I think all zerg progamers can agree that ZvP for them is the easiest match up by default. Why is this nearly always the case?
I have 2 reasons to explain for this disparity in results.
1. Protoss lack of early game scouting in combination of Zerg's volatility/adaptability. 2. Disparate risks/rewards inherently favor Zerg in this match up.
If anyone can pull up the statistics of how often PvZ ends with Zerg cheesing/ all-in or doing some variation of some aggressive strategy that can still transition into mid/lategame, I'd like to see that. Because when I watch this match up, it seems protoss loses to some kind of aggression play before it develops to mid/late game at least 30% of the time or more.
This goes into my 2nd point, we all should agree that the higher the risk, the higher the reward should be. If zerg does a 4 pool that's a high risk but the reward is you'll win the game if its successful. I think that's a fair trade-off for the decision you make. No one should agree that an all-in strat you decide to do should go unpunished if it fails. But that's kind of what we are looking at here in the ZvP match up albeit not as high of a degree as a 4 pool high risk/high reward, but still the ratio between the risk that zerg takes to do a hydra bust or ling bust is relatively small compared to the advantage that zerg gets even if it doesn't outright win them the match. Hydra bust in the past back in the late 2000s used to be punished heavily if it failed and Protoss would have a macro advantage by mid game but modern Zerg strategies today have become so efficient that Zerg can just force Protoss to make cannons and then time up their drone macro cycles to come back into the game without a hitch and it's like it becomes still an even game at worst for Zerg.
My solution to solve this PvZ imbalance would be for blizzard to patch Zerg hydra upgrades to either cost a little more or take a little longer. Because if you think about it, this hardly affects ZvT and doesn't affect ZvZ at all. It only applies to early zerg aggression against protoss, when they have shitty options for scouting. Probe will get killed by speedlings and basically have to hope zerg is incompetent enough to allow a probe to sneak in to scout Hydras at the right time, or wait until corsairs which can often times be too late where Protoss is forced to sacrifice probes to stay alive, and then zerg equalizes any economic advantage Protoss should've had. I know many will say well Corsairs technically can scout a hydra bust as long as stargate timing was fast enough and the sair goes along the pathway hydras would go, but even then Protoss is still forced in a lose-lose scenario because they have to sacrifice their economic advantage to still stay alive even if the game continues. Their econ advantage is equalized because of probes having to buy time for cannons warping in. The intel that corsairs give is still too late to punish zerg for going for a hyper aggressive strategy.
This doesn't even mention or go into late game PvZ where Zerg has more cost efficient defense and atking options. A sunk, lurker, spore defense can hold almost a maxed Protoss army, think about Larva vs Rain in ASL season 3. Yes I realized Rain suicided his army, but the point still stands, Zerg static def is much more cost effective than Protoss static def options. It seems Protoss has to stay much more on top of Zerg in skill if he wants to win more. In late game, defiler swarm + cracklings and lurkers can take down any defensive structure and protoss have to rely on HTs and reavers stationed at the proper locations because of army movement is much slower, reinforcing battles and war of attrition nearly always go in zerg's favor as long as they were relatively evenly matched in skill and performance in the game.
In early game, and late game, it's said Zerg maxed out army is much scarier than maxed protoss army. So the only way for Protoss to win is to take advantage in mid game or late game exchanges to cap Zerg from exponentially growing out of control. Once Zerg starts winning, it becomes much more impossible to win, where as the reverse isn't true. If Protoss starts winning, Zerg can make a comeback more easily than Protoss can in the same position. And looking at Zero's macro hydra style, it seems few protosses can actually handle a huge hydra army build where there's just not enough units for Protoss to be pumping out and the supplies become relatively even in number. When historically Protoss should always be 20 supply ahead. Protoss seems to have much less windows of advantage and have a higher hill to climb at each stage of the game as well as possibilities of comebacks. How often do you see Zerg winning despite Protoss being 30-50 supply ahead vs Protoss being 10 supply behind if we take into account Zerg units take much less supply so the equivalent scenario would be Protoss being 10-20 supply behind.
Even if it does need one (I don't think it does), it's not getting any. So further discussion is utterly useless. Anyway, all balancing is being done by maps, not by patches from Blizzard. Afaik, last balance patch was 1.15 or something and it boosted zealots, nerfed storm and nerfed spawning pool. Idk how and why people are unwilling to grasp this in 23 years of BW - Blizzard (thankfully) won't make balance patches for this game. It's all up to mapmakers to give challenges to the races.
Can you explain your reasoning why you don't think it needs a change? Unless you want to create maps always in Protoss favor to help the ZvP imbalance and make rush distances always longer , and limit map pool diversity and variation for creativity. I understand that maps help balance match ups, but when one match up is heavily skewed, I think you should still create the races to be relatively equal as much as possible and then use maps as more a secondary measure for balance, because if you don't address the main root issue, it'll just be masked under different seasons of maps and ASLs where performance can just be chalked more directly to the map pool rather than be a small factor. We saw this with ASL season 5, where the map pool was heavily Protoss favored, and guess what we had more Protoss and one of the few ASL Protoss victories. Any other season where PvZ maps were skewed to favor Zerg, we can predictably see there's less chance for Protoss success to a big enough degree that it matters. I think people want a more fair racial balance first and not have to think based on the map pool which race will prevail.
I think it's to the benefit of the e-sports scene to make the match up more balanced. Appealing to what Blizzard has done in the past isn't much of an argument of objectivity. You're simply appealing to authority, saying well since blizzard isn't interested in fixing it, therefore there must not be anything that needs to be changed. I don't buy that circular reasoning. And besides this is a discussion of what SHOULD happen, not whether or not it WILL.
How do you address the fact that Zerg's aggressive early game strategies go unpunished while Protoss suffer in more lose-lose scenarios? Remember, the higher the reward of the strategy should be held accountable by a similar risk. Zerg faces not much risk in many ZvP games when they decide to go for higher reward strategies instead of a macro game.
On October 07 2021 04:48 JoinTheRain wrote: It's all up to mapmakers to give challenges to the races.
Um, well let's just say that the mapmakers have done a very poor job at challenging zerg so far. It's been a few years.
I disagree with the premise though. The game has had imbalances and they're obvious to most people by now, but overall BW has had a circle of life sensibility to it form the start, which is Terran beats Zerg, Zerg beats Protoss and Protoss beats Terran.
So the balance is actually a trade-off. The balance by map-makers theory is a fallacy perpetuated by white-hat gamers that has very few credible examples in real competitive play.
The reality is, Protoss has been losing to Terran more than expected and that's why they're at the bottom of the pile.
Across ASL + KSL RO4 appearances, P showed up 20 times, T 18 times, and Z 22 times. In the last three seasons, it is true P has struggled with appearances aside from Mini last season. But, let's not get carried away here by recency bias.
In a pro scene with a tiny pool of relevant players, we're more likely to be biased by the prevalence of championship (or near championship) level players. The reality is P doesn't have that many anymore, and they took a huge hit when Rain left the scene. Really, it's just been the same suspects: Snow, Best, Mini, Bisu. Stork has always been solid, but if we're being honest, he's a notable step below the others. You can kind of-sort of make a case for Shuttle, but not really.
Terran lost Last, and Flash carries nearly half of T's RO4+ showings in ASL. Take him out and your results plummet. Other T's lately are doing better, but let's see how they perform over multiple ASL's.
You're then left with your top tier Zergs: Larva, Hero, Zero, Soma, JD, Soulkey, Effort. Not to mention at least 3-4 more notables (i.e. Action / Shine) who aren't quite championship caliber but are still dangerous in tournaments.
ZvP has historically been challenging for P but not to the point where it is in need of a balance. P's outside of your top 4 drop off pretty heavily and nothing about the results stands out as a massive imbalance problem, other than what we already knew.
Of course Blizzard won't patch anything but I think this is still an interesting discussion.
OP is correct in that Hydra bust (or 973) is probably the only all-in strat in the game that can transition very well into midgame. Game 1 between Queen and Snow yesterday is a prime example. Snow played a standard, solid game but the disadvantage in build order put him behind whole game despite not making any notable mistakes.
If you look at all the cheese in the game, nothing is as frequently used as Hydra bust, and they are either scout-able or can be dealt with by micro. In a properly executed Hydra bust, you can't scout on time and no amount of micro can save you.
Blizzard did in fact increase the cost of Hydralisk Den upgrades in their most recent balance patch. Of course that balance patch was 20 years ago, but hey who's counting?
This is one of those cold day in hell requests. The korean pros during the creation of StarCraft Remastered specfically told Blizzard to never touch anything involving balance. This includes the "derpy Dragoon" AI pathing that Blizzard said they could improve but the pros said no to that because it would disrupt game balance.
, ZvT - Terran has the slighter advantage, in a game where no side makes a mistake Terran wins.
ZvZ - Randomess, you either instantly play from a position of advantage or disadvantage depending on your choice of BO and who gets scouted first with the overlord.
ZvP - Zerg is OP, make it harder for Zerg.
How good does Zerg look now? If someone wants to play Zerg for all three matchups then you can't look at one matchup in isolation and suggest something to be changed, you have to take all matchups into consideration.
Yeah I wish you had more playable openings as P that don't involve placing 1st pylon in one specific position to make a tight wall FE and rely on expensive corsairs to get critical survival info every game while causing rather little threat, I loved PvZ more in the era where 1 base openings were thought playable but they aren't really [save for some mixing up of 2 gates mind games] because of the need for corsairs to scout or defend mutas almost always. I think it started kinda same time as muta micro trick was discovered eh. Makes it impossible to defend without corsairs so you can't for example do archons plays into robo if lurkers and stuff like that you basically just need the corsairs.
I’ve always wanted to see the DWeb upgrade moved from the fleet beacon to cyber core. It’d prob make dbl gate cair openings way too strong but it’d be worth seeing on a test map. Maybe it can be upgraded at the cyber core after temp archives or adun is built.
After than 20 years, people still talk about balance of the best balance game ever. There is only the fact: T = P = Z. Today, Arto lost a game just by one zealot and he said that game is great game and so fair with so much angry. But I've never seen he says that, when he beat 10000000 zerg players in less 5 minutes.
I wish I can beat Zerg like him. I am one of people watch his stream so much. I come the stream before it starts and go out after it ends every day. But I can't beat any Zerg players from 1000 to 1800 mmr. I have 49% win rate from 7580 games with 1683 hours play game.
This is my 200 games that I recorded
The first 100 games: TvP: 19-30 38% TvZ: 8-14 36% TvT: 10-10 50% Free win: 9
The second 100 games: TvP: 18-24 42% TvZ: 4-20 20% TvT: 13-10 56% Free win: 11
I don't think Terran is weaker than Zerg, maybe everyone agrees with me. I think Terran = Zerg but I am so weaker than Zerg. All of players even have strengths and weaknesses severally. Do you know win rate TvZ of Flash is the worst and TvT is the best?
Playing well instead of cry, whining, complaint to the balance of StarCraft. It's balance but you are not.
Fun fact: if you check the result of all ASLs you'll notice that ZvP has a losing record in about half of them. And trust me, it doesn't get any easier below ASL levels.
I do believe the T>Z>P>T anecdote is an outdated axiom from Proleague days. I'd say ZvT had been zerg favored since the fall of 1-1-1 and PvZ is almost perfectly balanced (at top levels, at low levels P is favored). It's always funny to see protoss players single out 973 as the problem while conveniently overlooking the strength of gateway expand and the raw power of the midgame protoss army.
Disparate risks/rewards inherently favor Zerg in this match up especially in regarding to the 973 hydra bust.
It's an objective fact that zerg takes much less risk relative to the reward of outright winning the game or resetting Protoss econ to be ahead of them or at worst have an even game while getting all the benefits of the low risk cost they take.
On October 07 2021 07:27 Jaeyun wrote: Across ASL + KSL RO4 appearances, P showed up 20 times, T 18 times, and Z 22 times. In the last three seasons, it is true P has struggled with appearances aside from Mini last season. But, let's not get carried away here by recency bias.
In a pro scene with a tiny pool of relevant players, we're more likely to be biased by the prevalence of championship (or near championship) level players. The reality is P doesn't have that many anymore, and they took a huge hit when Rain left the scene. Really, it's just been the same suspects: Snow, Best, Mini, Bisu. Stork has always been solid, but if we're being honest, he's a notable step below the others. You can kind of-sort of make a case for Shuttle, but not really.
Terran lost Last, and Flash carries nearly half of T's RO4+ showings in ASL. Take him out and your results plummet. Other T's lately are doing better, but let's see how they perform over multiple ASL's.
You're then left with your top tier Zergs: Larva, Hero, Zero, Soma, JD, Soulkey, Effort. Not to mention at least 3-4 more notables (i.e. Action / Shine) who aren't quite championship caliber but are still dangerous in tournaments.
ZvP has historically been challenging for P but not to the point where it is in need of a balance. P's outside of your top 4 drop off pretty heavily and nothing about the results stands out as a massive imbalance problem, other than what we already knew.
It's not recency bias, it's historically the result that Zerg is generally favored in ZvP. This isn't even controversial among pros. For every meta change where new builds come out and players adapt, Zerg is consistently on top of Protoss for the majority of bw history. Any variation or adaptation of Protoss is easily fixed in Zerg's arsenal of options. They have much less gaps in their ability to adapt where as protoss is more of a rigid race where they don't have much room for mistakes and adaptability. This decreases their margin or error, if they lost a initial zealot exchange scuffle where they can't effectively scout anymore, they're left to guess and hope they guessed right whether its a muta or hydra bust. You might say, well the Protoss player should never let it get to that point to where they can't scout, and that's just the point. If Protoss can't make a mistake and come back to that degree, then by logical reason it means that Protoss has less margin of error.
Just admit the objective facts, Protoss has a much less margin for error. If Protoss is behind 20 supply, 90% of the time they lose the game. If Zerg is 40 supply behind, they can still turn it around more than 10% of the time, accouting for how zerg supply is much smaller 40 supply I'd say is a generous and conservative basis for the argument. If protoss is behind 20 supply that's the equivalent of zerg being 40 supply behind. But we never see the converse true of Protoss having the same comeback ability. Just admit it, Protoss margin for error is much smaller while zerg can make more mistakes and still come back and win.
How long are people going to hide behind the reasoning "It's just not true that it's imbalanced, Protoss player's are just less skilled overall" for the entirety of the game history. I think we had enough of a large sample size to finally make the judgment that Protoss just has a lower ceiling than other races. Unless you want to make the statistically unlikely assessment that EVERY Protoss out there is just on average worse than Zerg.
On October 07 2021 11:23 Zealgoon wrote: Fun fact: if you check the result of all ASLs you'll notice that ZvP has a losing record in about half of them. And trust me, it doesn't get any easier below ASL levels.
I do believe the T>Z>P>T anecdote is an outdated axiom from Proleague days. I'd say ZvT had been zerg favored since the fall of 1-1-1 and PvZ is almost perfectly balanced (at top levels, at low levels P is favored). It's always funny to see protoss players single out 973 as the problem while conveniently overlooking the strength of gateway expand and the raw power of the midgame protoss army.
1 gate expand is not that strong, the reason why protoss does any damage is due to the mistakes that zerg player made. Every game where I watch a PvZ and protoss gains the upper hand doing a 1 gate expand, the Zerg player microed poorly or didn't drone drill well enough. It's Zerg's game to lose, not a strength or advantage to Protoss. The only reason why Protoss win those games or gain advantage is because the zerg performance was subpar. So if both players skills are relatively even, most of the time 1 gate does no damage other than forcing zerg to make zerglings but Zerg equalizes that by forcing protoss to bring probes to fight and block their wall and remake their gateway if it gets destroyed which often it does when protoss is trying to cut corners delaying cannon timing for tech.
I never made any claims about the T>Z>P>T, I believe the current status right now is T=Z (closest balance since Zerg resurged with 2 hatch muta opening builds) Z>P and P>=T (PvT balance is pretty equal relatively speaking compared to the past. Protoss still has more options against Terran like how Zerg does against Protoss but the disparity in margin is much smaller here than in ZvP)
On October 07 2021 10:55 bovienchien wrote: After than 20 years, people still talk about balance of the best balance game ever. There is only the fact: T = P = Z. Today, Arto lost a game just by one zealot and he said that game is great game and so fair with so much angry. But I've never seen he says that, when he beat 10000000 zerg players in less 5 minutes.
I wish I can beat Zerg like him. I am one of people watch his stream so much. I come the stream before it starts and go out after it ends every day. But I can't beat any Zerg players from 1000 to 1800 mmr. I have 49% win rate from 7580 games with 1683 hours play game.
This is my 200 games that I recorded
The first 100 games: TvP: 19-30 38% TvZ: 8-14 36% TvT: 10-10 50% Free win: 9
The second 100 games: TvP: 18-24 42% TvZ: 4-20 20% TvT: 13-10 56% Free win: 11
I don't think Terran is weaker than Zerg, maybe everyone agrees with me. I think Terran = Zerg but I am so weaker than Zerg. All of players even have strengths and weaknesses severally. Do you know win rate TvZ of Flash is the worst and TvT is the best?
Playing well instead of cry, whining, complaint to the balance of StarCraft. It's balance but you are not.
I wouldn't use yourself as an anecdote to demonstrate the core principles of the argument. My reasoning is either flawed or it isn't and would like to establish the argument on principles rather than just resorting to arguments from authority or just recent results. We can stick to objective facts. The objective fact is Zerg has relatively little risk when doing the 973 hydra bust in comparison to the risk of Protoss losing if they don't scout it in time and Zerg has all the potential reward for doing so. So Zergs are encouraged to do 973 builds more often than not with great success. Anytime a zerg doesn't win or eventually get the advantage is due to sloppy micro and focus firing and kiting the probes. So you might ask if Zerg has all the reasons to do a 973 hydra bust, why don't they do it all the time? Well if they start doing that Protoss will adapt, and assume you're always doing it and start making cannons earlier and fine tune their builds to account for the hydra bust without losing as much economy when they are not prepared. Then it just becomes a game of chicken like it has been. Zerg can have so many options, 1 fake a hydra bust ---> force Protoss to waste money on cannons and delay gateway timings and just redrone and macro, 2, do a real hydra bust ----> force protoss to waste money on cannons, delay gateway timings, but also sacrifice probes if zerg is committed to killing Protoss, or 3 fake a hydra den as long as protoss didn't see your lair, cancel and do a spire muta switch. So there's just so many things Protoss has to watch out and stay on top for. Zerg gets all the potential rewards with little risk, while Protoss has no recourse if Zerg fakes him out or decides to do it for real. Either way you're screwed unless you maphack or get lucky.
On October 07 2021 10:14 Essbee wrote: Maps balance BW, end of story.
Instead of resorting to dogmatic slogans and phrases you hear everyone else saying, why don't you offer some critical thoughts for yourself?
I encourage people to think critically and outside the dogma and what's commonly accepted by the community. I told people back in 2010s that queens could be useful in ZvT, and most people told me that it was too APM intensive for a Zerg pro to incorporate into their play. But what do you know now? Queens are vital in ZvT mech games and even in against some bio builds, you still see zerg sometimes sprinkle in some queen usage in crazy zerg builds against terran.
Same thing with dark archon, most players said dark archon was a useless unit for the majority, but they have their niche use in PvZ. We've had more innovations still after 20+ years, so to say the bw community has it all figured out and the common wisdom that was said years ago is the same is nonsense.
Just because pros adapt to the meta, doesn't mean the meta is necessarily balanced. For all we know it could be the case that Protoss is really the weakest race but they've been compensating for less win ratio and we just chalk it up to the player's skill or perhaps it's vice versa. It could be that because players around the world accept the dogma that bw is 99% balanced that could create a biased self-fulfilling prophecy for where players find an equilibrium of skill in order to keep that status quo that they believe in even if they are putting in more effort. It's like the placebo effect, if you believe so strongly that there is 99% balance in the game, you'll play as if it was, even if it that's not necessarily the case.
