|
#1 Bisu PvT- 34:16(68%) PvZ- 33:8(80.4%) PvP- 12:4(75%) Overall- 79:28(73.8%) Oppents: Terran - Flash 4: 9, sSak 2:1, Mong 2:1, Icarus 1:0, HiyA 1:0, Last 6:3, Sharp 7:2, Sea 11:0 Zerg - EffOrt 7:2, Larva 6:1, hero 11:4, ZerO 9:1 Protoss - Movie 1:2, GuemChi 1:1, Rock 1:0, free 1:0, Britney 3:1, Best 2:0, Shuttle 3:0
#2 Last TvP- 53:19(73.6%) TvZ- 33:8(80.4%) TvT 21:13(61.7%) Overall- 107:40(72.7%) Oppents: Protss - Bisu 3:6, GuemChi 1:1, Kal 1:0, Jaehoon 3:1, Movie 3:0, Tyson 6:1, free 5:0, Best 10:3, Shuttle 21:7 Zerg - hero 6:1, EffOrt 10:4, ZerO 7:1, Larva 10:2 Terran - Icarus 0:2, Mind 2:3, Flash 1:1, Iris 3:2, sSak 2:1, Mong 1;0, Sharp 4:2, PianO 2:0, HiyA 4:2, Shinee 2:0
#3 Flash TvT- 22:10(68.7%) TvZ 43:13(76.7%) TvP 43:27(61.4%) Ovrall- 109:50(68.5%)
Opponents: Zerg - EffOrt 13:7, hero 11:4, Larva 11:1, ZerO 6:1, HoeJJa 2:0 Terran - Sea 6:2, sSak 2:1, Mong 6:4, Rush 1:0, HiyA 2:1, Last 1:1, Sharp 3:0, Mind:1:1 Protoss - Best 9:14, Bisu 9:4, Movie 3:2, Sky 3:0, free 7:2, Shuttle 4:4, GuemChi 2:0, Kal 2:0, Jaehoon 3:1, Tyson 2:0
|
...and this is why Jaedong needs to return, all the other zergs are just taking a beating.
that delicious 11-0 thrashing of Sea tho
|
On July 01 2016 11:15 Probemicro wrote: Last plays PvZ now? :-)
and this is why Jaedong needs to return, all the other zergs are just taking a beating. oops
|
Now he doesn't play TvZ :p
|
|
Zergs seem to stand no chance now days. And you cant say its quality, Effort was a higher level then Jaedong just before SC2 got there.
|
On July 01 2016 11:37 CrayonPopChoa wrote: Zergs seem to stand no chance now days. And you cant say its quality, Effort was a higher level then Jaedong just before SC2 got there.
theres more of JD slumping than EffOrt actually being better. Other than that win over Flash in the OSL finals nowhere in Effort's career has he reached the sheer prowess of 2009-10 JD (which was just a little overshadowed by Flash's own peak) Also JD' ZvZ has always been second to none while Effort's is just above average. heck even his protege Killer (who is now in the army)'s ZvZ would put the current top 4 zerg to shame.
Not expecting JD to actually return to that level should he stream but he has the ability to do better than Effort with a period of practice.
|
|
I knew Last was good, but not that good! The dude is amazing.
|
the reason zerg has been doing bad is because of the imba fs imba map thats horrible for zerg. anyways it seems brood war is not balanced at all, looking at all the streams lately. zerg progamers are massively complaining about this new shift in late mech. zvp became harder on fs.. feel sad for those zergs
|
fs is not imba and zerg players are just bad, end of story.
|
its just zerg is a hard race but its very rewarding. You can totally crush players , if you're a godly zerg player.
|
On July 01 2016 14:57 MarineCA1 wrote: its just zerg is a hard race but its very rewarding. You can totally crush players , if you're a godly zerg player.
if there are any godly zerg players, then these guys are it, and they're still getting crushed.
|
Larva's ZvT this month against Flash and Last. 3:21(12.5%) Larva after losing to Flash "It feels like last ten years have been a waste"
|
Problem with zergs on pro level is that there is a much lower macro cap than for P or T. What I am after is that it's relatively easy to get 95% of Zergs macro in place (as it's only managing hatcheries) while for T and P it's super hard due to constant probe/scv production and adding plenty of supply buildings and that leading to way higher mineral gathering rate at some point. What happens in practice is that zergs like Zero and Effort utilize 100% of zergs macro potential, but best Terrans and Protoss players only utilize 80% and still get better.
It there would ever be a super computer to play any of the races it would be best with terran, as there is just most to do, and you benefit most from having everything in place.
EDIT: Just to make it clear, it's not a problem with zergs, it's how zerg race is built.
|
any source where you got these numbers from? i guess hero is best zerg?
.... zergs like Zero .... utilize 100% of zergs macro potential
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....... *cough cough* .....ha....ha.... dude are we watching the same games? I see Zero having nearly 2k overmins on 4 base ZvT at the 15 minute mark. His ZvP games seems like he either isnt even trying to win or just likes to play without reacting to enemy at all... and often has 700 overmins before his 6th hatch.
Because of that i always tend to watch the other zergs, but i always see effort playing hunters or offracing and larva driving in his car, so i mostly watch hero.
|
bisu only loses to flash, sounds about right. and..... movie? >_>
|
2000 overmins is normal on 4base ZvT as it doesn't make sense to invest in mineral only units and you'll usually store a lot of mins to go for an ultralisk switch. It has nothing to do with capabilities of spending these money - adding a lot of hatcheries just to hath lings doesn't make sense because you'll need these minerals later on.
My argument of zergs simplified economy is based on myself playing on a competitive level with zerg for over 10 years and playing terran now for nearly 2 years. You can also see this gap widening when pros play micro and macro ums - zergs perform on a very similar level to just 1 player managing, but (especially) terrans crush completely as it's just impossible to have a clean macro with terran.
|
I like this thread =)
but FlaSh is nr 1 ofcourse since he will beat the other two i a Bo5 most likely^^
|
where are these numbers from? Tracking games on streams or is there like Fish ladder statistics?
|
On July 01 2016 18:34 fLyiNgDroNe wrote: where are these numbers from? Tracking games on streams or is there like Fish ladder statistics? You can get them from Ygosu. These games are purely sponsored games. Non of the pros take ladders seriously.
|
On July 01 2016 14:52 Bakuryu wrote: fs is not imba and zerg players are just bad, end of story.
i don't even get how you are saying this. its known fact that almost all zerg players hate fs. go to ygosu.com to find out about this. zerg progamers will always pick something like circuit breaker instead of fs. do you know why fs is is firstly unbalanced? fs has a ridiculously short distance compared to other maps. its easier for zergs to die to +1 zlot and mnm push. on top of that, the simcity for protoss is ridiculously good that they can even go for double nexus even if zerg does overpool. they can literally block with just 1 or 2 probes because the wall is so tight. zergs starts out with slower tech and money vs protoss. lets not even mention zvt on fs. its horribly imba seriously. theres a reason why terran players except flash drop +10% on tvz when its played on circuit or other "balanced" maps.
|
Bisutopia19035 Posts
Bisu still kicking ass. :D
|
Zerg macro is harder than terran and protoss' macro. If you are not utlizing a larva as soon as it spawns and you have resources to either build a drone or a unit, you are losing out.
Besides this, you actually have to know when it's possible to invest in drones and when to invest in fighting units as opposed to protoss and terran for which the process is much more streamlined. Imagine the horror of not being able to use a barracks even if you have the money.
Also KogeT no offense but I don't really know you but you never played at a competitive level. You have no idea what it's like to play at Hero/Effort/Zero's level so you can't act as a figure of authority.
Zerg's (ultimate) army control is also just a lot harder in my opinion.
- 12 zerglings per control group
- Lurkers having to burrow before being able to attack
- Defilers not being a flying unit and having a really big collision size.
- Mutalisks require the most amount of micro to be effective. (Corsairs just get stronger the higher their number aside from when plague comes into play)
- Placing mines and sieging up tanks is a cakewalk compared to effectively setting up an attack against a sieged position.
I'm not making any claims in regarding to brood war's balance, but it is clear that there's a ton of potential for zerg units that is almost impossible for a human to take advantage of.
It's also fairly evident that zerg would be the strongest race when controlled by a prescient supercomputer. Exponential economy, perfect micro, perfect flanks.
|
Japan11285 Posts
FS balance is too sacred to question. That's whats wrong here. Blaming Zerg woes on Zerg players sucking doesn't do it for me either. I do agree that when I watch zerg ladder games there are frequent wtf mistakes though. But it seems that only perfect play can win while Terran can lose a base and still have enough to come through.
|
On July 02 2016 01:33 B-royal wrote: Zerg macro is harder than terran and protoss' macro. If you are not utlizing a larva as soon as it spawns and you have resources to either build a drone or a unit, you are losing out.
Besides this, you actually have to know when it's possible to invest in drones and when to invest in fighting units as opposed to protoss and terran for which the process is much more streamlined. Imagine the horror of not being able to use a barracks even if you have the money.
Also KogeT no offense but I don't really know you but you never played at a competitive level. You have no idea what it's like to play at Hero/Effort/Zero's level so you can't act as a figure of authority.
Zerg's (ultimate) army control is also just a lot harder in my opinion.
- 12 zerglings per control group
- Lurkers having to burrow before being able to attack
- Defilers not being a flying unit and having a really big collision size.
- Mutalisks require the most amount of micro to be effective. (Corsairs just get stronger the higher their number aside from when plague comes into play)
- Placing mines and sieging up tanks is a cakewalk compared to effectively setting up an attack against a sieged position.
I'm not making any claims in regarding to brood war's balance, but it is clear that there's a ton of potential for zerg units that is almost impossible for a human to take advantage of.
