Z>P
Why does Zerg have maybe a little 5% advantage in this matchup?
T>Z
Why does Terran have maybe a little 5% advantage in this matchup?
P>T
Why does Protoss have maybe a little 5% advantage in this matchup?
Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
WhiteKnight.US
Great Britain102 Posts
Z>P Why does Zerg have maybe a little 5% advantage in this matchup? T>Z Why does Terran have maybe a little 5% advantage in this matchup? P>T Why does Protoss have maybe a little 5% advantage in this matchup? | ||
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
It's just really difficult to design maps that get that 50% win rate, especially across all matchups as some features are necessary to correct one matchup but might disturb another one. | ||
Piratezerg
54 Posts
Now maybe that's because they're the "best race" slightly, but I tend to think that it is more the effect of most people choosing to play terran when thy get into starcraft. More players means more strategies tried, which means better meta. Maybe people choose terran more because Boxer was the first star, or maybe it's because we the players are humans and it's the most identifiable race to play. As B-Royal said maps are huge for balance, e.g. close starting locations makes mutas very powerful against terran, there are lots of factors like that. To answer your actual rock, paper, scissor question, and I am not the best person to do that but I'll try: Z v P numbers beat strength. Zergs large numbers of cheap units contain Toss, into taking over the map, into overwhelming toss. Dragoons lose to every unit zerg has, yet you can't play without them because of lurkers. Hydras and lings can trade effectively against zealots already, and lurkers or mutas wreck them. Zerg has free and widespread detectors and lots of cheap anti air. T v Z range beats numbers. Terran range mnm is cost effective against zerg early and midgame units. Terran mech scales best in game, or terran can use sci vessels to counter zerg higher tech. P v T (in theory) strength beats range early (toss early game units beat bio) zeolot dragoon beats bio, so terran has to stay on two bases until they have mech. Therefore toss takes over the map. air and/or mobility beats strength late. Carrier numbers get high enough to destroy army or trade bases efficiently, or arbiter recalls allow toss to drop into terrans base, constantly containing him until resources exhaust. | ||
GeckoXp
Germany2013 Posts
| ||
noname_
454 Posts
| ||
[[Starlight]]
United States1578 Posts
On January 19 2017 11:02 noname_ wrote: Wasn`t there some statistics laying around on iccup at some point? I remember something, just not sure exactly what. Yeah, I remember that thread, and actually kept those numbers. All three matchups were no worse than 52% to 48%, across nearly 177k games played, 147k of which were non-mirror... i.e. a lot. Problem was, over 55% of those games were on Fighting Spirit, and another 25% were on Python. So they affected the win percentages waaaaaaay more than all the other maps combined. You'd probably get more relevant numbers by totaling up the *other* (fifty or so) maps combined, excluding FS and Python, and seeing what the win percentages were for that. But of course, that'd be a bit of a pain in the ass for someone to do. And by someone, I mean me. | ||
shall_burn
252 Posts
For that the easiest idea is: Terran and Zerg had players with long reigns, whereas Protoss only had a couple of somewhat dominant players in comparison. I also had a theory that protosses do not use their casters to their fullest. Protoss got best casters in the game (corsairs included). More casters mean less raw power, but so what if you can disable and separate their army with web, stasis, maelstorm. I read a lot of (if not all the) threads about underused casters and spells, and usually the main argument against them is that it takes so much apm. But protoss generally requires less apm than the other two races, so with caster you will probably play with the same apm as the other players, but + awesome spells. but that's only what I think. On the other hand, I read (and it really seems so) that protoss is easy to pick up, but the potetial is lower compared to, say, terran, who with proper mechanics can fly so high no one can reach them. | ||
ninazerg
United States7290 Posts
