|
Updated to full data set including current ladder maps
Two years ago we examined a data sample of 8 million brood war replays from repmastered. If you're seeing this for the first time, I highly recommend reading the older post first.
The data sample has grown to 70 million replays, so it seemed like a good time to revisit. There are two parts to this. The first part is similar to what we looked at last time, i.e. how win rates for specific match-ups develop during the game, just with more data and split by map. This is now possible due to the much bigger data sample.
The second part is new, wherein we'll take a look at how balanced spawn locations are. We'll look at this both for mirror match-ups and for non-mirror matchups.
Did you ever wonder what the best spawn is as Terran in TvZ on Fighting Spirit? Did you ever feel like your timings are much more crisp when you spawn at 12 o'clock with Zerg on Dominator? Is there a difference between vertical and horizontal entrances at the natural expansion for Protoss in PvZ? Could it even be that some specific spawn locations are so much better, that an otherwise disadvantaged matchup becomes advantageous? Let's find out.
Data
+ Show Spoiler +The dataset comprises roughly 70 million 28 million 1v1 ladder games played since the start of 2018, but by far the biggest part came in during the last 2 years. This is perfect, since we should care much more about recent games on new ladder maps, than what happened long in the past. The information from the dataset doesn't provide complete information from a replay but rather some extracted data. Build order or income details are not available. The dataset did include: - Player races
- Game winner
- Game duration
- Spawn locations
- Player MMR
To refine the dataset, a few filters were applied: Game duration > 2 minutes Exclude draws Exclude games with afk players Exclude games on fastest maps and similar Exclude games on maps with fewer than 100.000 60.000 games (changed to include new ladder maps such as Roaring Currents) See below for a map frequency histogram. The rectangle-name-map is FS1.3 and FS1.4, since it's the only map with a korean name.
Player population
Here we see how the ladder MMR is distributed between the players of different races. The vertical lines represent the mean of the distributions.
In the raw counts + Show Spoiler +, we see that overall there are slightly more protoss players than zerg or terran players, but the difference is not that big (~15%). The average MMR is very slightly higher for zerg.
We can also look at this after normalizing each of the distributions: + Show Spoiler +. Basically this is what it would look like, if there were exactly as many players of each of the races. There's not too much insight here, since the distributions almost perfectly overlap. If anything, we could say that the skill variance between players of a given race is pretty similar for all races.
Part 1, Win rates vs. game time
These distributions were created in the same way as described here. I think the write-up and the discussion in the comments in the old thread on what we see in the plots was quite good, so I recommend reading that.
Just to have a short explanation: the colored data points with the colored line tells us how the win rate changes during the match, the relevant legend is on the left-hand side. Additionally we have a dotted, straight green line at exactly 50% win rate, which makes it easier for us to see where the "perfect balance" is.
In the background, we have blue bars superimposed, which tell us how many games ended in a given 1-minute interval. The relevant legend is on the right side. On top of the blue bars, we have percentage numbers. These tell us, which fraction of all games ended before a given point in time. For example, in the PvT graph, we can see a number of 35% above the blue bar for the 10-11 minute interval. This means that ~35% of all PvT games end before 11 minutes. Note that these percentage numbers go towards 100%, as the time increases - which makes sense, since all games have to end at some point, and almost all games end somewhere before 40 minutes.
PvT, overall
+ Show Spoiler +
PvT by MMR brackets
+ Show Spoiler +
PvT on 4-player maps, cross- vs close spawn
+ Show Spoiler +
PvZ, overall
+ Show Spoiler +
PvZ by MMR brackets
+ Show Spoiler +
PvZ on 4-player maps, cross- vs close spawn
+ Show Spoiler +
TvZ, overall
+ Show Spoiler +
TvZ by MMR brackets
+ Show Spoiler +
TvZ on 4-player maps, cross- vs close spawn
+ Show Spoiler +
You can find a lot more data on a per-map basis here.
When looking at these win rates vs time on a per-map basis, there's quite a bit of variation. While most maps tend to follow the very same trend as we see on the average for all maps, the deviations are actually quite significant. Especially when we compare two maps to each other, we can tell that specific builds or timings differ in their relative strength depending on the map. For example consider
TvZ on Eclipse and Neo Dark Origin, both 2-player-maps: + Show Spoiler +
To me, the most striking difference is the mid-game strength of Terran. While we see that Terran dominates the match-up as usual at ~9-16 minutes, this is much more pronounced on Eclipse, in agreement with the consensus that Eclipse is a particularly hard map for Zergs to get into a late-game 4gas situation.
Now if we go into specifics and smaller details, we can consider that the rush distance on Eclipse is a bit longer compared to most other 2-player-maps, so things like 2-Rax sunken busts are a bit weaker.
We can see this at the peak around 5-6-7 minutes, where the win rate shoots up for Terran. Note the peak is both lower and later in the case of Eclipse: the sunken bust hits later and is less potent. On the other hand, when we look at what happens around 7-8 minutes, we see a dip caused by Mutalisk timings. We can instantly tell that, whatever the reason, Mutalisks hit much harder on Neo Dark Origin, compared to Eclipse.
I think generally this is the most important takeaway and how this data can be used. You can consult these plots to see whether a particular build is comparably stronger or weaker on a specific map.
Part 2, Win rates by spawn location
Now, to the new part. In the following, we'll be looking at win rates for a specific spawn, on a given map, in a given matchup.
So each of the plots will have exactly that information: map, matchup, and how the spawn locations differ between each other.
Consider the example of ZvZ on Dominator: + Show Spoiler +
We can see that the 12 o'clock is by far the best spawn location. The red-green-color gradient at the bottom is telling us whether a spawn is at advantage or at disadvantage. For the case of mirror match-ups, this is the easiest, since the expected win rate everywhere should be 50%. So a deviation below that will turn into red, and anything above becomes green. At the very center, close to 50%, the color scheme becomes white, which means that, the more color you see on this plots, the more overall imbalance there is. If you see a plot with very little color, this means that all spawn locations are very similar to each other.
Next, let's consider another example, TvP on Polypoid. + Show Spoiler +
The only difference here is that we no longer use the 50% as benchmark for a "balanced" spawn. Instead, the benchmark is the overall win rate (for this matchup) for this map. For example, Terran has an overall win rate of 51.1% in TvP on this map, as given in the central text box. Thus to evaluate the spawn, we consider the difference to this 51.1% to figure out what the best/worst spawns are.
Another difference in this particular example is that an MMR bracket was selected, as shown in the info box. I'm using the same definition for this as last time. + Show Spoiler +A match-mmr is determined by taking the average MMR of the two players (initial MMR values before the match was played). Several brackets of games are defined and compared. Additionally, a requirement is imposed on the max difference of player MMR, to ensure only games of a meaningful skill difference are taken into account.
I generally wanted to see how this imbalance for spawn locations behaves as we examine players of different strength. Currently, there are three brackets:
- all players
- match MMR > 1900
- match MMR > 2100
If deemed relevant, we can adjust them, but it seemed sufficient so far.
At last, note that while previously it was sufficient to e.g. look at a graph for PvT to understand both the perspective of the Terran and the perspective of the Protoss, for this map-and-matchup-and-spawn-specific plots we must consider these independently. So we end up with 9 perspectives which need to be considered: zvz, tvt, pvp, pvz, pvt, tvz, tvp, zvp, zvt.
Now we can dive into the actual results - let me start by saying that I was very surprised by what I saw.