It's also fairly evident that zerg would be the strongest race when controlled by a prescient supercomputer. Exponential economy, perfect micro, perfect flanks.
You're so far from any truth that it makes any discussion nearly impossible. I'll just take few points: idle larva is same as any idle building from T or P = you don't use it, you are losing out (cc, barrack, factory doesn't matter). Also remember that you're really losing out only when there are 3 larvas, giving you a lot of time when you can skip macroing.
Knowledge of when to invest in drones vs making units is exactly same for T and P - both races have to cut worker production in early and mid game to have right amount of units or invest in tech. Fact is that zerg is more exposed to it, as if you somehow make too few drones you may find yourself in a position when you'll never be able to produce them (as you'll have to make units constantly and not have a chance to add additional hatchery, e.g 2 hath muta example on 2 drones at exp). From purely "mathematical" thinking this also applies to P and T but in real life is rarely seen.
Rest of your post is not related to the topic, e.g micro management etc. Different discussion that doesn't at all support your arguments, as it was about what is the full potential of zerg vs t/p macro wise. (nothing about which race is more difficult, as obviously each race difficulty exceeds what humans can do)
As for benchmarking me vs programers and saying "Hero/Zero/Effort" that just makes your argument even less interesting as I'm quite sure you never got close to my level, and if that is a measure, makes your statements redundant.
|
Ι don't see how Zergs are doing that bad, ZvP is same as TvZ in terms of balance + we have practically only 4 Zergs making it harder for them (more predictable). One of which is simply not that good (with all the respect to Larva, but... ), Zero currently not playing to his full potential (unlike SSL 11, Spotimes S2, VNSL, Terror SL) and Hero has never been that good in ZvT (since Kespa) + Show Spoiler +And in the recommended FPVOD thread zergs have something like 95% winrate LOL
|
On July 02 2016 04:21 ortseam wrote:Ι don't see how Zergs are doing that bad, ZvP is same as TvZ in terms of balance + we have practically only 4 Zergs making it harder for them (more predictable). One of which is simply not that good (with all the respect to Larva, but... ), Zero currently not playing to his full potential (unlike SSL 11, Spotimes S2, VNSL, Terror SL) and Hero has never been that good in ZvT (since Kespa) + Show Spoiler +And in the recommended FPVOD thread zergs have something like 95% winrate LOL \
not as of right now. zvp seems not that imba while tvz is EXTREMELY IMBA. Larva pointed out that "ever since flash has come in to play, it seems theres a big shift in late mech. It just seems more impossible to beat late mech. all terrans have ridiculous win rate vs zergs. Additionally, isn't it weird we only have 4 zergs right now? At amateur levels and semi pro levels, protoss and terran are imba races. Zerg is by far the weakest. I fear that zerg may die out.
|
On July 02 2016 02:21 kogeT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 01:33 B-royal wrote: Zerg macro is harder than terran and protoss' macro. If you are not utlizing a larva as soon as it spawns and you have resources to either build a drone or a unit, you are losing out.
Besides this, you actually have to know when it's possible to invest in drones and when to invest in fighting units as opposed to protoss and terran for which the process is much more streamlined. Imagine the horror of not being able to use a barracks even if you have the money.
Also KogeT no offense but I don't really know you but you never played at a competitive level. You have no idea what it's like to play at Hero/Effort/Zero's level so you can't act as a figure of authority.
Zerg's (ultimate) army control is also just a lot harder in my opinion.
- 12 zerglings per control group
- Lurkers having to burrow before being able to attack
- Defilers not being a flying unit and having a really big collision size.
- Mutalisks require the most amount of micro to be effective. (Corsairs just get stronger the higher their number aside from when plague comes into play)
- Placing mines and sieging up tanks is a cakewalk compared to effectively setting up an attack against a sieged position.
I'm not making any claims in regarding to brood war's balance, but it is clear that there's a ton of potential for zerg units that is almost impossible for a human to take advantage of.
It's also fairly evident that zerg would be the strongest race when controlled by a prescient supercomputer. Exponential economy, perfect micro, perfect flanks. You're so far from any truth that it makes any discussion nearly impossible. I'll just take few points: idle larva is same as any idle building from T or P = you don't use it, you are losing out (cc, barrack, factory doesn't matter). Also remember that you're really losing out only when there are 3 larvas, giving you a lot of time when you can skip macroing. Knowledge of when to invest in drones vs making units is exactly same for T and P - both races have to cut worker production in early and mid game to have right amount of units or invest in tech. Fact is that zerg is more exposed to it, as if you somehow make too few drones you may find yourself in a position when you'll never be able to produce them (as you'll have to make units constantly and not have a chance to add additional hatchery, e.g 2 hath muta example on 2 drones at exp). From purely "mathematical" thinking this also applies to P and T but in real life is rarely seen. Rest of your post is not related to the topic, e.g micro management etc. Different discussion that doesn't at all support your arguments, as it was about what is the full potential of zerg vs t/p macro wise. (nothing about which race is more difficult, as obviously each race difficulty exceeds what humans can do) As for benchmarking me vs programers and saying "Hero/Zero/Effort" that just makes your argument even less interesting as I'm quite sure you never got close to my level, and if that is a measure, makes your statements redundant.
I think he's saying that it is infintely harder for zerg players to truly understand how to play. The race is just prone to multiple openings and bs throughout the game. It's just becoming harder and harder for zerg players as time goes by. Terrans keep benefiting as they get more used to certain maps like fs. Flash did say that it becomes infinitely easier once terrans keep playing on same map again and again. It just becomes imba. Tvz is IMBA AS HELL
|
Nah this is impossible, bw is balanced perfectly everybody knows that
|
On July 02 2016 02:21 kogeT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 01:33 B-royal wrote: Zerg macro is harder than terran and protoss' macro. If you are not utlizing a larva as soon as it spawns and you have resources to either build a drone or a unit, you are losing out.
Besides this, you actually have to know when it's possible to invest in drones and when to invest in fighting units as opposed to protoss and terran for which the process is much more streamlined. Imagine the horror of not being able to use a barracks even if you have the money.
Also KogeT no offense but I don't really know you but you never played at a competitive level. You have no idea what it's like to play at Hero/Effort/Zero's level so you can't act as a figure of authority.
Zerg's (ultimate) army control is also just a lot harder in my opinion.
- 12 zerglings per control group
- Lurkers having to burrow before being able to attack
- Defilers not being a flying unit and having a really big collision size.
- Mutalisks require the most amount of micro to be effective. (Corsairs just get stronger the higher their number aside from when plague comes into play)
- Placing mines and sieging up tanks is a cakewalk compared to effectively setting up an attack against a sieged position.
I'm not making any claims in regarding to brood war's balance, but it is clear that there's a ton of potential for zerg units that is almost impossible for a human to take advantage of.
It's also fairly evident that zerg would be the strongest race when controlled by a prescient supercomputer. Exponential economy, perfect micro, perfect flanks. You're so far from any truth that it makes any discussion nearly impossible. I'll just take few points: idle larva is same as any idle building from T or P = you don't use it, you are losing out (cc, barrack, factory doesn't matter). Also remember that you're really losing out only when there are 3 larvas, giving you a lot of time when you can skip macroing. Knowledge of when to invest in drones vs making units is exactly same for T and P - both races have to cut worker production in early and mid game to have right amount of units or invest in tech. Fact is that zerg is more exposed to it, as if you somehow make too few drones you may find yourself in a position when you'll never be able to produce them (as you'll have to make units constantly and not have a chance to add additional hatchery, e.g 2 hath muta example on 2 drones at exp). From purely "mathematical" thinking this also applies to P and T but in real life is rarely seen. Rest of your post is not related to the topic, e.g micro management etc. Different discussion that doesn't at all support your arguments, as it was about what is the full potential of zerg vs t/p macro wise. (nothing about which race is more difficult, as obviously each race difficulty exceeds what humans can do) As for benchmarking me vs programers and saying "Hero/Zero/Effort" that just makes your argument even less interesting as I'm quite sure you never got close to my level, and if that is a measure, makes your statements redundant.
Nah you're so far from the truth it's inconceivable. One idle larva does hurt. I don't understand why you would even claim otherwise.
Get this in your head: A larva spawns every 13-14 seconds and hatcheries aren't synced. Having 8 barracks all synced up can't even be fucking compared to having 6-7 hatcheries with larva spawning every 13-14 seconds at different times. Do you get it??
Micro management is obviously related to the topic at hand because we're talking about zergs struggling WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY related to the fact that micro managing all zerg units to equal effectiveness/cost effecieny as a terran's units is MUCH HARDER. if not downright impossible.
I'm already closing in on your level despite only having been playing this game for less than a year vs your 12 (lmao). Talk to me again in one year or two when I will consistently beat you.
|
On July 02 2016 06:35 B-royal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 02:21 kogeT wrote:On July 02 2016 01:33 B-royal wrote: Zerg macro is harder than terran and protoss' macro. If you are not utlizing a larva as soon as it spawns and you have resources to either build a drone or a unit, you are losing out.
Besides this, you actually have to know when it's possible to invest in drones and when to invest in fighting units as opposed to protoss and terran for which the process is much more streamlined. Imagine the horror of not being able to use a barracks even if you have the money.
Also KogeT no offense but I don't really know you but you never played at a competitive level. You have no idea what it's like to play at Hero/Effort/Zero's level so you can't act as a figure of authority.
Zerg's (ultimate) army control is also just a lot harder in my opinion.
- 12 zerglings per control group
- Lurkers having to burrow before being able to attack
- Defilers not being a flying unit and having a really big collision size.
- Mutalisks require the most amount of micro to be effective. (Corsairs just get stronger the higher their number aside from when plague comes into play)
- Placing mines and sieging up tanks is a cakewalk compared to effectively setting up an attack against a sieged position.
