|
On October 23 2014 19:59 TokO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 19:41 SC2Toastie wrote:
Overcharge is problematic before medivacs ever pop up... The only really dangerous Terran pressure off 1 base has more to do with Protoss not paying attention or being too fucking greedy.
I'm sorry for being of the school that thinks it's ridiculous you can exactly plan your BO's up to 100 food and 3 bases and complain imbaimba if anything disrupts them. An expansion should be a risk to take. Look at PvP/TvT/ZvZ, those expansions are hard fought and well thought through. TvP/PvZ/ZvP? Everybody takes the 2nd (usually the third too) for granted. Yeah, I totally agree that it comes into play at a bad point. It's still a 100 gas investment, and a slight probe delay. If people remember the debate that came up when Zergs were going 3-hatch 6-queens in ZvT, the solution was to just power up on 3CC to a point where the defensive investment becomes negligent. I think the same mentality could work out in TvP. I think a greedy Terran can keep up with a greedy Protoss. And if Protoss starts delaying MsC, this will again open up for early aggression. But yeah, this goes totally against what we'd like the game to be like though.
Problem is;
Zerg had the stronger lategame in ZvT.
Protoss has the stronger lategame in PvT.
Terran can match Protoss greed, but there's 2 problems.
A) What is Terrans benefit of being really greedy?
B) Terran still has a ton of Protoss cheeses that need to be checked into builds.
And lastly, a 100/100 überunit is not -that- greedy.On October 23 2014 20:03 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +Overcharge is problematic before medivacs ever pop up... The only really dangerous Terran pressure off 1 base has more to do with Protoss not paying attention or being too fucking greedy. That's bollocks and you know it is. We could deal with 111 Hellion/Marine/Medivac pressure in WoL because Stalkers were reasonably capable of defending against drops in the early game. If you lost track of the Medivac then you could be in trouble, or if you had a bad sim-city in your main then you could be in trouble, but if you played properly then it was wholly possible to stop the drop from occurring. This isn't true in HotS because Speedivacs can literally ignore Stalkers early on in the game. They boost straight over the Stalkers and drop whatever it was they were going to drop and you can't stop them from doing that even if you are paying attention.
That's bullock and you know it is.
You could deal with 1/1/1 Hellon/Marine/Medivac pressure in WoL by getting gates faster and using Chrono on not-probes. You act like the medivac flies full speed all the time, which is nonsense as well. It's actually a pretty long cooldown for such a fragile load and unboosted medivacs are bad.
This isn't true in HotS because we assume we are supposed to get 2 bases and 44 probes, start 2 tech paths and preferably have double upgrades before getting more gates off 3 stalkers and later on maybe 2 sentries. Goddamn, a build that cuts an expansion for fast tech and has an offensive force costing 800/100 (8 marines/3 hellions/1 medivac, quite reasonable IMO) cannot be shut down with only 3 stalkers!?
And even if Terran goes for it and boosts straight over you, some micro will still allow you to defend reasonably. Terran puts himself FAR behind by doing that.
On October 23 2014 20:03 SatedSC2 wrote:
Removing Photon Overcharge would also fuck up the PvZ metagame re: build orders quite a bit. Everyone would be forced back into playing FFE builds and that wouldn't suit me one bit. I don't know if removing Speedivacs would necessarily fuck up the TvZ metagame re: build orders, but it would definitely make it harder to drop and so would be a significant Terran nerf.
Besides, we still see Protoss players lose to basic bio pushes early in the game because they played too greedily even with Photon Overcharge being present. Same in PvP with Warpgate rushes and same in PvZ with Zergling rushes. It isn't a "you can't attack me" button. I don't think it's as big a problem as people like to make it out as being and it is absolutely vital if PvT is going to be even remotely fair.
I never mentioned removing Overcharge. Nor have I mentioned removing Boosters.
There's thousands of possible changes you can make to overcharge. I'll mention a few.
A) Overcharge becomes a Channeled spell.
Allows sniping the MSC in aggression, allows only 1 overcharge at a time.
B) Overcharge range reduced.
Siege Tanks can hit Nexi without being killed.
C) Overcharge damage reduced with a bonus to Biological.
This buffs Tech based Terran openers and changes nothing in PvZ. Makes aggression in PvP stronger which may be problematic.
D) Nexus cannot produce during Overcharge.
A trade-off.
E) MSC requires TC/SG/Robo
It's just too damn early for how powerful it is.
F) MSC cost increased.
G) MSC cost to 50/50 spells need research at the Cybercore (all costing 50/50/90). Protoss now has to make a decision between more powerful defense or receiving aggressive options.
This all being said, I can simply not comprehend how you think a Mothership Core at the cost of 100/100 and some delay in Probes is EXPENSIVE (WUT?!) and how it is fine this unit eliminates nearly all early game strategies and midgame skirmishing in 2 matchups?
Care to explain that to me?
|
|
|
On October 23 2014 19:41 SC2Toastie wrote:
Overcharge is problematic before medivacs ever pop up... The only really dangerous Terran pressure off 1 base has more to do with Protoss not paying attention or being too fucking greedy.
I'm sorry for being of the school that thinks it's ridiculous you can exactly plan your BO's up to 100 food and 3 bases and complain imbaimba if anything disrupts them. An expansion should be a risk to take. Look at PvP/TvT/ZvZ, those expansions are hard fought and well thought through. TvP/PvZ/ZvP? Everybody takes the 2nd (usually the third too) for granted.
Talking theory:
If you do the math on initial setup it becomes immidiatly clear why Zerg cannot go without a second hatchery against P/T (400minerals needed for spawning pool+queen to still be outproduced and outmatched by 300mineral 2rax marines+starting CC). And unless the setup of the second base is ridiculous in a way that it is completely undefendable, there is just no reason for zerg to ever build a macro hatchery instead of taking a second base.
But from there if you do the math, it is pretty simple that given how long it takes to build another CC/Nexus and how much the zerg can mine in the time from when the CC is started and a possible aggression stops, the only reasonable approach for P/T is to also fast expand.
Also in general, with the Starcraft start position setup (single choke point) and how it interacts with units (initial melee units, everything besides reaper and MsC that could avoid Terrain is hightech) it is just good design to have people spread out early. The game just isn't interesting before there are multiple points that you can actually attack. I'd even say, the game is pretty boring in many scenarios before players take their third bases.
Talking particularily ZvP, even if you could make it 2base vs 2base, it would only be frontal allinish pushing given the set of units those races can field at that stage of a game.
|
|
|
Nobody said it was expensive. But it's not much different than a Terran building 2 extra bunkers and a turret, or getting extra queens for Zerg, which usually has the same effect, if not being better. And Protoss players get called crazy for even suggesting that Terran has those defensive opportunities available.
Are you joking?
EDIT: It is alright evidence that PvZ is not as dire as playa is claiming, though.
|
On October 23 2014 20:49 TokO wrote:Nobody said it was expensive. But it's not much different than a Terran building 2 extra bunkers and a turret, or getting extra queens for Zerg, which usually has the same effect, if not being better. And Protoss players get called crazy for even suggesting that Terran has those defensive opportunities available. Are you joking? EDIT: It is alright evidence that PvZ is not as dire as playa is claiming, though.
First, I'm watching this tournament and half of the games shown have been all-ins, which I have made no comments about. Second, using one small tournament to try to trump a much bigger sample is kinda pathetic. No, it is...
|
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.
|
On October 23 2014 21:06 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 20:49 TokO wrote:Nobody said it was expensive. But it's not much different than a Terran building 2 extra bunkers and a turret, or getting extra queens for Zerg, which usually has the same effect, if not being better. And Protoss players get called crazy for even suggesting that Terran has those defensive opportunities available. Are you joking? EDIT: It is alright evidence that PvZ is not as dire as playa is claiming, though. First, I'm watching this tournament and half of the games shown have been all-ins, which I have made no comments about. Second, using one small tournament to try to trump a much bigger sample is kinda pathetic. No, it is...
"one small tournament" : biggest KR qualifier for a while. Frequently koreans qualifiers are ahead of the race distribution (and even on the meta) compared to bigger stages.
To be clear, i am not defending any race imbalance claim, and while i personally think terran is getting a bit weaker now after a good post-patch period, i just point this out to laugh at some toss whiners. I can tell you 100 % terran was never getting 6 out of 8 players in the top8 if a major KR qualifier in the "terran dead" time. (nor having TvT finals in WECG... ). So calm down and watch out...
|
On October 23 2014 20:46 SatedSC2 wrote:
No, I don't care to.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about if you think that the Mothership Core makes Protoss overtly strong against Terran given that the game is actually very balanced at the moment (outside of obvious map imbalances on terrible maps like Nimbus). There are plenty of examples of Protoss players losing to Terran players in the early-game because they were overly reliant on Photon Overcharge, both against Stim-based timing-attacks and 111-based multi-pronged aggression. Pretending that Protoss can't be attacked because of Photon Overcharge is incredibly dishonest, but I'd be wasting my time trying to convince you of that fact.
No, you don't care to. Why would you have to explain your opinion. Silly me.
I claim Terran vs Protoss is boring because Overcharge eliminates SO many option. Yes, it does.
