Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 292

Yes, Timings are being held very often. If a timing would not be holdable if you prepare for it, the game would be imbalanced because than there would be a "perfect strategy that simply wins". Does that mean that Zerg is imbalanced because they can hold them? No, because they have to scout them, prepare for them and control properly to do so, while Terrans and Protoss will make it as hard as possible to not let the Zerg know what they are up to and will try to control as well as possible too, to make it as hard as possible for the zerg.
I think in ZvT it looks quite harsh for the Terran to do so, because (that is my explanation) Zergs simply always have a little bit too much, due to a little too much eco early on. (like ~1queen and a few drones for enough economy too much, so the zergs reaction has to be too unspecific early on; too many banelings/fungals later on, making it too easy to "just crush a push"; too fast broodlords/ultras, so the Terrans reaction has to be too precise) In PvZ however, I don't see anything wrong with that. Protoss can basically deny all Zerg scouting with the first stalker or void ray, for there on there are quite a ton of options for Protoss, that are all holdable when you come from roach/ling styles, but all require quite some different reactions, positionings and additional tech.
PvZ is quite fine right now.

And I'm not "dead wrong" with TvP. We see a lot of Terrans all do the same Stim timing of 3rax the moment the first two medivacs pop out - running towards the front of the Protoss, while being able to drop the moment a Protoss overcommits to defending the front and scouting it with the factory. And I'm not saying Terrans have to win before too many colossi/templar are out, just like I'm not saying, Protoss/Terrans have to hit Prehive timings. I'm saying those are potent strategies that make a lot of sense, because you try to hit your opponent while he is investing in tech, rather than in army.
Furthermore, Terrans and Protoss have the choice to tech themselves against Hive, just for Terrans that is really hard because they have to go multiple starports+raven upgrades+fusion core+yamato+air upgrades which gives the Zerg a huge timing window in which Broodlords will be very hard to hold. On the other hand, the transition for Protoss is very smooth. You build a mothership (and you don't have to watch out for Ultras a lot in the first place) and you build a few Archons (which share upgrades with the rest of your army). And after you have a mothership with one vortex, you will have a mothership with 2vortex without any further investments and meanwhile you build more archons from the production facilities you already have, while adding stargates and air upgrades. (if you want to add carriers, which are quite a potent choice, once you have forced a lot of broodlords through archons/stalkers/colossi and are overall just better than stalkers in high supply while fullfilling the same roles)
My opinion is once again the same on it as above: PvZ is quite OK, TvZ the Terran Starport switch just takes too long and/or the Zerg Broodlord timings come too early and therefore it feels like you can't win after a certain point, because holding the Broodlord timings while teching is extremly hard right now. And yes, those are timings. Just like prehive timings or 2base timings (both against Zerg) are strong and there is hardly anything that you can do to prevent your opponent to go for a such, it is basically impossible to prevent a Broodlord timing from happening, if the Zerg wants to play it. But it is not unstoppable, the window for one or rather multiple of such timings in TvZ is just too big right now (in my opinion. Korean Terrans are looking quite OK against a lot of them lately, nevertheless this is how I feel right now about it) And again, PvZ is quite fine in that regard.

And yes, like any good progamer, they try to look out for what they could have done better, and especially if you play a rather defensive playstyle, which Zergs have been forced to by balancing, you can only have two opinions on the game: it's impossible to hold the attack you lost to, or you have made a mistake. And you will see plenty of Zergs complaining about Protoss and Terrans being too strong overall, but in a specific game, noone is going to argue that it was impossible to win. Just listen to MC. The one time he says that Zerg is too strong right now (at the NASL), the next time he says he is really really confident against Zergs right now - which means he knows how he can beat them. (at the GSL)
There is no difference between the Zerg and the Protoss interviews on the MatchUp, apart from the one time stephano said that Protoss was too weak - which was during the time mutalisk openings were possible, Protoss didn't have the phoenix upgrade, immortal sentry and SG+Sentry drop strategies weren't developed and Stephano hadn't played against toplevel Korean Protoss.
You know the interview when he said that he would always win when Protoss would try to counter Mutalisks with Phoenix? MC crushed him some match with double SG phoenix (with the upgrade). Things are moving on. I can't tell you if Stephano still thinks Protoss is too weak, but he has been beaten quite some times by Protoss since he said that and I haven't heard such a comment ever since from him. (just adding this, because some people always love to point towards those 1-2 interviews of stephano; well, I could point at Byun's interview from 2weeks ago in TvZ, where he said all the problems have been solved and Terrans have found out how to beat lategame Zerg - does that mean that TvZ is balanced or even Terranfavored? I don't think so, the results are way to inconsistent and just because one guy thinks he knows how to win, you can't tell everybody else that everything is great. Also MC said a similar thing about PvZ at the start of the last GSL season (or somewhere around that time).)