In PvT, the Protoss army can simply position itself and A-move, and can teleport using recall. The Terran army is less mobile, and has to siege/unsiege, lay spidermines, and all that jazz. In PvZ, the Protoss army is fairly mobile like in PvT, but in PvT, Protoss relies heavily on dragoon/zealot/arbiter, and sometimes high templar. The high templar are usually kept in shuttles, and so the army can move as quickly as dragoons can move. In PvZ, however, because the Protoss relies heavily on high templar to inflict damage, the Protoss army needs to slow down so it can stay grouped with high templar. These numbers are kind of 'rounded', but zealots have a speed of 4.5, dragoons 4, archons 3.5, and finally, high templar move at a measily 2.4. In ZvT, there are different stages to the game, but it generally breaks down to a mutalisk stage, a lurker stage, a lurker/defiler stage, and finally, the ultralisk/ling stage. The mutalisk stage really comes down to micro and build timing to determine who will come out on top, however, marines have a longer range than mutalisks, are cheaper than mutalisks, do higher dps than mutalisks, and can heal much quicker when damaged. Lurkers obviously have to burrow and unburrow, and offer very little mobility. Terrans also have even more flexibility to attack various places using dropships, making it difficult for Zerg to respond to every area properly. In the later part of the game, Terran can hit various places with vultures, and place spidermines to prevent the Zerg from pressing forward with dark swarm or ultralisks without taking big losses. | ||
Highgamer
1335 Posts
I'd say it makes more sense to look at the more recent results, on maps that were played dozens/hundreds of times per matchup, and maps without odd design (e.g. monthy hall, many more). If you take a look on the TLPD-map-info on the right, and check out the maps that were played 2010-2012, those with dozens of games per MU, you actually see exactly what OP pointed out: the matchups lean in the way he described, oftentimes something between 51%-55%, with only 2-3 exceptions. | ||
Sigrun
United States1650 Posts
TvZ: Terran can scout freely with an SCV, as slow zerglings can't catch it without good micro and flanking (plus it's more durable than a probe). Later in the game, scans can be used to see exactly what Zerg is doing. On the other hand, Zerg at best can only see what the first drone sees before the first marine pops out. After that, Zerg is pretty much blind unless the Terran messes up and lets some zerglings sneak into their base. ZvP: Zerg pretty much gets free scouting over Protoss's base with an overlord and can see exactly what Protoss is up to. For Protoss, they have to keep their probe alive as long as possible, and once it's dead they are completely blind until the first corsair, unless they do some cutesy probe tricks (like hiding another probe somewhere). PvT: Not as familiar with this matchup, but once a dragoon is out, it shuts down the SCV and Terran can no longer tell what Protoss is doing. Similarly, Protoss can't really tell what Terran is doing, but they have an advantage once the observer is out, which lets them see whatever Terran is doing (and Terran can't even see it). | ||
Terrorbladder
2654 Posts
TvZ: Zerg gets map control from Mutas, Lings, Overlords (tier 1 & 2 units). MnM (tier 1 units) can contest map control with them. ZvP: Zerg gets map control from Mutas, Lings, Overlords (tier 1 & 2 units). If P wants to contest map control they need Corsairs (tier 2 tech, useless against ground), Speedlots (tier 2 tech), Observers (tier 2 tech) PvT: Protoss gets map control from Observers. MnM are mobile but they're weak against the damage output of tier 1 P units. Mech units can take the fight to Protoss but they're too slow to contest map control. | ||
noname_
454 Posts
| ||
AllTheKitties
2 Posts
If there is lag or a bad connection (so extra high latency is needed), then this can help make certain matchups a little imbalanced too (eg this favours Terran in TvZ). At the lower skill levels, PvT and ZvP take far less skill than TvP and PvZ to win games. TvZ is slightly easier than ZvT, but not by much. In these matchups, certain small mistakes can lead to the game being lost immediately. But for skilled players, this 'ease of winning' gets thrown out the window because both players will have such a strong grasp of the game and will not make these huge silly mistakes. | ||
[[Starlight]]
United States1578 Posts
They're also a two-part question... MU leans at the pro level, and MU leans at the 'mere mortal' level. Those two things can be quite different, yet both should be taken into account. IMO, much of whatever lean is out there comes down to early to early-mid game, which governs who has the initiative/who dictates the direction of the game. Sure, late game can be 'imba' too (for example, many Protoss complain that a maxed out 200/200, fully upgraded Terran mech army is almost unstoppable), but, you don't always make it to late game. But you always have to play early game. And it seems like in all 3 cases of 'lean' (Z>P>T>Z), the disadvantaged side of the matchup is the one that is kinda on the defensive for much of the early/early-mid-game time window. I don't think the lean is strong, though... well-thought-out builds, great micro, good game sense etc. can compensate, maps can too to some extent. Player skill matters most. But all else being equal, yeah, there's a bit of lean. The only surprise would be if there wasn't... it'd take Einstein to balance a game this deep and complex perfectly, and maybe he'd go mad trying. So then the question becomes, "Sure, it can't be balanced perfectly, but can it be balanced better than it is now?" Well, last balance patch was in 2001, and there's no way Blizzard could've envisioned how the meta and even a lot of the micro (air unit stacking, etc.) would've evolved over the past 16 years.... they aren't in possession of either Nostradamus or time machines. So, I very strongly suspect the answer is, yes, it could be made to be better-balanced than it is now. But lots of ppl seem to get mad when you point that out, no matter how logical the conclusion may be. | ||
