FlaSh on: Biggest Problem With SnOw's Playstyle - Page 8

[sc1f]eonzerg

Belgium6758 Posts

6 hours ago

#141

PvP is balanced then PvZ can't be balanced because P and Z are different

Protoss vs Zerg has a 48.7% WR while Zerg vs Terran has a 44% WR so we need to nerf Hydras. And since we are also nerf Mutalisk.

The last 3 ASLS semifinals there has been 2 protoss 1 terran 1 zerg. Is clear protoss is not doing well cuz it has to be 4 protoss to guarantee a Protoss winner.

TMNT

Bonyth

Poland587 Posts

6 hours ago

#142

Count all participants of RO4 in ASL of all seasons at least (and their races).
While you are at it, do the same for RO8, RO16, RO24.

As for the balance whine, I believe if there is about 40% protoss players on the world, then we should have 40% of them being champions, RO4, RO8 and so on (given sample size is big enough). Unfortunately, 40% of them only exist at the bottom of ladder, even on S rank there is already only 30% of them, and then there are top tournaments.
There were tables for this, but I'm definitely too lazy to search for them.

[sc1f]eonzerg

Belgium6758 Posts

5 hours ago

#143

I think is safe to assume that the ELOBOARD WR are not indicatives of What races dominates in ASL tho. If that was the case then Terran should be winning in most seasons with positive WR in TVP TVZ. I think is actually more logical to agree that Tournament result is all about player performance afterall. Obviously the famous season of the FlaSh anti maps did influence that time with race results and extreme maps like Sparkle Transistor and Third World- But im pretty sure no a single pro. Even protoss players want to back to such maps.

Is also interesting that the WR of protoss has improved a ton since the Kespa era. That means the maps indeed got better after.

RJBTVYOUTUBE

Netherlands1021 Posts

5 hours ago

#144

a new method of determining balance can be to once again look at game time win rates. How hard to winrates swing depending on game time? does the winrate swing too hard?

TMNT

3059 Posts

2 hours ago

#145

On November 15 2025 13:39 Ze'ev wrote:

Show nested quote +

lol wtf. You’re making a positive claim about balance — and making a positive claim means you have the burden of proof. Everyone else finds you ridiculous and is expressing skepticism, and you’re refusing to actually substantiate your claim beyond shallow reasoning, data-mining, or insulting people because you can’t back it up and you’re too insecure to back down.

You sound like some kid who just takes his first science class and is so eager to apply some terms he's just learned to everything.

Matchup balance can only be in either of the two states: balanced or imbalanced. It's not like I'm claiming a new build. It's like when a child is born it can only be a male or a female biologically (excluding the rare genetical cases). The doctor doesn't need to do a genetic test to claim it is a boy or girl, just physical featues are enough. In BW balance there is always a default assumption and it has to be "all non mirror matchups are imbalanced" however small the margin is. It's no bigger of a claim than saying me and you are different people. The 6 points I raised above just further solidify that assumption while also give us a hint of how big the margin is. So the burden of proof, if you want to declare the opposite case, lies on you.

Btw why are you acting like I'm the first person in 25 years who make a statement about ZvP imbalance lol? And if you are so obssessed with high level "analysis", then what the fuck did you do here:
+ Show Spoiler [low level data mining] +

On October 30 2025 06:49 Ze'ev wrote:
its extremely interesting that:

1) protoss lose on almost every map in every matchup
2) terran win on almost every map in every matchup.

it kind of reflects the larger patterns of: zerg has a weak matchup, terran does not. Protoss has a weak matchup and a slightly less weak matchup. When people complain about z>p its not that they're wrong -- rather, its the wrong target. The pvz balance is totally acceptable as long as the pvt balance more closely resembled the strong-weak matchup dichotomy that terran and zerg have. Or rather the myth of; terran has no weak match up and protoss has no strong match up. Itz not zvp thats the problem, its tesagi.

edit: sorry that i fucked up the pattern. im always that guy lol.

or here:

+ Show Spoiler [surface commentary on map balance, whe…] +

On October 04 2025 22:59 Ze'ev wrote:
I actually think roaring currents is zerg favoured tbh.

on the continental side of the map: protoss cant really attack into zerg because its across a bridge, up a ramp, or into a choke. Those bases mine out quickly as well which favours zerg. It gives zerg a stable enough of an economy to contest for the islands. The thing about island/air play in broodwar is: zerg is weak because of oppurtunity cost, but actually has the strongest potential. Queens for parasite/ensnare, muta, devourer, scourge, plague, dark swarm, nydus canal, cracklings, lurkers and hydras...this is an amazingly powerful force. Obviously protoss has its own late game technical army (dweb/arbiter/carrier) to contest with buuuut: because the continental bases dry up relatively fast I'm not sure protoss can safely tech transition without giving the zerg initiative.