Winrates are not everything, but it's one of the best ways to determine balance. Comments like "a Zerg just has to build X and Y and to be fine" are just as helpful as the same comments vis-versa (like about Ravens or a mothership or Carriers or BCs) or comments like "you just have to micro better; you just have to position better; you just have to FF better". Don't get me wrong: those comments are often right. But do they help a player? Do they determine "balance" on their own, if there are like 100instances in a 12min game, in which those comments can be applied - starting from discussion wether you want to clear out watch towers with zealots very early on, to the point where huge strategical decision like researching drops are often times said to be "standard" and you should "always just do this to be fine".
I don't see a huge problem right now with those things in ZvP. If the Protoss lets himself get surrounded, pushes spine/infestor with too little stuff or doesn't have a warp prism to reinforce, it's just as much of a mistake as a Zerg that gets forcefielded off, fails to deny crucial Pylons or gets blocked out of his base, and loses too many units in aggression/runby attempts.

Talking about MC vs DRG. MC outplayed DRG, who didn't look like he was in his best shape. But how did MC do this?
He did two fast third expansion builds, that DRG tried to put pressure on and failed. I didn't want to bring this argument until now, because I haven't seen a lot of Protoss players really getting up that fast third, while really looking safe doing so. But MC did look safe. Fast third builds may not be possible if the Zerg knows it is coming, but from those games they absolutly look possible in the current metagame and they basically deny any advantage a Zerg has, if they look like MC's - he has the tech advantage with his robo/support bay setup (+SG on Daybreak), he has quite some longterm focused army (with the immortals and sentries) and he is only slightly behind in economy against a zerg that can't really emphasize on eco anymore, because he has maximum saturation and from there on can only trade some mineral income in gas income through expanding. This is exactly what I was talking about in the other post: you may not be able to emphasize on being even in economy, but you can emphasize on other things like army and tech and be quite even overall. So yes, I believe nonaggressive builds are viable in PvZ, even if they have to rely a bit on the possibility of a aggression.

Honestly, those game looked exactly how they should look like if a player is outplaying another one: MC hold everything, every attack of MC was a succes, every overall gameplan seemed to work out exactly like planned (apart from losing the void ray in game 1). He was both unbreakable and unstoppable. The very fact that this is possible in PvZ, means that the balance can't be far off, else it would not have ended 3-0. I mean, it didn't even matter that DRG crushed the sentrydrop in game3, MC still pushed through with the attack. It was not like he had only that one try to FF the ramp and else lose. There was still plenty of room to show his skill and beat his opponent. As you say you don't care too much about winrates, I think this is quite a strong argument.
And I'm saying all of this, after commenting on MC more than once, being not that great of a player (though I think his style is damnsolid. His usual aggression simply crushes lesser/out of form players, and therefore guarantees that he only loses against the very best), as I think that there are more potent, but probably less stable Protoss players and strategies out there. (especially talking about Genius and Creator, which I think are two of the cleverest players, but rather lack execution/experience - Creator - and motivation/fortune - Genius being in the GSL and Ro16 ever since, but only making it far in the one season he promised his father to do so) So don't tell me it's "easy to say MC outplayed someone", as in my opinion up to today he hasn't shown that he deserves to be named among players like MVP or NesTea and "just" won two GSL through unsolved builds (noone really knew how to really hold those attacks in season 3 and 5) and a bunch of foreign tournaments against players which simply weren't his skilllevel. (this opinion has taken a huge beating today)

Talking about Stephano vs MC. Stephano may be the best ZvP player in the world, or at least amongst the best. His playstyle has evolved way more on his own than the other ones MC or other Koreans are facing and might be quite different to fight against. And don't tell me "he just plays roach/ling". He builds units at weird times - often times way before aggression occurs - and has quite a ton of builds and gameunderstanding, that I think even at the toplevel is only being matched by very, very few players. I think it is quite hard to really comment on Stephano and why he wins (because that's what he does), as he hasn't played in the GSL yet, and it is really hard to determine his skilllevel and his strategies, for as long as he doesn't play against the best of the best (which will try to beat a force like him in a macro game) regularily and all the other Koreans that will try to abuse each and every move he makes to beat him in that one match they have to play in a GSL group and to maybe reveal mistakes and "solve" why things work out for him, how they seem to do.
Not to mention again, that he has lost more than once against MC - not only sets, but whole series. (which seems to be the only toplevel Protoss he seems to face regularily)

In my opinion, the race with the variety and options to win, is the one that controls the flow of the MU, while the race that has to react is basically the one that, well, has to go with the flow.
In PvZ early on in my opinion, Protoss controls it (assuming Zerg gives this option away by building a third base) and Zerg gets this option, once Protoss gets a third - and then, most of the time gives it back to Protoss for some time by teching towards Broodlords. (all of that with regards to the current metagame)
Coming to your game example, even if we cut the option of a rather early third base for Protoss, there is already one big difference. If I don't laugh, you lose. But Protoss has quite a lot of builds, where - in the analogy - it would be enough to make me twitch and you don't lose - which is something that will simply happen again and again, if either the joke is really good, or it hasn't been told for quite some time and I forgot the gag. Or just simply out of reasons, that don't have something to do with the joke itself, but just because I think it's funny that you keep on trying.
We could even say, if I twitch hard enough, we change roles and now it's on me, to make you laugh - in Starcraft.
In conclusion your task may simply not be as hard, as you make it sound, once we complete the analogy.