|
On September 04 2014 23:27 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +All 3 races go back to their base to build buildings. Terran has to do it a few times more to swap add-ons, Protoss has to do it the most just for unit production. Terran can isolate their entire base, Zerg needs to spread creep, Protoss needs correct placement of pylons in order to be active around the map forcing then to hold and defend terrain based where they want the pylon. Terran drops 8 marines to destroy a mineral line automatically, Protoss has to make 5-6 Phoenix's and literally have to click each individual worker they need to kill at 10x the cost of marine drop. I know what your talking about, but when a race generally is forced/rewarded for being more active on the map, then most people will consider that as a mechanically part (not strategically). Strategically hard would be more about whether your rewarded for good decision-making in the game.
So that's the gray area then?
When does strategic decisions become mechanical play? To me those are separate things. You decide to move out with troops, or you decide to stay home. You decide to attack, or you decide to defend, etc...
Mechanics, to me, are the physical actions you need to do regularly. Making workers, units, buildings, moving units, etc... The act of clicking, tapping, looking--that to me is mechanics. Choosing an aggressive or defensive stance, to me, is strategic: and I've already said that Protoss is strategically more proactive since they dictate unit composition.
Is that where we're getting bogged down?
|
Aligulac list 118.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mpO5wqJ.png)
Here's the second list after the patch. Let's first look at winrates.
P has clawed back a bit against T (47% versus the previous 45%). P has also lost the same amount of percentage points against Z (47% versus the previous 49%). T significantly improved its result versus Z (56% versus the previous 50%). It should also be noticed (according to preliminary results posted in the thread) that in the beginning of the period the winrates were further away from 50%, while later games allowed both P and Z to make up several percentage points.
It has to be noted, though, that there were only ~1/3 of the games that you usually see in an Aligulac list due to the holidays. So all winrates need to be taken with an even greater bit of salt than usually. (With these low numbers a single 4-0 results in a full percentage point swing).
As for population numbers, they continue to even out. TvTs make up 80% of PvPs while previously they made up 68%. Albeit TvTs make up 46% of ZvZs while last time they made up 58% of ZvZs. And PvPs make up 56% of ZvZs while they previously made up 85% of ZvZs. So ZvZ numbers are on the rise again (Z improved against P both in terms of winrate and population) but the numbers are still in the same ballpark as last time, rather than showing differences of multiple times as before the patch.
On August 21 2014 20:32 Ghanburighan wrote:Aligulac list 117. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9r04q4l.png) This time we have interesting results. The patch went through on the 25th of July, so both 116 and 117 are pertinent for our analysis. The first thing to notice, PvT has been consistently at ~45% since the patch. (Down from 48%, 52%, 52%, 50%, 46% in previous lists). TvZ has been hovering around 50%, which has roughly been the norm over all quoted lists (it sometimes dips to ~46% for short periods). PvZ has climbed back to ~50%, from a short 47% dip. Population numbers are becoming more even. TvTs make up 58% of the ZvZs, and PvPs 85% of ZvZs. TvTs also make up 68% of TvTs. This is a marked improvement from the time when there were for example 4x or 5x more ZvZs than TvTs (and smaller advantages for PvPs, still measured as nx). Population wise, there's also a non-significant improvement for P compared to Z. The conclusion from the first month after the balance change appears to be that T is doing better, but mostly with respect to games against P. Albeit, you could make the argument that as there are more terrans in tournaments, but the winrates against Z are equal, terrans are actually doing better, it's merely weaker terrans that are losing more. What's clearly the case is that we can no longer count how many times more ZvZs and PvPs there are than TvTs. Anyone who actually watched the games should comment further. Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 05:03 Ghanburighan wrote:Aligulac list 116. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mqKrKFk.png) Regarding winrates, T had an edge against P, and a very small edge against T. PvZ is even. Regarding populations, there were only about twice as many PvPs as TvTs and 2.5x ZvZs as TvTs, so there's improvement. On July 24 2014 15:32 Ghanburighan wrote:While we're looking at winrates, here's another Aligulac list: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6zp9WrK.png) Just looking at winrates, PvT is rather even, and so is PvZ but TvZ has gone down to the dumps again. On the other hand, the population numbers are the worst ever for Terran. It looks like T has a constant of around 100 games every period, but with the added number of games (last period has 1799 games, this one 3866), only Z and P seem to have added more mirrors. So there are 4.8x as many ZvZ as TvT, and 3.8x as many PvP as TvT. This also means that P has once again caught up with Z populations, last period it was 1.3 ZvZ for every 1 PvP, now it's 1.2. On July 10 2014 20:15 Ghanburighan wrote:Here's the latest Aligulac list (114) with pretty new formatting. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/280eKxW.png) With regard to P, nothing seems to have changed. Just like the first half of June, P>T by a slight margin, P and Z are roughly even, and there are roughly the same number of PvP MU's in tournaments. Z did worse in this period, while it was at >55% against T last time, it's now even in winrates. More importantly, looking at populations, while there were 5x more ZvZ than TvT, and 2x more ZvZ than PvP, then now there are only roughly 3x more ZvZ than TvT, and a just over a fourth more ZvZ than PvPs. This suggests that Z is doing worse, and it's mainly doing worse against T (note that worse doesn't imply that they're doing bad, this is a comparison with the previous period). Looking more closely at the population numbers, there appear to have been fewer games, the total for 114 is 1835 and for 113 it was 2379. So for the previous 113 list Z MUs made up 72% of all MUs. P MUs made up 55% (note that the overlap is due to the fact that P plays Z...). T MUs made up 36% of all MUs. In this list, 114, Z MUs made up 65% of all MUs. P MUs made up 57%. T MUs made up 42% of all MUs. So Z is down 7%, P is up 2% and T is up 6%. (with rounding) The previous lists can be found below. On June 29 2014 05:42 Ghanburighan wrote:Sorry for the delay, here's Aligulac 113.. The previous list(s) can be found at the end of this post. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Oc9x1bJ.png) Looking at the winrates, P has extended its advantage over T, P has also gained some ground back against Z, yet TvZ has strongly turned in Z favour once gain (it's as bad as it was before the hellbat patch in April). Population numbers are also worse. Previously there were 4x more ZvZ games than TvT games, now there are more than 5x. PvP's have not changed in number, so it's mostly just less terrans and more zergs getting further that's creating the problem. All in all, balance-wise this was a very depressing period. On June 12 2014 15:32 Ghanburighan wrote:Time to post the latest Aligulac list. The previous list can be found at the end of this post. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pKEYuFe.png) Regarding winrates, PvT has fluctuated back from T having a slight advantage to P having a minuscule advantage. In PvZ, P has also improved although it hasn't caught up with Z. On the other hand, T has improved in the TvZ MU (110 had 45%, 111 had 47%) and its even now. In terms of populations measured in numbers of mirror MUs, there's virtually no change compared to the last list, the proportions are very close. This means that there is no repopulation of terrans according to these numbers and there are 4 times fewer TvTs than ZvZs. As T MUs have even winrates, there cannot really be a repopulation with these numbers. Furthermore, a word of caution, I'd say that this was one of the best periods for Terran in a long while, Taeja won Hsc 9 (where Z had a comparatively weaker list of players), Maru is tearing up Code S, and Innovation is kicking as in teamleagues and the Dragon cup. I don't think they contributed overly much to the final winrates (their games are still a small fraction of all the games), but taken together they did contribute significantly. If they don't keep their winning ways going, winrates can plunge below 50% again. And, their wins aren't helping repopulate in any way. On May 29 2014 02:45 Ghanburighan wrote:Uploading the latest Aligulac list. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wem39XJ.png) Unfortunately there was a TvZ patch in the middle of the period, so those numbers could be anything now. But it looks like P is doing worse against Z in terms of winrate. But the population ratios haven't changed compared to the last list, though. It's still roughly 1/4 TvT, 2/4 PvP and 1/1 ZvZ.
|
On September 04 2014 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2014 23:27 Hider wrote:All 3 races go back to their base to build buildings. Terran has to do it a few times more to swap add-ons, Protoss has to do it the most just for unit production. Terran can isolate their entire base, Zerg needs to spread creep, Protoss needs correct placement of pylons in order to be active around the map forcing then to hold and defend terrain based where they want the pylon. Terran drops 8 marines to destroy a mineral line automatically, Protoss has to make 5-6 Phoenix's and literally have to click each individual worker they need to kill at 10x the cost of marine drop. I know what your talking about, but when a race generally is forced/rewarded for being more active on the map, then most people will consider that as a mechanically part (not strategically). Strategically hard would be more about whether your rewarded for good decision-making in the game. So that's the gray area then? When does strategic decisions become mechanical play? To me those are separate things. You decide to move out with troops, or you decide to stay home. You decide to attack, or you decide to defend, etc... Mechanics, to me, are the physical actions you need to do regularly. Making workers, units, buildings, moving units, etc... The act of clicking, tapping, looking--that to me is mechanics. Choosing an aggressive or defensive stance, to me, is strategic: and I've already said that Protoss is strategically more proactive since they dictate unit composition. Is that where we're getting bogged down?
Mechancial = The execution of the decision.
Building workers isn't really a decision, but a mechanic, since it's something that's extremely obvious.
I think it can be estimated quite easily when a race or a composition is more mechanically demanding, and it's not just a race-thing. For instance most terrans will say that turtle-mech isn't a mechaically demanding playstyle (relative to bio).