For a given map, more often than not, the spawn location seems to actually be the most deciding factor. I expected the differences to be maybe at the order of a few percent, but the actual differences are often above 5% and sometimes even at 10%. Isn't that crazy? Two years ago, we also examined at how matchup win rates depend on cross-spawn vs close-spawn on 4-players map, and there is a significant and measurable effect. However, pretty often it is completely dwarfed when compared to the influence of the specific spawn.
If you think about how many of the recent balance discussions here on ZvP centered on matchup differences of like 48-52%, but its actually more like
"yeah so for PvZ, as Protoss on Fighting Spirit, you just need to spawn top right and you are miles ahead"
and this usually persists throughout the MMR brackets or becomes even more severe. Just look at this:
+ Show Spoiler +
What the heck? So when I first saw some of these, my first thought was that something might be wrong with the data or my methods, so I started checking things to confirm everything works as expected and I didn't mess up. I've arrived at a few cases where it should be easy to tell was is supposed to happen, and it does happen every single time. Thus I'm inclined to believe what we see in the data is overall correct. Let me show you these cases.
case 1, FS1.3 -> FS1.4
Luckily, there are a few maps in the pool, where just tiny changes were applied to specific spawns. For example, when we went from FS1.3 to FS1.4, the one relevant change was the layout of the minerals on the left-side spawns. It has become known that right-side spawn was mining faster, so we switched to "L"-shaped mineral layouts on the left side. This difference in mining rates is most relevant for Zerg, since they mine with the least amount of drones.
FS1.3, ZvZ
+ Show Spoiler +
FS1.4, ZvZ
+ Show Spoiler +
As expected, in each of the brackets we see the advantage of right-side spawn shrinks, when we compare FS1.4. to FS1.3. The same is true for other Zerg matchups when looking at 1.3 -> 1.4., where the left side spawns become a bit better. There are some fluctuations, but the trend goes in the right direction.
case 2, FS top right spawn Protoss
I actually didn't know about this, so I was very glad when eon mentioned that top right spawn is known to be advantageous for protoss. These advantages in mining should be most relevant in the mirror matchups, and this is what we see.
PvP on FS1.3+ Show Spoiler +
PvZ on FS 1.3 + Show Spoiler +
Protoss spawns top right on FS = big peepee.
It looks like the change to 1.4 partially improved this in PvP, where now top left is also a good spawn. + Show Spoiler + Not quite sure how to interpret this, maybe someone else can comment. Also there's stuff like, for example, in PvT on FS1.3.: where bottom right is the best spawn: + Show Spoiler + and when we go to FS1.4., its much more balanced overall + Show Spoiler +, except that bottom left remains worst spawn by far.
So there is plenty of very match-up specific stuff that I don't quite understand, but also more variables at play. In the mirror match-up, everything seems as expected.
case 3, 12 o'clock spawn Zerg on Dominator
This spawn is known for very quick mining for Zergs, also confirmed by the data at hand.
What now?
First, here's the rest of the data on spawn-specific stats. It's grouped by
matchup -> map
and then there are 3 plots each, one per MMR bracket. Feel free to re-upload them somewhere else to be able to repost or reference them here.
There are hundreds of plots overall, have fun browsing them. I'd recommend you look for the match-ups you play yourself and maps that you like in particular, and try to see whether you find anything interesting or noteworthy.
There might be better ways to structure this and present it, I'm looking for input there as well. Also if you have any specific sanity tests or cross-checks that could be applied to make sure everything works as intended, please comment. I should add that the results did not pass all my vibe checks. For example, on FS, the bottom left spawn is supposed to be particularly bad in TvZ, which we do not see in the data. Now, whether this is because something is wrong with the methods; or, because every Terran knows that this spawn is supposed to be worse for them, and they looked up how to best place turrets; or, this spot never was bad at all; I don't know.
Regarding what all of this means for the game, I'm not sure either. Most often, there seem to be several variables involved at the same time, with overlapping effects.
- Specific spawns seem optimal for one race, but might be not optimal at all for a different race
- Some maps have wildly imbalanced spawns, while others are pretty balanced
- Quite often, the variance between specific spots is higher than the difference in the win rates for the matchup as a whole
I didn't want to theorize too much on what the underlying causes could be, e.g. is it more of a left-side-spawn vs right-side-spawn bias, or is it about top side vs bottom side, or is it specific to horizontal vs vertical entrance only relevant in PvZ + Show Spoiler +but it seems like vertical entrance natural expansion is MUCH better for protoss in pvz, compared to horizontal entrance. its a mostly consistent thing
Anyway, thanks again to repmastered for the data, and everyone consider donating a dollar for the free services we get. The stuff you see here is based on ~28 million ladder replays (out of the 70 million replays on repmastered, which include team games, fastest games, etc).
|
Thanks for the data analysis, very interesting.
On the highest player level group you created, MMR > 2400, the overall win rates are as follows, right?
PvT 46.25%
PVZ 47.46%
TvZ 55.73%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The average game length for a zerg is around 12 minutes. And the peak winrate for t v z and p v z is around 12 minutes. Way above 50 %. How should we interpret that? WE ARE THE MOST MISUNDERSTOOD RACE!
|
So we can see that cross spawn is overall balanced, close spawn is not quite. Why not just make more 3 player maps?
It would be a slightly longer distance than close, but shorter distance than cross.
|
Stellar work! Any changes you noticed in the winrate graphs compared to last time?
|
Thanks for the work, definitely some interesting data. I took a look at the previous thread from two years ago first. Now I wanted to check out the statistics here, but none of the images are working on my end "[image loading]". Is it me or did the links to the images break or something?
|
Thank you so much for this. Super cool stuff.
|
Any terran player that could explain why Polypoid bottom right is such a good spawn for you ? I think top right and bottom right what they have in common is the same mineral lines. Sim City is different. Is it by being at the right side any beneficial with defense and mobility of your army any different to the left side ?
|
On November 20 2025 17:55 RedW4rr10r wrote:
Thanks for the work, definitely some interesting data. I took a look at the previous thread from two years ago first. Now I wanted to check out the statistics here, but none of the images are working on my end "[image loading]". Is it me or did the links to the images break or something?
anyone else? could you link to the exact broken image? might need to switch to another image host if this persists... thanks
|
On November 20 2025 21:19 Kraekkling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2025 17:55 RedW4rr10r wrote:
Thanks for the work, definitely some interesting data. I took a look at the previous thread from two years ago first. Now I wanted to check out the statistics here, but none of the images are working on my end "[image loading]". Is it me or did the links to the images break or something? anyone else? could you link to the exact broken image? might need to switch to another image host if this persists... thanks
Working fine for me.
|
On November 20 2025 21:19 Kraekkling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2025 17:55 RedW4rr10r wrote:
Thanks for the work, definitely some interesting data. I took a look at the previous thread from two years ago first. Now I wanted to check out the statistics here, but none of the images are working on my end "[image loading]". Is it me or did the links to the images break or something? anyone else? could you link to the exact broken image? might need to switch to another image host if this persists... thanks
I tried a different browser (Firefox at first, then Chrome) and none of the images work. But they work on mobile (iOS). Must be on my end then, especially when I seem to be the only one. I'll check it out on my phone then 
|
Croatia9527 Posts
Pretty cool analysis. Spotlighted it.
|
Awesome work, thanks a lot mate!