I'm not making any claims in regarding to brood war's balance, but it is clear that there's a ton of potential for zerg units that is almost impossible for a human to take advantage of.
It's also fairly evident that zerg would be the strongest race when controlled by a prescient supercomputer. Exponential economy, perfect micro, perfect flanks. You're so far from any truth that it makes any discussion nearly impossible. I'll just take few points: idle larva is same as any idle building from T or P = you don't use it, you are losing out (cc, barrack, factory doesn't matter). Also remember that you're really losing out only when there are 3 larvas, giving you a lot of time when you can skip macroing. Knowledge of when to invest in drones vs making units is exactly same for T and P - both races have to cut worker production in early and mid game to have right amount of units or invest in tech. Fact is that zerg is more exposed to it, as if you somehow make too few drones you may find yourself in a position when you'll never be able to produce them (as you'll have to make units constantly and not have a chance to add additional hatchery, e.g 2 hath muta example on 2 drones at exp). From purely "mathematical" thinking this also applies to P and T but in real life is rarely seen. Rest of your post is not related to the topic, e.g micro management etc. Different discussion that doesn't at all support your arguments, as it was about what is the full potential of zerg vs t/p macro wise. (nothing about which race is more difficult, as obviously each race difficulty exceeds what humans can do) As for benchmarking me vs programers and saying "Hero/Zero/Effort" that just makes your argument even less interesting as I'm quite sure you never got close to my level, and if that is a measure, makes your statements redundant. Nah you're so far from the truth it's inconceivable. One idle larva does hurt. I don't understand why you would even claim otherwise. Get this in your head: A larva spawns every 13-14 seconds and hatcheries aren't synced. Having 8 barracks all synced up can't even be fucking compared to having 6-7 hatcheries with larva spawning every 13-14 seconds at different times. Do you get it?? Micro management is obviously related to the topic at hand because we're talking about zergs struggling WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY related to the fact that micro managing all zerg units to equal effectiveness/cost effecieny as a terran's units is MUCH HARDER. if not downright impossible. I'm already closing in on your level despite only having been playing this game for less than a year vs your 12 (lmao). Talk to me again in one year or two when I will consistently beat you.
well,koget was a zerg player before switch to Terran,and i think is up to the player to be cost effective or not,at the end of the day if you are lossing your units to mines is cuz lazy play(i include myself here,with few steps and proly playing slower could do more smart moves and loss less.)
|
|
Zero finally beat Flash yesterday for the first time in June. He went 4-1 vs. Terran today. Hoping month of July won't be a TvZ slaughter.
|
On July 02 2016 06:35 B-royal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 02:21 kogeT wrote:On July 02 2016 01:33 B-royal wrote: Zerg macro is harder than terran and protoss' macro. If you are not utlizing a larva as soon as it spawns and you have resources to either build a drone or a unit, you are losing out.
Besides this, you actually have to know when it's possible to invest in drones and when to invest in fighting units as opposed to protoss and terran for which the process is much more streamlined. Imagine the horror of not being able to use a barracks even if you have the money.
Also KogeT no offense but I don't really know you but you never played at a competitive level. You have no idea what it's like to play at Hero/Effort/Zero's level so you can't act as a figure of authority.
Zerg's (ultimate) army control is also just a lot harder in my opinion.
- 12 zerglings per control group
- Lurkers having to burrow before being able to attack
- Defilers not being a flying unit and having a really big collision size.
- Mutalisks require the most amount of micro to be effective. (Corsairs just get stronger the higher their number aside from when plague comes into play)
- Placing mines and sieging up tanks is a cakewalk compared to effectively setting up an attack against a sieged position.
I'm not making any claims in regarding to brood war's balance, but it is clear that there's a ton of potential for zerg units that is almost impossible for a human to take advantage of.
It's also fairly evident that zerg would be the strongest race when controlled by a prescient supercomputer. Exponential economy, perfect micro, perfect flanks. You're so far from any truth that it makes any discussion nearly impossible. I'll just take few points: idle larva is same as any idle building from T or P = you don't use it, you are losing out (cc, barrack, factory doesn't matter). Also remember that you're really losing out only when there are 3 larvas, giving you a lot of time when you can skip macroing. Knowledge of when to invest in drones vs making units is exactly same for T and P - both races have to cut worker production in early and mid game to have right amount of units or invest in tech. Fact is that zerg is more exposed to it, as if you somehow make too few drones you may find yourself in a position when you'll never be able to produce them (as you'll have to make units constantly and not have a chance to add additional hatchery, e.g 2 hath muta example on 2 drones at exp). From purely "mathematical" thinking this also applies to P and T but in real life is rarely seen. Rest of your post is not related to the topic, e.g micro management etc. Different discussion that doesn't at all support your arguments, as it was about what is the full potential of zerg vs t/p macro wise. (nothing about which race is more difficult, as obviously each race difficulty exceeds what humans can do) As for benchmarking me vs programers and saying "Hero/Zero/Effort" that just makes your argument even less interesting as I'm quite sure you never got close to my level, and if that is a measure, makes your statements redundant. Nah you're so far from the truth it's inconceivable. One idle larva does hurt. I don't understand why you would even claim otherwise. Get this in your head: A larva spawns every 13-14 seconds and hatcheries aren't synced. Having 8 barracks all synced up can't even be fucking compared to having 6-7 hatcheries with larva spawning every 13-14 seconds at different times. Do you get it?? Micro management is obviously related to the topic at hand because we're talking about zergs struggling WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY related to the fact that micro managing all zerg units to equal effectiveness/cost effecieny as a terran's units is MUCH HARDER. if not downright impossible. I'm already closing in on your level despite only having been playing this game for less than a year vs your 12 (lmao). Talk to me again in one year or two when I will consistently beat you. The only instance where one idle larva hurts, is the lost mining time when you build a drone. The same is true for not building an SCV on time. In all other instances, you will have the same amount of units whether you use every larva instantly or wait until 3 stacked up. So Zerg can micro for 40sec without doing any macro and still have the same amount of units. This obviously makes it much easier for zerg to micro. I didn't know that Terran buildings always finish, when one round of units finished to sync up perfectly.
Being condescending to someone you cannot even beat but thinking you know it all is surely the best way to discuss.
|
Japan11285 Posts
PvZ is really hard if you're not Bisu. TvZ has been generally Terran favored for years.
On July 02 2016 09:44 classicyellow83 wrote: Zero finally beat Flash yesterday for the first time in June. He went 4-1 vs. Terran today. Hoping month of July won't be a TvZ slaughter. The month of July. A beautiful month
|
|
ZvT got a lot better for a while after Effort came back. It was the first time I started seeing zergs (Effort) take games off of Terrans consistently versus late game mech.
Also I was watching some games of Flash vs Effort the other day and Flash was losing like everyone of them. I think Larva and Zero are blowing up Flashes %'s.
|
On July 02 2016 16:17 puppykiller wrote: ZvT got a lot better for a while after Effort came back. It was the first time I started seeing zergs (Effort) take games off of Terrans consistently versus late game mech.
Also I was watching some games of Flash vs Effort the other day and Flash was losing like everyone of them. I think Larva and Zero are blowing up Flashes %'s. they played 2 bo3s. they took one each the other day. (2:0 Effort win, 2:1 Flash win). Effort also has losing record against all top terrans. vs Sea 8: 9, vs Flash 7:13, vs Last 4:10, vs Mong 3:6 It's more like he consistently loses to good terrans, but destroys lower tier terrans (vs rush 6:0, vs sharp 10:3, vs Piano 12:2). Even if you take out games verses Larva and Zero out, Flashes TvZ is still 70%. It's not "blown up".
|
Is there a way to see these games? I know there are some in the "recommended pro game post kespa" thread but how to watch the other ones?
|
Japan11285 Posts
On July 02 2016 17:50 ppp87 wrote: Is there a way to see these games? I know there are some in the "recommended pro game post kespa" thread but how to watch the other ones? Here you go
|
among other things, terrans here seemingly forget you can queue 5 relatively cheap marines or vultures or sometimes even goliaths and tanks to be non-stop produced in a single barrack or a factory on a single screen size whereas zerg can't queue new units to be produced and has multiple screens and bases to manage at all times of the game.
|
On July 02 2016 20:43 LRM)TechnicS wrote: among other things, terrans here seemingly forget you can queue 5 relatively cheap marines or vultures or sometimes even goliaths and tanks to be non-stop produced in a single barrack or a factory on a single screen size whereas zerg can't queue new units to be produced and has multiple screens and bases to manage at all times of the game. I don't think we forget that. Because the difference is, if Terran/Protoss queue they could have had more units or structures at the end in the same time, basically getting punished for bad macro, whereas as Zerg you can skip a round or two with the new larva for military units and still getting the same amount of units at the end at the same time. The only thing that is harder for zerg macro wise is having to use two rally points for main/nat and 3rd/4th, other than that all single hatchery bases can all be hotkeyed as you don't need to hotkey scan and additional macro hatcheries can also be fit into a single screen.
|
On July 02 2016 21:22 Cryoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 20:43 LRM)TechnicS wrote: among other things, terrans here seemingly forget you can queue 5 relatively cheap marines or vultures or sometimes even goliaths and tanks to be non-stop produced in a single barrack or a factory on a single screen size whereas zerg can't queue new units to be produced and has multiple screens and bases to manage at all times of the game. I don't think we forget that. Because the difference is, if Terran/Protoss queue they could have had more units or structures at the end in the same time, basically getting punished for bad macro, whereas as Zerg you can skip a round or two with the new larva for military units and still getting the same amount of units at the end at the same time. The only thing that is harder for zerg macro wise is having to use two rally points for main/nat and 3rd/4th, other than that all single hatchery bases can all be hotkeyed as you don't need to hotkey scan and additional macro hatcheries can also be fit into a single screen.
