|
On July 17 2022 16:51 TMNT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2022 06:14 Magic Powers wrote:
I think you guys are not getting the logical contradiction. Dude, your reasoning is wrong on so many levels it's absurd. You used the wrong data, a baseless assumption, and a flawed logic to come to your conclusion. It's all over the place. Lachrymose already spent a page explaining the flaws in your logic (the positive feedback loop) and other things already. But I'll point out a few more here: Show nested quote +In the Kespa era progaming scene, the racial distribution of zerg is severely above expectation, terran is slightly below expectation, and protoss is severely below expectation. And expectation would be 1/3 (since virtually no one in the pro scene played random). See, this is a baseless assumption. You just automatically assumed expectation would be 1/3. Why? In fact it depends on a number of factors, including win rate at sub-pro levels (before the players were drafted into teamhouses), or historical factor (like, players tend to pick a race more because of their idols or something). To know the real racial distribution among the pro scene, you need to go deep into each teamhouse and count the number of players of each race. Of that probably no one has the data. Show nested quote +Observation: Zerg is overrepresented (in tournaments and overall in the pro scene, at the highest level). Terran is a lot more appropriately represented (in tournaments and overall yada yada highest level). Protoss is underrepresented (in tournaments yada yada highest level). I told you before that the piece of data you used is just a list of players who have a liquipedia entry. It's not accurate. Here, I took the time to collect a more accurate one on for you: P: 235 (28.5%) T: 314 (38.1%) Z: 275 (33.4%) This is the number of participants of each race in the last 13 OSLs + last 13 MSLs combined, dated back from 2007. Why 2007? Partly because I don't have the time to go further. But also because it's when the Bisu's revolution happened which balanced up the PvZ matchup which was considered hugely Z favored before. So, P is indeed under-represented in tournaments, but Zerg is no longer over-represented in tournaments. It's Terran. So it kinda answer your question here: Show nested quote +If 1) then why is zerg overrepresented, but not terran? The terran winrate (at the highest level) is higher, therefore the winrate doesn't explain the zerg overrepresentation, since it's not leading to a terran overrepresentation. But then, even the quote above has flawed in its logic as well. You see, the win rate we have is the win rate in officical tournaments. It's an event that occured after the event of race distribution in tournaments (hope you get what I mean). The win rate that can possibly affect racial distribution in tournaments is the win rate at sub-pro levels, in teamhouse practices, in qualifiers. Of that probably no one has the data as well. So you see, with the mess of data and flawed logic you're stuck in, there's no way your claim is a valid explanation like you want to say.
1/3 is the expectation given all else is equal. The expectation can be adjusted according to data that supports a deviation. I didn't assume that 1/3 has to be true, I only used it as the initial benchmark.
"To know the real racial distribution among the pro scene, you need to go deep into each teamhouse and count the number of players of each race. Of that probably no one has the data."
If no one has access to that data, then no one - not you or I or anyone else - can argue that they can tell the real reason for the racial distribution in the individual tournaments, because such information is essential to determine the cause. But you're claiming that things like learning difficulty and winrates determine racial distribution, so you have to be able to fully support that. If you don't provide the necessary data to prove your claim, then it can be easily dismissed. So far I haven't seen you provide any data at all, only speculation. (Edit: s.b.)
Edit: Ok I see you have actually provided data this time. You say this is from OSL and MSL since 2007.