WhiteKnight.US
Great Britain102 Posts
I don't think Iccup map statistics are too important because the average skill on that server might be C rank. The Progamer average skill is A+. So there is a big difference between progamer and Iccup map statistics. Gecko brought up a real good point about how it might just be the maps that affect balance, not necessarily weaknesses of the races. | ||
Djabanete
United States2783 Posts
I've often wondered what the happy medium would be. It would be great if (a) map designers had a really clear idea of which knobs and switches to adjust in order to finely control balance on a map, and (b) if some kind of experimenal league or ladder could be designed to give reliable map balance information at the high amateur or low professional level. If we had both things, we could have a much longer list of well-balanced maps and more variety in maps. Regarding (a), that is, the knobs and switches for fine control of map balance (examples include openness of natural, availability of minerals/gas, openness of space in center, etc.), I've often thought that if designers had more cycles of revision + reliable testing information, they could be more adventurous with maps. It seems that certain map concepts, like island maps and money maps, always turn out imbalanced, but with enough iterations of revision + reliable testing information, we could do better. For example, Zerg seems weak to Terran on, say, Hall of Valhalla, because Zerg can't get enough gas. But what if there was a secondary geyser in the main base, but farther away from the town center than the first geyser? Terrans would have to distance mine from the geyser or build a new CC, which they don't want to bother with. Zergs, though, could just put their second hatchery in a position to mine from the second geyser. If this pushes the balance in Zerg's favor, then make the second geyser have less gas available than a normal geyser. With reliable testing information, you could theoretically tune the second geyser's distance and gas content to even out TvZ. In that way you could open up the metagame to new map concepts. Just theorycrafting, but this always sounded cool in my head. The problem is that getting that reliable balance information requires a lot of testing of a lot of versions of each map. Edit: I also want to see mirror-only maps in tournaments like the ASL, where they make a map that's fully symmetrical along one axis, add a bunch of weird/new concepts, say "forget race balance", and have players compete on that map only if both players are the same race. | ||
shall_burn
252 Posts
. But what if there was a secondary geyser in the main base, but farther away from the town center than the first geyser? Terrans would have to distance mine from the geyser or build a new CC, which they don't want to bother with. Zergs, though, could just put their second hatchery in a position to mine from the second geyser. This is what they've done to Paradoxxx II, iirc Although it's an island-map, but still. A good idea, by the way. | ||
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:54 Djabanete wrote: I've often wondered what the happy medium would be. It would be great if (a) map designers had a really clear idea of which knobs and switches to adjust in order to finely control balance on a map, and (b) if some kind of experimental league or ladder could be designed to give reliable map balance information at the high amateur or low professional level. If we had both things, we could have a much longer list of well-balanced maps and more variety in maps. Just theorycrafting, but this always sounded cool in my head. The problem is that getting that reliable balance information requires a lot of testing of a lot of versions of each map. 1. We do have a fairly good idea of what things to adjust and change to favour specific races in certain matchups. There is a slight problem where changes made for one matchup can significantly affect another. That said. 2. This is the biggest problem. This was even a problem for Korean mapmakers who could get maps into the pro scene. I'm sure if they could go through 50 different iterations of Battle Royale, they could get it balanced and perfected. Unfortunately, pros didn't have the time to go through it that much and rather than perfecting one design, the focus was generally put on making new more balanced maps. For foreign mapmakers this is the biggest problem that we always had because we had no pro plays to play on our maps. | ||
