EPTYou thought Heart was going to defeat Hyun?
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 1142
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
sibs
635 Posts
You thought Heart was going to defeat Hyun? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 14 2014 09:26 DinoMight wrote: Add Scarlett vs Heart and Hyun vs Heart from WCS AM to that list and its 13-4. I guess there's no sense in arguing this. No number of games will be a "large enough sample size" and even when there are enough games I'm sure TheDwf can think of a thousand reasons why each Zerg lost. Snute drones to 80... maybe because he feels its the only way he has a chance of winning later in the game? Hyun goes for a Roach Bane allin because... the game is imbalanced and he needs to try and find an edge? Etc. You can go on forever justifying why XYZ happened. But at the end of the day top Zergs cannot beat top Terrans in Bo5+. But you're right, Zerg players just need to adapt and "l2p brah." DWF did not analyze Zerg play as a whole, he analyzed the games in question that people are putting full stock into. He is showing that the individual games were lost by the decisions and execution of the players and not the design of the race. He is putting in context the exact reasons why he does not see those games as proof I imbalance. If you honestly believe that those games are good examples of imbalance, then make your claim. So far you have a low win/loss sample versus DWF's multiple game analysis. Which do you think is more credible? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25115 Posts
On October 14 2014 09:37 sibs wrote: It's more than just 17 series though. You thought Heart was going to defeat Hyun? Surprised me, but according to those more in the know than me Heart has been grinding practice in Korea for quite some time and has become especially excellent at TvZ | ||
|
antiRW
United Kingdom117 Posts
On October 14 2014 09:35 pure.Wasted wrote: You do realize that you're complaining that Snute didn't beat Flash, right? Snute. Flash. Last month. After patch. 3-2. It's like being upset that Thorzain loses 2-3 to herO one season back. You gotta pick your battles, man. When Terrans were losing to Protoss, Terrans had CONCRETE COMPLAINTS. Offer a concrete complaint and we'll have something to talk about. If you can't think of one, entertain the possibility that it's because there is no concrete complaint to be had. We have been there. Things mentioned were the very strong early game hellbat threats, which lead to Z not having enough economy to deal with later game confrontations. Or the nerfs to mass muta via buffing their counters. The problem is, if specific issues are brought up, other people will jump in dismissing those asking for numbers and reliable statistics. People need to stop thinking in binary terms or simplified models. Both the statistics and the individual games are important. As I have just shown, TvZ is currently between 55%-62% in favour of T at the very highest level of play across hundreds of games. You can just to conveniently ignore that fact, but it remains true. Now the questions are: Why is this current imbalance the case? And (how) will it sort itself out through metagame/adaption or not? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25115 Posts
Long term while being serious for a second we'll get more of an idea. We're already seeing Zergs experimenting IF Zergs continue to struggle, the Hellbat upgrade removal I'd maybe restore. Just a personal preference but I get sick of the removal of upgrades and aggressive builds having to be extremely well planned for them to prosper. Terrans can adjust small, difficult to scout/read things and turn what looks like a very standard macro build into a hyper aggressive hellbat play. Infrastructure of 2 engi bay + armoury, hellions for map control and scouting pokes. Hellbat pokes seem to hit really hard from a variety of situations, ESPECIALLY as a followup to a 2 rax when they are especially effective in smaller engagements. I think it's part of the reason we're seeing 2 rax builds being so successful as well of late, it's difficult as a Zerg to judge how greedy to be in the period after the 2 rax is deflected. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On October 14 2014 09:49 antiRW wrote: We have been there. Things mentioned were the very strong early game hellbat threats, which lead to Z not having enough economy to deal with later game confrontations. Can you go into more detail or link me to a post that does? Or the nerfs to mass muta via buffing their counters. The problem is, if specific issues are brought up, other people will jump in dismissing those asking for numbers and reliable statistics. Buffing Muta counters? The only thing that's been buffed apart from Thors, WMs, are exactly where they were in mid-2013 and Mutas did just fine then. Across the 5 TvZs that I remember vividly (Flash vs Snute, Flash vs Scarlett, Inno vs soO, Inno vs DRG, Soulkey vs Bbyong), one game had Thors repeatedly engaging Mutas and that was Bbyong vs Soulkey g1. And I dare to say that Bbyong's unique composition was more of a factor than the Thors' ability to auto-target Mutas. Now the questions are: Why is this current imbalance the case? And (how) will it sort itself out through metagame/adaption or not? The second question is unanswerable. All we can do is wait and see. We waited for almost a year with far more concrete concerns in TvP than we have in TvZ right now, some consistency could be nice. If the next two months don't show any improvement for Zerg, I'm 100% on board with Wombat about adding Transformation Servos back in. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 14 2014 09:26 DinoMight wrote: You can go on forever justifying why XYZ happened. But at the end of the day top Zergs cannot beat top Terrans in Bo5+. Well, let's check this on Aligulac with TvZ between Koreans since the patch...  Polt 3-2  viOLet (IEM Toronto Qualifiers)RagnaroK 3-0 Center (Dragon Invitational #4)Bogus 3-0 Life (Destiny I)KangHo 3-0 SalvatioN (Gisado 6)Polt 3-1 viOLet (Red Bull Detroit)TaeJa 3-1 viOLet (IEM Toronto)Journey 3-2 Revival (Olimo 5)HyuN 3-0 YoDa (MSI Beat It Qualifier) Rogue 3-2 GuMiho (MSI Beat It Qualifier) Bbyong 3-0 ByuL (MSI Beat It Qualifier) Dark 3-2 Maru (MSI Beat It Qualifier)Bogus 3-0 DRG (Code S)Cure 3-1 Solar (Code S) Rogue 3-1 GuMiho (MSI Beat It Qualifier) Journey 3-2 ByuL (MSI Beat It Qualifier) Armani 3-2 MarineKing (Olimo 7) RagnaroK 3-2 KeeN (Leifeng Cup 7) Impact 3-0 SuperNova (Olimo September) Center 4-2 Impact (Olimo September) Center 3-1 Bboong (Leifeng Cup 14) FanTaSy 3-1 Armani (Olimo 8) Bogus 4-2 soO (Code S) KangHo 3-0 GuMiho (Leifeng Cup 16)YoDa 3-0 Golden (WCS EU) Hydra 3-0 Miso (Leifeng Cup 17) GuMiho 3-0 Solar (Leifeng Cup 20) Impact 3-1 MarineKing (Olimo 9)Heart 3-1 HyuN (WCS AM) TY 3-2 Dark (WECG Qualifier)(Total is  63  54. Made all of this by hand and it's quite late so feel free to correct any mistake.) | ||
|
r691175002
249 Posts
If you think we need a patch right before Blizzcon, and after watching only a month of gameplay, you are going to be disappointed. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On October 14 2014 09:59 Wombat_NI wrote: Hellbat pokes seem to hit really hard from a variety of situations, ESPECIALLY as a followup to a 2 rax when they are especially effective in smaller engagements. I think it's part of the reason we're seeing 2 rax builds being so successful as well of late, it's difficult as a Zerg to judge how greedy to be in the period after the 2 rax is deflected. This x 100. Before you could be fairly greedy after holding such a push. Now you can't really be sure. And because 2 rax gets Marines early instead of Reapers Z can't get OL in position to scout an Armory that you could have put anywhere to know if a Hellbat push is coming. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On October 14 2014 10:11 r691175002 wrote: I'm looking at aligulac right now and a Zerg is the #1 ranked player in the word, followed by a Protoss. In fact, PvZ is the most imbalanced matchup right now at 45%. PvT is Protoss favored, and TvZ is only out by two percent. If you think we need a patch right before Blizzcon, and after watching only a month of gameplay, you are going to be disappointed. A month? Patch came out in July. We've been watching T win everything since early August. | ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
On October 14 2014 09:37 sibs wrote: It's more than just 17 series though. You thought Heart was going to defeat Hyun? It certainly isn't a surprise, Heart has always had a knack for the matchup. | ||
|
antiRW
United Kingdom117 Posts
On October 14 2014 10:11 r691175002 wrote: I'm looking at aligulac right now and a Zerg is the #1 ranked player in the word, followed by a Protoss. In fact, PvZ is the most imbalanced matchup right now at 45%. PvT is Protoss favored, and TvZ is only out by two percent. If you think we need a patch right before Blizzcon, and after watching only a month of gameplay, you are going to be disappointed. Sorry, but your comment adds nothing. The current aligulac rates have been discussed 5-10 pages ago. There a reasons the current debate is focussed on more sophisticated metrics and individual or collection of games, and they are listed on the last 10 or so pages. If you take actual top level play into account, PvZ is slightly P favoured, PvT is slightly T favoured and TvZ is heavily T favoured. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On October 14 2014 04:30 Big J wrote: Personally, I'm just too stupid. I can barely remember to breath while typing! ... and there it is. Stubbornness. It is a shame when players from the race with better economy and mobility feel that they have the privilege of taking simple, head-on engagements and still trade cost-efficiently. I, for one, am glad Scarlett can no longer use mass banes without flanks and take out Bomber. ps. Big J , there's no need to be condescending when you don't have a straight answer to a straight question. | ||
|
pedduck
Thailand468 Posts
| ||
|
Maniak_
France305 Posts
On October 14 2014 11:50 plogamer wrote: It is a shame when players from the race with better economy and mobility feel that they have the privilege of taking simple, head-on engagements and still trade cost-efficiently. Yeah but they're terrans. You can't ask them to be logical. Then again, it's actually true in their case, so you can't really blame them. ps. Big J , there's no need to be condescending when you don't have a straight answer to a straight question. Yeah, condescension is supposed to be a terran ability. Others should not try to steal it. | ||
|
Maniak_
France305 Posts
