Essentially, there is this mindset in the community that a couple of simple rules can be applied to forecast the balance of a map such as:
- Long rush distance is good for Zerg, bad for Terran - Chokes are good for Protoss, bad for Zerg - Far away third is good for Zerg, bad for Protoss - Airspace is good for Terran, bad for Protoss
I'd submit that this mentality of theorycrafting about map balance is completely and utterly oversimplifying the situation to the point of these forecasts being wrong as often as they are right. Often casters (I'm looking at a certain muscular bald German in particular) will hammer and hammer the supposed balance of the map before a single game is even played on it. Allow yourself a list of counter examples to the forecasts: (all winratse are HotS global TLPD)
When the map was first released, everyone was talking about how bad this map supposedly was for Protoss, it had to be right? the third had no chokes and was far away, lots of airspace, easy to drop main? The map seems balanced in ZvP and protoss favoured in PvT. What causes this? I don't know, hindsight is 20/20, I can give all sorts of plausible explanations such as that it's easy to proxy oracles behind the base or that blink stalker play is really strong or that colossi can easily defend both the main and natural from drops by just walking in there. Ultimately this is all theory, and that's my point, it's hard to say what actually causes the map to be good for PvT, it just is. And it has been long before the oracle buff.
Everyone talked about it and how it's so good for Protoss. That 0.9% winrate advantage over Z is hardly significant. But it's a fairly solid TvP map. Why? It has 3 easy to secure bases doesn't it? Surely it should be good for protoss? Hell, again, a colossus can easily walk around and defend 3 bases from drops. But no, the reverse is true here, this map is good for TvP. Again, I don't know why, you can come up with all sorts of plausible explanations, but they aren't falsifiable nor verifiable, you can never know if the explanation is actually what is causing it.
Everyone said it would be a good map for Zerg due to the open and hard third and a bad map for Protoss due to all the air space. As far as ZvP goes, the forecast held. But Terran has been absolutely on top of Zerg on this map, and Protoss has an ever so small not really intresting lead over Terran here. Again, no one knows why.
It was supposed to be a really good map for Zerg and a really bad map for Terran, it's huge and so open. Terran doesn't have warpgates or nydus or fast units that make rush distance negatable right? Well, at least the forecast held for TvZ. But all the other matchups are very balanced. Zerg was supposed to crush Protoss on this map, Protoss was supposed to crush Terran, it didn't happen.
And our only non HotS map included just for hilarity's sake: Winrates are computed by adding up the games from all the international and Korean versions:
What was supposed to be the best PvZ map ever became in fact the worst. Everyone saw the chokes and went bonkers. Artosis kept preaching even in the face of undeniable numbers that it was still a good map for PvZ, he just could not believe it, his intuition was shattered, all those chokes and still Zerg domianted Protoss on this map. Whatever caused it, the far third, the hard to wall natural, the fact that protoss could not catch mutas on the map due to the chokes, the sheer amount of counter attack paths. Ultimately it's all theory, there's only one thing we know, the map was ridiculously imbalance and not how we expected it.
No theorycraft on map balance can be complete without Daedalus point:
Though the sample size is very small. The chance of an even coin landing 6 times on its head is in a row is 2%. And people were saying it would be bad for Protoss in PvT, the chance of a coin that favours tails falling on its head 6 times in a row is even lower. The forecast was absolutely right about ZvP, but no one expected the map to be even worse for Terran than it is for Protoss. The TvZ numbers are even worse than the PvZ numbers.
As for my own experiences. My TvP is fairly good, I have a 60% winrate currently in this season despite the imbalances that some people say exist. But I have never won a game vs Protoss on Daedalus point. I'm 0-6 in TvP on that map and I'm not sure what causes it. A thing I noticed that it is hard to drop the main because colossi often just walk up there from the third with stalkers blinking along. I often die to zealot runbies on that map at my third and fourth so maybe that's a cause. It's probably a lot of little things adding up which ultimately shape the balance, things no one foresees or thinks about when they see a map overview. The map is really good for zealot runbies into the third and fourth. Despite the lack of chokes and the easy of getting a really strong bio arc on the colossus army. It's a tough map to play TvP on and I'm not quite sure what causes it. It's also hard to bunker up your natural on which protoss doesn't really rely, they can often just walk past is. It's easy for protoss to hide a pylon some-where in your natural which caught me in the second TvP I played on this map and I since always check. It's hard to defend both the main and nat from oracles.
