|
On October 15 2014 04:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 03:37 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 03:27 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 03:19 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill. Well, imagine this scenario for example. One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy. If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious? When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it. That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game. In your example you talk about a mechanism that only starts working when you are at the top. If we translate that back in starcraft terms this would mean that basically you assume that there is a mechanic that top Terrans can use but others cant which gets only unlocked at the top. What would that be? Well, micro, for example. If you're automaton 1000, and you can 100% split every marine so it takes 2 banelings to kill it, you'll beat every Zerg. If you see the way Heart pre-splits his units and micros his fights vs. the way that scrub Terrans do, it's night and day. I think it's possible to say that once a Terran gets to a certain splitting/micro ability, Zerg can not cost efficiently engage him with the way units are currently designed. The same way that a car that's 5% faster can't be beaten once the driver reaches a certain skill level. I can't get costeffocient at my level either. If I find myself 3base vs 3base or 4base vs 4base I lose 90% of the time. Low Masters micro vs low Masters micro seems to be sufficient for that. But there are things you could do to improve your play. Macro harder and you'd win. The reason you look at the top level is that there are FAR fewer other things they can do besides micro harder. Less variables to look at. So you can say with more certainty "it's too hard for Zerg to engage cost effectively." If they based the balance on my Zerg for example, then soO would just make twice as much stuff and annihilate everyone. I think a lot of top level Koreans make massive macro and strategical mistakes. Too few workers, too many workers, not rebuilding workers. When talking Terrans in particular, many don't seem to have a clear plan when to take a 4th. And there are just massi e differences between Bomber constant macro and many others. Edit: not to make it a dick-contest. Same goes for zerg players. Lots of strategical and macro mistakes. The point is that there is a lot to improve for everyone, besides and including micro.
True everyone makes mistakes but I think you should expect to see far fewer mistakes from top Koreans than others. That's why they're top players.
Also, some of the things you see as mistakes, like "too many workers" are not mistakes per se. For example, Snute going to 80 drones may just be Snute taking a gamble he won't be allined because he knows that unless he has a huge economic advantage he can't win TvZ. I'm talking about mistakes like forgetting to lift a CC or not cancelling a hatchery that's about to die. Things where there is a clear right or wrong that you see foreigners do all the time.
|
On October 15 2014 05:01 Gwavajuice wrote:
Looking at what happens at top level is fine, but wouldn't it be a better way of spotting imbalances to actually check victories of lower level players against top players.
BL/infestors had it, with a culminating point of Sniper becoming a GSL champion.
Protoss had it, when guys coming from nowhere killed the best terrans in the world.
For the moment, all the terran titles went to the like of INnovation, MMA, Flash, Bomber, Taeja, who have been respected top terrans for many years.
I dont feel like this is really fair to those Protoss players... herO, sOs and San were all considered strong players, but they didn't become championship winners until Protoss was doing very well. Zest is a player who came almost out of nowhere during the era of Protoss domination, and is now (in my opinion) the strongest Protoss player around.
It is interesting that the same Terran players have been around for so long though. With the exception of the Kespa players, most of the tournament contender Terrans have been around since 2010 or early 2011.
|
On October 15 2014 05:23 Pursuit_ wrote:
It is interesting that the same Terran players have been around for so long though. With the exception of the Kespa players, most of the tournament contender Terrans have been around since 2010 or early 2011.
When Terran was also imba :p
|
On October 15 2014 05:10 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 04:45 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 03:37 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 03:27 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 03:19 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill. Well, imagine this scenario for example. One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy. If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious? When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it. That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game. In your example you talk about a mechanism that only starts working when you are at the top. If we translate that back in starcraft terms this would mean that basically you assume that there is a mechanic that top Terrans can use but others cant which gets only unlocked at the top. What would that be? Well, micro, for example. If you're automaton 1000, and you can 100% split every marine so it takes 2 banelings to kill it, you'll beat every Zerg. If you see the way Heart pre-splits his units and micros his fights vs. the way that scrub Terrans do, it's night and day. I think it's possible to say that once a Terran gets to a certain splitting/micro ability, Zerg can not cost efficiently engage him with the way units are currently designed. The same way that a car that's 5% faster can't be beaten once the driver reaches a certain skill level. I can't get costeffocient at my level either. If I find myself 3base vs 3base or 4base vs 4base I lose 90% of the time. Low Masters micro vs low Masters micro seems to be sufficient for that. But there are things you could do to improve your play. Macro harder and you'd win. The reason you look at the top level is that there are FAR fewer other things they can do besides micro harder. Less variables to look at. So you can say with more certainty "it's too hard for Zerg to engage cost effectively." If they based the balance on my Zerg for example, then soO would just make twice as much stuff and annihilate everyone. I think a lot of top level Koreans make massive macro and strategical mistakes. Too few workers, too many workers, not rebuilding workers. When talking Terrans in particular, many don't seem to have a clear plan when to take a 4th. And there are just massi e differences between Bomber constant macro and many others. Edit: not to make it a dick-contest. Same goes for zerg players. Lots of strategical and macro mistakes. The point is that there is a lot to improve for everyone, besides and including micro. True everyone makes mistakes but I think you should expect to see far fewer mistakes from top Koreans than others. That's why they're top players. Also, some of the things you see as mistakes, like "too many workers" are not mistakes per se. For example, Snute going to 80 drones may just be Snute taking a gamble he won't be allined because he knows that unless he has a huge economic advantage he can't win TvZ. I'm talking about mistakes like forgetting to lift a CC or not cancelling a hatchery that's about to die. Things where there is a clear right or wrong that you see foreigners do all the time.
Going to 80 drones vs a 2base all in has nothing to do with "needing an economy to play lategame". It's poor scouting/game reading. A massive mistake that deserves a loss.
