|
On April 14 2012 19:09 roym899 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 19:06 Adreme wrote:On April 14 2012 19:05 Belha wrote:On April 14 2012 18:00 LimitSEA wrote:
Two zergs in Code S. Jesus, this is just sad. Why this never happened to terran -.-" Probably because a ridiculous amount of most teams high level playesr are terran. With the exception of oGs and Zenex I think all 8 other teams have a high level terran not to mention that now multiple foreign teams are getting high level terrans. But the question is WHY are there so many more Top Terrans then Top Zergs and Protosses since the Release of the game? In the ladder the races are splitted very equally.
What does ladder have to do with anything? If you're playing in the GSL... you're playing in the GSL, ladder has nothing to do with it. Just looking at the amount of progamers at Code S level this season, the fact is quite simply that there are more Terrans and Protosses than Zergs. Quantity =/= Quality => it is not a balance issue.
|
On April 14 2012 19:14 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 19:02 Adreme wrote:On April 14 2012 18:50 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:43 dabom88 wrote:On April 14 2012 18:36 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:31 windsupernova wrote:On April 14 2012 18:30 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:24 HaXXspetten wrote:On April 14 2012 18:22 FakeDeath wrote:
Time to create the sad zergling page? Nah. The Sad Zealot was created during the 1/1/1 era, whereas this time, like it or not, the reason there are so few zergs in the Ro16 is because there were not very many in the Ro32, and most of the ones who were there quite simply didn't play good enough to advance. (Like both DRG & NesTea way underperformed and deserved to get dropped down) Was that the reason last season as well? And the season before that, and the one before that? This is circular logic, the zergs don't advance because they don't play well, again and again, season after season. Why do you think that is, that zergs continually don't 'play well'. Could it have something to do with the way the race plays compared to the other two? And be reflective of an issue of balance? But Zergs won last GSL...... Yes, zergs can win, we're talking probabilities here, but the broader picture tells a different story. The champion of last season now plays the first round of code A, after all.. Because he played terribly. You can't possibly say those games DRG lost were because of a balance issue if you watched them. "..but the broader picture tells a different story.." I was arguing against a particular used to dismiss any balance-concerns. Particulars are how you find balance issues. Balance is dependent on both maps and builds and one must use individual games that are BOTH played at a high level to determine if there is in fact an issue. I completely disagree. Your memory and judgement of particular matches are so subjected to your beliefs (bias) that they mean almost nothing when held up against statistics. Imbalance exist in statistics, not in particulars. Particulars are stories, and they can be used to mean (almost) anything. They can be useful in the exploration of the reason for (i)balance, however.
Individual games are the ONLY way to look at balance because they are the only way to figure out solutions. How do you think players overcame DRGs 2 base muta into double expand build, they watched replays brainstormed solutions and came up with a counter to it. Its the same way zergs figured out how to hold off various protoss 2 base attacks then protoss would look at that replay and see what new thing he could come up with. This is how you come up with solutions and it is how you shoud watch a game to see if there is an issue
|
On April 14 2012 18:56 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 18:03 Asha` wrote:
So R16 =
7P (out of 10)
7T (out of 15)
2Z (out of 7) 1 bad season. Protoss has put up with 6-7 of that kind of representation. Welcome to club  You have a ways to go before you can really feel disenfranchized.