P: 235 (28.5%)
T: 314 (38.1%)
Z: 275 (33.4%)
The first question that I would ask is how does a distribution go from being heavily zerg favored in the TLPD entries (most being legit progamers from the Kespa era) to being heavily terran favored, while there is no change to the field of protoss players? The winrate alone wouldn't explain that, because zerg has a very balanced overall winrate and should therefore not lose too many players, and protoss has a slightly negative overall winrate and should therefore lose players.
|
On July 17 2022 17:18 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2022 16:51 TMNT wrote:On July 17 2022 06:14 Magic Powers wrote:
I think you guys are not getting the logical contradiction. Dude, your reasoning is wrong on so many levels it's absurd. You used the wrong data, a baseless assumption, and a flawed logic to come to your conclusion. It's all over the place. Lachrymose already spent a page explaining the flaws in your logic (the positive feedback loop) and other things already. But I'll point out a few more here: In the Kespa era progaming scene, the racial distribution of zerg is severely above expectation, terran is slightly below expectation, and protoss is severely below expectation. And expectation would be 1/3 (since virtually no one in the pro scene played random). See, this is a baseless assumption. You just automatically assumed expectation would be 1/3. Why? In fact it depends on a number of factors, including win rate at sub-pro levels (before the players were drafted into teamhouses), or historical factor (like, players tend to pick a race more because of their idols or something). To know the real racial distribution among the pro scene, you need to go deep into each teamhouse and count the number of players of each race. Of that probably no one has the data. Observation: Zerg is overrepresented (in tournaments and overall in the pro scene, at the highest level). Terran is a lot more appropriately represented (in tournaments and overall yada yada highest level). Protoss is underrepresented (in tournaments yada yada highest level). I told you before that the piece of data you used is just a list of players who have a liquipedia entry. It's not accurate. Here, I took the time to collect a more accurate one on for you: P: 235 (28.5%) T: 314 (38.1%) Z: 275 (33.4%) This is the number of participants of each race in the last 13 OSLs + last 13 MSLs combined, dated back from 2007. Why 2007? Partly because I don't have the time to go further. But also because it's when the Bisu's revolution happened which balanced up the PvZ matchup which was considered hugely Z favored before. So, P is indeed under-represented in tournaments, but Zerg is no longer over-represented in tournaments. It's Terran. So it kinda answer your question here: If 1) then why is zerg overrepresented, but not terran? The terran winrate (at the highest level) is higher, therefore the winrate doesn't explain the zerg overrepresentation, since it's not leading to a terran overrepresentation. But then, even the quote above has flawed in its logic as well. You see, the win rate we have is the win rate in officical tournaments. It's an event that occured after the event of race distribution in tournaments (hope you get what I mean). The win rate that can possibly affect racial distribution in tournaments is the win rate at sub-pro levels, in teamhouse practices, in qualifiers. Of that probably no one has the data as well. So you see, with the mess of data and flawed logic you're stuck in, there's no way your claim is a valid explanation like you want to say. 1/3 is the expectation given all else is equal. The expectation can be adjusted according to data that supports a deviation. I didn't assume that 1/3 has to be true, I only used it as the initial benchmark. "To know the real racial distribution among the pro scene, you need to go deep into each teamhouse and count the number of players of each race. Of that probably no one has the data." If no one has access to that data, then no one - not you or I or anyone else - can argue that they can tell the real reason for the racial distribution in the individual tournaments, because such information is essential to determine the cause. But you're claiming that things like learning difficulty and winrates determine racial distribution, so you have to be able to fully support that. If you don't provide the necessary data to prove your claim, then it can be easily dismissed. So far I haven't seen you provide any data at all, only speculation.
It's you who brought racial distribution to the table and make a claim about that. No one else. We're only dismissing your claim. Roll back the pages and see.
The first question that I would ask is how does a distribution go from being heavily zerg favored in the TLPD entries (most being legit progamers from the Kespa era) to being heavily terran favored, while there is no change to the field of protoss players? The winrate alone wouldn't explain that, because zerg has a very balanced overall winrate and should therefore not lose too many players, and protoss has a slightly negative overall winrate and should therefore lose players
Did you, again, not read my last point? The win rate you have is the win rate in tournaments. It's the event occured after the racial distribution. It only explains results in tournaments, not how players get into tournaments.