Ultimately, the little subtle things which may not cause an outright win but do help add up and determine the balance of a map as much as the big, immediately visible things. So manys mall things about maps which no one notices, which the designer never considered when making the map can lead to one race getting just a slightly more favourable trade and eventually a win, STarCraft 2 is a game of seconds. Having to build your bunkers far forward on Daedalus to cover the ramp means your SCV's arrive seconds later to repair meaning that you die. It's hardly something people think about when analysing a map but it ultimately decides games.
imo only gosu toss have the balls to play daedalus. thats why the PvT winrate is so good. protoss who veto daedalus are just not good enugh to one base PvZ
On January 27 2014 07:29 Paljas wrote: imo only gosu toss have the balls to play daedalus. thats why the PvT winrate is so good. protoss who veto daedalus are just not good enugh to one base PvZ
All games but one are from GSL, which has no veto.
But thank you for illustrating my point that people have a hard time dealing with the fact that numbers contradict intuition and try to make up explanations for them, the one here being transparently false. When I studied physics in the first year every professor stressed the importance of being able to deal with counter-intuitiveness. When the scientific method contradicts intuition the scientific method takes precedence. That's the entire reason the scientific method exists, human intuition is simply false and truth more often than not is very counter-intuitive. There comes a time where you just have to accept that numbers are more reliable than human intuition.
Quite interesting indeed. I'm interested in how the daedalus pvt winrate turns out to be over time. Theorizing over why it turns out that way may create some nice insights on the match up.
Essentially, there is this mindset in the community that a couple of simple rules can be applied to forecast the balance of a map such as:
- Long rush distance is good for Zerg, bad for Terran - Chokes are good for Protoss, bad for Zerg - Far away third is good for Zerg, bad for Protoss - Airspace is good for Terran, bad for Protoss
I'd submit that this mentality of theorycrafting about map balance is completely and utterly oversimplifying the situation to the point of these forecasts being wrong as often as they are right.
You are oversimplifying the arguments. You have to look at those in the context of maps, and I dare say it is a little naive to take the maps made by toplevel mapmakers who try to avoid imbalanced situations or at least balance out imbalanced features and then analyze how you think the map would play out when you apply simplified rules. Also I'm pretty sure that every higher level player and mapmaker would disagree with some of your ruleexamples to begin with, e.g. long rushdistances in ZvT have proven time and time again that they do not necessarily imbalance the matchup, since it makes drops strong, ultralisks, broodlords and infestors weak, and buys time against 2base zerg busts. Also far away 3rd bases are not good for Zerg. They just punish Protoss players when they try to 3base, something that Protoss can often avoid with 2base allinning, but it's very plainly visible in the applied playstyle of the map, not necessarily in the winrates (because Protoss 2base allins are various and very powerful).
Also some of your mapanalysis is just plainly missing the mark. E.g. Akilon: Protoss does profit from the easy bases, but first of all we all know how swarm hosts play on this map, second of all it is an amazing mutalisk and dropmap as well, just look at the basesetup. And Terran profits from such easy expansions too, they are just not as required for Terran macro play as they are for Protoss macroplay. Whirlwind: Medivac paradise, lots of airspace. Crossfire: Wait, you say this map should have been good for Protoss? A map that is very hard to FFE on and was played during a time in which FFE was the only viable opening in ZvP. Not to mention that taking a third was nearly impossible. It was the prototype of 2base allin maps for Protoss against Zerg and not only that, it was even hard to get into 2basing. Daedalus Point: Wow, what a coincidence that this map is 6-0 for Protoss when you take most of its samplesize from a tournament in which Protoss is 31-8 vs Terran. Not saying that DP is necessarily bad vs Terran, but there is really no conclusion to be drawn from those stats with Code A being a PvT stompfest. Star Station: Very punishable 4th in ZvT, most games taken from a timeframe in which Terran was ~55% in ZvT regardless of maps, Terran hardly cares for open third bases in ZvT, very dropable. PvT blink allins are devastating due to the extreme ledge.
If you want, I can easily explain all of them. There's really no mystery to the numbers, but it does force players to play a certain way, and sometimes that way can be very ugly. The first thing I want to say is that when people talk about whether a map is "good" or "bad" for a certain race, they're referring to whether or not a race can play a standard macro game on that map (whatever "standard" is in the current meta). So don't get this silly idea that somehow analysts are wrong and shouldn't continually harp on map balance.