Don't bring up poor examples to make a case, because this is the kind of stuff that lets people nitpick and ignore the argument you are trying to make.
|
On October 15 2014 05:10 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 04:45 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 03:37 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 03:27 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 03:19 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill. Well, imagine this scenario for example. One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy. If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious? When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it. That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game. In your example you talk about a mechanism that only starts working when you are at the top. If we translate that back in starcraft terms this would mean that basically you assume that there is a mechanic that top Terrans can use but others cant which gets only unlocked at the top. What would that be? Well, micro, for example. If you're automaton 1000, and you can 100% split every marine so it takes 2 banelings to kill it, you'll beat every Zerg. If you see the way Heart pre-splits his units and micros his fights vs. the way that scrub Terrans do, it's night and day. I think it's possible to say that once a Terran gets to a certain splitting/micro ability, Zerg can not cost efficiently engage him with the way units are currently designed. The same way that a car that's 5% faster can't be beaten once the driver reaches a certain skill level. I can't get costeffocient at my level either. If I find myself 3base vs 3base or 4base vs 4base I lose 90% of the time. Low Masters micro vs low Masters micro seems to be sufficient for that. But there are things you could do to improve your play. Macro harder and you'd win. The reason you look at the top level is that there are FAR fewer other things they can do besides micro harder. Less variables to look at. So you can say with more certainty "it's too hard for Zerg to engage cost effectively." If they based the balance on my Zerg for example, then soO would just make twice as much stuff and annihilate everyone. I think a lot of top level Koreans make massive macro and strategical mistakes. Too few workers, too many workers, not rebuilding workers. When talking Terrans in particular, many don't seem to have a clear plan when to take a 4th. And there are just massi e differences between Bomber constant macro and many others. Edit: not to make it a dick-contest. Same goes for zerg players. Lots of strategical and macro mistakes. The point is that there is a lot to improve for everyone, besides and including micro. True everyone makes mistakes but I think you should expect to see far fewer mistakes from top Koreans than others. That's why they're top players. Also, some of the things you see as mistakes, like "too many workers" are not mistakes per se. For example, Snute going to 80 drones may just be Snute taking a gamble he won't be allined because he knows that unless he has a huge economic advantage he can't win TvZ. I'm talking about mistakes like forgetting to lift a CC or not cancelling a hatchery that's about to die. Things where there is a clear right or wrong that you see foreigners do all the time.
I agree that tactical errors, unforced errors, and forced errors should all be judged differently.
|
On October 15 2014 05:26 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 05:23 Pursuit_ wrote:
It is interesting that the same Terran players have been around for so long though. With the exception of the Kespa players, most of the tournament contender Terrans have been around since 2010 or early 2011. When Terran was also imba :p
Sure, you would just expect them to drop off when Terran was doing poorly if they only rose because of 'Terran OP'. And I guess many did. But those who stuck with it were often able to win even during periods of Terran doing poorly, like Polt / Taeja / Maru for example all played in the very first GSL, and represented three of the strongest Terran performers in early 2014 when Terran was doing poorly vs Protoss. Dedication through hard times pays off.
|
Like not waypointing 5 full medivacs or rightclicking banelings on an OC that you dont even kill?
Like making 4 ebays or 2 roach warren?
Obviously such things happen to weaker players more often. That's the whole reason why a weaker player is a weaker player. Still happens to the best all the time.
Talking about droning to 80. That's standard. The mistake in those scenarios is not to scout that your opponent is allinning, not the droning. (You can find one of Dwf's post in every second LR thread with a ZvT saying "why is this Zerg not at 80drones already" - and I usually fully agree)
|
On October 15 2014 05:26 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 05:23 Pursuit_ wrote:
It is interesting that the same Terran players have been around for so long though. With the exception of the Kespa players, most of the tournament contender Terrans have been around since 2010 or early 2011. When Terran was also imba :p
Well, literally every Protoss contender from those days is still around. Bosstoss forever.
I guess for Zerg it looks grimmer. One of their two contenders has dropped off, but DRG is also still around.
|
On October 15 2014 04:27 sibs wrote:
Sure Impact has a better record, but then look against who he is playing, PsiARC/mkp/tangtang/uthermal? Really?
I had ruled out the non-Korean players, thank you; I don't have your dishonesty. As for MarineKing, he made 2 Olimo finals beating some Code S players on the road, so it's not like he's a total scrub. Still, looking at the games, I am able to see that he's inferior. Plus when someone blindly opens CC first into 3 rax Medivacs, entirely skipping Hellions, and loses to a Roach/Baneling bust, I'm not going to consider that Zerg win as particularly relevant for the state of the match-up. Same as when Flash plays bio/Hellbats and walks on creep against a 2 screens concave. See, this goes both ways...
someone has already analyzed only macro games here with biomine vs lingbling, the results were pretty much what is expected
Sorry, you refer to?
of course no one is going to analyze as many games as aligulac has on their database and I'd rather not get into rationalizations (which is what you like to do) or adding bias to the stats.
I apologize for looking at the actual content of the games in order to explain what happened. I forgot that blind winrates, with some snip of the scissors if needed, are so much better. Take this fabulous 50% TvP and 55% TvZ winrate in Code S season 2, for instance: for sure Terran was doing fine at the time!...
Whats your explanation for Terran winning 65% of premier tournaments since the patch, with many TvT finals?
I already said it... Peak of performance after a major patch, with the same old suspects (Bomber, Polt, MMA) winning + the absolute top of Terran KeSPA players (Bogus and Flash). If it continues like this, particularly for the first 2015 WCS season, you'll have ample data to justify a balance patch; until the next few tournaments occur it may be the usual hilarious overreactions from people who had already decided the race was OP 2 weeks after the patch anyway (if not before!).