|
On July 17 2022 17:24 TMNT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2022 17:18 Magic Powers wrote:On July 17 2022 16:51 TMNT wrote:On July 17 2022 06:14 Magic Powers wrote:
I think you guys are not getting the logical contradiction. Dude, your reasoning is wrong on so many levels it's absurd. You used the wrong data, a baseless assumption, and a flawed logic to come to your conclusion. It's all over the place. Lachrymose already spent a page explaining the flaws in your logic (the positive feedback loop) and other things already. But I'll point out a few more here: In the Kespa era progaming scene, the racial distribution of zerg is severely above expectation, terran is slightly below expectation, and protoss is severely below expectation. And expectation would be 1/3 (since virtually no one in the pro scene played random). See, this is a baseless assumption. You just automatically assumed expectation would be 1/3. Why? In fact it depends on a number of factors, including win rate at sub-pro levels (before the players were drafted into teamhouses), or historical factor (like, players tend to pick a race more because of their idols or something). To know the real racial distribution among the pro scene, you need to go deep into each teamhouse and count the number of players of each race. Of that probably no one has the data. Observation: Zerg is overrepresented (in tournaments and overall in the pro scene, at the highest level). Terran is a lot more appropriately represented (in tournaments and overall yada yada highest level). Protoss is underrepresented (in tournaments yada yada highest level). I told you before that the piece of data you used is just a list of players who have a liquipedia entry. It's not accurate. Here, I took the time to collect a more accurate one on for you: P: 235 (28.5%) T: 314 (38.1%) Z: 275 (33.4%) This is the number of participants of each race in the last 13 OSLs + last 13 MSLs combined, dated back from 2007. Why 2007? Partly because I don't have the time to go further. But also because it's when the Bisu's revolution happened which balanced up the PvZ matchup which was considered hugely Z favored before. So, P is indeed under-represented in tournaments, but Zerg is no longer over-represented in tournaments. It's Terran. So it kinda answer your question here: If 1) then why is zerg overrepresented, but not terran? The terran winrate (at the highest level) is higher, therefore the winrate doesn't explain the zerg overrepresentation, since it's not leading to a terran overrepresentation. But then, even the quote above has flawed in its logic as well. You see, the win rate we have is the win rate in officical tournaments. It's an event that occured after the event of race distribution in tournaments (hope you get what I mean). The win rate that can possibly affect racial distribution in tournaments is the win rate at sub-pro levels, in teamhouse practices, in qualifiers. Of that probably no one has the data as well. So you see, with the mess of data and flawed logic you're stuck in, there's no way your claim is a valid explanation like you want to say. 1/3 is the expectation given all else is equal. The expectation can be adjusted according to data that supports a deviation. I didn't assume that 1/3 has to be true, I only used it as the initial benchmark. "To know the real racial distribution among the pro scene, you need to go deep into each teamhouse and count the number of players of each race. Of that probably no one has the data." If no one has access to that data, then no one - not you or I or anyone else - can argue that they can tell the real reason for the racial distribution in the individual tournaments, because such information is essential to determine the cause. But you're claiming that things like learning difficulty and winrates determine racial distribution, so you have to be able to fully support that. If you don't provide the necessary data to prove your claim, then it can be easily dismissed. So far I haven't seen you provide any data at all, only speculation. It's you who brought racial distribution to the table and make a claim about that. No one else. We're only dismissing your claim. Roll back the pages and see.
That's because if, using your hypothesis, you can't explain the racial distribution without contradictions, then your hypothesis is not valid. Racial distribution is an essential piece to the puzzle, because without it, you don't even have an argument. You're arguing that the racial distribution for the titles proves imbalance, therefore you can't just ignore racial distribution in other places as you please.
