|
On February 04 2012 20:05 Firkraag8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 15:02 lee365 wrote:
Proxy 2 gate represent. 62% winrate might make it one of the most effective cheeses in the game It doesn't have to be offensive proxy 2 gates. Probably a lot of defensive ones to counter scouted 6 or 7 pools etc. Which is pretty easy to win once the rush has been stopped.
I think going 2 gate vs zerg is just the stronger opening, especially on big maps.
On big maps, many zerg (including myself) cut a particular corner: the drone scout.
Since its such a huge map, we assume that saving that drone and just sending the 2 initial lings would be enough, just to encounter 3 zealots on their way to your base.
These 3-4 zealots force so many lings if they manage to get into the mineral line, its not even funny, and building a spine crawler on reaction is just more economical damage to the zerg, since he still has to build lings, otherwise the zealots just kill the building spine crawler.
If you go for gas first then pool into speedling expand, and drone scout the 2 gate, its better, since you can just catch those zealots in the open, but its still roughly 4 drones less than versus a standard gateway into cyber opening.
Watching the replays of those games, zerg falls behind even if they kill those zealots with minimal amount of zerglings.
Usually if a zerg goes gas and then pool, and then expand on 18, they are stuck at 18 supply for quite some time, since 300 for hatchery, 150 for queen, 100/100 for gas is very expensive and doesnt let you sneak in that 100 mineral overlord that you need to get some more supply.
If you look at worker count during that stage, protoss is always ahead, but vs a standard gateway cyber opening, zerg follows this up with double drones from both hatcheries and immediately catches up in worker count and then surpasses the protoss.
If the protoss went 2 gateway, they force the zerg to have 4 less drones during that 18 supply period where they usually are behind in workers anyways, and that just puts zerg in a terrible position in my opinion.
I think going 2 gate vs zerg is like the 11/11 rax against zerg, almost always viable, even if it you dont do much with it, zerg has to react and build lings, which almost definitely puts him in a worse position than if you wouldnt have gone 2 gate.
I really dont believe the 2 gate statistics from the playhem stem from proxy gates, since proxy gates suck balls.
|
People seem to be surprised by the "short" average of the games, but...
Watching various tournaments, it seems that the long "epic" games are less common than we tend to think. I mean, for the top level players, I'm surprised to see games that run for 30+ minutes - even when they are macro games without cheese. Granted, this is just perception and opinion. But players in tournaments shouldn't really be trying to draw games out - they have games to play, and if they can shorten their games leading to the finals they will be better off when the get towards the end of the tournament in terms of game fatigue. (People that slog their way through open brackets to get into the top 8 get props for me, especially when they show up to face "fresher" opponents that only were in pool play or were direct seeds.)
Also, since it's an "average" game length, you have to realize that the time for each game just means that there are more ,or shorter, "quick" games and fewer, or longer, "long" games. As even the pros can tell you, good cheese sometimes is an effective way of just bashing your way up to the point where you're playing opponents that will take all your skill to beat.
(Then again, my average personal game times are pretty short, but I'm faaar lower league and the first push from a 3rax can still end a game outright in 9 minutes.)
|
very nice statistics!
awesome balance on TalDarim
lol @2gate
|
Mmm.. Numbers and % ! Neat post! ♥
Also... Maynard?! O___O!!?
|
On February 04 2012 19:55 sVnteen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 19:41 Excludos wrote:On February 04 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:On February 04 2012 19:07 Excludos wrote:
This only strengthens the idea that zergs early third hatch is a huge problem in PvZ, as Tal'darim, being the only map where this is hard to pull off, is the most balanced in that matchup (and all other matchups for that matter).
Such a shame the most balanced map is the worst map for PvP though =| I disagree. I think the lack of a zerg third on taldarim (combined with the shape of the protoss natural) puts zerg behind. However, the strength of mutalisks on taldarim puts them even again. This is purely opinion though (no evidence at all). Well, if mutalisks is able to put them ahead when they're apparantly "behind", doesn't that agree to the fact that mutalisks of 3 base is too strong? As then zergs are ahead (or even if you like) and get more ahead because of the mutalisks that would otherwise have just gotten them even. ever tried fast muta vs 7 gate? doest work too well if we are entirely honest right?
2base fast mutas can hold 6 or 7gate if the zerg knows its coming. It will be tight, and most likely he will lose the natural. But then he has 10+ mutalisks left and can just rape both of protosses mineral lines afterwards. (Also depends on the type of allin from the toss. If its zealot-stalker, its harder. But since lingspeed will almost always be done by then, most opt for a zealot-sentry force)
|
On February 04 2012 19:55 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 19:41 Excludos wrote:On February 04 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:On February 04 2012 19:07 Excludos wrote:
This only strengthens the idea that zergs early third hatch is a huge problem in PvZ, as Tal'darim, being the only map where this is hard to pull off, is the most balanced in that matchup (and all other matchups for that matter).