But since we've already been through this, I can spoil you the end: I'm ready to bet that Terran will slowly decline until it becomes the third race again, much to the joy of people like you who think the race still has to pay for 2011. 
|
On October 15 2014 05:34 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 05:10 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 04:45 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 03:37 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 03:27 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 03:19 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill. Well, imagine this scenario for example. One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy. If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious? When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it. That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game. In your example you talk about a mechanism that only starts working when you are at the top. If we translate that back in starcraft terms this would mean that basically you assume that there is a mechanic that top Terrans can use but others cant which gets only unlocked at the top. What would that be? Well, micro, for example. If you're automaton 1000, and you can 100% split every marine so it takes 2 banelings to kill it, you'll beat every Zerg. If you see the way Heart pre-splits his units and micros his fights vs. the way that scrub Terrans do, it's night and day. I think it's possible to say that once a Terran gets to a certain splitting/micro ability, Zerg can not cost efficiently engage him with the way units are currently designed. The same way that a car that's 5% faster can't be beaten once the driver reaches a certain skill level. I can't get costeffocient at my level either. If I find myself 3base vs 3base or 4base vs 4base I lose 90% of the time. Low Masters micro vs low Masters micro seems to be sufficient for that. But there are things you could do to improve your play. Macro harder and you'd win. The reason you look at the top level is that there are FAR fewer other things they can do besides micro harder. Less variables to look at. So you can say with more certainty "it's too hard for Zerg to engage cost effectively." If they based the balance on my Zerg for example, then soO would just make twice as much stuff and annihilate everyone. I think a lot of top level Koreans make massive macro and strategical mistakes. Too few workers, too many workers, not rebuilding workers. When talking Terrans in particular, many don't seem to have a clear plan when to take a 4th. And there are just massi e differences between Bomber constant macro and many others. Edit: not to make it a dick-contest. Same goes for zerg players. Lots of strategical and macro mistakes. The point is that there is a lot to improve for everyone, besides and including micro. True everyone makes mistakes but I think you should expect to see far fewer mistakes from top Koreans than others. That's why they're top players. Also, some of the things you see as mistakes, like "too many workers" are not mistakes per se. For example, Snute going to 80 drones may just be Snute taking a gamble he won't be allined because he knows that unless he has a huge economic advantage he can't win TvZ. I'm talking about mistakes like forgetting to lift a CC or not cancelling a hatchery that's about to die. Things where there is a clear right or wrong that you see foreigners do all the time. Going to 80 drones vs a 2base all in has nothing to do with "needing an economy to play lategame". It's poor scouting/game reading. A massive mistake that deserves a loss. Don't bring up poor examples to make a case, because this is the kind of stuff that lets people nitpick and ignore the argument you are trying to make.
Ah I forgot it was a 2 base allin that he faced. I wasn't just referring to that ONE game though. Snute's said a few times that he feels he needs to really get his econ going early to beat T. So in that game it was a mistake obviously but the theme is that he feels he needs to gamble a little otherwise he comes out behind.
I was referring more to the difference between unforced errors and forced errors though differentiating top players from lower players. Mistakes like not having your Zealot on hold position, or not cancelling a hatchery that's about to die, or accidentally building 4 engineering bays.
You can't say Zerg is too weak against Terran when a guy is throwing away 300 minerals (well, a bit less but still). How about you react faster and cancel your hatch?
I think this is the post that reallys shows the imbalance:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/255254-designated-balance-discussion-thread?page=1139#22762
On October 14 2014 00:00 Swisslink wrote:
And yes, at the top level, Terran have quite a high win rate in general:
Terran:
INnoVation: 66.66%
Cure: 74%
Flash: 75%
Reality: 66.67%
Maru: 60%
(All the Terrans in Code S)
Zerg:
soO: 52.6%
DRG:45.45%
Solar: 62%
Soulkey: 54.55%
EffOrt: 72.73%
Life: 48%
TRUE: 40.9%
(All the Zerg in Code S Ro16 + Life because I like Life :-P )
No Code S Terran is below 60% in the matchup since the patch was released. Only 2 Zerg manage to be above 60%. One could of course include foreign Koreans... but that would most definitely not help the Zerg :-P
EffOrt and Solar... no idea where they got all those wins. In GSL Solar won 1 map against Terran, EffOrt not a single one.
I think there is a clear imbalance in TvZ right now at the top level, but I'm okay with giving things a little bit more time to see if Zergs can find a way to win again.
The biggest reason for this is probably over-patching of the game by Blizzard...
Like TheDwf said if this persists through season 1 of wcs or so I'd recommend some changes to the matchup.
|
On October 15 2014 05:01 Gwavajuice wrote:
Looking at what happens at top level is fine, but wouldn't it be a better way of spotting imbalances to actually check victories of lower level players against top players.
BL/infestors had it, with a culminating point of Sniper becoming a GSL champion.
Protoss had it, when guys coming from nowhere killed the best terrans in the world.
For the moment, all the terran titles went to the like of INnovation, MMA, Flash, Bomber, Taeja, who have been respected top terrans for many years.
This. Please let me know when foreign/or unknown Terrans start tearing down Korean champions from the other races.
Foreigner-Korean skill-gap has decreased since the days of GomTvT. So foreign Terrans should be taking games from top Koreans, judging by the level of complaints in this thread.