|
On July 17 2022 17:24 TMNT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2022 17:18 Magic Powers wrote:On July 17 2022 16:51 TMNT wrote:On July 17 2022 06:14 Magic Powers wrote:
I think you guys are not getting the logical contradiction. Dude, your reasoning is wrong on so many levels it's absurd. You used the wrong data, a baseless assumption, and a flawed logic to come to your conclusion. It's all over the place. Lachrymose already spent a page explaining the flaws in your logic (the positive feedback loop) and other things already. But I'll point out a few more here: In the Kespa era progaming scene, the racial distribution of zerg is severely above expectation, terran is slightly below expectation, and protoss is severely below expectation. And expectation would be 1/3 (since virtually no one in the pro scene played random). See, this is a baseless assumption. You just automatically assumed expectation would be 1/3. Why? In fact it depends on a number of factors, including win rate at sub-pro levels (before the players were drafted into teamhouses), or historical factor (like, players tend to pick a race more because of their idols or something). To know the real racial distribution among the pro scene, you need to go deep into each teamhouse and count the number of players of each race. Of that probably no one has the data. Observation: Zerg is overrepresented (in tournaments and overall in the pro scene, at the highest level). Terran is a lot more appropriately represented (in tournaments and overall yada yada highest level). Protoss is underrepresented (in tournaments yada yada highest level). I told you before that the piece of data you used is just a list of players who have a liquipedia entry. It's not accurate. Here, I took the time to collect a more accurate one on for you: P: 235 (28.5%) T: 314 (38.1%) Z: 275 (33.4%) This is the number of participants of each race in the last 13 OSLs + last 13 MSLs combined, dated back from 2007. Why 2007? Partly because I don't have the time to go further. But also because it's when the Bisu's revolution happened which balanced up the PvZ matchup which was considered hugely Z favored before. So, P is indeed under-represented in tournaments, but Zerg is no longer over-represented in tournaments. It's Terran. So it kinda answer your question here: If 1) then why is zerg overrepresented, but not terran? The terran winrate (at the highest level) is higher, therefore the winrate doesn't explain the zerg overrepresentation, since it's not leading to a terran overrepresentation. But then, even the quote above has flawed in its logic as well. You see, the win rate we have is the win rate in officical tournaments. It's an event that occured after the event of race distribution in tournaments (hope you get what I mean). The win rate that can possibly affect racial distribution in tournaments is the win rate at sub-pro levels, in teamhouse practices, in qualifiers. Of that probably no one has the data as well. So you see, with the mess of data and flawed logic you're stuck in, there's no way your claim is a valid explanation like you want to say. 1/3 is the expectation given all else is equal. The expectation can be adjusted according to data that supports a deviation. I didn't assume that 1/3 has to be true, I only used it as the initial benchmark. "To know the real racial distribution among the pro scene, you need to go deep into each teamhouse and count the number of players of each race. Of that probably no one has the data." If no one has access to that data, then no one - not you or I or anyone else - can argue that they can tell the real reason for the racial distribution in the individual tournaments, because such information is essential to determine the cause. But you're claiming that things like learning difficulty and winrates determine racial distribution, so you have to be able to fully support that. If you don't provide the necessary data to prove your claim, then it can be easily dismissed. So far I haven't seen you provide any data at all, only speculation. It's you who brought racial distribution to the table and make a claim about that. No one else. We're only dismissing your claim. Roll back the pages and see. Show nested quote +The first question that I would ask is how does a distribution go from being heavily zerg favored in the TLPD entries (most being legit progamers from the Kespa era) to being heavily terran favored, while there is no change to the field of protoss players? The winrate alone wouldn't explain that, because zerg has a very balanced overall winrate and should therefore not lose too many players, and protoss has a slightly negative overall winrate and should therefore lose players Did you, again, not read my last point? The win rate you have is the win rate in tournaments. It's the event occured after the racial distribution. It only explains results in tournaments, not how players get into tournaments.
You said this:
"This is the number of participants of each race in the last 13 OSLs + last 13 MSLs combined, dated back from 2007. Why 2007? Partly because I don't have the time to go further. But also because it's when the Bisu's revolution happened which balanced up the PvZ matchup which was considered hugely Z favored before."