Protoss players losing in the early game to Terran based aggression is usually the cause of mistakes or greed. The fact that it is not uncommon to see Terran with 30 Army supply and Protoss with 8 where Terran cannot really damage Protoss is ridiculous. The fact that ending up in this situation where it is standard to be on Overcharge + 3 Stalkers even if you do not have enough scouting information but are expanding and teching like a madman and you are okay with that is beyond me.
About 1/1/1 based attacks - These are pretty damn all in for Terran and in broadcasted matches certainly have a negative win rate (especially if you take well executed defenses instead of a Mine killing 15 Probes). Their only use is surprising the greediest of greediest builds.
About Stim based aggression - Stim takes 3 minutes to research, you cannot call an attack with Stim an early game attack.
I don't pretend like Protoss cannot be attacked because of overcharge. It just happens to be so. Nobody goes for a dedicated attack against Protoss until you can either go multipronged or have so much supply the cannon doesn't deal as much damage anymore. Show me some examples of Terran going for earlygame aggression and Overcharge not looking retarded.
As a sidenote; Obviously TvP is fairly well balanced. We've played with this dumb spell for 2 years and balanced maps etc. around it. That's a silly argument. I'm not discussing balance. I'm discussing design. Is it fun? Does it make sense? What role does the spell serve?
You seem not to be willing to discuss this. Might I ask why you are still responding?
On October 23 2014 21:06 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 20:49 TokO wrote:Nobody said it was expensive. But it's not much different than a Terran building 2 extra bunkers and a turret, or getting extra queens for Zerg, which usually has the same effect, if not being better. And Protoss players get called crazy for even suggesting that Terran has those defensive opportunities available. Are you joking? EDIT: It is alright evidence that PvZ is not as dire as playa is claiming, though. First, I'm watching this tournament and half of the games shown have been all-ins, which I have made no comments about. Second, using one small tournament to try to trump a much bigger sample is kinda pathetic. No, it is...
I'm watching the qualifier as well and it has nothing to do with balance. I do disagree with that bigger sample of yours, however.
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.
There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly.
The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...
|
On October 23 2014 21:47 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 20:46 SatedSC2 wrote:
No, I don't care to.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about if you think that the Mothership Core makes Protoss overtly strong against Terran given that the game is actually very balanced at the moment (outside of obvious map imbalances on terrible maps like Nimbus). There are plenty of examples of Protoss players losing to Terran players in the early-game because they were overly reliant on Photon Overcharge, both against Stim-based timing-attacks and 111-based multi-pronged aggression. Pretending that Protoss can't be attacked because of Photon Overcharge is incredibly dishonest, but I'd be wasting my time trying to convince you of that fact. No, you don't care to. Why would you have to explain your opinion. Silly me. I claim Terran vs Protoss is boring because Overcharge eliminates SO many option. Yes, it does. Protoss players losing in the early game to Terran based aggression is usually the cause of mistakes or greed. The fact that it is not uncommon to see Terran with 30 Army supply and Protoss with 8 where Terran cannot really damage Protoss is ridiculous. The fact that ending up in this situation where it is standard to be on Overcharge + 3 Stalkers even if you do not have enough scouting information but are expanding and teching like a madman and you are okay with that is beyond me. About 1/1/1 based attacks - These are pretty damn all in for Terran and in broadcasted matches certainly have a negative win rate (especially if you take well executed defenses instead of a Mine killing 15 Probes). Their only use is surprising the greediest of greediest builds. About Stim based aggression - Stim takes 3 minutes to research, you cannot call an attack with Stim an early game attack. I don't pretend like Protoss cannot be attacked because of overcharge. It just happens to be so. Nobody goes for a dedicated attack against Protoss until you can either go multipronged or have so much supply the cannon doesn't deal as much damage anymore. Show me some examples of Terran going for earlygame aggression and Overcharge not looking retarded. As a sidenote; Obviously TvP is fairly well balanced. We've played with this dumb spell for 2 years and balanced maps etc. around it. That's a silly argument. I'm not discussing balance. I'm discussing design. Is it fun? Does it make sense? What role does the spell serve? You seem not to be willing to discuss this. Might I ask why you are still responding?
I agree with you that a lack of early game aggression and creative strats make the game boring. One would have to address both sides though: MSC and medivac boost/mines. That might just be too much of a redesign for blizzard pre-LOTV.
Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 21:06 playa wrote:On October 23 2014 20:49 TokO wrote:Nobody said it was expensive. But it's not much different than a Terran building 2 extra bunkers and a turret, or getting extra queens for Zerg, which usually has the same effect, if not being better. And Protoss players get called crazy for even suggesting that Terran has those defensive opportunities available. Are you joking? EDIT: It is alright evidence that PvZ is not as dire as playa is claiming, though. First, I'm watching this tournament and half of the games shown have been all-ins, which I have made no comments about. Second, using one small tournament to try to trump a much bigger sample is kinda pathetic. No, it is... I'm watching the qualifier as well and it has nothing to do with balance. I do disagree with that bigger sample of yours, however. Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation. There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly. The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...