On October 14 2014 17:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2014 16:12 plogamer wrote:On October 14 2014 15:07 Big J wrote:On October 14 2014 11:50 plogamer wrote:On October 14 2014 04:30 Big J wrote:On October 14 2014 04:11 plogamer wrote:On October 13 2014 23:40 antiRW wrote:On October 13 2014 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2014 23:16 Big J wrote:On October 13 2014 22:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Then why does Zerg win more often than Terran does according to aligulac? Sorry, but most of the stats of aligulac are not interesting for the highest level of balance. Even if it is only 50% it is a big problem if we judge balance by this. Here are the stats of all the tournaments minus WCS America that took place in the last two days: Seacraft Weekly #24: TvZ 7–1 (87.50%) Notable TvZs: ??? WECG Qualifier Korea Playoffs: TvZ 3–2 (60.00%) Notable TvZs: Dark vs Ty Gfinity 1v1 Cup #31 TvZ 0–0 (0%) Notable TvZs: --- go4sc2 Cup Europe #413 TvZ 8–9 (47.06%) Notable TvZs: YoDa 1-2 TargA Dragon 0–2 Tefel PxL-Lan #41 TvZ 1–4 (20.00%) Notable TvZs: ??? --> 25/35 (71%) games are not even worth mentioning when discussing balance on a high level in that periode of time. It's complete bonkers to watch aligulac stats and then make so exact statements as "Zerg is winning more than Terran because 48%". Yes, in the aligulac coverage it is. If we don't arbitrarily cut by tournament participation and take a different "arbitrary" cut, namely WCS Premier Leagues, this is what we get: WCS AM: 27-15 (64%) WCS EU: 25 - 21 (54%) GSL Code S: 19-13 (59%) And I do not like the practice of "these numbers that don't agree with my conclusions are wrong" bible thumper mentality. You take all of the data, all of the different degrees of the data, and have each aspect of the data inform different parts of the conclusion. Individual player performance shows what is possible. Totality of player performances shows what is happening. You have to integrate what is possible with what is happening to be able to make conclusions about anything. ... which was exactly his point. Namely that statements such as "nothing is broken because aligulac's 48%" are not useful, because aligulac along is not reflective of the full picture. Please explain why zergs are still attacking from 1 direction with no flanks with muta/ling/bling; the fastest moving army comp in the game. That was how Scarlett beat Bomber with mass banes before mine-nerf was reverted (vs Z). That was how soO fought against Innovation, and lost after the patch. Spoiled zergs are gonna have to take a few spanking before they learn to use their mobility to flank their opponents. 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. soO sets up the hugest concave possible vs Innovation game 6. Innovation drops all his mines. He only has like 2 that are rallied. Goes on creep, against this huuuuuge concave. soO wins the combat and gets out with a 30supply lead. Then you come in and take that game as proof that Zergs don't flank. And then you are wondering why I'm being condescending? Nearly all of the time we see Zergs barely finishing their banelings, half of the time not even. Half of the time some part of the banelings (that get insta started after the zerglings have rallied forward) get canceled by the perma-attacking 4M force before finishing. And then you tell me those units should actually be on a 20second trip somewhere else? You gotta forgive me when I'm condescending here reading useless advice how zergs should play. Edit: At this point I could go into a discussion about "better economy and mobility"... Hope you remembered to breathe this time. I wasn't giving advice, afaik soO isn't reading this thread. You assume I was giving advice, take offense, and then go on and act on that assumption like a pompous ass. It's a simple critique. In WoL, I have seen Polt with virtually surrounds on Zerg lategame army and that sometimes still wasn't enough. Speedling flanks would have the added advantage of splashing mine damage all over the Terran army. You point out yourself that Zergs can win combat with good engagements. Can you say that soO played with good engagements consistently? Imagine if he had a flank on top of a concave, that 30 supply lead would be even bigger. Zergs that you see barely finishing their banelings are in that position due to their poor engagements. DRG already showed how to deal with 4M long ago, I don't see why you're still complaining about a 'perma-attacking 4M force'. In game6? Nope, he had one massively advantageous engagement. Then he threw the game by trying to actually end it instead of waiting for Innovation to run out of resources on 3 or 4 bases. OK, so I gotta settle this once and for all. DRG did exactly what Zergs today do in his series against Innovation. Maybe some of you should go and rewatch it. G1, Whirlwind: -) 11-12mins, first engagment. Romantic Terran idea of Zerg flanking? Nope. He did this the exact same way Zergs today do it, by running in from your creep position. -) around 14mins. Engagment. From one angle. -) 14:30-15: Frontal engagment. DRG takes a supply lead ... I'm not going to go through each and every engagment now, you can watch it yourself. There is nothing DRG magically does better controlwise. He engages in the same ways todays Zergs do. He loses units to mines left and right, etc. The one thing I want to point out: + Show Spoiler +Counterattacks with no or rather few banelings. No commitment to actually trying to kill the Terran, only limiting his basecount past 3-4. DRG fails to achieve that and eventually loses the game because Innovation gets a 4th and 5th base. No let's quickly go through g2 and g3: g2 similar to game1, Innovation skips a 4th CC this time though, DRG does a little stronger counterattack with some banelings which puts him on the verge of losing, but eventually Innovation runs out of money. Not a lot to see here but a Terran that does sacrifice his lategame plan for a little more pushing power in the midgame and fails to win with this allinish move. g3, exactly the same as game2, just that Innovation starts making even more mistakes, building 4ebays and - unlike in other games where he usually is 5-10supply ahead of the Zerg in the midgame - is 5-10supply behind. He never gets control of the game, DRG is allowed to set up static defenses all around the map and Innovation decides to not build a 4th, to not rely on drop play but rather 3base headbang straight into the defenses. What these games do not show: -) amazing flanks -) a zerg that is near immune to widow mine hits due to some micro that all Zergs are suddenly too dumb to use
So you point out that soO was able to get a 30 supply lead with a great engagement - showing that Terran imba doesn't go far enough to make good engagements pointless.
Then you point out that DRG was able to handle Innovation purely from one angle, opting for impeccable anti-mine micro (which you conveniently left out) and the strategy of denying expansions. This shows that there are options available other than amazing flanks.
