As opposed to Zergling +Baneling F2 Amove?
Good way to lose 20 banes on an archon.
Well same can be say to losing ENTIRE army to lurkers if you amove…
Correct. Guess what top protoss do but top zergs don’t. Why? Apm.
Protoss could do sophisticated multiprong with mothership and or nexus recall, ground attacks, air attacks, warp prism, but it’s always some zealots amoved & forgotten, or an army f2’d into lurkers from 1 angle. Top protoss have been shown to use 1 army hotkey and f2. How do you multiprong like that? The moment you f2, the multiprong dies to a turret. It’s clearly an issue with mechanical skills. Protoss has been buffed to where 1 hotkey players are punching deep into tournaments and of course that will make protoss dominate the ladder. But of course that won’t beat serral. That’s a no brainer.
Go play P if its so easy
Did. Got gm with it. Boring. I want my time back.
yeah right …, if you got GM, then now, go prove your worth against Serral …
Waste of time. If you are smart you take the LiquidSheth route. Sheth was a top EU zerg, up there with Snute and Elazer at the time, who bailed on SC2 and is now a lawyer. Do you know how much a lawyer makes? The median salary is ~135k/year. If you are a good one, aka in the top 25%, you can get $208k/year. If you are in the top 1%, which is what we’d expect for someone top 1% in SC2, make > $400k/year. Generally, there is no such thing as a smart sc2 player, because, if someone is smart, they don’t play sc2. If brains doesn’t predict sc2 performance, then what does? Multitasking skills, aka apm spam. If you are a brainless apm spammer, then SC2 is a great career choice for you.
Go read your own posts again.
You have made the claim that skill metrics are independent of/unaffected by race.
A non-Zerg player off-racing as Zerg will get better metrics as Zerg, and a Zerg player off-racing as protoss/terran will see lower metrics as that off-race, while the reverse holds for Protoss.
I bring up Reynor because he’s the only Pro that fairly regularly off-races in pro play, and if you look at those games, you’ll see that his APM/etc… are lower when playing Protoss.
Actually, this does happen to top Zerg/Terran players; it doesn’t happen as often, but it does happen.
And there’s also another in losing games to mines/lurkers/etc… which is the accessibility and ease of retention of vision/detection and the quality/risk of tools for obtaining vision.
Protoss detection is extremely fragile and can’t be grouped with the army or obtained on demand. Protoss also has much worse tools for getting vision of the enemy army without any risk, and it takes more valuable production time, and a longer period, and more resources for them to get detection if theirs is killed off. Protoss detection also always has a supply cost, so they can’t just make 5-10 observers/oracles to keep with the army to hedge against that.
Terran has scan and sensor towers.
Zerg has creep and overseers morphed from their supply unit (no supply cost) that can spawn changelings that last for 107s(150s in editor), which is essentially an infinite range spotting tool much like scan.
Protoss has no way to check for the location of the enemy army without spending resources (particularly gas)/production time like Terran and Zerg do.
3 Likes
Yeah, no. This is more mumbo jumbo boogeyman nonsense. I’ve seen it a million times before and I’m just not interested. You do you.
2 Likes
Ok so now I have to argue against a guy who can’t even read words as they are written. L&G’s of bnet out in full force today.
This argument proves my point. Please consider using your eyes and reading my posts.
?
What are on about. Toss can detect your units even without a unit to detect. It’s called revelation. At this point it’s clear you can’t understand the mathematical argument and are turning to “what-about-isms” with gold league game understanding. The correlations meet the bradford hill criteria. That means it’s simply reality that toss is easier to play. If you disagree then I recommend talking to a psychologist about your inability to grapple with reality / that you are extremely triggered by facts. Don’t fear the psychologist, he’s there to help. “Toss has fragile detection blah blah blah” doesn’t outweigh the bradford hill criteria. Time to man up, admit you lost the argument, and move on with your life like an adult. Or keep spamming nonsense like a crazy person. I don’t care. Not my problem. Crazy people are a dime a dozen. U R a drop in the ocean, buddy.
Explanin statistics to bnet randos be like:
https://youtube.com/shorts/kp7nKqU1fPM
Oracles are a unit.
Revelation has a cast range of 9 (same as abduct/vikings) on a unit with a sight range of 10 that costs 150/150 and 3 supply, so you can’t have very many of them. You can cast it blind without vision of the enemy army due to the radius of 6, but there’s a fairly high risk of missing a significant portion of the enemy army, or missing it entirely (which happens pretty frequently even at the very highest level). It also only lasts 20 seconds.