However, with strategy, it goes to ways. If protoss can choose his unit composition, then terran needs to react to that, thus my overall opinion here is that all races have similar strategic skill-requirement.
|
On September 05 2014 00:11 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2014 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 04 2014 23:27 Hider wrote:All 3 races go back to their base to build buildings. Terran has to do it a few times more to swap add-ons, Protoss has to do it the most just for unit production. Terran can isolate their entire base, Zerg needs to spread creep, Protoss needs correct placement of pylons in order to be active around the map forcing then to hold and defend terrain based where they want the pylon. Terran drops 8 marines to destroy a mineral line automatically, Protoss has to make 5-6 Phoenix's and literally have to click each individual worker they need to kill at 10x the cost of marine drop. I know what your talking about, but when a race generally is forced/rewarded for being more active on the map, then most people will consider that as a mechanically part (not strategically). Strategically hard would be more about whether your rewarded for good decision-making in the game. So that's the gray area then? When does strategic decisions become mechanical play? To me those are separate things. You decide to move out with troops, or you decide to stay home. You decide to attack, or you decide to defend, etc... Mechanics, to me, are the physical actions you need to do regularly. Making workers, units, buildings, moving units, etc... The act of clicking, tapping, looking--that to me is mechanics. Choosing an aggressive or defensive stance, to me, is strategic: and I've already said that Protoss is strategically more proactive since they dictate unit composition. Is that where we're getting bogged down? Mechancial = The execution of the decision. Building workers isn't really a decision, but a mechanic, since it's something that's extremely obvious. I think it can be estimated quite easily when a race or a composition is more mechanically demanding, and it's not just a race-thing. For instance most terrans will say that turtle-mech isn't a mechaically demanding playstyle (relative to bio). However, with strategy, it goes to ways. If protoss can choose his unit composition, then terran needs to react to that, thus my overall opinion here is that all races have similar strategic skill-requirement.
To me mechanics = the efficiency of your user input = clicking the right units, giving them the right orders, queing up the right units at the right times. Basically not wasting any actions or doing anything out of order of efficiency. Using location hotkeys instead of map scrolling. Making workers is def part of your strategy as there are a lot of builds that require you to start/stop workers at the right times including squeezing them in as possible while you power up tech or an army.
|
Mechanics just refers to the level of non strategic skill you have in a game. That's it. If someone uses 15 times as many actions as flash to get the same result he has the same mechanical ability, despite being horrendously inefficient. The efficiency part comes about because for the most part most pro players dont get above 450-500 apm sustained, so mechanical results becomes dramatically better with improved efficiency rather then a few more apm. See innovation compared to yoda.
Nothing lives in a vacuum though, so we have to realise that if a certain playstyle is almost required to be successful at the game, then that playstyle becomes the benchmark of how mechanical the race is.
It's why phrases like "terran requires more apm" come about, because while 3 base siege tank + viking turtle a la avilo is about as mechanically demanding as 3 base sky toss as is 3 base swarmhost turtle, these are all exceptions, while 3 base bio parade pushing is the standard tvz and pretty similar in tvp.
No matter how you slice it, sitting in your base for 13 minutes while waiting for a composition, and getting punished if you go outside these rules, simply makes protoss far less demanding.
|
Also, maybe I'm alone in feeling this way but this is the best place the game has ever been in my opinion.
|
On September 06 2014 18:16 bo1b wrote:
Also, maybe I'm alone in feeling this way but this is the best place the game has ever been in my opinion.
Flux? It feels a bit like some time in the HotS beta when everything was changing massively, and a lot of different options were semi-viable.
|
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game.
|
On September 07 2014 01:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game.
While you have a point, I think it's taken a little far to the extreme. You can say whatever you want about player choice, but certain styles are bound to be notably less effective than others. For example, in PvT, you could be rank 1-2 masters if you open colossus each time. But if you open templar, you might hover around rank 10-12 masters. Which is a decently notable jump, considering a rank 1 masters should beat a rank 10 masters 90% of the time, I'd garner.
|
On September 07 2014 06:34 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 01:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game. While you have a point, I think it's taken a little far to the extreme. You can say whatever you want about player choice, but certain styles are bound to be notably less effective than others. For example, in PvT, you could be rank 1-2 masters if you open colossus each time. But if you open templar, you might hover around rank 10-12 masters. Which is a decently notable jump, considering a rank 1 masters should beat a rank 10 masters 90% of the time, I'd garner.
I was responding to b1ob's comment that sitting and turtling with terran being effective as being the exception, and not the norm. The truth is that play style being the thing holding you back isn't a thing until you get to the top percentage points of the population. The exact opposite of what he's talking about. Only 2% of a population gets to be masters. And only a small percent of those gets to be rank 1 masters instead of rank 10 masters. And only a small percentage of that is when you can start legitimately saying "Terran can't mech ever" and even then, there will be a few GM players still doing it.