Thank you for supporting the argument for non-balance aspects of the games.
|
On October 15 2014 05:43 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 04:27 sibs wrote:
Sure Impact has a better record, but then look against who he is playing, PsiARC/mkp/tangtang/uthermal? Really? I had ruled out the non-Korean players, thank you; I don't have your dishonesty. As for MarineKing, he made 2 Olimo finals beating some Code S players on the road, so it's not like he's a total scrub. Still, looking at the games, I am able to see that he's inferior. Plus when someone blindly opens CC first into 3 rax Medivacs, entirely skipping Hellions, and loses to a Roach/Baneling bust, I'm not going to consider that Zerg win as particularly relevant for the state of the match-up. Same as when Flash plays bio/Hellbats and walks on creep against a 2 screens concave. See, this goes both ways... Show nested quote +someone has already analyzed only macro games here with biomine vs lingbling, the results were pretty much what is expected Sorry, you refer to? Show nested quote +of course no one is going to analyze as many games as aligulac has on their database and I'd rather not get into rationalizations (which is what you like to do) or adding bias to the stats. I apologize for looking at the actual content of the games in order to explain what happened. I forgot that blind winrates, with some snip of the scissors if needed, are so much better. Take this fabulous 50% TvP and 55% TvZ winrate in Code S season 2, for instance: for sure Terran was doing fine at the time!... Show nested quote +Whats your explanation for Terran winning 65% of premier tournaments since the patch, with many TvT finals? I already said it... Peak of performance after a major patch, with the same old suspects (Bomber, Polt, MMA) winning + the absolute top of Terran KeSPA players (Bogus and Flash). If it continues like this, particularly for the first 2015 WCS season, you'll have ample data to justify a balance patch; until the next few tournaments occur it may be the usual hilarious overreactions from people who had already decided the race was OP 2 weeks after the patch anyway (if not before!). But since we've already been through this, I can spoil you the end: I'm ready to bet that Terran will slowly decline until it becomes the third race again, much to the joy of people like you who think the race still has to pay for 2011.
You're ready to bet?
Sweeeeeeeeet. What are the terms of the bet? Anyways I'll just quote this regardless when Terran's keep overperforming.
PS: Yea MKP is good.. in 2012.
|
On October 15 2014 06:13 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 05:01 Gwavajuice wrote:
Looking at what happens at top level is fine, but wouldn't it be a better way of spotting imbalances to actually check victories of lower level players against top players.
BL/infestors had it, with a culminating point of Sniper becoming a GSL champion.
Protoss had it, when guys coming from nowhere killed the best terrans in the world.
For the moment, all the terran titles went to the like of INnovation, MMA, Flash, Bomber, Taeja, who have been respected top terrans for many years. This. Please let me know when foreign/or unknown Terrans start tearing down Korean champions from the other races. Foreigner-Korean skill-gap has decreased since the days of GomTvT. So foreign Terrans should be taking games from top Koreans, judging by the level of complaints in this thread. Show nested quote +On October 14 2014 17:03 Big J wrote:On October 14 2014 16:12 plogamer wrote:On October 14 2014 15:07 Big J wrote:On October 14 2014 11:50 plogamer wrote:On October 14 2014 04:30 Big J wrote:On October 14 2014 04:11 plogamer wrote:On October 13 2014 23:40 antiRW wrote:On October 13 2014 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2014 23:16 Big J wrote:
[quote]
Sorry, but most of the stats of aligulac are not interesting for the highest level of balance. Even if it is only 50% it is a big problem if we judge balance by this. Here are the stats of all the tournaments minus WCS America that took place in the last two days:
Seacraft Weekly #24:
TvZ 7–1 (87.50%)
Notable TvZs: ???
WECG Qualifier Korea Playoffs:
TvZ 3–2 (60.00%)
Notable TvZs: Dark vs Ty
Gfinity 1v1 Cup #31
TvZ 0–0 (0%)
Notable TvZs: ---
go4sc2 Cup Europe #413
TvZ 8–9 (47.06%)
Notable TvZs:
YoDa 1-2 TargA
Dragon 0–2 Tefel
PxL-Lan #41
TvZ 1–4 (20.00%)
Notable TvZs: ???
--> 25/35 (71%) games are not even worth mentioning when discussing balance on a high level in that periode of time.