And huge kudos to repmastered for making such analysis possible
|
On November 20 2025 22:05 RedW4rr10r wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2025 21:19 Kraekkling wrote:On November 20 2025 17:55 RedW4rr10r wrote:
Thanks for the work, definitely some interesting data. I took a look at the previous thread from two years ago first. Now I wanted to check out the statistics here, but none of the images are working on my end "[image loading]". Is it me or did the links to the images break or something? anyone else? could you link to the exact broken image? might need to switch to another image host if this persists... thanks I tried a different browser (Firefox at first, then Chrome) and none of the images work. But they work on mobile (iOS). Must be on my end then, especially when I seem to be the only one. I'll check it out on my phone then
You're not alone. Android + Chrome here, images fail to load (twice).
|
I switched to a different image hosting site - does it work now?
|
On November 20 2025 23:56 Kraekkling wrote:
I switched to a different image hosting site - does it work now?
Looks great, thank you!
|
That's insane, thanks a lot for this!
On November 20 2025 22:05 RedW4rr10r wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2025 21:19 Kraekkling wrote:On November 20 2025 17:55 RedW4rr10r wrote:
Thanks for the work, definitely some interesting data. I took a look at the previous thread from two years ago first. Now I wanted to check out the statistics here, but none of the images are working on my end "[image loading]". Is it me or did the links to the images break or something? anyone else? could you link to the exact broken image? might need to switch to another image host if this persists... thanks I tried a different browser (Firefox at first, then Chrome) and none of the images work. But they work on mobile (iOS). Must be on my end then, especially when I seem to be the only one. I'll check it out on my phone then
I had to turn off my "Nervenschoner" addon in firefox, which auto-rejects cookies and data collection where possible... Maybe you got something similar active in your browser that could hamper functionality of a website?
On November 20 2025 14:10 Soft_General_5023 wrote:
Thanks for the data analysis, very interesting.
On the highest player level group you created, MMR > 2400, the overall win rates are as follows, right?
PvT 46.25%
PVZ 47.46%
TvZ 55.73%
Tesagi confirmed.
|
terran: easiest to win
protoss: easiest to play
zerg: manliest to play
|
but it seems like vertical entrance natural expansion is MUCH better for protoss in pvz, compared to horizontal entrance. its a mostly consistent thing
Hydra bust is slightly less powerful when done vertically compared to horizontally. At least that's the idea why they designed all the entrances in Radeon like that.
|
On November 20 2025 21:17 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
Any terran player that could explain why Polypoid bottom right is such a good spawn for you ? I think top right and bottom left what they have in common is the same mineral lines. Sim City is different. Is it by being at the right side any beneficial with desense and mobility of your army any differento to the left side ?
Bottom right on poly has ling tight wall in nat available with marines spawning inside.
|
On November 21 2025 03:59 WolFix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2025 21:17 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
Any terran player that could explain why Polypoid bottom right is such a good spawn for you ? I think top right and bottom left what they have in common is the same mineral lines. Sim City is different. Is it by being at the right side any beneficial with desense and mobility of your army any differento to the left side ? Bottom right on poly has ling tight wall in nat available with marines spawning inside.
There has to be more to it to justify such a high WR on this spawn.
|
to me it seems like usually there are several overlapping factors
there seems to be an overall left-vs-right spawn bias on 4-players maps, where its better to spawn on the right side
I think top right and bottom left what they have in common is the same mineral lines
one would think that, but the same mineral layout is not sufficient to guarantee the same mining rate. Its actually much more about pathfinding regions, which is basically a bunch of random bullshit.
|
Do you mean that Litmus for example has different income rate ?
Terran is doing fantastic on Litmus with such mineral setup but i think the biggest factor is the third gaz. And the lack of terrain for protoss to attack terran. And well a 2 player map where protoss cant do their favorite strat of stealing gaz from the get go i imagine play a huge role aswell. But im unsure about the last.
But polypoid for example usually terran goes for the mineral Only. Maybe since is a very easy expo to defend could be also an issue for terran that is unable to punish it. and then terran can quickly take a 4.
|
Do you mean that Litmus for example has different income rate ?
Yes, it can be. Even though the mineral formations are perfectly identical. It does not guarantee that workers will behave the same.
The reason are pathfinding regions, the yellow rectangles: + Show Spoiler +
These pathfinding regions determine which path a worker will take after it mined a patch of minerals.
You might remember how on older maps, workers used to do very weird stuff and have strange pathing. Today, they don't, because map makers spend a lot of time to make things look fluent. What map makers do is not to just place the minerals and be finished. Pathfinding regions are calculated by the game depending on the layout of walkable and unwalkable tiles by a very stupid and hard to control mechanism.
If you ever noticed "random" unwalkable tiles somewhere on the map, those were placed deliberately by the map maker to adjust the pathfinding region. On the Litmus pic above, on the right side, below the gas is a small yellow rectangle. This is an unwalkable tile that was deliberately put there by the map maker to adjust the pathfinding region around this spawn location.
But since this process of fixing pathfinding regions is both tedious and random, map makers usually stop when they were able to get rid of everything that looks bugged. This however does not guarantee that mining rates will be similar.
|
United States12240 Posts
Seems like the image host died again.
|
+ Show Spoiler [PvZ] +
Maybe do the win rate vs game duration of the top right and top left populations and see if there's a higher/lower peak of top right at some minutes and have a clue of where the extra wins come from?
|
On November 21 2025 05:21 Kraekkling wrote:Yes, it can be. Even though the mineral formations are perfectly identical. It does not guarantee that workers will behave the same. The reason are pathfinding regions, the yellow rectangles: + Show Spoiler +These pathfinding regions determine which path a worker will take after it mined a patch of minerals. You might remember how on older maps, workers used to do very weird stuff and have strange pathing. Today, they don't, because map makers spend a lot of time to make things look fluent. What map makers do is not to just place the minerals and be finished. Pathfinding regions are calculated by the game depending on the layout of walkable and unwalkable tiles by a very stupid and hard to control mechanism. If you ever noticed "random" unwalkable tiles somewhere on the map, those were placed deliberately by the map maker to adjust the pathfinding region. On the Litmus pic above, on the right side, below the gas is a small yellow rectangle. This is an unwalkable tile that was deliberately put there by the map maker to adjust the pathfinding region around this spawn location. But since this process of fixing pathfinding regions is both tedious and random, map makers usually stop when they were able to get rid of everything that looks bugged. This however does not guarantee that mining rates will be similar.
That is so interesting. In fact this extremely strong WR on advantageous spawn could be getting also bonuses from spawns randomizers. For example how often is poylpoid bottom right getting vs top left or bottom left compared to top right ? For example on FS i remember more often than not when i was on top right i will see the overlord coming to my base easily 4 from 10 games LOL. I could be tweakin on this tho. But i think Spawn randomizer is a big factor. Hell back when i started BW i remember me and friends could predict opponent spawn cuz The lost temple version only had white color to be on only one spawn. xD
|
On November 21 2025 06:24 TMNT wrote:+ Show Spoiler [PvZ] +Maybe do the win rate vs game duration of the top right and top left populations and see if there's a higher/lower peak of top right at some minutes and have a clue of where the extra wins come from?
seems like right side of the map benefits from better mining, while at the same time we have 2-zealot gaps at top right and bottom left compared to 3-zealot gaps in bottom right and top left.
