On February 04 2025 11:31 RJBTVYOUTUBE wrote: all toss players aspire to be like SnOw. Not bisu. Not Mini. SnOw is the king of toss right now. has been for the last two years. If SnOw isnt vs soulkey or soma he tends to win pvz.
I was going to quote this as a misnomer, but feared somebody would say this as if true. Yup, fake as the rest of the narrative. Snow sucks at pvz 44.3% win rate:
PS: he also has the lowest average win rate, doesn't even rank before Rain, Mini, Bisu. He is right above Best. In fact, his pvt is much higher than his pvz such that, had he played against sharp and rain played against Soulkey - both would play at their #1 matchup. https://youtu.be/watch?v=tMYcwoQkWQc&t=308s
go use eloboard for your information. If you want to use information to prove a point, then use all of the data, not just 1% of the data. SnOw is up on all zergs except soulkey and soma, and before 2024 he was up on Soulkey.
If that were the case, Soulkey would prefer to include sharp, or JYJ with his group. Why is that not consistent with what happened actually? I'm just trying to prove you are wrong and need to reassess from a zerg perspective that maybe your strengths and weaknesses are not what you protosses consider them to be. Otherwise, you were the champion. Let's face it - Soulkey outsmarted two protosses in the finals by using his wildcard and will continue to do so unless you wisen up. I just told you of a resource that coincides %100 with what I say and what happened in SSL. I have no further proof to prove my point. PS: this data is 1 years old, even before factoring in the 2025 results that you say Snow was up on Soulkey in 2024 which I say statistically not true on average PvZ results.
except that in SSL1 Soulkey put 3 terrans into his Round of 16 group, two of which Rush and JyJ, two very stronf tvz players.
ASL17? JyJ again. and Bisu who has the highest PvZ winrate.
Are you sure? Ro16 matches aren't final against a single opponent, Soulkey didn't have to win either of his elimination Ro16 matches. He could beat Sea and Rush and if JyJ didn't lose a match never face him again and continue. Whereas a Ro4 game with 7 game series is entirely different. Rain has %64 win rate in PvZ. Snow has 44% - Soulkey reverse sweeped, this I consider is why. However, had Snow faced Sharp, he would most likely win since he ranks #1 in PvT with %65.71 win rate, almost %66, which is also Rain's weakest matchup %51! One stone two birds. Protoss are still none the wiser...
Except Soulkey was placed vs Light. The best TvZ player in starcraft for the past 3 years. Light has been the one player to go even vs soulkey in online play. They have no control over who they get in Round of 8 othrr than that it cant be someone from their own Ro16 group. In SSL1 SnOw is the way better player than Rain. Every single korean agrees Soulkey got the hardest bracket side in SSL1 Round of 8. Both Light and SnOw, the best two players right behind Soulkey himself. At this point not a single one of your arguments make sense anymore. You are creating your own headcanon using largely very old stats to support your arguments, and decide to ignore literally thousands of games played over 2021-2025.
Except, Light didn't win. You are doing that yourself. Nothing you say sticks, if your statistics were true Soulkey would have lost vs Light - Light who lost a game vs Royal who couldn't qualify for the next season he won prior.
Light being the best TvZ player does by no means imply Soulkey should have lost. Your conclusion is not logical, it is a fallacious non sequitur. The consensus amongst all pros is that Light has the best TvZ. All pros agree SnOw is the best protoss. SnOw and Light were the HARDEST TWO opponents Soulkey could get and he got both of them. Them being the two most difficult opponents to beat does not mean Soulkey will lose, it just means Soulkey is really fkn good ifhe beats both of them. The Data from ELOBOARD support this notion.
Stop slipping in exceptions, you know damn well that is what it means. Those are non sequiturs, too. Fact is I don't have to argue my point. It is precisely as I stated. I'm trying to make you accept it. Of course, if Light were the best he would have won. After all, are you questioning Soulkey is the champion? Light isn't the best TvZ, that title belongs to Last in Flash's absence with 68% in TvZ. Light is 52%, a damn tossup.
Ladder games are not included on ELOBOARD. They include only matches played for money. Proleague, sponsor games, online & offline tournaments, ultimate battle, chinese ultimate battle, KCM race war. It does NOT include ladder games. Light being the best at Terran vs Zerg out of all terran players does not mean he will beat Soulkey. It means "he is better at this match-up than his terran peers." This is by no means me questioning Soulkey being the champion. Those are two entirely unrelated topics. I am legitimately puzzled by the absolutely weird and illogical jumps of reasoning you're making here. And again, you're only looking at ASL where most of the data is more than 2-3 years old. Light has the best TvZ out of all terrans currently active, which is the only thing that matters for tournaments happening "now". Data from more than 2-3 years ago is meaningless for tournaments happening in the present day. Present day form and performance determines who wins, not whether someone won or lost games over 3 years ago. The fact you don't understand that ELOBOARD excludes ladder is already a HUGE FLAW in your understanding of the pro scene.