It's complete bonkers to watch aligulac stats and then make so exact statements as "Zerg is winning more than Terran because 48%". Yes, in the aligulac coverage it is. If we don't arbitrarily cut by tournament participation and take a different "arbitrary" cut, namely WCS Premier Leagues, this is what we get:
WCS AM: 27-15 (64%)
WCS EU: 25 - 21 (54%)
GSL Code S: 19-13 (59%) And I do not like the practice of "these numbers that don't agree with my conclusions are wrong" bible thumper mentality. You take all of the data, all of the different degrees of the data, and have each aspect of the data inform different parts of the conclusion. Individual player performance shows what is possible. Totality of player performances shows what is happening. You have to integrate what is possible with what is happening to be able to make conclusions about anything. ... which was exactly his point. Namely that statements such as "nothing is broken because aligulac's 48%" are not useful, because aligulac along is not reflective of the full picture. Please explain why zergs are still attacking from 1 direction with no flanks with muta/ling/bling; the fastest moving army comp in the game. That was how Scarlett beat Bomber with mass banes before mine-nerf was reverted (vs Z). That was how soO fought against Innovation, and lost after the patch. Spoiled zergs are gonna have to take a few spanking before they learn to use their mobility to flank their opponents. 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. soO sets up the hugest concave possible vs Innovation game 6. Innovation drops all his mines. He only has like 2 that are rallied. Goes on creep, against this huuuuuge concave. soO wins the combat and gets out with a 30supply lead. Then you come in and take that game as proof that Zergs don't flank. And then you are wondering why I'm being condescending? Nearly all of the time we see Zergs barely finishing their banelings, half of the time not even. Half of the time some part of the banelings (that get insta started after the zerglings have rallied forward) get canceled by the perma-attacking 4M force before finishing. And then you tell me those units should actually be on a 20second trip somewhere else? You gotta forgive me when I'm condescending here reading useless advice how zergs should play. Edit: At this point I could go into a discussion about "better economy and mobility"... Hope you remembered to breathe this time. I wasn't giving advice, afaik soO isn't reading this thread. You assume I was giving advice, take offense, and then go on and act on that assumption like a pompous ass. It's a simple critique. In WoL, I have seen Polt with virtually surrounds on Zerg lategame army and that sometimes still wasn't enough. Speedling flanks would have the added advantage of splashing mine damage all over the Terran army. You point out yourself that Zergs can win combat with good engagements. Can you say that soO played with good engagements consistently? Imagine if he had a flank on top of a concave, that 30 supply lead would be even bigger. Zergs that you see barely finishing their banelings are in that position due to their poor engagements. DRG already showed how to deal with 4M long ago, I don't see why you're still complaining about a 'perma-attacking 4M force'. In game6? Nope, he had one massively advantageous engagement. Then he threw the game by trying to actually end it instead of waiting for Innovation to run out of resources on 3 or 4 bases. OK, so I gotta settle this once and for all. DRG did exactly what Zergs today do in his series against Innovation. Maybe some of you should go and rewatch it. G1, Whirlwind: -) 11-12mins, first engagment. Romantic Terran idea of Zerg flanking? Nope. He did this the exact same way Zergs today do it, by running in from your creep position. -) around 14mins. Engagment. From one angle. -) 14:30-15: Frontal engagment. DRG takes a supply lead ... I'm not going to go through each and every engagment now, you can watch it yourself. There is nothing DRG magically does better controlwise. He engages in the same ways todays Zergs do. He loses units to mines left and right, etc. The one thing I want to point out: + Show Spoiler +Counterattacks with no or rather few banelings. No commitment to actually trying to kill the Terran, only limiting his basecount past 3-4. DRG fails to achieve that and eventually loses the game because Innovation gets a 4th and 5th base. No let's quickly go through g2 and g3: g2 similar to game1, Innovation skips a 4th CC this time though, DRG does a little stronger counterattack with some banelings which puts him on the verge of losing, but eventually Innovation runs out of money. Not a lot to see here but a Terran that does sacrifice his lategame plan for a little more pushing power in the midgame and fails to win with this allinish move. g3, exactly the same as game2, just that Innovation starts making even more mistakes, building 4ebays and - unlike in other games where he usually is 5-10supply ahead of the Zerg in the midgame - is 5-10supply behind. He never gets control of the game, DRG is allowed to set up static defenses all around the map and Innovation decides to not build a 4th, to not rely on drop play but rather 3base headbang straight into the defenses. What these games do not show: -) amazing flanks -) a zerg that is near immune to widow mine hits due to some micro that all Zergs are suddenly too dumb to use So you point out that soO was able to get a 30 supply lead with a great engagement - showing that Terran imba doesn't go far enough to make good engagements pointless. Then you point out that DRG was able to handle Innovation purely from one angle, opting for impeccable anti-mine micro (which you conveniently left out) and the strategy of denying expansions. This shows that there are options available other than amazing flanks. Thank you for supporting the argument for non-balance aspects of the games.
I left out the "impeccable anti-mine micro", because its nothing that hasn't become standard over the past year. Which was one of the points I was making: the whole theory of zergs not doing well because they have no clue has no fundament.
What I did not once argue was that TvZ is imbalanced currently. I rather believe that Zergs arent doing well because their strategies are lackluster and I have said it before. Deny expansions, don't try to end the game, counterattack but don't use banelings.
I even brought up soO vs Innovation g6 and DRG vs Innovation g2 as examples of Zergs losing games they had an advantage in because of making a stupid mistake.
But I'm sorry that I don't believe each and every housemade myth of superior Terran players and completely unproven theory of how Zergs will eventually just come on top by somehow getting immune to being attacked. And I believe that bringing up false arguments like what you made up about those flanks that actually never happened does not really help your credibility to actually talk ZvT strategy.
|
On October 15 2014 06:48 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 06:13 plogamer wrote:On October 15 2014 05:01 Gwavajuice wrote:
Looking at what happens at top level is fine, but wouldn't it be a better way of spotting imbalances to actually check victories of lower level players against top players.
BL/infestors had it, with a culminating point of Sniper becoming a GSL champion.
Protoss had it, when guys coming from nowhere killed the best terrans in the world.
For the moment, all the terran titles went to the like of INnovation, MMA, Flash, Bomber, Taeja, who have been respected top terrans for many years. This. Please let me know when foreign/or unknown Terrans start tearing down Korean champions from the other races. Foreigner-Korean skill-gap has decreased since the days of GomTvT. So foreign Terrans should be taking games from top Koreans, judging by the level of complaints in this thread. On October 14 2014 17:03 Big J wrote:On October 14 2014 16:12 plogamer wrote:On October 14 2014 15:07 Big J wrote:On October 14 2014 11:50 plogamer wrote:On October 14 2014 04:30 Big J wrote:On October 14 2014 04:11 plogamer wrote:On October 13 2014 23:40 antiRW wrote:On October 13 2014 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
And I do not like the practice of "these numbers that don't agree with my conclusions are wrong" bible thumper mentality.
You take all of the data, all of the different degrees of the data, and have each aspect of the data inform different parts of the conclusion.
Individual player performance shows what is possible. Totality of player performances shows what is happening. You have to integrate what is possible with what is happening to be able to make conclusions about anything.