I do not think I missed your point, no. The racial distribution for the participants that you posted contradicts the racial distribution of the progaming landscape, since every progamer would equally try to qualify for the individual tournaments. Since there are far more zerg progamers, it's expected that, due to their overall very fair winrate, they should qualify at a rate that they're not significantly less represented among the tournament participants than among the progaming landscape. Protoss on the other hand would be expected to qualify at a lower rate. We do not observe either of these expectations. Zerg went from clear overrepresentation to a fairly normal representation (reduction of around 7%), and protoss stayed at roughly 28%. This doesn't make sense.
|
OMG why do you keep missing key things and mixing things up again and again.
The racial distribution for the participants that you posted contradicts the racial distribution of the progaming landscape
You don't have this one (bold part). The one piece of data you presented is inaccurate. It's just the number of players having a liquipedia entry. For the racial distribution of the progaming landscape, go to the history of each team and count. We probably can't.
it's expected that, due to their overall very fair winrate, they should qualify at a rate that they're not significantly less represented among the tournament participants than among the progaming landscape.
You don't have this one either. The "fair win rate" you have is the win rate from tournaments. The one from qualifiers and below that level might be different.
In fact, all of your "expectations" are falsed expectations, because your methodology is wrong, starting from the data you used.
|
On July 17 2022 18:02 TMNT wrote:OMG why do you keep missing key things and mixing things up again and again. Show nested quote +The racial distribution for the participants that you posted contradicts the racial distribution of the progaming landscape You don't have this one (bold part). The one piece of data you presented is inaccurate. It's just the number of players having a liquipedia entry. For the racial distribution of the progaming landscape, go to the history of each team and count. We probably can't. Show nested quote +it's expected that, due to their overall very fair winrate, they should qualify at a rate that they're not significantly less represented among the tournament participants than among the progaming landscape. You don't have this one either. The "fair win rate" you have is the win rate from tournaments. The one from qualifiers and below that level might be different. In fact, all of your "expectations" are falsed expectations, because your methodology is wrong, starting from the data you used.
I do have that data, but if you reject the data, ok fine, then you don't have an argument anymore, since you would then not know the racial distribution among the progaming landscape either.
|
On July 17 2022 18:07 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2022 18:02 TMNT wrote:OMG why do you keep missing key things and mixing things up again and again. The racial distribution for the participants that you posted contradicts the racial distribution of the progaming landscape You don't have this one (bold part). The one piece of data you presented is inaccurate. It's just the number of players having a liquipedia entry. For the racial distribution of the progaming landscape, go to the history of each team and count. We probably can't. it's expected that, due to their overall very fair winrate, they should qualify at a rate that they're not significantly less represented among the tournament participants than among the progaming landscape. You don't have this one either. The "fair win rate" you have is the win rate from tournaments. The one from qualifiers and below that level might be different. In fact, all of your "expectations" are falsed expectations, because your methodology is wrong, starting from the data you used. I do have that data, but if you reject the data, ok fine, then you don't have an argument anymore, since you would then not know the racial distribution among the progaming landscape either.
Lmao what is this level of discussion. I pointed out the data you used is wrong, explaining the reason why it's wrong. You proceed to say yours is right, without explaining why? Where's your complete list of progamers? Where's your qualifier winrate?
Fyi, I just quickly counted the race distribution of an OSL qualifier, as an example for you:
 2010 Korean Air OSL Season 1/Results and Standings (Offlines)
57 P
60 T
50 Z
So you see, Zerg is the most under-represented in this qualifier (surprise!).
You also have 4P, 4T and 8Z already seeded to the main tournament, so in total it's
61P (33%)
64T (35%)
58Z. (32%)
registering for the tournaments. Fairly equal eh? In fact, Zerg is slightly under-represented. What is your data again?
Now let's see who made it out of the qualifier:
4 P (lmao)
10 T
10 Z
So, P indeed qualied at an abysmal rate. suppoting the theory that they are the worst race.