Polar Night: 2-Base All Day, Everyday When this map was first released, Protosses could only look on and stare at the 360 degree air defense of the main base and the GIGANTIC opening at the third. In the current meta of phoenix/colossus, the 3rd base was impossible to hold on this map in PvZ, giving rise to a) more 2-base all-ins and b) the development of more voidray-focused strategies (which ignore terrain to some extent). 3 bases on this map is almost impossible to defend in PvT, giving rise to a plethora of early pressure builds (proxy oracle, 10-gate zealot/stalker/MSC poke, blink plays, etc.) as well as powerful 2-base builds (blink/colossus allins, templar/chargelot allins, etc.). The primary reason that these 2-base allins worked so well is because of the fairly short rush distance and the easy control of vision with the watchtowers.
Akilon Wastes: Did You Say SCV pull? Hellbat Drops? Mine Drops? A large portion of TvP games played on this map include games before the hellbat nerf and before Protoss really had any clue how the fuck to deal with early drops in general. On top of that, SCV pulls/2-base Terran allins were quite common on this map due to the very short rush distance and the very awkward-to-defend third base placement. The problem with this map was that Protoss got a "free" third base, but both of the third base placements sucked: one did better against SCV pulls, the other did better against drops. This also explains why the popular Terran 4M and hellbat/marauder pushes worked well on this map against Zerg.
Star Station: Wait, Forward Terran Thirds Are A Thing?" With the popular 4M style as well as hellbat/marauder pushes, the fairly short rush distances on this map and the forward (unbreakable) third allowed Terrans to ramp up the aggression and walk across the map very easily. Remember that about half of the professional games played on this map (or more) were played before cross-spawns only were introduced. There's also a lot of narrow hallways to abuse with widow mines. No mystery here. (If you don't understand what I mean about forward Terran thirds, see where Terrans take their third base in TvZ on Polar Night and Bel'Shir Vestige as well).
Whirlwind: Easy 4 Base Protoss can take and defend 4 bases pretty easily on this map.
Crossfire: Eh It's hard to explain this map, especially since most of the games on it (if not all of them) are absolutely awful. The most reasonable explanation is that it was WoL and Protoss couldn't take a natural.
Daedalus: What In The Actual Fuck, Blizzard? Extraordinarily huge bases. Tons of proxy locations. Fucking gigantic ass ramps. Very short rush distances. Tons of surface area into the main. It's as if Blizzard decided to take all the worst map elements and cram it into one super imbalanced map. If you want to know why your TvP is suffering, it's largely due to a) Protoss having literally every early-game option available to them from 4-gates to proxy oracles to standard macro builds, b) Hugeass bases mean that oracle/blink harassment is ultra powerful, c) short rush distances mean that 2-base all-ins are scarier than ever, d) in the late game, it's very easy to do zealot warpins/army pressure on opposite sides of the map and pull the Terran player in different directions. My advice: get a solid SCV pull strategy down or just do some proxy shit.
Hope that unraveled some of the mystery behind "map balance inaccuracies". It really comes down to: can Protoss take a 3rd? If no, are 2-base allins good? If no, Protoss is fucked (see: PvZ on Crossfire and Daedalus).
Essentially, there is this mindset in the community that a couple of simple rules can be applied to forecast the balance of a map such as:
- Long rush distance is good for Zerg, bad for Terran - Chokes are good for Protoss, bad for Zerg - Far away third is good for Zerg, bad for Protoss - Airspace is good for Terran, bad for Protoss
I'd submit that this mentality of theorycrafting about map balance is completely and utterly oversimplifying the situation to the point of these forecasts being wrong as often as they are right.
You are oversimplifying the arguments. You have to look at those in the context of maps, and I dare say it is a little naive to take the maps made by toplevel mapmakers who try to avoid imbalanced situations or at least balance out imbalanced features and then analyze how you think the map would play out when you apply simplified rules. Also I'm pretty sure that every higher level player and mapmaker would disagree with some of your ruleexamples to begin with, e.g. long rushdistances in ZvT have proven time and time again that they do not necessarily imbalance the matchup, since it makes drops strong, ultralisks, broodlords and infestors weak, and buys time against 2base zerg busts. Also far away 3rd bases are not good for Zerg. They just punish Protoss players when they try to 3base, something that Protoss can often avoid with 2base allinning, but it's very plainly visible in the applied playstyle of the map, not necessarily in the winrates (because Protoss 2base allins are various and very powerful).
I think he was explaining that these were common (and perhaps faulty) beliefs about map balance. For the most part, they are true for "standard" macro play. The only one that might be a little off is that long rush distances are bad for Terran: these days, Terrans do well on pretty much any map regardless of the distance between bases. Then again, that probably has more to do with aggressive third base placement and the more attacking-oriented playstyles top-level Terrans have been using.