No, that can be biased and be made misleading just as much as any other method. The only honest way is to look at this from multiple angles at the same time. Overall stats, pro stats, recent games, pro comments, ... . Why? Because the (balance) dynamics of a game as complex as Starcraft cannot be captured in a few simple numbers.
|
On October 23 2014 21:47 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation. There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly. The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...
The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.
And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.
|
So far in this IEM qualifer tournament Koreans have gone 4-4 versus each other in P vs Z. Not only are people claiming this is not only proof that there is no balance issue, but "I've ignored the innate ability of Toss players to all-in when they know it will work." Needless to say, nothing said has been worth replying to.
|
On October 23 2014 22:25 playa wrote:
So far in this IEM qualifer tournament Koreans have gone 4-4 versus each other in P vs Z. Not only are people claiming this is not only proof that there is no balance issue, but "I've ignored the innate ability of Toss players to all-in when they know it will work." Needless to say, nothing said has been worth replying to.
I thought you said that 3 Stargate play is fine?
|
I said 3 Stargate is fine. I think it's kinda like the bio vs. broodlord dynamic in WoL, you either have to end the game or you have to take certain measures to be able to counter whatever comes in the lategame. 3 Stargate is one of those measures. Playa said he felt "forced" to do it. I don't know.
|
On October 23 2014 22:32 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 22:25 playa wrote:
So far in this IEM qualifer tournament Koreans have gone 4-4 versus each other in P vs Z. Not only are people claiming this is not only proof that there is no balance issue, but "I've ignored the innate ability of Toss players to all-in when they know it will work." Needless to say, nothing said has been worth replying to. I thought you said that 3 Stargate play is fine?
Yeah, I did say that. But, people have construed that as me having said the matchup is imbalanced because you need 3 stargates, I assume. Since they can't read well, may as well go with it. With how most people are playing, it is imbal... you don't get these numbers playing on equal footing.
|
Everytime I look into this thread, I see this stupid terran bias.
Did you really want that single terran that participated in this tournament to win against the dozen of top 10 zerg and protoss players in order to prove anything?
It is the same as dreamhack stockholm where 8 out of 10 top ten zergs participated but none or only 1 of the top ten terrans.
|
On October 23 2014 22:46 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 22:32 Big J wrote:On October 23 2014 22:25 playa wrote:
So far in this IEM qualifer tournament Koreans have gone 4-4 versus each other in P vs Z. Not only are people claiming this is not only proof that there is no balance issue, but "I've ignored the innate ability of Toss players to all-in when they know it will work." Needless to say, nothing said has been worth replying to. I thought you said that 3 Stargate play is fine? Yeah, I did say that. But, people have construed that as me having said the matchup is imbalanced because you need 3 stargates, I assume. Since they can't read well, may as well go with it. With how most people are playing, it is imbal... you don't get these numbers playing on equal footing.
Well, it's not easy to read into what you are saying. Like, that last sentence hints towards you thinking the matchup is imbalanced. The first sentence hints towards saying that the matchup can actually be played without a disadvantage, which I would interprete as the matchup being fine.
|
On October 23 2014 22:15 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 21:47 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation. There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly. The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion... The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with. And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.
I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.
So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.
But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.
|
On October 23 2014 23:02 LSN wrote:Everytime I look into this thread, I see this stupid terran bias. Did you really want that single terran that participated in this tournament to win against the dozen of top 10 zerg and protoss players in order to prove anything? It is the same as dreamhack stockholm where 8 out of 10 top ten zergs participated but none or only 1 of the top ten terrans.
You should watch a bit more LP before writing stupid nonsense ^^
- http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/IEM_Season_IX_-_San_Jose/Asian_Final_Qualifier is stage 2. You get to stage2 either by invitation or by stage 1 qualifiers :
- http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/IEM_Season_IX_-_San_Jose/Korean_and_Taiwan_Qualifier (some notable top 10 terrans : Maru, Cure, Fantasy, Ty, Flash. )
So i linked the page where you see very few terans had qualified to stage2, and protoss doing quite OK. I'm not calling imbalance on this, but simply uses this as a counter-example to the recent "terran OP" ignorant BS talk.
|
On October 23 2014 23:14 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 22:15 Big J wrote:On October 23 2014 21:47 SC2Toastie wrote:On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote:
It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation. There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly. The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion... The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with. And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake. I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build. So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such. But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.
TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