As such, top right benefits the most, top left suffers the most.
|
On November 21 2025 06:27 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2025 05:21 Kraekkling wrote:Do you mean that Litmus for example has different income rate ? Yes, it can be. Even though the mineral formations are perfectly identical. It does not guarantee that workers will behave the same. The reason are pathfinding regions, the yellow rectangles: + Show Spoiler +These pathfinding regions determine which path a worker will take after it mined a patch of minerals. You might remember how on older maps, workers used to do very weird stuff and have strange pathing. Today, they don't, because map makers spend a lot of time to make things look fluent. What map makers do is not to just place the minerals and be finished. Pathfinding regions are calculated by the game depending on the layout of walkable and unwalkable tiles by a very stupid and hard to control mechanism. If you ever noticed "random" unwalkable tiles somewhere on the map, those were placed deliberately by the map maker to adjust the pathfinding region. On the Litmus pic above, on the right side, below the gas is a small yellow rectangle. This is an unwalkable tile that was deliberately put there by the map maker to adjust the pathfinding region around this spawn location. But since this process of fixing pathfinding regions is both tedious and random, map makers usually stop when they were able to get rid of everything that looks bugged. This however does not guarantee that mining rates will be similar. That is so interesting. In fact this extremely strong WR on advantageous spawn could be getting also bonuses from spawns randomizers. For example how often is poylpoid bottom right getting vs top left or bottom left compared to top right ? For example on FS i remember more often than not when i was on top right i will see the overlord coming to my base easily 4 from 10 games LOL. I could be tweakin on this tho. But i think Spawn randomizer is a big factor. Hell back when i started BW i remember me and friends could predict opponent spawn cuz The lost temple version only had white color to be on only one spawn. xD
Back in the early days of remastered ladder, FS positions were locked to top left vs. top right, maybe that is affecting your statistical perception of the phenomenon? Or is this something that continues to this day?
I would be really surprised if (outside of anomalies like these) there is some bias for spawn locations on modern maps. Feels like progamers would sniff those out due to the sheer volume of games they play. Still, would be a great statistic to look at to determine any deviations from the expected norm, if possible @Kraekkling.
|
the spawn randomizer works fine, the relevant stats are already included on the spawn-specific plots.
in the spawn-squares, look for the N = XXX number, which tells us how often players spawned there
|
On November 21 2025 07:40 Kraekkling wrote:
the spawn randomizer works fine, the relevant stats are already included on the spawn-specific plots.
in the spawn-squares, look for the N = XXX number, which tells us how often players spawned there
Sorry that I missed this, but I guess the relevant question here is spawn pairs? If 50% of games are TL vs TR and the other 50% are BL vs BR, then the spawn squares would be balanced but exclude the majority of spawn interactions, just to provide an extreme example.
|
@jealous no i remember this bug. What im talking about was more from iccup/fish days .
|
Hio Kraekkling gj! maybe just i dont find there is number how many games will be end before 10 minutes in zvp ? and how many around 3-5 mins ? from 19365 games. i am just curious about this ( on high mmr )
|
On November 21 2025 07:51 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
@jealous no i remember this bug. What im talking about was more from iccup/fish days .
Interesting, first I am hearing of it and I was very active back then so I feel like I would have noticed, but I was also a full-on scrub so maybe not Hopefully Kraekkling will be able to provide us with pair-wise analysis for the spawn locations. Could be interesting to break it down by year too, if possible, to test your hypothesis.
PS: Do want to say thanks to Kraekkling for the work done on both this post and the previous one (which I remember very well!). I don't want to seem like I'm always complaining or needy without showing appreciation as well.
|
On November 20 2025 16:51 iopq wrote:
So we can see that cross spawn is overall balanced, close spawn is not quite. Why not just make more 3 player maps?
It would be a slightly longer distance than close, but shorter distance than cross.
I believe besides the fact 3p maps are incredibly difficult to make (fitting an equilateral triangle inside a square - like NEMEC mentioned in the past), ZvZ can also become luck-based, which may not be good for tournament play.
|
On November 21 2025 17:32 Kanzzer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2025 16:51 iopq wrote:
So we can see that cross spawn is overall balanced, close spawn is not quite. Why not just make more 3 player maps?
It would be a slightly longer distance than close, but shorter distance than cross. I believe besides the fact 3p maps are incredibly difficult to make (fitting an equilateral triangle inside a square - like NEMEC mentioned in the past), ZvZ can also become luck-based, which may not be good for tournament play.
they can bring back Apocalypse into the map pool. statistically it is the most balanced map together with Radeon. Apocalypse also produced a lot of very high quality entertaining matches.
|
On November 21 2025 20:12 RJBTVYOUTUBE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2025 17:32 Kanzzer wrote:On November 20 2025 16:51 iopq wrote:
So we can see that cross spawn is overall balanced, close spawn is not quite. Why not just make more 3 player maps?
It would be a slightly longer distance than close, but shorter distance than cross. I believe besides the fact 3p maps are incredibly difficult to make (fitting an equilateral triangle inside a square - like NEMEC mentioned in the past), ZvZ can also become luck-based, which may not be good for tournament play. they can bring back Apocalypse into the map pool. statistically it is the most balanced map together with Radeon. Apocalypse also produced a lot of very high quality entertaining matches.
I wasnt around when Monopoly was used in the ASL mp. But i looked at the picture of it and is surprising that protoss actually dominates zerg and terran in such map. I mean not by a huge extent. I honestly could believe such stats are actually balanced. But it is a map that never comeback.
|
On November 21 2025 17:32 Kanzzer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2025 16:51 iopq wrote:
So we can see that cross spawn is overall balanced, close spawn is not quite. Why not just make more 3 player maps?
It would be a slightly longer distance than close, but shorter distance than cross. I believe besides the fact 3p maps are incredibly difficult to make (fitting an equilateral triangle inside a square - like NEMEC mentioned in the past), ZvZ can also become luck-based, which may not be good for tournament play.
IDK about difficult but i would say the best maps made in SC remastered are proly.Sylphid / Ascension / Apocalypse / Dominator / all of them 3 players map.It seems map makers figured out the formule to get bangers out of 3 players while the 4 players formule is right now stuck in those boring clones we are getting. With the exception of Tempest that imo should have made few changes and be put again into the MP.
|
On November 21 2025 20:12 RJBTVYOUTUBE wrote:
they can bring back Apocalypse into the map pool. statistically it is the most balanced map together with Radeon. Apocalypse also produced a lot of very high quality entertaining matches.
On November 21 2025 20:20 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
IDK about difficult but i would say the best maps made in SC remastered are proly.Sylphid / Ascension / Apocalypse / Dominator / all of them 3 players map.It seems map makers figured out the formule to get bangers out of 3 players while the 4 players formule is right now stuck in those boring clones we are getting. With the exception of Tempest that imo should have made few changes and be put again into the MP.
I'll just quote NEMEC (he was responding to you on that thread actually, RJBTV. You were posting on that thread too, EonZerg):
On June 10 2024 04:35 POPsNemec wrote:
3 player maps are actually harder to make than 4 player maps. Drawing an equilateral triangle inside a square makes the map feel much smaller. (It becomes even more challenging when considering air units.)
Additionally, in Zerg vs. Zerg matches, Overlord searching luck can decide the game's outcome, leading to games that rely too much on luck.
On January 20 2025 03:26 POPsNemec wrote:
Apocalypse was removed from consideration because Terran players disliked it.
I personally think LatiAs is excellent at designing 3-player maps
(Sylphid, Apocalypse, Dominator).
When I have balance concerns while designing a map,
I often seek his advice as he has a great understanding of map balance.
I remember Freakling the great foreign mapmaker also said somewhere that 3p maps are very challenging, and it's not something all mapmakers are confident with. Testbug is one of the rare foreign mappers to be very proficient with 3p maps.
