronger than zerg's early cheeses. 8 rax with SCVs or BBS make my heart pound in my chest every time, that's how hard it is to consistently stop them. Executing them doesn't make me feel the same, especially because you're again on Zerg's doorstep. At the 7 o'clock position on FS you can even get a full wall-off after doing an 8 rax. At the other spots you often just have to build a bunker and you'll be safe to expand yourself as long as you keep scouting to know whether he's all-inning or not.
* The simple fact that most of terran's units have a longer range than zerg's, and its important spellcaster is flying instead of a ground unit. Small mistakes more often result in Zerg losing units than Terran. I've lost plenty of games because dumb defilers won't just fly over to cast their dark swarm :D In a regular game there's often not even a way for terran to lose a science vessel aside from against scourge! Every single terran unit on the other hand (aside from medics) can take out a defiler.
I think that's covered a lot of aspects on why Zerg has so far been much more of a struggle to learn than Terran for me (at least for ZvT and TvZ). I am not making any claims at all about PvT, PvZ, TvT and ZvZ although I have a feeling that TvT might be easier to improve at than ZvZ.
Admittedly learning terran might have been made easier because I already had some experience with playing zerg!
Zerg economy has always been the part that makes it the most challenging race because you either spend a larva to make a drone for economy, or army units, but never both. Terran and Protoss have it both ways.
Every matchup has a "metagame" and a pace. You're right, Terrans dictate the early-mid game much like Zerg dictates the early game in ZvP and to some extent, Protoss dictates the early game in PvT unless Terran goes for a fast push.
Zerg needs to play smart to scout what build Terran is going for. Does he have more marines earlier and faster? probably 2-3 rax academy. What about slower marine count but a burst with 3-4 medics? obviously +1 5rax. It's like needing to watch where the first 100 gas of Zerg goes, either lair or speed.
Micro exists everywhere, Terran still needs to make sure they can stim properly and micro well against lurkers like target firing and proper spacing. Vessels getting sniped by scourge is still very much a big deal. You make it seem like it's nothing. If it were nothing, then pros even like FlaSh wouldnt get his vessels sniped by scourge.
Small mistakes also happen with Terran side, like not paying attention to marines and losing an entire army to burrowed lurkers.
EPT