lol thank you 
But to be honest, usually during the period where toss was underrepresented, Zerg had one maybe two players more than toss in the gsl. But I guess that was enough for toss to get all the attention
On April 14 2012 19:27 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 19:14 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 19:02 Adreme wrote:On April 14 2012 18:50 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:43 dabom88 wrote:On April 14 2012 18:36 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:31 windsupernova wrote:On April 14 2012 18:30 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:24 HaXXspetten wrote:On April 14 2012 18:22 FakeDeath wrote:
Time to create the sad zergling page? Nah. The Sad Zealot was created during the 1/1/1 era, whereas this time, like it or not, the reason there are so few zergs in the Ro16 is because there were not very many in the Ro32, and most of the ones who were there quite simply didn't play good enough to advance. (Like both DRG & NesTea way underperformed and deserved to get dropped down) Was that the reason last season as well? And the season before that, and the one before that? This is circular logic, the zergs don't advance because they don't play well, again and again, season after season. Why do you think that is, that zergs continually don't 'play well'. Could it have something to do with the way the race plays compared to the other two? And be reflective of an issue of balance? But Zergs won last GSL...... Yes, zergs can win, we're talking probabilities here, but the broader picture tells a different story. The champion of last season now plays the first round of code A, after all.. Because he played terribly. You can't possibly say those games DRG lost were because of a balance issue if you watched them. "..but the broader picture tells a different story.." I was arguing against a particular used to dismiss any balance-concerns. Particulars are how you find balance issues. Balance is dependent on both maps and builds and one must use individual games that are BOTH played at a high level to determine if there is in fact an issue. I completely disagree. Your memory and judgement of particular matches are so subjected to your beliefs (bias) that they mean almost nothing when held up against statistics. Imbalance exist in statistics, not in particulars. Particulars are stories, and they can be used to mean (almost) anything. They can be useful in the exploration of the reason for (i)balance, however. Individual games are the ONLY way to look at balance because they are the only way to figure out solutions. How do you think players overcame DRGs 2 base muta into double expand build, they watched replays brainstormed solutions and came up with a counter to it. Its the same way zergs figured out how to hold off various protoss 2 base attacks then protoss would look at that replay and see what new thing he could come up with. This is how you come up with solutions and it is how you shoud watch a game to see if there is an issue
Good luck with that approach if you ever plan to do any kind of serious scentific research about anything
|
On April 14 2012 19:18 HaXXspetten wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 19:09 roym899 wrote:On April 14 2012 19:06 Adreme wrote:On April 14 2012 19:05 Belha wrote:On April 14 2012 18:00 LimitSEA wrote:
Two zergs in Code S. Jesus, this is just sad. Why this never happened to terran -.-" Probably because a ridiculous amount of most teams high level playesr are terran. With the exception of oGs and Zenex I think all 8 other teams have a high level terran not to mention that now multiple foreign teams are getting high level terrans. But the question is WHY are there so many more Top Terrans then Top Zergs and Protosses since the Release of the game? In the ladder the races are splitted very equally. What does ladder have to do with anything? If you're playing in the GSL... you're playing in the GSL, ladder has nothing to do with it. Just looking at the amount of progamers at Code S level this season, the fact is quite simply that there are more Terrans and Protosses than Zergs. Quantity =/= Quality => it is not a balance issue.
Why do more P and T qualify for the GSL (I'm not sure if that is actually the case)? Why do more T and P qualify for the later stages of GSL? In particular, why do more T and P reach the later stages of code S?
Simply saying "but look, there are more T and P" does exactly nothing to remove balance-concerns, it rather begs the question: How did this situation come about, and does it reflect balance?
|
Holy fuck StartaleQ is really on fire this season o.O
|
On April 14 2012 19:18 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 19:09 dabom88 wrote:On April 14 2012 18:50 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:43 dabom88 wrote:On April 14 2012 18:36 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:31 windsupernova wrote:On April 14 2012 18:30 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:24 HaXXspetten wrote:On April 14 2012 18:22 FakeDeath wrote:
Time to create the sad zergling page? Nah. The Sad Zealot was created during the 1/1/1 era, whereas this time, like it or not, the reason there are so few zergs in the Ro16 is because there were not very many in the Ro32, and most of the ones who were there quite simply didn't play good enough to advance. (Like both DRG & NesTea way underperformed and deserved to get dropped down) Was that the reason last season as well? And the season before that, and the one before that? This is circular logic, the zergs don't advance because they don't play well, again and again, season after season. Why do you think that is, that zergs continually don't 'play well'. Could it have something to do with the way the race plays compared to the other two? And be reflective of an issue of balance? But Zergs won last GSL...... Yes, zergs can win, we're talking probabilities here, but the broader picture tells a different story. The champion of last season now plays the first round of code A, after all.. Because he played terribly. You can't possibly say those games DRG lost were because of a balance issue if you watched them. "..but the broader picture tells a different story.." I was arguing against a particular used to dismiss any balance-concerns. It makes no sense to say you're arguing "broadly" and then try to use a specific instance that doesn't support your argument. I'm saying, statistics of results tells us that there is an issue of balance. I'm saying, a tournament win does nothing to change that. I don't see how DRG falling to code A undercuts that argument.
Because you can't use an example of a game where a Zerg played poorly as an example for how strong Zerg is.
|
Wow the Startale player are playing so well this season
|
On April 14 2012 19:33 dabom88 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 19:18 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 19:09 dabom88 wrote:On April 14 2012 18:50 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:43 dabom88 wrote:On April 14 2012 18:36 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:31 windsupernova wrote:On April 14 2012 18:30 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:24 HaXXspetten wrote:On April 14 2012 18:22 FakeDeath wrote:
Time to create the sad zergling page? Nah. The Sad Zealot was created during the 1/1/1 era, whereas this time, like it or not, the reason there are so few zergs in the Ro16 is because there were not very many in the Ro32, and most of the ones who were there quite simply didn't play good enough to advance. (Like both DRG & NesTea way underperformed and deserved to get dropped down) Was that the reason last season as well? And the season before that, and the one before that? This is circular logic, the zergs don't advance because they don't play well, again and again, season after season. Why do you think that is, that zergs continually don't 'play well'. Could it have something to do with the way the race plays compared to the other two? And be reflective of an issue of balance? But Zergs won last GSL...... Yes, zergs can win, we're talking probabilities here, but the broader picture tells a different story. The champion of last season now plays the first round of code A, after all.. Because he played terribly. You can't possibly say those games DRG lost were because of a balance issue if you watched them. "..but the broader picture tells a different story.." I was arguing against a particular used to dismiss any balance-concerns. It makes no sense to say you're arguing "broadly" and then try to use a specific instance that doesn't support your argument. I'm saying, statistics of results tells us that there is an issue of balance. I'm saying, a tournament win does nothing to change that. I don't see how DRG falling to code A undercuts that argument. Because you can't use an example of a game where a Zerg played poorly as an example for how strong Zerg is.
But I didn't, I used it to point out the problem of using single results to learn anything about balance.
|
On April 14 2012 19:27 Cereb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 18:56 tdt wrote:On April 14 2012 18:03 Asha` wrote:
So R16 =
7P (out of 10)
7T (out of 15)
2Z (out of 7) 1 bad season. Protoss has put up with 6-7 of that kind of representation. Welcome to club You have a ways to go before you can really feel disenfranchized. lol thank you But to be honest, usually during the period where toss was underrepresented, Zerg had one maybe two players more than toss in the gsl. But I guess that was enough for toss to get all the attention Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 19:27 Adreme wrote:On April 14 2012 19:14 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 19:02 Adreme wrote:On April 14 2012 18:50 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:43 dabom88 wrote:On April 14 2012 18:36 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:31 windsupernova wrote:On April 14 2012 18:30 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:24 HaXXspetten wrote:
[quote]
Nah. The Sad Zealot was created during the 1/1/1 era, whereas this time, like it or not, the reason there are so few zergs in the Ro16 is because there were not very many in the Ro32, and most of the ones who were there quite simply didn't play good enough to advance. (Like both DRG & NesTea way underperformed and deserved to get dropped down) Was that the reason last season as well? And the season before that, and the one before that? This is circular logic, the zergs don't advance because they don't play well, again and again, season after season. Why do you think that is, that zergs continually don't 'play well'. Could it have something to do with the way the race plays compared to the other two? And be reflective of an issue of balance? But Zergs won last GSL...... Yes, zergs can win, we're talking probabilities here, but the broader picture tells a different story. The champion of last season now plays the first round of code A, after all.. Because he played terribly. You can't possibly say those games DRG lost were because of a balance issue if you watched them. "..but the broader picture tells a different story.." I was arguing against a particular used to dismiss any balance-concerns. Particulars are how you find balance issues. Balance is dependent on both maps and builds and one must use individual games that are BOTH played at a high level to determine if there is in fact an issue. I completely disagree. Your memory and judgement of particular matches are so subjected to your beliefs (bias) that they mean almost nothing when held up against statistics. Imbalance exist in statistics, not in particulars. Particulars are stories, and they can be used to mean (almost) anything. They can be useful in the exploration of the reason for (i)balance, however. Individual games are the ONLY way to look at balance because they are the only way to figure out solutions. How do you think players overcame DRGs 2 base muta into double expand build, they watched replays brainstormed solutions and came up with a counter to it. Its the same way zergs figured out how to hold off various protoss 2 base attacks then protoss would look at that replay and see what new thing he could come up with. This is how you come up with solutions and it is how you shoud watch a game to see if there is an issue Good luck with that approach if you ever plan to do any kind of serious scentific research about anything
I origanally deleted my first paragraph but if you are bringing science into it ill explain why you cant scientificaly do it as an experiment without using individual games. The biggest problem with doing it scientifically of course is that all things are not equal. The only thing you can possibly isolate as a constant is each map. So if we take each map as the constant and isolate the experiment to code S games on each map and set the time frame at 8 weeks since anything longer and the current game woudl be to different to draw anything meaningful. So we go 8 weeks of a certain MU on a certain map and we still wind up with a sample size to small to draw anything meaningful so we are forced again to watch individual games and draw conclusions based on them. Not to mention the overwhelming majority of high level games are the practice games we dont get to see at all and you have to much to draw anything based on GSL beyond that certain maps are bad at certain matchups like TvZ on antiga and PvT on Daybreak.
|
On April 14 2012 19:32 Coal wrote:
Holy fuck StartaleQ is really on fire this season o.O
haha probably because they are so salty from their gstl loss, StartaleQ are probably training like monsters
|
On April 14 2012 19:41 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 19:33 dabom88 wrote:On April 14 2012 19:18 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 19:09 dabom88 wrote:On April 14 2012 18:50 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:43 dabom88 wrote:On April 14 2012 18:36 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:31 windsupernova wrote:On April 14 2012 18:30 m0ck wrote:On April 14 2012 18:24 HaXXspetten wrote:
[quote]
Nah. The Sad Zealot was created during the 1/1/1 era, whereas this time, like it or not, the reason there are so few zergs in the Ro16 is because there were not very many in the Ro32, and most of the ones who were there quite simply didn't play good enough to advance. (Like both DRG & NesTea way underperformed and deserved to get dropped down) Was that the reason last season as well? And the season before that, and the one before that? This is circular logic, the zergs don't advance because they don't play well, again and again, season after season. Why do you think that is, that zergs continually don't 'play well'. Could it have something to do with the way the race plays compared to the other two? And be reflective of an issue of balance? But Zergs won last GSL...... Yes, zergs can win, we're talking probabilities here, but the broader picture tells a different story. The champion of last season now plays the first round of code A, after all.. Because he played terribly. You can't possibly say those games DRG lost were because of a balance issue if you watched them. "..but the broader picture tells a different story.." I was arguing against a particular used to dismiss any balance-concerns. It makes no sense to say you're arguing "broadly" and then try to use a specific instance that doesn't support your argument. I'm saying, statistics of results tells us that there is an issue of balance. I'm saying, a tournament win does nothing to change that. I don't see how DRG falling to code A undercuts that argument. Because you can't use an example of a game where a Zerg played poorly as an example for how strong Zerg is. But I didn't, I used it to point out the problem of using single results to learn anything about balance.
Except those small amounts of games show what meta game is(sometimes even in failiure to execute you can still see the lack of a problem). For example lets talk about ZvP. There was a point where zergs had figured out how to hold off the protoss 2 base builds (fast 3rd spore at each base kept you safe against blink/dt/vr). So protoss tried taking a 3rd and winning that way and then to counter that zerg made mass mutas and kept harassing the protoss to keep supply low while taking whole map and eventually just draining him of all money then killing him. The major response to this wasnt so much the pheonix change but to do new 2 base timing attacks to prevent/delay muta play. Right now you are in middle of this era with 12 minute roach timings and other similer things being tried as counter making timing window so tight that you basically have to hit within a 25-40 second window or get overrun.
|
On April 14 2012 19:09 roym899 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 19:06 Adreme wrote:On April 14 2012 19:05 Belha wrote:On April 14 2012 18:00 LimitSEA wrote:
Two zergs in Code S. Jesus, this is just sad. Why this never happened to terran -.-" Probably because a ridiculous amount of most teams high level playesr are terran. With the exception of oGs and Zenex I think all 8 other teams have a high level terran not to mention that now multiple foreign teams are getting high level terrans. But the question is WHY are there so many more Top Terrans then Top Zergs and Protosses since the Release of the game? In the ladder the races are splitted very equally.
The skill ceiling for Terran is highest? At the highest levels of the game, Terran is the most rewarding and has the most potential? Those seemed to be the historical arguments throughout 2 years of SC2.
Also, Virus taking down both MC and Nestea... another seemingly random high-level Terran (that most people wouldn't even put in the Top 10, let alone Top 5) taking down the solid #1 Protoss and #2 Zerg (after DRG) and forcing them to play for second place. Damn x.x
|
Sweden442 Posts
God damn it, two zergs made it out of group stages? This season is going to be so damn boring.
Last season we had three zergs from group stages but at least we had DongRaeGu and NesTea.
|
On April 14 2012 20:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 19:09 roym899 wrote:On April 14 2012 19:06 Adreme wrote:On April 14 2012 19:05 Belha wrote:On April 14 2012 18:00 LimitSEA wrote:
Two zergs in Code S. Jesus, this is just sad. Why this never happened to terran -.-" Probably because a ridiculous amount of most teams high level playesr are terran. With the exception of oGs and Zenex I think all 8 other teams have a high level terran not to mention that now multiple foreign teams are getting high level terrans. But the question is WHY are there so many more Top Terrans then Top Zergs and Protosses since the Release of the game? In the ladder the races are splitted very equally. The skill ceiling for Terran is highest? At the highest levels of the game, Terran is the most rewarding and has the most potential? Those seemed to be the historical arguments throughout 2 years of SC2. Also, Virus taking down both MC and Nestea... another seemingly random high-level Terran (that most people wouldn't even put in the Top 10, let alone Top 5) taking down the solid #1 Protoss and #2 Zerg (after DRG) and forcing them to play for second place. Damn x.x
-_-;; MC #1 Protoss? *sigh*
Anyway, I'm pretty sure the thing that has been holding Virus back from showing good results in Code S has mainly been his nerves. Even today he almost let his nerves lose him a game or two and you can only assume that the reason he doesn't play in team leagues much at all (twice in gstl and once in KSL I believe) is due to his nerves. Though he probably wouldn't have beaten Nestea had Nestea not played so poorly in game 2 and 3.
He played great today and he has looked solid in the past. Less QQ more pewpew!
On April 14 2012 20:26 drbrown wrote:
God damn it, two zergs made it out of group stages? This season is going to be so damn boring.
Last season we had three zergs from group stages but at least we had DongRaeGu and NesTea.
July is gonna go beast mode this season. RO4 np.
|
Would be amazing if MarineKing ended up facing a StarTale player in the finals to 4-0 them again.
On April 14 2012 19:15 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 18:10 Ventor wrote:On April 14 2012 18:06 Zealot Orgy wrote:On April 14 2012 18:04 SeaSwift wrote:On April 14 2012 18:03 Fortuna.424 wrote:On April 14 2012 18:02 GreyKnight wrote:On April 14 2012 18:01 Fortuna.424 wrote:
At the time Mc expanded, Nestea could have just got 40 roaches with 40 lings in production and crushed him,
dont know why hes using this useless Hydra stile on a map this large that they need like centurys to walk over. I doubt this, MC had a high sentry count. he would not break through in time before MC's tech units kicked in. Well, Stephano does this every time. And Stephano has never won a map against MC. And Stephano and MC never faced since when Stephano started doing that. hate is in the air MC 2-0'd stephano at the beginning of this year. MC would dominate Stephano even harder than he did nestea. Stop being a fanboy and ignoring statistics. I swear, it seems like every foreigner is trying to live vicariously through their favorite foreigner players. MC is arguablly the best player in the world (check his bank account) .