On October 14 2014 12:20 pedduck wrote: I think we can look ahead to Lotv now, there is unlikely a major patch brfore that. For a major patch, clearly yes. Even a minor one has probably no chance of coming before next year anyway, between blizzcon and the next ladder season with its map pool unusable for any balance analysis. So no matter what, terrans will have their wish, the other races are going to have to deal with the current state of the game for quite some time. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On October 14 2014 12:50 Maniak_ wrote: Yeah but they're terrans. You can't ask them to be logical. Then again, it's actually true in their case, so you can't really blame them. Yeah, condescension is supposed to be a terran ability. Others should not try to steal it. Are you really serious that Terran economy and mobility is superior to Zergs in bio vs. ling/bane/muta? Snarky responses only makes it seem that there is no real response. | ||
|
ZombieFrog
United States87 Posts
On October 14 2014 13:01 plogamer wrote: Are you really serious that Terran economy and mobility is superior to Zergs in bio vs. ling/bane/muta? Snarky responses only makes it seem that there is no real response. Because making broad generalized statements about races is clearly better. For example, what does "better economy" mean? Terran can mine minerals faster than zerg on less bases with far less supply dedicated to worker count leaving extra supply for army compared to zerg. In addition, the longer the game goes the less they even need workers. In super late game scenarios terran players have sacrificed most of their scvs for supply, had only one mining base, and muled it so much that they mined at a rate that would take the other races 3 mining bases to equal. On the other hand zerg can expand easier and mine more gas, but that also means they must defend more bases and dedicate more supply to workers. Which is better? Well they're different. They're better at different things. One is not objectively a "better economy" in every situation. Same with mobility. Lings and mutas are fast, but there's no good way for zerg to drop or elevator units up and down ledges or pick up in the middle of a fight. Again, they are different, one is not "superior mobility" Your broad generalized and wrong statements are just as snarky and condescending as the ones you supposedly don't like. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On October 14 2014 13:24 ZombieFrog wrote: Because making broad generalized statements about races is clearly better. For example, what does "better economy" mean? Terran can mine minerals faster than zerg on less bases with far less supply dedicated to worker count leaving extra supply for army compared to zerg. In addition, the longer the game goes the less they even need workers. In super late game scenarios terran players have sacrificed most of their scvs for supply, had only one mining base, and muled it so much that they mined at a rate that would take the other races 3 mining bases to equal. On the other hand zerg can expand easier and mine more gas, but that also means they must defend more bases and dedicate more supply to workers. Which is better? Well they're different. They're better at different things. One is not objectively a "better economy" in every situation. Same with mobility. Lings and mutas are fast, but there's no good way for zerg to drop or elevator units up and down ledges or pick up in the middle of a fight. Again, they are different, one is not "superior mobility" Your broad generalized and wrong statements are just as snarky and condescending as the ones you supposedly don't like. Look at the harvester count in most TvZ without any real pressure or harass. The only way is for Terrans to keep up with Zerg econ is to take a huge risk with 3cc; and that is very vulnerable to roach busts. Drop elevator is a move that is only viable at certain sections of a map, and have you seen the speed at which units drop from medivacs? It's not possible to hastily elevator an entire army with just a couple of medivacs while Zerg army is barreling down. None of the responses above directly answer this simple question, why no flanks? Patches have indeed changed the game, but the gameplay from even a top Zerg like soO reeks of nerfed mine mentality. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 14 2014 10:42 antiRW wrote: Sorry, but your comment adds nothing. The current aligulac rates have been discussed 5-10 pages ago. There a reasons the current debate is focussed on more sophisticated metrics and individual or collection of games, and they are listed on the last 10 or so pages. If you take actual top level play into account, PvZ is slightly P favoured, PvT is slightly T favoured and TvZ is heavily T favoured. It adds a whole lot. Your metric is only relevant to the subset you demarcated. When discussing the totality of TvZ the whole of Aligulac is necessary. The arbitrary demarcation you placed simply allows us to compare a certain subset of players to each other, with the assumption that those subset of players are representative of the greater whole (or, more accurately, representative of the potential limits of the races as a whole) However, when discussing the balance of the matchup in a totality as opposed to a representative minority, Aligulac is definitely more accurate than your system. But your system is more relevant when asking how well player X does in metagame Y. | ||
| ||