All the maps you listed are all made by LatiAs, Eonzerg, so it looks like out of all ASL-approved mapmakers, he's your best bet for a new and nice 3p map.
|
I'm processing the full data sample right now, will update everything soon-ish.
current ladder maps included
how many games will be end before 10 minutes in zvp ? and how many around 3-5 mins ? from 19365 games
yeah I can add vs-time-plots for specific mmr-brackets with the number of game which ended at any point in the background, just as for the full player base. I previously looked at those and there was not much variation between player groups, so didn't include.
[...]provide us with pair-wise analysis for the spawn locations. Could be interesting to break it down by year too, if possible, to test your hypothesis.
no I'm not gonna do this :D this is like checking for ghosts under your bed or something
not trying to be rude, this is actually kinda funny. like, how is it even supposed to work? do you think blizzard messed up a random number generator? the game doesn't even know what side a spawn is on or what map is being used. or was it some bad actor which changed the source code of brood war to specifically only in some rare cases increase this probability when detecting fighting spirit? while keeping track globally of spawn rates to make it fine over the whole sample lol... I guess you could do it with a UMS-map, but we don't have these in the data sample
|
do you think blizzard messed up a random number generator?
Most likely happened LMAO. Tell me something blizzard didnt freakin messed hahahahahhahahahahaha
dont feel pressure to do shit. We already grateful with what you have contributed. Like you said this could be chasing a ghost.
|
everything updated to use the full data set, including current ladder maps
On November 21 2025 07:56 sas.Sziky wrote:Hio Kraekkling gj! maybe just i dont find there is number how many games will be end before 10 minutes in zvp ? and how many around 3-5 mins ? from 19365 games. i am just curious about this ( on high mmr )
overall numbers (19365 -> 23520) changed a bit because the data set became bigger.
tbh not too much insight in these plots, its mostly the same distributions with increasingly less data as we move up the MMR brackets
pvt + Show Spoiler +
pvz + Show Spoiler +
tvz + Show Spoiler +
|
On November 20 2025 23:56 Kraekkling wrote:
I switched to a different image hosting site - does it work now?
Yes, thank you! It works now
|
On November 22 2025 03:25 Kraekkling wrote:everything updated to use the full data set, including current ladder mapsShow nested quote +On November 21 2025 07:56 sas.Sziky wrote:Hio Kraekkling gj! maybe just i dont find there is number how many games will be end before 10 minutes in zvp ? and how many around 3-5 mins ? from 19365 games. i am just curious about this ( on high mmr ) overall numbers (19365 -> 23520) changed a bit because the data set became bigger. tbh not too much insight in these plots, its mostly the same distributions with increasingly less data as we move up the MMR brackets pvt + Show Spoiler +pvz + Show Spoiler +tvz + Show Spoiler +
Thank you i was curious about this because it was because of the lag or its just a normal ladder things. I mean my zvp s i think around 30% are Nex first or proxy 2 gw. So if i read correctly around 30-35 % end before 10 mins and almost half before 5 mins. so maybe the lag is a little bit forced them for playing this.( in my case )
|
On November 22 2025 02:21 Kraekkling wrote:I'm processing the full data sample right now, will update everything soon-ish. current ladder maps included Show nested quote + how many games will be end before 10 minutes in zvp ? and how many around 3-5 mins ? from 19365 games yeah I can add vs-time-plots for specific mmr-brackets with the number of game which ended at any point in the background, just as for the full player base. I previously looked at those and there was not much variation between player groups, so didn't include. Show nested quote +[...]provide us with pair-wise analysis for the spawn locations. Could be interesting to break it down by year too, if possible, to test your hypothesis. no I'm not gonna do this :D this is like checking for ghosts under your bed or something not trying to be rude, this is actually kinda funny. like, how is it even supposed to work? do you think blizzard messed up a random number generator? the game doesn't even know what side a spawn is on or what map is being used. or was it some bad actor which changed the source code of brood war to specifically only in some rare cases increase this probability when detecting fighting spirit? while keeping track globally of spawn rates to make it fine over the whole sample lol... I guess you could do it with a UMS-map, but we don't have these in the data sample
I mean, I would argue that them having it be TR vs TL on ladder for a period of more than a month IIRC is effectively the POC for this analysis, but as eon said, I respect what you've done already and am not making demands + I get your logic. Thanks again
|
Calgary25991 Posts
This is awesome! I don't know why I've never thought about match-up winrate vs time. Very interesting.
|
added bin labels which tell us which fraction of all games end before a given time
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Awesome work, thanks a lot mate!
|
On November 22 2025 04:27 Chill wrote:
This is awesome! I don't know why I've never thought about match-up winrate vs time. Very interesting.
This is an analysis I've seen quite a bit in AoE2
|
On November 22 2025 04:45 Kraekkling wrote:added bin labels which tell us which fraction of all games end before a given time + Show Spoiler +
I don't quite get this graph. It seems the later the game goes, the higher the P winrate is (from the numbers) but at the same time, the line starts dipping below 50%. How's that possible? Or do the percentage numbers just sum up the total number of games that lastet the specified time on the x-axis or shorter?
|
On November 22 2025 21:48 Miragee wrote:I don't quite get this graph. It seems the later the game goes, the higher the P winrate is (from the numbers) but at the same time, the line starts dipping below 50%. How's that possible? Or do the percentage numbers just sum up the total number of games that lastet the specified time on the x-axis or shorter?
No, protoss only wins more ( winrate over 50%) if game last between 9 and 17 minutes - yellow line.
Blue bars are cumulative and say how many of total games are ended before that time.
|
On November 22 2025 02:21 Kraekkling wrote:
do you think blizzard messed up a random number generator?
it's actually broken in single player, just reload in single player, you get MUCH more of the same spawn than other spawns when you restart mission
|
On November 22 2025 22:13 Soft_General_5023 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2025 21:48 Miragee wrote:On November 22 2025 04:45 Kraekkling wrote:added bin labels which tell us which fraction of all games end before a given time + Show Spoiler + I don't quite get this graph. It seems the later the game goes, the higher the P winrate is (from the numbers) but at the same time, the line starts dipping below 50%. How's that possible? Or do the percentage numbers just sum up the total number of games that lastet the specified time on the x-axis or shorter? No, protoss only wins more ( winrate over 50%) if game last between 9 and 17 minutes - yellow line. Blue bars are cumulative and say how many of total games are ended before that time.
Yeah ok that makes sense, thank you.
|
I always knew Zerg was weak in the midgame
|
just give scv 40 hp already
how many more decades we gotta keep doing this?
|
On November 23 2025 09:47 tankgirl wrote:
just give scv 40 hp already
how many more decades we gotta keep doing this?
Just buff Scout and Ghost :D
|
On November 23 2025 09:47 tankgirl wrote:
just give scv 40 hp already
how many more decades we gotta keep doing this?
that would be funny, snow would win pvt even before reavers
|
|
|
Here is the deal you guys all fail to see: Every race on the backfoot the first 15 minutes are playing exactly those builds to get to the position in order to have a higher winrate the next 15 minutes.
You think zerg likes to go third base and then defend with mutas and then go lurkers, with every little fuckup being GG?
This being said, Tesagi across the board.
|
This being said, Tesagi across the board
I mean that's not a wrong conclusion, but I think it shouldn't be the last one to draw from all of this.
Something I repeatedly think about is how the in-game timer was the most influential change which BW:Remastered gave to the game. It was not the HD graphics, neither the ladder system, even though both were great additions!