Finally, this is the distribution of the main tournament:
8 P (20 %)
14 T (35%)
18 Z (45%)
Did you say before that if we flood the field with Protoss players, they'll get more chance of winning the tournament? Well, in fact, the majority of them couldn't even make it out of the qualifiers  .
|
Ok, I can follow that reasoning. Didn't you say the winrates (or learning difficulty, I'm not sure what your argument is anymore) differ drastically between different ranks, explaining why more protoss players would be weeded out at or before the highest ranks?
|
On July 17 2022 19:01 Magic Powers wrote:
Ok, I can follow that reasoning. Didn't you say the winrates (or learning difficulty, I'm not sure what your argument is anymore) differ drastically between different ranks, explaining why more protoss players would be weeded out at or before the highest ranks?
My main argument is "your argument is wrong". It works like this:
- I support the opinion that P is the worst race at the highest level. See my post here with the list of supporting evidences:
https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27965111
- You argued against it, citing Bisu PvZ win rate, racial distribution and etc., saying it's contradictory.
- I, along with some others, proceeded to point out that your way of reasoning is flawed. I particularly pointed out the data you used is not accurate.
In fact I have looked at another OSL qualifiers to see race distribution of the participants. It looks like there was always roughly 170-180 participants in qualifiers, and the distribution among them is roughly equal (2010 OSL S2 is 55/60/54). Obviously there were seasons when P qualified at a much better rate, and vice versa for T and Z. But given the distribution of participants in qualifiers is roughly equal, the inferior distribution of P in the main tournaments (after many tournaments) does suggest that they performed worst.
Edit: seems correct.
2009 Bacchus OSL has 57/63/59 participants in qualifiers (main tourney is 10/12/18).
2012 Tving OSL has 26/24/24 participants in qualifiers (main tourney is 5/8/15). And I'm not gonna count more. The qualifiants were always divided in groups of 8 with 2/3/3 distribution.
Protoss was never under-represented at qualifiers. They just got wiped out more.
|
I'm not arguing that protoss should perform equally to the other races, I've even posted the ZvP winrate of roughly 54%, confirming that the observed winrate favors zerg. I'm only disputing the evidence for the claim of imbalance, in particular titles won, which I consider unusable as evidence, because there are many factors that can mess with the data.
A much better piece of evidence is the matchup winrate, and I have no interest in disputing that as valid evidence (although I wouldn't consider it completely perfect, but it's also not unusable).
|
On July 17 2022 19:37 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm not arguing that protoss should perform equally to the other races, I've even posted the ZvP winrate of roughly 54%, confirming that the observed winrate favors zerg. I'm only disputing the evidence for the claim of imbalance, in particular titles won, which I consider unusable as evidence, because there are many factors that can mess with the data.
A much better piece of evidence is the matchup winrate, and I have no interest in disputing that as valid evidence (although I wouldn't consider it completely perfect, but it's also not unusable).
Yeah but you need to come up with a new methodology for that. Your old one (where you argued that lack of P leads to lack of titles), I just proved wrong. P players wasn't lacking in qualifiers, they just got wiped out more by T and Z.
|
For what do I need a new methodology? I'm not making a specific claim, I'm disputing evidence. My claim isn't that protoss should perform like the other races.
|
Some of the comments here very good... this is so cool
Anyway, I think this
On July 14 2022 00:52 Magic Powers wrote:
PvZ is really the only matchup that was ever considered disadvantageous for protoss. But there are examples contradicting this view.
Bisu achieved a PvZ winrate of 71.51% which is greater than that of Flash's 69.7% in TvP (the historically worst matchup for terran), and only slightly behind Flash's TvZ winrate of 72%, with both players having played a similar number of games. Bisu also had a 9-5 record against Jaedong (which is of course a small sample), while Flash achieved 20-20. This even though Jaedong had a better record against protoss with 67.38% compared to 63% vs terran.
Furthermore, Bisu's best matchup has always clearly been PvZ, which puts a big question mark on the claim of racial imbalance.
These three players are typically considered the best of their respective race, and it's quite clear that their winrates contradict the idea that protoss players have it the worst, even in the allegedly worst matchup of PvZ.