Its basically: you cant punish the zerg on land, which gives them a lot of attacking potential either on your land bases or your islands and you cant be quite sure which way there going to go. If you over-invest in one aspect of defence, you get rolled elsewhere. Your initial air advantage is powerful but will dissipate once zerg is stabilized on four gas, and transitions to higher tech both take a while and expose you in the meantime. I think Bisu's solution was to lean on larva with harass and then hit a timing in order to forestall the zerg economic explosion which he couldn't handle in the late game. Larva showed pretty well why that gameplan isnt something you can really rely on.

But what was the alternative? If he hadn't tried for a hanbang and started to transition sooner to late game air, Larva could have contested air that much faster and or started hitting his land bases. After Bisu's timing failed to keep Larva suppressed I feel like he was in a bit of a desperation situation and thats why he kept going for these attacks. He knew how hard a transition would be and gambled his best option was to avoid it. I honestly can understand the decision, giving zerg breathing room on an air map would be fucking terrifying.

Ffs turns out you even implied that ZvP imba is true while having an issue with TvZ too lol. So you are just a small time shit stirrer whose sole purpose is personal attack. Once again, fuck off.

iopq

United States1003 Posts

1 hour ago

#146

There's no "imbalanced" or "balanced"
That's all in the context of what maps we are playing. If the map designers made a lot more Butters and Citadels and Polypoids, we'd be talking about how PvZ is too strong for Protoss

It's literally just luck that more maps are Zerg favored. There are randomly maps that are very close to 50% like Neo Sylphid and Pole Star and Apocalypse.

I mean, you could choose the ASL map pool out of relatively balanced maps and add a 3 player map with high ground naturals or the 973 blocker ditch in front of it (Tempest 3 player remake or Kick Back 3 player remake). Then add a crazy map and call it a day.

[sc1f]eonzerg

Belgium6758 Posts

1 hour ago

#147

Important to mention Sylphid was ravaged with later iterations. I think sylphid 1.0 was the best version of it and one of the most fun maps to play to this date. But it was destroyed later on.

Kraekkling

552 Posts

53 minutes ago

#148

On November 15 2025 22:58 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
Important to mention Sylphid was ravaged with later iterations. I think sylphid 1.0 was the best version of it and one of the most fun maps to play to this date. But it was destroyed later on.

nahhh, there was one single version with a bunch of neutral buildings. this was when the neutral-buildings-mafia was still much more powerful than today. they still have some influence over map making, just not as much as back then

all other changes, from 1.0 to neo sylphid, were rather small and focused on fixing bugs

below are all versions that we had, in random order. try to find your favourite one

+ Show Spoiler +

+ Show Spoiler +

Kraekkling

552 Posts

39 minutes ago

#149

Sylphid was a very pretty and cool map, although it was thought of as a T>Z map by koreans. One of the reasons being that in late TvZ, Terran was able to camp the center of the map with lots of Tanks and inhibit Zerg movement too much.
With this in mind, Apocalypse was created to be kind of a remake of Sylphid, but the center layout was specifically designed to nerf this play style. At least that's what I read once in an interview by Latias, the maker of Apocalypse.

Comedy

465 Posts

37 minutes ago

#150

It really isn't rocket science guys.

Protoss is relatively 'easy to play', but it's harder to perform with at the very top level. That's why guys like bonyth and dewalt dominate the foreign scene with protoss even though with zerg/terran they wouldn't be nearly as succesful.

But when it comes to the top korean level, Protoss, despite being easy to play, has to face a lot of bs builds and timings that top players can abuse to make it harder to win tournaments.

[sc1f]eonzerg

Belgium6758 Posts

31 minutes ago

#151

On November 15 2025 23:43 Kraekkling wrote:

Show nested quote +

+ Show Spoiler +

You are forgetting mineral balanced was changed and made it extremely hard vs terran. Before those changes zerg could play with close expos vs terran. And they introduced countless spots for zealots to get 1 gap traded at basically every natural.

Basically every zerg pro complained about sylphid changes and did ask to revert back but changes werent made. I remember pros also wanted that the expanions at the top bottom and mid right were changed so siege tank couldnt kill extractor.

Kraekkling

552 Posts

6 minutes ago

#152

On November 16 2025 00:05 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yea that makes sense. Its usually hard to say whether something really needs fixed, because people will always complain if you take away something they had before, or give their opponents something new.

I think in the past we were way worse at tracking stats... really makes you wonder when and how maps were updated.

What's interesting (and good) though is, if the changes you mention were able to make or break the balance on the map, this would mean that we have some really good tools to tilt the balance to either side. Because stuff like that can be applied to almost any map.

Prev 1 6 7 8 All

Please or register to reply.

FlaSh on: Biggest Problem With SnOw's Playstyle - Page 8

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming