|
They picked the most awful maps have you seen the spread. From Non-Kespa...4 Protoss, 4 Terran, and 1 Zerg...Then with Kespa it gets even better....11 Protoss, 7 Terran, and 4 Zerg...WCG picked the worse maps.
Very few zerg will make it out of this and even if they do will be Protoss vs Protoss for the finals. They have to play the same matches again....
|
Bomber 
|
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
|
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
Are those Pro vs Pro stats? Where are they from what tournaments? Entombed we know is Terran Favored. It isn't in the favor of Zerg. Plus this statistics could be not sued to the Queen Buff but now Terran has adjusted the map pool they picked is awful imo.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
|
On July 29 2012 02:27 Coolness53 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
Are those Pro vs Pro stats? Where are they from what tournaments? Entombed we know is Terran Favored. It isn't in the favor of Zerg. Plus this statistics could be not sued to the Queen Buff but now Terran has adjusted the map pool they picked is awful imo.
These are from TLPD Korea. (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/maps/527_Entombed_Valley/games/TvZ) Not sure why you KNOW entombed is terran favor. Zergs are 9-1 in most recent 10 games v Terran (so your Queen Buff explanation doesn't work). And these aren't scrub terrans either, they include Polt, MKP, Taeja, Ryung...
|
On July 29 2012 02:45 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 02:27 Coolness53 wrote:On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
Are those Pro vs Pro stats? Where are they from what tournaments? Entombed we know is Terran Favored. It isn't in the favor of Zerg. Plus this statistics could be not sued to the Queen Buff but now Terran has adjusted the map pool they picked is awful imo. These are from TLPD Korea. (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/maps/527_Entombed_Valley/games/TvZ) Not sure why you KNOW entombed is terran favor. Zergs are 9-1 in most recent 10 games v Terran (so your Queen Buff explanation doesn't work). And these aren't scrub terrans either, they include Polt, MKP, Taeja, Ryung...
Well just in the tournament only one Zerg came out of the 9 brackets...So there must of been a lot of zergs losing on all of those maps. The map pool was commented on at least one Zerg stated that those maps are not a very good choice. Was very unsure how far he would get on the maps that were chosen. Even still only 1 Zerg made it out and very few will make it out of the qualifiers.
|
On July 29 2012 02:38 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
|
On July 29 2012 02:52 Coolness53 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 02:45 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 02:27 Coolness53 wrote:On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
Are those Pro vs Pro stats? Where are they from what tournaments? Entombed we know is Terran Favored. It isn't in the favor of Zerg. Plus this statistics could be not sued to the Queen Buff but now Terran has adjusted the map pool they picked is awful imo. These are from TLPD Korea. (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/maps/527_Entombed_Valley/games/TvZ) Not sure why you KNOW entombed is terran favor. Zergs are 9-1 in most recent 10 games v Terran (so your Queen Buff explanation doesn't work). And these aren't scrub terrans either, they include Polt, MKP, Taeja, Ryung... Well just in the tournament only one Zerg came out of the 9 brackets...So there must of been a lot of zergs losing on all of those maps. The map pool was commented on at least one Zerg stated that those maps are not a very good choice. Was very unsure how far he would get on the maps that were chosen. Even still only 1 Zerg made it out and very few will make it out of the qualifiers.
And 9 brackets is a pretty limited sample size. Did you look at the zergs in the brackets? Only DRG was the favorite in his group and maybe Curious/LosirA from theirs.
And the finalists were 7T 6P 5Z...
Also, OSL used the same maps for the non Kespa side and qualifiers were 6Z, 2T, 4P (with only MVP, MC, Nestea, DRG not participating due to seed).
|
On July 29 2012 02:54 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 02:38 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right. You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
there's no point quoting statistics for these people.
once they make up their minds that maps are imbalanced for Z, nothing in the world you show will convince them otherwise, they just cherry pick every game that supports their opinion and ignores all else.
|
On July 29 2012 03:10 heartlxp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 02:54 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 02:38 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right. You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics. there's no point quoting statistics for these people. once they make up their minds that maps are imbalanced for Z, nothing in the world you show will convince them otherwise, they just cherry pick every game that supports their opinion and ignores all else.
True. Some zergs claim that Metropolis is balanced in TvZ...
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 29 2012 02:54 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 02:38 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right. You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity". TvZ opinion on Antiga Shipyard fluctuated wildly over the past year as lategame strategies (for both sides) changed.
|
On July 29 2012 03:15 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 02:54 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 02:38 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right. You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics. I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity".
Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech)
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 29 2012 03:21 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 03:15 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:54 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 02:38 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right. You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics. I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity". Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech)
You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition when overall mechanical ability was very low. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle.
|
On July 29 2012 03:24 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 03:21 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 03:15 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:54 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 02:38 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right. You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics. I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity". Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech) You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle.
Obviously, pro players are good enough to play many styles. But they still have strong suits. And when you are playing against the top players, the difference is so slight that every little thing matters.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 29 2012 03:28 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 03:24 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 03:21 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 03:15 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:54 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 02:38 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right. You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics. I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity". Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech) You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle. Obviously, pro players are good enough to play many styles. But they still have strong suits. And when you are playing against the top players, the difference is so slight that every little thing matters.
Back in July 2011 Polt's strengths used to be his micro and positioning. Today it is micro, positioning, decision-making, and macro. Before his wrist problems Mvp was strong in every aspect of the game.
Your statement is true in light of all the upsets that regularly occur in the Korean scene, which only reinforces my point.
|
On July 29 2012 03:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 03:28 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 03:24 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 03:21 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 03:15 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:54 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 02:38 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right. You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics. I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity". Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech) You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle. Obviously, pro players are good enough to play many styles. But they still have strong suits. And when you are playing against the top players, the difference is so slight that every little thing matters. Back in July 2011 Polt's strengths used to be his micro and positioning. Today it is micro, positioning, decision-making, and macro. Before his wrist problems Mvp was strong in every aspect of the game. Your statement is true in light of all the upsets that regularly occur in the Korean scene, which only reinforces my point.
And when MVP dominated TvT, he was mainly meching. If it was so superior, why did terrans still go bio/ bio tank? It is not just easy as saying "Well, this map is good for mech so I will mech".
Look in MC. He dominated with his 2 base all-ins (he could play macro as well). But why weren't other protoss finding equal success with 2 base (although many protoss are getting better). MC's forcefields and micro were just BETTER and he made won with armies that other protoss' couldn't. Same with Stephano with max roaches.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 29 2012 03:33 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 03:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 03:28 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 03:24 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 03:21 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 03:15 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:54 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 02:38 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right. You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics. I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity". Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech) You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle. Obviously, pro players are good enough to play many styles. But they still have strong suits. And when you are playing against the top players, the difference is so slight that every little thing matters. Back in July 2011 Polt's strengths used to be his micro and positioning. Today it is micro, positioning, decision-making, and macro. Before his wrist problems Mvp was strong in every aspect of the game. Your statement is true in light of all the upsets that regularly occur in the Korean scene, which only reinforces my point. And when MVP dominated TvT, he was mainly meching. If it was so superior, why did terrans still go bio/ bio tank? It is not just easy as saying "Well, this map is good for mech so I will mech".
They dropped it because of the BFH nerf, which was a foolish knee-jerk reaction that stagnated mech play for years. Today people say mech is ass because no one has found much success with it. But no one has found much success with it because no one will put in the effort to get good with it. Marine-tank and MMM are much easier to play.
On July 29 2012 03:33 vthree wrote:
Look in MC. He dominated with his 2 base all-ins (he could play macro as well). But why weren't other protoss finding equal success with 2 base (although many protoss are getting better). MC's forcefields and micro were just BETTER and he made won with armies that other protoss' couldn't. Same with Stephano with max roaches.
MC and Stephano introduced those strategies to the metagame, so obviously they were the first ones to reap the benefits. Now they don't have the same success because everyone else has adapted the same strategies and counter-strategies were developed. And why are you bringing MC up when his existence only proves my original point regarding mechanical ability?
|
On July 29 2012 03:40 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 03:33 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 03:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 03:28 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 03:24 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 03:21 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 03:15 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:54 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 02:38 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote:
Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right. You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics. I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity". Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech) You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle. Obviously, pro players are good enough to play many styles. But they still have strong suits. And when you are playing against the top players, the difference is so slight that every little thing matters. Back in July 2011 Polt's strengths used to be his micro and positioning. Today it is micro, positioning, decision-making, and macro. Before his wrist problems Mvp was strong in every aspect of the game. Your statement is true in light of all the upsets that regularly occur in the Korean scene, which only reinforces my point. And when MVP dominated TvT, he was mainly meching. If it was so superior, why did terrans still go bio/ bio tank? It is not just easy as saying "Well, this map is good for mech so I will mech". They dropped it because of the BFH nerf, which was a foolish knee-jerk reaction that stagnated mech play for years. Today people say mech is ass because no one has found much success with it. But no one has found much success with it because no one will put in the effort to get good with it. Marine-tank and MMM are much easier to play. Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 03:33 vthree wrote:
Look in MC. He dominated with his 2 base all-ins (he could play macro as well). But why weren't other protoss finding equal success with 2 base (although many protoss are getting better). MC's forcefields and micro were just BETTER and he made won with armies that other protoss' couldn't. Same with Stephano with max roaches.
MC and Stephano introduced those strategies to the metagame, so obviously they were the first ones to reap the benefits. Now they don't have the same success because everyone else has adapted the same strategies and counter-strategies were developed. And why are you bringing MC up when his existence only proves my original point regarding mechanical ability?
Have you seen MC's 2012 earnings? Yeah, other toss are doing 2 base and zergs are countering. But MC still has a lot of success. Actually, I am not sure what your arguement is at all.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 29 2012 03:46 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 03:40 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 03:33 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 03:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 03:28 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 03:24 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 03:21 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 03:15 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 29 2012 02:54 vthree wrote:On July 29 2012 02:38 CosmicSpiral wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right. You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics. I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity". Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech) You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle. Obviously, pro players are good enough to play many styles. But they still have strong suits. And when you are playing against the top players, the difference is so slight that every little thing matters. Back in July 2011 Polt's strengths used to be his micro and positioning. Today it is micro, positioning, decision-making, and macro. Before his wrist problems Mvp was strong in every aspect of the game. Your statement is true in light of all the upsets that regularly occur in the Korean scene, which only reinforces my point. And when MVP dominated TvT, he was mainly meching. If it was so superior, why did terrans still go bio/ bio tank? It is not just easy as saying "Well, this map is good for mech so I will mech". They dropped it because of the BFH nerf, which was a foolish knee-jerk reaction that stagnated mech play for years. Today people say mech is ass because no one has found much success with it. But no one has found much success with it because no one will put in the effort to get good with it. Marine-tank and MMM are much easier to play. On July 29 2012 03:33 vthree wrote:
Look in MC. He dominated with his 2 base all-ins (he could play macro as well). But why weren't other protoss finding equal success with 2 base (although many protoss are getting better). MC's forcefields and micro were just BETTER and he made won with armies that other protoss' couldn't. Same with Stephano with max roaches.
MC and Stephano introduced those strategies to the metagame, so obviously they were the first ones to reap the benefits. Now they don't have the same success because everyone else has adapted the same strategies and counter-strategies were developed. And why are you bringing MC up when his existence only proves my original point regarding mechanical ability? Have you seen MC's 2012 earnings? Yeah, other toss are doing 2 base and zergs are countering. But MC still has a lot of success. Actually, I am not sure what your arguement is at all.
Original argument went like this:
- Maps are not imbalanced against races, only strategies.
- Bringing up skill sets as an explanation is relevant but not justifiable since players can change their own skill sets over time.
- Popular conception of certain players' skill sets is exaggerated as they only refer to the past. Today the average mechanical skill is so much higher than the days when MMA and MC became famous for certain skills. Everyone can macro/micro/multitask well.
- The MC and Stephano examples are red herrings. Their success with certain strategies was based on introducing said strategies, so obviously they were the masters of said strategies for a long time.
MC still places highly in many events since he is a good all-around player now. Do not forget his horrendous PvZ slump during summer 2011 and why it occurred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