That is not to say that there is a reason Maru is considered the best Terran in the world while Flash is only a "very very good terran" and it all has to do with the fact that Maru is much better at the kinetic, mechanics focused playstyle that people in this thread is complaining about. But the truth is that with enough practice, you can beat 98%-99% of starcraft players durdling with Terran. For MAJORITY of players, myself included, Terran does not HAVE to be proactive and click-happy ala Maru.
I happen to find Terran play much easier mechanically than Protoss play. But I also play protoss like I play Terran and Zerg. Highly aggressive, and always on the map. Its hard to be out on the map hitting multiple areas while constantly warping in reinforcements either from a forward pylon, active prism, or to defend a drop/runby. Sure if I sit in my base and just twiddle my thumbs until max supply Protoss would be easy to play. But then, so would Terran if I played Terran that way.
For 98%-99% of all Starcraft2 players, the race being mechanically difficult or easy is a choice.
|
On September 07 2014 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 06:34 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 01:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game. While you have a point, I think it's taken a little far to the extreme. You can say whatever you want about player choice, but certain styles are bound to be notably less effective than others. For example, in PvT, you could be rank 1-2 masters if you open colossus each time. But if you open templar, you might hover around rank 10-12 masters. Which is a decently notable jump, considering a rank 1 masters should beat a rank 10 masters 90% of the time, I'd garner. I was responding to b1ob's comment that sitting and turtling with terran being effective as being the exception, and not the norm. The truth is that play style being the thing holding you back isn't a thing until you get to the top percentage points of the population. The exact opposite of what he's talking about. Only 2% of a population gets to be masters. And only a small percent of those gets to be rank 1 masters instead of rank 10 masters. And only a small percentage of that is when you can start legitimately saying "Terran can't mech ever" and even then, there will be a few GM players still doing it. That is not to say that there is a reason Maru is considered the best Terran in the world while Flash is only a "very very good terran" and it all has to do with the fact that Maru is much better at the kinetic, mechanics focused playstyle that people in this thread is complaining about. But the truth is that with enough practice, you can beat 98%-99% of starcraft players durdling with Terran. For MAJORITY of players, myself included, Terran does not HAVE to be proactive and click-happy ala Maru. I happen to find Terran play much easier mechanically than Protoss play. But I also play protoss like I play Terran and Zerg. Highly aggressive, and always on the map. Its hard to be out on the map hitting multiple areas while constantly warping in reinforcements either from a forward pylon, active prism, or to defend a drop/runby. Sure if I sit in my base and just twiddle my thumbs until max supply Protoss would be easy to play. But then, so would Terran if I played Terran that way. For 98%-99% of all Starcraft2 players, the race being mechanically difficult or easy is a choice.
Can be summed up as wrong. Why? See tournaments. Across master and grandmaster. See tournaments in NA profession, EU profession and KR profession. Mech isn't viable and an Outboxer win of BByong with a hidden island expansion doesn't certainly make it viable.
Not viable means: It cannot be standard, while bio can. And thats for a reason. Can I take games off of grandmasters with mech? Certainly. Can it be standard and I be a successful player in TvP? Nope. See GoOdy as prime example. He belongs to these 2% .. hell he belongs to the 1% that is not place 1 master but even grandmaster. Certainly he loses against way lesser skilled people in TvP because he playes mech and mech is (at least in PvT) easily countered and crushed.
I don't know if you don't want to or simply do not realize this.
|
On September 07 2014 20:19 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 07 2014 06:34 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 01:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game. While you have a point, I think it's taken a little far to the extreme. You can say whatever you want about player choice, but certain styles are bound to be notably less effective than others. For example, in PvT, you could be rank 1-2 masters if you open colossus each time. But if you open templar, you might hover around rank 10-12 masters. Which is a decently notable jump, considering a rank 1 masters should beat a rank 10 masters 90% of the time, I'd garner. I was responding to b1ob's comment that sitting and turtling with terran being effective as being the exception, and not the norm. The truth is that play style being the thing holding you back isn't a thing until you get to the top percentage points of the population. The exact opposite of what he's talking about. Only 2% of a population gets to be masters. And only a small percent of those gets to be rank 1 masters instead of rank 10 masters. And only a small percentage of that is when you can start legitimately saying "Terran can't mech ever" and even then, there will be a few GM players still doing it. That is not to say that there is a reason Maru is considered the best Terran in the world while Flash is only a "very very good terran" and it all has to do with the fact that Maru is much better at the kinetic, mechanics focused playstyle that people in this thread is complaining about. But the truth is that with enough practice, you can beat 98%-99% of starcraft players durdling with Terran. For MAJORITY of players, myself included, Terran does not HAVE to be proactive and click-happy ala Maru. I happen to find Terran play much easier mechanically than Protoss play. But I also play protoss like I play Terran and Zerg. Highly aggressive, and always on the map. Its hard to be out on the map hitting multiple areas while constantly warping in reinforcements either from a forward pylon, active prism, or to defend a drop/runby. Sure if I sit in my base and just twiddle my thumbs until max supply Protoss would be easy to play. But then, so would Terran if I played Terran that way. For 98%-99% of all Starcraft2 players, the race being mechanically difficult or easy is a choice. Can be summed up as wrong. Why? See tournaments. Across master and grandmaster. See tournaments in NA profession, EU profession and KR profession. Mech isn't viable and an Outboxer win of BByong with a hidden island expansion doesn't certainly make it viable. Not viable means: It cannot be standard, while bio can. And thats for a reason. Can I take games off of grandmasters with mech? Certainly. Can it be standard and I be a successful player in TvP? Nope. See GoOdy as prime example. He belongs to these 2% .. hell he belongs to the 1% that is not place 1 master but even grandmaster. Certainly he loses against way lesser skilled people in TvP because he playes mech and mech is (at least in PvT) easily countered and crushed. I don't know if you don't want to or simply do not realize this.