The in-game timer seems like such a tiny and trivial addition, but it gave us a most important tool: measurability.
Suddenly, everyone was able to consistently measure and track their progress. Benchmarks for builds were developed. "With this build, you need to hit X supply at Y minutes." It became much more obvious that specific spawns allowed to hit certain timings, while others didn't, which made us update the left-side mineral lines.
Because build benchmarks became targets, optimizations everywhere increased. I think it's hard to overstate how much the general skill level improved because these things became easily quantifiable. Some optimizations even led to completely new developments in the meta game in some matchups.
Coming back to Tesagi, balance and maps: there's a lot of variance all around, both for maps but also for specific spawns. Tiny changes can adjust or flip the balance. If we can reliably measure and understand such effects, we will also be able control them.
|
AFAIK this info was available well before RM. In fact, there were timestamps in Liquipedia for certain builds like TvZ 3 siege 1 vessel push before RM IIRC. Yes, it made the timer more readily available for use, but if anything it just made noobs like us foreigners have easier tools to get better rather than changing pro meta IMO. Maybe I missed some news in the wake of the timer, but its introduction didn't feel revolutionary to me on the pro level, just the level with which we plebs can understand and measure things they already seemed to know?
|
A specific example would be the evolution of many builds for Zerg, which were previously deemed suboptimal due to lost larva. Which overall was downstream of mining optimizations. There's a nice thread by iopq on this. Since the availability of such builds shifted, Terrans had to adjust how often they 8-raxed. I'm sure there are other examples.
But it should be already sufficient to consider the fact that it took us a stupidly long time to notice and act on mining differences between left- and right-side spawns.
Still, this is kinda beneath my main point, which is that it's useful to be able to measure and quantify things that are relevant for balance.
|
On November 24 2025 12:55 Kraekkling wrote:
A specific example would be the evolution of many builds for Zerg, which were previously deemed suboptimal due to lost larva. Which overall was downstream of mining optimizations. There's a nice thread by iopq on this. Since the availability of such builds shifted, Terrans had to adjust how often they 8-raxed. I'm sure there are other examples.
But it should be already sufficient to consider the fact that it took us a stupidly long time to notice and act on mining differences between left- and right-side spawns.
Still, this is kinda beneath my main point, which is that it's useful to be able to measure and quantify things that are relevant for balance.
I've seen the iopq thread so I know what you're talking about. And true, mineral boosting and L v R became better understood after RM. Thanks for elaborating!
|
Game timers are most influential because plugins were banned from competition. it allowed much greater precision in planning out algorithms because there was now certainty in replicatability from practice to competition. Also over time as pros play more they just learned and experimented more as more time allows for more of both. We also must not forget Remastered came out in august 2017. ASL season 1 was in June 2016. The ASL era has been around for almost as long as Kespa existed. During the first 7 years of Kespa they were still figuring out the core meta. P and Z were played in ways that would just not work in today's state of play.
|
The in-game timer seems like such a tiny and trivial addition, but it gave us a most important tool: measurability.
Suddenly, everyone was able to consistently measure and track their progress. Benchmarks for builds were developed. "With this build, you need to hit X supply at Y minutes." It became much more obvious that specific spawns allowed to hit certain timings, while others didn't, which made us update the left-side mineral lines.
Hopefully I snipped correctly, if not my bad.
Man back when I used to play pre-timer I had gotten so accustomed to playing so often my track of measurement for builds back then (at least very early game) was how far along the music was while in-game vs my opponent, lol.
|
Dakota_Fanning
Hungary2359 Posts
Enthused by this nice analysis today I also added 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 location stats to all maps over RepMastered. These contain games of all races, and all games (not just Blizzard ladder games).
For example 투혼 1.4 1v1 locations:
1 v 4, 880k games, 52% win ratio
1 v 8, 879k games, 52% win ratio
4 v 11, 879k games, 50% win ratio
1 v 11, 877k games, 52% win ratio
4 v 8, 877k games, 49% win ratio
8 v 11, 872k games, 50% win ratio
Based on this data, top right location (1) is the favored, and bottom right (4) is the most unfavored location.
Polypoid 1.75 as an another example seems more balanced regarding starting locations.
And Eclipse 1.2 also seems almost perfectly balanced in this regard.
|
Very nice, this is also interesting data I think.
Although I'm not fully sure how to best interpret when it's averaged down to a single number.
What I mean is that if split by matchup, there would be differences which we don't see otherwise. For example, on Eclipse 1.2
TvT: top better
TvZ: about even
TvP: top better
ZvZ: bottom better
ZvP: bottom better
ZvT: about even
PvP: even
PvZ: bottom better
PvT: top better
but if average it all out, it's again "balanced"
|
On November 25 2025 04:29 Dakota_Fanning wrote:Enthused by this nice analysis today I also added 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 location stats to all maps over RepMastered. These contain games of all races, and all games (not just Blizzard ladder games). For example 투혼 1.4 1v1 locations: 1 v 4, 880k games, 52% win ratio 1 v 8, 879k games, 52% win ratio 4 v 11, 879k games, 50% win ratio 1 v 11, 877k games, 52% win ratio 4 v 8, 877k games, 49% win ratio 8 v 11, 872k games, 50% win ratio Based on this data, top right location (1) is the favored, and bottom right (4) is the most unfavored location. Polypoid 1.75 as an another example seems more balanced regarding starting locations. And Eclipse 1.2 also seems almost perfectly balanced in this regard.
Thanks for this, I had just asked for pairwise analysis of spawn locations in another thread, so either this is a fortuitous coincidence or I should be thanking you for looking into it after seeing it
Unsurprised to see 1 v 4 be the most popular and 8 vs 11 the least given that one ladder bug we had! I said something dumb; FS 1 V 11.
|
protoss players are just bad and can't win asl based on their lack of skill and inteligence
...
..
.
.
wait...
|
Unsurprised to see 1 v 4 be the most popular and 8 vs 11 the least given that one ladder bug we had!
what was the ladder bug?
|
On November 25 2025 11:04 XenOsky wrote:
protoss players are just bad and can't win asl based on their lack of skill and inteligence
...
..
.
.
wait...
Them not winning balances out protoss being easy.
Math checks out
|
On November 25 2025 12:09 doktordingerdonger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2025 11:04 XenOsky wrote:
protoss players are just bad and can't win asl based on their lack of skill and inteligence
...
..
.
.
wait... Them not winning balances out protoss being easy. Math checks out
says terran user
|
Dakota_Fanning
Hungary2359 Posts
On November 25 2025 07:08 Kraekkling wrote:
Very nice, this is also interesting data I think.
Although I'm not fully sure how to best interpret when it's averaged down to a single number.
What I mean is that if split by matchup, there would be differences which we don't see otherwise. For example, on Eclipse 1.2
TvT: top better
TvZ: about even
TvP: top better
ZvZ: bottom better
ZvP: bottom better
ZvT: about even
PvP: even
PvZ: bottom better
PvT: top better
but if average it all out, it's again "balanced"
Of course these location stats are not to be taken for granted. Matchup plays a huge role when determining the actual win rate for a given location combination. But I think it's still interesting: a well balanced map should have a 50% win rate overall (overall meaning averaging games of all matchups) for all location combinations, or at least target to get close to it as much as possible, unless separate map versions are made for different matchups.