I think that protoss players have never figured out what sets Bisu apart so much. He clearly has a far superior understanding of the matchup than anyone else. Why can't other protoss players study his game and apply their findings? I think that's the real question that needs to be asked. It's like the answer is right there in front of people, but they're not picking it up. We have hundreds of vods of Bisu playing PvZ that can be studied.
Instead people resort to complaining about balance, which is the lazy option.
Can be explained with this
On July 12 2022 08:18 TMNT wrote:This blog is such a gem. I am so in agreement with the following statement : Show nested quote +In YGOSU, it is mostly agreed upon that when three or more players are playing on team melee, protoss becomes the strongest race due to the likelihood of strong play-making potential from units such as early game harassment from probes having a single player dedicate all his focus on it, corsairs that never die throughout the entire game versus the zergs, and game changing late-game spellcasters such as arbiters. I was thinking the same about Protoss before, and then I saw a few team melee games between Bisu+Best vs Light+Rush, and man oh man did the Protoss team totally destroy Terran. The thing is, the Terran army during a fight always gets some sort of value even if you set your units up badly. If Protoss units are in range, they fire. Same thing can't be said for Protoss: + Dragoons hitting Depots or a floating Barrack. + Zealots getting on top of each other, and worse, eating a mine together. + High Templars evaporating before casting any storms + Shuttles dying mid-air because frankly, by the time you have the time to grab them they're already dead. All of the above examples can be mitigated by a great player but only to some extent. Chances are, if you are able to finish sorting out the targeting of your ground army, your Shuttles are likely on auto pilot and you won't be able to cast all the storms you'd like. But if you have two or three players controlling the same battle. The extra values Protoss can get is huge. Same thing can be said for PvZ. No more scouting Probe dying early. No more High Templar full of energy dying before storm can get off. No more Corsair wasting. Obviously Terran and Zerg can benefit a lot from team melee as well. But I feel like the extra values are nowhere near Protoss'.
Bisu's greatest strenghts are his perfect execution and superior multitasking, those two go along pretty well and if you watch his FPVod you can tell thats how he gets the edge in PvZ.
Everybody knows that but that is not some style you can just copy  . His PvZ is not a secret, it's just unreachable. With the keyboard and the mouse, he is just better than the rest.
That is also the reason why Mini is doing so well.
I just hope that anyone who go and watch These two games and then read TMNT comment would see it as clearly as I do now ^^
EDIT: not only TMNT but also XenoSky and Letmelose, some very interesting ideas
|
Bisutopia19299 Posts
On July 26 2022 05:17 LocoBolon wrote:Some of the comments here very good... this is so cool Anyway, I think this Show nested quote +On July 14 2022 00:52 Magic Powers wrote:
PvZ is really the only matchup that was ever considered disadvantageous for protoss. But there are examples contradicting this view.
Bisu achieved a PvZ winrate of 71.51% which is greater than that of Flash's 69.7% in TvP (the historically worst matchup for terran), and only slightly behind Flash's TvZ winrate of 72%, with both players having played a similar number of games. Bisu also had a 9-5 record against Jaedong (which is of course a small sample), while Flash achieved 20-20. This even though Jaedong had a better record against protoss with 67.38% compared to 63% vs terran.
Furthermore, Bisu's best matchup has always clearly been PvZ, which puts a big question mark on the claim of racial imbalance.
These three players are typically considered the best of their respective race, and it's quite clear that their winrates contradict the idea that protoss players have it the worst, even in the allegedly worst matchup of PvZ.
I think that protoss players have never figured out what sets Bisu apart so much. He clearly has a far superior understanding of the matchup than anyone else. Why can't other protoss players study his game and apply their findings? I think that's the real question that needs to be asked. It's like the answer is right there in front of people, but they're not picking it up. We have hundreds of vods of Bisu playing PvZ that can be studied.