If people spent as much time and energy studying and practicing [insert matchup] as they do complaining about the matchup being imbalanced, they could actually become quite a lot better in that matchup.
Mr. Moopower. It is difficult to remain diplomatic after these nonsense but i try. Who is just cry '' Zerg easy '' '' Protoss easy '' '' Terran op '' and continue. Easier to cry right (working and training and better like the other Hard Yes i know. ) U said Progamer what say.... don't say that( see Bonyth great interview with Mini ) put something on the table ( not even then u change '' balance and other '' Who are you to suggest this? For me it is very sad that there are such.
On October 07 2021 13:53 Magic Powers wrote: If people spent as much time and energy studying and practicing [insert matchup] as they do complaining about the matchup being imbalanced, they could actually become quite a lot better in that matchup.
Have you actually addressed the points or arguments or are you just making ad hominems? By your logic, unless you are the level of a progamer, you shouldn't be able to analyze any situation at all. Which means artosis or any other caster who is less skilled than a progamer doesn't have any relevant opinion to cast about. The point being is, you don't necessarily have to be as a high ranked player to notice the faults. You simply have to address the principle at play here, which is apparent, but nobody is challenging me on.
On October 07 2021 15:43 HOLYBATS wrote: Remembering R24 of ASL12 resulted perfect balance of 4/4/4. Mini's style of playing will affect other P like Bisu's play.
Mini is a cut above the rest of the protoss players in terms of PvZ, but let's not forget the games he did win in ASL 12 were not that convincing that he won due to his skill but more of the misplays of his Zerg opponents that just played much worse than him. They simply made much more mistakes. But had they been more evenly matched in skill, Mini may not have had the same success.
On October 07 2021 13:53 Magic Powers wrote: If people spent as much time and energy studying and practicing [insert matchup] as they do complaining about the matchup being imbalanced, they could actually become quite a lot better in that matchup.
Not complaining about my personal matches in PvZ, because I know the games I win/lose is due to my skill level, highest rank is a solid B, not a particularly high rank but not that low either in terms of the average player. But at the highest pro level I'm making the assessment that it's zerg favored when both players are more evenly matched.
Moopower I don't want want to argue about PvZ , ZvT etc... Just want to say I like how you write ! No joke, no nothing ! Very clear and nice words ! Maybe I could learn some phrases
On October 07 2021 13:53 Magic Powers wrote: If people spent as much time and energy studying and practicing [insert matchup] as they do complaining about the matchup being imbalanced, they could actually become quite a lot better in that matchup.
Have you actually addressed the points or arguments or are you just making ad hominems? By your logic, unless you are the level of a progamer, you shouldn't be able to analyze any situation at all. Which means artosis or any other caster who is less skilled than a progamer doesn't have any relevant opinion to cast about. The point being is, you don't necessarily have to be as a high ranked player to notice the faults. You simply have to address the principle at play here, which is apparent, but nobody is challenging me on.
You're missing the point. 973 is a powerful play that's very difficult for protoss to deal with properly, but it makes no sense to evaluate a strategy in a vacuum. You might as well make an argument for nerfing zealots because gateway expand is harder for Z to defend than for P to execute, or for nerfing high templars because it's much harder to dodge storms than to land them. Ultimately though, you have to look at the matchup in its entirety - and when a matchup is this close to 50:50 you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone it warrants a balance patch.
People don’t have the same skill they had in kespa era so the differences become more apparent. If we had Bisu in his prime, he would wipe the floor with today’s zergs via drops, multitasking and army control.
The Protoss aren’t good enough now. I don’t think the matchup is 100% balanced but it’s not broken imo
i agree that zerg shouldnt complain about protoss, But protoss is a good race until zerg gets to a good level where they dont complain about protoss anymore ( around 2500 mmr)
On October 07 2021 13:53 Magic Powers wrote: If people spent as much time and energy studying and practicing [insert matchup] as they do complaining about the matchup being imbalanced, they could actually become quite a lot better in that matchup.
Have you actually addressed the points or arguments or are you just making ad hominems? By your logic, unless you are the level of a progamer, you shouldn't be able to analyze any situation at all. Which means artosis or any other caster who is less skilled than a progamer doesn't have any relevant opinion to cast about. The point being is, you don't necessarily have to be as a high ranked player to notice the faults. You simply have to address the principle at play here, which is apparent, but nobody is challenging me on.
Astute observation. Some form of expert insight is required for an accurate understanding of the current state of the game. In my understanding you lack expertise, and thus - since you haven't provided any other form of evidence - your ideas can be dismissed.
On October 07 2021 15:43 HOLYBATS wrote: Remembering R24 of ASL12 resulted perfect balance of 4/4/4. Mini's style of playing will affect other P like Bisu's play.
Mini is a cut above the rest of the protoss players in terms of PvZ, but let's not forget the games he did win in ASL 12 were not that convincing that he won due to his skill but more of the misplays of his Zerg opponents that just played much worse than him. They simply made much more mistakes. But had they been more evenly matched in skill, Mini may not have had the same success.
Sometimes you win because your opponent makes more mistakes than you.
Sometimes you win because you make your opponent make more mistakes than you.
On October 07 2021 16:43 Zealgoon wrote: You might as well make an argument for nerfing zealots because gateway expand is harder for Z to defend than for P to execute.
Not the central point of this thread but I have to say this is not true at all. They are equally difficult, if not harder for P to execute.
Just think about it: - how many times have you seen P ending the game immediately with Gate expand? - how many times have you seen it resulting in zerlings flooding the P main
Gate expand is like the opposite of 973: you don't have the potential to end the game immediately, but if it backfires, you lose immediately.
The reason why your arguments are so readily dismissed is because in every era of post-patch Brood War there were low level whiners with tooootally valid analysis for why X match-up is broken and needs to be fixed, otherwise Brood War is DOOMED! However, as players rise and fall, new ideas come to the forefront, and old meta becomes outdated, it becomes clear that the issue wasn't the race balance, or one specific build. Maps were updated, new strategies and timings are developed, and the pendulum swings again. This is why your rants fall on deaf ears - everyone who has been around long enough has seen this thread a hundred times in the past two decades. Your specific issues and hypotheses are functionally irrelevant when looked at through this lens, one that takes in the entirety of Brood War history.
What Protoss needs, if it needs anything at all, is innovation. We saw it with the return of Shuttle-oriented PvT (with modernization, of course). We saw it with GFE in PvZ. Innovations may have slowed to some extent, at least in the eyes of the casual viewer like you and I, due to the nature of competitive Brood War in 2021. But, that may be just appearances. I don't think competitive BW is done evolving, the right players just need the right incentive. For example, with the retirement/leaving of many old heads from the scene, new power dynamics and ideas may come to the forefront. We could be looking at a (relatively) dramatically different BW in the next few years, both in terms of who is at the top and how the match-ups are being played by those individuals, which will in turn trickle down to us plebians.
In summary, stop balance whining. It's not productive in any sense of the word and it's beyond a dead horse or even glue topic at this point. Think instead about how Protoss can change the dynamic. Practice instead, for the purposes of improving your play.
I agree with OP, particularly on the hydra bursts that are 0 (or close to 0) risk and maximum reward. Make hydra upgrades longer and see how it goes from there
There's no problem with protoss scouting or imbalance with 9-7-3. Your scouting probe should not die until there's zergling speed. With gate expand you can very often scout while harassing with zealots. I think the recent maps have been pretty bad for PvZ in general. Mineral only 3rd bases really hurt the protoss mid/early late game. Protoss needs that gas to compete with 4 gas zerg when they take the natural of another main, then the main for free.
Balance whining in broodwar is senseless at this point. The game has so many variables including countless different strategies and timings that can make any race look OP if you’re build is well done and execution is proper depending on the scenario. We’ve seen countless times how pros destroy each other with every race in every way possible, their skill and understanding is beyond even the best foreigners reach. SC is beautiful because no matter how well we play there is still room for improvement because of extremely high demand of mechanical efficiency and skill it requires, this is especially amplified in mid-late game even at the highest level the skill cap has not been reached. Please do not balance whine, you’ll sound ignorant just like Julia if you make posts like this
On October 07 2021 04:34 Moopower wrote: I think all zerg progamers can agree that ZvP for them is the easiest match up by default. Why is this nearly always the case?
I have 2 reasons to explain for this disparity in results.
1. Protoss lack of early game scouting in combination of Zerg's volatility/adaptability. 2. Disparate risks/rewards inherently favor Zerg in this match up.
If anyone can pull up the statistics of how often PvZ ends with Zerg cheesing/ all-in or doing some variation of some aggressive strategy that can still transition into mid/lategame, I'd like to see that. Because when I watch this match up, it seems protoss loses to some kind of aggression play before it develops to mid/late game at least 30% of the time or more.
This goes into my 2nd point, we all should agree that the higher the risk, the higher the reward should be. If zerg does a 4 pool that's a high risk but the reward is you'll win the game if its successful. I think that's a fair trade-off for the decision you make. No one should agree that an all-in strat you decide to do should go unpunished if it fails. But that's kind of what we are looking at here in the ZvP match up albeit not as high of a degree as a 4 pool high risk/high reward, but still the ratio between the risk that zerg takes to do a hydra bust or ling bust is relatively small compared to the advantage that zerg gets even if it doesn't outright win them the match. Hydra bust in the past back in the late 2000s used to be punished heavily if it failed and Protoss would have a macro advantage by mid game but modern Zerg strategies today have become so efficient that Zerg can just force Protoss to make cannons and then time up their drone macro cycles to come back into the game without a hitch and it's like it becomes still an even game at worst for Zerg.
My solution to solve this PvZ imbalance would be for blizzard to patch Zerg hydra upgrades to either cost a little more or take a little longer. Because if you think about it, this hardly affects ZvT and doesn't affect ZvZ at all. It only applies to early zerg aggression against protoss, when they have shitty options for scouting. Probe will get killed by speedlings and basically have to hope zerg is incompetent enough to allow a probe to sneak in to scout Hydras at the right time, or wait until corsairs which can often times be too late where Protoss is forced to sacrifice probes to stay alive, and then zerg equalizes any economic advantage Protoss should've had. I know many will say well Corsairs technically can scout a hydra bust as long as stargate timing was fast enough and the sair goes along the pathway hydras would go, but even then Protoss is still forced in a lose-lose scenario because they have to sacrifice their economic advantage to still stay alive even if the game continues. Their econ advantage is equalized because of probes having to buy time for cannons warping in. The intel that corsairs give is still too late to punish zerg for going for a hyper aggressive strategy.
This doesn't even mention or go into late game PvZ where Zerg has more cost efficient defense and atking options. A sunk, lurker, spore defense can hold almost a maxed Protoss army, think about Larva vs Rain in ASL season 3. Yes I realized Rain suicided his army, but the point still stands, Zerg static def is much more cost effective than Protoss static def options. It seems Protoss has to stay much more on top of Zerg in skill if he wants to win more. In late game, defiler swarm + cracklings and lurkers can take down any defensive structure and protoss have to rely on HTs and reavers stationed at the proper locations because of army movement is much slower, reinforcing battles and war of attrition nearly always go in zerg's favor as long as they were relatively evenly matched in skill and performance in the game.
In early game, and late game, it's said Zerg maxed out army is much scarier than maxed protoss army. So the only way for Protoss to win is to take advantage in mid game or late game exchanges to cap Zerg from exponentially growing out of control. Once Zerg starts winning, it becomes much more impossible to win, where as the reverse isn't true. If Protoss starts winning, Zerg can make a comeback more easily than Protoss can in the same position. And looking at Zero's macro hydra style, it seems few protosses can actually handle a huge hydra army build where there's just not enough units for Protoss to be pumping out and the supplies become relatively even in number. When historically Protoss should always be 20 supply ahead. Protoss seems to have much less windows of advantage and have a higher hill to climb at each stage of the game as well as possibilities of comebacks. How often do you see Zerg winning despite Protoss being 30-50 supply ahead vs Protoss being 10 supply behind if we take into account Zerg units take much less supply so the equivalent scenario would be Protoss being 10-20 supply behind.
A 3rd base that has a gas, is not extremely easy to get, but is easy to defend once you do take it, should be fine and balanced in all matchups.
Mineral-only 3rds, wide-open 3rds, 3ds with multiple passages into them that can fit like 6+ hydras at a time... Any two of these points and that 3rd might as well not be there at all.
On October 07 2021 21:44 Jealous wrote: The reason why your arguments are so readily dismissed is because in every era of post-patch Brood War there were low level whiners with tooootally valid analysis for why X match-up is broken and needs to be fixed, otherwise Brood War is DOOMED! However, as players rise and fall, new ideas come to the forefront, and old meta becomes outdated, it becomes clear that the issue wasn't the race balance, or one specific build. Maps were updated, new strategies and timings are developed, and the pendulum swings again. This is why your rants fall on deaf ears - everyone who has been around long enough has seen this thread a hundred times in the past two decades. Your [i]specific[i] issues and hypotheses are functionally irrelevant when looked at through this lens, one that takes in the entirety of Brood War history.
What Protoss needs, if it needs anything at all, is innovation. We saw it with the return of Shuttle-oriented PvT (with modernization, of course). We saw it with GFE in PvZ. Innovations may have slowed to some extent, at least in the eyes of the casual viewer like you and I, due to the nature of competitive Brood War in 2021. But, that may be just appearances. I don't think competitive BW is done evolving, the right players just need the right incentive. For example, with the retirement/leaving of many old heads from the scene, new power dynamics and ideas may come to the forefront. We could be looking at a (relatively) dramatically different BW in the next few years, both in terms of who is at the top and how the match-ups are being played by those individuals, which will in turn trickle down to us plebians.
In summary, stop balance whining. It's not productive in any sense of the word and it's beyond a dead horse or even glue topic at this point. Think instead about how Protoss can change the dynamic. Practice instead, for the purposes of improving your play.
Innovation with what? Severely restricting the opening builds of one race and your take is: more innovation is needed. If that one race is locked in at all times in the early part of the game into one small portion of the game-tree than how will that foster innovation? Are the Zergs supposed to play like mindless drones and execute the same strategies until Protoss adapts and somehow bridges that gap? You don't seem to grasp how game theory works.
And saying that some new Protoss has to come along and be as good as Bisu was but also introduce new elements and execute them flawlessly is pretty far-fetched.
Balance is settled on the performance of average Tier 1 players, not outliers.
In the whole history of this game no one has looked comfortable in PvZ except Bisu in his glory days, and that says a lot. Somehow expecting that to morph into some new age where meta-changes will over-haul that historical fact after such a long time with the game being actively played as an esport is delusional.
There's plenty of data available and that reality suggests otherwise.
This is my first post here, but I have been a BW fan for over 12 years now, since the 2009/10 Proleague. I watched hundreds of games over the years, and still enjoy it. Hopefully BW will stay for many more years, despite the generation change that is happening right now.
In relation to the OP- I am no specialist, and do not play the game. But I can draw some conclusions from the many games of BW that I have seen over the years. And what stunned me most over the years was the 'easiness' with which Protoss can die early-game to zerg agression. One mistake, and you're done for. This was true even during the era of Jangbi and Bisu, and it still seems to hold true today.
I can understand that the game can be somewhat imbalanced in a particular matchup during one stage or another; but that overall, it evens out. It is part of the beauty of BW. I can also understand how maps play a huge role, I witnessed it myself in KSL 5 with one of the very few Toss victories over the last three years. And on top of this, I do not remember seeing a late game scenario where I thought to myself that this game is imba, even in PvZ. Zerg has crackling, defilers, plus mobility, and can shred a base in mere seconds. But Toss has its tools as well- mainly the might of the Archon, HT, Zealot deathball, supported by Reavers. So in my view, in such late-game scenarios, it's the players quality that makes a difference.
However, it is early game PvZ that perplexes me and has done so for many years now!
To a casual viewer like myself (but with some good understanding of the fundamentals of the game due to the sheer number of matches watched) it seems brutal, if not outright unfair. I have seen countless games where Zerg can cheese, fail, and still end up in a better spot than Toss, because the latter built a few extra cannons. And if Zerg plays well, the scouting probe will die.... and in such cases, the first corsair comes usually too late to spot a cheese. Toss is blind, sometimes for over a minute after the probe dies. And in an early game situation, this can be deadly. Some might say that there are some seemingly unfair situations in TvZ as well; however, from what I have seen, they usually do not happen in such early stages of the game, and definitely not to this extent.
The lack of early scouting option for Toss seems to be the real issue here. I have seen over the past 12 years dozens of new maps, a few important meta-changes, and many old and new players........ and the issue of early game PvZ is still the same. It might probably be the main reason why Toss never seems to win any important tournament. With or without Flash in the scene, their record at the highest level (ASL, KSL, even KCM) is abysmal. Hell, Mini's performance in the ASL 11 finals, especially the 'no-scout' build, seems like a desperate attempt at circumventing this early game disadvantage for Toss. It is a welcome innovation, but it implies enormous risks and it probably won't work in the long term, once Zerg players figure out what to do.
So what can be done? Perhaps, as one earlier poster suggested, 'innovation' is the keyword here. Perhaps someone will finally come up with a solution for this. Who knows, maybe Mini or someone like him. Or perhaps something can be done map-wise, although in this regard, I doubt that anything short of using specifically tailored-maps for different matchups is possible (improbable due to the sheer amount of practice it would require).
And this leaves us with the third possibility.... some balance fine-tuning. Delaying hydra upgrades, faster cannon warp time or something like this. The specifics should be decided by the progamers anyways. But what I don't understand is why people here are so reluctant, borderline aggressive, when someone mentions even a minor patch? Koreans can test this, just like they do with the maps, and decide if it is the right way to go or not. I don't understand how can this be an issue for Blizzard either, if the community makes a unified stance. I am no IT-specialist, but how hard can it be to modify one or two numeric values for an upgrade?
My point is that I enjoy this game a lot, and I would want the scene to remain alive for as long as possible. But between the downtrend of RTS games, the generation change that is happening right now in BW, and the various betting scandals surrounding the Korean scene, this is not by any means a given. If you add to all this the issue of one race underperforming at the highest levels for years now.....well, I am afraid it will brake the camel's back.
I still see no counter argument, let alone a valid one, to the point that OP laid out about the low-risk-max-reward 973 Hydra bust build.
There's just no equivalent of that build in other match-ups. It's like Protoss doing a proxy 9 9 and still be able to transition into midgame without any hiccups.
Regurgitating generic points like Protoss needs innovation or it will be balanced by maps is just lazy because you're basing your entire argument on something intangible/unattainable.
Worse than that is the elitist attitude by claiming "I have seen the game longer than you so your point is worthless".
And this leaves us with the third possibility.... some balance fine-tuning. Delaying hydra upgrades, faster cannon warp time or something like this. The specifics should be decided by the progamers anyways. But what I don't understand is why people here are so reluctant, borderline aggressive, when someone mentions even a minor patch? Koreans can test this, just like they do with the maps, and decide if it is the right way to go or not. I don't understand how can this be an issue for Blizzard either, if the community makes a unified stance. I am no IT-specialist, but how hard can it be to modify one or two numeric values for an upgrade?
The replies in here are actually quite mild I would say.
The Koreans are way more zealous over this than Westerners. Very reluctant to any kind of balance discussion, let alone the possibility of changes.
However, as stated by Flash and Bisu a few years ago, most pro-gamers are reluctant for any kind of change to the gameplay of BW because they are afraid of Blizzard under-cutting the game and leaving them with an unplayable game while they're trying to make a living off of it.
On October 07 2021 21:44 Jealous wrote: The reason why your arguments are so readily dismissed is because in every era of post-patch Brood War there were low level whiners with tooootally valid analysis for why X match-up is broken and needs to be fixed, otherwise Brood War is DOOMED! However, as players rise and fall, new ideas come to the forefront, and old meta becomes outdated, it becomes clear that the issue wasn't the race balance, or one specific build. Maps were updated, new strategies and timings are developed, and the pendulum swings again. This is why your rants fall on deaf ears - everyone who has been around long enough has seen this thread a hundred times in the past two decades. Your [i]specific[i] issues and hypotheses are functionally irrelevant when looked at through this lens, one that takes in the entirety of Brood War history.
What Protoss needs, if it needs anything at all, is innovation. We saw it with the return of Shuttle-oriented PvT (with modernization, of course). We saw it with GFE in PvZ. Innovations may have slowed to some extent, at least in the eyes of the casual viewer like you and I, due to the nature of competitive Brood War in 2021. But, that may be just appearances. I don't think competitive BW is done evolving, the right players just need the right incentive. For example, with the retirement/leaving of many old heads from the scene, new power dynamics and ideas may come to the forefront. We could be looking at a (relatively) dramatically different BW in the next few years, both in terms of who is at the top and how the match-ups are being played by those individuals, which will in turn trickle down to us plebians.
In summary, stop balance whining. It's not productive in any sense of the word and it's beyond a dead horse or even glue topic at this point. Think instead about how Protoss can change the dynamic. Practice instead, for the purposes of improving your play.
Innovation with what? Severely restricting the opening builds of one race and your take is: more innovation is needed. If that one race is locked in at all times in the early part of the game into one small portion of the game-tree than how will that foster innovation? Are the Zergs supposed to play like mindless drones and execute the same strategies until Protoss adapts and somehow bridges that gap? You don't seem to grasp how game theory works.
And saying that some new Protoss has to come along and be as good as Bisu was but also introduce new elements and execute them flawlessly is pretty far-fetched.
Balance is settled on the performance of average Tier 1 players, not outliers.
In the whole history of this game no one has looked comfortable in PvZ except Bisu in his glory days, and that says a lot. Somehow expecting that to morph into some new age where meta-changes will over-haul that historical fact after such a long time with the game being actively played as an esport is delusional.
There's plenty of data available and that reality suggests otherwise.
Jealous has been around forever, as well as several people who posted in this thread. what he says makes sense. You are never "locked" in a build. The meta just seems that way, until someone breaks it. 1-1-1 or the goliath build for TvZ were massive meta changes, Bisu's reaver opening dismantling of the 973 a couple years ago was equally amazing, even if it didnt catch on. Arbiter play in PvT, and shuttles now. Dark Archons vs Mutas, 2 hatch muta timings ZvT due to T adapting to 3 hatch timings over time etc. Everything changes eventually. 973 isnt even an "old" strat. We are seeing a lot of 6 hatch hydra play nowadays too. I remember when i started Hydras were actually a decent ZvP strats, and you fought it with mass archons/zealots. Those were the days. You also opened one base play. Any sort of FE was considered either utter madness on the maps then or pure genius, depending on execution. If 973 is still a major issue in a couple years on every type of map, then yes we can have the discussion. But the current PvZ winrates seem pretty decent. Now if 2 AI with perfect control played each other and 973 100% crushed P then yeah maybe, but BW isnt a game of perfect play. Gate FE forces mistakes. You re saying drone drills or ling micro should deal with it, and it does, but the catch is while you do it you re not doing anything else.
Maps also help, specifically distance to a base and natural layout. If you play bloodbath, 4 pool will kill you given even skill. It s not a balance issue, just a map issue.
Nobody looked as good as Bisu during the entirety of the game? That s just plain wrong, check out Free's stats in that era. Your perception is warped because Jangbi and Best were PvT monsters, but PvT is not always every P s best MU. Kal and Free had great PvZ, Nal_ra was amazing with his FFE and sair/reaver back then too. Even before that Garimto was also very famous for his PvZ. Bisu had the flashiest, most entertaining PvZ, style-wise, so he is remembered more. As for the meta, a lot of Korean pros spent tons of hours on a select few builds and are not keen on changing unless they are already championship level, innovative (think Shine) or in a Bo1 sniping situation. With the loss of proleague the dedicated sniping builds and prep vanished, which doesnt help the problem.
On October 07 2021 04:51 Moopower wrote: Can you explain your reasoning why you don't think it needs a change?
Yes, indeed I can. I don't think it needs balance cause I find the game way more fun than any other the way it is - in its current messy state with all the overpowered units. I don't care for statistics or for results, I don't like this player rather than that one, I just wanna enjoy the show. Whether Last, Flash, Effort, you name it, wins ASL, to me is irrelevant. If zerg beats protoss 60% of the time or 50% it's all the same to me - as long as the games are intriguing I'm coming along. Also, I like an underdog so whenever p beats a highly skilled z, it's even more rewarding for the p. So from my POV, I couldn't care less if z beats p more than the other way around; the game still generates fun and it is still largely unknown who the winner's going to be.
All PvZs that end before the midgame suck, unless you're new to the game and you've not seen all the all-ins (failed or not) or some random new thing dependent on map.
1. I think overall balance is fine. As brought up earlier, I think the top tier zergs right now are just better than the top tier protosses. People seem to forget that Best and Snow were considered bad and maybe even meme-level pvzers. For the longest time, they were PvT specialists. Without Bisu or Rain, I guess Mini has the best pvz but his approach doesn't seem super scalable.
2. However, I do think that the match-up has some annoying quirks. I hate watching hydra and ling busts (whether they work or not). It just feels so rng at the pro-level who wins. I.e. does a probe pick a good scout? I think that mid and even late game pvz are actually really balanced and awesome to watch. Maxed out zerg with dark swarm is scary, but protoss with 5 gas and storm + reaver is actually pretty resilient.
3. Is it possible to just prevent rush frequency by slightly increasing map dimension? I.e. if rush distance is increased, does this hurt any important parts of the game? I guess maybe TvP is impacted poorly since longer push distances is rough for T.
On October 08 2021 04:55 angry_maia wrote: A few thoughts:
1. I think overall balance is fine. As brought up earlier, I think the top tier zergs right now are just better than the top tier protosses. People seem to forget that Best and Snow were considered bad and maybe even meme-level pvzers. For the longest time, they were PvT specialists. Without Bisu or Rain, I guess Mini has the best pvz but his approach doesn't seem super scalable.
2. However, I do think that the match-up has some annoying quirks. I hate watching hydra and ling busts (whether they work or not). It just feels so rng at the pro-level who wins. I.e. does a probe pick a good scout? I think that mid and even late game pvz are actually really balanced and awesome to watch. Maxed out zerg with dark swarm is scary, but protoss with 5 gas and storm + reaver is actually pretty resilient.
3. Is it possible to just prevent rush frequency by slightly increasing map dimension? I.e. if rush distance is increased, does this hurt any important parts of the game? I guess maybe TvP is impacted poorly since longer push distances is rough for T.
Someone earlier in the thread asked "what is the ideal PvZ map" or something similar. I wrote up a ridiculous response just for fun and then deleted it because it was a bit shitposty, but here are my honest thoughts:
I don't think a long rush distance is absolutely necessary. I think that the solution (keep in mind, I am not saying there is necessarily a problem) is more 2 player maps that are harder for Zerg to split 60/40.
4 player maps make it harder to scout cheeses, and make it easier for Zerg to take a second main/nat. Maps like FS and CB allow for Zerg to effectively split the map 60/40 assuming everything goes their way, which isn't necessarily horrible balance as Zergs do need more bases. If we're talking about how to make the map more Protoss-favored, then I believe that there should be a way to make it 55/45 or 50/50 quite easily in a way that won't break the other match-ups too much.
I've long believed that 3 player maps are inherently Zerg favored due to the presence of the second main, thus further aiding that 60/40 divide. There are some exceptions, of course, and taking the second main on 3 player maps as an initial priority is not as common as it used to be IMO. However, for our purposes, let's focus on 2 player maps.
There is not much reason for lengthening the rush distance on 2 player maps because scouting, particularly scouting Zerg, is made much easier (since they aren't going to be proxying buildings). This also avoids the issue you present concerning PvT (although terrain is another deciding factor here). This isn't to say that long rush distance can't be used; Benzene is an example of a map that I feel is pretty decent for PvZ, for example. An example of a 2 player map with a relatively normal rush distance is Blue Storm, which solved the issue in a pretty interesting way, especially for the time.
I could go on and on about this but TL;DR I don't think map makers would be limited to manipulating rush distance in order to make P favored maps. There are plenty of features which can be added/removed/played around with to create more favorable scenarios for Protoss in the early game.
Map size would be interesting to play with tbh could be hard for T though yeah not sure would be interesting to see a 192x192 map on pro level wouldn't it^^ see how it goes. Not sure it would be any better for p vs z though but i just dont know what would happen
the scouting issue isn't just at the very start of the game
On October 08 2021 04:55 angry_maia wrote: A few thoughts:
1. I think overall balance is fine. As brought up earlier, I think the top tier zergs right now are just better than the top tier protosses. People seem to forget that Best and Snow were considered bad and maybe even meme-level pvzers. For the longest time, they were PvT specialists. Without Bisu or Rain, I guess Mini has the best pvz but his approach doesn't seem super scalable.
2. However, I do think that the match-up has some annoying quirks. I hate watching hydra and ling busts (whether they work or not). It just feels so rng at the pro-level who wins. I.e. does a probe pick a good scout? I think that mid and even late game pvz are actually really balanced and awesome to watch. Maxed out zerg with dark swarm is scary, but protoss with 5 gas and storm + reaver is actually pretty resilient.
3. Is it possible to just prevent rush frequency by slightly increasing map dimension? I.e. if rush distance is increased, does this hurt any important parts of the game? I guess maybe TvP is impacted poorly since longer push distances is rough for T.
Someone earlier in the thread asked "what is the ideal PvZ map" or something similar. I wrote up a ridiculous response just for fun and then deleted it because it was a bit shitposty, but here are my honest thoughts:
I don't think a long rush distance is absolutely necessary. I think that the solution (keep in mind, I am not saying there is necessarily a problem) is more 2 player maps that are harder for Zerg to split 60/40.
4 player maps make it harder to scout cheeses, and make it easier for Zerg to take a second main/nat. Maps like FS and CB allow for Zerg to effectively split the map 60/40 assuming everything goes their way, which isn't necessarily horrible balance as Zergs do need more bases. If we're talking about how to make the map more Protoss-favored, then I believe that there should be a way to make it 55/45 or 50/50 quite easily in a way that won't break the other match-ups too much.
I've long believed that 3 player maps are inherently Zerg favored due to the presence of the second main, thus further aiding that 60/40 divide. There are some exceptions, of course, and taking the second main on 3 player maps as an initial priority is not as common as it used to be IMO. However, for our purposes, let's focus on 2 player maps.
There is not much reason for lengthening the rush distance on 2 player maps because scouting, particularly scouting Zerg, is made much easier (since they aren't going to be proxying buildings). This also avoids the issue you present concerning PvT (although terrain is another deciding factor here). This isn't to say that long rush distance can't be used; Benzene is an example of a map that I feel is pretty decent for PvZ, for example. An example of a 2 player map with a relatively normal rush distance is Blue Storm, which solved the issue in a pretty interesting way, especially for the time.
I could go on and on about this but TL;DR I don't think map makers would be limited to manipulating rush distance in order to make P favored maps. There are plenty of features which can be added/removed/played around with to create more favorable scenarios for Protoss in the early game.
Hmm, so 2 player maps help early game since Protoss has better scouting?
blizzard won’t patch the game, and absolutely should not.
that being said, protoss players have been struggling with how potent zerg busts have become in the last few years. with their main defense against the busts being static defense, it makes the decision making difficult due to the ambiguity of whether zerg will commit, not commit, and how much.
i’m not sure whether there is a solution to this conundrum in the standard structure of the matchup on Protoss’ end unless they’re willing to experiment like Mini.
On October 08 2021 04:55 angry_maia wrote: A few thoughts:
1. I think overall balance is fine. As brought up earlier, I think the top tier zergs right now are just better than the top tier protosses. People seem to forget that Best and Snow were considered bad and maybe even meme-level pvzers. For the longest time, they were PvT specialists. Without Bisu or Rain, I guess Mini has the best pvz but his approach doesn't seem super scalable.
2. However, I do think that the match-up has some annoying quirks. I hate watching hydra and ling busts (whether they work or not). It just feels so rng at the pro-level who wins. I.e. does a probe pick a good scout? I think that mid and even late game pvz are actually really balanced and awesome to watch. Maxed out zerg with dark swarm is scary, but protoss with 5 gas and storm + reaver is actually pretty resilient.
3. Is it possible to just prevent rush frequency by slightly increasing map dimension? I.e. if rush distance is increased, does this hurt any important parts of the game? I guess maybe TvP is impacted poorly since longer push distances is rough for T.
Someone earlier in the thread asked "what is the ideal PvZ map" or something similar. I wrote up a ridiculous response just for fun and then deleted it because it was a bit shitposty, but here are my honest thoughts:
I don't think a long rush distance is absolutely necessary. I think that the solution (keep in mind, I am not saying there is necessarily a problem) is more 2 player maps that are harder for Zerg to split 60/40.
4 player maps make it harder to scout cheeses, and make it easier for Zerg to take a second main/nat. Maps like FS and CB allow for Zerg to effectively split the map 60/40 assuming everything goes their way, which isn't necessarily horrible balance as Zergs do need more bases. If we're talking about how to make the map more Protoss-favored, then I believe that there should be a way to make it 55/45 or 50/50 quite easily in a way that won't break the other match-ups too much.
I've long believed that 3 player maps are inherently Zerg favored due to the presence of the second main, thus further aiding that 60/40 divide. There are some exceptions, of course, and taking the second main on 3 player maps as an initial priority is not as common as it used to be IMO. However, for our purposes, let's focus on 2 player maps.
There is not much reason for lengthening the rush distance on 2 player maps because scouting, particularly scouting Zerg, is made much easier (since they aren't going to be proxying buildings). This also avoids the issue you present concerning PvT (although terrain is another deciding factor here). This isn't to say that long rush distance can't be used; Benzene is an example of a map that I feel is pretty decent for PvZ, for example. An example of a 2 player map with a relatively normal rush distance is Blue Storm, which solved the issue in a pretty interesting way, especially for the time.
I could go on and on about this but TL;DR I don't think map makers would be limited to manipulating rush distance in order to make P favored maps. There are plenty of features which can be added/removed/played around with to create more favorable scenarios for Protoss in the early game.
Hmm, so 2 player maps help early game since Protoss has better scouting?
I think so, to an extent of course. You still have to control your worker scout. There is still a metagame when it comes to both players knowing it is a 2 player map and the consequent reactions to that fact (Hatcheries can be blocked, cheeses can be scouted, etc.). I do think it substantially changes the early game in the match-up.
EDIT: There are also a ton of factors that can make a map better or worse for both races that are independent of the number of player spawn locations, so blanket statements like "2 player maps help early game Protoss" while true within reason IMO, is not necessarily the rule. Think of how bad Tears of the Protoss went, not due to the number of players on the map, but due to the layout of the natural. That is a key factor in making balanced PvZ maps by itself. Just making a 2 player map does not inherently benefit Protoss.
On October 07 2021 21:44 Jealous wrote: The reason why your arguments are so readily dismissed is because in every era of post-patch Brood War there were low level whiners with tooootally valid analysis for why X match-up is broken and needs to be fixed, otherwise Brood War is DOOMED! However, as players rise and fall, new ideas come to the forefront, and old meta becomes outdated, it becomes clear that the issue wasn't the race balance, or one specific build. Maps were updated, new strategies and timings are developed, and the pendulum swings again. This is why your rants fall on deaf ears - everyone who has been around long enough has seen this thread a hundred times in the past two decades. Your [i]specific[i] issues and hypotheses are functionally irrelevant when looked at through this lens, one that takes in the entirety of Brood War history.
What Protoss needs, if it needs anything at all, is innovation. We saw it with the return of Shuttle-oriented PvT (with modernization, of course). We saw it with GFE in PvZ. Innovations may have slowed to some extent, at least in the eyes of the casual viewer like you and I, due to the nature of competitive Brood War in 2021. But, that may be just appearances. I don't think competitive BW is done evolving, the right players just need the right incentive. For example, with the retirement/leaving of many old heads from the scene, new power dynamics and ideas may come to the forefront. We could be looking at a (relatively) dramatically different BW in the next few years, both in terms of who is at the top and how the match-ups are being played by those individuals, which will in turn trickle down to us plebians.
In summary, stop balance whining. It's not productive in any sense of the word and it's beyond a dead horse or even glue topic at this point. Think instead about how Protoss can change the dynamic. Practice instead, for the purposes of improving your play.
Innovation with what? Severely restricting the opening builds of one race and your take is: more innovation is needed. If that one race is locked in at all times in the early part of the game into one small portion of the game-tree than how will that foster innovation? Are the Zergs supposed to play like mindless drones and execute the same strategies until Protoss adapts and somehow bridges that gap? You don't seem to grasp how game theory works.
And saying that some new Protoss has to come along and be as good as Bisu was but also introduce new elements and execute them flawlessly is pretty far-fetched.
Balance is settled on the performance of average Tier 1 players, not outliers.
In the whole history of this game no one has looked comfortable in PvZ except Bisu in his glory days, and that says a lot. Somehow expecting that to morph into some new age where meta-changes will over-haul that historical fact after such a long time with the game being actively played as an esport is delusional.
There's plenty of data available and that reality suggests otherwise.
Jealous has been around forever, as well as several people who posted in this thread. what he says makes sense. You are never "locked" in a build. The meta just seems that way, until someone breaks it. 1-1-1 or the goliath build for TvZ were massive meta changes, Bisu's reaver opening dismantling of the 973 a couple years ago was equally amazing, even if it didnt catch on. Arbiter play in PvT, and shuttles now. Dark Archons vs Mutas, 2 hatch muta timings ZvT due to T adapting to 3 hatch timings over time etc. Everything changes eventually. 973 isnt even an "old" strat. We are seeing a lot of 6 hatch hydra play nowadays too. I remember when i started Hydras were actually a decent ZvP strats, and you fought it with mass archons/zealots. Those were the days. You also opened one base play. Any sort of FE was considered either utter madness on the maps then or pure genius, depending on execution. If 973 is still a major issue in a couple years on every type of map, then yes we can have the discussion. But the current PvZ winrates seem pretty decent. Now if 2 AI with perfect control played each other and 973 100% crushed P then yeah maybe, but BW isnt a game of perfect play. Gate FE forces mistakes. You re saying drone drills or ling micro should deal with it, and it does, but the catch is while you do it you re not doing anything else.
Maps also help, specifically distance to a base and natural layout. If you play bloodbath, 4 pool will kill you given even skill. It s not a balance issue, just a map issue.
Nobody looked as good as Bisu during the entirety of the game? That s just plain wrong, check out Free's stats in that era. Your perception is warped because Jangbi and Best were PvT monsters, but PvT is not always every P s best MU. Kal and Free had great PvZ, Nal_ra was amazing with his FFE and sair/reaver back then too. Even before that Garimto was also very famous for his PvZ. Bisu had the flashiest, most entertaining PvZ, style-wise, so he is remembered more. As for the meta, a lot of Korean pros spent tons of hours on a select few builds and are not keen on changing unless they are already championship level, innovative (think Shine) or in a Bo1 sniping situation. With the loss of proleague the dedicated sniping builds and prep vanished, which doesnt help the problem.
4pool kills you any given skill on bloodbath ? Joke ? I dont want to be rude, but what is the point of pages long texts. If in everyone you find more than questionable statements. Sometimes i wonder, if i either missed something important, while playing the game. Or if the people posting again and again for the sake of entertainment actually have ever played the game/ actaully believe the non sense they are posting, myself including.
My best mu is vs protoss but the reason I believe is because most of my games are against protoss so I just get to practice more vs them, ladder lacks terran a lot. They are also the easiest players to predict, the game plan is often the same and straight forward, push zeze, 2 bases obs mass unit push and if it doesn't work take third, I can't blame them since it is very efficient but once you have grasped a good build order that fits you, you can dispose of 90% of them with a rank similar as yours. Also I don't understand why they don't do +1 corsair opening more often, it makes zerg life much harder coze you just can't leave you over undefended and that bothers us a lot.
Saying that Benzene is good for Protoss vs Zerg is one of the most nonsensical things I've heard in a long time.
Like, pick any two PvZs from last season of ASL...they were embarrassing to watch let alone somehow conjure up some theory that it is remotely playable for Protoss.
No one says that TvP is imbalanced (except Artosis :D)
Very few consider ZvT imbalanced.
There has historically been numerous objections regarding PvZ imbalance. It's not huge, but it is there. For P, it is almost unheard of to dominate Zs for a long time. P heading into a semi or a final v Z as a heavy favourite is almost unheard of. The risk/gain ratio for Z in early game is simply too good, while it is terrible for P. Solution for me: cannons should warp-in faster. Irrelevant for PvT, almost irrelevant for PvP, but it would help P not die outright or fall too far behind in the early game.
On October 08 2021 20:51 Rainalcar wrote: No one says that TvP is imbalanced (except Artosis :D)
Very few consider ZvT imbalanced.
There has historically been numerous objections regarding PvZ imbalance. It's not huge, but it is there. For P, it is almost unheard of to dominate Zs for a long time. P heading into a semi or a final v Z as a heavy favourite is almost unheard of. The risk/gain ratio for Z in early game is simply too good, while it is terrible for P. Solution for me: cannons should warp-in faster. Irrelevant for PvT, almost irrelevant for PvP, but it would help P not die outright or fall too far behind in the early game.
Irrelevant in PvT: not so sure about that.
Vulture raids are used to kill off late expansions on maps like Polypoid and it would favor Protoss to protect those bases easier since P armies are quite imobile. Terran has no other way to harass since they have to keep their tanks together and dropships are too expensive so quick vulture attacks of 6 to 10 almost always get the job done against fresh bases with warping cannons.
Scouts should be cheaper and have shorter build time so p could harass by air against Zerg. Scouts suck versus p and t, so this would be a good balance patch. 150/100, Corsair build-time and speed upgrade via core. Mu solved gg no re
On October 08 2021 21:44 Timebon3s wrote: Scouts should be cheaper and have shorter build time so p could harass by air against Zerg. Scouts suck versus p and t, so this would be a good balance patch. 150/100, Corsair build-time and speed upgrade via core. Mu solved gg no re
If scouts would be cheaper and have shorter build time then it woul be necessary to exclude observers from the game and give detection ability to arbiters. That would be fair i guess. With current maps meta protoss are in favour to zerg.
On October 09 2021 00:59 ToT)MidiaN( wrote: Race stats for 2021 on sponbbang. Z>P 53.3%, but T>P 53.5% and T>Z 54.8%, and this is with FlaSh barely being active
Its quite apparent for some time that Protoss is the weakest race at the top level.
It's evidenced by sponbbang stats. It's evidence by KCM results. And it can be seen from the gameplay point of view, as OP demonstrated in this thread for example.
It really baffles me how we have idiots like Artosis ranting on a daily basis about how op Protoss is.
Protoss is by far more underpowered than any other race is potentially overpowered. To not recognise this is delusional. To resort only to maps, which haven't solved anything long term in this regard, has proven to be a failed prospect.
And yes, ZvZ is broken as hell. Which is such a shame, because it has the most potential of all the mirrors.
On October 09 2021 01:54 Rainalcar wrote: Protoss is by far more underpowered than any other race is potentially overpowered. To not recognise this is delusional. To resort only to maps, which haven't solved anything long term in this regard, has proven to be a failed prospect.
And yes, ZvZ is broken as hell. Which is such a shame, because it has the most potential of all the mirrors.
The last time they had protoss maps (ASL 5), the top 4 had 3 protosses.
On October 09 2021 00:59 ToT)MidiaN( wrote: Race stats for 2021 on sponbbang. Z>P 53.3%, but T>P 53.5% and T>Z 54.8%, and this is with FlaSh barely being active
Its quite apparent for some time that Protoss is the weakest race at the top level.
It's evidenced by sponbbang stats. It's evidence by KCM results. And it can be seen from the gameplay point of view, as OP demonstrated in this thread for example.
It really baffles me how we have idiots like Artosis ranting on a daily basis about how op Protoss is.
Maybe I misinterpret your point, but I wasn't arguing against Protoss being the weakest race at the highest level, infact, I was arguing that they are indeed the weakest.
I was also pointing out that Terran is the strongest on paper. We are in a Zerg meta if you look at recent ASL champions, but imo that's more to do with there being more active top level Zerg players and a little bit of variance in results rather than racial imbalance in favour of Zerg.
Artosis isn't the only person who believes their race to be the weakest. I think it's pretty common for people to think the other two races are OP when they lose and feel helpless. Besides, let's be honest, we've all felt helpless against both other races when we've been outmatched skill wise. Even some cheeses by "weaker" players have made me feel like the game is broken at times, and I think many people will identify with that and/or with the stuff Artosis says, even if he can be over the top with it.
Also the imbalances that exist are not game breaking, this is still a pretty well balanced game on the whole. There have been top level players of every race and it is possible to win ASLs playing any of the races. Also let's be real, the game is 20+ years old, there's no chance of a balance patch happening anyway.
I would also add that although Protoss is the weakest race at the very very top level, I think Protoss IS the easiest race to play and actually has the highest winrates on the ladder every season due to that fact. Look at the European scene also, it's dominated by Protoss atm, and probably in the history of BW most of the top Non-Koreans have been Protoss. At levels below the absolute pinnacle, Protoss seems to do extremely well, and to me this is an extremely good argument not to change the balance. The imbalance really only exists at the highest level and skill will largely prevail for the rest of us.
On October 09 2021 01:54 Rainalcar wrote: Protoss is by far more underpowered than any other race is potentially overpowered. To not recognise this is delusional. To resort only to maps, which haven't solved anything long term in this regard, has proven to be a failed prospect.
And yes, ZvZ is broken as hell. Which is such a shame, because it has the most potential of all the mirrors.
The last time they had protoss maps (ASL 5), the top 4 had 3 protosses.
Precisely. So we either have P maps which are evidently imbalanced, or we have these "standard" maps that have shown the same imbalance throughout BW history. To me, it says that the balance holy grail through maps does not exist. You cannot fix P blindness in early game via maps.
On October 09 2021 01:54 Rainalcar wrote: Protoss is by far more underpowered than any other race is potentially overpowered. To not recognise this is delusional. To resort only to maps, which haven't solved anything long term in this regard, has proven to be a failed prospect.
And yes, ZvZ is broken as hell. Which is such a shame, because it has the most potential of all the mirrors.
The last time they had protoss maps (ASL 5), the top 4 had 3 protosses.
Precisely. So we either have P maps which are evidently imbalanced, or we have these "standard" maps that have shown the same imbalance throughout BW history. To me, it says that the balance holy grail through maps does not exist. You cannot fix P blindness in early game via maps.
Okay maybe. Let's forget the maps then. How does Bisu have a career 72% winrate vs zerg (kespa era) and 60% (post kespa era, but only spongbbang stats)? If PvZ is so imbalanced at the top, then why does he do extremely well in the matchup?
Protoss are underpowered but who cares? It's by far the least entertaining race to watch, always rooting against protoss, unless it saves us from a ZvZ.
On October 09 2021 03:20 nojok wrote: Protoss are underpowered but who cares? It's by far the least entertaining race to watch, always rooting against protoss, unless it saves us from a ZvZ.
Protoss is the most popular race in this game. People playing it, people watching it etc...
If you want perfect balance you need to follow 1v1 sports/games like tennis etc.
Perfect balance is impossible to achieve in a multi race game like BW. It's common sense because there's various units which add different variables depending on the maps etc. If you wanted perfect balance the game would have to be mirrors only but that would obviously be boring as fuck to watch/play.
The reason why BW is the best game ever made is because the difference in balance isn't massive, it's marginal for the game quality that we get to enjoy. On top of that the skill cap is unlimited which allows players to overcome balance issues by putting in the work, which is extremely gratifying to ppl who enjoy competing.
Long story short, you're wasting your brain cells thinking about these type of things. Excuses don't work in a game like BW, when you lose it's 100% on you, accept it and move on. If you can't then you're probably better off playing a different game or just being a viewer.. for the sake of your sanity.
On October 09 2021 03:47 TT1 wrote: If you want perfect game balance you need to follow 1v1 sports/games like tennis etc.
Perfect balance is impossible to achieve in a multi race game like BW. It's common sense because there's various units which add diff variables depending on the maps etc. If you wanted perfect balance the game would have to be mirrors only but that would obviously be boring as fuck to watch/play.
The reason why BW is the best game ever made is because the difference in balance isn't massive, it's marginal for the game quality that we get to enjoy. On top of that the skill cap is unlimited which allows players to overcome balance issues. Long story short, you're wasting your brain cells thinking about these type of things. Excuses don't work in a game like BW, when you lose it's 100% on you, accept it.
On October 09 2021 03:47 TT1 wrote: when you lose it's 100% on you, accept it and move on. If you can't then you're probably better off playing a different game or just being a viewer.
Since this is factually untrue (because this game has a lot of bullshit builds that work at very high rate, randomness and also Terran 3/2 which is unplayable against after a certain point in the game state) I guess everyone should stop playing the game since people that come and beat the odds are so rare (generational in a 20 yr old game, so maybe even less).
On October 09 2021 03:20 nojok wrote: Protoss are underpowered but who cares? It's by far the least entertaining race to watch, always rooting against protoss, unless it saves us from a ZvZ.
Protoss is the most popular race in this game. People playing it, people watching it etc...
On October 09 2021 00:59 ToT)MidiaN( wrote: Race stats for 2021 on sponbbang. Z>P 53.3%, but T>P 53.5% and T>Z 54.8%, and this is with FlaSh barely being active
Its quite apparent for some time that Protoss is the weakest race at the top level.
It's evidenced by sponbbang stats. It's evidence by KCM results. And it can be seen from the gameplay point of view, as OP demonstrated in this thread for example.
It really baffles me how we have idiots like Artosis ranting on a daily basis about how op Protoss is.
Maybe I misinterpret your point, but I wasn't arguing against Protoss being the weakest race at the highest level, infact, I was arguing that they are indeed the weakest.
They are indeed. We share the same view.
But of course below S rank, Protoss is strongest.
Bonyth demonstrates this very precisely with his graph in a recent thread.
On October 09 2021 03:47 TT1 wrote: If you want perfect balance you need to follow 1v1 sports/games like tennis etc.
Perfect balance is impossible to achieve in a multi race game like BW. It's common sense because there's various units which add different variables depending on the maps etc. If you wanted perfect balance the game would have to be mirrors only but that would obviously be boring as fuck to watch/play.
The reason why BW is the best game ever made is because the difference in balance isn't massive, it's marginal for the game quality that we get to enjoy. On top of that the skill cap is unlimited which allows players to overcome balance issues by putting in the work, which is extremely gratifying to ppl who enjoy competing.
Long story short, you're wasting your brain cells thinking about these type of things. Excuses don't work in a game like BW, when you lose it's 100% on you, accept it and move on. If you can't then you're probably better off playing a different game or just being a viewer.. for the sake of your sanity.
There are plenty of things I disagree with in this statement but none is higher than "when you lose it's 100% on you". That 100% isn't true with BW and a player as experienced as you should know that.
On October 09 2021 01:54 Rainalcar wrote: Protoss is by far more underpowered than any other race is potentially overpowered. To not recognise this is delusional. To resort only to maps, which haven't solved anything long term in this regard, has proven to be a failed prospect.
And yes, ZvZ is broken as hell. Which is such a shame, because it has the most potential of all the mirrors.
The last time they had protoss maps (ASL 5), the top 4 had 3 protosses.
Precisely. So we either have P maps which are evidently imbalanced, or we have these "standard" maps that have shown the same imbalance throughout BW history. To me, it says that the balance holy grail through maps does not exist. You cannot fix P blindness in early game via maps.
Okay maybe. Let's forget the maps then. How does Bisu have a career 72% winrate vs zerg (kespa era) and 60% (post kespa era, but only spongbbang stats)? If PvZ is so imbalanced at the top, then why does he do extremely well in the matchup?
Could you list top 20 players in both Kespa era and post Kespa era in ZvP and PvZ? To see how many Z and P we will find there and in which positions and their winrates.
On October 09 2021 03:47 TT1 wrote: If you want perfect balance you need to follow 1v1 sports/games like tennis etc.
Perfect balance is impossible to achieve in a multi race game like BW. It's common sense because there's various units which add different variables depending on the maps etc. If you wanted perfect balance the game would have to be mirrors only but that would obviously be boring as fuck to watch/play.
The reason why BW is the best game ever made is because the difference in balance isn't massive, it's marginal for the game quality that we get to enjoy. On top of that the skill cap is unlimited which allows players to overcome balance issues by putting in the work, which is extremely gratifying to ppl who enjoy competing.
Long story short, you're wasting your brain cells thinking about these type of things. Excuses don't work in a game like BW, when you lose it's 100% on you, accept it and move on. If you can't then you're probably better off playing a different game or just being a viewer.. for the sake of your sanity.
There are plenty of things I disagree with in this statement but none is higher than "when you lose it's 100% on you". That 100% isn't true with BW and a player as experienced as you should know that.
The way I see it, protoss players at the middle-to-top end tend to be spoiled by the fact that they have a noticably easier time getting to a decently high rank than the other two races. As a result of that there may well be a survivorship bias going on, like for example protoss being more likely to draw in players who are less likely to put in the same additional effort to reach the top ranks as compared to terran and zerg players. With such a trend in the average mindset it wouldn't be surprising if the average skill level of the top ranked protoss players was actually slightly lower than that of terran and zerg players at the same top ranks. All of this is pure speculation, but it makes intuitive sense. Point being there's certainly room for bias that can skew the results against top protoss players.
This idea isn't exclusive to SC either, it also exists in combat sports and martial arts. Overperformers who are naturally gifted might be at a slight mindset disadvantage due to not having to work as hard to reach the top. Eventually some of their sparring partners catch up and even overtake them, and the mindset and expertise of those people would expectedly exceed that of the naturally gifted fighters.
On October 09 2021 03:47 TT1 wrote: If you want perfect balance you need to follow 1v1 sports/games like tennis etc.
Perfect balance is impossible to achieve in a multi race game like BW. It's common sense because there's various units which add different variables depending on the maps etc. If you wanted perfect balance the game would have to be mirrors only but that would obviously be boring as fuck to watch/play.
The reason why BW is the best game ever made is because the difference in balance isn't massive, it's marginal for the game quality that we get to enjoy. On top of that the skill cap is unlimited which allows players to overcome balance issues by putting in the work, which is extremely gratifying to ppl who enjoy competing.
Long story short, you're wasting your brain cells thinking about these type of things. Excuses don't work in a game like BW, when you lose it's 100% on you, accept it and move on. If you can't then you're probably better off playing a different game or just being a viewer.. for the sake of your sanity.
There are plenty of things I disagree with in this statement but none is higher than "when you lose it's 100% on you". That 100% isn't true with BW and a player as experienced as you should know that.
ok, such as?
Because you asked:
- The difference in balance isn't massive (it is depending on the map).
- Mirrors are a perfect balance (they're map and FOW BO dependent).
- The skill cap is unlimited (there is a skill cap although it's relatively high).
- BW is the greatest game ever made (that's just an opinion, of which I personally disagree with).
But I honestly don't care about all of that as much as I think people should understand that you 100% can lose and it not be your fault. Any game with fog of war, miss-chance, and pathing bugs will result in games where you played the odds exceptionally well and still lose because of factors outside of your control. Fog of war being the most influential in that list. Just as you can't predict when a car will decide to just go crazy and turn right into you on the highway and cause a crash, you can't predict certain plays crazy people will do in StarCraft and despite your best efforts to play within the meta and within the odds, you will lose to some crazy shit because it would literally be irresponsible and a bad play for you to account for such nonsense. Just as the car accident wasn't your fault, a SC loss to something like that isn't your fault either. Just part of the game. SC and ANY fog of war game relies on players playing odds to a certain degree and that's why a 70% win rate at the pro level gets you to top in the world. FlaSh isn't the best ever because he won 100% of the time, it's because he was a genius gambler whom would study the meta and his current BO win odds and if they dropped at all in practice he knew he had to adapt and change.
Those are just my thoughts though and aren't meant as an attack on you. You and no one else has to agree with them.
On October 09 2021 03:47 TT1 wrote: If you want perfect balance you need to follow 1v1 sports/games like tennis etc.
Perfect balance is impossible to achieve in a multi race game like BW. It's common sense because there's various units which add different variables depending on the maps etc. If you wanted perfect balance the game would have to be mirrors only but that would obviously be boring as fuck to watch/play.
The reason why BW is the best game ever made is because the difference in balance isn't massive, it's marginal for the game quality that we get to enjoy. On top of that the skill cap is unlimited which allows players to overcome balance issues by putting in the work, which is extremely gratifying to ppl who enjoy competing.
Long story short, you're wasting your brain cells thinking about these type of things. Excuses don't work in a game like BW, when you lose it's 100% on you, accept it and move on. If you can't then you're probably better off playing a different game or just being a viewer.. for the sake of your sanity.
There are plenty of things I disagree with in this statement but none is higher than "when you lose it's 100% on you". That 100% isn't true with BW and a player as experienced as you should know that.
ok, such as?
Because you asked:
- The difference in balance isn't massive (it is depending on the map).
- Mirrors are a perfect balance (they're map and FOW BO dependent).
- The skill cap is unlimited (there is a skill cap although it's relatively high).
- BW is the greatest game ever made (that's just an opinion, of which I personally disagree with).
But I honestly don't care about all of that as much as I think people should understand that you 100% can lose and it not be your fault. Any game with fog of war, miss-chance, and pathing bugs will result in games where you played the odds exceptionally well and still lose because of factors outside of your control. Fog of war being the most influential in that list. Just as you can't predict when a car will decide to just go crazy and turn right into you on the highway and cause a crash, you can't predict certain plays crazy people will do in StarCraft and despite your best efforts to play within the meta and within the odds, you will lose to some crazy shit because it would literally be irresponsible and a bad play for you to account for such nonsense. Just as the car accident wasn't your fault, a SC loss to something like that isn't your fault either. Just part of the game. SC and ANY fog of war game relies on players playing odds to a certain degree and that's why a 70% win rate at the pro level gets you to top in the world. FlaSh isn't the best ever because he won 100% of the time, it's because he was a genius gambler whom would study the meta and his current BO win odds and if they dropped at all in practice he knew he had to adapt and change.
Those are just my thoughts though and aren't meant as an attack on you. You and no one else has to agree with them.
Most of the things you mention are nitpicky and meaningless to me, it's part of the variance of the game which evens out with sample size. I mentally write off factors outside my control because they're exactly that, outside my control. It's pointless to think/worry about them because everyone has to deal with the same stuff anyways (perspective matters a lot here). Instead, look at them as challenges and try to overcome them, nothing applies more to this than 9p vs 12h for example, or proxy 2g vs 12h etc.
Losing to people who do bad/crazy stuff that catches you off guard is nothing more than a mechanics issue imo, it happens to all of us. With enough execution and practice/experience you limit and learn how to react properly to those scenarios, there's levels to every competitive game. For example, what you view as being bad AI/pathing a progamer views as an opportunity to differentiate himself from other players by working on his micro/movement.
Instead of blaming your opponent for doing something dumb look internally instead of externally, your time/energy is better spent looking for answers. Like i said, to me that's nothing more than an excuse. But i guess this is all a matter of perspective anyways, imo the setting of the game matters as well. My mindset for ladder and tourneys is that anything goes, you're in the jungle (as opposed to playing customs/practice games).
On October 09 2021 06:22 Magic Powers wrote: The way I see it, protoss players at the middle-to-top end tend to be spoiled by the fact that they have a noticably easier time getting to a decently high rank than the other two races. As a result of that there may well be a survivorship bias going on, like for example protoss being more likely to draw in players who are less likely to put in the same additional effort to reach the top ranks as compared to terran and zerg players. With such a trend in the average mindset it wouldn't be surprising if the average skill level of the top ranked protoss players was actually slightly lower than that of terran and zerg players at the same top ranks. All of this is pure speculation, but it makes intuitive sense. Point being there's certainly room for bias that can skew the results against top protoss players.
This idea isn't exclusive to SC either, it also exists in combat sports and martial arts. Overperformers who are naturally gifted might be at a slight mindset disadvantage due to not having to work as hard to reach the top. Eventually some of their sparring partners catch up and even overtake them, and the mindset and expertise of those people would expectedly exceed that of the naturally gifted fighters.
This almost makes sense until you actually think about it. Protoss players are doing comparable numbers of sponsored matches and, more importantly, people who have been on the top for years (in some cases more like a decade) aren't going to be impacted by having an easier time at B rank.
On October 09 2021 03:47 TT1 wrote: If you want perfect balance you need to follow 1v1 sports/games like tennis etc.
Perfect balance is impossible to achieve in a multi race game like BW. It's common sense because there's various units which add different variables depending on the maps etc. If you wanted perfect balance the game would have to be mirrors only but that would obviously be boring as fuck to watch/play.
The reason why BW is the best game ever made is because the difference in balance isn't massive, it's marginal for the game quality that we get to enjoy. On top of that the skill cap is unlimited which allows players to overcome balance issues by putting in the work, which is extremely gratifying to ppl who enjoy competing.
Long story short, you're wasting your brain cells thinking about these type of things. Excuses don't work in a game like BW, when you lose it's 100% on you, accept it and move on. If you can't then you're probably better off playing a different game or just being a viewer.. for the sake of your sanity.
There are plenty of things I disagree with in this statement but none is higher than "when you lose it's 100% on you". That 100% isn't true with BW and a player as experienced as you should know that.
ok, such as?
Because you asked:
- The difference in balance isn't massive (it is depending on the map).
- Mirrors are a perfect balance (they're map and FOW BO dependent).
- The skill cap is unlimited (there is a skill cap although it's relatively high).
- BW is the greatest game ever made (that's just an opinion, of which I personally disagree with).
But I honestly don't care about all of that as much as I think people should understand that you 100% can lose and it not be your fault. Any game with fog of war, miss-chance, and pathing bugs will result in games where you played the odds exceptionally well and still lose because of factors outside of your control. Fog of war being the most influential in that list. Just as you can't predict when a car will decide to just go crazy and turn right into you on the highway and cause a crash, you can't predict certain plays crazy people will do in StarCraft and despite your best efforts to play within the meta and within the odds, you will lose to some crazy shit because it would literally be irresponsible and a bad play for you to account for such nonsense. Just as the car accident wasn't your fault, a SC loss to something like that isn't your fault either. Just part of the game. SC and ANY fog of war game relies on players playing odds to a certain degree and that's why a 70% win rate at the pro level gets you to top in the world. FlaSh isn't the best ever because he won 100% of the time, it's because he was a genius gambler whom would study the meta and his current BO win odds and if they dropped at all in practice he knew he had to adapt and change.
Those are just my thoughts though and aren't meant as an attack on you. You and no one else has to agree with them.
Most of the things you mention are nitpicky and meaningless to me, it's part of the variance of the game which evens out with sample size. I mentally write off factors outside my control because they're exactly that, outside my control. It's pointless to think/worry about them because everyone has to deal with the same stuff anyways (perspective matters a lot here).
Losing to people who do bad/crazy stuff that catches you off guard is nothing more than a mechanics issue imo, it happens to all of us. With enough execution and practice you limit and learn how to react properly to those scenarios, there's levels to every competitive game.
Instead of blaming your opponent for doing something dumb look internally instead of externally. Like i said, to me that's nothing more than an excuse. But i guess this is all a matter of perspective anyways, imo the setting of the game also matters. My mindset for ladder and tourneys is that anything goes, you're in the jungle (as opposed to playing customs/practice games). If you want to play kosher games then stick to customs with ppl you know.
That's your approach to the game which is not the same with saying that 100% of the losses in this game should be considered as your own mistake. That's the most egregious thing said in this thread by far.
You could argue that Chess is like that but even in chess at the highest level there are other factors than often decide games. Like being a fast player and forcing your opponent of equal skill into an odd mig-game to gain an extra edge late-game.
On October 07 2021 13:53 Magic Powers wrote: If people spent as much time and energy studying and practicing [insert matchup] as they do complaining about the matchup being imbalanced, they could actually become quite a lot better in that matchup.
Have you actually addressed the points or arguments or are you just making ad hominems? By your logic, unless you are the level of a progamer, you shouldn't be able to analyze any situation at all. Which means artosis or any other caster who is less skilled than a progamer doesn't have any relevant opinion to cast about. The point being is, you don't necessarily have to be as a high ranked player to notice the faults. You simply have to address the principle at play here, which is apparent, but nobody is challenging me on.
Astute observation. Some form of expert insight is required for an accurate understanding of the current state of the game. In my understanding you lack expertise, and thus - since you haven't provided any other form of evidence - your ideas can be dismissed.
Not necessarily. Truth is objective no matter who states it. If a Progamer says something about the game, is it right because they are a high level progamer, or is it right because it was objectively right and they happen to be closer to the truth? Sometimes it takes someone who has a fresh set of eyes of perspective, who isn't blinded by dogma or has set patterned thinking or been trained by the echo chambers of the common wisdom on TL. You can argue that I most likely don't have the truth by arguing based on credentials because yes, more often than not someone who has credentials can be right more often than not, but you're not claiming anything objective here. You're resorting to argument from authority.
On October 09 2021 06:22 Magic Powers wrote: The way I see it, protoss players at the middle-to-top end tend to be spoiled by the fact that they have a noticably easier time getting to a decently high rank than the other two races. As a result of that there may well be a survivorship bias going on, like for example protoss being more likely to draw in players who are less likely to put in the same additional effort to reach the top ranks as compared to terran and zerg players. With such a trend in the average mindset it wouldn't be surprising if the average skill level of the top ranked protoss players was actually slightly lower than that of terran and zerg players at the same top ranks. All of this is pure speculation, but it makes intuitive sense. Point being there's certainly room for bias that can skew the results against top protoss players.
This idea isn't exclusive to SC either, it also exists in combat sports and martial arts. Overperformers who are naturally gifted might be at a slight mindset disadvantage due to not having to work as hard to reach the top. Eventually some of their sparring partners catch up and even overtake them, and the mindset and expertise of those people would expectedly exceed that of the naturally gifted fighters.
This almost makes sense until you actually think about it. Protoss players are doing comparable numbers of sponsored matches and, more importantly, people who have been on the top for years (in some cases more like a decade) aren't going to be impacted by having an easier time at B rank.
Couldn't agree more.
Let's take the current top 5 protoss players: Mini, Snow, Best, Free, Shuttle.
Out of those I would consider the first 3 as the Tier 1 players. I think each time ASL rolls around no one thinks in terms: "Hey, I hope that I can win 80% of my games against 2300 MMR players on ASL maps on ladder, that should give me the extra confidence going into the tournament".
Everyone's thoughts is:
1. Avoid Zerg in Bo1s. 2. Get a favorable map pool so you don't have to play the Benzene's of the world in crucial games. 3. Practice as much as possible against other Pros to cover as many of the strategies in the new map pool. 4. No bo1 PvPs.
Basically minimizing variance and playing enough on the maps to understand optimal strategies.
On October 07 2021 14:32 sas.Sziky wrote: Mr. Moopower. It is difficult to remain diplomatic after these nonsense but i try. Who is just cry '' Zerg easy '' '' Protoss easy '' '' Terran op '' and continue. Easier to cry right (working and training and better like the other Hard Yes i know. ) U said Progamer what say.... don't say that( see Bonyth great interview with Mini ) put something on the table ( not even then u change '' balance and other '' Who are you to suggest this? For me it is very sad that there are such.
So any attempts to discuss opinions of balance is translated as whining? If it's true, it's true, doesn't matter if you think it's whining. If a sports team cheats in a game, and they call it out, does that mean they are "whining"? Or is it legitimate? You need to find that out by reason and argument rather than just calling it "whining". All you folks seem to be doing is resorting to argument from authority rather from a game theory perspective which I believe is the only objective way to discuss and reason through the balance argument.
On October 07 2021 22:16 EndingLife wrote: There's no problem with protoss scouting or imbalance with 9-7-3. Your scouting probe should not die until there's zergling speed. With gate expand you can very often scout while harassing with zealots. I think the recent maps have been pretty bad for PvZ in general. Mineral only 3rd bases really hurt the protoss mid/early late game. Protoss needs that gas to compete with 4 gas zerg when they take the natural of another main, then the main for free.
Your scouting probe will die before hydra if the zerg is competent in denying scouting. Speedlings will be deny probe scouting, and if you try to zealot pressure as a form of scouting, zerg can easily whip up more speedlings, and in an open area, zealots trade inefficiently before +1. So once your zealots die, you have even less to get in the way of hydra bust and all this could happen with zerg still hiding intel from you whether you're going hydra bust or muta. We saw this with Rain and JD's game in one ASL season. Rain was trying to move out with 5 zealots to try to get a sense for either muta tech or hydra, and I will admit that Rain did make a mistake by not plugging the wall so that forced Rain to get his cannon's delayed because of speedling dmg. JD essentially spiraled overwhelming econ advantage after the hydra bust, because of the delayed cannons, Rain was forced into a lose-lose scenario where he couldn't just scout with his zealots unless he wanted to throw them away and the hydra bust did so much dmg to Rain's economy he just couldn't catch up after that. So yes in a nutshell Rain did make some mistakes, but does it deserve such small margin for error? Why does Zerg have to have such big potential gains for little to no risk while Protoss gets stuck with all the risk? From a game theory perspective, that's not a winnable position long term. Protoss might get lucky with winning in some streaks but over the long haul, the player with more options and better risk/benefit ratio will statistically be ahead. Think game theory from poker perspective.
How often do you see Protoss making a comeback in ZvP where they are down 10-20 supply? How often do you see Zerg making an easier comeback down 40 supply?
On October 09 2021 03:47 TT1 wrote: If you want perfect balance you need to follow 1v1 sports/games like tennis etc.
Perfect balance is impossible to achieve in a multi race game like BW. It's common sense because there's various units which add different variables depending on the maps etc. If you wanted perfect balance the game would have to be mirrors only but that would obviously be boring as fuck to watch/play.
The reason why BW is the best game ever made is because the difference in balance isn't massive, it's marginal for the game quality that we get to enjoy. On top of that the skill cap is unlimited which allows players to overcome balance issues by putting in the work, which is extremely gratifying to ppl who enjoy competing.
Long story short, you're wasting your brain cells thinking about these type of things. Excuses don't work in a game like BW, when you lose it's 100% on you, accept it and move on. If you can't then you're probably better off playing a different game or just being a viewer.. for the sake of your sanity.
There are plenty of things I disagree with in this statement but none is higher than "when you lose it's 100% on you". That 100% isn't true with BW and a player as experienced as you should know that.
ok, such as?
Because you asked:
- The difference in balance isn't massive (it is depending on the map).
- Mirrors are a perfect balance (they're map and FOW BO dependent).
- The skill cap is unlimited (there is a skill cap although it's relatively high).
- BW is the greatest game ever made (that's just an opinion, of which I personally disagree with).
But I honestly don't care about all of that as much as I think people should understand that you 100% can lose and it not be your fault. Any game with fog of war, miss-chance, and pathing bugs will result in games where you played the odds exceptionally well and still lose because of factors outside of your control. Fog of war being the most influential in that list. Just as you can't predict when a car will decide to just go crazy and turn right into you on the highway and cause a crash, you can't predict certain plays crazy people will do in StarCraft and despite your best efforts to play within the meta and within the odds, you will lose to some crazy shit because it would literally be irresponsible and a bad play for you to account for such nonsense. Just as the car accident wasn't your fault, a SC loss to something like that isn't your fault either. Just part of the game. SC and ANY fog of war game relies on players playing odds to a certain degree and that's why a 70% win rate at the pro level gets you to top in the world. FlaSh isn't the best ever because he won 100% of the time, it's because he was a genius gambler whom would study the meta and his current BO win odds and if they dropped at all in practice he knew he had to adapt and change.
Those are just my thoughts though and aren't meant as an attack on you. You and no one else has to agree with them.
Most of the things you mention are nitpicky and meaningless to me, it's part of the variance of the game which evens out with sample size. I mentally write off factors outside my control because they're exactly that, outside my control. It's pointless to think/worry about them because everyone has to deal with the same stuff anyways (perspective matters a lot here). Instead, look at them as challenges and try to overcome them (nothing applies more to this than 9p vs 12h for example, or proxy 2g vs 12h etc).
Losing to people who do bad/crazy stuff that catches you off guard is nothing more than a mechanics issue imo, it happens to all of us. With enough execution and practice/experience you limit and learn how to react properly to those scenarios, there's levels to every competitive game.
Instead of blaming your opponent for doing something dumb look internally instead of externally. Like i said, to me that's nothing more than an excuse. But i guess this is all a matter of perspective anyways, imo the setting of the game also matters. My mindset for ladder and tourneys is that anything goes, you're in the jungle (as opposed to playing customs/practice games).
Both can be true to be fair.
Personally I’m pretty hardwired with the ‘get good’ mentality, rather to my detriment sometimes as I apply it to basically everything.
There could be some hypothetical game, indeed they probably exist where my character/faction choice requires stellar, as close to human level perfection to have utility, matching up against an equivalent that doesn’t require anyway near that technical proficiency.
So I could play at 90%, lose and it’s both my fault for not playing at 100%, but equally whether that’s a reasonable expectation if my opponent is making big errors left right and centre can also be worthy of consideration.
Brood War isn’t grossly broken of course, and it’s long-standing combination of general balance as well as genuinely distinctive factions is borderline miraculous.
Mess with that at our peril, although I do still enjoy the ultimately fruitless theorycrafting.
On October 07 2021 22:16 EndingLife wrote: There's no problem with protoss scouting or imbalance with 9-7-3. Your scouting probe should not die until there's zergling speed. With gate expand you can very often scout while harassing with zealots. I think the recent maps have been pretty bad for PvZ in general. Mineral only 3rd bases really hurt the protoss mid/early late game. Protoss needs that gas to compete with 4 gas zerg when they take the natural of another main, then the main for free.
Your scouting probe will die before hydra if the zerg is competent in denying scouting. Speedlings will be deny probe scouting, and if you try to zealot pressure as a form of scouting, zerg can easily whip up more speedlings, and in an open area, zealots trade inefficiently before +1. So once your zealots die, you have even less to get in the way of hydra bust and all this could happen with zerg still hiding intel from you whether you're going hydra bust or muta. We saw this with Rain and JD's game in one ASL season. Rain was trying to move out with 5 zealots to try to get a sense for either muta tech or hydra, and I will admit that Rain did make a mistake by not plugging the wall so that forced Rain to get his cannon's delayed because of speedling dmg. JD essentially spiraled overwhelming econ advantage after the hydra bust, because of the delayed cannons, Rain was forced into a lose-lose scenario where he couldn't just scout with his zealots unless he wanted to throw them away and the hydra bust did so much dmg to Rain's economy he just couldn't catch up after that.
How often do you see Protoss making a comeback in ZvP where they are down 10-20 supply? How often do you see Zerg making an easier comeback down 40 supply?
play and study the game more instead of talking, you're wrong with your timings, link the game that you're talking about
if z shows you speed at x timing that means hydras aren't likely unless it's a mindgame build, but by then the hydras will be so delayed that you'll be able to scout and react to them with your sair scout (and add cannons)
instead of looking for people to feed you answers shouldn't you take the time to learn the game properly before whining? you seem very entitled
On October 07 2021 22:16 EndingLife wrote: There's no problem with protoss scouting or imbalance with 9-7-3. Your scouting probe should not die until there's zergling speed. With gate expand you can very often scout while harassing with zealots. I think the recent maps have been pretty bad for PvZ in general. Mineral only 3rd bases really hurt the protoss mid/early late game. Protoss needs that gas to compete with 4 gas zerg when they take the natural of another main, then the main for free.
Your scouting probe will die before hydra if the zerg is competent in denying scouting. Speedlings will be deny probe scouting, and if you try to zealot pressure as a form of scouting, zerg can easily whip up more speedlings, and in an open area, zealots trade inefficiently before +1. So once your zealots die, you have even less to get in the way of hydra bust and all this could happen with zerg still hiding intel from you whether you're going hydra bust or muta. We saw this with Rain and JD's game in one ASL season. Rain was trying to move out with 5 zealots to try to get a sense for either muta tech or hydra, and I will admit that Rain did make a mistake by not plugging the wall so that forced Rain to get his cannon's delayed because of speedling dmg. JD essentially spiraled overwhelming econ advantage after the hydra bust, because of the delayed cannons, Rain was forced into a lose-lose scenario where he couldn't just scout with his zealots unless he wanted to throw them away and the hydra bust did so much dmg to Rain's economy he just couldn't catch up after that.
How often do you see Protoss making a comeback in ZvP where they are down 10-20 supply? How often do you see Zerg making an easier comeback down 40 supply?
play and study the game more instead of talking, you're wrong with your timings, link the game that you're talking about
if z shows you speed at x timing that means hydras aren't likely unless it's a mindgame build, but by then the hydras will be so delayed that you'll be able to scout and react to them with your sair scout (and add cannons)
instead of looking for people to feed you answers shouldn't you take the time to learn the game properly before whining? you seem very entitled
I find plenty of games where you're wrong. Just because you see speed at x timing doesn't rule out hydra timing. I understand every choice in bw has a cost, which can further eliminate possibilities of what your opp is doing. However, if you assume too many things without a good enough justification to rule something out, you will get caught with your pants down eventually. You're just wrong about the timing of the sairs and cannons. If you were correct, we would see more games where sair scout would enable protoss to punish the zerg with a superior macro and econ mid game, but Zerg is the more flexible race in this match up. Any variation or deviation is on Zerg's court, so if Protoss tries to make any fine tuning builds, Zerg can much more easily find a countering build, since Protoss is a much more rigid race.
This is why the argument about how Protoss should just come up with new innovations and meta builds is just missing the point. The point is and has been shown throughout bw history is that any innovation from the Protoss does get solved rather quickly. Whereas Protoss is still struggling against hydra bust timings and variations of it 10-15 years since. Imagine a world where Corsairs weren't in the game, and people like you are arguing that the game hasn't been changed since forever. If in our hypothetical that sairs weren't in the game, and protoss players just adapt by playing goons, hts, and dark archons does that mean we are in an equitable game? What if we are in one of those scenarios right now? Just with this advantage that zerg has with protoss with the hydra bust timings? So again, arguments about how things haven't changed or how you think blizzard wont change things, doesn't address the argument. It's just a comment of the state of things.
On October 07 2021 22:16 EndingLife wrote: There's no problem with protoss scouting or imbalance with 9-7-3. Your scouting probe should not die until there's zergling speed. With gate expand you can very often scout while harassing with zealots. I think the recent maps have been pretty bad for PvZ in general. Mineral only 3rd bases really hurt the protoss mid/early late game. Protoss needs that gas to compete with 4 gas zerg when they take the natural of another main, then the main for free.
Your scouting probe will die before hydra if the zerg is competent in denying scouting. Speedlings will be deny probe scouting, and if you try to zealot pressure as a form of scouting, zerg can easily whip up more speedlings, and in an open area, zealots trade inefficiently before +1. So once your zealots die, you have even less to get in the way of hydra bust and all this could happen with zerg still hiding intel from you whether you're going hydra bust or muta. We saw this with Rain and JD's game in one ASL season. Rain was trying to move out with 5 zealots to try to get a sense for either muta tech or hydra, and I will admit that Rain did make a mistake by not plugging the wall so that forced Rain to get his cannon's delayed because of speedling dmg. JD essentially spiraled overwhelming econ advantage after the hydra bust, because of the delayed cannons, Rain was forced into a lose-lose scenario where he couldn't just scout with his zealots unless he wanted to throw them away and the hydra bust did so much dmg to Rain's economy he just couldn't catch up after that.
How often do you see Protoss making a comeback in ZvP where they are down 10-20 supply? How often do you see Zerg making an easier comeback down 40 supply?
play and study the game more instead of talking, you're wrong with your timings, link the game that you're talking about
if z shows you speed at x timing that means hydras aren't likely unless it's a mindgame build, but by then the hydras will be so delayed that you'll be able to scout and react to them with your sair scout (and add cannons)
instead of looking for people to feed you answers shouldn't you take the time to learn the game properly before whining? you seem very entitled
I find plenty of games where you're wrong. Just because you see speed at x timing doesn't rule out hydra timing. I understand every choice in bw has a cost, which can further eliminate possibilities of what your opp is doing. However, if you assume too many things without a good enough justification to rule something out, you will get caught with your pants down eventually. You're just wrong about the timing of the sairs and cannons. If you were correct, we would see more games where sair scout would enable protoss to punish the zerg with a superior macro and econ mid game, but Zerg is the more flexible race in this match up. Any variation or deviation is on Zerg's court, so if Protoss tries to make any fine tuning builds, Zerg can much more easily find a countering build, since Protoss is a much more rigid race.
let's talk factually instead of trying to brute force through your biased/flawed perspective, link me games and ask questions about what you deem as being OP, i'll try to give you answers
On October 07 2021 22:16 EndingLife wrote: There's no problem with protoss scouting or imbalance with 9-7-3. Your scouting probe should not die until there's zergling speed. With gate expand you can very often scout while harassing with zealots. I think the recent maps have been pretty bad for PvZ in general. Mineral only 3rd bases really hurt the protoss mid/early late game. Protoss needs that gas to compete with 4 gas zerg when they take the natural of another main, then the main for free.
Your scouting probe will die before hydra if the zerg is competent in denying scouting. Speedlings will be deny probe scouting, and if you try to zealot pressure as a form of scouting, zerg can easily whip up more speedlings, and in an open area, zealots trade inefficiently before +1. So once your zealots die, you have even less to get in the way of hydra bust and all this could happen with zerg still hiding intel from you whether you're going hydra bust or muta. We saw this with Rain and JD's game in one ASL season. Rain was trying to move out with 5 zealots to try to get a sense for either muta tech or hydra, and I will admit that Rain did make a mistake by not plugging the wall so that forced Rain to get his cannon's delayed because of speedling dmg. JD essentially spiraled overwhelming econ advantage after the hydra bust, because of the delayed cannons, Rain was forced into a lose-lose scenario where he couldn't just scout with his zealots unless he wanted to throw them away and the hydra bust did so much dmg to Rain's economy he just couldn't catch up after that.
How often do you see Protoss making a comeback in ZvP where they are down 10-20 supply? How often do you see Zerg making an easier comeback down 40 supply?
play and study the game more instead of talking, you're wrong with your timings, link the game that you're talking about
if z shows you speed at x timing that means hydras aren't likely unless it's a mindgame build, but by then the hydras will be so delayed that you'll be able to scout and react to them with your sair scout (and add cannons)
instead of looking for people to feed you answers shouldn't you take the time to learn the game properly before whining? you seem very entitled
I find plenty of games where you're wrong. Just because you see speed at x timing doesn't rule out hydra timing. I understand every choice in bw has a cost, which can further eliminate possibilities of what your opp is doing. However, if you assume too many things without a good enough justification to rule something out, you will get caught with your pants down eventually. You're just wrong about the timing of the sairs and cannons. If you were correct, we would see more games where sair scout would enable protoss to punish the zerg with a superior macro and econ mid game, but Zerg is the more flexible race in this match up. Any variation or deviation is on Zerg's court, so if Protoss tries to make any fine tuning builds, Zerg can much more easily find a countering build, since Protoss is a much more rigid race.
let's talk factually instead of trying to brute force through your biased/flawed perspective, link me games and ask questions about what you deem as being OP, i'll try to give you answers
Facts and figures aren't the only to reason. I'm discussing game theory arguments. You clearly aren't addressing them. You can utilize stats all you want, but it doesn't negate my points anyways.
Just answer me this, how from a game theory perspective is Protoss going to be able to overcome the gap in PvZ? When Zerg has all the benefits of potential game ending hydra busts, while Protoss if they make a mistake, they'll either lose or be zoned out of the game.
Philosophy is how you interpret data, and what I'm doing is addressing the root cause of certain concepts. Just talking about data is surface level thinking. How is it fair that one race has all the high rewards/low risk benefit ratio and more options to a greater degree than other race match ups? In poker, the one who can feign a certain range of playable hands to fool their opponent or try to deceive them has the upper hand. Same game theory.
On October 07 2021 22:16 EndingLife wrote: There's no problem with protoss scouting or imbalance with 9-7-3. Your scouting probe should not die until there's zergling speed. With gate expand you can very often scout while harassing with zealots. I think the recent maps have been pretty bad for PvZ in general. Mineral only 3rd bases really hurt the protoss mid/early late game. Protoss needs that gas to compete with 4 gas zerg when they take the natural of another main, then the main for free.
Your scouting probe will die before hydra if the zerg is competent in denying scouting. Speedlings will be deny probe scouting, and if you try to zealot pressure as a form of scouting, zerg can easily whip up more speedlings, and in an open area, zealots trade inefficiently before +1. So once your zealots die, you have even less to get in the way of hydra bust and all this could happen with zerg still hiding intel from you whether you're going hydra bust or muta. We saw this with Rain and JD's game in one ASL season. Rain was trying to move out with 5 zealots to try to get a sense for either muta tech or hydra, and I will admit that Rain did make a mistake by not plugging the wall so that forced Rain to get his cannon's delayed because of speedling dmg. JD essentially spiraled overwhelming econ advantage after the hydra bust, because of the delayed cannons, Rain was forced into a lose-lose scenario where he couldn't just scout with his zealots unless he wanted to throw them away and the hydra bust did so much dmg to Rain's economy he just couldn't catch up after that.
How often do you see Protoss making a comeback in ZvP where they are down 10-20 supply? How often do you see Zerg making an easier comeback down 40 supply?
play and study the game more instead of talking, you're wrong with your timings, link the game that you're talking about
if z shows you speed at x timing that means hydras aren't likely unless it's a mindgame build, but by then the hydras will be so delayed that you'll be able to scout and react to them with your sair scout (and add cannons)
instead of looking for people to feed you answers shouldn't you take the time to learn the game properly before whining? you seem very entitled
I find plenty of games where you're wrong. Just because you see speed at x timing doesn't rule out hydra timing. I understand every choice in bw has a cost, which can further eliminate possibilities of what your opp is doing. However, if you assume too many things without a good enough justification to rule something out, you will get caught with your pants down eventually. You're just wrong about the timing of the sairs and cannons. If you were correct, we would see more games where sair scout would enable protoss to punish the zerg with a superior macro and econ mid game, but Zerg is the more flexible race in this match up. Any variation or deviation is on Zerg's court, so if Protoss tries to make any fine tuning builds, Zerg can much more easily find a countering build, since Protoss is a much more rigid race.
let's talk factually instead of trying to brute force through your biased/flawed perspective, link me games and ask questions about what you deem as being OP, i'll try to give you answers
Facts and figures aren't the only to reason. I'm discussing game theor arguments. You clearly aren't addressing them. You can utilize stats all you want, but it doesn't negate my points anyways.
Buddy, the reason why you're hard stuck on your view is that you lack perspective. You don't understand the fundamentals of the game enough to be theorycrafting, that's the issue. The funniest part is the way you went all about this, you talk about authority but that's the position you're taking.. without having any of the knowledge to back it up.
On October 07 2021 22:16 EndingLife wrote: There's no problem with protoss scouting or imbalance with 9-7-3. Your scouting probe should not die until there's zergling speed. With gate expand you can very often scout while harassing with zealots. I think the recent maps have been pretty bad for PvZ in general. Mineral only 3rd bases really hurt the protoss mid/early late game. Protoss needs that gas to compete with 4 gas zerg when they take the natural of another main, then the main for free.
Your scouting probe will die before hydra if the zerg is competent in denying scouting. Speedlings will be deny probe scouting, and if you try to zealot pressure as a form of scouting, zerg can easily whip up more speedlings, and in an open area, zealots trade inefficiently before +1. So once your zealots die, you have even less to get in the way of hydra bust and all this could happen with zerg still hiding intel from you whether you're going hydra bust or muta. We saw this with Rain and JD's game in one ASL season. Rain was trying to move out with 5 zealots to try to get a sense for either muta tech or hydra, and I will admit that Rain did make a mistake by not plugging the wall so that forced Rain to get his cannon's delayed because of speedling dmg. JD essentially spiraled overwhelming econ advantage after the hydra bust, because of the delayed cannons, Rain was forced into a lose-lose scenario where he couldn't just scout with his zealots unless he wanted to throw them away and the hydra bust did so much dmg to Rain's economy he just couldn't catch up after that.
How often do you see Protoss making a comeback in ZvP where they are down 10-20 supply? How often do you see Zerg making an easier comeback down 40 supply?
play and study the game more instead of talking, you're wrong with your timings, link the game that you're talking about
if z shows you speed at x timing that means hydras aren't likely unless it's a mindgame build, but by then the hydras will be so delayed that you'll be able to scout and react to them with your sair scout (and add cannons)
instead of looking for people to feed you answers shouldn't you take the time to learn the game properly before whining? you seem very entitled
I find plenty of games where you're wrong. Just because you see speed at x timing doesn't rule out hydra timing. I understand every choice in bw has a cost, which can further eliminate possibilities of what your opp is doing. However, if you assume too many things without a good enough justification to rule something out, you will get caught with your pants down eventually. You're just wrong about the timing of the sairs and cannons. If you were correct, we would see more games where sair scout would enable protoss to punish the zerg with a superior macro and econ mid game, but Zerg is the more flexible race in this match up. Any variation or deviation is on Zerg's court, so if Protoss tries to make any fine tuning builds, Zerg can much more easily find a countering build, since Protoss is a much more rigid race.
let's talk factually instead of trying to brute force through your biased/flawed perspective, link me games and ask questions about what you deem as being OP, i'll try to give you answers
Facts and figures aren't the only to reason. I'm discussing game theor arguments. You clearly aren't addressing them. You can utilize stats all you want, but it doesn't negate my points anyways.
Buddy, the reason why you're hard stuck on your view is that you lack perspective. You don't understand the fundamentals of the game enough to be theorycrafting, that's the issue.
The reason you're hard stuck on your views is because you subscribe to the dogma that the game is balanced enough to where it doesn't matter. I'm telling you at the highest levels it does. I'm not talking about my personal games or lower tiered games. So my skill has nothing to do with the discussion. You simply lack the perspective to get your head out of the hive mind that bw is as close to balance as it could get. Just address the game theory argument or don't bother.
We learn that the scientific method is to gather data and then draw a conclusion. Who is being more scientific about the way we reach our conclusion? Someone who has already came to a conclusion and then is reasoning back to it? Or one who makes observations about the game, and then comes to a conclusion?
Again, all you're doing is resorting to argument from authority. So unless you have a good reasoned argument that isn't along the lines, "you don't know enough, git gud" dismissive statements like that aren't going to be considered.
On October 07 2021 22:16 EndingLife wrote: There's no problem with protoss scouting or imbalance with 9-7-3. Your scouting probe should not die until there's zergling speed. With gate expand you can very often scout while harassing with zealots. I think the recent maps have been pretty bad for PvZ in general. Mineral only 3rd bases really hurt the protoss mid/early late game. Protoss needs that gas to compete with 4 gas zerg when they take the natural of another main, then the main for free.
Your scouting probe will die before hydra if the zerg is competent in denying scouting. Speedlings will be deny probe scouting, and if you try to zealot pressure as a form of scouting, zerg can easily whip up more speedlings, and in an open area, zealots trade inefficiently before +1. So once your zealots die, you have even less to get in the way of hydra bust and all this could happen with zerg still hiding intel from you whether you're going hydra bust or muta. We saw this with Rain and JD's game in one ASL season. Rain was trying to move out with 5 zealots to try to get a sense for either muta tech or hydra, and I will admit that Rain did make a mistake by not plugging the wall so that forced Rain to get his cannon's delayed because of speedling dmg. JD essentially spiraled overwhelming econ advantage after the hydra bust, because of the delayed cannons, Rain was forced into a lose-lose scenario where he couldn't just scout with his zealots unless he wanted to throw them away and the hydra bust did so much dmg to Rain's economy he just couldn't catch up after that.
How often do you see Protoss making a comeback in ZvP where they are down 10-20 supply? How often do you see Zerg making an easier comeback down 40 supply?
play and study the game more instead of talking, you're wrong with your timings, link the game that you're talking about
if z shows you speed at x timing that means hydras aren't likely unless it's a mindgame build, but by then the hydras will be so delayed that you'll be able to scout and react to them with your sair scout (and add cannons)
instead of looking for people to feed you answers shouldn't you take the time to learn the game properly before whining? you seem very entitled
I find plenty of games where you're wrong. Just because you see speed at x timing doesn't rule out hydra timing. I understand every choice in bw has a cost, which can further eliminate possibilities of what your opp is doing. However, if you assume too many things without a good enough justification to rule something out, you will get caught with your pants down eventually. You're just wrong about the timing of the sairs and cannons. If you were correct, we would see more games where sair scout would enable protoss to punish the zerg with a superior macro and econ mid game, but Zerg is the more flexible race in this match up. Any variation or deviation is on Zerg's court, so if Protoss tries to make any fine tuning builds, Zerg can much more easily find a countering build, since Protoss is a much more rigid race.
let's talk factually instead of trying to brute force through your biased/flawed perspective, link me games and ask questions about what you deem as being OP, i'll try to give you answers
Facts and figures aren't the only to reason. I'm discussing game theor arguments. You clearly aren't addressing them. You can utilize stats all you want, but it doesn't negate my points anyways.
Buddy, the reason why you're hard stuck on your view is that you lack perspective. You don't understand the fundamentals of the game enough to be theorycrafting, that's the issue.
The reason you're hard stuck on your views is because you subscribe to the dogma that the game is balanced enough to where it doesn't matter. I'm telling you at the highest levels it does. I'm not talking about my personal games or lower tiered games. So my skill has nothing to do with the discussion. You simply lack the perspective to get your head out of the hive mind that bw is as close to balance as it could get. Just address the game theory argument or don't bother.
We learn that the scientific method is to gather data and then draw a conclusion. Who is being more scientific about the way we reach our conclusion? Someone who has already came to a conclusion and then is reasoning back to it? Or one who makes observations about the game, and then comes to a conclusion?
YES, I'M ASKING YOU TO POST VODS OF THE HIGHEST LEVEL ZVPs SO WE CAN ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS!!
On October 07 2021 22:16 EndingLife wrote: There's no problem with protoss scouting or imbalance with 9-7-3. Your scouting probe should not die until there's zergling speed. With gate expand you can very often scout while harassing with zealots. I think the recent maps have been pretty bad for PvZ in general. Mineral only 3rd bases really hurt the protoss mid/early late game. Protoss needs that gas to compete with 4 gas zerg when they take the natural of another main, then the main for free.
Your scouting probe will die before hydra if the zerg is competent in denying scouting. Speedlings will be deny probe scouting, and if you try to zealot pressure as a form of scouting, zerg can easily whip up more speedlings, and in an open area, zealots trade inefficiently before +1. So once your zealots die, you have even less to get in the way of hydra bust and all this could happen with zerg still hiding intel from you whether you're going hydra bust or muta. We saw this with Rain and JD's game in one ASL season. Rain was trying to move out with 5 zealots to try to get a sense for either muta tech or hydra, and I will admit that Rain did make a mistake by not plugging the wall so that forced Rain to get his cannon's delayed because of speedling dmg. JD essentially spiraled overwhelming econ advantage after the hydra bust, because of the delayed cannons, Rain was forced into a lose-lose scenario where he couldn't just scout with his zealots unless he wanted to throw them away and the hydra bust did so much dmg to Rain's economy he just couldn't catch up after that.
How often do you see Protoss making a comeback in ZvP where they are down 10-20 supply? How often do you see Zerg making an easier comeback down 40 supply?
play and study the game more instead of talking, you're wrong with your timings, link the game that you're talking about
if z shows you speed at x timing that means hydras aren't likely unless it's a mindgame build, but by then the hydras will be so delayed that you'll be able to scout and react to them with your sair scout (and add cannons)
instead of looking for people to feed you answers shouldn't you take the time to learn the game properly before whining? you seem very entitled
I find plenty of games where you're wrong. Just because you see speed at x timing doesn't rule out hydra timing. I understand every choice in bw has a cost, which can further eliminate possibilities of what your opp is doing. However, if you assume too many things without a good enough justification to rule something out, you will get caught with your pants down eventually. You're just wrong about the timing of the sairs and cannons. If you were correct, we would see more games where sair scout would enable protoss to punish the zerg with a superior macro and econ mid game, but Zerg is the more flexible race in this match up. Any variation or deviation is on Zerg's court, so if Protoss tries to make any fine tuning builds, Zerg can much more easily find a countering build, since Protoss is a much more rigid race.
let's talk factually instead of trying to brute force through your biased/flawed perspective, link me games and ask questions about what you deem as being OP, i'll try to give you answers
Facts and figures aren't the only to reason. I'm discussing game theor arguments. You clearly aren't addressing them. You can utilize stats all you want, but it doesn't negate my points anyways.
Buddy, the reason why you're hard stuck on your view is that you lack perspective. You don't understand the fundamentals of the game enough to be theorycrafting, that's the issue.
The reason you're hard stuck on your views is because you subscribe to the dogma that the game is balanced enough to where it doesn't matter. I'm telling you at the highest levels it does. I'm not talking about my personal games or lower tiered games. So my skill has nothing to do with the discussion. You simply lack the perspective to get your head out of the hive mind that bw is as close to balance as it could get. Just address the game theory argument or don't bother.
We learn that the scientific method is to gather data and then draw a conclusion. Who is being more scientific about the way we reach our conclusion? Someone who has already came to a conclusion and then is reasoning back to it? Or one who makes observations about the game, and then comes to a conclusion?
YES, I'M ASKING YOU TO POST VODS OF THE HIGHEST LEVEL ZVPs SO WE CAN ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS!!
Address the 973 hydra bust argument. I've posted about it several times now. How is it fair that one race gets all the potential benefits while the other race is stuck with massive risk?
On October 07 2021 22:16 EndingLife wrote: There's no problem with protoss scouting or imbalance with 9-7-3. Your scouting probe should not die until there's zergling speed. With gate expand you can very often scout while harassing with zealots. I think the recent maps have been pretty bad for PvZ in general. Mineral only 3rd bases really hurt the protoss mid/early late game. Protoss needs that gas to compete with 4 gas zerg when they take the natural of another main, then the main for free.
Your scouting probe will die before hydra if the zerg is competent in denying scouting. Speedlings will be deny probe scouting, and if you try to zealot pressure as a form of scouting, zerg can easily whip up more speedlings, and in an open area, zealots trade inefficiently before +1. So once your zealots die, you have even less to get in the way of hydra bust and all this could happen with zerg still hiding intel from you whether you're going hydra bust or muta. We saw this with Rain and JD's game in one ASL season. Rain was trying to move out with 5 zealots to try to get a sense for either muta tech or hydra, and I will admit that Rain did make a mistake by not plugging the wall so that forced Rain to get his cannon's delayed because of speedling dmg. JD essentially spiraled overwhelming econ advantage after the hydra bust, because of the delayed cannons, Rain was forced into a lose-lose scenario where he couldn't just scout with his zealots unless he wanted to throw them away and the hydra bust did so much dmg to Rain's economy he just couldn't catch up after that.
How often do you see Protoss making a comeback in ZvP where they are down 10-20 supply? How often do you see Zerg making an easier comeback down 40 supply?
play and study the game more instead of talking, you're wrong with your timings, link the game that you're talking about
if z shows you speed at x timing that means hydras aren't likely unless it's a mindgame build, but by then the hydras will be so delayed that you'll be able to scout and react to them with your sair scout (and add cannons)
instead of looking for people to feed you answers shouldn't you take the time to learn the game properly before whining? you seem very entitled
I find plenty of games where you're wrong. Just because you see speed at x timing doesn't rule out hydra timing. I understand every choice in bw has a cost, which can further eliminate possibilities of what your opp is doing. However, if you assume too many things without a good enough justification to rule something out, you will get caught with your pants down eventually. You're just wrong about the timing of the sairs and cannons. If you were correct, we would see more games where sair scout would enable protoss to punish the zerg with a superior macro and econ mid game, but Zerg is the more flexible race in this match up. Any variation or deviation is on Zerg's court, so if Protoss tries to make any fine tuning builds, Zerg can much more easily find a countering build, since Protoss is a much more rigid race.
let's talk factually instead of trying to brute force through your biased/flawed perspective, link me games and ask questions about what you deem as being OP, i'll try to give you answers
Facts and figures aren't the only to reason. I'm discussing game theor arguments. You clearly aren't addressing them. You can utilize stats all you want, but it doesn't negate my points anyways.
Buddy, the reason why you're hard stuck on your view is that you lack perspective. You don't understand the fundamentals of the game enough to be theorycrafting, that's the issue.
The reason you're hard stuck on your views is because you subscribe to the dogma that the game is balanced enough to where it doesn't matter. I'm telling you at the highest levels it does. I'm not talking about my personal games or lower tiered games. So my skill has nothing to do with the discussion. You simply lack the perspective to get your head out of the hive mind that bw is as close to balance as it could get. Just address the game theory argument or don't bother.
We learn that the scientific method is to gather data and then draw a conclusion. Who is being more scientific about the way we reach our conclusion? Someone who has already came to a conclusion and then is reasoning back to it? Or one who makes observations about the game, and then comes to a conclusion?
YES, I'M ASKING YOU TO POST VODS OF THE HIGHEST LEVEL ZVPs SO WE CAN ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS!!
Address the 973 hydra bust argument. I've posted about it several times now. How is it fair that one race gets all the potential benefits while the other race is stuck with massive risk?
It's situational, depends on execution and scouting info (yes even at the highest lvl) but yes it's a strong build to hold and macro out of in certain scenarios. Keyword is situational, BW isn't black or white, it's grey.
If P manages to block a 973 perfectly they're in a strong position, you can capitalize on it by hitting certain timings (zeal ht to punish late lair, you can go into a DA instead of sairs if you scout a late spire because you have the time to do so, that lets you power up your ground army faster) but you need to execute properly.
The reason why Bisu had the best PvZ is because he had the best multitask/execution. Those traits are extremely important in PvZ in particular (relative to PvT for example where they're much less important, which is why historically Bisu has always had way better PvZ relative to his PvT, it's the opposite for someone like Snow).
Also in some scenarios where you scout well enough you can hard counter with b.os like this:
Your scouting probe will die before hydra if the zerg is competent in denying scouting. Speedlings will be deny probe scouting, and if you try to zealot pressure as a form of scouting, zerg can easily whip up more speedlings, and in an open area, zealots trade inefficiently before +1. So once your zealots die, you have even less to get in the way of hydra bust and all this could happen with zerg still hiding intel from you whether you're going hydra bust or muta. We saw this with Rain and JD's game in one ASL season. Rain was trying to move out with 5 zealots to try to get a sense for either muta tech or hydra, and I will admit that Rain did make a mistake by not plugging the wall so that forced Rain to get his cannon's delayed because of speedling dmg. JD essentially spiraled overwhelming econ advantage after the hydra bust, because of the delayed cannons, Rain was forced into a lose-lose scenario where he couldn't just scout with his zealots unless he wanted to throw them away and the hydra bust did so much dmg to Rain's economy he just couldn't catch up after that.
How often do you see Protoss making a comeback in ZvP where they are down 10-20 supply? How often do you see Zerg making an easier comeback down 40 supply?
play and study the game more instead of talking, you're wrong with your timings, link the game that you're talking about
if z shows you speed at x timing that means hydras aren't likely unless it's a mindgame build, but by then the hydras will be so delayed that you'll be able to scout and react to them with your sair scout (and add cannons)
instead of looking for people to feed you answers shouldn't you take the time to learn the game properly before whining? you seem very entitled
I find plenty of games where you're wrong. Just because you see speed at x timing doesn't rule out hydra timing. I understand every choice in bw has a cost, which can further eliminate possibilities of what your opp is doing. However, if you assume too many things without a good enough justification to rule something out, you will get caught with your pants down eventually. You're just wrong about the timing of the sairs and cannons. If you were correct, we would see more games where sair scout would enable protoss to punish the zerg with a superior macro and econ mid game, but Zerg is the more flexible race in this match up. Any variation or deviation is on Zerg's court, so if Protoss tries to make any fine tuning builds, Zerg can much more easily find a countering build, since Protoss is a much more rigid race.
let's talk factually instead of trying to brute force through your biased/flawed perspective, link me games and ask questions about what you deem as being OP, i'll try to give you answers
Facts and figures aren't the only to reason. I'm discussing game theor arguments. You clearly aren't addressing them. You can utilize stats all you want, but it doesn't negate my points anyways.
Buddy, the reason why you're hard stuck on your view is that you lack perspective. You don't understand the fundamentals of the game enough to be theorycrafting, that's the issue.
The reason you're hard stuck on your views is because you subscribe to the dogma that the game is balanced enough to where it doesn't matter. I'm telling you at the highest levels it does. I'm not talking about my personal games or lower tiered games. So my skill has nothing to do with the discussion. You simply lack the perspective to get your head out of the hive mind that bw is as close to balance as it could get. Just address the game theory argument or don't bother.
We learn that the scientific method is to gather data and then draw a conclusion. Who is being more scientific about the way we reach our conclusion? Someone who has already came to a conclusion and then is reasoning back to it? Or one who makes observations about the game, and then comes to a conclusion?
YES, I'M ASKING YOU TO POST VODS OF THE HIGHEST LEVEL ZVPs SO WE CAN ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS!!
Address the 973 hydra bust argument. I've posted about it several times now. How is it fair that one race gets all the potential benefits while the other race is stuck with massive risk?
it's situational, depends on execution and scouting info but yes it's a strong build to hold and macro out of in certain scenarios keyword is situational, BW isn't black or white, it's grey
if p manages to block a 973 perfectly they're in a strong position, you can capitalize on it by hitting certain timings but you need to execute properly
I know it's situational and dependent on the skill differences of each user. My point being is Protoss has to be playing at a much higher level relative to the zerg to win more consistently due to the game theory options that Protoss and Zerg have against each other. A competent zerg would deny scouting. So if Protoss gets a sneak peek at the hydra bust, then that's zerg's mismicro fail on him, but still he isn't punished heavily for such a high reward type play. If you scout a 4 pool in time, that's a death sentence for the Zerg, if someone scouts a cheese build and blocks it successfully the other player who did the riskier strat gets punished. But Zerg has little to no viable builds that get punished as heavily relative to other match ups.
If hydra den gets scouted early, zerg might see that as a smaller setback and then zerg can just do some macro cycles and fake a hydra bust. There are so many avenues and routes zerg can alternatively fall back on, where as the same cannot be said for Protoss.
That game of Snow vs JD is a terrible example. First off, JD mismicroed his lings and allowed the probe to get in, if Snow hadn't gotten that intel early with the probe, he would've had a late sair and would've either died to hydra bust or lose a lot of econ and probes/cannons. His core timing was slow. Secondly, it seems JD doesn't have the same drone macro cycle that modern top zergs have, like Hero, Queen,etc. He should've had a lot more hydras pumped out and should've sniped forge, gateway, and forced a lot more cannons.
A more recent game would be Snow vs Queen in ASL 12
play and study the game more instead of talking, you're wrong with your timings, link the game that you're talking about
if z shows you speed at x timing that means hydras aren't likely unless it's a mindgame build, but by then the hydras will be so delayed that you'll be able to scout and react to them with your sair scout (and add cannons)
instead of looking for people to feed you answers shouldn't you take the time to learn the game properly before whining? you seem very entitled
I find plenty of games where you're wrong. Just because you see speed at x timing doesn't rule out hydra timing. I understand every choice in bw has a cost, which can further eliminate possibilities of what your opp is doing. However, if you assume too many things without a good enough justification to rule something out, you will get caught with your pants down eventually. You're just wrong about the timing of the sairs and cannons. If you were correct, we would see more games where sair scout would enable protoss to punish the zerg with a superior macro and econ mid game, but Zerg is the more flexible race in this match up. Any variation or deviation is on Zerg's court, so if Protoss tries to make any fine tuning builds, Zerg can much more easily find a countering build, since Protoss is a much more rigid race.
let's talk factually instead of trying to brute force through your biased/flawed perspective, link me games and ask questions about what you deem as being OP, i'll try to give you answers
Facts and figures aren't the only to reason. I'm discussing game theor arguments. You clearly aren't addressing them. You can utilize stats all you want, but it doesn't negate my points anyways.
Buddy, the reason why you're hard stuck on your view is that you lack perspective. You don't understand the fundamentals of the game enough to be theorycrafting, that's the issue.
The reason you're hard stuck on your views is because you subscribe to the dogma that the game is balanced enough to where it doesn't matter. I'm telling you at the highest levels it does. I'm not talking about my personal games or lower tiered games. So my skill has nothing to do with the discussion. You simply lack the perspective to get your head out of the hive mind that bw is as close to balance as it could get. Just address the game theory argument or don't bother.
We learn that the scientific method is to gather data and then draw a conclusion. Who is being more scientific about the way we reach our conclusion? Someone who has already came to a conclusion and then is reasoning back to it? Or one who makes observations about the game, and then comes to a conclusion?
YES, I'M ASKING YOU TO POST VODS OF THE HIGHEST LEVEL ZVPs SO WE CAN ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS!!
Address the 973 hydra bust argument. I've posted about it several times now. How is it fair that one race gets all the potential benefits while the other race is stuck with massive risk?
it's situational, depends on execution and scouting info but yes it's a strong build to hold and macro out of in certain scenarios keyword is situational, BW isn't black or white, it's grey
if p manages to block a 973 perfectly they're in a strong position, you can capitalize on it by hitting certain timings but you need to execute properly
I know it's situational and dependent on the skill differences of each user. My point being is Protoss has to be playing at a much higher level relative to the zerg to win more consistently due to the game theory options that Protoss and Zerg have against each other. A competent zerg would deny scouting. So if Protoss gets a sneak peek at the hydra bust, then that's zerg's mismicro fail on him, but still he isn't punished heavily for such a high reward type play. If you scout a 4 pool in time, that's a death sentence for the Zerg, if someone scouts a cheese build and blocks it successfully the other player who did the riskier strat gets punished. But Zerg has little to no viable builds that get punished as heavily relative to other match ups.
If hydra den gets scouted early, zerg might see that as a smaller setback and then zerg can just do some macro cycles and fake a hydra bust. There are so many avenues and routes zerg can alternatively fall back on, where as the same cannot be said for Protoss.
1 thing i'll say is this, if you open w/ forge as opposed to 1g zeals it's much harder to scout for hydras. You need to have extremely good probe control with forge openers because you have to keep it alive in z's main for a while, it comes down to a micro/multitask battle basically.
With 1g you can pressure with zeals and force Z's lings to move around to get an easy rescout in their main. You really should never die to hydras off of 1g openers because Z's eco is weak due to the amount of lings you force and the ease of being able to re-scout their main.
Basically if you open forge you give away map control, if you open 1g you gain map control. If you don't wanna deal with hydras open 1g and work on your execution. You have no reason to die vs hydras off of 1g.
Queen made 18 lings, forcing Snow to be defensive and yes his core timing was late due to the extra ling pressure, so his corsair would also be late and came out around 6 min mark. But if zerg gets to be aggressive AND still have a hydra bust timing to STILL be aggressive for Protoss with little to no room for scouting for it? That's a bit too much advantage from a game theory perspective. On top of all this, Queen was able to outpace and out macro snow. When Zerg was the one doing all the aggression. How does that make sense? In any other match up, if you go for faster aggression, you by default have chosen to forgo the macro advantage if you don't do enough dmg.
On October 09 2021 08:23 Rainalcar wrote: In that game P just barely scouted the Den vs speedlings. If it hadn't, it would be blind, and that is where the risk/gain for Z in ZvP excels.
Another example: P went for Robo in that game. But P actually *doesn't know* that Hydras are coming - Z could switch, and P would not know. In that case, Robo and 2 cannons could be superfluous and putting P behind.
The essence of it all is P blindness, but I don't think it can be solved - the only way is to help P with their defenses, i.e. cannons, or weaking the hydra bust.
Queen made 18 lings, forcing Snow to be defensive and yes his core timing was late due to the extra ling pressure, so his corsair would also be late and came out around 6 min mark. But if zerg gets to be aggressive AND still have a hydra bust timing to STILL be aggressive for Protoss with little to no room for scouting for it? That's a bit too much advantage from a game theory perspective. On top of all this, Queen was able to outpace and out macro snow. When Zerg was the one doing all the aggression. How does that make sense? In any other match up, if you go for faster aggression, you by default have chosen to forgo the macro advantage if you don't do enough dmg.
Exactly. P is actually close to dying to a bust. And yet, Z can outmacro him later. Risk for Z super low, reward very high.
Queen made 18 lings, forcing Snow to be defensive and yes his core timing was late due to the extra ling pressure, so his corsair would also be late and came out around 6 min mark. But if zerg gets to be aggressive AND still have a hydra bust timing to STILL be aggressive for Protoss with little to no room for scouting for it? That's a bit too much advantage from a game theory perspective. On top of all this, Queen was able to outpace and out macro snow. When Zerg was the one doing all the aggression. How does that make sense? In any other match up, if you go for faster aggression, you by default have chosen to forgo the macro advantage if you don't do enough dmg.
This game was a mistake on Snow's end, Zero blind countered his slightly greedy early gas/inbase forge style with heavy lings and gained map control. The problem is he should have never gained map control with his ling opener, Snow wasn't thinking and sent his probe back to his main while the lings were chasing him. There's no reason to make Z's life easy like that.
He would have been able to punish Z's no lair followup even harder by skipping SG had he circled back w/ his probe and went for a main base re-scout while Z was pressuring him. That game basically comes down to a failed re-scout (which isn't the end of the world for Snow, it just weakens his lead), it's an execution/multitask mistake.
On October 09 2021 08:23 Rainalcar wrote: In that game P just barely scouted the Den vs speedlings. If it hadn't, it would be blind, and that is where the risk/gain for Z in ZvP excels.
Another example: P went for Robo in that game. But P actually *doesn't know* that Hydras are coming - Z could switch, and P would not know. In that case, Robo and 2 cannons could be superfluous and putting P behind.
The essence of it all is P blindness, but I don't think it can be solved - the only way is to help P with their defenses, i.e. cannons, or weaking the hydra bust.
Yeah like I mentioned in the post, just by increasing hydra upgrade timing a bit or making it more expensive would give protoss a little more time to scout and buy time for hydra busts, making them weaker while not affecting balance at all for the other match ups for zerg. Against Terran it's hardly relevant unless they go into mech, and zerg don't use hydras in ZvZ.
I wouldn't want to make cannons stronger or faster, because I would hate to see the cheese options flipped too heavily in protoss favor if cannon rushing behind mineral was a regular thing. Or alternatively make stargate warp in a little faster or corsairs, either or OR both. That would help against muta switches in mid/late game sniping hts, stargate timing doesn't affect PvT that much, carriers are hardly ever a surprise for terran and if they are Terran was so bad they couldn't scan in protoss base or use vultures to mine and get map control if protoss tries to cheese and build somewhere on the map.
Queen made 18 lings, forcing Snow to be defensive and yes his core timing was late due to the extra ling pressure, so his corsair would also be late and came out around 6 min mark. But if zerg gets to be aggressive AND still have a hydra bust timing to STILL be aggressive for Protoss with little to no room for scouting for it? That's a bit too much advantage from a game theory perspective. On top of all this, Queen was able to outpace and out macro snow. When Zerg was the one doing all the aggression. How does that make sense? In any other match up, if you go for faster aggression, you by default have chosen to forgo the macro advantage if you don't do enough dmg.
This game was a mistake on Snow's end, Zero blind countered his slightly greedy early gas/inbase forge style with heavy lings and gained map control. The problem is he should have never gained map control with his ling opener, Snow wasn't thinking and sent his probe back to his main while the lings were chasing him.
He would have had been able to punish Z's no lair followup even harder by skipping SG had he circled back w/ his probe and went for a main base re-scout while Z was pressuring him
Even if Snow sent back his probe, just like the JD game you showed, it's up to Queen's mistake to allow probe to scout hydra bust. And he didn't sent back his probes for no reason. he had to go straight back otherwise his probe would've died anyways. His lings were almost surrounding it, so any other direction would've meant it would've been trapped and killed. And you do realize that lings are slightly faster than a probe? So the fact that the bottom lings were on top of the hill while the other lings on top zoning the probe to go down, meant there was almost no way for the probe to make it out the way it did unless Snow went through the path of least resistance which was straight back. I mean when you're multitasking, are you saying Protoss has to have the foresight to predict every ling group manuever and stay on top of micro and babysit his units even more? That only further cements the idea that protoss is the race with the least margins for error.
Queen made 18 lings, forcing Snow to be defensive and yes his core timing was late due to the extra ling pressure, so his corsair would also be late and came out around 6 min mark. But if zerg gets to be aggressive AND still have a hydra bust timing to STILL be aggressive for Protoss with little to no room for scouting for it? That's a bit too much advantage from a game theory perspective. On top of all this, Queen was able to outpace and out macro snow. When Zerg was the one doing all the aggression. How does that make sense? In any other match up, if you go for faster aggression, you by default have chosen to forgo the macro advantage if you don't do enough dmg.
This game was a mistake on Snow's end, Zero blind countered his slightly greedy early gas/inbase forge style with heavy lings and gained map control. The problem is he should have never gained map control with his ling opener, Snow wasn't thinking and sent his probe back to his main while the lings were chasing him.
He would have had been able to punish Z's no lair followup even harder by skipping SG had he circled back w/ his probe and went for a main base re-scout while Z was pressuring him
Even if Snow sent back his probe, just like the JD game you showed, it's up to Queen's mistake to allow probe to scout hydra bust.
yes but then you force lings back (weakens his push, gives you an opportunity to zeal pressure later on) or you force him to make more lings and weaken his eco, you're still compounding an eco lead
also even if you dont get into z's main you can still scout between their nat and 3rd to check what they're making from their eggs/check their drone count etc.
Queen made 18 lings, forcing Snow to be defensive and yes his core timing was late due to the extra ling pressure, so his corsair would also be late and came out around 6 min mark. But if zerg gets to be aggressive AND still have a hydra bust timing to STILL be aggressive for Protoss with little to no room for scouting for it? That's a bit too much advantage from a game theory perspective. On top of all this, Queen was able to outpace and out macro snow. When Zerg was the one doing all the aggression. How does that make sense? In any other match up, if you go for faster aggression, you by default have chosen to forgo the macro advantage if you don't do enough dmg.
This game was a mistake on Snow's end, Zero blind countered his slightly greedy early gas/inbase forge style with heavy lings and gained map control. The problem is he should have never gained map control with his ling opener, Snow wasn't thinking and sent his probe back to his main while the lings were chasing him.
He would have had been able to punish Z's no lair followup even harder by skipping SG had he circled back w/ his probe and went for a main base re-scout while Z was pressuring him
Even if Snow sent back his probe, just like the JD game you showed, it's up to Queen's mistake to allow probe to scout hydra bust.
yes but then you force lings back (weakens his push, gives you an opportunity to zeal pressure later on) or you force him to make more lings and weaken his eco, you're still compounding an eco lead
also even if you dont get into z's main you can still scout between their nat and 3rd to check what they're making from their eggs/check their drone count etc.
Not if they go speedlings. Speedling scout denying will prevent protoss from seeing enough, and I know this would delay hydra bust timing but it's not enough. Yes mistakes will be made from both players even pros and they won't make the most optimal unit moments at all times, but the point again is, Protoss has much smaller margin for error. I don't have a game example to show a speedling ex into hydra bust, but the game theory concept is, with speedling denial, Protoss still has to account for 2 very different possibilities, muta or hydra bust. In order to see the 2nd gas you need access to the nat, which speedlings should deny. If you're trying to check for eggs, the only way you could have a unit survive to get a peek is perhaps a zealot, but if zerg makes more speedlings, you'll be bleeding resources by constantly suiciding zealots yourself. So it again equalizes back into zerg's favor any scouting intel you try to take, you'll be on the backfoot.
On October 09 2021 08:52 TT1 wrote: ya but by then i'll have 200/200 carrier reavs so it won't matter
So you believe speedling upgrade would delay hydra bust timing enough for protoss to scout with corsair to deny any advantage a hydra bust would give to zerg?
I mean just look at the 2nd game between Snow and Queen. Queen did a speedling all in, had just a few drones mining all 3 bases was 15 supply behind at the end of the failed ling bust. STILL was able to even out to a macro game. I mean WTF is that? Protoss has to always juggle between getting so many tech options up between getting an obligatory citadel into templar and also stargate for corsairs. Protoss has to be stretched so thin to do something impactful to trade efficiently against a swarming zerg.
Had Snow had less than good micro in plugging up his wall , being able to remake a forge to wall up again right after the lings destroyed the gateway and having probes to support, he would've lost instantly. And now life goes on like nothing unfair happened? Zerg got a free pass on his failure to win with the all-in and was able to comeback.
Gotta say, I agree with TT1 on this point. If you think the game isn't balanced, chances are, you're just not good enough. The best players in the world show us again and again that you can overcome opponents by outplaying them, no matter the matchup. If you're blaming your losses on "imbalance" instead of skill, you're whining. You're talking like ZvP is so Z biased, but then... just switch to Z and prove it. If it's so imbalanced, you'd be able to climb no problem, but chances are, you'll still get destroyed by any P 200 elos above you.
Fact of the matter is ZvP, TvZ, and PvT are like chess. One side is black, one side is white. Sure, one side might be advantaged (unproven a-priori), but complaining about the advantage is senseless when you're not even good enough to exploit it. Better idea is to just get good.
On October 09 2021 09:09 ghrur wrote: Gotta say, I agree with TT1 on this point. If you think the game isn't balanced, chances are, you're just not good enough. The best players in the world show us again and again that you can overcome opponents by outplaying them, no matter the matchup. If you're blaming your losses on "imbalance" instead of skill, you're whining. You're talking like ZvP is so Z biased, but then... just switch to Z and prove it. If it's so imbalanced, you'd be able to climb no problem, but chances are, you'll still get destroyed by any P 200 elos above you.
Fact of the matter is ZvP, TvZ, and PvT are like chess. One side is black, one side is white. Sure, one side might be advantaged (unproven a-priori), but complaining about the advantage is senseless when you're not even good enough to exploit it. Better idea is to just get good.
Gotta say what you've been saying is nothing new and contributes nothing to the discussion. It's the same old saying "Just get gud" You don't know what you're talking about. You offer no rebuttals or reasoning as to why the timings work out the way they do to ensure a fair match up. The core of the argument is since we are playing a competitive game, the game should be as fair as humanly possible. If it isn't balanced, saying it shouldn't change because of how blizzard won't or bc pros won't like it is as biased as they come. In order for a balanced game to exist, you need justifiable risks vs rewards. Each player or race option should be given enough options and opportunities to demonstrate and showcase their differences in skill, not due to race imbalances. If the margins of error for one side is too small relative to other matchups and races, then by definition it's an imbalance.
On October 09 2021 09:09 ghrur wrote: Gotta say, I agree with TT1 on this point. If you think the game isn't balanced, chances are, you're just not good enough. The best players in the world show us again and again that you can overcome opponents by outplaying them, no matter the matchup. If you're blaming your losses on "imbalance" instead of skill, you're whining. You're talking like ZvP is so Z biased, but then... just switch to Z and prove it. If it's so imbalanced, you'd be able to climb no problem, but chances are, you'll still get destroyed by any P 200 elos above you.
Fact of the matter is ZvP, TvZ, and PvT are like chess. One side is black, one side is white. Sure, one side might be advantaged (unproven a-priori), but complaining about the advantage is senseless when you're not even good enough to exploit it. Better idea is to just get good.
its one thing for kids to be whiny, its much concerning and hilarious when 20-30 year old are whining about the balance of a video game that is not even being supported anymore.
On October 09 2021 09:09 ghrur wrote: Gotta say, I agree with TT1 on this point. If you think the game isn't balanced, chances are, you're just not good enough. The best players in the world show us again and again that you can overcome opponents by outplaying them, no matter the matchup. If you're blaming your losses on "imbalance" instead of skill, you're whining. You're talking like ZvP is so Z biased, but then... just switch to Z and prove it. If it's so imbalanced, you'd be able to climb no problem, but chances are, you'll still get destroyed by any P 200 elos above you.
Fact of the matter is ZvP, TvZ, and PvT are like chess. One side is black, one side is white. Sure, one side might be advantaged (unproven a-priori), but complaining about the advantage is senseless when you're not even good enough to exploit it. Better idea is to just get good.
its one thing for kids to be whiny, its much concerning and hilarious when 20-30 year old are whining about the balance of a video game that is not even being supported anymore.
Is pointing out a cheating team in a sport or showing how the rules favor one side called "whining"? It only matters whether or not there is merit in the so called "whining" going by your words. So quit with the stupid rhetoric and actually have a rebuttal.
On October 09 2021 09:09 ghrur wrote: Gotta say, I agree with TT1 on this point. If you think the game isn't balanced, chances are, you're just not good enough. The best players in the world show us again and again that you can overcome opponents by outplaying them, no matter the matchup. If you're blaming your losses on "imbalance" instead of skill, you're whining. You're talking like ZvP is so Z biased, but then... just switch to Z and prove it. If it's so imbalanced, you'd be able to climb no problem, but chances are, you'll still get destroyed by any P 200 elos above you.
Fact of the matter is ZvP, TvZ, and PvT are like chess. One side is black, one side is white. Sure, one side might be advantaged (unproven a-priori), but complaining about the advantage is senseless when you're not even good enough to exploit it. Better idea is to just get good.
its one thing for kids to be whiny, its much concerning and hilarious when 20-30 year old are whining about the balance of a video game that is not even being supported anymore.
Is pointing out a cheating team in a sport or showing how the rules favor one side called "whining"? It only matters whether or not there is merit in the so called "whining" going by your words. So quit with the stupid rhetoric and actually have a rebuttal.
On October 09 2021 09:09 ghrur wrote: Gotta say, I agree with TT1 on this point. If you think the game isn't balanced, chances are, you're just not good enough. The best players in the world show us again and again that you can overcome opponents by outplaying them, no matter the matchup. If you're blaming your losses on "imbalance" instead of skill, you're whining. You're talking like ZvP is so Z biased, but then... just switch to Z and prove it. If it's so imbalanced, you'd be able to climb no problem, but chances are, you'll still get destroyed by any P 200 elos above you.
Fact of the matter is ZvP, TvZ, and PvT are like chess. One side is black, one side is white. Sure, one side might be advantaged (unproven a-priori), but complaining about the advantage is senseless when you're not even good enough to exploit it. Better idea is to just get good.
People like you really need to get rid of that "get good" argument.
If the game is not balanced, it's not balanced. Nothing to do with whether you're good or not. There's a clear difference between "the game isn't balanced from a game theory pov" and "I lose because the game isn't balanced". You're too simple-minded if you think the former statement equals to whining.
I remember Mini once played a customized PvT against a female gamer, in which all his units only have 50% of the normal hp. That's as imbalanced as you could ask for, right? He won that game in the end. Does that make that game balanced now? If so, let's reduce 50% the hp of Terran's unit and see how "good" Flash can get lol. I'm sure being the genius he is, he'll still win 4 ASL in that condition.
On October 07 2021 13:53 Magic Powers wrote: If people spent as much time and energy studying and practicing [insert matchup] as they do complaining about the matchup being imbalanced, they could actually become quite a lot better in that matchup.
Have you actually addressed the points or arguments or are you just making ad hominems? By your logic, unless you are the level of a progamer, you shouldn't be able to analyze any situation at all. Which means artosis or any other caster who is less skilled than a progamer doesn't have any relevant opinion to cast about. The point being is, you don't necessarily have to be as a high ranked player to notice the faults. You simply have to address the principle at play here, which is apparent, but nobody is challenging me on.
Astute observation. Some form of expert insight is required for an accurate understanding of the current state of the game. In my understanding you lack expertise, and thus - since you haven't provided any other form of evidence - your ideas can be dismissed.
Not necessarily. Truth is objective no matter who states it. If a Progamer says something about the game, is it right because they are a high level progamer, or is it right because it was objectively right and they happen to be closer to the truth? Sometimes it takes someone who has a fresh set of eyes of perspective, who isn't blinded by dogma or has set patterned thinking or been trained by the echo chambers of the common wisdom on TL. You can argue that I most likely don't have the truth by arguing based on credentials because yes, more often than not someone who has credentials can be right more often than not, but you're not claiming anything objective here. You're resorting to argument from authority.
You haven't provided sufficient evidence to prove your case. So no, I'm not arguing from authority. I'm arguing that you have not substantiated your claim of imbalance. The fact that you're not an expert only adds to that, and it means that you have neither sufficient evidence nor the expertise to disregard the fact that that you lack evidence.
Not necessarily. Truth is objective no matter who states it. If a Progamer says something about the game, is it right because they are a high level progamer, or is it right because it was objectively right and they happen to be closer to the truth? Sometimes it takes someone who has a fresh set of eyes of perspective, who isn't blinded by dogma or has set patterned thinking or been trained by the echo chambers of the common wisdom on TL. You can argue that I most likely don't have the truth by arguing based on credentials because yes, more often than not someone who has credentials can be right more often than not, but you're not claiming anything objective here. You're resorting to argument from authority. [/QUOTE]
You haven't provided sufficient evidence to prove your case. So no, I'm not arguing from authority. I'm arguing that you have not substantiated your claim of imbalance. The fact that you're not an expert only adds to that, and it means that you have neither sufficient evidence nor the expertise to disregard the fact that that you lack evidence.[/QUOTE]
Yes your whole comment was arguing from authority. You base your argument on whether you believe I'm knowledgeable enough about the subject to have a valid opinion on. I gave you enough points for you to refute on, but you chose to ignore it and give me this comment talking about how you doubt my credibility while also denying I gave any reasons for my argument. Again, argument from authority.
On October 09 2021 09:37 Magic Powers wrote: You haven't provided sufficient evidence to prove your case. So no, I'm not arguing from authority. I'm arguing that you have not substantiated your claim of imbalance. The fact that you're not an expert only adds to that, and it means that you have neither sufficient evidence nor the expertise to disregard the fact that that you lack evidence.
You have made 3 posts in this thread and none of them includes anything about Starcraft and all of them are comments about Moopower, dismissing his points (which are aplenty, some already discussed by others) without showing any evidence yourself.
It disgusts me, the elitism shown by some people on this board.
On October 09 2021 09:37 Magic Powers wrote: You haven't provided sufficient evidence to prove your case. So no, I'm not arguing from authority. I'm arguing that you have not substantiated your claim of imbalance. The fact that you're not an expert only adds to that, and it means that you have neither sufficient evidence nor the expertise to disregard the fact that that you lack evidence.
You have made 3 posts in this thread and none of them includes anything about Starcraft and all of them are comments about Moopower, dismissing his points (which are aplenty, some already discussed by others) without showing any evidence yourself.
It disgusts me, the elitism shown by some people on this board.
He presented no evidence, so I don't need to present counter evidence.
What elitism? I'm not presuming to be better than he is. It's just that he hasn't sufficiently supported his claim of imbalance. Why should we believe that he's right? What gives his argument credibility? I'm asking for something a lot more substantive than his opinion. That's not elitism. A fact is that the all-time PvZ winrate at the highest levels doesn't stray too far from the other two non-mirror matchups. In the following thread we find the stats for all matchups from 2002 to 2012:
All of that data is from the most competitive era of BW. Do you notice a trend? Every race has been slightly advantaged in exactly one matchup. This advantage is only significant in the long run, and it's even less noticable when you pit all three races against one another, as your win-loss ratio will likely be affected by how much you play each matchup. You're likely to approach a 50% winrate when combining all three matchups. So in terms of a fun experience for amateur players, this is about as good as it can get in a game like BW containing this much strategic asymmetry This small deviation from 50% at the top level should in no way hurt the experience of lower/medium ranked players. And I'd argue if you want to get to the top ranks you should abandon any thoughts of imbalance right away. Otherwise if it bothers you so much, pick up a different game, like SC2, which has been patched to death, if that makes you happy.
Even most top players can't figure out the true theoretical winrate in each matchup (i.e. with optimal play from everyone). Just take the difference in expertise between Flash and Light. Light is one of the best terran players of all time, yet he exists in the long shadow of Flash. So even Light isn't all that close to figuring out the game, and who knows if Flash has ever really fully figured it out either (although he's certainly much closer than everyone else). Meanwhile we seriously want to listen to someone who's highest rank is in the B region? Please. That's not elitism, that's just giving someone a reality check. I'm not even putting myself above OP, I'm just saying he's in way over his head.
This is why people like myself are so tired of these imbalance threads. We've seen them so many times and nothing ever comes of it. Instead, practicing and studying the game is the obvious thing to do. This is why we give that advice instead of feeding into the complaints.
You lack critical thinking. You're just interpreting the data based on what you've already assumed. Your conclusion is already made up that BW is as balanced as it could be, and therefore any interpretation of the data will obviously be biased towards that conclusion.
What I'm telling you is to think a little in terms of game theory which is what people are not doing. They only look at stats to tell them what to think. Stats can be useful and they can also be misleading because you should know from taking any stats class that correlation doesn't equate to causation. There are numerous factors in any given stat, so in order to isolate the variables one at a time, you need to critically think and think about what best explains the results. You'll have survivorship bias, and other biases mixed in if you don't.
It is an objective fact that in ZvP, zerg has much less risk throughout the game and often goes unpunished. From just a logical perspective, this is unbalanced no matter how you slice it or try to point to stats. Could it be that overall Protoss pros have to play better overall to compensate for this weak match up? That may be the case, but we can't know for sure, so instead of guessing with stats like you're doing and making assumptions about the pros, why don't you focus on the principles at play here? I'm not the one making assumptions here, you are with your so called "stats" approach. I'm not saying stats are useless, but you're not understanding the crux of the argument.
I think if Zealots could hit air and got a +5 armor boost upgrade in a late game building, like the Fleet Beacon or something that could really balance the matchup.
On October 09 2021 13:57 CadenZie wrote: now that we have squared away that a patch is needed, what are we thinking; +100hp on cannons?
You lack critical thinking CadenZie, it's not about numbers. It's about game theory. ZvP is fundamentally unfair, it is an objective fact - because I said so. You're not understanding the crux of the argument. Haven't you been reading?
you know whats actually crazy about the numbers that we shouldnt speak of; in spon games for january 2021 until now protoss has a lower winrate in pvt. therefore i would like to propose a buff to protoss over a nerf to zerg to fix said problems, and thusly sigruns solution would be close to the money. ranged zealots.
On October 09 2021 09:09 ghrur wrote: Gotta say, I agree with TT1 on this point. If you think the game isn't balanced, chances are, you're just not good enough. The best players in the world show us again and again that you can overcome opponents by outplaying them, no matter the matchup. If you're blaming your losses on "imbalance" instead of skill, you're whining. You're talking like ZvP is so Z biased, but then... just switch to Z and prove it. If it's so imbalanced, you'd be able to climb no problem, but chances are, you'll still get destroyed by any P 200 elos above you.
Fact of the matter is ZvP, TvZ, and PvT are like chess. One side is black, one side is white. Sure, one side might be advantaged (unproven a-priori), but complaining about the advantage is senseless when you're not even good enough to exploit it. Better idea is to just get good.
Gotta say what you've been saying is nothing new and contributes nothing to the discussion. It's the same old saying "Just get gud" You don't know what you're talking about. You offer no rebuttals or reasoning as to why the timings work out the way they do to ensure a fair match up. The core of the argument is since we are playing a competitive game, the game should be as fair as humanly possible. If it isn't balanced, saying it shouldn't change because of how blizzard won't or bc pros won't like it is as biased as they come. In order for a balanced game to exist, you need justifiable risks vs rewards. Each player or race option should be given enough options and opportunities to demonstrate and showcase their differences in skill, not due to race imbalances. If the margins of error for one side is too small relative to other matchups and races, then by definition it's an imbalance.
I don't think you understand. My whole point is you're too bad to say what the risk vs reward even is. Look, if you send a zealot into a 12-hatch Zerg's main, it's a completely different risk vs reward compared to if Bisu did it. You won't understand the correct risks because you don't know what a Zerg is actually capable of. You won't understand the correct reward because your micro isn't Bisu's micro. If you can't understand the risk vs reward, how can you determine balance? If you can't determine balance, how can you determine bias?
It's legit like a 1000 ELO player in chess complaining about how Ruy Lopez is broken and chess should fix the bias of Black vs White.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/KupqYHH.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/NzZJdNf.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/f8FolI5.jpg)