Also this locations stats addition to RepMastered are not just for 1v1 games and are not just for ladder maps: they are for all maps and for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4. A lot of us play regularly or occasionally team games, often with and against random races, and this might give a clue what to expect on start.
|
On November 25 2025 11:52 Kraekkling wrote:Show nested quote +Unsurprised to see 1 v 4 be the most popular and 8 vs 11 the least given that one ladder bug we had! what was the ladder bug?
For some time during remastered, the starting locations were no longer random after a Blizzard patch. But I am pretty sure, it was always 1 vs 11 on FS (location 1 vs location 2).
|
On November 24 2025 02:34 Soft_General_5023 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2025 09:47 tankgirl wrote:
just give scv 40 hp already
how many more decades we gotta keep doing this? that would be funny, snow would win pvt even before reavers
What's wrong with that? Other races can't just repair one defensive building forever and hold a much larger army. You act like not losing for the first ~6 minutes should be a given if you play Terran
|
On November 25 2025 16:48 Cryoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2025 11:52 Kraekkling wrote:Unsurprised to see 1 v 4 be the most popular and 8 vs 11 the least given that one ladder bug we had! what was the ladder bug? For some time during remastered, the starting locations were no longer random after a Blizzard patch. But I am pretty sure, it was always 1 vs 11 on FS (location 1 vs location 2).
Correct, misspoke, my bad. It was indeed 1 vs. 11 on FS.
|
On November 25 2025 04:29 Dakota_Fanning wrote:Enthused by this nice analysis today I also added 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 location stats to all maps over RepMastered. These contain games of all races, and all games (not just Blizzard ladder games). For example 투혼 1.4 1v1 locations: 1 v 4, 880k games, 52% win ratio 1 v 8, 879k games, 52% win ratio 4 v 11, 879k games, 50% win ratio 1 v 11, 877k games, 52% win ratio 4 v 8, 877k games, 49% win ratio 8 v 11, 872k games, 50% win ratio Based on this data, top right location (1) is the favored, and bottom right (4) is the most unfavored location. Polypoid 1.75 as an another example seems more balanced regarding starting locations. And Eclipse 1.2 also seems almost perfectly balanced in this regard.
An excellent and considerate addition. Thank you very much!
Would you consider adding spawn location data for each racial matchup? That would greatly help us understand how spawn location affects the matchup winrate too.
Again, thank you very much for the data update!
|
For the ladder bug, I found this thread., but it seems like what was broken was the fact that colors weren't random but instead fixed by the spawn location. I think this wouldn't have broken the spawn stats, but not sure.
Still, on FS1.3 we see some spawn-vs-spawn variations being way more frequent than one would expect to happen by chance. I looked at a few other maps too, but FS1.3 seems to be skewed the most.
What is also kinda interesting is how there are more than thousand different hashes (versions) of FS1.3 that repmastered has detected. Is it possible that people were tinkering with maps and this is why we see the stats being somewhat off? Like, everyone remembers joining a game on a modified FS1.3 where the opponent had infinite minerals etc; maybe there are versions where people changed or removed some spawns?
Also this locations stats addition to RepMastered are not just for 1v1 games and are not just for ladder maps: they are for all maps and for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4. A lot of us play regularly or occasionally team games, often with and against random races, and this might give a clue what to expect on start.
It is useful and interesting in itself, I liked browsing the bgh stats and the stats for fastest map a lot.
|
On November 25 2025 21:21 Kraekkling wrote:For the ladder bug, I found this thread., but it seems like what was broken was the fact that colors weren't random but instead fixed by the spawn location. I think this wouldn't have broken the spawn stats, but not sure. Still, on FS1.3 we see some spawn-vs-spawn variations being way more frequent than one would expect to happen by chance. I looked at a few other maps too, but FS1.3 seems to be skewed the most. What is also kinda interesting is how there are more than thousand different hashes (versions) of FS1.3 that repmastered has detected. Is it possible that people were tinkering with maps and this is why we see the stats being somewhat off? Like, everyone remembers joining a game on a modified FS1.3 where the opponent had infinite minerals etc; maybe there are versions where people changed or removed some spawns? Show nested quote + Also this locations stats addition to RepMastered are not just for 1v1 games and are not just for ladder maps: they are for all maps and for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4. A lot of us play regularly or occasionally team games, often with and against random races, and this might give a clue what to expect on start. It is useful and interesting in itself, I liked browsing the bgh stats and the stats for fastest map a lot.
This occurred also when playing ladder and the ladder maps were always provided by the Blizzard server. So no rigged maps were used in ladder matches, only the correct FS1.3.
And don't forget, it happened on every map, FS is just the most popular map that's why we remember that more specifically. If you would evaluate only the time frame in question, you should see huge discrepancies from the expected result for all ladder maps at the time.
In custom games, some people might have used rigged maps, but I suppose many of them are simply UMS maps that used FS as basis.
|
On November 20 2025 21:17 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
Any terran player that could explain why Polypoid bottom right is such a good spawn for you ? I think top right and bottom right what they have in common is the same mineral lines. Sim City is different. Is it by being at the right side any beneficial with defense and mobility of your army any different to the left side ?
i'm not like a good player and i havent played in like 1.5 years. but theres something about this part of the map right here that just feels a lot easier to use as a terran in the bottom right than in the top right. i don't have a good explanation really. but i feel like it's just a lot easier to defend against any air units? if i place a high ground siege tank it just seems stronger somehow too.
if i had scmdraft installed i would try to compare the walkable terrain and see what's going on. or it might be just an emergent property of how a terran base is going to be laid out on the two spawn positions, since buildings dont rotate. i'm not sure
|
Unbelievable this game is so well balanced.
|
On November 27 2025 17:44 quaristice wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2025 21:17 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
Any terran player that could explain why Polypoid bottom right is such a good spawn for you ? I think top right and bottom right what they have in common is the same mineral lines. Sim City is different. Is it by being at the right side any beneficial with defense and mobility of your army any different to the left side ? i'm not like a good player and i havent played in like 1.5 years. but theres something about this part of the map right here that just feels a lot easier to use as a terran in the bottom right than in the top right. i don't have a good explanation really. but i feel like it's just a lot easier to defend against any air units? if i place a high ground siege tank it just seems stronger somehow too. if i had scmdraft installed i would try to compare the walkable terrain and see what's going on. or it might be just an emergent property of how a terran base is going to be laid out on the two spawn positions, since buildings dont rotate. i'm not sure
Hey, did you play TvT on Eclipse often?
Top Right of Eclipse has more than 55% winrate against Bottom Left in TvT. Maybe you played TvT on that map when it was on ladder?
EDIT: nevermind, it seems like TvT on ALMOST EVERY MAP seem to favor Terran spawning on the Right quadrant of the map, not just Eclipse. Probably due to the Comsat Station.
|
hm... so why is it so much better to spawn top right for TvT on Eclipse?
images for reference (all players, high MMR):
+ Show Spoiler +
On the other hand, for TvZ its the other way around and Terran prefers the bottom spawn. Probably something related to mutalisks? I wonder how much of this is "I got the better spawn" vs "opponent didn't get best spot for himself". This will be the most relevant on 2-player maps specifically.
Eclipse TvZ:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On December 04 2025 01:29 Kraekkling wrote:hm... so why is it so much better to spawn top right for TvT on Eclipse? images for reference (all players, high MMR): + Show Spoiler +
I did notice TvT seems to favor right-quadrant spawns on almost every map, not just Eclipse. I guess it's due to the configuration of the Comsat Station, or the Siege Mode starting orientation?
|
from what i remember mineral income for terran on top right eclipse is just better than bottom left, especially with mineral boost, but again, i havent been playing actively and i might be misremembering
from my memory generally right side minerals mine better than left side on most maps, though this depends a lot on the map's pathing, and not just the layout of the minerals
|
On December 04 2025 02:01 Kanzzer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2025 01:29 Kraekkling wrote:hm... so why is it so much better to spawn top right for TvT on Eclipse? images for reference (all players, high MMR): + Show Spoiler + I did notice TvT seems to favor right-quadrant spawns on almost every map, not just Eclipse. I guess it's due to the configuration of the Comsat Station, or the Siege Mode starting orientation?
Tank orientation to a degree. Not sure it is a noticable thing even for pros. I guess occasionally, very rarely can matter a lot, most of the time it's just a tiny thing that adds up to a tiny advatage compared to other positions.
I think comsat being on the mining side is almost always an onconvinience and a reliability.
|
If I recall correctly, Siege Tanks shoot farther in some direction, I believe up? Might be off on that. Anyway, I feel like I have seen it happen in pro matches (one tank outranging another), but I don't recall it having a significant game-changing impact.
|
On January 04 2026 20:00 Jealous wrote:
If I recall correctly, Siege Tanks shoot farther in some direction, I believe up? Might be off on that. Anyway, I feel like I have seen it happen in pro matches (one tank outranging another), but I don't recall it having a significant game-changing impact.
Correct. I don't recall seeing a game where it mattered either.
Out of all things I saw Fantasy's tank missing on Flash's tank on the 1/256 miss chance, and he lost the game because of it.
|
Siege tanks look slightly farther towards the right and bottom direction but that only matters in the early game when there is no rax to give vision. That doesn't explain the better win rates on right side spawns.
From my gut feeling from playing a lot, I would assume the cause is faster mining in the early game before the comsats are up as others have pointed out.
|
On January 05 2026 11:37 Cryoc wrote:
Siege tanks look slightly farther towards the right and bottom direction but that only matters in the early game when there is no rax to give vision. That doesn't explain the better win rates on right side spawns.
From my gut feeling from playing a lot, I would assume the cause is faster mining in the early game before the comsats are up as others have pointed out.
They have tried to optimize mineral patches on most maps with bottom right spawns but they cant entirely compensate for the reduced income. a Terran pro once showed me how everything can be up to 5-8 seconds slower, which is a huge advantage/disadvantage.
|
On December 07 2025 00:36 quaristice wrote:
from what i remember mineral income for terran on top right eclipse is just better than bottom left, especially with mineral boost, but again, i havent been playing actively and i might be misremembering
from my memory generally right side minerals mine better than left side on most maps, though this depends a lot on the map's pathing, and not just the layout of the minerals
I tested it, most patches mine between 167 frames and 176 frames on average on the right side, with the exception of the topmost patch which is almost 200 frames unboosted and the 7th patch which autoboosts 149 frames
a lot of the patches on the left side are about 180 frames unboosted (2,3,4), but it has more "better" patches at 6, 8 that are around 158 frames
the worst is #7 which mines at 190ish frames, which is still better than the right side #1 unboosted
it's basically a wash on the modern versions, unless you boost, but then it becomes "how many patches can you boost at the same time"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/cS60p7VN/mapshist.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/c74M6BW/mmr-hist-races-counts.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/svZygXXX/mmr-hist-races-normalized.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/SDbSRzj9/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvt.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/fsGBZJR/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvt-selectioncomparison-MMR-Groups.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/mVwv6dkM/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvt-selectioncomparison-4p-Close-Cross.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/yFRZr7r7/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvz.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/p6Z0c4sZ/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvz-selectioncomparison-MMR-Groups.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/xqyXLKRb/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvz-selectioncomparison-4p-Close-Cross.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/wjMsZmy/racial-win-rate-vs-time-tvz.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/67t96Lr1/racial-win-rate-vs-time-tvz-selectioncomparison-MMR-Groups.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/8Ds112VQ/racial-win-rate-vs-time-tvz-selectioncomparison-4p-Close-Cross.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/21fckKmf/racial-win-rate-vs-time-tvz-Eclipse-1-2.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/B2hTrvMW/racial-win-rate-vs-time-tvz-Neo-Dark-Origin-2-0.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/W4QcFnr2/spawn-winrate-radial-3p-ALLplayers-zvz-Dominator-1-2.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/VWBLfWf5/spawn-winrate-4p-MMR-above2100-tvp-Polypoid-1-75.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/WNMNTt9w/spawn-winrate-4p-ALLplayers-pvz-1-3.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/39SKSrsP/spawn-winrate-4p-MMR-above1900-pvz-1-3.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/v9nZ6bP/spawn-winrate-4p-MMR-above2100-pvz-1-3.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/KxXSBgyg/spawn-winrate-4p-ALLplayers-zvz-1-3.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/bgbbTrmg/spawn-winrate-4p-MMR-above2100-zvz-1-3.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/R4pLMPBV/spawn-winrate-4p-ALLplayers-zvz-1-4.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/K1YDfMQ/spawn-winrate-4p-MMR-above2100-zvz-1-4.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/qM5n1dMy/spawn-winrate-4p-MMR-above2100-pvp-1-3.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/NnsLSxrK/spawn-winrate-4p-MMR-above2100-pvp-1-4.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/CpP9hv0t/spawn-winrate-4p-MMR-above2100-pvt-1-3.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/4Z317F3y/spawn-winrate-4p-MMR-above2100-pvt-1-4.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/j9DyZfJS/patfind.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/KzxS1V37/qw33v9.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/yc0Y3X18/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvt-match-MMR-ge-1900.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/DgP8Dp9J/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvt-match-MMR-ge-2400.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/wFwc87JK/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvz-match-MMR-ge-1900.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/Y4B9t0hT/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvz-match-MMR-ge-2400.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/67Rd2kJq/racial-win-rate-vs-time-tvz-match-MMR-ge-1900.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/0vp4w7h/racial-win-rate-vs-time-tvz-match-MMR-ge-2400.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/v4MWjs4T/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvt-match-MMR-ge-1900.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/DhJDVhK/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvt-match-MMR-ge-2100.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/s8nxw0B/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvt-match-MMR-ge-2300.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/fzMDbXX2/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvt-match-MMR-ge-2400.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/9mHJTXJs/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvz-match-MMR-ge-1900.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/BK7ghxsd/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvz-match-MMR-ge-2100.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/B7WD14M/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvz-match-MMR-ge-2300.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/BKc68Gyq/racial-win-rate-vs-time-pvz-match-MMR-ge-2400.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/XZwKNYRM/racial-win-rate-vs-time-tvz-match-MMR-ge-1900.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/RGz8sykV/racial-win-rate-vs-time-tvz-match-MMR-ge-2100.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/Q7y24c8b/racial-win-rate-vs-time-tvz-match-MMR-ge-2300.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/gZwf3Y1F/racial-win-rate-vs-time-tvz-match-MMR-ge-2400.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/eyPmC2S.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/846JKwY1/spawn-winrate-radial-2p-ALLplayers-tvt-Eclipse-1-3.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/S47YGSX2/spawn-winrate-radial-2p-MMR-above2100-tvt-Eclipse-1-3.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/8LQDqLc7/spawn-winrate-radial-2p-MMR-above2100-zvt-Eclipse-1-3.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/xSsbZZ7d/spawn-winrate-radial-2p-MMR-above2100-tvz-Eclipse-1-3.png)
