|
On May 04 2014 23:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 22:50 submarine wrote:On May 04 2014 19:21 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 16:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 09:48 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 09:20 Whitewing wrote:
[quote]
Not really, it's a sign that one race is harder to play than the other. If the best terran can go 50/50 against the best toss, that's balance, and everything else is irrelevant. So whether the game is balanced or not depends on the players who are playing it? If that's not the most useless definition of the word 'balance' I've ever encountered, I don't know what is. What if Maru and Polt stop playing SC2 tomorrow, suddenly TvP takes a huge dive because no one else can mechanically reproduce their success, and, what? The game is now imbalanced because it went from 50/50 to 55/45 based on two top 5 players disappearing? That's a joke if ever there was one. What if we make Terran even harder to play mechanically than it is now, so that there are zero Terrans in Code S. There's still the chance that if a good enough player comes along to play Terran, like, five times better than Maru is now, he'll slaughter everyone... so... I guess the game would still be potentially imbalanced in Terran's favor, in some absurd and clearly useless meaning of the words? A balanced MU is one where Hypothetical Player playing Race A can play his mirror universe twin who plays Race B and they will come out at 50/50 over any long-enough stretch. That is balance. Very simple. Objectively immeasurable because there are no mirror universe twins who have been playing different races for the exact same period of time, but subjectively very measurable because we have brains that are capable of entertaining hypothetical scenarios. Like here's a hypothetical scenario, MVP.Tails starts playing Terran. He's never heard from again for as long as he lives. That's not balance.Options are a buff. If terran can go mech and have it be equally as effective as bio, then that's a buff because protoss builds and strategies need to take that into account. That limits protoss, which is a buff. Please show me the Terran who has said that, if Terran gets new options and they are too strong for Protoss to handle, shifting the balance completely in Terran's favor, we are against a Protoss buff. Cart before the horse. If we have evidence that a matchup can be 50:50 and is being executed as such--we don't ignore that data. If Maru and Polt never existed, and we have 0 players in top ranks, then you can make the hypothesis (based on evidence at hand) that Terran cannot beat Protoss. Right now we have empirical proof that Terrans can beat protoss consistently, some terrans at least. What we don't have proof of is if this performance is repeatable. Whether we are okay or not with its irrepeatability is a different one from balance. Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced? Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate. Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup. Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in. We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced. We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance. Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about. What? That doesn't make sense what's so ever. Even if no terrans were in the top 100 players in the world, you could make the same claim. There can never be any 100% absolutely correct evidence for imbalance. It is always POSSIBLE that the 100 best players just happen to play protoss and zerg, no? Maru having 50%+ TvP isn't any 'evidence', it *might* just be that protoss players just play worse against him. You can't 100% prove that is not the case. My balance definition: Over a long period of time race participation in pro tournaments is even, and winrates are 50/50 in all MU. Let's play through a scenario: 1. The game is perfectly balanced according to my definition. 2. One race is buffed. 3. Winrates will favor the buffed race over a certain amount of time. 4. Winrates will return to 50/50 but the buffed race will be over represented. Looking at winrates alone can be miss-leading if you already reached stage 4. But the problem with this logic is that you are assuming race selection directly correlates to winrates. If Blizzard promised blowjobs for every terran player race representation would spike up despite the lack of a patch. If terran wins were given bigger prize pools than protoss wins, that would also raise race selection to fix race representation. Players may also pick one race over another for many other factors such as health (carpel tunnel patterns amongst the terran population is real), aesthetic (michael bay loves his lazers and explosions, so do his fans, Protoss does have a lot of lazers), etc... There are many reason why players choose the races they choose and depending on the accumulation of those factors lead to a racial preference that is not necessarily balanced. Winrate is not the only thing that causes race selection, which is what is bothersome about assuming race representation is directly tied to winrate. Its one of many factors, we have to have proof that its the one that is specifically causing this specific shift.
quite the way of explaining it! There are a lot of points here that if u arent told it, pure ignorance has you ignore it. Realistically, the game IS balanced as if you watch streams on a general level you see those unwinnable compositions beaten. i watched some random masters player pcik apart the protoss death ball . .hope that kid hits gm!
|
On May 05 2014 00:56 StatixEx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 23:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 22:50 submarine wrote:On May 04 2014 19:21 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 16:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 09:48 pure.Wasted wrote:
[quote]
So whether the game is balanced or not depends on the players who are playing it? If that's not the most useless definition of the word 'balance' I've ever encountered, I don't know what is. What if Maru and Polt stop playing SC2 tomorrow, suddenly TvP takes a huge dive because no one else can mechanically reproduce their success, and, what? The game is now imbalanced because it went from 50/50 to 55/45 based on two top 5 players disappearing? That's a joke if ever there was one.
What if we make Terran even harder to play mechanically than it is now, so that there are zero Terrans in Code S. There's still the chance that if a good enough player comes along to play Terran, like, five times better than Maru is now, he'll slaughter everyone... so... I guess the game would still be potentially imbalanced in Terran's favor, in some absurd and clearly useless meaning of the words?
A balanced MU is one where Hypothetical Player playing Race A can play his mirror universe twin who plays Race B and they will come out at 50/50 over any long-enough stretch. That is balance. Very simple. Objectively immeasurable because there are no mirror universe twins who have been playing different races for the exact same period of time, but subjectively very measurable because we have brains that are capable of entertaining hypothetical scenarios.
Like here's a hypothetical scenario, MVP.Tails starts playing Terran. He's never heard from again for as long as he lives. That's not balance.
[quote]
Please show me the Terran who has said that, if Terran gets new options and they are too strong for Protoss to handle, shifting the balance completely in Terran's favor, we are against a Protoss buff.
Cart before the horse. If we have evidence that a matchup can be 50:50 and is being executed as such--we don't ignore that data. If Maru and Polt never existed, and we have 0 players in top ranks, then you can make the hypothesis (based on evidence at hand) that Terran cannot beat Protoss. Right now we have empirical proof that Terrans can beat protoss consistently, some terrans at least. What we don't have proof of is if this performance is repeatable. Whether we are okay or not with its irrepeatability is a different one from balance. Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced? Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate. Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup. Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in. We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced. We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance. Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about. What? That doesn't make sense what's so ever. Even if no terrans were in the top 100 players in the world, you could make the same claim. There can never be any 100% absolutely correct evidence for imbalance. It is always POSSIBLE that the 100 best players just happen to play protoss and zerg, no? Maru having 50%+ TvP isn't any 'evidence', it *might* just be that protoss players just play worse against him. You can't 100% prove that is not the case. My balance definition: Over a long period of time race participation in pro tournaments is even, and winrates are 50/50 in all MU. Let's play through a scenario: 1. The game is perfectly balanced according to my definition. 2. One race is buffed. 3. Winrates will favor the buffed race over a certain amount of time. 4. Winrates will return to 50/50 but the buffed race will be over represented. Looking at winrates alone can be miss-leading if you already reached stage 4. But the problem with this logic is that you are assuming race selection directly correlates to winrates. If Blizzard promised blowjobs for every terran player race representation would spike up despite the lack of a patch. If terran wins were given bigger prize pools than protoss wins, that would also raise race selection to fix race representation. Players may also pick one race over another for many other factors such as health (carpel tunnel patterns amongst the terran population is real), aesthetic (michael bay loves his lazers and explosions, so do his fans, Protoss does have a lot of lazers), etc... There are many reason why players choose the races they choose and depending on the accumulation of those factors lead to a racial preference that is not necessarily balanced. Winrate is not the only thing that causes race selection, which is what is bothersome about assuming race representation is directly tied to winrate. Its one of many factors, we have to have proof that its the one that is specifically causing this specific shift. quite the way of explaining it! There are a lot of points here that if u arent told it, pure ignorance has you ignore it. Realistically, the game IS balanced as if you watch streams on a general level you see those unwinnable compositions beaten. i watched some random masters player pcik apart the protoss death ball . .hope that kid hits gm!
He's not explaining it well but there is a valid point in there.
Arguably not true of top GM. But everywhere else looking at flat win rates is meaningless in an MMR system designed to equalise them. The asides are you can compare win rates in the various matchups. If a large part of the Terran population is beating every Zerg and losing to every Protoss you've at least one issue there, but from that you don't really know which matchup(s) is(are) broken. But then you really have to take into account the type of game too.
I expect protoss win rates are skewed heavily by all the silly autowins, oracles or DT's all ins can straight up win the game meaning to achieve a 50/50 win rate they much be getting smashed in 'standard' macro games. So you need to look at standard and various allins in isolation.
A reasonable statistical analysis is very hard to come by. A random stream doesn't make a meaningful sample. You can take random players like myself but even there understandings of the match-ups massively cloud effects of player skill. With 3 times the match-ups to learn that can be a big effect, especially in the compositional match-ups like ZvP or PvZ, where I struggle but then win most ZvZ's as its simple macro and micro fest. Terran is mechanically more taxing but I have good win rates because I understand it better can micro and its rarely compositional. On top of the being random means I get cheesed a lot, meaning I get a lot of free wins from that (you get pretty decent at spotting and stopping them).
I don't really get the impression Blizzard look at any of these types of factors in enough depth. If they do they should tell us about it to reassure us! But at the end of the day balance isn't everything, perfectly balanced or not, swarm hosts are a thing....
|
On May 05 2014 00:33 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2014 00:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 23:36 TheDwf wrote:On May 04 2014 23:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 22:50 submarine wrote:On May 04 2014 19:21 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 16:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:
[quote]
Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced?
Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate. Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup. Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in. We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced. We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance. Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about. What? That doesn't make sense what's so ever. Even if no terrans were in the top 100 players in the world, you could make the same claim. There can never be any 100% absolutely correct evidence for imbalance. It is always POSSIBLE that the 100 best players just happen to play protoss and zerg, no? Maru having 50%+ TvP isn't any 'evidence', it *might* just be that protoss players just play worse against him. You can't 100% prove that is not the case. My balance definition: Over a long period of time race participation in pro tournaments is even, and winrates are 50/50 in all MU. Let's play through a scenario: 1. The game is perfectly balanced according to my definition. 2. One race is buffed. 3. Winrates will favor the buffed race over a certain amount of time. 4. Winrates will return to 50/50 but the buffed race will be over represented. Looking at winrates alone can be miss-leading if you already reached stage 4. But the problem with this logic is that you are assuming race selection directly correlates to winrates. If Blizzard promised blowjobs for every terran player race representation would spike up despite the lack of a patch. If terran wins were given bigger prize pools than protoss wins, that would also raise race selection to fix race representation. Players may also pick one race over another for many other factors such as health (carpel tunnel patterns amongst the terran population is real), aesthetic (michael bay loves his lazers and explosions, so do his fans, Protoss does have a lot of lazers), etc... There are many reason why players choose the races they choose and depending on the accumulation of those factors lead to a racial preference that is not necessarily balanced. Winrate is not the only thing that causes race selection, which is what is bothersome about assuming race representation is directly tied to winrate. Its one of many factors, we have to have proof that its the one that is specifically causing this specific shift. Why are you talking about race selection when the amount of players is roughly equal for each race anyway? Are you talking about the ladder or are you talking about high end tournaments? Ladder.
And since I was talking about tournament participation, specifically the GSL being that Maru has been the main point of conversation, how does talking about ladder relate to this?
|
On May 05 2014 00:12 Glorfindel! wrote:You still do not understand that even if there was 10x times Terran players playing the game than the other races, and none of them even could make it into Master League due to Terran being to bad of a race - we would still have 50/50 balance after a while due to the match-making system? What in that is it that you dont understand?  It is impossible to lean against 50/50 statistics since the stats will always go towards that number. Do you understand that or not? That is a simple Yes or No question. Would be nice to understand if you understand that to understand if it even is worth bothering answering to you anymore :S
The matchmaking system gets you to a point where you're 50/50 against all opponents as a whole, not 50/50 against every race. If, for example, TvP is imbalanced, then you will have a lot of players that are 45/55 against Protoss but 55/45 against Zerg. They're actually better than their opponents, which is why they're favored against Zerg in this example. But since Protoss is overpowered, they lose despite being better players. Their overall matchup percentage is still 50/50, so they don't get moved up or down, but you can still see imbalances from their win% against specific races.
Trust me, in earlier vanilla SC2 my PvZ was 75/25, but due to 1/1/1 being pretty much unbeatable by PvT was 25/75. PvP was 50/50 due to the matchup being all 4 gate all the time. It stayed like this for hundreds of games and the matchmaking system did not match me up against worse and worse Terran players specifically to get it to 50/50.
|
Watching Huk vs Polt, it's disgusting how players like Huk who is 10x weaker than Polt manage to win this much.
|
TLO taking down two Korean Terrans ATM in TaKeTV Ultra Invitational -
I said it before, but I think TvZ might start to reach BL-Infestor again when foreigner can take down Korean Terrans left and right O.o
|
On May 05 2014 01:44 Glorfindel! wrote:
TLO taking down two Korean Terrans ATM in TaKeTV Ultra Invitational -
I said it before, but I think TvZ might start to reach BL-Infestor again when foreigner can take down Korean Terrans left and right O.o
Revenge isn't exactly what I would call a traditional Korean Terran though. His level is weaker than the best EU Terrans.
|
On May 05 2014 01:20 Faust852 wrote:
Watching Huk vs Polt, it's disgusting how players like Huk who is 10x weaker than Polt manage to win this much.
Nah, Huk is on the level of the Korean Protosses that Polt beat 3-2 in IEM. That's why. Nothing to do with warpgate DT or some proxy build that is difficult to scout and safe to open. /sarcasm
This also happened during BL/Infestor WoL days with Zergs. It would become very difficult to tell apart a Korean's ZvT against a Foreigner's ZvT - queens into infestors then broods with 'beautiful' insta-cast fungals.
Here we can see that early aggression with proxy and warptech builds have lower skill ceiling than mid-game, multi-pronged scenario for Protoss. Blizzard needs to address this. I don't care if Protoss have good early game options, but rightnow the early game options for Protoss are not scaled to player skill and ability.
|
On May 05 2014 01:47 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2014 01:20 Faust852 wrote:
Watching Huk vs Polt, it's disgusting how players like Huk who is 10x weaker than Polt manage to win this much. Nah, Huk is on the level of the Korean Protosses that Polt beat 3-2 in IEM. That's why. Nothing to do with warpgate DT or some proxy build that is difficult to scout and safe to open. /sarcasm This also happened during BL/Infestor WoL days with Zergs. It would become very difficult to tell apart a Korean's ZvT against a Foreigner's ZvT - queens into infestors then broods with 'beautiful' insta-cast fungals. Here we can see that early aggression with proxy and warptech builds have lower skill ceiling than mid-game, multi-pronged scenario for Protoss. Blizzard needs to address this. I don't care if Protoss have good early game options, but rightnow the early game options for Protoss are not scaled to player skill and ability.
It's disgusting and boring. Nothing more to say.
EDIT not having seen the games, just commenting on what you said.
|
boxer winning vs yellow 3-0 was disgusting too since he bunker rushed all 3 times
|
If you're going to rip on foreigners beating Koreans, picking guys that have at some point or another played in GSL code S is probably not your best idea. They're the exact players that when in playing shape can knock games (and thus occasionally matches) off of top players.
|
On May 05 2014 02:03 ROOTFayth wrote:
boxer winning vs yellow 3-0 was disgusting too since he bunker rushed all 3 times
And all those t2 Tower attacks in Infi vs Fly100%, what a horror.
|
On May 05 2014 02:03 ROOTFayth wrote:
boxer winning vs yellow 3-0 was disgusting too since he bunker rushed all 3 times
July's triple 6pool win was also pretty epic 
|
On May 05 2014 02:17 RampancyTW wrote:
If you're going to rip on foreigners beating Koreans, picking guys that have at some point or another played in GSL code S is probably not your best idea. They're the exact players that when in playing shape can knock games (and thus occasionally matches) off of top players.
It's not ripping on foreigners - it's just pointing to a similar pattern that was shown before in BL/Infestor days. Or would that also be "ripping" on foreigners to talk about BL/infestor?
|
On May 05 2014 01:47 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2014 01:20 Faust852 wrote:
Watching Huk vs Polt, it's disgusting how players like Huk who is 10x weaker than Polt manage to win this much. Nah, Huk is on the level of the Korean Protosses that Polt beat 3-2 in IEM. That's why. Nothing to do with warpgate DT or some proxy build that is difficult to scout and safe to open. /sarcasm This also happened during BL/Infestor WoL days with Zergs. It would become very difficult to tell apart a Korean's ZvT against a Foreigner's ZvT - queens into infestors then broods with 'beautiful' insta-cast fungals. Here we can see that early aggression with proxy and warptech builds have lower skill ceiling than mid-game, multi-pronged scenario for Protoss. Blizzard needs to address this. I don't care if Protoss have good early game options, but rightnow the early game options for Protoss are not scaled to player skill and ability.
If you look at the midgames between Huk and Polt throughout the series, the times where Huk could show true skill (fast play and multitasking across the map defending vs. Polt's multiprong attacks, and excellent positioning/strategic play to gain an advantage vs Polt's excellent strategic play) he got demolished. Now someone like Rain or Hero can go toe-to-toe with Polt in the midgame-- both of them showed excellent multitasking, positioning, and general play against Polt, as in that part of the game the skill ceiling is obviously not yet reached. But in the early game they all look the same--decent micro, crisp proxy and cheese builds, defense with overcharge, because they don't actually need to do that much. Things like whether or not the proxy stargate is scouted is largely a matter of chance for a protoss.
Compare this to something even as simple as a terran 2rax against zerg. I guarantee that simply by watching a bunch of barcode terrans 2rax you could rank their general play very accurately because the skill ceiling of 2rax is very, very high. I can't say the same for Huk's stargate into 2base 3gate attack though.
|
skill ceiling of 2 rax is very very high LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
you are totally not biased
|
On May 05 2014 02:45 ROOTFayth wrote:
skill ceiling of 2 rax is very very high LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
you are totally not biased
? What he says about 2 rax having a high skill ceiling is perfectly true.
|
not any higher than what huk has been doing
for obvious reasons
|
On May 05 2014 02:45 ROOTFayth wrote:
skill ceiling of 2 rax is very very high LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
you are totally not biased
I think that's the build that has the highest skill ceiling in the game.
Noone can 2 rax like Maru for instance.
|
On May 05 2014 02:51 ROOTFayth wrote:
not any higher than what huk has been doing
for obvious reasons
yeah that oracle 3 gate all in was super hard to pull off
just look at the micro !!! he had to target fire the bunker!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