How does that contradict my statement that playing mech as terran does not hold you back until you are in the top 1%-2% where it matters? If Goody can get to GM on bad mechanics and meching alone, so can anyone. So can 99% of the player base. The only time where playing a held back, non-proactive terran play style holds you back is if you're in the top 1%-2% of players--much like you pointed out.
Hence, by definition, it is not niche nor is it bad form to play that style below pro level.
For much the same reason you can get very high playing a proactive protoss style that doesn't just sit there and turtle.
The mechanical limitations people talk about is not relevant until you get to GSL levels of game play, which majority of the player base does not fit in.
|
On September 08 2014 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 20:19 NarutO wrote:On September 07 2014 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 07 2014 06:34 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 01:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game. While you have a point, I think it's taken a little far to the extreme. You can say whatever you want about player choice, but certain styles are bound to be notably less effective than others. For example, in PvT, you could be rank 1-2 masters if you open colossus each time. But if you open templar, you might hover around rank 10-12 masters. Which is a decently notable jump, considering a rank 1 masters should beat a rank 10 masters 90% of the time, I'd garner. I was responding to b1ob's comment that sitting and turtling with terran being effective as being the exception, and not the norm. The truth is that play style being the thing holding you back isn't a thing until you get to the top percentage points of the population. The exact opposite of what he's talking about. Only 2% of a population gets to be masters. And only a small percent of those gets to be rank 1 masters instead of rank 10 masters. And only a small percentage of that is when you can start legitimately saying "Terran can't mech ever" and even then, there will be a few GM players still doing it. That is not to say that there is a reason Maru is considered the best Terran in the world while Flash is only a "very very good terran" and it all has to do with the fact that Maru is much better at the kinetic, mechanics focused playstyle that people in this thread is complaining about. But the truth is that with enough practice, you can beat 98%-99% of starcraft players durdling with Terran. For MAJORITY of players, myself included, Terran does not HAVE to be proactive and click-happy ala Maru. I happen to find Terran play much easier mechanically than Protoss play. But I also play protoss like I play Terran and Zerg. Highly aggressive, and always on the map. Its hard to be out on the map hitting multiple areas while constantly warping in reinforcements either from a forward pylon, active prism, or to defend a drop/runby. Sure if I sit in my base and just twiddle my thumbs until max supply Protoss would be easy to play. But then, so would Terran if I played Terran that way. For 98%-99% of all Starcraft2 players, the race being mechanically difficult or easy is a choice. Can be summed up as wrong. Why? See tournaments. Across master and grandmaster. See tournaments in NA profession, EU profession and KR profession. Mech isn't viable and an Outboxer win of BByong with a hidden island expansion doesn't certainly make it viable. Not viable means: It cannot be standard, while bio can. And thats for a reason. Can I take games off of grandmasters with mech? Certainly. Can it be standard and I be a successful player in TvP? Nope. See GoOdy as prime example. He belongs to these 2% .. hell he belongs to the 1% that is not place 1 master but even grandmaster. Certainly he loses against way lesser skilled people in TvP because he playes mech and mech is (at least in PvT) easily countered and crushed. I don't know if you don't want to or simply do not realize this. How does that contradict my statement that playing mech as terran does not hold you back until you are in the top 1%-2% where it matters? If Goody can get to GM on bad mechanics and meching alone, so can anyone. So can 99% of the player base. The only time where playing a held back, non-proactive terran play style holds you back is if you're in the top 1%-2% of players--much like you pointed out. Hence, by definition, it is not niche nor is it bad form to play that style below pro level. For much the same reason you can get very high playing a proactive protoss style that doesn't just sit there and turtle. The mechanical limitations people talk about is not relevant until you get to GSL levels of game play, which majority of the player base does not fit in.