Essentially, there is this mindset in the community that a couple of simple rules can be applied to forecast the balance of a map such as:
- Long rush distance is good for Zerg, bad for Terran - Chokes are good for Protoss, bad for Zerg - Far away third is good for Zerg, bad for Protoss - Airspace is good for Terran, bad for Protoss
I'd submit that this mentality of theorycrafting about map balance is completely and utterly oversimplifying the situation to the point of these forecasts being wrong as often as they are right.
You are oversimplifying the arguments. You have to look at those in the context of maps, and I dare say it is a little naive to take the maps made by toplevel mapmakers who try to avoid imbalanced situations or at least balance out imbalanced features and then analyze how you think the map would play out when you apply simplified rules. Also I'm pretty sure that every higher level player and mapmaker would disagree with some of your ruleexamples to begin with, e.g. long rushdistances in ZvT have proven time and time again that they do not necessarily imbalance the matchup, since it makes drops strong, ultralisks, broodlords and infestors weak, and buys time against 2base zerg busts. Also far away 3rd bases are not good for Zerg. They just punish Protoss players when they try to 3base, something that Protoss can often avoid with 2base allinning, but it's very plainly visible in the applied playstyle of the map, not necessarily in the winrates (because Protoss 2base allins are various and very powerful).
Tell that to Artosis and Tasteless & Co. who are constantly hammering how Whirlwind is good for Zerg and how lucky Zerg got for spawning cross and explaining to people how Zerg needs long rush distance due to the larval mechanical (which is a fallacy, theoretically Larvae benefit as much from short rush distances as long because Zerg can also turn their entire production into attacking units). They're the one's I'm criticizing and they do say all those things.
Khaldor went on for day and night about how hard Polar Night was for Protoss stressing the open far away third when like 3 games were played on the map, holding himself capable of forecasting the future. Which is pretty much the problem with Khaldor and many casters, the crystal ball syndrome. This implicit arm's race casters have going on to look into the future in order to appear knowledgeable. THe interesting part is that if you watch actual progamers cast whose knowledge far exceeds that of "analytical casters " (who in my opinion talk bullshit a lot of the time) they make no such attempt at all. At MLG Gameon catz made no attempt to look 12 minutes ahead in time and consequently did not look quite as foolish as Wolf and Artosis who are wrong about 40% of the time when they make such attempts. Either of them saying
Also some of your mapanalysis is just plainly missing the mark. E.g. Akilon: Protoss does profit from the easy bases, but first of all we all know how swarm hosts play on this map, second of all it is an amazing mutalisk and dropmap as well, just look at the basesetup. And Terran profits from such easy expansions too, they are just not as required for Terran macro play as they are for Protoss macroplay.
Apparently not?
Whirlwind: Medivac paradise, lots of airspace.
Maybe, maybe not, how can you know?
Star Station was also a medivac paradise but it was balanced in PvT, Polar Night is a medivac Paradise and is P favoured?
Crossfire: Wait, you say this map should have been good for Protoss? A map that is very hard to FFE on and was played during a time in which FFE was the only viable opening in ZvP. Not to mention that taking a third was nearly impossible. It was the prototype of 2base allin maps for Protoss against Zerg and not only that, it was even hard to get into 2basing.
Yes, everyone said the map was going to be good for Protoss with all the chokes. Artosis kept on stretching in the GSL how good the map was for Protoss when people long realized it wasn't the case. He just kept saying it on the air going on and on about how unfair it was for Zerg.
Daedalus Point: Wow, what a coincidence that this map is 6-0 for Protoss when you take most of its samplesize from a tournament in which Protoss is 31-8 vs Terran. Not saying that DP is necessarily bad vs Terran, but there is really no conclusion to be drawn from those stats with Code A being a PvT stompfest.
And in proleague, which features largely the same players, PvT is doing fine, could this be because the map pool really favours protoss in GSL, who knows?
Star Station: Very punishable 4th in ZvT, most games taken from a timeframe in which Terran was ~55% in ZvT regardless of maps, Terran hardly cares for open third bases in ZvT, very dropable. PvT blink allins are devastating due to the extreme ledge.
Maybe, maybe not, again, hindisght is 20/20.
You can come up with all sorts of "plausible explanations" to observed phaenomena. But until those explanations are sufficiently general to accurately forecast yet unforeseen events they aren't falsifiable nor verifiable and therefore there is no way of knowing if they are right. Your explanations may be right, they may be pure bollocks, no one can know because they are not sufficiently general.
On January 27 2014 15:37 SC2John wrote: If you want, I can easily explain all of them. There's really no mystery to the numbers, but it does force players to play a certain way, and sometimes that way can be very ugly. The first thing I want to say is that when people talk about whether a map is "good" or "bad" for a certain race, they're referring to whether or not a race can play a standard macro game on that map (whatever "standard" is in the current meta). So don't get this silly idea that somehow analysts are wrong and shouldn't continually harp on map balance.
Polar Night: 2-Base All Day, Everyday When this map was first released, Protosses could only look on and stare at the 360 degree air defense of the main base and the GIGANTIC opening at the third. In the current meta of phoenix/colossus, the 3rd base was impossible to hold on this map in PvZ, giving rise to a) more 2-base all-ins and b) the development of more voidray-focused strategies (which ignore terrain to some extent). 3 bases on this map is almost impossible to defend in PvT, giving rise to a plethora of early pressure builds (proxy oracle, 10-gate zealot/stalker/MSC poke, blink plays, etc.) as well as powerful 2-base builds (blink/colossus allins, templar/chargelot allins, etc.). The primary reason that these 2-base allins worked so well is because of the fairly short rush distance and the easy control of vision with the watchtowers.
Akilon Wastes: Did You Say SCV pull? Hellbat Drops? Mine Drops? A large portion of TvP games played on this map include games before the hellbat nerf and before Protoss really had any clue how the fuck to deal with early drops in general. On top of that, SCV pulls/2-base Terran allins were quite common on this map due to the very short rush distance and the very awkward-to-defend third base placement. The problem with this map was that Protoss got a "free" third base, but both of the third base placements sucked: one did better against SCV pulls, the other did better against drops. This also explains why the popular Terran 4M and hellbat/marauder pushes worked well on this map against Zerg.
Star Station: Wait, Forward Terran Thirds Are A Thing?" With the popular 4M style as well as hellbat/marauder pushes, the fairly short rush distances on this map and the forward (unbreakable) third allowed Terrans to ramp up the aggression and walk across the map very easily. Remember that about half of the professional games played on this map (or more) were played before cross-spawns only were introduced. There's also a lot of narrow hallways to abuse with widow mines. No mystery here. (If you don't understand what I mean about forward Terran thirds, see where Terrans take their third base in TvZ on Polar Night and Bel'Shir Vestige as well).
Whirlwind: Easy 4 Base Protoss can take and defend 4 bases pretty easily on this map.
Crossfire: Eh It's hard to explain this map, especially since most of the games on it (if not all of them) are absolutely awful. The most reasonable explanation is that it was WoL and Protoss couldn't take a natural.
Daedalus: What In The Actual Fuck, Blizzard? Extraordinarily huge bases. Tons of proxy locations. Fucking gigantic ass ramps. Very short rush distances. Tons of surface area into the main. It's as if Blizzard decided to take all the worst map elements and cram it into one super imbalanced map. If you want to know why your TvP is suffering, it's largely due to a) Protoss having literally every early-game option available to them from 4-gates to proxy oracles to standard macro builds, b) Hugeass bases mean that oracle/blink harassment is ultra powerful, c) short rush distances mean that 2-base all-ins are scarier than ever, d) in the late game, it's very easy to do zealot warpins/army pressure on opposite sides of the map and pull the Terran player in different directions. My advice: get a solid SCV pull strategy down or just do some proxy shit.
Hope that unraveled some of the mystery behind "map balance inaccuracies". It really comes down to: can Protoss take a 3rd? If no, are 2-base allins good? If no, Protoss is fucked (see: PvZ on Crossfire and Daedalus).
And here we go again, explanations made in hindsight.
This is why in natural science explanations are hold to the predictive value criterion. Any explanation made to explain a phenomon must be capable of forecasting in sufficient detail an event which is not yet foreseen order to be taken seriously and for good reason. History has shown time and time again that human beings like to come up with "plausible theories" to explain things in hindsight which are seldom true. In fact, you can give people facts which are false and they can still come up with things to explain it. You should not be able to ever explain the reason behind a falsehood but it happens. Until this theorycrafting on map balance can forecast the future accurately, I don't buy it.
On January 27 2014 22:53 SiskosGoatee wrote: And here we go again, explanations made in hindsight.
This is why in natural science explanations are hold to the predictive value criterion. Any explanation made to explain a phenomon must be capable of forecasting in sufficient detail an event which is not yet foreseen order to be taken seriously and for good reason. History has shown time and time again that human beings like to come up with "plausible theories" to explain things in hindsight which are seldom true. In fact, you can give people facts which are false and they can still come up with things to explain it. You should not be able to ever explain the reason behind a falsehood but it happens. Until this theorycrafting on map balance can forecast the future accurately, I don't buy it.