Instead people resort to complaining about balance, which is the lazy option. Can be explained with this Show nested quote +On July 12 2022 08:18 TMNT wrote:This blog is such a gem. I am so in agreement with the following statement : In YGOSU, it is mostly agreed upon that when three or more players are playing on team melee, protoss becomes the strongest race due to the likelihood of strong play-making potential from units such as early game harassment from probes having a single player dedicate all his focus on it, corsairs that never die throughout the entire game versus the zergs, and game changing late-game spellcasters such as arbiters. I was thinking the same about Protoss before, and then I saw a few team melee games between Bisu+Best vs Light+Rush, and man oh man did the Protoss team totally destroy Terran. The thing is, the Terran army during a fight always gets some sort of value even if you set your units up badly. If Protoss units are in range, they fire. Same thing can't be said for Protoss: + Dragoons hitting Depots or a floating Barrack. + Zealots getting on top of each other, and worse, eating a mine together. + High Templars evaporating before casting any storms + Shuttles dying mid-air because frankly, by the time you have the time to grab them they're already dead. All of the above examples can be mitigated by a great player but only to some extent. Chances are, if you are able to finish sorting out the targeting of your ground army, your Shuttles are likely on auto pilot and you won't be able to cast all the storms you'd like. But if you have two or three players controlling the same battle. The extra values Protoss can get is huge. Same thing can be said for PvZ. No more scouting Probe dying early. No more High Templar full of energy dying before storm can get off. No more Corsair wasting. Obviously Terran and Zerg can benefit a lot from team melee as well. But I feel like the extra values are nowhere near Protoss'. Bisu's greatest strenghts are his perfect execution and superior multitasking, those two go along pretty well and if you watch his FPVod you can tell thats how he gets the edge in PvZ. Everybody knows that but that is not some style you can just copy . His PvZ is not a secret, it's just unreachable. With the keyboard and the mouse, he is just better than the rest. That is also the reason why Mini is doing so well. I just hope that anyone who go and watch These two games and then read TMNT comment would see it as clearly as I do now ^^ EDIT: not only TMNT but also XenoSky and Letmelose, some very interesting ideas
What’s overlooked, with regards to Bisu, is his mentors and teachers at different stages of his career. His success in Proleague was hugely influenced by Kingdom the same way Fantasy was influenced by Oov. Bisu was at his best when he was coached by brilliant minds on how to approach the map he was preparing for. Then his mechanical skills ensured what he prepared would demolish his opponents. I think a really interesting discussion that we haven’t really had is who the most influential coaches were in Brood War. Would X Player have a successful career without coach Y?
|
Late game, the ground Protoss army gets decimated by both T and Z. I'd say this on its own is good reason to consider Protoss the weakest race. It has to compensate strategically in early and mid game which the other races don't need to do.
|
Late game ground PvZ works fine if Protoss has lots of gas units. Zealots/goons/cannons are trash late, though. If you have minerals without gas, gg.
|
Found it amusing how someone was fiercely arguing earlier in the thread that Bisu's monstrous PvZ win rate is proof that Protoss is balanced.
My immediate thought was: "Yeah, but that's only because Flash plays Terran lulz."
Followed by: "Zerg players so weak in that era lulz."
Point is that data spread over a longer period of time shows that the matchup is Zerg-favoured and Bisu had a short stint of dominance that hasn't really been replicated since.
Of course, there's the whole chicken-and-egg question of whether Zerg/Terran pros just happen to be more skilful than Protoss pros or that Zerg/Terran's edge is a key factor that draws top pros to play Zerg/Terran over Protoss.
I'm just a casual player whose main race is Terran and don't have first hand experience in high level PvZ. But my neutral view from watching games over the years is that Protoss just have a more torrid time dealing with hydra busts than Zergs dealing with zealots running around (just simplying the matchup, let's not even get into defilers...)
|
Terran requires best decision making, strict BO and perfect execution.
Zerg require high APM, perfect micro.
Protoss requires multitasking (?), patience and natural talent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