Its relevant to this thread because its the designated balance discussion thread and balance happens and the very top. Yes you can play turtle mech and while its less mechanically demanding, its equally less rewarding. Do you see what people point it out? Protoss can and will use their style that is based on being defensive because their race design allows it and its rewarding for them.
Also, I don't really feel like a gateway style of Protoss is mechanically demanding compared to Terran and I've played both races. The only choice I see is the choice you make between Protoss and Terran. Both can play active and reactive, but the benefit of Terran to play reactive is nonexistent.
Also, I want Starcraft to be a successful eSports thus I don't really care about lower levels or even masters, I care about the prolevel. If you want to discuss design etc, this is not the place to do it.
|
On September 08 2014 03:17 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2014 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 07 2014 20:19 NarutO wrote:On September 07 2014 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 07 2014 06:34 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 01:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game. While you have a point, I think it's taken a little far to the extreme. You can say whatever you want about player choice, but certain styles are bound to be notably less effective than others. For example, in PvT, you could be rank 1-2 masters if you open colossus each time. But if you open templar, you might hover around rank 10-12 masters. Which is a decently notable jump, considering a rank 1 masters should beat a rank 10 masters 90% of the time, I'd garner. I was responding to b1ob's comment that sitting and turtling with terran being effective as being the exception, and not the norm. The truth is that play style being the thing holding you back isn't a thing until you get to the top percentage points of the population. The exact opposite of what he's talking about. Only 2% of a population gets to be masters. And only a small percent of those gets to be rank 1 masters instead of rank 10 masters. And only a small percentage of that is when you can start legitimately saying "Terran can't mech ever" and even then, there will be a few GM players still doing it. That is not to say that there is a reason Maru is considered the best Terran in the world while Flash is only a "very very good terran" and it all has to do with the fact that Maru is much better at the kinetic, mechanics focused playstyle that people in this thread is complaining about. But the truth is that with enough practice, you can beat 98%-99% of starcraft players durdling with Terran. For MAJORITY of players, myself included, Terran does not HAVE to be proactive and click-happy ala Maru. I happen to find Terran play much easier mechanically than Protoss play. But I also play protoss like I play Terran and Zerg. Highly aggressive, and always on the map. Its hard to be out on the map hitting multiple areas while constantly warping in reinforcements either from a forward pylon, active prism, or to defend a drop/runby. Sure if I sit in my base and just twiddle my thumbs until max supply Protoss would be easy to play. But then, so would Terran if I played Terran that way. For 98%-99% of all Starcraft2 players, the race being mechanically difficult or easy is a choice. Can be summed up as wrong. Why? See tournaments. Across master and grandmaster. See tournaments in NA profession, EU profession and KR profession. Mech isn't viable and an Outboxer win of BByong with a hidden island expansion doesn't certainly make it viable. Not viable means: It cannot be standard, while bio can. And thats for a reason. Can I take games off of grandmasters with mech? Certainly. Can it be standard and I be a successful player in TvP? Nope. See GoOdy as prime example. He belongs to these 2% .. hell he belongs to the 1% that is not place 1 master but even grandmaster. Certainly he loses against way lesser skilled people in TvP because he playes mech and mech is (at least in PvT) easily countered and crushed. I don't know if you don't want to or simply do not realize this. How does that contradict my statement that playing mech as terran does not hold you back until you are in the top 1%-2% where it matters? If Goody can get to GM on bad mechanics and meching alone, so can anyone. So can 99% of the player base. The only time where playing a held back, non-proactive terran play style holds you back is if you're in the top 1%-2% of players--much like you pointed out. Hence, by definition, it is not niche nor is it bad form to play that style below pro level. For much the same reason you can get very high playing a proactive protoss style that doesn't just sit there and turtle. The mechanical limitations people talk about is not relevant until you get to GSL levels of game play, which majority of the player base does not fit in. Its relevant to this thread because its the designated balance discussion thread and balance happens and the very top. Yes you can play turtle mech and while its less mechanically demanding, its equally less rewarding. Do you see what people point it out? Protoss can and will use their style that is based on being defensive because their race design allows it and its rewarding for them. Also, I don't really feel like a gateway style of Protoss is mechanically demanding compared to Terran and I've played both races. The only choice I see is the choice you make between Protoss and Terran. Both can play active and reactive, but the benefit of Terran to play reactive is nonexistent. Also, I want Starcraft to be a successful eSports thus I don't really care about lower levels or even masters, I care about the prolevel. If you want to discuss design etc, this is not the place to do it.
Except this discussion your joining started with b1ob saying.
"It's why phrases like "terran requires more apm" come about, because while 3 base siege tank + viking turtle a la avilo is about as mechanically demanding as 3 base sky toss as is 3 base swarmhost turtle, these are all exceptions, while 3 base bio parade pushing is the standard tvz and pretty similar in tvp."