....what? Of course you can accurately predict map balance by looking at the map. That's why it's called "map analysis", and it's done by every high level player. I systematically laid out why Protoss is a little favored in PvT on Daedalus above. Unless there's a huge metagame shift, all of the analysis I made will hold true. It's not "hindsight theorycrafting", it's map analysis lol.
Polar Night is another good example of map analysis: Protoss cannot take a 3rd easily, so blink and other 2-base all-ins become more prevalent, leading to counter-intuitive higher win rates for Protoss, who would otherwise be "disadvantaged" in a normal macro game. I'm not "theorycrafting" about whether that's the case, that's actually what happened; players analyzed the map and adapted to it in order to suit their needs. That's what you're supposed to do in SC2.
Quit being a philosophical wanker and use your brain lol.
On January 27 2014 22:53 SiskosGoatee wrote: And here we go again, explanations made in hindsight.
This is why in natural science explanations are hold to the predictive value criterion. Any explanation made to explain a phenomon must be capable of forecasting in sufficient detail an event which is not yet foreseen order to be taken seriously and for good reason. History has shown time and time again that human beings like to come up with "plausible theories" to explain things in hindsight which are seldom true. In fact, you can give people facts which are false and they can still come up with things to explain it. You should not be able to ever explain the reason behind a falsehood but it happens. Until this theorycrafting on map balance can forecast the future accurately, I don't buy it.
....what? Of course you can accurately predict map balance by looking at the map. That's why it's called "map analysis", and it's done by every high level player. I systematically laid out why Protoss is a little favored in PvT on Daedalus above. Unless there's a huge metagame shift, all of the analysis I made will hold true. It's not "hindsight theorycrafting", it's map analysis lol.
No, you can do so inaccurately which is wrong at least 40% of the time.
I'm sorry, but progamers and casters alike were constantly talking about how good Akilon was for Protoss and they were wrong. That's inaccuracy.
Polar Night is another good example of map analysis: Protoss cannot take a 3rd easily, so blink and other 2-base all-ins become more prevalent, leading to counter-intuitive higher win rates for Protoss, who would otherwise be "disadvantaged" in a normal macro game. I'm not "theorycrafting" about whether that's the case, that's actually what happened; players analyzed the map and adapted to it in order to suit their needs. That's what you're supposed to do in SC2.
No, you are theorycrafting, you cannot proof or disproof if the scenario you are describing here is the actual cause of the PvT favour on Polar Night, remember, correlation is not causation, in order to demonstrate causation you have to have controlled experiments, we don't have those.
Quit being a philosophical wanker and use your brain lol.
You mean I insist upon use of the scientific method rather than informal, aesthetic and quite frankly inaccurate induction?
On January 27 2014 22:53 SiskosGoatee wrote: Tell that to Artosis and Tasteless & Co. who are constantly hammering how Whirlwind is good for Zerg and how lucky Zerg got for spawning cross and explaining to people how Zerg needs long rush distance due to the larval mechanical (which is a fallacy, theoretically Larvae benefit as much from short rush distances as long because Zerg can also turn their entire production into attacking units). They're the one's I'm criticizing and they do say all those things.
Zerg does not benefit from short rush distances because of the way drones and larva mechanics work. They benefit largely from being able to a) delay for as long as possible and buy some extra time between drone/unit production cycles and b) creating a hugeass ocean of creep. Look at Zerg win rates on Yeonsu. It's not a coincidence, it's because in general chokes and small rush distances are bad for Zerg.
What are you even saying with these "theoretical" statements? I just don't why someone would insist on plugging their ears and pretending that real analysis is not a thing. I can understand frustration with casters who hype things up way more than they should (and end up being wrong), but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to predict what someone's going to do based on the map or opening build. Those are highly probable based on analysis of the race attributes, the way maps work, and how the game works. There are no great mysteries behind why certain races do well on maps and why they don't lol. The scientific method might not be flawed, but the way you're using logic here is.
EDIT: And yes, I watch almost every professional SC2 game, so I know why Protoss wins on Polar Night.
On January 27 2014 22:53 SiskosGoatee wrote: Tell that to Artosis and Tasteless & Co. who are constantly hammering how Whirlwind is good for Zerg and how lucky Zerg got for spawning cross and explaining to people how Zerg needs long rush distance due to the larval mechanical (which is a fallacy, theoretically Larvae benefit as much from short rush distances as long because Zerg can also turn their entire production into attacking units). They're the one's I'm criticizing and they do say all those things.