You can't educate him, RJB. What you wrote is certainly useful for neutral readers who dont follow the scene closely.
But as for mtcn77, his opinions are a farce. This is a guy who thinks one observation is a good counter to a decade-long trend. I don't even know what goes through his mind. You probably can't find a single guy on the internet who would agree with him lol, even if you go to bottom places like reddit or youtube or even Artosis' chat. I find it funny that his confidence otherwise is through the roof. Literally one guy vs the world.
I think I nailed it. At 5:15, 17 probes mine 3045 20 probes mine 30453195 minerals. 28 probes mine 24302841. This is all after costs deducted(750 vs 1500). I also made a long term estimate at 10:30 minutes. In this case, 28 probes win. They mine 15581335 minerals more than 1720 probes(988810300 vs 83318959). However you run out of minerals just before 12 minutes(11:5911:42). On the other hand, with 1720 probes you run out of minerals at 15:1614:38.*I skipped a number here(edit:18>15>14 minutes). Do you really need 28 probes in each base, or does 615354 minerals by 5:15 minute mark make the difference for a more exciting game early on. I tend to go for games with the latter. Starcraft is a game of balance. I chose 1720 and 28 based on performance rank. PS: I asked next what if you sprung a new expansion at 5:15 with the 600354 mineral addition you have with 1720 probes due to said improvement and mined for +5:15 more minutes from the main and the natural at this said rate(while the natural keeps warping probes at a similar rate from 4 up until 1720 and stopping there while the base idles with 1720 probes). That brought forth a whole another table to compare the results from 5 probes to 28. This case is a little more complicated. You get 12901860 more minerals with 2 20 probe bases(12160) by 10:30 than a 28 probe base(10300). You should use these minerals for two more bases because the main runs out before the third 5:15 duration is complete. If you go on, you can run out of minerals in one base each 5:15 minutes and continue mining by making the expansion and migrating the main to the second base. Higher densities are possible, but they don't last as long and make streamlining like this more difficult. Edit: excel cooked up the books. I updated the totals.
On February 09 2025 03:05 mtcn77 wrote: I think I nailed it. At 5:15, 17 probes mine 3045 minerals. 28 probes mine 2430. This is all after costs deducted(750 vs 1500). I also made a long term estimate at 10:30 minutes. In this case, 28 probes win. They mine 1558 minerals more than 17 probes(9888 vs 8331). However you run out of minerals just before 12 minutes(11:59). On the other hand, with 17 probes you run out of minerals at 15:16.*I skipped a number here(edit:18>15 minutes). Do you really need 28 probes in each base, or does 615 minerals by 5:15 minute mark make the difference for a more exciting game early on. I tend to go for games with the latter. Starcraft is a game of balance. I chose 17 and 28 based on performance rank. PS: I asked next what if you sprung a new expansion at 5:15 with the 600 mineral addition you have with 17 probes due to said improvement and mined for +5:15 more minutes from the main and the natural at this said rate(while the natural keeps warping probes at a similar rate from 4 up until 17 and stopping there while the base idles with 17 probes). That brought forth a whole another table to compare the results from 5 probes to 28. This case is a little more complicated. You get 1290 more minerals by 10:30 than a 28 probe base. You should use these minerals for two more bases because the main runs out before the third 5:15 duration is complete. If you go on, you can run out of minerals in one base each 5:15 minutes and continue mining by making the expansion and migrating the main to the second base. Higher densities are possible, but they don't last as long and make streamlining like this more difficult.
I know I shouldn't reply to you but I'm really curious what's going on in your head.
Did it ever occur to you that "
if you sprung a new expansion at 5:15 with the 600 mineral addition
then it would be destroyed and you throw that 600 down the toilet?
And are you sure you're playing Starcraft where the goal is to eliminate your opponent, as based on this:
You get 1290 more minerals by 10:30 than a 28 probe base. You should use these minerals for two more bases
it seems like you're playing a different game where the goal is who mines the most mineral?
On February 10 2025 05:33 SiarX wrote: Pointless theorycraft which does not take into account what opponent will do.
Obviously, the false pretense that FE is necessary for good lategame has only been tried because there is more mining capacity and people didn't know better. I do the opposite to find the least compromised early game. I just watched DeWalt totally dominate Hyuk in CNSL7 with zealots. Don't pretend I intend anything else.
There is room to trade off probe count for aggression, in order to limit the Zerg economy more than you just limited yourself.