Such a shame the most balanced map is the worst map for PvP though =| I disagree. I think the lack of a zerg third on taldarim (combined with the shape of the protoss natural) puts zerg behind. However, the strength of mutalisks on taldarim puts them even again. This is purely opinion though (no evidence at all). Well, if mutalisks is able to put them ahead when they're apparantly "behind", doesn't that agree to the fact that mutalisks of 3 base is too strong? As then zergs are ahead (or even if you like) and get more ahead because of the mutalisks that would otherwise have just gotten them even. No, I was specifically talking about mutalisks on taldarim. If you look at Shattered Temple, which also has rocks on the third, then I think it is fair to say that the map is balanced for other reasons. In this case it is the wide choke to the natural and the long distance from the bottom of the ramp to the natural minerals. Every map has pros and cons for different reasons.
Shattered would have a lot better statistics in PvZ if the ledge behind your mineral line wasn't there. That + the fact that the zerg can take a quick, uncontested, gold, skews the numbers back. I still hold my belief that the quick third hatch, which is normal on any maps that allow it, allows for a massive amount of muta numbers which is near impossible to deal with as toss.
|
Thanks for putting in the time, interesting stats.
|
Nice statistics, really good insight. However it's not a good idea at all to talk about balance based purely on statistics.
|
Over 31,500 games, how much more data could you want? Kudos to you, sir.
|
I really don't agree with people who say that only GSL players are the ones who play the game well, so we should look to them for balance. The reason is that the very top players can use units in a way 99% of people cannot. For example, for most people banelings are an extremely effective counter to marines, but MKP can micro marines so well that you would say that marines are the counter to banelings. If you took this into consideration then sure the game would be balanced better for GSL, but what about the 99.9% of the rest of the people that play and enjoy SC2?
For this reason I think that the survey presented here is a good sample, because no matter what some elitists may think, masters players all have some ability in the game, and are a good representation of how most people will experience the game in the real world (ie on ladder).
|
These are some pretty interesting stats. Big props to Playhem for using their wealth of competition data!
|
Nice Post, good works, keep it up!
i like the cloud^^
|
i dont see how this is an accurate representation of balance. the more a player wins, the more he gets to play. can we see the results from the first round only of playhem tournaments?
|
On February 04 2012 20:21 Poopi wrote:
What why some people said that Maynard is MKP? Does MKP ever play playhem?
I just compared their hotkeys, it's not MKP.
|
wouldn't have expected the balance so good at the playhem tournaments, but they are always nice to watch and thanks for the effort.
And haha 2 gate so strong, my standard opening. But i doubt the next steps are close to mine.
PS: i think game balance is unimportant, whats important is that maps are balanced for the players in the tournament. So if those turn close to 50% then i think the tournament is doing a really good job. (though if the game is strongly imbalanced there will be an underrepresentation of a race)
|
thanks for all the hard work you put OP .
based on your statistics i made my
1v1 map prefference
banned :
arid plateu
antiga shipyards
metalopolis .
gl hf everyone !
p.s. i play toss
|
On February 04 2012 22:10 deathly rat wrote:
I really don't agree with people who say that only GSL players are the ones who play the game well, so we should look to them for balance. The reason is that the very top players can use units in a way 99% of people cannot. For example, for most people banelings are an extremely effective counter to marines, but MKP can micro marines so well that you would say that marines are the counter to banelings. If you took this into consideration then sure the game would be balanced better for GSL, but what about the 99.9% of the rest of the people that play and enjoy SC2?
For this reason I think that the survey presented here is a good sample, because no matter what some elitists may think, masters players all have some ability in the game, and are a good representation of how most people will experience the game in the real world (ie on ladder). Well, if you want to play just ladder then yes.
But if you want to watch tournaments with good players, balance is issue and it shouldn't be just "Fuck, it's not balanced for them anyway, why should i watch that?".
To me balance on ladder is lesser issue. I always lose because my mistake and i can get rid of doing that mistake.
|
Feels like TvP is more often T favored :o
|
By the way, about the average game time. I assume the OP didn't change the settings in SC2Gears, so its real time, not ingame blizzard time. So u have to multiply the time by about ~1,38 or so to get what the ingame timer would show u 
|
This article feels incomplete to me.
It's like if you spent 30 seconds setting up a joke, but never delivered the punchline. There isn't a thesis, and there's no analysis of the data. There's only a lot of data, but no one has interpreted it. I guess what I'm saying is, who cares?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
