|
With 2/3rds of the current GSL Code S players using Terran and 1/8th of them being Protoss(and that number will drop next season unless 4 Protoss make it out of the up&downs) I'm starting to think the map pool is partially to blame for this gross imbalance of races. I do realise that their are simply more Terran players anyways and thus they will always have a higher percentage of representation but this seems kinda silly.
I think the current map pool for GSL is partially to blame for this. Maps that were Zerg favored (Scrap Station being the main one and a moded Belshir Beach) have been removed from the pool and same with the Protoss homeworld of Jungle Basin. However we still have Xel'naga Fortress which is very terran favored in the line-up along with Duel Sight.
I feel that if their were a map or two in the line-up that Terran reallllly hated to play vs the top level zergs and protosses we would see more zerg and protoss in Code S. Do you agree?
Poll: Do you think the maps are part of the code race imbalance?No. (355) 72% Yes. (138) 28% 493 total votes Your vote: Do you think the maps are part of the code race imbalance? (Vote): Yes.
(Vote): No.
|
Crossfire is a really good map for Terran to say the least...
|
i dont think so
its just the current state of the game where everyone in korea seems to fistpump when they meet a protoss
|
Scrap Station was not Zerg favored.
|
I don't think it's the maps. Sure, maybe the maps play a part, but Korean Terrans have their shit together. Outside of GSL I feel that all three races are pretty well represented on the podium, despite that they use a lot of the same maps that are used in the GSL.
Believe me, I want to see better race distributions in Code S as well.
|
Really should wait a while before posting this or rename the title. I instantly knew Happy beat Curious.
And no, I think the terran players are just playing better than all the other races right now thanks to their broodwar background or training environment (Slayers/IM house)
|
On October 12 2011 21:51 hahaimhenry wrote:
Crossfire is a really good map for Terran to say the least...
No, it's definitely not.
On October 12 2011 21:53 Pebbz wrote:
Scrap Station was not Zerg favored.
At the metagame of that time, it was heavily zerg favored.
|
On October 12 2011 21:51 hahaimhenry wrote:
Crossfire is a really good map for Terran to say the least...
Wrong.
|
The Terran race is just better. maps are the least of the concern right now.
|
Scrap station wasnt Zerg favoured, and Terrans do not want to play a TvZ on Belshir Beach or Dual Sight.
|
On October 12 2011 21:53 Pebbz wrote:
Scrap Station was not Zerg favored.
Zerg vs All on Scrap Station in GSL
Basiclly it says zergs won 58% of the games on Scrap Station(25w/18L)
|
Russian Federation304 Posts
no
maps slightly change balance. in general no
|
of cause it is. Balance doesn't just include the race; the map and spawn location have quite a large impact too.
But it isn't the map that makes terran the stronger race, it is them able to utilise their units much better, especially siege tanks and drops
|
Don't blame the maps, blame the structure. The Code A / Code S structure is perfectly designed to result in stagnation in the player base. I'll take an OSL/MSL type format any day.
|
Don't think it is maps, just Terran is slightly better at the VERY highest level (Korea).
The amount of Terrans in every ro8/ro16 backs this up. It just keeps happening....
|
to qoute obama on this:
YES WE CAN.
but i rly dont think we can
there is just no really really good protoss player out there and the zergs still play a kind off outdated/not so effective anymore style (same with protoss kinda)
|
No the maps arent the problem.
BUT you can make them imbalanced to reduce the number of terrans. Dunno how but it is somehting where the community could work on. Dunno if that is the right way
|
Well you can always try to balance the game through maps, which is something I think GSL is trying to do (mainly changing maps to be less T favoured over P - like the Terminus changes).
|
On October 12 2011 22:02 Tppz! wrote:
No the maps arent the problem.
BUT you can make them imbalanced to reduce the number of terrans. Dunno how but it is somehting where the community could work on. Dunno if that is the right way
ROFL.
NO. What a horrible idea.
Too many zergs on NA ladder, blizzard should put rocks at the natural in all maps now.
|
On October 12 2011 21:55 Nick_54 wrote:
And no, I think the terran players are just playing better than all the other races right now thanks to their broodwar background or training environment (Slayers/IM house)
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious where you would say the tipping point is. At what point do we finally cave in and say tarren is imba? When Ro8 is 100% tarren instead of merely 75%? When Nestea and DRG join MC down in code B and code S is pure TvT?
For myself, I think the maps are certainly a contributing factor... but there is a more fundamental reason we see this imbalance.
|
Yes, I've always felt that sc2 are fairly map dependant. Some problems are caused by players not adapting their strategies enough for specific maps making them seen imbalanced when it's in fact a player issue, but there are definatly maps that effect the outcomes in certain matchups.
|
I noticed that for some weeks now, the map pool really doesn't look all that good for Protoss:
This is the map pool:
+ Show Spoiler + Antiga Shipyard
Bel'Shir Beach
Crossfire SE
Daybreak
Dual Sight
Metalopolis
Tal'Darim Altar LE
Terminus SE
Xel'Naga Fortress
So Bel'Shir, Crossfire, Xel'Naga Fortress are pretty terrible Protoss maps, Meta and Dual Sight aren't good for Protoss either.
The maps that are actually okay for Protoss are just that: okay. Afaik there is no really good Protoss map in the map pool.
So yeah the map pool doesn't favor Protoss.
On the other hand, do we really want maps that favor Protoss in its current state? Cause that would be pretty turtlish, undynamic maps with easy thirds/fourths and 1a deathball games.
I'd rather see the game fixed instead of adding Protoss maps at this point.
btw GSL actually adds this map and I think it's in response to Protoss imbalance atm. But as you can see, games will probably be very passive and turtish on this one... (so basically like Stephano vs Kiwikaki passive, just without the new mothership moves ...)
|
The problems are unit efficiency and utility, not maps, the current pools provide only minor advantages to a given race.
|
On October 12 2011 22:02 Gamegene wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 22:02 Tppz! wrote:
No the maps arent the problem.
BUT you can make them imbalanced to reduce the number of terrans. Dunno how but it is somehting where the community could work on. Dunno if that is the right way ROFL. NO. What a horrible idea. Too many zergs on NA ladder, blizzard should put rocks at the natural in all maps now.
Thats how it was done in Broodwar. Balance through maps.
And im not talking about Laddermappool - im talking about GSL maps. And I think GSL is trying to do so by adding belshirbeach etc
Still not sure if its worth it because Blizzard couldnt balance the game with the new imbalanced maps.
|
On October 12 2011 21:56 Gamegene wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 21:51 hahaimhenry wrote:
Crossfire is a really good map for Terran to say the least... Wrong.
Should be using this
Honestly though, the maps are hardly the reason for this. It's just simply the fact that Terrans players are just doing a lot better in the GSL.
|
|
|
I feel it has more to do with Terrans in Korea being extremely good and the fact that Terran play is extremely diverse. In contrast Zerg and Protoss have found only a limited number of strategies that they can employ effectively.
|
How should maps look so that they are good for P>Z>T in that order ?
I am not sure, since it looks like you can either have map that is good for T/P or good for Z ? Meaning, easy expos, barren lands for surrounds etc...
Maybe, by removing any viable elevator play from Terran ? And keeping chokes so P can keep using FF and not get surrounded so easily ?
|
i heard tanks were a good unit in korea
|
I really don't think we can blame the maps. Top-level Korean Terrans just have their shit together and figured out how the overcome "map imbalances." I say that because when all the new big maps first came out, a lot of the Terran players were complaining. I also think, the game hasn't really developed to a point yet, where we can fully understand what a Terran/Zerg/Protoss-favored map would look like. Sadly, we just need more time.
EDIT: The best example of this seems to be that in foreigner tournaments, Zerg and Protoss are a lot more prevalent with the number of top foreigners Terrans seemingly lacking. Even if it was a purely foreigner tournament I don't there are many people who would name a Terran player as a favorite (minus maybe ThorZaiN).
|
I'm honestly still waiting for A-list BW players to switch over (current ones, not like July, Boxer, Nada, etc.) and completely fuck up the rest of the competition.
|
Terran is the best designed race. There's not so much to explore in the other races in terms of combinations, builds and timings. That's why it took a long time to explore terran and why they're exploding at the very top level.
|
On October 12 2011 22:08 pdd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 21:56 Gamegene wrote:On October 12 2011 21:51 hahaimhenry wrote:
Crossfire is a really good map for Terran to say the least... Wrong. Should be using thisHonestly though, the maps are hardly the reason for this. It's just simply the fact that Terrans players are just doing a lot better in the GSL.
oh shit that's even worse ==;
|
Dustin Browder already said "That's almost a design flaw not a balance flaw"
Its the design of the terran race what cause the "imbalance", its a great design, and the others races lack of alternatives/units at their design.
Thats all, hopefully they can fix it adding the units they need at HoTS.
|
While maps might have something to do with it, the game is simply not balanced yet.
If a certain race outnumber the other races that much, you don't need someone else to tell you that something is wrong.
|
The biggest problem is just that the players using terran are better than the players using zerg or protoss, with only a few exceptions.
|
On October 12 2011 21:55 Nick_54 wrote:
Really should wait a while before posting this or rename the title. I instantly knew Happy beat Curious.
And no, I think the terran players are just playing better than all the other races right now thanks to their broodwar background or training environment (Slayers/IM house)
Yeah, because there are no Zergs or Protosses in any training houses and none of them have Brood War backgrounds.
July just started playing Starcraft this year, actually.
|
No such thing as a bad map for Terran. I feel like all the changes are geared toward balancing PvZ and ZvP. While Terran get little tweaks every time. The same with maps IMO. There is no map that Terran does worst than both Protoss and Zerg.
|
No, I don't think it's the maps fault.
Korea just has a good amount of great, consistent Terrans. That seems to be all there is to it.
|
On October 12 2011 22:18 hmunkey wrote:
The biggest problem is just that the players using terran are better than the players using zerg or protoss, with only a few exceptions.
There is no basis for saying this at all.
|
On October 12 2011 22:18 hmunkey wrote:
The biggest problem is just that the players using terran are better than the players using zerg or protoss, with only a few exceptions.
However, you need to ask yourself why they're better. Is it because they're terran, because they're naturally better?
To a degree, it goes back to BW, where all the big heroes were Terran, thus influencing the new generation of players.
In the end, I think Dustin Browder understood it right with the design "flaw" part of his interview. Terran is simply a more solid race at the moment, and hopefully they can make Zerg and Protoss more varied in HotS, and all we can really do at this stage is hope that mainly the Protoss players figure some shit out, as zerg's doing fine really. This is Code S of course, outside of Code S, both Zerg and Protoss are doing well.
|
i really think its more the balance than the maps, maps are pretty good imo ( and im toss) (and im talking about gsl's maps)
|
I'm honestly astonished Terran's are still successful. The maps do not favour Terran.
Maps like Steppes of War or Delta Quadrant favour Terran. Dramatically. We have moved a long, long way from those maps, and I think everyone believed that moving so far from these maps would significantly hurt Terran. Those who didn't think Terran needed such a bad handicap were concerned it might outright break them (I admit to having some reservations myself when GSL first introduced the huge maps we see today).
And yet, Terran's have continued with as good if, not better success than the early GSL stages.
|
It's probably just the strength and abundance of top-tier terrans in Korea. In the foreign scene, there are less terrans that can compete with the top zergs and toss (thorzain, select, major).
|
The game being relatively new, it's going to take a while for changes in balance, also considering that two more expansions are coming; it's not going to be near perfect for a long time. As for maps, I'd prefer widely different ones, having different strengths and weaknesses for each race. Total balance would be boring, you'd might as well have one race with different models for each player.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
I think the current crop of GSL maps are pretty ok. Sure the stats indicate to some imbalance (across all races), but it's hard to tell with such a low sample. If you look at the maps individually, there aren't really things that pop out and scream 'this makes it too good for terran!'.
I really don't know how to explain the gross overrepresentation of the terran race in Code S tbh. Is it because more good players are playing terran? Could be, but that's impossible to actually prove. Is it because terran is a little too strong in terms of game design? Perhaps, but that's road only leads to more balance whines and major QQs. Is it because the current state of the game & strategies are more developed for terran than the other races? That could also be true, or it could be any combination of the 3. I guess we'll just have to wait another season of two to see if this racial imbalance in Code S reverts back or remains the same.
|
At first, I was one of the few who defended the second SCs balance, and also defend GOM when people say "GOMTvT". But, it has really got silly. I'm not sure any body has very good answer to this problem right now, otherwise solution would already be done. But, I think it is very important to look at problem as the whole and not just GSL.
In Korea, Terran is very good (obvious) but outside Korea there is not much evidence that this. Actually, I think most agree that outside Korea maybe foreigner have better Zerg and Protoss than Terran. Not that many good foreign Terran.
But why is this? If Terran was really OP wouldn't it carry over atleast some out of Korea?
And if we say okay Terran OP, how OP are they? Enough OP that underdeserveing Terran only GSL (basically)? But then we change, and foreign Terran even more bad?
Many of the Terran in Code S have been there very long. So, obvious they are good. How can we be sure that not just best of Korean are playing Terran? Not many notable Korean protoss and only few zerg.
It is much more complicated than just say Terran OP need change, but is definitely effecting the ability to enjoy high level SC2 games.
Sorry for bad english if bad
|
Most guys started playing (aka they picked their race) before any map pool changes were made. The only thing maps would change is whether or not players would switch races, which they haven't been doing really.
|
gsl maps favor terran a bit and if they don't you allin XD. Crossfire is probably the only map were terran is unfavored (unless they go air). But there is not much you can do against the terran early aggression, its really hard to change something for them without poking at the late game. The 5 seconds on the barracks were one thing that worked.
Could happen that they add something to terran the next balance patch, or remove some build time from the toss.
But in general people attack the terran when they are in position where the terran wants to be, while a terran attacks mostly when the opponent is in a bad spot. So the open parts in the gsl maps don't really bother a terran. Mid/late game people poke terrans when they are out of posi and do fine. Really strange stuff.
As for the code S i think some maps are free wins for the terran, just my feeling, but thats why i think terrans have it easier to stay in code S. Also think that the other races don't put as much effort into micro (but i might miss all their micro, but if i see colossi optimizing their aoe damage its mostly foreigners who are doing it)
|
Wow, people really think the maps don't play a large part in it? I don't know what to say. A lot of the Terrans got in before balance changes and map pool changes, I won't deny T having some pretty ridiculous power at the ultra-high level, but GSL is a very stagnant league and so the initial maps being so overwhelming terran-centric and terran being able to adapt to nearly any map-type has a LOT to do with it.
|
I generally don't think you can make any statements on balance because of a few months of terran dominance. The total number of games is far too small to have statistical value.
|
It's in the races more than the maps I feel. SC2 can never be a true e-sport when imbalance is between races.
|
The problem with the mass of terrans in the GSL is the fact that the players can't get knocked out, and the fact that the best players in the world are terrans.
If they made it so around two-thirds of the Code S players would go to up-and-down matches, there wouldn't be huge number of terran players left over from when terran was imba.
|
yes.
User was warned for this post
|
I don't think star2 is at the point where bw was where all races are godlike in the hands of the pros and maps actually could make a big difference. Now in star2, I really don't think it's the case. Sure you have maps that are favored for one race or another because of the terrain and what not, but star2 isn't at the point in racial balance and or strategical balance that the maps at the korean pro level make that big of a difference in more terrans being in gsl. During saviors prime he stated he hard a hard time beating cjs practice partners on the map pool of the time. But regardless of that, he destroyed all terrans in osl, msl during his reign on the most terran favored maps in bw imo.
I think there will be a time like bw,where maps can make a somewhat a difference. But regardless of the metagame, maps, or what ever, any player of any race can well on any map. And for damn sure we aren't even close to a point in the metagame where this discussion on map imbalance should even be discussed, there are other racial and strategical imbalance discussion that are worth talking about that would make more sense then no toss in gsl cuz of maps.
|
There is many contributing factors that have lead to the situation of Code S being largely Terran. To try to pint point one thing as 'the' reason would be faulty. Meta game, Code S structure, Maps, Player Skill, etc... all have varying levels of contribution at one time or another that has lead to the T domination of Code S.
I think one thing that would probably help Code S to be honest is if they dumped everyone from Code S once a year and ran 2 or 3 tournaments more like the original GSL. That however, is not likely to happen at all just due to the fact korea uses Code S and the GSL almost like salary to pay the players.
|
Getting rid of all those "instant" attacks from Terran arsenal will solve this mess. I assure you.
|
Of course maps are a part of the balance but i do not think they are the reason for the imbalance. i would prefer if you'd add more options to your poll.
|
Terran is IMBA
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 12 2011 22:20 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 22:18 hmunkey wrote:
The biggest problem is just that the players using terran are better than the players using zerg or protoss, with only a few exceptions. There is no basis for saying this at all.
Don't listen to him, he is a terran player so he must think of himself to be special. Everyone else is just stupid.
Some balance with maps could be done, but still, the race design needs some work.
|
On October 12 2011 22:55 CatNzHat wrote:
The problem with the mass of terrans in the GSL is the fact that the players can't get knocked out, and the fact that the best players in the world are terrans.
If they made it so around two-thirds of the Code S players would go to up-and-down matches, there wouldn't be huge number of terran players left over from when terran was imba.
That's a very interesting fact! LOL! All the best, most talented players happened to choose Terran, right? How can it be explained otherwise, it's so simple, I don't know why everyone doesn't see this fact!!
|
On October 12 2011 22:58 sunman1g wrote:
yes.
Nice post, very enlightening.
I think that Terran is just better than Zerg or Protoss right now. The maps have nothing (or very little) to do with it.
|
Hell no. The maps we have now are very varied in size and how they are built, yet we are getting very consistent results in Korea.
Numbers will always speak louder than letters (as long as the numbers are factual and not fabricated) and they have all been saying the same thing since the last balance patch in beta SC2.
But Blizzard is on the right track, any changes they make now will be null and void when the expansion hits and new units turn the game upside down. What you know of SC2 now will forever drastically change once only a few new multiplayer units are introduced.
So no reason to worry, or even make any suggestions. The game's balance will be "reset" once the new units land and their team should focus on balancing the game then.
|
Terran was strong in Korea and weak outside in the BW era as well. It's a problem with skill ceilings. As far as game design goes, Terran looks like it makes sense overall, and Protoss is broken in so many ways... Some stuff, in order of the magnitude of the problem imo:
Warpgates are bad because they eliminate the sinews of war and defender's advantage, leading to weaker units to balance it out. It is just that you can get super abused if you don't abuse WG enough.
Sentries are bad for balancing purpose as well because the game is very different with force fields than without, which also leads to P army being too strong sometimes and too weak others. Same for guardian shield vs Terran.
Blink and Charge change the dynamic of the game too much, much more than any speed upgrade or Stim, so again the designers have to make the units weak but not too weak.
Void Rays don't have straight up counters, you have to go low tier units on the ground and hope P doesn't have synergy between the units. Hard to balance, again.
In short Blizzard has created a game with the mentality of "abuse or be abused". The game is unfair in a lot of spots, in favor(and against) of all races, maybe a bit less when it comes to Terran which despite the many all-ins is more robust and solid because it has multiple viable options. Broodwar was the same, probably not to the same extent though. You have to find out what spots favor you the most and try to play the game in order to force those situations. Korean Terrans have been better at it for the most part.
The game is definitely imbalanced, statistics for so many months and games at the highest levels should convince anyone. The fact is Broodwar was the same, with Terran the weakest at the low end and at the same time most titles won in Korea. So this situation, fueled by the skill ceiling problem, may remain the same way for all of SC2. But my point would be that we should first talk about game design and only after that about balance.
|
On October 12 2011 21:49 Orcasgt24 wrote:
I think the current map pool for GSL is partially to blame for this. Maps that were Zerg favored (Scrap Station being the main one and a moded Belshir Beach) have been removed from the pool and same with the Protoss homeworld of Jungle Basin. However we still have Xel'naga Fortress which is very terran favored in the line-up along with Duel Sight.
Scrap station was so awful zvt. It's almost impossible for a zerg to get the key fourth base. And stopping a three base zerg as a meching terran is so stupidly easy unless the meching terran makes a mistake.
But back to the op, I think its all on the protoss players to figure it out. Since the beginning of time protoss players sat on there ass until they wanted to attack with their blob. Which worked pretty well for the first year. But now, with the meta game shifting completely, protoss players need a new strategy.
|
On October 12 2011 23:11 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 22:55 CatNzHat wrote:
The problem with the mass of terrans in the GSL is the fact that the players can't get knocked out, and the fact that the best players in the world are terrans.
If they made it so around two-thirds of the Code S players would go to up-and-down matches, there wouldn't be huge number of terran players left over from when terran was imba. That's a very interesting fact! LOL! All the best, most talented players happened to choose Terran, right? How can it be explained otherwise, it's so simple, I don't know why everyone doesn't see this fact!!
Can you name a game that supports your point? Its easy to look at a statistic and say wow that shows imbalance but for example there were 5 protoss in code S this season, 1 advanced to Ro16, 1 stayed in code S, and 3 went to up/down.
That sounds like a really bad statistic until you look at the games and realize that Puzzle had MKP beat on a 4 gate then supply blocked himself and fumbled the attack. You cant balance around that and no amount of changes are gonig to fix that. Same thing can be said about genius and Hungun was someone people expected to fall for quite awhile. The only thing about imbalance you can draw from those games is making big mistakes means you lose.
|
I think it's a combination of a lot of factors. I honestly don't think that maps are a big reason to this imbalance. When GSL introduced the larger maps, terrans were complaining a lot but have found a way around it. Maps like Steppes of War were truly terran favoured, but I think that the only really terran-favoured map is Xel'Naga Fortress.
I wouldn't mind an all-terran code s if the 32 best players in the world were terran, but it's not like that.
A player like Ensnare, who has been in code s for a long time but hasn't really managed to do anything, should not be there imo. I think mostly the format is to blame, since we've learned from code a that there are players of other races, that are quite good.
I would rather see a change in the GSL format, to make it easier to drop from code s, than more balance changes. As others have said the only place where terran is "imba" is in code s. If terran is so overpowered, shouldn't it be OP in other places as well? In both code a, GSTL and foreign events, the races are much more evenly represented.
I mostly think the format is to blame honestly.
Even though I'm a terran player, I still think there are too many in code s. Would like to see some more Protoss, but I don't think the current code s protoss are the best Korea has to offer. Players like Oz(who did get creamed in the finals, but that might be due to nerves since he played very well in the rest of the tournament), JYP, Sage and possibly Tails(if he can play like he did vs IM) are better players than most of code s toss. I think the code s zergs have earned their place, since every one of them is good.
|
I don't think its the maps. And I don't think terran is imbalanced per se. My theory is: Terran is more robust than the other races, and does not as easily fall to cheese/luck/random etc. This, in the long run of a tourney, makes the difference.
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
I think it sort of comes down to the matchup. From a Terran perspective, lets have a look at things
vT: For a significant period of time, marine/tank/medivac was the favoured style of play. recently, mech has come forward as well, and the odd few people still go MMM
vZ: Its basically the same as vT, if you think about it. Yes the openers are different, but the mid-game armies, the timing attacks etc are almost the same
vP: Forget exact armies, you make something that involves marauders and ghosts/vikings depending on what you see right?
People are more than welcome to call me out on this, but that's how its felt for me. Now all the Terrans know how to marine/tank by now, and so they're sort of set for 2 of the matchups. The third involves them being slightly more reactionary, but its still a tactic you use in TvT from time to time (MMM) but with added ghosts/vikings
Now lets look at Zerg and Protoss. Won't go into details, but you have different units for all 3 matchups. There are overlaps, but in general there are units that are key in one set, but are barely used in others. Whether that's right or not, for now its the case (once again, I'm only talking mid-game here, where a lot of matches are decided)
I think that Terran has an established setup for the matchups because their current builds for TvT are perfectly viable in the others, but that's not the case the other way round. Sure, you can use a ZvT build against Z or P, but its not as well establish, or is generally not considered as good.
My thoughts
|
The reason that there are so many Terrans in Code S right now is from what i understand, a bunch of reasons that compound eachother.
1. Terran is the most played race in Korea.
2. Terran is as of right now designed more fully than the other races.
3. Code S is extremely forgiving. The new players that we should see in Code S cant make it up there because not enough people are allowed to fall out of Code S every season.
|
personally no, the close spawns that screwed zergs are gone, as are the bunker wall offs, so its fine
hell i wish i had gsl maps for ladder >_<
|
Protoss has become to predictable and easy to counter their timings.
We need a new protoss hero to step up
|
Part of the blame maybe, but not all or most of it.
|
On October 12 2011 21:51 hahaimhenry wrote:
Crossfire is a really good map for Terran to say the least...
In theory, but obviously not in practice lol. Zergs have a winning record there, despite it looking like an ugly map for them.
OP: I don't think the maps are really to blame. Some will naturally be slightly favored towards one race or another, but I don't think it's causing the heavy racial imbalance in the GSL. Most of us who dislike the GSL map pool think that it's stale; we don't dislike it because it causes Terran to auto-win.
|
On October 12 2011 23:47 Hassybaby wrote:
I think it sort of comes down to the matchup. From a Terran perspective, lets have a look at things
vT: For a significant period of time, marine/tank/medivac was the favoured style of play. recently, mech has come forward as well, and the odd few people still go MMM
vZ: Its basically the same as vT, if you think about it. Yes the openers are different, but the mid-game armies, the timing attacks etc are almost the same
vP: Forget exact armies, you make something that involves marauders and ghosts/vikings depending on what you see right?
People are more than welcome to call me out on this, but that's how its felt for me. Now all the Terrans know how to marine/tank by now, and so they're sort of set for 2 of the matchups. The third involves them being slightly more reactionary, but its still a tactic you use in TvT from time to time (MMM) but with added ghosts/vikings
Now lets look at Zerg and Protoss. Won't go into details, but you have different units for all 3 matchups. There are overlaps, but in general there are units that are key in one set, but are barely used in others. Whether that's right or not, for now its the case (once again, I'm only talking mid-game here, where a lot of matches are decided)
I think that Terran has an established setup for the matchups because their current builds for TvT are perfectly viable in the others, but that's not the case the other way round. Sure, you can use a ZvT build against Z or P, but its not as well establish, or is generally not considered as good.
My thoughts
As a zerg player I agree with you bro. This is true, we can't just use the same army in zvt as we do in zvp or zvz most of the time. I do think what you've stated has something to do with terran dominance. As you can practice unit compositions that are more across the board sorta speak. Why i'm trying to get roaches in zvt down >.<
|
On October 12 2011 22:13 TigerKarl wrote:
Terran is the best designed race. There's not so much to explore in the other races in terms of combinations, builds and timings. That's why it took a long time to explore terran and why they're exploding at the very top level.
What are you talking about? Terrans have been dominating sind the early beta. What did terran ever explore?
|
On October 12 2011 22:11 Gotmog wrote:
How should maps look so that they are good for P>Z>T in that order ?
I am not sure, since it looks like you can either have map that is good for T/P or good for Z ? Meaning, easy expos, barren lands for surrounds etc...
Maybe, by removing any viable elevator play from Terran ? And keeping chokes so P can keep using FF and not get surrounded so easily ?
Not possible. There is no map that disfavors T. PvZ can be quite sensitive to maps. Trying to skew PvZ with a map will screw TvP or TvZ..
|
On October 12 2011 23:59 Slunk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 22:13 TigerKarl wrote:
Terran is the best designed race. There's not so much to explore in the other races in terms of combinations, builds and timings. That's why it took a long time to explore terran and why they're exploding at the very top level.
What are you talking about? Terrans have been dominating sind the early beta. What did terran ever explore?
actually early beta terrans were awful (im assuming closed beta)
but other than that, they've been pretty much dominating, except maybe march when
GSL code S ro4 had no terrans
|
I blame GSL and the Maps. Basically Blizzard must balance for all levels of play. GSL can be very different from other levels and might be left somewhat imbalanced.
The fix is for GSL to pick maps that favor Toss and Zerg.
Regarding "All the best players are terran."
As a viewer I do not care. As a viewer I want to see a diverse set of games, not just TvT every game. I would say make Terran UP enough that these best players who all play Terran either switch races or start to lose.
|
On October 12 2011 22:04 Mormagil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 21:55 Nick_54 wrote:
And no, I think the terran players are just playing better than all the other races right now thanks to their broodwar background or training environment (Slayers/IM house) I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious where you would say the tipping point is. At what point do we finally cave in and say tarren is imba? When Ro8 is 100% tarren instead of merely 75%? When Nestea and DRG join MC down in code B and code S is pure TvT? For myself, I think the maps are certainly a contributing factor... but there is a more fundamental reason we see this imbalance.
Wait so a largely zerg dominant ipl as well as a zerg champion for ipl iem code a and dreamhack means nothing? I mean if were going purely by tournament results everything except code s says balance is not as what all this whining is about. Its funny how people who want to complain can nitpick stats to make their arguments carry more weight.
Its ridiculous to me how much hate gom gets for the state of code s right now. Do terrans flood code a live report threads when it was mostly z and p with only gumiho to root for? Tvt is the most dynamic mirror and provides players with both macro and inventive aggression, something netizens say is fun to watch while timing based attacks and all ins are constantly whined against which is what pvp and zvz mostly ends up being.
There's simply no satisfying the internets sometimes...
|
On October 12 2011 22:02 Gamegene wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 22:02 Tppz! wrote:
No the maps arent the problem.
BUT you can make them imbalanced to reduce the number of terrans. Dunno how but it is somehting where the community could work on. Dunno if that is the right way ROFL. NO. What a horrible idea. Too many zergs on NA ladder, blizzard should put rocks at the natural in all maps now.
actually .... wasnt that how it was done in brood war ? why wouldnt it work for sc2 ?
|
The game at it's core has issues and imbalances that certain maps allow to be exploited more than others.
All balance and map issues aside right now I feel Terran has by far the largest chunk of the best skilled players using the race.
|
On October 13 2011 00:07 meadbert wrote:
I blame GSL and the Maps. Basically Blizzard must balance for all levels of play. GSL can be very different from other levels and might be left somewhat imbalanced.
The fix is for GSL to pick maps that favor Toss and Zerg.
Regarding "All the best players are terran."
As a viewer I do not care. As a viewer I want to see a diverse set of games, not just TvT every game. I would say make Terran UP enough that these best players who all play Terran either switch races or start to lose.
You can't make it balanced on all levels, strats and maps have to be designed with the highest level in mind, otherwise the pro level would be a joke if things were catered to everyone. The reason starcraft is amazing all around is that things are thought about on a pro level, a level of impeccable play, that is the only way to truly balance anything, otherwise david kim and others would go down a fucking rabbit hole because most of us online players aren't always losing cuz of imbalance, a lot of it is our own play and execution, but that isn't the case as much on a pro level. So how can you balance a strat or a map or a race correctly while your trying to keep all the random variables of online players game when a lot of it doesn't come down to maps it's just plain our execution.
everything has to be balance on a pro level, strats, maps, everything. As players we obviously want to strive to be and play that good, so everything should be balanced around the highest level of play, not balanced for high level of play and trying to cater to the entire games population where as a lot of them aren't playing the game correctly, or are, but are improving execution.
They balance pro level, we learn what we should be doing, and work on it = the game evolves
|
You all don't understand how balance works. Balance is unrelated to design, something can be designed well and still be too weak. If terran is overpowered all that might need to happen is, say, a small tweak to the marine. Instead you want to remove units, strategies, all in the name of balance, when that should happen because of design concerns.
|
Your confusing correlation with causation. Let's take a look at the numbers:
GSL January had this map pool:
Blistering Sands
Delta Quadrant
Jungle Basin
Lost Temple
Metalopolis
Scrap Station
Shakuras Plateau
Steppes of War
Xel'Naga Caverns
These were the ladder maps and they had not been modified, so close spawns and ramp blocking was possible. Thus with these maps the initial breakdown was 18 Protoss, 28 Terran, and 18 Zerg (Liquidpedia has it incorrectly listed as 15 Protoss, 24 Terran, and 17 Zerg which only adds up to 56).
Now Terran has received a lot of nerfs, and the GSL map the maps completely different yet the breakdown in GSL October was this: 17 Protoss, 28 Terran, 19 Zerg. Essentially the same. Terran has never held less than 27 of the 64 spots in GSL and peaked in GSL August with 32 of the 64 spots.
So this data might lead you to conclude that the number of Terran slots in the GSL has stayed the same despite nerfs, it must be changes in the map pool (introducing Terran favored maps) that is allowing the Terrans to effectively hold on to just under half the GSL spots.
So this data basically argues that we should return to the above listed map pool, allowing close spawns and ramp blocking, that this would balance out the game.
But why did the GSL change maps, and generally increase their size? Why did they not allow close spawns and ramp blocking? The reason was Bitbybit Marine/SCV all-ins and Bunker rushes (as well as pylon blocking ramps), which still happens to be incredibly effective on the ladder and in the GSL.
If anything, the GSL map pool has helped increase the power of Protoss and Zerg, yet despite this and individual unit nerfs, Terran continues to hold onto their GSL spots, leading us to believe something else is the cause (balance, player skill, ect.).
|
I'd like to see some mapmakers try to make a map where Protoss is extremely strong. If it's possible, then we have proof that Protoss is balanced and just needs better maps. If it's impossible, then Protoss has some serious, serious issues.
|
No, I don't think maps are the cause.
Both the lead game designer and the game balance designer seem to share the opinion that terran is simply more complete. Saying that it is zerg and protoss that need to be fixed and not terran.
Just looking at winrates you can see just how unstable p and z have been (the zvp graph is just silly) compared to terran, I'd say there is probably some truth to this.
I don't think we'll see any real change until HotS, especially since blizzard seem to consider NA and EU stats to be just as relevant as Korean.
Until then I'll keep enjoying the lack of pvp on ladder \e/
|
On October 13 2011 00:10 Kazeyonoma wrote:
Its ridiculous to me how much hate gom gets for the state of code s right now. Do terrans flood code a live report threads when it was mostly z and p with only gumiho to root for? Tvt is the most dynamic mirror and provides players with both macro and inventive aggression, something netizens say is fun to watch while timing based attacks and all ins are constantly whined against which is what pvp and zvz mostly ends up being.
There's simply no satisfying the internets sometimes...
News Flash: It's probably GOM that hates the current situation (TvTvTvT) more than anyone else. You would be surprised to learn how many people simply not tune in (and don't bother to post in the forums) when all scheduled matches are TvTs. It is GOM's own interest to have diverse match ups and I do give them credit for trying with those beautiful maps.
|
On October 13 2011 00:10 Kazeyonoma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 22:04 Mormagil wrote:On October 12 2011 21:55 Nick_54 wrote:
And no, I think the terran players are just playing better than all the other races right now thanks to their broodwar background or training environment (Slayers/IM house) I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious where you would say the tipping point is. At what point do we finally cave in and say tarren is imba? When Ro8 is 100% tarren instead of merely 75%? When Nestea and DRG join MC down in code B and code S is pure TvT? For myself, I think the maps are certainly a contributing factor... but there is a more fundamental reason we see this imbalance. Wait so a largely zerg dominant ipl as well as a zerg champion for ipl iem code a and dreamhack means nothing? I mean if were going purely by tournament results everything except code s says balance is not as what all this whining is about. Its funny how people who want to complain can nitpick stats to make their arguments carry more weight. Its ridiculous to me how much hate gom gets for the state of code s right now. Do terrans flood code a live report threads when it was mostly z and p with only gumiho to root for? Tvt is the most dynamic mirror and provides players with both macro and inventive aggression, something netizens say is fun to watch while timing based attacks and all ins are constantly whined against which is what pvp and zvz mostly ends up being. There's simply no satisfying the internets sometimes...
Wait, just to be clear, IPL3 wasn't largely dominated by Zerg lol.
4 Zergs in round of 8, 3 Terrans.
Top 4 was 2 Terrans and 2 Zergs. Yes, finals was ZvZ.
And we also need perspective on some things here:
Lucky (Korean) helped roll over most of the Korean Terrans in IPL3. Other than that there weren't that many Korean Terrans. Stephano (the one guy that made this foreign tournament different than others at all) beat theSTC, sure. But that's really it.
Code A is special because it's Zerg favored? Well then the Up and Down matches prove that Protoss is still in the fight because there's plenty of Protoss in there -.-' See how that argument is flawed?
Also, when the versus percentages show that Terran is (and has been) keeping a higher winning percentage over the other two races, that says something. The statistics are useful. And Code S in the GSL (having a TvTvTvT semi-finals multiple times) is far more telling than Code A or a few foreigner tournaments.
|
What are you talking about? Terrans have been dominating sind the early beta. What did terran ever explore?
Percentage wise? Yes. This is because they are and always have been the most played race. Looking at it this way is stupid at best.
Actually dominating? They dominated until the new maps were in place (Tal'Darim/etc) and have started dominating again last GSL (a month and a half ago), races were pretty even before, after the new maps were introduced protoss and when MC won his GSLs protoss was dominating pretty hard, and after the infestor change zerg was doing really well.
|
There are vetoes for each set of games, if the player really hates a map they won't play it. Maps like crossfire and daybreak are so good for counter attacking and picking tanks off with mutas so I really don't see it as incredibly imbalanced even though everyone believes it is.
|
all these map are anti protoss
|
Let's look at the statistics to see how your argument holds up:
Global (982,670 team players)
Random 9.3% (91,091)
Protoss 32.3% (316,958)
Terran 33.2% (326,402)
Zerg 25.3% (248,219)
Source: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/region/all/1/all
So according to your logic, since there are 64 spots in the GSL, they should be divided up like this, if indeed a higher number of players playing a certain race does mean higher representation in the GSL:
6 Random players
21 Terran players
21 Protoss players
16 Zerg players
This is actually how those 64 players were divided up in GSL October:
0 Random players
28 Terran players
17 Protoss players
19 Zerg players
Despite there being more overall Terran players than any other race, they are vastly over represented in GSL (43% in the GSL are Terran when only 33% are Terran on the ladder ladder). Furthermore, Protoss is only slightly behind Terran in terms of number players and has far more players than Zerg, yet Zerg has more players in the GSL. These two cases show that there appears to be no correlation between the number of people who play a certain race, and how well said race is represented in the GSL. And before you discount GSL October as an abberation, you'd find that Terran has never had less than 27 player in the GSL (beginning in GSL January), and the number of Terrans in the GSL peaked in August at 32 (or half the total players).
So your argument has been proven false. And what did we learn? Arguments based on logic are superseded by arguments based on evidence. Though your argument made sense logically, it did not hold water when it was tested, leading us to believe there is something else causing the huge numbers of Terrans in the GSL (balance, player skill, ect).
Hopefully we can put that argument to rest finally.
|
On October 13 2011 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 00:25 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:What are you talking about? Terrans have been dominating sind the early beta. What did terran ever explore? Percentage wise? Yes. This is because they are and always have been the most played race. Looking at it this way is stupid at best. Let's look at the statistics to see how your argument holds up: Global (982,670 team players) Random 9.3% (91,091) Protoss 32.3% (316,958) Terran 33.2% (326,402) Zerg 25.3% (248,219) Source: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/region/all/1/allSo according to your logic, since there are 64 spots in the GSL, they should be divided up like this, if indeed a higher number of players playing a certain race does mean higher representation in the GSL: 6 Random players 21 Terran players 21 Protoss players 16 Zerg players This is actually how those 64 players were divided up in GSL October: 0 Random players 28 Terran players 17 Protoss players 19 Zerg players Despite there being more overall Terran players than any other race, they are vastly over represented in GSL (43% in the GSL are Terran when only 33% are Terran on the ladder ladder). Furthermore, Protoss is only slightly behind Terran in terms of number players and has far more players than Zerg, yet Zerg has more players in the GSL. These two cases show that there appears to be no correlation between the number of people who play a certain race, and how well said race is represented in the GSL. And before you discount GSL October as an abberation, you'd find that Terran has never had less than 27 player in the GSL (beginning in GSL January), and the number of Terrans in the GSL peaked in August at 32 (or half the total players). So your argument has been proven false. And what did we learn? Arguments based on logic are superseded by arguments based on evidence. Though your argument made sense logically, it did not hold water when it was tested, leading us to believe there is something else causing the huge numbers of Terrans in the GSL (balance, player skill, ect). Hopefully we can put that argument to rest finally.
well said sir. I agree with that defence. Just because terran is the most played race has nothing to do with a crap ton of terrans in gsl. QUALITY POST BRO
|
Random isn't a viable option, so your numbers are incorrect. The gist of it is right, but you should present them better.
|
Ummm, well yeah we can.
As for the Terran ¨domination¨(TvZ is balanced at GSL, its just that there are more Terrans at the moment in Code S) I think the blame is mostly on the Up and down format, its BO1 and really Terran is a very sturdy race which I´d say doesn´t suffer as much as other races in a BO1.
If you assume that both T and Z have 50% chances to advance(Not going to talk about P) its really makes sense that because there are more Terrans there are more chances that Terran will advance. And even then out of group stages
50% of T made it out
70% of Z made it out
Which doesn´t mean anything about balance, its just that on those matches Zerg played better.And if we look at other tourneys Zerg are doing fine(P are doing slightly better than in GSL but not that much).
And more importantly if you want to talk about Terran OP(which by itself doesn´t make much sense you have to talk about MUs) I must ask, did you watch the games? Seriosuly none of the TvZ looked one sided at all nor felt as if the Z had no chance to win.
And seriously stop with the whinning, we just had a ZvZ final at IPL, P as 2nd place at IEM, Z with a 48% winrate at GSL (which was at 52% before the RO8 matches) this season.
Its nto being a Terran apologist its watching the freaking games, TvZ is fine, PvT and PvZ may need some tweaking or new strategies but taking into account other tourneys, overall winrate at GSL and watching the freaking games Its stupid to just take GSL semifinals and say that T is OP overall. If anything it just talks about the format(which as I said I blame it on the Up and Down formats)
|
Do zergs just need to be walling off the front for hellions??
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
On October 12 2011 23:55 TeH_CaRnAg3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 23:47 Hassybaby wrote:
I think it sort of comes down to the matchup. From a Terran perspective, lets have a look at things
vT: For a significant period of time, marine/tank/medivac was the favoured style of play. recently, mech has come forward as well, and the odd few people still go MMM
vZ: Its basically the same as vT, if you think about it. Yes the openers are different, but the mid-game armies, the timing attacks etc are almost the same
vP: Forget exact armies, you make something that involves marauders and ghosts/vikings depending on what you see right?
People are more than welcome to call me out on this, but that's how its felt for me. Now all the Terrans know how to marine/tank by now, and so they're sort of set for 2 of the matchups. The third involves them being slightly more reactionary, but its still a tactic you use in TvT from time to time (MMM) but with added ghosts/vikings
Now lets look at Zerg and Protoss. Won't go into details, but you have different units for all 3 matchups. There are overlaps, but in general there are units that are key in one set, but are barely used in others. Whether that's right or not, for now its the case (once again, I'm only talking mid-game here, where a lot of matches are decided)
I think that Terran has an established setup for the matchups because their current builds for TvT are perfectly viable in the others, but that's not the case the other way round. Sure, you can use a ZvT build against Z or P, but its not as well establish, or is generally not considered as good.
My thoughts As a zerg player I agree with you bro. This is true, we can't just use the same army in zvt as we do in zvp or zvz most of the time. I do think what you've stated has something to do with terran dominance. As you can practice unit compositions that are more across the board sorta speak. Why i'm trying to get roaches in zvt down >.<
Exactly. If I was Terran (I'm random) I'd be practicing my marine/tank, because I can use that in 2 of the matchups well, and to a point, the third.
|
We can't conclude this-- Just given the population of races currently in code S, the current results are completely statistically predictable even if there were no underlying imbalance.
Maps affect balance pretty profoundly in Brood War, but just because this is likely also true in sc2, the fact that it is true doe not negate the possibility of imbalance not related to map design.
|
On October 13 2011 00:25 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Show nested quote +What are you talking about? Terrans have been dominating sind the early beta. What did terran ever explore? Percentage wise? Yes. This is because they are and always have been the most played race. Looking at it this way is stupid at best. Actually dominating? They dominated until the new maps were in place (Tal'Darim/etc) and have started dominating again last GSL, races were pretty even before, after the new maps were introduced protoss and when MC won his GSLs protoss was dominating pretty hard, and after the infestor change zerg was doing really well.
Yes, overall, by a tiny margin over protoss, zerg being a few percentages behind. Also, it should be noted that there are significantly more protoss and terran players in bronze/silver than zerg. So most of those extra players p/t are gold and below.
If we only look at masters and grandmasters the race distribution is extremely close. Protoss actually has the most masters league players with 32.18%, terran have 31.43% and zerg have 31.75%. GM has a bit more terrans but not anywhere near a significant margin.
If you actually think that terrans are dominating because they just have more players then... well you don't actually think that though. It's just something people say to excuse a trend that has been going on for far too long to be a coincidence.
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
On October 13 2011 00:38 TeH_CaRnAg3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 13 2011 00:25 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:What are you talking about? Terrans have been dominating sind the early beta. What did terran ever explore? Percentage wise? Yes. This is because they are and always have been the most played race. Looking at it this way is stupid at best. Let's look at the statistics to see how your argument holds up: Global (982,670 team players) Random 9.3% (91,091) Protoss 32.3% (316,958) Terran 33.2% (326,402) Zerg 25.3% (248,219) Source: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/region/all/1/allSo according to your logic, since there are 64 spots in the GSL, they should be divided up like this, if indeed a higher number of players playing a certain race does mean higher representation in the GSL: 6 Random players 21 Terran players 21 Protoss players 16 Zerg players This is actually how those 64 players were divided up in GSL October: 0 Random players 28 Terran players 17 Protoss players 19 Zerg players Despite there being more overall Terran players than any other race, they are vastly over represented in GSL (43% in the GSL are Terran when only 33% are Terran on the ladder ladder). Furthermore, Protoss is only slightly behind Terran in terms of number players and has far more players than Zerg, yet Zerg has more players in the GSL. These two cases show that there appears to be no correlation between the number of people who play a certain race, and how well said race is represented in the GSL. And before you discount GSL October as an abberation, you'd find that Terran has never had less than 27 player in the GSL (beginning in GSL January), and the number of Terrans in the GSL peaked in August at 32 (or half the total players). So your argument has been proven false. And what did we learn? Arguments based on logic are superseded by arguments based on evidence. Though your argument made sense logically, it did not hold water when it was tested, leading us to believe there is something else causing the huge numbers of Terrans in the GSL (balance, player skill, ect). Hopefully we can put that argument to rest finally. well said sir. I agree with that defence. Just because terran is the most played race has nothing to do with a crap ton of terrans in gsl. QUALITY POST BRO
This also proves that we need more Randoms in the GSL :D
|
you claim that Dual sight and Xel'naga fortress are terran favoured yet they only have a 53% edge vs zerg on dual sight and a 40% win rate on xel'naga TvZ
both Zerg and Terran have a winning ration vs protoss on both maps so those cancel each other out.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:04 Mormagil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 21:55 Nick_54 wrote:
And no, I think the terran players are just playing better than all the other races right now thanks to their broodwar background or training environment (Slayers/IM house) I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious where you would say the tipping point is. At what point do we finally cave in and say tarren is imba? When Ro8 is 100% tarren instead of merely 75%? When Nestea and DRG join MC down in code B and code S is pure TvT? For myself, I think the maps are certainly a contributing factor... but there is a more fundamental reason we see this imbalance.
I think that blizzard will never achknowledge an imbalance, even if code S is 100% terran.
In their adjusted stats page, they say that in order for a matchup to be considered inbalanced, it has to be more than three times the standard metagame shift in favor of one race (35/65) and that is counting the entirety of masters league.
Ladder doesnt reflect the problems GSL has, so blizzard refuses to achknowledge it or make sweeping changes to anything. I think they are waiting on HOTS to do some kind of rework, doubt they are happy with protoss representation at the highest level right now (even if they have 43% "adjusted winrate" in korean masters+)
|
I have to think part of the issue is that some of the maps(Dual Sight, Bel'shir, Crossfire) are relics from when zerg was doing poorly, and they haven't been removed/revised too much since.
|
On October 13 2011 01:00 Daralii wrote:
I have to think part of the issue is that some of the maps(Dual Sight, Bel'shir, Crossfire) are relics from when zerg was doing poorly, and they haven't been removed/revised too much since.
Those are some extremely anti-terran maps, and Zergs are certainly getting their fair share of wins on them.
|
It definitely makes a difference in PvZ. The likes of Dual Sight or Bel'shir Beach, or even Crossfire make it nearly impossible for the Protoss to ever take a third base. Plus, there are the recent "I take the gold instead of my natural and am safe against everything kthxbye" Zerg shenaningans on Antiga Shipyard. PvZ feels much better on TDA, Daybreak or the new Terminus. Whether it's balanced on those maps is hard to say, but it definitely makes a huge difference.
In PvT, on the other hand, I don't think so. I'm not even sure how a map that favors Protoss over Terran would look like. Free natural and easily defendable third? Jungle Basin is cited as a hugely Protoss favoured map in this thread, but I doubt it would really help in the current state of PvT.
|
On October 13 2011 01:10 Toadvine wrote:
It definitely makes a difference in PvZ. The likes of Dual Sight or Bel'shir Beach, or even Crossfire make it nearly impossible for the Protoss to ever take a third base. Plus, there are the recent "I take the gold instead of my natural and am safe against everything kthxbye" Zerg shenaningans on Antiga Shipyard. PvZ feels much better on TDA, Daybreak or the new Terminus. Whether it's balanced on those maps is hard to say, but it definitely makes a huge difference.
In PvT, on the other hand, I don't think so. I'm not even sure how a map that favors Protoss over Terran would look like. Free natural and easily defendable third? Jungle Basin is cited as a hugely Protoss favoured map in this thread, but I doubt it would really help in the current state of PvT.
I'm definitely citing PvZ more, due to the larger discrepancy according to September's winrate graphs(13% disparity).
|
Any map that you make that is good for PvT and PvZ is I think by default going to be even better for TvZ AND make for awful TvT games. Just by the nature of the game. In order for maps to be used for as significant of a balancing tool as in BW, the races need to have better defined and more distinct roles like they did in BW. Basically, the fact that toss plays like Terran vs zerg and terran; Terran plays like Zerg vs Toss and Terran vs the rest distorts the possibility of map balancing.
|
So the 72% who voted "No" think that either Terran is imba, either korean terrans are gosu. Also only 28% think that maps are part of matchup imbalance. Good stuff TL.
|
On October 13 2011 01:15 Al Bundy wrote:
So the 72% who voted "No" think that either Terran is imba, either korean terrans are gosu. Also only 28% think that maps are part of matchup imbalance. Good stuff TL.
Are you being sarcastic? The reason the percentages are so heavily favored in that fashion is probably because the map pool isn't *heavily* favored towards Terran, and yet we see mostly Terrans at the end of Code S.
That doesn't mean that maps can't favor a certain race, but they tend to balance decently well throughout the pool (or at least aren't the major factor when assessing why Terrans make it to the end and Protoss and Zerg don't).
Good stuff Al Bundy.
|
Its just that Koreans are best and Terran is favorite right now in the balance to Protoss so we see Terrans at the top level just owning protoss left and right.
|
In general, not really. There are certain maps that might offer very good strategies for terran, but I feel the same thing can be said for atleast zerg if not toss too.
I feel the problem is rather just how the terran race is built with so much micro dependance. Without micro, all terran units kind of suck(with few exceptions), with perfect micro they become insanely good. Also ofcourse the Boxer(and I suppose now Flash too) effect doesn't help, where I just simply think more Koreans play terran because of him(them).
|
Also, a lot of these GSL maps only get played deeper in a tournament, when only the very best Zerg and Protoss players are there to represent their race. IMNestea probably has an inordinate number of the Zerg wins on these maps, so simply looking at the race win percentages on these maps is hardly a good measure of whether it's balanced or not. Nestea versus Any Terran Except MVP is a Zerg-favored map.
|
Pretty sure it's because of the players. The Terran players are just better than everyone else.
|
I think it's an interesting point. I mean look at IPL which didn't have Xel Naga Caverns (Widely considered a Terran favored map) while containing fixed spawns Metalopolis which is proven to be zerg favored and the tournament finished as ZvZ final.
Interesting point worth considering I think 
|
On October 13 2011 01:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 01:15 Al Bundy wrote:
So the 72% who voted "No" think that either Terran is imba, either korean terrans are gosu. Also only 28% think that maps are part of matchup imbalance. Good stuff TL. Are you being sarcastic? The reason the percentages are so heavily favored in that fashion is probably because the map pool isn't *heavily* favored towards Terran, and yet we see mostly Terrans at the end of Code S. That doesn't mean that maps can't favor a certain race, but they tend to balance decently well throughout the pool (or at least aren't the major factor when assessing why Terrans make it to the end and Protoss and Zerg don't). Good stuff Al Bundy.
So that's it, Terran is OP? Or are korean Terran much better?
|
Dual sight and Crossfire definitely not favored Protoss. That map is ridiculously hard to take the nat with the huge wide open, also the third is far and open as well.
|
I think that Terran is just easier to abuse at the top top level
|
On October 12 2011 23:32 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 23:11 sitromit wrote:On October 12 2011 22:55 CatNzHat wrote:
The problem with the mass of terrans in the GSL is the fact that the players can't get knocked out, and the fact that the best players in the world are terrans.
If they made it so around two-thirds of the Code S players would go to up-and-down matches, there wouldn't be huge number of terran players left over from when terran was imba. That's a very interesting fact! LOL! All the best, most talented players happened to choose Terran, right? How can it be explained otherwise, it's so simple, I don't know why everyone doesn't see this fact!! Can you name a game that supports your point? Its easy to look at a statistic and say wow that shows imbalance but for example there were 5 protoss in code S this season, 1 advanced to Ro16, 1 stayed in code S, and 3 went to up/down. That sounds like a really bad statistic until you look at the games and realize that Puzzle had MKP beat on a 4 gate then supply blocked himself and fumbled the attack. You cant balance around that and no amount of changes are gonig to fix that. Same thing can be said about genius and Hungun was someone people expected to fall for quite awhile. The only thing about imbalance you can draw from those games is making big mistakes means you lose.
Thank god... This is what people really need to consider.
Although this is related to player skill in some regard, it simply sounds better then a blanket statement like "protoss players just aren't as good at the moment." However, it is more of a proof of such a statement. Incontrol is someone who, in my opinion, is hurting the developement of the metagame by talking about imbalance so soon since "the decline" of protoss players.
Statistics can mean a lot but in a case study of balance in a game with all these thousands of variables there really is no way to be sure that the problem is balance.
Remember 3-6 months ago when Protoss was considered imbalanced and Zerg was underpowered? Blizzard's patches where VERY minor but Zerg metagame completely changed to adapt to the problems with the ZvP matchup. Buffing the fungal growth then nerfing it back didn't change anything other then plant a seed that Infestors might be the answer to a lot of Zerg's problems. It turned out that Zerg's needed to use new strategies and unit compositions to cope, not that Zerg needed patches.
Incontrol, Naniwa, and a large portion of the community seem to believe that the statistics tell the whole story when really, as Adreme pointed out, you have to look at the individual games.
Even if you argue statistics are the end all of discussion like a lot of players seem to do, you should take in to account the SHORT amount of time that Protoss's numbers have been down. The strategies really haven't shifted much since then for Protoss players, and to me it just feels like the metagame is moving slower for the Protoss players because a lot of the top players relied on really good timings that got figured out.
Finally, just remember how long Zerg was in a recession comparatively before they finally "figured it out." Protoss players just need more innovators, and more pros that try the new builds that people come up with. There are a lot of lesser Protoss players who use builds that are crazy scary, but the players themselves just haven't had as much success for whatever mechanic or technical reason. Inka's (spelling?) recent PvZ builds make it look so easy, and not gimicky. If a tip top pro picked up some of these strategies I immagine the metagame could easily shift drastically.
I don't play terran and I think I would be biased to comment on Terran however so I won't touch that matchup :p
|
On October 13 2011 02:11 Al Bundy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 01:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 13 2011 01:15 Al Bundy wrote:
So the 72% who voted "No" think that either Terran is imba, either korean terrans are gosu. Also only 28% think that maps are part of matchup imbalance. Good stuff TL. Are you being sarcastic? The reason the percentages are so heavily favored in that fashion is probably because the map pool isn't *heavily* favored towards Terran, and yet we see mostly Terrans at the end of Code S. That doesn't mean that maps can't favor a certain race, but they tend to balance decently well throughout the pool (or at least aren't the major factor when assessing why Terrans make it to the end and Protoss and Zerg don't). Good stuff Al Bundy. So that's it, Terran is OP? Or are korean Terran much better?
At the highest level, Terran is clearly better. The win percentages have been showing that for a very long time >.>
It's not the map pool lol. Especially not when some of these "counterexamples" (like IPL3) are when the loser of a previous game gets to choose the map for the next game in a series -.-' That clearly disproves the theory that maps have anything to do with it; players aren't going to choose maps that they suck on.
|
On October 12 2011 21:59 insolentrus wrote:
no
maps slightly change balance. in general no
Maps are a huge deal in balance.
Maps are basicly how people made BW balanced. ( because blizzard were not patching the game )
|
I would be skeptical that a map could be changed to nerf terran that wouldn't end up hurting protoss more in ZvP.
|
As noted, BW's balance is refined and somewhat controlled through map design. We can't expect Blizzard to do a perfect job of this, we're just going to have to help out and make maps to help keep the game a bit more balanced.
GOM should port Central Plains and Polaris Rhapsody, then introduce them into the GSL. :D
|
On October 12 2011 23:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 21:51 hahaimhenry wrote:
Crossfire is a really good map for Terran to say the least... In theory, but obviously not in practice lol. Nestea have a winning record there, despite it looking like an ugly map for them.
fix'd
|
On October 13 2011 02:49 Noocta wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 21:59 insolentrus wrote:
no
maps slightly change balance. in general no Maps are a huge deal in balance. Maps are basicly how people made BW balanced. ( because blizzard were not patching the game )
You're right, and I'd hate to see SC2 ending up in the same way.
About the Maps, they're obviously far more zerg favoured than the ladder, but there still are terran favoured maps. Terminus, Metal(late game) Crossfire(early game) and xnf(not that much, a bit exaggerated)
|
Maps actually have a huge role, because on a bigger map you might just have those 15 seconds extra to prepare for an attack, meaning you'll be able to hold it off while on a smaller map you would not have those extra 15 seconds making certain 'timing' or just general attacks much more effective.
In other words bigger maps mean you can play more reactionary based
|
When you have a unit with 13 range and obnoxious splash damage as well as a cheap ranged unit with high DPS and zero chance of any overkill, I don't really think the map matters all that much.
On October 13 2011 03:30 hjop wrote:
Maps actually have a huge role, because on a bigger map you might just have those 15 seconds extra to prepare for an attack, meaning you'll be able to hold it off while on a smaller map you would not have those extra 15 seconds making certain 'timing' or just general attacks much more effective.
In other words bigger maps mean you can play more reactionary based
I'd have to disagree. Yes it takes him another 15 seconds to reach you, but it also takes you another 15 seconds to scout his rush/timing. It's the reason you never see 6pools on 2 player maps, they're instantly scouted and stopped.
|
Finally, just remember how long Zerg was in a recession comparatively before they finally "figured it out." Protoss players just need more innovators, and more pros that try the new builds that people come up with. There are a lot of lesser Protoss players who use builds that are crazy scary, but the players themselves just haven't had as much success for whatever mechanic or technical reason. Inka's (spelling?) recent PvZ builds make it look so easy, and not gimicky. If a tip top pro picked up some of these strategies I immagine the metagame could easily shift drastically.
I'm sorry, but I'm fucking sick of hearing this argument. Zerg did not just magically "figure out" ZvP and suddenly turned the matchup around. Zerg got massive buffs (roach range, fungal) and Protoss got significant nerfs (zealot build time, void ray damage and speed, amulet, warp gate research time.)
If you really think that Zerg players just collectively woke up one morning and decided to stop losing, then why do we need all of these balance changes? Clearly since it was "figured out" they're completely unnecessary and we can revert back to the old balance, right?
|
I think so, atleast for Protoss. maps like dual sight, bel'shir are so bad for protoss. you see great protoss players play really strange on those maps
|
This is my take on the question.
The answer to "can we blame the map?" is "yes and no", and here is why (at least imo).
Yes: As maps get created and added to the gsl map pool, the terrain becomes more and more detailed and sophisticated. And generally speaking, that means that there are more and more opportunities for terrans to perform drops and for zergs to do muta harrass (or drop). Although warp prisms recently got buffed, most of the time, one will often find himsefl sacrificing his whole drop force to harrass, thus making prism drops less cost effective than terran/zerg drops. In this sense, the new maps are disadvantageous to protoss players. Our harrassing units are simply not the best.
No: In a straight up 200/200 fight, the outcome depends mostly on micro, army positionning, upgrades, etc.; there isn't a race that can simply a-move over someone else's army and still win no matter what the opponent does. Also in every matchup, theres always an army composition A that counters composition B, that counters C, that counters D, that counters A. In this sense, the three races are well balanced (again imo). The problem is that protoss dont have, or at least havent figured out, a cost effective way of harrassing. So, if you look at the problem this way, the races are imbalanced.
So in conclusion, yes the map pool somewhat puts protoss at a disadvantage, but i dont necessarily think that it is the map-maker's fault necessarily.
|
Terran is good on any map. They have many different options allowing for them to adapt to different maps easier.
|
Poll: Do you think decision making is part of the GSL race imbalance?No, protoss have shown GREAT DECISION MAKING (9) 60% yes, Terrans and zergs just make less mistakes (6) 40% 15 total votes Your vote: Do you think decision making is part of the GSL race imbalance? (Vote): No, protoss have shown GREAT DECISION MAKING
(Vote): yes, Terrans and zergs just make less mistakes
Better poll imo
|
On October 13 2011 04:24 ChineseWife wrote:Poll: Do you think decision making is part of the GSL race imbalance?No, protoss have shown GREAT DECISION MAKING (9) 60% yes, Terrans and zergs just make less mistakes (6) 40% 15 total votes Your vote: Do you think decision making is part of the GSL race imbalance? (Vote): No, protoss have shown GREAT DECISION MAKING
(Vote): yes, Terrans and zergs just make less mistakes
Better poll imo
That's the same as asking whether or not Zerg and Terran players are just naturally smarter and better at the game than Protoss players right?
lol -_______-
|
Canada13389 Posts
I feel that maps would be the reason for GSL balance if at any point in the GSL we had a map that we could point to and say - YUP that Map is terrible for Terran. Unfortunately I can't think of a single one. Personally, I can think of maps that were Z or P favoured or bad for them but not one that was Terran unfavoured.
|
On October 13 2011 04:27 ZeromuS wrote:
I feel that maps would be the reason for GSL balance if at any point in the GSL we had a map that we could point to and say - YUP that Map is terrible for Terran. Unfortunately I can't think of a single one. Personally, I can think of maps that were Z or P favoured or bad for them but not one that was Terran unfavoured.
belshir 1.0
taldarim altar can be really bad for terran lategame
just look at what terrans veto in TvZ and TvP
so basically next time you can't think of a single one, you should try to think of one first :\
|
Sweden346 Posts
I think the main reason why the terrans are doing so well is because the TvT mirror is the mirror matchup that favours the better player to the greatest extent while PvP and ZvZ are more fragile and creates a larger opportunity for a lesser player to advance which leads to the better protosses and zergs naturally having a higher chance of being knocked out earlier in tournaments.
|
On October 13 2011 04:03 TrickyGilligan wrote:Show nested quote +
Finally, just remember how long Zerg was in a recession comparatively before they finally "figured it out." Protoss players just need more innovators, and more pros that try the new builds that people come up with. There are a lot of lesser Protoss players who use builds that are crazy scary, but the players themselves just haven't had as much success for whatever mechanic or technical reason. Inka's (spelling?) recent PvZ builds make it look so easy, and not gimicky. If a tip top pro picked up some of these strategies I immagine the metagame could easily shift drastically.
I'm sorry, but I'm fucking sick of hearing this argument. Zerg did not just magically "figure out" ZvP and suddenly turned the matchup around. Zerg got massive buffs (roach range, fungal) and Protoss got significant nerfs (zealot build time, void ray damage and speed, amulet, warp gate research time.) If you really think that Zerg players just collectively woke up one morning and decided to stop losing, then why do we need all of these balance changes? Clearly since it was "figured out" they're completely unnecessary and we can revert back to the old balance, right?
A few issues I have before continuing
You say Zerg got massive buffs but....
-Roach range was to address reapers and really now do you think that buff was even a question or decision at all? Also, Zergs did not figure out the matchup until LONG after the roach buff, so that isn't really a valid point..
-Fungal was buffed in damage, but it was nerfed back on 1.4, and furthermore the damage has never been the main problem for protoss, the problem is generally accepted from what I observe to be the stun (or root, idk what would be best to use) factor in combination with baneling drops or other such units that benefit from the protoss army being stuck. Mind you that the root time was decreased. The root time decrease made fungal dps better yes but the stun loss time is a huge nerf in the ZvP matchup.
Anyways... I never once ever said they woke up one morning and decided to stop losing.. Maybe you are just trolling? I said clearly that it took around 10 months or a year for Zerg's to really transition their ZvP playstyles. My point was actually that you have to give the metagame space to move itself.
Zealot build time has been switched back and forth but I really doubt anyone would want the zealot time reduced again, as it hurts pvp as well. Void ray damage and speed lol does anyone actually believe that those could possibly be considered bad changes? That's already been discussed to death.
I agree amulet may have been a bad nerf and I wouldn't mind it making a return. Although really it hasn't changed much other then ability to warp in a HT and defend in a situation you should not be able to defend.. but thats a change that is debateable for sure
Warpgate research time was a good change in my opinion because it helped with the fact that players like Naniwa could just 4gate a whole tournament and win flawlessly. Apart from that it also helps PvP and really the early game ZvP feels much more balanced now from what is going on in pro games.
Bleh
|
On October 13 2011 04:30 Penke wrote:
I think the main reason why the terrans are doing so well is because the TvT mirror is the mirror matchup that favours the better player to the greatest extent while PvP and ZvZ are more fragile and creates a larger opportunity for a lesser player to advance which leads to the better protosses and zergs naturally having a higher chance of being knocked out earlier in tournaments.
Terrans should have the lowest winrate in a balanced game because they spend the lowest percentage of their practice time in non-mirror matchups.
|
On October 13 2011 04:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:24 ChineseWife wrote:Poll: Do you think decision making is part of the GSL race imbalance?No, protoss have shown GREAT DECISION MAKING (9) 60% yes, Terrans and zergs just make less mistakes (6) 40% 15 total votes Your vote: Do you think decision making is part of the GSL race imbalance? (Vote): No, protoss have shown GREAT DECISION MAKING
(Vote): yes, Terrans and zergs just make less mistakes
Better poll imo That's the same as asking whether or not Zerg and Terran players are just naturally smarter and better at the game than Protoss players right? lol -_______-
With a poll phrased like that, you'll get a lot of "YES" votes, because of the way the "I'm in Bronze but I understand the game very well" demographic judges decisions - by their outcome. A Protoss loses, therefore he made bad decisions, therefore he is a bad player. The result validates anything. I mean, after the infamous hero vs Puma game 3 in IPL3, there were posters in the LR thread who thought Puma won because of his superior decision-making. There is no end to the nonsense that can be supported by the result of 1 game. If a player loses, their decisions were awful, and Mr "I don't really play the game but I watch GSL a lot!" will be quick to point out better alternatives.
Sigh. 
|
The only reason code S has too many T is because T used to be imba, and now they're not. Unfortunately too little players get kicked out of code S so these terrans stay in code s forever. I heard a rumor that there will be less code S seeds so hopefully this will be fixed
|
I think the wide area behind the main and natural mineral lines in most maps is pretty terran favored. It basically guarantees the drops and banshee harass will always have a safe exit path and can be held over a protoss players neck forever, forcing them to leave units back.
|
On October 12 2011 21:52 robih wrote:
i dont think so
its just the current state of the game where everyone in korea seems to fistpump when they meet a protoss
Because they are terran? Or because they are protoss and they enjoy pvp more now?
|
On October 13 2011 04:43 Escoffier wrote:
The only reason code S has too many T is because T used to be imba, and now they're not. Unfortunately too little players get kicked out of code S so these terrans stay in code s forever. I heard a rumor that there will be less code S seeds so hopefully this will be fixed
Code A used to be filled with Terran players, now Code S is. I think there is plenty of movement between the tiers but alot of it being Terrans moving up imo
|
On October 13 2011 04:44 phyren wrote:
I think the wide area behind the main and natural mineral lines in most maps is pretty terran favored. It basically guarantees the drops and banshee harass will always have a safe exit path and can be held over a protoss players neck forever, forcing them to leave units back.
You realize other races can take advantage of that as well, you know things like mutalisk, bane drops, roach drops, infestor drops, zealot/ht drops, warp ins?
|
Well, if they really wanted to, they could throw in some really protoss favored maps. I've heard they used to do that in brood war.
|
On October 13 2011 04:36 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:30 Penke wrote:
I think the main reason why the terrans are doing so well is because the TvT mirror is the mirror matchup that favours the better player to the greatest extent while PvP and ZvZ are more fragile and creates a larger opportunity for a lesser player to advance which leads to the better protosses and zergs naturally having a higher chance of being knocked out earlier in tournaments. Terrans should have the lowest winrate in a balanced game because they spend the lowest percentage of their practice time in non-mirror matchups.
Wow, that was clever ;p
|
Maps are not imbalanced towards Terran, but they do make for crappy games. Where the fuck are the BW map makers ?
|
On October 13 2011 04:38 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 13 2011 04:24 ChineseWife wrote:Poll: Do you think decision making is part of the GSL race imbalance?No, protoss have shown GREAT DECISION MAKING (9) 60% yes, Terrans and zergs just make less mistakes (6) 40% 15 total votes Your vote: Do you think decision making is part of the GSL race imbalance? (Vote): No, protoss have shown GREAT DECISION MAKING
(Vote): yes, Terrans and zergs just make less mistakes
Better poll imo That's the same as asking whether or not Zerg and Terran players are just naturally smarter and better at the game than Protoss players right? lol -_______- With a poll phrased like that, you'll get a lot of "YES" votes, because of the way the "I'm in Bronze but I understand the game very well" demographic judges decisions - by their outcome. A Protoss loses, therefore he made bad decisions, therefore he is a bad player. The result validates anything. I mean, after the infamous hero vs Puma game 3 in IPL3, there were posters in the LR thread who thought Puma won because of his superior decision-making. There is no end to the nonsense that can be supported by the result of 1 game. If a player loses, their decisions were awful, and Mr "I don't really play the game but I watch GSL a lot!" will be quick to point out better alternatives. Sigh.
Yeah I agree. Even with some level of imbalance, obviously there has to be some level of responsibility on the losing player for losing (or the winner for winning)! If I worker rush on Tal Darim Altar, I lost the game because I'm a moron, not because I used probes instead of drones or scvs.
The wording of those two options are terrible.
On average, GSL Protoss players have shown *just as good* decision making as Terrans and Zergs.
Sometimes you get a genius strategy, and sometimes you get a HongUnPrime.
|
I don't think the maps are the issue is the player builds that don't work. You should blame people like MC who kept doing only N-gate timings and making other players doing the same shit over and over "cuz they work". I think T's will drop alot next season with Sage,Oz and the other tossers from and up&down coming up and also the warpgate mechanics is made that way that here is no map disadvatage to toss but because "toss leaders" do silly stuff for alot of time their adaptation to the new builds,maps,gameplay is rly slow. I mean look at TvZ or TvT how everything is figured out and we have this long macro games.... atleast this is my opinion.
|
On October 13 2011 04:52 TedJustice wrote:
Well, if they really wanted to, they could throw in some really protoss favored maps. I've heard they used to do that in brood war.
Nothing can favour Protoss in Starcraft 2 that doesn't favour other races more. Hell, rush distance for 1/2base timings is for the most part irrelevant since the distance is completely negated.
|
On October 13 2011 04:47 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:44 phyren wrote:
I think the wide area behind the main and natural mineral lines in most maps is pretty terran favored. It basically guarantees the drops and banshee harass will always have a safe exit path and can be held over a protoss players neck forever, forcing them to leave units back. You realize other races can take advantage of that as well, you know things like mutalisk, bane drops, roach drops, infestor drops, zealot/ht drops, warp ins?
Those are actually tech commitments rather than something you can grab while you're teching up and will be useful with or without a successful drop. Terran is just so powerful at controlling the flow of the game and forcing the other races to respond to their tech. Hold off 2 rax followed by hellions at the front door followed by hellions and marines dropped in the main etc. meanwhile terran is safe behind their OP defense and can hardly be touched without going all in. They are way too strong, worst in TvP.
With Z and P - "would it be a good idea to drop this game"
Terran - "why not drop this game?"
|
Z favored maps for all matchups are large maps where they can macro like crezy
T favored maps are small maps where their strong early game units can be abused
I don't think there is any feature that will make a map protoss favored against both terran and zerg...
|
its not the maps... its haves to do a lot whit how terrans avoided using ghosts for so long saying they sucked and everything (YES they did check old treads from the times of KA and for a couple months after it where terrans whined their asses saying protoss was op while they barely made 2 or 3 ghost per game) and then suddenly after the toss nerfs they suddenly realized how good ghost where... and thats how it stands now whit terrans rolling toss like if it was nothing and zerg having also an easy time for the same reason... they learned and stopped whining... saddly it was too late. :/
|
I know I am not the first one saying this but considering the first part of the game is terran focused it just seems that blizzard put a lot more effort on terran than the remaining races.
This makes terran complete and better designed overall. I have given up on game balance at this point since it would mean either removing features from the terran race or adding significant upgrades to other races to be competitive.
Even after 1 year a lot of korean tournaments have terrans dominating, with zerg and protoss sneaking wins in middle due to some abusive timings that have been since nerfed or been figured out. For e.g. MCs wins were dependent entirely on 1/2 base timing attacks which got nerfed now with warpgates/new builds.
Maps will affect balance, but if you see in GSL it usually significantly affects the win rates of ZvP. I haven't done the analysis so far but I'm sure you will find that even on so called zerg favored maps the win rate shift of ZvT will be less than you expect. For e.g. in August GSL on Belshir beach 1.0, it is 2-1 in favor of terran in code S and 2-3 in code A.
I Its not a lot to draw conclusions but overall its my impression that in ZvT there is no real zerg favored map. Once terran get some time to play with a new map they discover some other feature of their race that brings them back to the dominating ways.
|
On October 13 2011 04:57 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:47 NotSorry wrote:On October 13 2011 04:44 phyren wrote:
I think the wide area behind the main and natural mineral lines in most maps is pretty terran favored. It basically guarantees the drops and banshee harass will always have a safe exit path and can be held over a protoss players neck forever, forcing them to leave units back. You realize other races can take advantage of that as well, you know things like mutalisk, bane drops, roach drops, infestor drops, zealot/ht drops, warp ins? Those are actually tech commitments rather than something you can grab while you're teching up and will be useful with or without a successful drop. Terran is just so powerful at controlling the flow of the game and forcing the other races to respond to their tech. Hold off 2 rax followed by hellions at the front door followed by hellions and marines dropped in the main etc. meanwhile terran is safe behind their OP defense and can hardly be touched without going all in. They are way too strong, worst in TvP. With Z and P - "would it be a good idea to drop this game" Terran - "why not drop this game?"
So factory and starport is not a tech commitment? Protoss shouldn't make anything besides gateway units?
|
On October 13 2011 05:08 WickedBit wrote:
I know I am not the first one saying this but considering the first part of the game is terran focused it just seems that blizzard put a lot more effort on terran than the remaining races.
This makes terran complete and better designed overall. I have given up on game balance at this point since it would mean either removing features from the terran race or adding significant upgrades to other races to be competitive.
Even after 1 year a lot of korean tournaments have terrans dominating, with zerg and protoss sneaking wins in middle due to some abusive timings that have been since nerfed or been figured out. For e.g. MCs wins were dependent entirely on 1/2 base timing attacks which got nerfed now with warpgates/new builds.
Maps will affect balance, but if you see in GSL it usually significantly affects the win rates of ZvP. I haven't done the analysis so far but I'm sure you will find that even on so called zerg favored maps the win rate shift of ZvT will be less than you expect. For e.g. in August GSL on Belshir beach 1.0, it is 2-1 in favor of terran in code S and 2-3 in code A.
I Its not a lot to draw conclusions but overall its my impression that in ZvT there is no real zerg favored map. Once terran get some time to play with a new map they discover some other feature of their race that brings them back to the dominating ways.
This is so obvious too. I will never understand how it was acceptable to Blizzard for Terran to have the most units and Protoss have the least. More options (as long as they are viable, which they are) are an imbalance in themselves, even if each individual strategy is balanced, the sum of having to potentially deal with all of them makes the matchup imba.
|
On October 13 2011 05:11 bucckevin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:57 Treemonkeys wrote:On October 13 2011 04:47 NotSorry wrote:On October 13 2011 04:44 phyren wrote:
I think the wide area behind the main and natural mineral lines in most maps is pretty terran favored. It basically guarantees the drops and banshee harass will always have a safe exit path and can be held over a protoss players neck forever, forcing them to leave units back. You realize other races can take advantage of that as well, you know things like mutalisk, bane drops, roach drops, infestor drops, zealot/ht drops, warp ins? Those are actually tech commitments rather than something you can grab while you're teching up and will be useful with or without a successful drop. Terran is just so powerful at controlling the flow of the game and forcing the other races to respond to their tech. Hold off 2 rax followed by hellions at the front door followed by hellions and marines dropped in the main etc. meanwhile terran is safe behind their OP defense and can hardly be touched without going all in. They are way too strong, worst in TvP. With Z and P - "would it be a good idea to drop this game" Terran - "why not drop this game?" So factory and starport is not a tech commitment? Protoss shouldn't make anything besides gateway units?
No a factory and a starport its not a tech commitment since your already needing the medvacs for your bio so the dropping abilities are just an added bonus... on the other hand Z or P gotta invest on tech that may or may not work while terran just loses nothing from going for their medvacs.
|
I really dont like how you throw the word imbalance around so much.
|
On October 13 2011 02:46 EctoMimed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 23:32 Adreme wrote:On October 12 2011 23:11 sitromit wrote:On October 12 2011 22:55 CatNzHat wrote:
The problem with the mass of terrans in the GSL is the fact that the players can't get knocked out, and the fact that the best players in the world are terrans.
If they made it so around two-thirds of the Code S players would go to up-and-down matches, there wouldn't be huge number of terran players left over from when terran was imba. That's a very interesting fact! LOL! All the best, most talented players happened to choose Terran, right? How can it be explained otherwise, it's so simple, I don't know why everyone doesn't see this fact!! Can you name a game that supports your point? Its easy to look at a statistic and say wow that shows imbalance but for example there were 5 protoss in code S this season, 1 advanced to Ro16, 1 stayed in code S, and 3 went to up/down. That sounds like a really bad statistic until you look at the games and realize that Puzzle had MKP beat on a 4 gate then supply blocked himself and fumbled the attack. You cant balance around that and no amount of changes are gonig to fix that. Same thing can be said about genius and Hungun was someone people expected to fall for quite awhile. The only thing about imbalance you can draw from those games is making big mistakes means you lose. Thank god... This is what people really need to consider. Although this is related to player skill in some regard, it simply sounds better then a blanket statement like "protoss players just aren't as good at the moment." However, it is more of a proof of such a statement. Incontrol is someone who, in my opinion, is hurting the developement of the metagame by talking about imbalance so soon since "the decline" of protoss players. Statistics can mean a lot but in a case study of balance in a game with all these thousands of variables there really is no way to be sure that the problem is balance. Remember 3-6 months ago when Protoss was considered imbalanced and Zerg was underpowered? Blizzard's patches where VERY minor but Zerg metagame completely changed to adapt to the problems with the ZvP matchup. Buffing the fungal growth then nerfing it back didn't change anything other then plant a seed that Infestors might be the answer to a lot of Zerg's problems. It turned out that Zerg's needed to use new strategies and unit compositions to cope, not that Zerg needed patches. Incontrol, Naniwa, and a large portion of the community seem to believe that the statistics tell the whole story when really, as Adreme pointed out, you have to look at the individual games. Even if you argue statistics are the end all of discussion like a lot of players seem to do, you should take in to account the SHORT amount of time that Protoss's numbers have been down. The strategies really haven't shifted much since then for Protoss players, and to me it just feels like the metagame is moving slower for the Protoss players because a lot of the top players relied on really good timings that got figured out. Finally, just remember how long Zerg was in a recession comparatively before they finally "figured it out." Protoss players just need more innovators, and more pros that try the new builds that people come up with. There are a lot of lesser Protoss players who use builds that are crazy scary, but the players themselves just haven't had as much success for whatever mechanic or technical reason. Inka's (spelling?) recent PvZ builds make it look so easy, and not gimicky. If a tip top pro picked up some of these strategies I immagine the metagame could easily shift drastically. I don't play terran and I think I would be biased to comment on Terran however so I won't touch that matchup :p
Wow the bold part =)) Yeah that minor thing including :
warpgate nerf => no more 4 gates. So Toss have to FFE and don't attack until 9-10 mins mark and get crush by 3 bases.
Sporcrawler buff => air opening is gone. DTs is gone too cuz any zerg just need 2 sporecrawlers and he'll be fine to either one of those option.
Infestors buff => lings/infestor come in, all you need is massing 2 units with 20 infestors right?
KA was gone => all come down to colossus, and air. But well corruptors own both of them.
Don't say Zerg changes their style or anything man. I watched TT1 owned some dude last nice with 3 pronged attack while mass expanding and the Zerg didn't make anything but roaches/hydras and just flat out died to 3-4 colossus/stalkers/HTs and he called Toss is really imba.
Really?
|
On October 13 2011 05:11 bucckevin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:57 Treemonkeys wrote:On October 13 2011 04:47 NotSorry wrote:On October 13 2011 04:44 phyren wrote:
I think the wide area behind the main and natural mineral lines in most maps is pretty terran favored. It basically guarantees the drops and banshee harass will always have a safe exit path and can be held over a protoss players neck forever, forcing them to leave units back. You realize other races can take advantage of that as well, you know things like mutalisk, bane drops, roach drops, infestor drops, zealot/ht drops, warp ins? Those are actually tech commitments rather than something you can grab while you're teching up and will be useful with or without a successful drop. Terran is just so powerful at controlling the flow of the game and forcing the other races to respond to their tech. Hold off 2 rax followed by hellions at the front door followed by hellions and marines dropped in the main etc. meanwhile terran is safe behind their OP defense and can hardly be touched without going all in. They are way too strong, worst in TvP. With Z and P - "would it be a good idea to drop this game" Terran - "why not drop this game?" So factory and starport is not a tech commitment? Protoss shouldn't make anything besides gateway units?
It's much less of a commitment than drop tech or a warp prism because of how useful it is the entire game and how safely and quickly it can be teched up to.
Just look at one base plays with medivacs vs. one base plays with warp prism of drop tech. If you can pull it off more often on one base, it is less of an investment.
Another way to look at it is look at 20 minute plus games where terran doesn't have medivacs vs. similar length games where Z and P don't get drop or warp prism.
Medivacs can be teched to quickly in every matchup because they are just that strong and terran is just that safe while doing so.
|
Factory and starport isn't a tech commitment because it's your only option. Any build that isn't no-gas marines requires you to build a factory and starport, so your only investment in doing a marine drop is the resources and time taken to build those units. Not the robo bay for the warp prism for protoss, or the drop tech for zerg. On top of that, drops have the advantage of:
- Catching the opponent off guard, favoring high-dps units (who can do damage before reinforcements show up)
- Being placed amongst buildings, favoring ranged units
- High probability of losing the units, favoring cheap units
and the marine meets all three of these requirements extremely well. Terran is just built to drop.
|
On October 13 2011 02:03 MangoTango wrote:
Pretty sure it's because of the players. The Terran players are just better than everyone else.
Yeah, this is obviously the case. This game could never be imbalanced, that's why we have balance patches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