Zerg does not benefit from short rush distances because of the way drones and larva mechanics work. They benefit largely from being able to a) delay for as long as possible and buy some extra time between drone/unit production cycles and b) creating a hugeass ocean of creep. Look at Zerg win rates on Yeonsu. It's not a coincidence, it's because in general chokes and small rush distances are bad for Zerg
It's only bad for Zerg against Terran, in PvZ it's fine.
The idea that larvae mean Zerg does not benefit from a short rush distances is theoretically flawed. Zerg can just as easily benefit from a short rush distance on a theoretical level because just as they can turn their entire production to workers (benefit from a long rush distance) they can turn their entire production into attacking units in which case they benefit from a short one. Playing like IdrA isn't the only way to play Zerg.
What are you even saying with these "theoretical" statements? I just don't why someone would insist on plugging their ears and pretending that real analysis is not a thing
Because it's inaccurate "anything goes" reasoning and is as often wrong as it is right. There is zero guarantee to the correctness.
I can understand frustration with casters who hype things up way more than they should (and end up being wrong), but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to predict what someone's going to do based on the map or opening build. Those are highly probable based on analysis of the race attributes, the way maps work, and how the game works. There are no great mysteries behind why certain races do well on maps and why they don't lol. The scientific method might not be flawed, but the way you're using logic here is
If this were true it would be accurate, which it is now.
[qupte]EDIT: And yes, I watch almost every professional SC2 game, so I know why Protoss wins on Polar Night.[/QUOTE]No, you think you know and you have no way of verifying or falsifying your hypothesis to the cause.
On January 27 2014 22:53 SiskosGoatee wrote: Tell that to Artosis and Tasteless & Co. who are constantly hammering how Whirlwind is good for Zerg and how lucky Zerg got for spawning cross and explaining to people how Zerg needs long rush distance due to the larval mechanical (which is a fallacy, theoretically Larvae benefit as much from short rush distances as long because Zerg can also turn their entire production into attacking units). They're the one's I'm criticizing and they do say all those things.
Zerg does not benefit from short rush distances because of the way drones and larva mechanics work. They benefit largely from being able to a) delay for as long as possible and buy some extra time between drone/unit production cycles and b) creating a hugeass ocean of creep. Look at Zerg win rates on Yeonsu. It's not a coincidence, it's because in general chokes and small rush distances are bad for Zerg
It's only bad for Zerg against Terran, in PvZ it's fine.
The idea that larvae mean Zerg does not benefit from a short rush distances is theoretically flawed. Zerg can just as easily benefit from a short rush distance on a theoretical level because just as they can turn their entire production to workers (benefit from a long rush distance) they can turn their entire production into attacking units in which case they benefit from a short one. Playing like IdrA isn't the only way to play Zerg.
What are you even saying with these "theoretical" statements? I just don't why someone would insist on plugging their ears and pretending that real analysis is not a thing
Because it's inaccurate "anything goes" reasoning and is as often wrong as it is right. There is zero guarantee to the correctness.
I can understand frustration with casters who hype things up way more than they should (and end up being wrong), but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to predict what someone's going to do based on the map or opening build. Those are highly probable based on analysis of the race attributes, the way maps work, and how the game works. There are no great mysteries behind why certain races do well on maps and why they don't lol. The scientific method might not be flawed, but the way you're using logic here is
If this were true it would be accurate, which it is now.
EDIT: And yes, I watch almost every professional SC2 game, so I know why Protoss wins on Polar Night.
No, you think you know and you have no way of verifying or falsifying your hypothesis to the cause.
No, you think you know and you have no way of verifying or falsifying your hypothesis to the cause.
Because it's inaccurate "anything goes" reasoning and is as often wrong as it is right. There is zero guarantee to the correctness.
The idea that larvae mean Zerg does not benefit from a short rush distances is theoretically flawed. Zerg can just as easily benefit from a short rush distance on a theoretical level because just as they can turn their entire production to workers (benefit from a long rush distance) they can turn their entire production into attacking units in which case they benefit from a short one. Playing like IdrA isn't the only way to play Zerg.
And /thread
-- I will add the following though:
Zerg cannot break a defensive opponent as easily as the other races because of the general inefficiency of their lower tier army. They need the rush distances to be larger because they do not build their army all at once.
Against any sort of mid game timing, the zerg needs to:
recognize it
stop drone production(cannot cancel drones, if you cancel the larva dies and you get the money back but no production mehcanic to use that money)
wait for the next round of larva to pop
produce and wait the build time of the units
rally all the units to the front and fight with the army altogether
repeat as necessary until army is able to defend - sending in a small army two times to die is less effective than one large army to win
I dont want to get involved in the fight but short distances are a poor factor for zerg winrates. While roaches are beefy they do not dps enough vs repair and banelings have a long production time. Other than using these two units at a very early timing the rush distance will negatively impact zerg and they are unlikely to break a defensive opponent.