Yes, but only in early/mid game whereas in mid/late game you can queue rather easily and not sacrifice too much as you have a set number of producing facilities in a single screen most of the time - gateways/barracks and/or factories. Whereas with zerg in late game you cannot do that.
I specifically didn't talk about hotkeys as I am not sure whether that would fall into the macro or micromanagement category. With protoss and terran almost always you have all your producing in one screen size and can hotkey just 1 producing facility and when u tap it twice you are there to produce all your producings whereas with zerg you cannot hotkey 1 building but have to operate multiple screens and bases with rather diverse needs. With protoss and terran all your army can rather easily fit in 5 hotkeys and be 200/200, whereas with zerg in zvp all hotkeys are not enough for all the army most of the times even above 140/150 limit (at least for me) if you want to attack/back off an attack properly. With protoss and terran when you hotkey 5-0 your producing buildings you need to hit 1 key to produce, whereas with zerg you need to hit "s" and if you want to produce different armies to manually select which larvas to produce what. Also overlords are produced from larvas as well.
Also don't forget that terran's army has the longest range and it's significantly easier to set up your attacks, defences and back off when you don't want to engage without losing too much. With zerg you have to go super close, lose 20% of your army, realise it's not going to happen and then back off. Also setting up defences and attacks with zergs is significantly hard IMO. In ZvP I hotkey 1-0 units and have to have all of these well spread at all times and not near enemies armies if i don't want to fight. With terran you have sieges/mines/medics that help back off easily when you dont want to fight, with protoss you just psistorm your opponent. With zerg the defiler plague helps, but it's only in the latest game whereas you have the t/p units significantly earlier.
When you set up defences with protoss you build relatively cheap cannons that shoot ground, air and are detectors for a relatively cheap price and you don't need a hatchery near it so you can position your defences faster, on different positions such a cliff/edge or wherever you want. Setting up defences with zerg is more expensive and you cannot position them wherever you want. With terran you just build cheap turrets and lay mines almost free of price or a group of 6-7 marines/2 medics that you won't use for anything else (when you switched to mech vs z) and you are good to go wherever you are. The defences of zerg are more expensive and "immobile" which makes them rather not as useful as p/ts in mid and late game. Not to mention the power of the bunker in early game.
With terran and protoss you can sim city significantly easier.
With zerg when you set up medium to large attacks, even when you don't drop, there's a big chance you lose a lot of overlords. Yes, with terran you have splash damage on your own tanks, but does that really matter when zerg loses his limit to barely reach and kill 2-3 of 20 tanks?
Just curious, Cryoc have you played at least 100-200 games rather serious 1v1 games with zerg?
I have played plenty of T and really like playing against zerg. I dislike TvP so much that I feel you guys there.
But what I am arguing is that zerg's macro is definitely not easier than terran's and especially than protoss's. Also i am not sure if analyzing macro on its own in 1v1 competitive games will give us any real insights as we have to include micro, timings, variety of BOs used and other stuff I believe.
|
On July 02 2016 22:07 LRM)TechnicS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 21:22 Cryoc wrote:On July 02 2016 20:43 LRM)TechnicS wrote: among other things, terrans here seemingly forget you can queue 5 relatively cheap marines or vultures or sometimes even goliaths and tanks to be non-stop produced in a single barrack or a factory on a single screen size whereas zerg can't queue new units to be produced and has multiple screens and bases to manage at all times of the game. I don't think we forget that. Because the difference is, if Terran/Protoss queue they could have had more units or structures at the end in the same time, basically getting punished for bad macro, whereas as Zerg you can skip a round or two with the new larva for military units and still getting the same amount of units at the end at the same time. The only thing that is harder for zerg macro wise is having to use two rally points for main/nat and 3rd/4th, other than that all single hatchery bases can all be hotkeyed as you don't need to hotkey scan and additional macro hatcheries can also be fit into a single screen. Yes, but only in early/mid game whereas in mid/late game you can queue rather easily and not sacrifice too much as you have a set number of producing facilities in a single screen most of the time - gateways/barracks and/or factories. Whereas with zerg in late game you cannot do that. I specifically didn't talk about hotkeys as I am not sure whether that would fall into the macro or micromanagement category. With protoss and terran almost always you have all your producing in one screen size and can hotkey just 1 producing facility and when u tap it twice you are there to produce all your producings whereas with zerg you cannot hotkey 1 building but have to operate multiple screens and bases with rather diverse needs. With protoss and terran all your army can rather easily fit in 5 hotkeys and be 200/200, whereas with zerg in zvp all hotkeys are not enough for all the army most of the times even above 140/150 limit (at least for me) if you want to attack/back off an attack properly. With protoss and terran when you hotkey 5-0 your producing buildings you need to hit 1 key to produce, whereas with zerg you need to hit "s" and if you want to produce different armies to manually select which larvas to produce what. Also overlords are produced from larvas as well. Also don't forget that terran's army has the longest range and it's significantly easier to set up your attacks, defences and back off when you don't want to engage without losing too much. With zerg you have to go super close, lose 20% of your army, realise it's not going to happen and then back off. Also setting up defences and attacks with zergs is significantly hard IMO. In ZvP I hotkey 1-0 units and have to have all of these well spread at all times and not near enemies armies if i don't want to fight. With terran you have sieges/mines/medics that help back off easily when you dont want to fight, with protoss you just psistorm your opponent. With zerg the defiler plague helps, but it's only in the latest game whereas you have the t/p units significantly earlier. When you set up defences with protoss you build relatively cheap cannons that shoot ground, air and are detectors for a relatively cheap price and you don't need a hatchery near it so you can position your defences faster, on different positions such a cliff/edge or wherever you want. Setting up defences with zerg is more expensive and you cannot position them wherever you want. With terran you just build cheap turrets and lay mines almost free of price or a group of 6-7 marines/2 medics that you won't use for anything else (when you switched to mech vs z) and you are good to go wherever you are. The defences of zerg are more expensive and "immobile" which makes them rather not as useful as p/ts in mid and late game. Not to mention the power of the bunker in early game. With terran and protoss you can sim city significantly easier. With zerg when you set up medium to large attacks, even when you don't drop, there's a big chance you lose a lot of overlords. Yes, with terran you have splash damage on your own tanks, but does that really matter when zerg loses his limit to barely reach and kill 2-3 of 20 tanks? Just curious, Cryoc have you played at least 100-200 games rather serious 1v1 games with zerg? I have played plenty of T and really like playing against zerg. I dislike TvP so much that I feel you guys there. But what I am arguing is that zerg's macro is definitely not easier than terran's and especially than protoss's. Also i am not sure if analyzing macro on its own in 1v1 competitive games will give us any real insights as we have to include micro, timings, variety of BOs used and other stuff I believe. I guess we can agree to disagree on the macro part. If both are maxed and a battle happens, you are right, Terran doesn't have to go macro because the queues will continue by themselves whereas Zerg has to go back to macro. But even if you waste the time of one larva spawn time, because the battle isn't over yet or whatever, due to the stacked larva you would still get more units out after the battle, so I don't share your opinion that Zerg macro is hard. You can even box select larvas from multiple hatcheries and build 24 zerglings with one click, which I would say is much more frequently the case than selecting one larva to build a defiler. I don't want to argue that micro is harder for Zerg in general, just that they have the inherent advantage that they can invest more time to make the battle more even without them falling at the macro side. And I don't want to argue about anything ZvP related, for me P is the most overpowered race in existance regardless of the matchup.
I played Zerg 1-2 full seasons with more than 100 games 5 years ago and got to the same rank (C+), I was as Terran back then. Dunno if you consider that serious or relevant. All I really remember from that time was ZvT was like never attack, only some harrass with mutas, and after defiler you wait for Ultras on 4 bases and then a-move to victory. ZvP was like 90% wins with 6lings from an overpool because all Protoss at that level seemed to think, they are bisu and one cannon is enough to defend. The rest was mostly losing to DTs or storm. But using L for selecting larva in the German version is really annoying and was one of the reasons I stopped playing Zerg.
|
On July 02 2016 09:44 Cryoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 06:35 B-royal wrote:On July 02 2016 02:21 kogeT wrote:On July 02 2016 01:33 B-royal wrote: Zerg macro is harder than terran and protoss' macro. If you are not utlizing a larva as soon as it spawns and you have resources to either build a drone or a unit, you are losing out.
Besides this, you actually have to know when it's possible to invest in drones and when to invest in fighting units as opposed to protoss and terran for which the process is much more streamlined. Imagine the horror of not being able to use a barracks even if you have the money.
Also KogeT no offense but I don't really know you but you never played at a competitive level. You have no idea what it's like to play at Hero/Effort/Zero's level so you can't act as a figure of authority.
Zerg's (ultimate) army control is also just a lot harder in my opinion.
- 12 zerglings per control group
- Lurkers having to burrow before being able to attack
- Defilers not being a flying unit and having a really big collision size.
- Mutalisks require the most amount of micro to be effective. (Corsairs just get stronger the higher their number aside from when plague comes into play)
- Placing mines and sieging up tanks is a cakewalk compared to effectively setting up an attack against a sieged position.
I'm not making any claims in regarding to brood war's balance, but it is clear that there's a ton of potential for zerg units that is almost impossible for a human to take advantage of.