And showing that this statement is only true in top 1%-2% of the player base, the opposite of "these are all exceptions"
b1ob was responding to my discussion that I find toss more mechanically demanding, and saying that it is subjective which one is more mechanically demanding. That my anecdotal experience of finding toss mechanically demanding does not prove that toss is mechanically demanding. He tries to counter that by saying that passive terran being usable is an exception to the rule--but I was showing him that that is not true in the slightest.
Read through what I have talked about in the past few pages. That one's anecdotal experience of a race does not define it as being hard/easy *because* I find protoss mechanically hard, and I know that that is not a truism. The thread then spends the next few pages trying to prove me wrong by saying people *HAVE* to play terran aggressive and me showing that the only times terran *HAVE* to play aggressive is in the upper ranks of pro play. That defensive, passive terran play is usable for 98%-99% of the player base up to GM. PROVING that any random schmoe who isn't Maru or Cure does not have to play an aggressive terran style. That for 98%-99% of the playerbase, terran being more mechanically demanding is a choice in the player, not a forced issue by the race itself.
Maru being more succesful with an aggressive terran playstyle as opposed to a passive terran playstyle has no bearing on whether a lowbie like me has an easier time with race as opposed to another.
|
Northern Ireland25094 Posts
Mech is hard as hell for many to play as you really have to prepare for so many timings and eventualities that can kill you outright, especially against a Protoss with their litany of anti-meching options. Avilo/Goody style turtlemech is godawful to watch for many, and requires a lot of patience to play.
As ever your core logic and conclusions are reasonable. The idea that Terran have to play aggressively isn't coming from nowhere though. Inspiration, both in terms of motivating people to play and also in terms of builds comes from the pro scene. Few players I know don't take their builds and styles from referencing the higher level players, the overwhelming majority of which play bio.
So yeah Terrans can play passive mech styles way up until the top 1% of the playerbase and compete for sure, but if we take the way people actually play I don't see equivalent MMR Toss players having the same mechanical requirements as their Terran counterparts.
I mean I could invent a style of Protoss that revolved around microing 6 Warp Prisms full of Collosus Immortals and Templars and it's likely to be incredibly taxing, but outside of my own little world it doesn't really highlight anything in terms of the demands of playing each race in a relatively standard/optimal manner.
|
On September 07 2014 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 06:34 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 01:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game. While you have a point, I think it's taken a little far to the extreme. You can say whatever you want about player choice, but certain styles are bound to be notably less effective than others. For example, in PvT, you could be rank 1-2 masters if you open colossus each time. But if you open templar, you might hover around rank 10-12 masters. Which is a decently notable jump, considering a rank 1 masters should beat a rank 10 masters 90% of the time, I'd garner. I was responding to b1ob's comment that sitting and turtling with terran being effective as being the exception, and not the norm. The truth is that play style being the thing holding you back isn't a thing until you get to the top percentage points of the population. The exact opposite of what he's talking about. Only 2% of a population gets to be masters. And only a small percent of those gets to be rank 1 masters instead of rank 10 masters. And only a small percentage of that is when you can start legitimately saying "Terran can't mech ever" and even then, there will be a few GM players still doing it. That is not to say that there is a reason Maru is considered the best Terran in the world while Flash is only a "very very good terran" and it all has to do with the fact that Maru is much better at the kinetic, mechanics focused playstyle that people in this thread is complaining about. But the truth is that with enough practice, you can beat 98%-99% of starcraft players durdling with Terran. For MAJORITY of players, myself included, Terran does not HAVE to be proactive and click-happy ala Maru. I happen to find Terran play much easier mechanically than Protoss play. But I also play protoss like I play Terran and Zerg. Highly aggressive, and always on the map. Its hard to be out on the map hitting multiple areas while constantly warping in reinforcements either from a forward pylon, active prism, or to defend a drop/runby. Sure if I sit in my base and just twiddle my thumbs until max supply Protoss would be easy to play. But then, so would Terran if I played Terran that way. For 98%-99% of all Starcraft2 players, the race being mechanically difficult or easy is a choice.
Because it's still exactly what I stated - it is holding you back and you're failing to recognize that. If you go mech - TvP, you may plateau at platinum. Merely switching to bio may enable you to reach Diamond. The style in itself is simply less powerful and more vulnerable, and this holds true for the vast, vast majority of the player base. Nothing you're stating is getting around that fact - that you have to outplay your opponent to a more degree than you would normally have to, if you want to use it.
Avilo would also be considered in the top 1-2% so not sure why you're using him as an example.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
Pff, Terran has the same requirements as Protoss on bronze - diamond. Don't know about masters, because I am too lazy to learn proper timings and get away with my supply blocks  So for 98 % of players the race doesn't matter, what matters is the play style and your ability to spam.