On January 27 2014 22:53 SiskosGoatee wrote: Tell that to Artosis and Tasteless & Co. who are constantly hammering how Whirlwind is good for Zerg and how lucky Zerg got for spawning cross and explaining to people how Zerg needs long rush distance due to the larval mechanical (which is a fallacy, theoretically Larvae benefit as much from short rush distances as long because Zerg can also turn their entire production into attacking units). They're the one's I'm criticizing and they do say all those things.
Zerg does not benefit from short rush distances because of the way drones and larva mechanics work. They benefit largely from being able to a) delay for as long as possible and buy some extra time between drone/unit production cycles and b) creating a hugeass ocean of creep. Look at Zerg win rates on Yeonsu. It's not a coincidence, it's because in general chokes and small rush distances are bad for Zerg
It's only bad for Zerg against Terran, in PvZ it's fine.
The idea that larvae mean Zerg does not benefit from a short rush distances is theoretically flawed. Zerg can just as easily benefit from a short rush distance on a theoretical level because just as they can turn their entire production to workers (benefit from a long rush distance) they can turn their entire production into attacking units in which case they benefit from a short one. Playing like IdrA isn't the only way to play Zerg.
What are you even saying with these "theoretical" statements? I just don't why someone would insist on plugging their ears and pretending that real analysis is not a thing
Because it's inaccurate "anything goes" reasoning and is as often wrong as it is right. There is zero guarantee to the correctness.
I can understand frustration with casters who hype things up way more than they should (and end up being wrong), but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to predict what someone's going to do based on the map or opening build. Those are highly probable based on analysis of the race attributes, the way maps work, and how the game works. There are no great mysteries behind why certain races do well on maps and why they don't lol. The scientific method might not be flawed, but the way you're using logic here is
If this were true it would be accurate, which it is now.
The idea that larvae mean Zerg does not benefit from a short rush distances is theoretically flawed. Zerg can just as easily benefit from a short rush distance on a theoretical level because just as they can turn their entire production to workers (benefit from a long rush distance) they can turn their entire production into attacking units in which case they benefit from a short one. Playing like IdrA isn't the only way to play Zerg.
And /thread
Saying that the theory of an idea is flawed is fundamentally different than saying that the theory of the negation of the idea is sound.
You seem to take from it that I say that the theory that Zerg benefits from short rush distances is sound. I'm just saying that the theory that Zerg benefits from large one's is flawed. That's a fundamentally different reasoning.
-- I will add the following though:
Zerg cannot break a defensive opponent as easily as the other races because of the general inefficiency of their lower tier army. They need the rush distances to be larger because they do not build their army all at once.
How is the Zerg lower tier army inefficient? Terran and Protoss cannot move out against Zerg before they have a reasonable army because speedlings in small numbers overwhelm anything cost efficiently. That's why maps need wallable mains. Terran and Protoss have no units that are cost efficient vs Zerg. If maps had no choke at the main Zerg could just turn all their production to units and Terran/Protoss couldn't stop the assault and this would of course only work better with tadam short rush distances.
Against any sort of mid game timing, the zerg needs to:
recognize it
stop drone production(cannot cancel drones, if you cancel the larva dies and you get the money back but no production mehcanic to use that money)
wait for the next round of larva to pop
produce and wait the build time of the units
rally all the units to the front and fight with the army altogether
repeat as necessary until army is able to defend - sending in a small army two times to die is less effective than one large army to win
I dont want to get involved in the fight but short distances are a poor factor for zerg winrates. While roaches are beefy they do not dps enough vs repair and banelings have a long production time. Other than using these two units at a very early timing the rush distance will negatively impact zerg and they are unlikely to break a defensive opponent.
You assume the only or optimal way to play Zerg is defensively. Maximize income, create units reactively to a push and just barely hold it. This may be how IdrA plays it and how he long preached that itw as the only way to play. But newer generation more aggressive Zergs such as Life, Leenock, DRG (and Hyvaa lol) have time and time again shown that playing non reactive aggressive Zerg where you do not make an army in response to your opponent is viable and works, and this style benefits from short rush distances of course.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/636_Crux%20Polar%20Night_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/558_Akilon%20Wastes_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/559_Star%20Station_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/550_Crux%20Whirlwind_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/501_Crossfire%20SE%201.1_thumbnail.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/654_Daedalus%20Point_thumbnail.jpg)