It's also fairly evident that zerg would be the strongest race when controlled by a prescient supercomputer. Exponential economy, perfect micro, perfect flanks. You're so far from any truth that it makes any discussion nearly impossible. I'll just take few points: idle larva is same as any idle building from T or P = you don't use it, you are losing out (cc, barrack, factory doesn't matter). Also remember that you're really losing out only when there are 3 larvas, giving you a lot of time when you can skip macroing. Knowledge of when to invest in drones vs making units is exactly same for T and P - both races have to cut worker production in early and mid game to have right amount of units or invest in tech. Fact is that zerg is more exposed to it, as if you somehow make too few drones you may find yourself in a position when you'll never be able to produce them (as you'll have to make units constantly and not have a chance to add additional hatchery, e.g 2 hath muta example on 2 drones at exp). From purely "mathematical" thinking this also applies to P and T but in real life is rarely seen. Rest of your post is not related to the topic, e.g micro management etc. Different discussion that doesn't at all support your arguments, as it was about what is the full potential of zerg vs t/p macro wise. (nothing about which race is more difficult, as obviously each race difficulty exceeds what humans can do) As for benchmarking me vs programers and saying "Hero/Zero/Effort" that just makes your argument even less interesting as I'm quite sure you never got close to my level, and if that is a measure, makes your statements redundant. Nah you're so far from the truth it's inconceivable. One idle larva does hurt. I don't understand why you would even claim otherwise. Get this in your head: A larva spawns every 13-14 seconds and hatcheries aren't synced. Having 8 barracks all synced up can't even be fucking compared to having 6-7 hatcheries with larva spawning every 13-14 seconds at different times. Do you get it?? Micro management is obviously related to the topic at hand because we're talking about zergs struggling WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY related to the fact that micro managing all zerg units to equal effectiveness/cost effecieny as a terran's units is MUCH HARDER. if not downright impossible. I'm already closing in on your level despite only having been playing this game for less than a year vs your 12 (lmao). Talk to me again in one year or two when I will consistently beat you. The only instance where one idle larva hurts, is the lost mining time when you build a drone. The same is true for not building an SCV on time. In all other instances, you will have the same amount of units whether you use every larva instantly or wait until 3 stacked up. So Zerg can micro for 40sec without doing any macro and still have the same amount of units. This obviously makes it much easier for zerg to micro. I didn't know that Terran buildings always finish, when one round of units finished to sync up perfectly. Being condescending to someone you cannot even beat but thinking you know it all is surely the best way to discuss.
No.
One idle larva hurts almost always unless you're being defensive and there are no engagements going on. An example: a very aggressive 5 hatch hydra build against protoss where every hydra counts (versus zealots, cannons and storm).
Losing mining time like that is incredibly significant. Mining efficiency of 1 drone is roughly 72 minerals/minute.
Larva spawn every 13 seconds and it takes roughly the same amount of time to morph a drone. This means:
Situation A: Saving up larva till 3
1. To get to 3 larva on a new hatchery, you would have to wait around 26-28 seconds since the first larva spawns immediately.
2. You'd then morph 3 drones at the same time, taking you another 13.5 seconds.
3. 40.5 seconds after the completion of your hatchery, you'd then have 3 drones ready to start mining.
Situation B: Using larva immediately
1. Drones will spawn roughly every 13.5 seconds.
2. 1st drone finishes when 2nd larva spawns, 2nd drone finishes when 3rd larva spawns, from this point onwards situations converge.
3. Thus, you have 1 drone mining for 13.5 seconds and then 2 drones mining for 13.5 seconds (or 3*13.5 seconds = 40.5 seconds of mining time for a single drone)
4. 40.5/60 = roughly 0.66 minutes thus 0.66 * 72 minerals = 47.52 minerals
This means that in situation B you win almost 50 minerals.
And as soon as you have 3 larva at any hatchery, every second not spend on using them is delaying your next larva. This is much more significant than you think.
Zerg typically has 3-4 locations to macro from whereas terran and protoss only have 1 location to macro from, which is significantly easier. Zerg also has to select larva first and even manage the larva to make different units as needed, which is especially the case versus terran in the mid game before and after defilers come into play.
Terran and protoss players pretty much always macro in sync from a single location. The only exceptions are very early game, 1 base builds and ultimately uber late game if they get a new main.
"So Zerg can micro for 40sec without doing any macro and still have the same amount of units." Oh man wait till I alert Effort, Hero, Zero and co. and tell them this new secret.
My condescending attitude was in response to his.
|
On July 02 2016 16:17 puppykiller wrote: ZvT got a lot better for a while after Effort came back. It was the first time I started seeing zergs (Effort) take games off of Terrans consistently versus late game mech.
Also I was watching some games of Flash vs Effort the other day and Flash was losing like everyone of them. I think Larva and Zero are blowing up Flashes %'s.
ehh not really. flash has a ridiculous win rate vs effort anyways. the fact that effort and zero have a seriously low losing record against dish washers like sharp or mong speak volume. i mean they were the top 4 zeros during peak skill of bw.
|
Hmmm I dont think it's so much of a balance thing really.
Generally it's always been Z > P > T > Z and comparing macro between terran and zerg is very hard, you can't simply isolate the macro part of a game.
Given the relatively higher dominance for Terrans in the past, it leads me to believe that Terran has the highest cap but is ridiculously hard to master and have the most skillbased mirror-matchup. This have led to most of the bonjwas being terran while non-S class terrans have been struggling in the big leagues. Same arguement holds for why we very rarely see foreign terrans on top in foreign tournaments.
The current dominance is in my oppinion mostly due to meta, where zergs have a hard time dealing with +1 4rax into mech. We need someone like Jaedong to show the way;) Also we have relatively fewer Zerg ex-pros playing right?
|
On July 02 2016 23:42 Cryoc wrote:
I played Zerg 1-2 full seasons with more than 100 games 5 years ago and got to the same rank (C+), I was as Terran back then. Dunno if you consider that serious or relevant.
Yeah I think that's good to go.
On off-topic I will side with Baku that zergs don't utilize 100% of zerg's macro potential nowadays. Not sure what 100% macro potential for a race even means? Is that when a terran/protoss builds pylons/depots at exactly the right times to have exactly 1 unit being produced at all times in a producing facility (a worker or a fighting/spell unit) while also having the right amount of producing facilities while executing everything else? If that is so - then zergs will have to utilize each larva the moment it's spawned and i don't believe anyone expects any zerg to do that at all times. Also should build order calibration be taken into account? If that is so - with zergs build order calibrations often could be pretty subtle so should we factor in the risk that a drone could not lay the 2nd/3rd expo hatch because of a scouting worker? Because most of the games that a scouting worker could significantly disrupt the macro of the opponent is when a zerg is being scouted at the right time to not lay the hatch, not when the p or t is scouted to make a cc/nexus.
Also, as perhaps Baku would like to point out, korean's style of play of SC:BW is not the only style to play BW 1v1 competitively.
|
On July 03 2016 00:35 B-royal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 09:44 Cryoc wrote:On July 02 2016 06:35 B-royal wrote:On July 02 2016 02:21 kogeT wrote:On July 02 2016 01:33 B-royal wrote: Zerg macro is harder than terran and protoss' macro. If you are not utlizing a larva as soon as it spawns and you have resources to either build a drone or a unit, you are losing out.
Besides this, you actually have to know when it's possible to invest in drones and when to invest in fighting units as opposed to protoss and terran for which the process is much more streamlined. Imagine the horror of not being able to use a barracks even if you have the money.
Also KogeT no offense but I don't really know you but you never played at a competitive level. You have no idea what it's like to play at Hero/Effort/Zero's level so you can't act as a figure of authority.
Zerg's (ultimate) army control is also just a lot harder in my opinion.
- 12 zerglings per control group
- Lurkers having to burrow before being able to attack
- Defilers not being a flying unit and having a really big collision size.
- Mutalisks require the most amount of micro to be effective. (Corsairs just get stronger the higher their number aside from when plague comes into play)
- Placing mines and sieging up tanks is a cakewalk compared to effectively setting up an attack against a sieged position.
I'm not making any claims in regarding to brood war's balance, but it is clear that there's a ton of potential for zerg units that is almost impossible for a human to take advantage of.