Most of that room is in 42-ish probe 6 gate pressure range, as opposed to 56-ish probe full saturation 8gate that hits a few minutes later but harder. What makes them more viable, as opposed to early game committed zealot rushes, is that +1 and zealot sped and templar tech are already available by that point.
Went out of fashion with muta openers being more popular. If you're waiting for a sair build up to be able to either pressure or expand, there's not much point to cutting probes.
I gave my thoughts on it but I am curious (and I'm sorry but I am not reading 14 pages to try and find this answer), has there been any general consensus on why P always underperforms at the highest level?
On February 10 2025 16:22 G5 wrote: Damn, this thread is still going on?
I gave my thoughts on it but I am curious (and I'm sorry but I am not reading 14 pages to try and find this answer), has there been any general consensus on why P always underperforms at the highest level?
There was never a conclusive answer to the ultimate MANTOSS controversy: GARIMTO vs. Reach
And then there was the solution for Terran: It pays to look cool.
Finally, ZvZ seems to be really objectionable and most likely as long as Bisu keeps gaming PvZ is gonna remain in an unbalanced state.
On February 10 2025 16:22 G5 wrote: Damn, this thread is still going on?
I gave my thoughts on it but I am curious (and I'm sorry but I am not reading 14 pages to try and find this answer), has there been any general consensus on why P always underperforms at the highest level?
On February 10 2025 08:13 Soulforged wrote: There is room to trade off probe count for aggression, in order to limit the Zerg economy more than you just limited yourself.
Most of that room is in 42-ish probe 6 gate pressure range, as opposed to 56-ish probe full saturation 8gate that hits a few minutes later but harder. What makes them more viable, as opposed to early game committed zealot rushes, is that +1 and zealot sped and templar tech are already available by that point.
Went out of fashion with muta openers being more popular. If you're waiting for a sair build up to be able to either pressure or expand, there's not much point to cutting probes.
Thank you. Finally, some true protoss spirit. I'll try to incorporate what you have summed up.
On February 09 2025 03:05 mtcn77 wrote: I think I nailed it. At 5:15, 17 probes mine 3045 minerals. 28 probes mine 2430. This is all after costs deducted(750 vs 1500). I also made a long term estimate at 10:30 minutes. In this case, 28 probes win. They mine 1558 minerals more than 17 probes(9888 vs 8331). However you run out of minerals just before 12 minutes(11:59). On the other hand, with 17 probes you run out of minerals at 15:16.*I skipped a number here(edit:18>15 minutes). Do you really need 28 probes in each base, or does 615 minerals by 5:15 minute mark make the difference for a more exciting game early on. I tend to go for games with the latter. Starcraft is a game of balance. I chose 17 and 28 based on performance rank. PS: I asked next what if you sprung a new expansion at 5:15 with the 600 mineral addition you have with 17 probes due to said improvement and mined for +5:15 more minutes from the main and the natural at this said rate(while the natural keeps warping probes at a similar rate from 4 up until 17 and stopping there while the base idles with 17 probes). That brought forth a whole another table to compare the results from 5 probes to 28. This case is a little more complicated. You get 1290 more minerals by 10:30 than a 28 probe base. You should use these minerals for two more bases because the main runs out before the third 5:15 duration is complete. If you go on, you can run out of minerals in one base each 5:15 minutes and continue mining by making the expansion and migrating the main to the second base. Higher densities are possible, but they don't last as long and make streamlining like this more difficult.
I know I shouldn't reply to you but I'm really curious what's going on in your head.
You get 1290 more minerals by 10:30 than a 28 probe base. You should use these minerals for two more bases
it seems like you're playing a different game where the goal is who mines the most mineral?
I made another mistake at excel tables. Funny enough, I noticed it while trying to make the area under the curve fit into a square a.k.a largest area in time×mining rate coordinates at 5:15. Now, 20 probes seem best with the 28 probe only down 350 minerals at 5:15. No 600 wild variance. Good thing the total is higher, it fits real time better - you don't have to FE at 17. You can FE at 14, like you guys said it. PS: tried that FE at 14 idea. You lose even harder than a single 28 probe base if you try droning hard.(2466 vs 2841). 400 minerals for a nexus at 14 is literally your entire balance sheet(402). Of course, if you really need 38 probes by 5:15 and 2466 minerals in the early game is all you need, why not. I just don't see it happening anytime soon. PS: FE14 into two base each with 19 probes catches up to a single base 28 probes at 5:48 and a single base 20 probes at 5:59 although both would be swimming in minerals while FE14 would be cash strapped the whole time.
On February 10 2025 08:13 Soulforged wrote: There is room to trade off probe count for aggression, in order to limit the Zerg economy more than you just limited yourself.