I love MC but really? Lol.
|
rofl virus taking out nestea and mc, this is the icing on the cake
|
GZ MC and Virus
sad for nestea
|
On April 14 2012 19:18 HaXXspetten wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 19:09 roym899 wrote:On April 14 2012 19:06 Adreme wrote:On April 14 2012 19:05 Belha wrote:On April 14 2012 18:00 LimitSEA wrote:
Two zergs in Code S. Jesus, this is just sad. Why this never happened to terran -.-" Probably because a ridiculous amount of most teams high level playesr are terran. With the exception of oGs and Zenex I think all 8 other teams have a high level terran not to mention that now multiple foreign teams are getting high level terrans. But the question is WHY are there so many more Top Terrans then Top Zergs and Protosses since the Release of the game? In the ladder the races are splitted very equally. What does ladder have to do with anything? If you're playing in the GSL... you're playing in the GSL, ladder has nothing to do with it. Just looking at the amount of progamers at Code S level this season, the fact is quite simply that there are more Terrans and Protosses than Zergs. Quantity =/= Quality => it is not a balance issue.
The even split in ladder means that there aren't magically more good Terrans/Protosses than Zergs. It is quite indicative of balance issue if we have even racial representation across all skill levels except at the top where one race consistently be underrepresented/overrepresented, since that's where the balance issues actually manifest themselves. (And at the lowest skill level too, but nobody care about that.)
On April 14 2012 19:06 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 19:05 Belha wrote:On April 14 2012 18:00 LimitSEA wrote:
Two zergs in Code S. Jesus, this is just sad. Why this never happened to terran -.-" Probably because a ridiculous amount of most teams high level playesr are terran. With the exception of oGs and Zenex I think all 8 other teams have a high level terran not to mention that now multiple foreign teams are getting high level terrans.
That is entirely false. You can check the liquipedia page here for yourself:
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Category:Korean_Teams
Where you can see that there's a pretty even split also.
Edit:
Obviously July's gonna make it through. He's a beast.
|
Anyone have any idea who the 4th player that gets a first pick tomorrow is going to be? Since there is a tie for 4th place in the rankings among MKP, MVP and oz..
Liquipedia says its MKP... any idea why?
|
On April 14 2012 18:54 roym899 wrote:
Tbh for me it seems like as if it is much harder to kick off a constant and stable playstyle which, when executed correctly, can constantly beat high level players. Look at Terran:
Against Protoss they can play Bio very cost efficiantly with their Micro. The good thing is that good forcefields can couter good micro which makes this matchup very intense and well balanced imho.
Against Zerg they can Drop soo cost efficiantly. Zerg won't be able to push out while getting dropped at serveral expansions. Currently it seems like it is pretty much impossible for Zerg to be one expo ahead, as the Terrans can get away with such greedy playstyles because of drops. Another factor is the impossibility of Zerg to attack into a good Siegeline without Broodlords. Every Zerg army get melted down by a defensive Terran.
I'm not saying it is impossible for Zerg to win this matchup but it's impossible to win it constantly. Because you are reluctant on mistakes by the Terran, like sieging to late or not repairing the PF fast enough.
Protoss has a little bit harder time. As I said PvT is quite balanced. I would say the same thing for PvZ. Although Zerg have a hard time currently, as Protoss began to figure out how to beat DRG/Stephano Style. I think it will be very interesting to see how this matchup will evolve. The thing is that there is NO Zerg Style again which can, when properly executed beat high-level protosses constantly. But the same thing can be said for Protoss in the matchup as it seems like that if two players of the same skill meat it ends up in BL/Infestor versus Archon Toilet. Whole matchup depends on 2-4 seconds in which the vortex gets thrown down or not thrown down. That makes the lategame very close, but also a bit coinflippy as you sometimes just CAN'T avoid the vortex to get most of your BL's or the Neural Parasite to get your mothership. Of course it can be said that the MU is quite balanced then, but it's quite bad that it has quite a luck factor in the lategame.
Zerg currently has the hardest time in pro play. The reasons for this I explained in the 2 paragraphs before this. In addition to that the mirror matchup TvT is the one less luck based. ZvZ and PvP are quite similiar are I think although my knowledge of PvP is a lil bit off tbh.
Well that's atleast the feeling I have of current balance. Of course this doesn't matter at all in ladder. But in tournements it seems like Zerg is the weakest race. And the fact that they "don't play well" isn't a result of the lack of skill they have but more of a lack of possibilities they have in some parts of the game. There is just NO playstyle Zerg can pull of so that the luck factor is as small as Terran can get it.
Your analysis of tvz is extremelye simplistic. It has nothing to do with repairing planetaries in time, and siegting up in time isn't what makes the difference between winning and losings tvz in korea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