... which was exactly his point. Namely that statements such as "nothing is broken because aligulac's 48%" are not useful, because aligulac along is not reflective of the full picture. Please explain why zergs are still attacking from 1 direction with no flanks with muta/ling/bling; the fastest moving army comp in the game. That was how Scarlett beat Bomber with mass banes before mine-nerf was reverted (vs Z). That was how soO fought against Innovation, and lost after the patch. Spoiled zergs are gonna have to take a few spanking before they learn to use their mobility to flank their opponents. 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. soO sets up the hugest concave possible vs Innovation game 6. Innovation drops all his mines. He only has like 2 that are rallied. Goes on creep, against this huuuuuge concave. soO wins the combat and gets out with a 30supply lead. Then you come in and take that game as proof that Zergs don't flank. And then you are wondering why I'm being condescending? Nearly all of the time we see Zergs barely finishing their banelings, half of the time not even. Half of the time some part of the banelings (that get insta started after the zerglings have rallied forward) get canceled by the perma-attacking 4M force before finishing. And then you tell me those units should actually be on a 20second trip somewhere else? You gotta forgive me when I'm condescending here reading useless advice how zergs should play. Edit: At this point I could go into a discussion about "better economy and mobility"... Hope you remembered to breathe this time. I wasn't giving advice, afaik soO isn't reading this thread. You assume I was giving advice, take offense, and then go on and act on that assumption like a pompous ass. It's a simple critique. In WoL, I have seen Polt with virtually surrounds on Zerg lategame army and that sometimes still wasn't enough. Speedling flanks would have the added advantage of splashing mine damage all over the Terran army. You point out yourself that Zergs can win combat with good engagements. Can you say that soO played with good engagements consistently? Imagine if he had a flank on top of a concave, that 30 supply lead would be even bigger. Zergs that you see barely finishing their banelings are in that position due to their poor engagements. DRG already showed how to deal with 4M long ago, I don't see why you're still complaining about a 'perma-attacking 4M force'. In game6? Nope, he had one massively advantageous engagement. Then he threw the game by trying to actually end it instead of waiting for Innovation to run out of resources on 3 or 4 bases. OK, so I gotta settle this once and for all. DRG did exactly what Zergs today do in his series against Innovation. Maybe some of you should go and rewatch it. G1, Whirlwind: -) 11-12mins, first engagment. Romantic Terran idea of Zerg flanking? Nope. He did this the exact same way Zergs today do it, by running in from your creep position. -) around 14mins. Engagment. From one angle. -) 14:30-15: Frontal engagment. DRG takes a supply lead ... I'm not going to go through each and every engagment now, you can watch it yourself. There is nothing DRG magically does better controlwise. He engages in the same ways todays Zergs do. He loses units to mines left and right, etc. The one thing I want to point out: + Show Spoiler +Counterattacks with no or rather few banelings. No commitment to actually trying to kill the Terran, only limiting his basecount past 3-4. DRG fails to achieve that and eventually loses the game because Innovation gets a 4th and 5th base. No let's quickly go through g2 and g3: g2 similar to game1, Innovation skips a 4th CC this time though, DRG does a little stronger counterattack with some banelings which puts him on the verge of losing, but eventually Innovation runs out of money. Not a lot to see here but a Terran that does sacrifice his lategame plan for a little more pushing power in the midgame and fails to win with this allinish move. g3, exactly the same as game2, just that Innovation starts making even more mistakes, building 4ebays and - unlike in other games where he usually is 5-10supply ahead of the Zerg in the midgame - is 5-10supply behind. He never gets control of the game, DRG is allowed to set up static defenses all around the map and Innovation decides to not build a 4th, to not rely on drop play but rather 3base headbang straight into the defenses. What these games do not show: -) amazing flanks -) a zerg that is near immune to widow mine hits due to some micro that all Zergs are suddenly too dumb to use So you point out that soO was able to get a 30 supply lead with a great engagement - showing that Terran imba doesn't go far enough to make good engagements pointless. Then you point out that DRG was able to handle Innovation purely from one angle, opting for impeccable anti-mine micro (which you conveniently left out) and the strategy of denying expansions. This shows that there are options available other than amazing flanks. Thank you for supporting the argument for non-balance aspects of the games. I left out the "impeccable anti-mine micro", because its nothing that hasn't become standard over the past year. Which was one of the points I was making: the whole theory of zergs not doing well because they have no clue has no fundament. What I did not once argue was that TvZ is imbalanced currently. I rather believe that Zergs arent doing well because their strategies are lackluster and I have said it before. Deny expansions, don't try to end the game, counterattack but don't use banelings. I even brought up soO vs Innovation g6 and DRG vs Innovation g2 as examples of Zergs losing games they had an advantage in because of making a stupid mistake. But I'm sorry that I don't believe each and every housemade myth of superior Terran players and completely unproven theory of how Zergs will eventually just come on top by somehow getting immune to being attacked. And I believe that bringing up false arguments like what you made up about those flanks that actually never happened does not really help your credibility to actually talk ZvT strategy.
Unfortunately, it seems that the fact that flanks don't take place is proof enough that flanks are not viable.
You attacked me critiquing tactical choices of Zerg players, by taking an reasoned guess about the use of a maneuver that should be within the range of possibility for a top Zerg (Stephano in his prime has killed Collosi using lings with flanks). But it is completely okay for you to critique the strategic choices of the players.
You accuse me of belittling Zergs' intelligence, when really that's just your own insecurity projecting into a simple comment about a maneuver. If you simply said, "No, instead zergs should deny expansions, don't try to end the game, counterattack but don't use banelings." If you had said what you said in your final post in your first, we'd probably be done. I have no reason to claim that using flanks is superior to a style already proven on the field.