Most of that room is in 42-ish probe 6 gate pressure range, as opposed to 56-ish probe full saturation 8gate that hits a few minutes later but harder. What makes them more viable, as opposed to early game committed zealot rushes, is that +1 and zealot sped and templar tech are already available by that point.
Went out of fashion with muta openers being more popular. If you're waiting for a sair build up to be able to either pressure or expand, there's not much point to cutting probes.
42-45 Workers is perfect for a 8 gateways 2 bases semi all in.
On February 10 2025 16:22 G5 wrote: Damn, this thread is still going on?
I gave my thoughts on it but I am curious (and I'm sorry but I am not reading 14 pages to try and find this answer), has there been any general consensus on why P always underperforms at the highest level?
On February 09 2025 03:05 mtcn77 wrote: I think I nailed it. At 5:15, 17 probes mine 3045 minerals. 28 probes mine 2430. This is all after costs deducted(750 vs 1500). I also made a long term estimate at 10:30 minutes. In this case, 28 probes win. They mine 1558 minerals more than 17 probes(9888 vs 8331). However you run out of minerals just before 12 minutes(11:59). On the other hand, with 17 probes you run out of minerals at 15:16.*I skipped a number here(edit:18>15 minutes). Do you really need 28 probes in each base, or does 615 minerals by 5:15 minute mark make the difference for a more exciting game early on. I tend to go for games with the latter. Starcraft is a game of balance. I chose 17 and 28 based on performance rank. PS: I asked next what if you sprung a new expansion at 5:15 with the 600 mineral addition you have with 17 probes due to said improvement and mined for +5:15 more minutes from the main and the natural at this said rate(while the natural keeps warping probes at a similar rate from 4 up until 17 and stopping there while the base idles with 17 probes). That brought forth a whole another table to compare the results from 5 probes to 28. This case is a little more complicated. You get 1290 more minerals by 10:30 than a 28 probe base. You should use these minerals for two more bases because the main runs out before the third 5:15 duration is complete. If you go on, you can run out of minerals in one base each 5:15 minutes and continue mining by making the expansion and migrating the main to the second base. Higher densities are possible, but they don't last as long and make streamlining like this more difficult.
I know I shouldn't reply to you but I'm really curious what's going on in your head.
Did it ever occur to you that "
if you sprung a new expansion at 5:15 with the 600 mineral addition
then it would be destroyed and you throw that 600 down the toilet?
And are you sure you're playing Starcraft where the goal is to eliminate your opponent, as based on this:
You get 1290 more minerals by 10:30 than a 28 probe base. You should use these minerals for two more bases
it seems like you're playing a different game where the goal is who mines the most mineral?
I made another mistake
Not much needed to be said after the first four words.
On February 11 2025 01:25 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote: Hell i have seen Protoss doing it on 38 workers.
Well, full saturation is like 9-10 gates, depending on composition. Pure goon more expensive, zealot-ht less. 8 gate leaves some money to get a 3rd while pushing, etc. It also depends on stuff like, if there's a lot of trades going on, you do not need to make new pylons, and that's 25% of a zealot cost, or 2 out of 8 gates... I meant more timing-wise, if P goes for max saturation, their production will kick-in fully(1-2 rounds from last gates made) past 10 minutes, with 1/1, obs, 2x banked storms all aligned, the usual.
40 probe would be hitting at least a minute earlier, and there's less of a pause in pressure. 8 gate tends to sit on 4 gates making HTs+storm, then jumping to 6, then to 8, one production round separated. Because need to add robo, goon range, still make probes; later obs, +2 upgrade, etc. After all of that is started, and probe saturation is reached & production is stopped, maintaining production is obviously easier. E.g. 2 nexi pumping probes is same mineral upkeep as 2 gates making zealots.
6 gate goes from 2-3 straight to 6 due to probe cut, and can sit on it while still getting all the tech. After tech is up, could resume probes, grab a 3rd, or could go to 8gate, there are choices.
IMO 40 probe pressure plays are kind of an equivalent of staying on 35 drones making hydra for a long time. Can kill greed, will fall behind vs solid defensive play, if didn't overstay on it can still transition out, etc.
On February 10 2025 16:22 G5 wrote: Damn, this thread is still going on?
I gave my thoughts on it but I am curious (and I'm sorry but I am not reading 14 pages to try and find this answer), has there been any general consensus on why P always underperforms at the highest level?
yeah. the answer is that it doesnt.
Well that's just wrong. Protoss clearly does the worst at the pro level.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hXF9IXc.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bvs7anT.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/nOqN7QM.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/vzOE7R6.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/aMDTjgH.png)
