|
|
|
Bisutopia19348 Posts
Read back 3 pages. There is more whining about people balance whining then actually balance whining. Oh the irony :D. Look, Terran looks exceptionally strong vs zergs these days. The maps are good and the Zergs haven't had a strong leader in the past year. But they won in 3 of the last 4 premier finals and also took home two golds. I think whenever you feel one race is OP in comparison to another after a game or a tournament then that is a huge compliment to the players but is not enough to say a lot about the state of the game.
|
I don't understand balance whining at all. No matchup exists in a vacuum, you always play on maps. The solution to the current statistical slant in TvZ is to start phasing in maps that are slightly more favorable to zerg.
|
On February 03 2017 03:12 BisuDagger wrote:Read back 3 pages. There is more whining about people balance whining then actually balance whining. Oh the irony :D. Look, Terran looks exceptionally strong vs zergs these days. The maps are good and the Zergs haven't had a strong leader in the past year. But they won in 3 of the last 4 premier finals and also took home two golds. I think whenever you feel one race is OP in comparison to another after a game or a tournament then that is a huge compliment to the players but is not enough to say a lot about the state of the game.
I don't think anyone should be saying much about the JvF semis overall because it was obvious that Flash was just plainly the superior player. That said, the trend is there as of late and I really think that Afreeca should probably do something with the maps to help the situation asap. And I mean this just as much for PvZ as I do for ZvT. Protoss is doing rather poorly against Zerg at the moment.
On February 03 2017 03:16 LightSpectra wrote:
I don't understand balance whining at all. No matchup exists in a vacuum, you always play on maps. The solution to the current statistical slant in TvZ is to start phasing in maps that are slightly more favorable to zerg.
When the imbalance spans across the entire history of the game, it does go a bit beyond maps I feel.
That said, you are right in that the current solution is to introduce maps. We really have had a huge lack of new maps for a good long while now.
Let's play the arbitrary cutoffs game.
Top 5: 2/5 players are Zerg. Cool.
Top 10: 5/10. Wow, Zergs sure are great.
Top 15: 5/15. Oh wait.
Top 20: 6/20. Hmmm....
I'm not saying that 20 is the magic number that we should take. That would be ridiculous. Once you go beyond 20, Zergs start to even out. I'm just pointing out that this isn't necessarily the best metric for deciding whether things are balanced or not. Overall winrate should be a much better indicator with a bigger sample size and less arbitrary cutoff points.
|
On February 03 2017 03:17 neobowman wrote:
Let's play the arbitrary cutoffs game.
Top 5: 2/5 players are Zerg. Cool.
Top 10: 5/10. Wow, Zergs sure are great.
Top 15: 5/15. Oh wait.
Top 20: 6/20. Hmmm....
I'm not saying that 20 is the magic number that we should take. That would be ridiculous. Once you go beyond 20, Zergs start to even out. I'm just pointing out that this isn't necessarily the best metric for deciding whether things are balanced or not. Overall winrate should be a much better indicator with a bigger sample size and less arbitrary cutoff points.
Besides, those players were the best Zerg players of their time, with the exception of Yarnc. He's so far the only "ZvT sniper". He's the only player that has a singificantly higher ZvT peak ELO than his other peak ELOs.
|
lol at people bringing up statistics from long time ago. Please bring up statistics when late mech truly begins to be established in heart of Fighting spirit. You'll see how serious the imbalance is.
|
On February 03 2017 09:33 Shinokuki wrote:
lol at people bringing up statistics from long time ago. Please bring up statistics when late mech truly begins to be established in heart of Fighting spirit. You'll see how serious the imbalance is.
I was wondering when you'd show up.
|
On February 03 2017 02:23 SCC-Faust wrote:
Savior was a great player in his time but I think some of his success was popularizing the 3 hatch mutalisk build in ZvT which caused a lot of Terrans to adapt. Which to note is the last innovation to the ZvT match-up from the Zerg side, really.
It wasn't so much the terrans adapting as it was KeSPA putting in the most retardedly designed maps (Monty Hall? Hitchhiker?) in leagues just to drop his winrate.
|
why are we talking about balance now when the skill level is lower than 2012?
|
On February 03 2017 03:17 neobowman wrote:
Let's play the arbitrary cutoffs game.
Top 5: 2/5 players are Zerg. Cool.
Top 10: 5/10. Wow, Zergs sure are great.
Top 15: 5/15. Oh wait.
Top 20: 6/20. Hmmm....
I'm not saying that 20 is the magic number that we should take. That would be ridiculous. Once you go beyond 20, Zergs start to even out. I'm just pointing out that this isn't necessarily the best metric for deciding whether things are balanced or not. Overall winrate should be a much better indicator with a bigger sample size and less arbitrary cutoff points.
Okay let's play the game.
There are 3 races
Z,T,P, for perfect balance, each race should have 1/3 of the spots.
Top 5: 2/5 players are zerg --> cool, zerg have 2 out of 5 slots, which leaves 3 for T and P. Meaning zerg is most likely tied for 1st place
top 10 : 5/10 players are zerg --> Heavy imbalance. too many zergs. Zerg alone is as strong as both the other races combined
top 15: 5/15 --> perfect balance.