Every time I play I have the ending APM at the score screen between 75 and 85. Yeah, I am one of those spoon low APM Protoss players who bores every one to death. But hell, every time I watch the replay I have the SAME eAPM as my opponent and I have the same APM during battles(hack, I have sometimes higher APM than Zerg when we play Muta-Phoenix wars). But I don't spam buttons, why should I? First 5 minutes I look at the nexus and from time to time I hit "e" button to build a probe. Then I concentrate on my supply and minerals/gas. That's all. My opponent usually spams like madman to build a hatchery, barracks, SCV, drone, you name it.
So, please, can we get the 98 % of low level players out of the discussion about who's race is the most demanding? I can play bio Terran with the same APM(aprox.) doing splits(ehm, coughs, ehm), Zerg is around 100, but I guess that's because of the larvae mechanics(e.g. s->zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz).
Yeah, I am low level player(diamond protoss, who occasionally plays with masters, team play random) and I played in every league there possible except for the masters and GM. I played in copper league making it into platinum back in WoL beta, and in every league it was the same - bullshit excuses when losing to a player, because he watches map better, he watches his supply better etc. In deep hells of low leagues it's all about macro and defending cheeses Hell, I am the same when I lose to swarm host play or mech Terran(because I don't know how to play against this style, TvP is pretty rare in EU diamond, there are only Zergs or what  )
|
Pff, Terran has the same requirements as Protoss on bronze - diamond. Don't know about masters, because I am too lazy to learn proper timings and get away with my supply blocks So for 98 % of players the race doesn't matter, what matters is the play style and your ability to spam.
I can also make up random facts without any arguments and state them as fact to support my claims.
Alternatively I could look at ladder statistics and try to make sense of those numbers which doesn't give any support at all to the idea that terran is just as easy for lower skill players than protoss.
|
On September 09 2014 14:39 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 07 2014 06:34 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 01:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game. While you have a point, I think it's taken a little far to the extreme. You can say whatever you want about player choice, but certain styles are bound to be notably less effective than others. For example, in PvT, you could be rank 1-2 masters if you open colossus each time. But if you open templar, you might hover around rank 10-12 masters. Which is a decently notable jump, considering a rank 1 masters should beat a rank 10 masters 90% of the time, I'd garner. I was responding to b1ob's comment that sitting and turtling with terran being effective as being the exception, and not the norm. The truth is that play style being the thing holding you back isn't a thing until you get to the top percentage points of the population. The exact opposite of what he's talking about. Only 2% of a population gets to be masters. And only a small percent of those gets to be rank 1 masters instead of rank 10 masters. And only a small percentage of that is when you can start legitimately saying "Terran can't mech ever" and even then, there will be a few GM players still doing it. That is not to say that there is a reason Maru is considered the best Terran in the world while Flash is only a "very very good terran" and it all has to do with the fact that Maru is much better at the kinetic, mechanics focused playstyle that people in this thread is complaining about. But the truth is that with enough practice, you can beat 98%-99% of starcraft players durdling with Terran. For MAJORITY of players, myself included, Terran does not HAVE to be proactive and click-happy ala Maru. I happen to find Terran play much easier mechanically than Protoss play. But I also play protoss like I play Terran and Zerg. Highly aggressive, and always on the map. Its hard to be out on the map hitting multiple areas while constantly warping in reinforcements either from a forward pylon, active prism, or to defend a drop/runby. Sure if I sit in my base and just twiddle my thumbs until max supply Protoss would be easy to play. But then, so would Terran if I played Terran that way. For 98%-99% of all Starcraft2 players, the race being mechanically difficult or easy is a choice. Because it's still exactly what I stated - it is holding you back and you're failing to recognize that. If you go mech - TvP, you may plateau at platinum. Merely switching to bio may enable you to reach Diamond. The style in itself is simply less powerful and more vulnerable, and this holds true for the vast, vast majority of the player base. Nothing you're stating is getting around that fact - that you have to outplay your opponent to a more degree than you would normally have to, if you want to use it. Avilo would also be considered in the top 1-2% so not sure why you're using him as an example.
Build order choice =\= player skill. Maru is not where he is today because he plays bio based Terran play. He's where he is today because he's ridiculously good. He'd still be better than everyone in the US if he was practicing mech play for as much and as long as he's been practicing bio play. But since he's in the GSL, build order actually matters. But low GM and below your build order is irrelevant and the only thing holding you back is player skill.
If your practice regiment playing mech only gets you to plat, your practice regiment playing bio will also get you to plat.
|
Just to add something to the conversation:
I am high terran diamond player,
almost every protoss i lose to has 50-60% winrate vs Protoss (PvP) or Zerg (PvZ), but each of them has 75-90% winrate in TvP.
I think that Protoss is easier to play and from that to be in an advantageous position also applies to diamond and maybe also Platinum
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