It's also fairly evident that zerg would be the strongest race when controlled by a prescient supercomputer. Exponential economy, perfect micro, perfect flanks. You're so far from any truth that it makes any discussion nearly impossible. I'll just take few points: idle larva is same as any idle building from T or P = you don't use it, you are losing out (cc, barrack, factory doesn't matter). Also remember that you're really losing out only when there are 3 larvas, giving you a lot of time when you can skip macroing. Knowledge of when to invest in drones vs making units is exactly same for T and P - both races have to cut worker production in early and mid game to have right amount of units or invest in tech. Fact is that zerg is more exposed to it, as if you somehow make too few drones you may find yourself in a position when you'll never be able to produce them (as you'll have to make units constantly and not have a chance to add additional hatchery, e.g 2 hath muta example on 2 drones at exp). From purely "mathematical" thinking this also applies to P and T but in real life is rarely seen. Rest of your post is not related to the topic, e.g micro management etc. Different discussion that doesn't at all support your arguments, as it was about what is the full potential of zerg vs t/p macro wise. (nothing about which race is more difficult, as obviously each race difficulty exceeds what humans can do) As for benchmarking me vs programers and saying "Hero/Zero/Effort" that just makes your argument even less interesting as I'm quite sure you never got close to my level, and if that is a measure, makes your statements redundant. Nah you're so far from the truth it's inconceivable. One idle larva does hurt. I don't understand why you would even claim otherwise. Get this in your head: A larva spawns every 13-14 seconds and hatcheries aren't synced. Having 8 barracks all synced up can't even be fucking compared to having 6-7 hatcheries with larva spawning every 13-14 seconds at different times. Do you get it?? Micro management is obviously related to the topic at hand because we're talking about zergs struggling WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY related to the fact that micro managing all zerg units to equal effectiveness/cost effecieny as a terran's units is MUCH HARDER. if not downright impossible. I'm already closing in on your level despite only having been playing this game for less than a year vs your 12 (lmao). Talk to me again in one year or two when I will consistently beat you. The only instance where one idle larva hurts, is the lost mining time when you build a drone. The same is true for not building an SCV on time. In all other instances, you will have the same amount of units whether you use every larva instantly or wait until 3 stacked up. So Zerg can micro for 40sec without doing any macro and still have the same amount of units. This obviously makes it much easier for zerg to micro. I didn't know that Terran buildings always finish, when one round of units finished to sync up perfectly. Being condescending to someone you cannot even beat but thinking you know it all is surely the best way to discuss. No. One idle larva hurts almost always unless you're being defensive and there are no engagements going on. An example: a very aggressive 5 hatch hydra build against protoss where every hydra counts (versus zealots, cannons and storm). Losing mining time like that is incredibly significant. Mining efficiency of 1 drone is roughly 72 minerals/minute. Larva spawn every 13 seconds and it takes roughly the same amount of time to morph a drone. This means: Situation A: Saving up larva till 31. To get to 3 larva on a new hatchery, you would have to wait around 26-28 seconds since the first larva spawns immediately. 2. You'd then morph 3 drones at the same time, taking you another 13.5 seconds. 3. 40.5 seconds after the completion of your hatchery, you'd then have 3 drones ready to start mining. Situation B: Using larva immediately1. Drones will spawn roughly every 13.5 seconds. 2. 1st drone finishes when 2nd larva spawns, 2nd drone finishes when 3rd larva spawns, from this point onwards situations converge. 3. Thus, you have 1 drone mining for 13.5 seconds and then 2 drones mining for 13.5 seconds (or 3*13.5 seconds = 40.5 seconds of mining time for a single drone) 4. 40.5/60 = roughly 0.66 minutes thus 0.66 * 72 minerals = 47.52 minerals This means that in situation B you win almost 50 minerals. And as soon as you have 3 larva at any hatchery, every second not spend on using them is delaying your next larva. This is much more significant than you think. Zerg typically has 3-4 locations to macro from whereas terran and protoss only have 1 location to macro from, which is significantly easier. Zerg also has to select larva first and even manage the larva to make different units as needed, which is especially the case versus terran in the mid game before and after defilers come into play. Terran and protoss players pretty much always macro in sync from a single location. The only exceptions are very early game, 1 base builds and ultimately uber late game if they get a new main. "So Zerg can micro for 40sec without doing any macro and still have the same amount of units." Oh man wait till I alert Effort, Hero, Zero and co. and tell them this new secret. My condescending attitude was in response to his. I already said, that it hurts to save larvas, when you are building drones so you don't have to calculate the loss for it. But that is the only case where you actually have less stuff in the long run. And Terran has to build SCVs from different locations, too, so for that case it is the same for both. So in case of perfect macro, Zerg has the inherent disadvantage of needing time to select and build a drone (~1s). That means Zerg loses ~1.2 minerals per drone. But you also have the advantage that Zerg mines ~5% more efficient than Terran (see here), that gives you ~3 minerals more per minute, in my eyes a pretty good trade-off.
The production from T/P is only synced because of bad macro, otherwise they would build stuff from new buildings as soon as possible and not wait for other units to finish. And if Zerg opens 3 Hatch Muta, they do basically the same, after they morph their 9 mutas all hatches are synced up.
Of course you should always use your larvas as soon as possible especially when going for some sort of timing. But compare the following scenarios: 1) Terran goes for some M&M timing with 4 Rax and forgets to build marines for 13 seconds and then builds 4. At his timing he will have 4 marines less and 200minerals in the bank he can use for another barracks or whatever. If he waits for another 4 marines, he will still have 4 less marines compared to perfect macro. Terran delays timing and hurt push strength with bad macro.
2) Zerg goes for some Muta&Ling timing on 3hatch and forgets to build Zerglings for 13 seconds and then starts building them. But he can build 12 Zerglings and will have zero bank and no need for additional structures to compensate for bad macro. Zerg therefore only delays timing but will not hurt push strength with bad macro. I don't know, but if there would exist Zerg but with Terran units, I knew what race I would be playing, only one building needed for every unit and the same macro cycle time to automate for every unit.
|
Bisu destroying PvZ, Flash destroying everyone but BeSt in PvT, sounds about 2009.
|
On July 03 2016 02:02 Cryoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2016 00:35 B-royal wrote:On July 02 2016 09:44 Cryoc wrote:On July 02 2016 06:35 B-royal wrote:On July 02 2016 02:21 kogeT wrote:On July 02 2016 01:33 B-royal wrote: Zerg macro is harder than terran and protoss' macro. If you are not utlizing a larva as soon as it spawns and you have resources to either build a drone or a unit, you are losing out.
Besides this, you actually have to know when it's possible to invest in drones and when to invest in fighting units as opposed to protoss and terran for which the process is much more streamlined. Imagine the horror of not being able to use a barracks even if you have the money.
Also KogeT no offense but I don't really know you but you never played at a competitive level. You have no idea what it's like to play at Hero/Effort/Zero's level so you can't act as a figure of authority.
Zerg's (ultimate) army control is also just a lot harder in my opinion.
- 12 zerglings per control group
- Lurkers having to burrow before being able to attack
- Defilers not being a flying unit and having a really big collision size.
- Mutalisks require the most amount of micro to be effective. (Corsairs just get stronger the higher their number aside from when plague comes into play)
- Placing mines and sieging up tanks is a cakewalk compared to effectively setting up an attack against a sieged position.
I'm not making any claims in regarding to brood war's balance, but it is clear that there's a ton of potential for zerg units that is almost impossible for a human to take advantage of.
It's also fairly evident that zerg would be the strongest race when controlled by a prescient supercomputer. Exponential economy, perfect micro, perfect flanks. You're so far from any truth that it makes any discussion nearly impossible. I'll just take few points: idle larva is same as any idle building from T or P = you don't use it, you are losing out (cc, barrack, factory doesn't matter). Also remember that you're really losing out only when there are 3 larvas, giving you a lot of time when you can skip macroing. Knowledge of when to invest in drones vs making units is exactly same for T and P - both races have to cut worker production in early and mid game to have right amount of units or invest in tech. Fact is that zerg is more exposed to it, as if you somehow make too few drones you may find yourself in a position when you'll never be able to produce them (as you'll have to make units constantly and not have a chance to add additional hatchery, e.g 2 hath muta example on 2 drones at exp). From purely "mathematical" thinking this also applies to P and T but in real life is rarely seen. Rest of your post is not related to the topic, e.g micro management etc. Different discussion that doesn't at all support your arguments, as it was about what is the full potential of zerg vs t/p macro wise. (nothing about which race is more difficult, as obviously each race difficulty exceeds what humans can do) As for benchmarking me vs programers and saying "Hero/Zero/Effort" that just makes your argument even less interesting as I'm quite sure you never got close to my level, and if that is a measure, makes your statements redundant. Nah you're so far from the truth it's inconceivable. One idle larva does hurt. I don't understand why you would even claim otherwise. Get this in your head: A larva spawns every 13-14 seconds and hatcheries aren't synced. Having 8 barracks all synced up can't even be fucking compared to having 6-7 hatcheries with larva spawning every 13-14 seconds at different times. Do you get it?? Micro management is obviously related to the topic at hand because we're talking about zergs struggling WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY related to the fact that micro managing all zerg units to equal effectiveness/cost effecieny as a terran's units is MUCH HARDER. if not downright impossible. I'm already closing in on your level despite only having been playing this game for less than a year vs your 12 (lmao). Talk to me again in one year or two when I will consistently beat you. The only instance where one idle larva hurts, is the lost mining time when you build a drone. The same is true for not building an SCV on time. In all other instances, you will have the same amount of units whether you use every larva instantly or wait until 3 stacked up. So Zerg can micro for 40sec without doing any macro and still have the same amount of units. This obviously makes it much easier for zerg to micro. I didn't know that Terran buildings always finish, when one round of units finished to sync up perfectly. Being condescending to someone you cannot even beat but thinking you know it all is surely the best way to discuss. No. One idle larva hurts almost always unless you're being defensive and there are no engagements going on. An example: a very aggressive 5 hatch hydra build against protoss where every hydra counts (versus zealots, cannons and storm). Losing mining time like that is incredibly significant. Mining efficiency of 1 drone is roughly 72 minerals/minute. Larva spawn every 13 seconds and it takes roughly the same amount of time to morph a drone. This means: Situation A: Saving up larva till 31. To get to 3 larva on a new hatchery, you would have to wait around 26-28 seconds since the first larva spawns immediately. 2. You'd then morph 3 drones at the same time, taking you another 13.5 seconds. 3. 40.5 seconds after the completion of your hatchery, you'd then have 3 drones ready to start mining. Situation B: Using larva immediately1. Drones will spawn roughly every 13.5 seconds. 2. 1st drone finishes when 2nd larva spawns, 2nd drone finishes when 3rd larva spawns, from this point onwards situations converge. 3. Thus, you have 1 drone mining for 13.5 seconds and then 2 drones mining for 13.5 seconds (or 3*13.5 seconds = 40.5 seconds of mining time for a single drone) 4. 40.5/60 = roughly 0.66 minutes thus 0.66 * 72 minerals = 47.52 minerals This means that in situation B you win almost 50 minerals. And as soon as you have 3 larva at any hatchery, every second not spend on using them is delaying your next larva. This is much more significant than you think. Zerg typically has 3-4 locations to macro from whereas terran and protoss only have 1 location to macro from, which is significantly easier. Zerg also has to select larva first and even manage the larva to make different units as needed, which is especially the case versus terran in the mid game before and after defilers come into play. Terran and protoss players pretty much always macro in sync from a single location. The only exceptions are very early game, 1 base builds and ultimately uber late game if they get a new main. "So Zerg can micro for 40sec without doing any macro and still have the same amount of units." Oh man wait till I alert Effort, Hero, Zero and co. and tell them this new secret. My condescending attitude was in response to his. + Show Spoiler +I already said, that it hurts to save larvas, when you are building drones so you don't have to calculate the loss for it. But that is the only case where you actually have less stuff in the long run. And Terran has to build SCVs from different locations, too, so for that case it is the same for both. So in case of perfect macro, Zerg has the inherent disadvantage of needing time to select and build a drone (~1s). That means Zerg loses ~1.2 minerals per drone. But you also have the advantage that Zerg mines ~5% more efficient than Terran (see here), that gives you ~3 minerals more per minute, in my eyes a pretty good trade-off. The production from T/P is only synced because of bad macro, otherwise they would build stuff from new buildings as soon as possible and not wait for other units to finish. And if Zerg opens 3 Hatch Muta, they do basically the same, after they morph their 9 mutas all hatches are synced up. Of course you should always use your larvas as soon as possible especially when going for some sort of timing. But compare the following scenarios: 1) Terran goes for some M&M timing with 4 Rax and forgets to build marines for 13 seconds and then builds 4. At his timing he will have 4 marines less and 200minerals in the bank he can use for another barracks or whatever. If he waits for another 4 marines, he will still have 4 less marines compared to perfect macro. Terran delays timing and hurt push strength with bad macro. 2) Zerg goes for some Muta&Ling timing on 3hatch and forgets to build Zerglings for 13 seconds and then starts building them. But he can build 12 Zerglings and will have zero bank and no need for additional structures to compensate for bad macro. Zerg therefore only delays timing but will not hurt push strength with bad macro. I don't know, but if there would exist Zerg but with Terran units, I knew what race I would be playing, only one building needed for every unit and the same macro cycle time to automate for every unit.