[[Starlight]]
United States1578 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:54 Djabanete wrote: The races are close enough that it all comes down to maps, doesn't it? People say that, but I dunno. If it was just one matchup that was a bit imba, then I'd think that maps could pretty easily correct it, or most of it, anyway. But if all three non-mirrors are a bit imba, as a lot of ppl say, then isn't it pretty difficult to make maps that simultaneously correct ZvP, PvT, and TvZ? Y'know, for example, give Z an easy to get and hold gas third, for better TvZ... but what does that then do to ZvP? I guess I'm wondering what the hardcore mapmakers out there think. And, is this an argument for making maps that are matchup-specific, i.e. 'such and such a map is intended for ZvP play and mirror play only', or whatever. | ||
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
On January 26 2017 07:46 [[Starlight]] wrote: Show nested quote + On January 21 2017 01:54 Djabanete wrote: The races are close enough that it all comes down to maps, doesn't it? People say that, but I dunno. If it was just one matchup that was a bit imba, then I'd think that maps could pretty easily correct it, or most of it, anyway. But if all three non-mirrors are a bit imba, as a lot of ppl say, then isn't it pretty difficult to make maps that simultaneously correct ZvP, PvT, and TvZ? Y'know, for example, give Z an easy to get and hold gas third, for better TvZ... but what does that then do to ZvP? I guess I'm wondering what the hardcore mapmakers out there think. And, is this an argument for making maps that are matchup-specific, i.e. 'such and such a map is intended for ZvP play and mirror play only', or whatever. You can never really make maps solely for one matchup because that's not how Starcraft is played, on a matchup-by-matchup basis.You gotta plan for every matchup on every map. There is some stuff like unbuildable ground that you can adjust that basically only affects 1 matchup (TvP) so long as you can't plant hatcheries like on the old versions of Medusa. That might be part of why TvP has remained one of the most balanced matchups. There's other stuff like minerals close to cliffs that help mutas, and while that's mostly for ZvT, it also makes it hard for Protoss to deal with in ZvP. In the same line of thought, positioning mineral lines so closer to the center of the map with respect to the town hall rather than against the edges is a big boon for Mutas. ZvT the biggest thing is having a good accessible 3rd gas for Zerg. The distances doesn't matter too much so you can put it further away to affect the ZvP matchup less. Lately, making the Terran's 3rd gas difficult to get is something you can do so it's harder for them to mech transition. This obviously has big ramifications in other matchups though. Rush distances are also relevant. Super short is Zerg favoured (Battle Royale) but outside of that, you gotta be careful since Zerg needs enough time to be able to scout marines coming from the opponent's nat and still morph sunks. ZvP's probably the hardest to balance. Nat has to be wall-offable but now that's more of a necessity than a balance issue. If Zerg can nab their 3rd at a natural base, that's advantageous for them since they can get up to 4 bases easily. If the 3rd base is hard to hold period for Zerg, that's good for Toss but that's very dependant on other matchups. There's tons of other stuff but I haven't mapped in forever so I can't remember the details very well. Oh right, small unit only paths are slightly beneficial for Zerg since they have more small units and they can position macro hatches so that the small unit path doesn't mess up their pathing. And island expos without mineral blockers are Terran heaven. Blue Storm's actually amazingly balanced. The early versions were favourable for Zerg but 1.2 was right on the money. | ||
| ||
Afreeca Starleague
Round of 16 / Group B
Mini vs Barracks
Royal vs hero
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Sea 6556 Dota 2Bisu 2142 Calm 1955 BeSt 1078 Larva 810 Shuttle 744 Jaedong 490 Horang2 457 Soulkey 258 Dewaltoss 182 [ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games ceh9758 Liquid`RaSZi564 Mew2King399 Liquid`LucifroN265 XaKoH 228 Pyrionflax194 OGKoka 185 NuckleDu79 Trikslyr37 Organizations StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • Bosshoore 2 StarCraft: Brood War• intothetv • IndyKCrew • Poblha • Migwel • aXEnki • Laughngamez YouTube • LaughNgamez Trovo • Gussbus • Kozan League of Legends |
StarsWar
AfreecaTV Pro Series
Bunny vs DongRaeGu
StarsWar
Replay Cast
GSL Code S
Solar vs Ryung
Cure vs herO
StarsWar
Online Event
StarsWar
Cheesadelphia
BSL
[ Show More ] Sparkling Tuna Cup
StarsWar
BSL
ESL Open Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Shuttle
BeSt vs Light
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Sharp vs Mind
Action vs Snow
|
|