Top 20 : 6/20 --> still perfect balance, with 6 being zerg, 7 some other race, 7 some other race (Assuming the split is even). Though even if the split isn't even, it still doesn't make the zerg the weakest race, because if 10 of the 20 are terran, then that leaves protoss with only 4 spots, which makes them the weakest.
so.. what exactly is the point of your cutoff game?
|
On February 03 2017 02:23 SCC-Faust wrote:
Savior was a great player in his time but I think some of his success was popularizing the 3 hatch mutalisk build in ZvT which caused a lot of Terrans to adapt. Which to note is the last innovation to the ZvT match-up from the Zerg side, really.
I don't know, man. I remember playing 3hatch mutalisk ZvT as early as 2002 on Battle.net in a game with korean observers. I remember it because they noted (not sure whether mockingly or not) that I played an old build. I placed 3rd hatch after reaching 14 limit. At some point I thought that the new build they referred to was to place the 3rd hatch on 13 limit, not on 14.
|
On February 03 2017 22:49 LRM)TechnicS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 02:23 SCC-Faust wrote:
Savior was a great player in his time but I think some of his success was popularizing the 3 hatch mutalisk build in ZvT which caused a lot of Terrans to adapt. Which to note is the last innovation to the ZvT match-up from the Zerg side, really. I don't know, man. I remember playing 3hatch mutalisk ZvT as early as 2002 on Battle.net in a game with korean observers. I remember it because they noted (not sure whether mockingly or not) that I played an old build. I placed 3rd hatch after reaching 14 limit. At some point I thought that the new build they referred to was to place the 3rd hatch on 13 limit, not on 14.
The key difference is that muta stacking wasn't invented yet in 2002, so even if 3 hatch muta had been tried at that point it wasn't viable at the top level. In essence they are two completely different things.
|
Germany3128 Posts
On February 03 2017 15:04 r33k wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 02:23 SCC-Faust wrote:
Savior was a great player in his time but I think some of his success was popularizing the 3 hatch mutalisk build in ZvT which caused a lot of Terrans to adapt. Which to note is the last innovation to the ZvT match-up from the Zerg side, really. It wasn't so much the terrans adapting as it was KeSPA putting in the most retardedly designed maps (Monty Hall? Hitchhiker?) in leagues just to drop his winrate.
Take that back! Monty Hall was the best map ever!
|
man, Rain did some impressive job
|
On February 03 2017 19:31 abuse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:17 neobowman wrote:
Let's play the arbitrary cutoffs game.
Top 5: 2/5 players are Zerg. Cool.
Top 10: 5/10. Wow, Zergs sure are great.
Top 15: 5/15. Oh wait.
Top 20: 6/20. Hmmm....
I'm not saying that 20 is the magic number that we should take. That would be ridiculous. Once you go beyond 20, Zergs start to even out. I'm just pointing out that this isn't necessarily the best metric for deciding whether things are balanced or not. Overall winrate should be a much better indicator with a bigger sample size and less arbitrary cutoff points. Okay let's play the game. There are 3 races Z,T,P, for perfect balance, each race should have 1/3 of the spots. Top 5: 2/5 players are zerg --> cool, zerg have 2 out of 5 slots, which leaves 3 for T and P. Meaning zerg is most likely tied for 1st place top 10 : 5/10 players are zerg --> Heavy imbalance. too many zergs. Zerg alone is as strong as both the other races combined top 15: 5/15 --> perfect balance. Top 20 : 6/20 --> still perfect balance, with 6 being zerg, 7 some other race, 7 some other race (Assuming the split is even). Though even if the split isn't even, it still doesn't make the zerg the weakest race, because if 10 of the 20 are terran, then that leaves protoss with only 4 spots, which makes them the weakest. so.. what exactly is the point of your cutoff game?
He was arguing that since the top 10 had 5 zergs, that's the metric that can be used to determine balance. That's silly since I can use arbitrary cutoffs point to find essentially any conclusion I want.
Tldr: Not a good metric for balance.
|
Bisu: Terran isn't OP. Zerg isn't OP. ZvT balance is fine. Protoss is just trash.
Bisu is the only protoss with above 50% win rate vs Zerg. ZvP is so broken these days.
|
Bisu is practicing off stream =)
|
On February 04 2017 01:22 neobowman wrote:
He was arguing that since the top 10 had 5 zergs, that's the metric that can be used to determine balance. That's silly since I can use arbitrary cutoffs point to find essentially any conclusion I want.
Tldr: Not a good metric for balance.
I'm won't even deny the old good T>Z>P>T, but it's small enough so that it's pathetic to justify balance whine (on multiple threads lately). People are ignoring BW history and making claims like it's impossible to be good at PvZ or ZvT, so let's just blame our favorite player losses on balance. At least that's my opinion, ex-pros tend to differ it seems.
|
On February 04 2017 03:16 ortseam wrote:At least that's my opinion, ex-pros tend to differ it seems.
Well perhaps that should be your cue that you are wrong then. I don't see anyone making those claims that you're so vehemently attacking, that's just straw man at its finest. You said yourself that you agree that T>Z and Z>P, that's all that matters and I'm glad you realize this.
|
Those claims are verifiably false without mentioning the associated map.
Z = P on fighting spirit. T > Z on fighting spirit. T > P on fighting spirit.
There's no such thing as an inherent advantage since noone can play starcraft without playing it on a map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