Yes I agree. Thank you for your non-biased post. Your previous posts just contained a lot of exaggerations such as zerg not having to macro for 40 seconds and supposedly being fine.
Also, considering that a terran and protoss generally only have to macro from maximally two places (two different mains) and having the luxury of queuing units (which even the best of the best do in late game!!), I don't think zerg being able to box select larva can be seen as bigger advantage.
In theory if zerg has 5 bases, he should macro from 5 bases whereas terran and protoss almost always don't have to do that.
|
On July 03 2016 02:02 Cryoc wrote:So in case of perfect macro, Zerg has the inherent disadvantage of needing time to select and build a drone (~1s). That means Zerg loses ~1.2 minerals per drone. But you also have the advantage that Zerg mines ~5% more efficient than Terran (see here), that gives you ~3 minerals more per minute, in my eyes a pretty good trade-off. I would not trust that article at all as it appears to be based entirely on information which is either plain wrong or has no source. (collision size of CCs is bigger than of Nex, which in turn is bigger than Hatch/Lair/Hive; and how were those mining rate values determined? Without knowledge about testing method and sample size, the whole thing is but a worthless claim out of thin air)
|
On July 03 2016 08:15 Freakling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2016 02:02 Cryoc wrote:So in case of perfect macro, Zerg has the inherent disadvantage of needing time to select and build a drone (~1s). That means Zerg loses ~1.2 minerals per drone. But you also have the advantage that Zerg mines ~5% more efficient than Terran (see here), that gives you ~3 minerals more per minute, in my eyes a pretty good trade-off. I would not trust that article at all as it appears to be based entirely on information which is either plain wrong or has no source. (collision size of CCs is bigger than of Nex, which in turn is bigger than Hatch/Lair/Hive; and how were those mining rate values determined? Without knowledge about testing method and sample size, the whole thing is but a worthless claim out of thin air)
I just did a test on fighting spirit:
For the 3 different races, let 9 workers mine for 10 minutes at the same location, see how many minerals are mined and divide sum by 90 (9 workers * 10 min):
This corrects for different efficiency of the various mineral patches, here are the results:
+ Show Spoiler +First column is the number of minerals left for each patch (x), second colum is amount of minerals mined (1500 - x)
Protoss worker: 68.4minerals/min
Zerg worker: 66.0 minerals/min
Terran worker: 66.1 minerals/min
I only tested it once though but I can't imagine there being a big difference between different tests.
|
On July 03 2016 08:15 Freakling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2016 02:02 Cryoc wrote:So in case of perfect macro, Zerg has the inherent disadvantage of needing time to select and build a drone (~1s). That means Zerg loses ~1.2 minerals per drone. But you also have the advantage that Zerg mines ~5% more efficient than Terran (see here), that gives you ~3 minerals more per minute, in my eyes a pretty good trade-off. I would not trust that article at all as it appears to be based entirely on information which is either plain wrong or has no source. (collision size of CCs is bigger than of Nex, which in turn is bigger than Hatch/Lair/Hive; and how were those mining rate values determined? Without knowledge about testing method and sample size, the whole thing is but a worthless claim out of thin air) I remembered reading posts, where people specifically tested mining rates (for example in general or on python) and Terran was always at last place so I just linked the wiki article. Looking at the numbers for python it might deviate between a 1.5%-5% advantage for Zerg, but the point still stands.
|
On July 02 2016 20:14 c3rberUs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 17:50 ppp87 wrote: Is there a way to see these games? I know there are some in the "recommended pro game post kespa" thread but how to watch the other ones? Here you go
damn that sites sick, cheers
|
On July 02 2016 20:14 c3rberUs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 17:50 ppp87 wrote: Is there a way to see these games? I know there are some in the "recommended pro game post kespa" thread but how to watch the other ones? Here you go
aaah thank you
|
On July 03 2016 12:47 B-royal wrote:I only tested it once though but I can't imagine there being a big difference between different tests.
- There will be a difference between different locations and between different mineral formation, however.
- Then there is the problems of comsats (or other buildings) placed to influence mining rates (not a factor for basic measurements, but certainly a non-negligible factor in a real game).
- There is also a problem that worker paths to mineral patches can have either of these properties:
- they can be metastable, meaning there is more than one stable path for a worker to take, some of them may be more optimal than others
- they may be bugged or periodic, meaning workers on certain patches take longer than normal to mine or worker path cycles through a number of different paths during a series of mining trips. Note that a worker path being bugged for one race does not necessarily imply its being bugged for either of the others, or more generally: workers of the three races do not generally follow the same mining paths (which of course is the root of all the problems listed here ; because all the town halls have a different size, they all have a different effect on pathfinding)
Bottom line: Doing some kind of quick and naïve test tells you absolutely nothing. Your error interval is ± 8 mineralsny the way. That's ± 72 for 9 patches. That is enough to eat up most of your measured differences in a worst-case scenario.
And that's not even starting on the matter of statistic significance.
Your results are not the same as the ones stated in the article, by the way. Your maximal relative deviation is only 3.6%, only 1/5 of the 18% claimed by the article, and quite a bit less than the up to ~10% difference I have found between different mains on some former Kespa maps.
On July 03 2016 19:05 Cryoc wrote:I remembered reading posts, where people specifically tested mining rates (for example in general or on python) and Terran was always at last place so I just linked the wiki article. Looking at the numbers for python it might deviate between a 1.5%-5% advantage for Zerg, but the point still stands. One is from 2005, when most people just started to realize the very significant differences in gas mining rates between different geyser position (even this is a complex problem on its own!). The other is, as you can imagine, map specific and no general conclusions can be drawn from it at all.
Basically, generating reliable and statistically significant results is a task for some massive data mining. My plan is actually to make a simple BWAPI bot that does just that. Unfortunately I don't really have the time to take on a prohject like that right now (I am not even much of a programmer...). So if you want to help out with that, contact me.
|
@Freakling is it factually correct that acceleration/deceleration of workers are the same for all races? there are vague notions and "urban legends" that many players usually hold, like how scvs decelerate slower than drone/probe (look at the scv page in the liquipedia for instance, full of such statements, that you can rapidly tap scvs on minerals to speed up their mining etc) some clarification to settle this once and for all would be nice.
|
It seems like it. If you take SCVs to mine with a Nexus, they seem to act like the Probes would. However, I have no hard data on that, so I am not going to make any definite claim right now.
I can go into the mechanics of it a bit, though. Hovering units (like workers) are distinguished by the fact that (just like flying units) they have acceleration and decelarion phases in their movement behaviour, i.e. they do not just stop on the spot or go at full speed immediately. This fact alone can make a lot of difference in the duration of a mining trip. Assuming otherwise identical worker movement behaviour, we get the following to cases:
worst case: After finishing mining, the worker accelerates towards the town hall, decelerates, dumps its load, accelerates again, goes back to the mineral patch, decelerates and starts mining again. best case: After finishing mining, the worker accelerates towards the town hall, bumps into it, delivering its load and immediately turning around to return to the mineral patch, bumping into it and starting mining immediately. (so you save one acceleration and two deceleration phases with the worker travelling at full speed most of the time)
So these differences alone can account for a significant difference in mining rates between different mineral patches or different races (i.e. differently sized town halls) when mining from the same patch. If you closely watch workers on different mineral patches you will probably be able to make out the differences (though you wil hardly encounter any of the extremes, especially not the best case scenario, but mostly various in-between stages).
|
On July 04 2016 17:19 Freakling wrote:- There will be a difference between different locations and between different mineral formation, however.
Sure, but I wasn't going to test all the different locations and different mineral formations. The most relevant test is for fighting spirit anyway since this is the most played map.
Evidently there will be small differences for the different locations but the purported claims of the workers having a different mining efficiency give no mention at all of being spawning position dependent (I haven't seen anyone say or experience "Protoss mines out faster than terran only when they're in the 1 o'clock position!"). It definitely warrants testing but again how big do you expect the differences to be?
On July 04 2016 17:19 Freakling wrote: [*]Then there is the problems of comsats (or other buildings) placed to influence mining rates (not a factor for basic measurements, but certainly a non-negligible factor in a real game).
Sure, but the claim of a protoss worker being the fastest and a terran worker being the slowest wasn't investigated in such a situation, which was what I was trying to quickly investigate.