But instead, you make it as if flanks are just an impossibility, and get all defensive. I don't even know how it got into your mind that I consider Terran players superior to others. I was on complete awe of Hero in his game 1 vs Polt recently in WCS.
|
That was your statement:
Please explain why zergs are still attacking from 1 direction with no flanks with muta/ling/bling; the fastest moving army comp in the game. That was how Scarlett beat Bomber with mass banes before mine-nerf was reverted (vs Z). That was how soO fought against Innovation, and lost after the patch.
Spoiled zergs are gonna have to take a few spanking before they learn to use their mobility to flank their opponents.
You didn't put it as "flanks can be good" or something. You put it in a way that says that Zerg's who do not flank will take a few spankings. Which I disproved with textbook TvZ examples, in which Zergs won games without flankings. Never did I say flanks are unviable in general. However, the lack of seeing them in many combats makes me think that for good reasons (e.g. lack of time; impossibility to set up flanks in many positions; moving bigger parts of your army out of position being a risk in itself...) it is often just not reasonable to expect a zerg to flank in the current metagame.
You put in aggressive phrases like "spoiled zergs" and the way you phrased that first sentence obviously implies that Zergs are not skilled enough in one way or another to use flanks, since you answer the question yourself that Zergs just should flank.
Since you are resorting to personal attacking now - oh how I'm suffering from my own insecurity - I'm gonna leave it up to selfreflection whether next time you really want to stand behind a such a comment - that when nicely interpreted may be seen as emotional.
|
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all
|
On October 15 2014 15:24 brickrd wrote:
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all
Flanks were important in the Losira/DRG/Stephano hayday of mass ling/bane compositions vs Bio/Tank wherein the flank was an important way to mitigate siege tank splash as well as the best way to engage an immobile tank based composition.
The short range nature of mines means that it doesn't matter which direction you engage and hence a frontal attack in combination with delayed banes (popularized when day9 did a brief analysis of Scarlet's play doing it) allows for faster upgrades and/or more mutas.
IE, flanks only work when there are things to flank (like the Siege Tanks behind Marines. When all the enemy units are about the same range and all have the same importance, it doesnt matter which dies first so a frontal assault is better since it allows you more freedom for the non-combat aspects of the game during the engagements (such as injects and creep spread)
|
On October 15 2014 16:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 15:24 brickrd wrote:
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all Flanks were important in the Losira/DRG/Stephano hayday of mass ling/bane compositions vs Bio/Tank wherein the flank was an important way to mitigate siege tank splash as well as the best way to engage an immobile tank based composition. The short range nature of mines means that it doesn't matter which direction you engage and hence a frontal attack in combination with delayed banes (popularized when day9 did a brief analysis of Scarlet's play doing it) allows for faster upgrades and/or more mutas. IE, flanks only work when there are things to flank (like the Siege Tanks behind Marines. When all the enemy units are about the same range and all have the same importance, it doesnt matter which dies first so a frontal assault is better since it allows you more freedom for the non-combat aspects of the game during the engagements (such as injects and creep spread)
Flanks give you a much better surround, faster, and also massively decrease the splitting potential for T.
|
On October 15 2014 16:31 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 16:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2014 15:24 brickrd wrote:
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all Flanks were important in the Losira/DRG/Stephano hayday of mass ling/bane compositions vs Bio/Tank wherein the flank was an important way to mitigate siege tank splash as well as the best way to engage an immobile tank based composition. The short range nature of mines means that it doesn't matter which direction you engage and hence a frontal attack in combination with delayed banes (popularized when day9 did a brief analysis of Scarlet's play doing it) allows for faster upgrades and/or more mutas. IE, flanks only work when there are things to flank (like the Siege Tanks behind Marines. When all the enemy units are about the same range and all have the same importance, it doesnt matter which dies first so a frontal assault is better since it allows you more freedom for the non-combat aspects of the game during the engagements (such as injects and creep spread) Flanks give you a much better surround, faster, and also massively decrease the splitting potential for T.
This sounds good in theory. But all this is not really relevant, since Terrans have figured out not to attack on creep. So basicly if you try to flank from a side without creep, youre only hurting yourself.
|
On October 15 2014 17:50 Rainmansc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 16:31 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 15 2014 16:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2014 15:24 brickrd wrote:
advice like "do a flank!" is something that could potentially help a plat or diamond player with decent macro who plays against terrans who don't position well, but it has really no impact or relevancy to high level play. since ling bane is a melee composition, cutesy overmicro against mines is something that loses games against the best terrans, not something that helps or wins games. sure, if you can completely surprise a terran with a 270 degree double or triple angled attack that's going to help your chances, but competent terrans know from the loading screen exactly where they're going to funnel into the 4th base and will always move off of creep to take good engagements like Heart did in WCS. you don't "just flank" a good terran to kill bio, and terrans suggesting flanks just shows that they don't really understand what works against their style at all Flanks were important in the Losira/DRG/Stephano hayday of mass ling/bane compositions vs Bio/Tank wherein the flank was an important way to mitigate siege tank splash as well as the best way to engage an immobile tank based composition. The short range nature of mines means that it doesn't matter which direction you engage and hence a frontal attack in combination with delayed banes (popularized when day9 did a brief analysis of Scarlet's play doing it) allows for faster upgrades and/or more mutas. IE, flanks only work when there are things to flank (like the Siege Tanks behind Marines. When all the enemy units are about the same range and all have the same importance, it doesnt matter which dies first so a frontal assault is better since it allows you more freedom for the non-combat aspects of the game during the engagements (such as injects and creep spread) Flanks give you a much better surround, faster, and also massively decrease the splitting potential for T. This sounds good in theory. But all this is not really relevant, since Terrans have figured out not to attack on creep. So basicly if you try to flank from a side without creep, youre only hurting yourself.
Nope.
The problem with going off creep is that Stimmed Marines suddenly can kite verse Banelings.
Stimmed Marines ain't kiting when they can't move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aeQhMti.jpg)