It’s not anywhere near as safe as changelings, scan, or creep for obtaining vision, and comes with a high risk of losing the oracle if the opponent has decently long range anti-air (eg: abduct, vikings). There is a reason even the best pro players frequently lose their oracles when going for revelations, but there is 0 risk of losing an orbital to scan, or an overseer sending in a changeling (which will give vision until the opponent notices and kills the changeling).
Also, while it has half the energy cost of scan/changelings, Terran and Zerg can afford to have more orbitals/overseers than Protoss can have oracles, and there’s much less risk of losing them.
You were the one that brought up Protoss losing armies to things like lurkers more than Z/T do. I was just explaining why (Disregarding the other obvious point that Zerg makes lurkers more often against Protoss, so there are more chances of such happening to begin with).
Back to this for a moment: It does. This is not even a debatable point if you actually take a look at ladder stats broken down by league. What match ups are favorable or unfavorable fluctuates by league, and representation inflation/deflation of certain races in certain leauges (eg: Zerg’s notably high representation in diamond), is an extremely strong indicator of fluctuating balance/ease of play depending on skill level.
PvZ is the most imbalanced match up in silver/gold - in favor of the Zerg.
In masters, it’s also the most imbalanced match up, but is in favor of the Protoss.
At the top of the Pro scene (top 8 players of each race is what was used when someone did the analysis), even if you filter out Serral as an outlier, PvZ becomes notably Zerg favored again.
Which makes the point that the level of play affects what is easier/harder.
Thus, an anecdotal experience from a platinum player finding Protoss to be the most difficult for them shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. It doesn’t mean that Protoss is the hardest race in aggregate, or that it can’t be the easiest at the diamond-low GM level.
3 Likes
he’s upvoting himself too, yikes
1 Like
Yes, P is by far the easiest to D1. Maybe in Masters that changes, but I haven’t been there yet. As a random player, I’d say Terran are by far the hardest macro and units to control, with Ghost being so hard against Storm. Zerg plays itself, but nothing compares to how easy Protoss is.
Protoss is by far the EASIEST to play at ALL LEVELS no exceptions.
1 Like
For protoss to be the cause, it must affect all those of the set “protoss”. That means if you take the average performance for the whole [protoss] set then you will find it is higher than the [terran] or [zerg] set. Because sampling the entire population is hard, you take a sample of 32 but select them at random and take the average for that sample. There is another challenge to this, and it’s that the ladder adjusts your ranking to equalize each player’s winrate to 50%. This obfuscates balance because it guarantees a 50% winrate no matter how imbalanced the game is. So you need a variable that predicts a player’s skill. Because the correlation is not 1:1, you take the average for a 32 players. That average then perfectly predicts the skill of the group, which you promptly compare to their average MMR ranking. If you did that, you’d discover that Protoss players lag in every variable that is known to correlate with skill. E.g., they have a higher ranking for the same average APM/SPM/spending skill/etc. There is not a single variable that is known to over-predict protoss performance – every variable known under predicts their performance, meaning their performance exceeds what the skill metrics predict.
Doing a full Bradford-Hill analysis is possible and, when done, it definitively proves that Protoss players have a performance advantage and that Protoss is the cause of that advantage.
By the way, since the correlation between APM and win-rate is 0.65, we’d need a sample of merely 58 people to shrink the variability in the average to <1%. That’s amazing because any randomized sample with >58 people in it will have a 99% accuracy at predicting the average skill of those players. Sites like sc2replaystats gives the average APM for a bunch of people, which might not be totally randomized due to self report bias, but the sample sizes are in the thousands and tens of thousands. Protoss shows consistently lower APM for the same MMR range and that is simply cut and dry proof that Protoss is overpowered.
Nobody can do anything about it because the people who operate tournaments are the ones with the power to change balance, and they care about maximizing tournament viewership. They don’t care at all about your personal gaming experience. This system was structured to fail from the very start because the most important people in the game are the players who actually play the game and they should be priority #1. Imagine a cookie shop deciding to change the flavor of their cookies in a way that made Gordon Ramsey happy but that made their own customers unhappy. It doesn’t matter if Gordon Ramsey likes your cookie. He’s not the one making up 99.99% of your cookie sales.
It isn’t even clear who has the power to change balance anymore since ESL, and I assume it is ESL doing the balance patches, was bought out by the company doing the esports world cup. It could be the people who did balance patches were fired and the information to do those patches was lost. That’s a very real possibility.