On July 04 2016 17:19 Freakling wrote:[*]There is also a problem that worker paths to mineral patches can have either of these properties: - they can be metastable, meaning there is more than one stable path for a worker to take, some of them may be more optimal than others
- they me bugged or periodic, meaning workers on certain patches take longer than normal to mine or worker path cycles through a number of different paths during a series of mining trips. Note that a worker path being bugged for one race does not necessarily imply its being bugged for either of the others, or more generally: workers of the three races do not generally follow the same mining paths (which of course is the root of all the problems listed here ; because all the town halls have a different size, they all have a different effect on pathfinding)
Yes, but such differences would clearly be corrected for if you let the workers mine for a long enough time (and eventually repeat the test multiple times). Also with worker paths being metastable are you saying that having more than 9 workers (influencing each other's mining) might have a substantial effect on the efficiency of mining?
The higher the number of workers mining, the less important the influence of these metastable paths would be, don't you agree? When you reach a certain threshold of workers, almost all of the patches are constantly being mined and workers are waiting for patches anyway, the fact that they might take a slightly less efficient or more efficient path will not have a significant effect on the total amount of minerals mined.
A similar reasoning can be applied to the bug paths of workers. I think such behavior will have an influence at worker numbers > 9 but smaller than the threshold number where all patches are basically constantly being mined. And such behavior will only be significant in my opinion on short mining times.
On July 04 2016 17:19 Freakling wrote:Bottom line: Doing some kind of quick and naïve test tells you absolutely nothing. Your error interval is ± 8 mineralsny the way. That's ± 72 for 9 patches. That is enough to eat up most of your measured differences in a worst-case scenario.
My test actually tells a lot. It has 9 workers mining for 10 minutes for all three races at the same location on fighting spirit. There's essentially no difference between the efficiency of the workers. If there were an obvious difference between the mining efficiency of a single worker on the order of 18% (!!), what is the chance that it wouldn't show up in my test?
We'd have to calculate the statistical power of my test to see how many iterations I would have to do and what the probability is of my conclusion (there being almost no difference) being wrong. We can calculate the type II error.
On July 04 2016 17:19 Freakling wrote:And that's not even starting on the matter of statistic significance. Statistical significance is interesting, but an actual difference is what we would want to see first in this case (again 18%!). It could be that my difference of 2 minerals/minute is statistically significant if we would repeat the test a lot of times, but is it actually a difference that matters?
On July 04 2016 17:19 Freakling wrote:Your results are not the same as the ones stated in the article, by the way. Your maximal relative deviation is only 3.6%, only 1/5 of the 18% claimed by the article, and quite a bit less than the up to ~10% difference I have found between different mains on some former Kespa maps.
I was very skeptical that there would be an 18% difference and my preliminary test indicated in that direction.
On July 04 2016 17:19 Freakling wrote:Basically, generating reliable and statistically significant results is a task for some massive data mining. My plan is actually to make a simple BWAPI bot that does just that. Unfortunately I don't really have the time to take on a prohject like that right now (I am not even much of a programmer...). So if you want to help out with that, contact me.
I would be interested in something like this too, but I have no experience at all with BWAPI (or programming for that matter).
|
On July 04 2016 22:00 B-royal wrote:Sure, but I wasn't going to test all the different locations and different mineral formations. The most relevant test is for fighting spirit anyway since this is the most played map. Which means your results are only specific to single worker saturation on that one location on that one map. Period. You cannot really deduce anything more from that. And there is quite a bit of room for improvement through repeated and longer test runs to minimize error margins even for that.
Evidently there will be small differences for the different locations but the purported claims of the workers having a different mining efficiency give no mention at all of being spawning position dependent (I haven't seen anyone say or experience "Protoss mines out faster than terran only when they're in the 1 o'clock position!"). This only means two things:
- People making any such general claims usually haven't more than a vague (and hence more often than not wrong) idea of what's going on, as they have no objective data that would stand up to scrutiny to support their claim. At best they what they do is an invalid generalization.
- where you start on a map will often have more impact on your harvesting rate than which race you pick
It definitely warrants testing but again how big do you expect the differences to be? Difference between what? Between corresponding expansions on the small map I have found differences as much as ~10% for mineral and up to ~30% for gas mining rates (yes, that's on so called "pro" maps, I usually get differences down to sub 2% for minerals and sub 10% for gas on my own maps). However you put it, systematic differences between races will be overshadowed by this and other effects.
Show nested quote +On July 04 2016 17:19 Freakling wrote: [*]Then there is the problems of comsats (or other buildings) placed to influence mining rates (not a factor for basic measurements, but certainly a non-negligible factor in a real game). Sure, but the claim of a protoss worker being the fastest and a terran worker being the slowest wasn't investigated in such a situation, which was what I was trying to quickly investigate. And the more idealized your testing conditions are the less applicable the result becomes to any real game, making the whole debate purely academic (which is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on what it is you want to achieve or find out).
Show nested quote +On July 04 2016 17:19 Freakling wrote:[*]There is also a problem that worker paths to mineral patches can have either of these properties: - they can be metastable, meaning there is more than one stable path for a worker to take, some of them may be more optimal than others
- they me bugged or periodic, meaning workers on certain patches take longer than normal to mine or worker path cycles through a number of different paths during a series of mining trips. Note that a worker path being bugged for one race does not necessarily imply its being bugged for either of the others, or more generally: workers of the three races do not generally follow the same mining paths (which of course is the root of all the problems listed here ; because all the town halls have a different size, they all have a different effect on pathfinding)
Yes, but such differences would clearly be corrected for if you let the workers mine for a long enough time (and eventually repeat the test multiple times). [/list]More or less (there are some technicalities and potential systematic errors that you'd need to control for, but I don't want to go too much into detail with this right now). Repetition would help more than longer test runs, due to gaining more variation in initial parameters. But this is why I said you'd need to mine a lot of data first before you could say anything at all.
Also with worker paths being metastable are you saying that having more than 9 workers (influencing each other's mining) might have a substantial effect on the efficiency of mining? No that is called worker migration. However, bad metastable worker paths may be self-correcting under worker migration. In physics or chemistry a metastable state is a state that corresponds to a local, but not absolute energetic minimum (and you need to put some activation in to push it over the threshold to another. more stable state). What I mean by it here is simple that there is more than one stable path and that one will not transform into the other unless you manually intervene and micro the worker (i.e. change it's path/angle of approach to the mineral patch once).
The higher the number of workers mining, the less important the influence of these metastable paths would be, don't you agree? When you reach a certain threshold of workers, almost all of the patches are constantly being mined and workers are waiting for patches anyway, the fact that they might take a slightly less efficient or more efficient path will not have a significant effect on the total amount of minerals mined. Under saturation rates >~1.5 worker migration becomes the major factor in limiting mining rates, yes. However, that is not what is being asked here. If you take this into account, Zerg has the upper edge in mining by a significant margin due to the simple fact that Zerg are usually up in expos and have much lower worker saturations, hence a lot less mining time lost to worker migration.
A similar reasoning can be applied to the bug paths of workers. I think such behavior will have an influence at worker numbers > 9 but smaller than the threshold number where all patches are basically constantly being mined. And such behaviour will only be significant in my opinion on short mining times. It is enough to break ZvZ on certain maps, for the reasons stated above. This alone is enough to make this not just a theoretical problem. But in principle you are right, of course: Higher saturation rates make the effects of individual bad worker paths less significant, as worker migration contributes more to wasted worker time.
Show nested quote +On July 04 2016 17:19 Freakling wrote:Bottom line: Doing some kind of quick and naïve test tells you absolutely nothing. Your error interval is ± 8 mineralsny the way. That's ± 72 for 9 patches. That is enough to eat up most of your measured differences in a worst-case scenario. My test actually tells a lot. It has 9 workers mining for 10 minutes for all three races at the same location on fighting spirit. There's essentially no difference between the efficiency of the workers. If there were an obvious difference between the mining efficiency of a single worker on the order of 18% (!!), what is the chance that it wouldn't show up in my test? We are in the same boat here, I think: That article is simply bogus and pretty much any point in it has been rejected by your test. However, some one certainly tested something before writing that (I hope... Maybe they just made it up). If the pictures in the article are any indication, they may have just tested that one patch (at that one location of that one map). However, your test is not sufficient to support the claim of a significant mining rate advantage of any race even under specific conditions (i.e. whatever position on FS you used under single saturation...). However, for the purpose of this thread, yes, you have pretty much shown that some one made a bogus claim which you proved wrong with your test and which can hence be ignored in the debate about racial balance in BW.
We'd have to calculate the statistical power of my test to see how many iterations I would have to do and what the probability is of my conclusion (there being almost no difference) being wrong. We can calculate the type II error. Yes. However, there is no reason to expect significantly different results (at least on FS, which has actually pretty good main mineral lines), so your goal should be to hack away at those error margins to get a reliable mean value. Then you could say : This is the effect I measured (on a certain position on FS...)
Show nested quote +On July 04 2016 17:19 Freakling wrote:And that's not even starting on the matter of statistic significance. Statistical significance is interesting, but an actual difference is what we would want to see first in this case (again 18%!). It could be that my difference of 2 minerals/minute is statistically significant if we would repeat the test a lot of times, but is it actually a difference that matters? The difference would not really matter, knowing that it does not really matter, however, would matter a lot (and stop people from making arcane claims)
I was very skeptical that there would be an 18% difference and my preliminary test indicated in that direction. What was your preliminary test then? could explain the error in the article.
|
On July 01 2016 14:52 Bakuryu wrote: fs is not imba and zerg players are just bad, end of story. Says who? There's no law of the universe saying its balanced, and in fact it's not possible to be perfectly balanced. Most people agree terran is the strongest race in general, but map design can be used to offset that
|
|
|
|