|
On May 18 2017 06:57 zimp wrote:iCCup race stats ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MJmwXV4.png)
On May 18 2017 15:32 Essbee wrote:
Well, I know that's obviously sarcasm, but have you watched Shine vs Mong, or Larva's stream? Everything I said has been happening, so yeah, korean zergs did try new things and it's working, and I find that fascinating. The game is constantly evolving and it could evolve even more if we had unconvential maps from time to time (like an island or semi-island map, or a farther natural, or a double gas third, or any other change really...).
We can now close the thread  The balance is already there.
|
Really good posts from Bakuryu, Jealous and Essbe on the last page. Thank you guys. Must read for anyone who still thinks BW should be balanced by patches from Blizzard. Next time someone starts another balance patch debate, lets just guide them to these posts so as to save time. Bookmarked.
There are always some problems with balance when there is three completely different races. But these tends to shift and decrease along the evolution of the game, in a higly comptetitive environment fueled by the collected and individual effort of the players (and mapmakers) to understand the ins and outs of the game, to reach the top, or perhaps, reach deeper into the Truth of the game.
Go back into the history records and look at all these names of legends of the past. Boxer, Yellow, Nal_ra, Nada, Reach, July, iloveoov, GoRush, Pusan, Anytime, Midas, Savior. They innovated, practiced, sacrificed. They won. They lost. They came. And they went away. But they were all part of the same story. The rules of the game never changed. Yet how it was played changed, because of what they discovered. Did they whine and cry out for a balance patch? Or did they buckle up and do the Work themselves? That is the beauty to me of BW history. Its a tale of young people, teenagers really, trying to trancend reality with its own rules of success, for another reality, another game, and just do their very best to understand, to succeed and to become the "hero". NOT to beg blizzard for help. NOT to destroy the "fine-tuned" laws of the BW universe. NOT to destroy their homeworld.
I would rather see the game become irreversible broken one day. Because then we would know that this game, this parallel universe, this logical puzzle, has run its course. When we know how it ends, we know how it truly works. And then on to the next puzzle, the next "reality".
Or maybe just forever balance it out with new maps, idk haha. Cheers everyone.
|
Baku, using the quote feature really helps, please use it next time you reply to me so I know which part of the comment is a reply to what I said.
ZvT (from the zerg perspective) hasn't changed almost a dime for the last 10 years. It's been 3hatch muta on 2 exp into lurk like always (I was using that bo in a game in 2003 or 2004 vs korean chogosus and I was told this was "an old build"). 2 or 3 hatch muta/lurk has almost always been the norm into a relatively quick hive into deflier/guardians/ultras. For me ZvT is now turned into your example of games that are almost absolutely the same (hence boring, at least for me) unless some player decides it's time to take big risks. Sure, the ZvT game is longer now and it takes to mine almost the whole gas out there to overcome the T, but is still the same thing repeating over and over again that makes me wonder why do I even watch progamers doing it (excluding the Mong vs Shine series here, lol, but I think that still fits in to the player-taking-big-risks category).
Also, in practice, balance changes are pretty much the normal thing to happen to an RTS game by Blizzard (whether it be SC, SC:BW, WC3, SC2 WOL, HOTS or LOTV or whatever title they are working on) - not that I favour them in the SC:BW case - rather than the black-box-of-pandora thing to happen.
Also thinking that you can "fix" terran by reducing the scv health or tank's damage shows you haven't put too much thought into that. Unless the number is stupidly looking like 2 health for the scv and 1 damage for unsieged tank, this will probably disrupt the game in a rather significant manner.
I think it should be looked on a mu by mu basis. I don't consider myself competent enough for the PvT/TvP match up to propose changes there. I also really have no idea how to account for the Z>P imbalance without disrupting the ZvT and PvT matches (at least for now). But IMO the key to ZvT is the medic and really - it's not so hard to figure it out. It really would do no harm to the TvP and TvT matchups to increase medic build time with 3 seconds (+15 increase) and/or increase its cost from 50 minerals to 75 OR reducing its HP from 60 to 50. This definitely won't make terran look less "terran".
|
On May 18 2017 22:25 LRM)TechnicS wrote:
ZvT (from the zerg perspective) hasn't changed almost a dime for the last 10 years. It's been 3hatch muta on 2 exp into lurk like always (I was using that bo in a game in 2003 or 2004 vs korean chogosus and I was told this was "an old build"). 2 or 3 hatch muta/lurk has almost always been the norm into a relatively quick hive into deflier/guardians/ultras. For me ZvT is now turned into your example of games that are almost absolutely the same (hence boring, at least for me) unless some player decides it's time to take big risks. Sure, the ZvT game is longer now and it takes to mine almost the whole gas out there to overcome the T, but is still the same thing repeating over and over again that makes me wonder why do I even watch progamers doing it (excluding the Mong vs Shine series here, lol, but I think that still fits in to the player-taking-big-risks category).
I agree so much. A good strategy game benefits from players having a variety of strategic options at the start (root) of the game! Starcraft may be the best RTS, but over time some of the matchups have revealed pretty hard limitations in how they can be played (I'm thinking of ZvT and PvZ early openings). If you had more strategic options, you would have more choice also to deal or not deal with things you are not interested in (such as for me something like exploiting muta stack micro). The early days of bw had this, and creativity was more rewarded. Now something could be done with balance changes. It's not the winrates that worry me personally. But the winrate if you don't play the way you're supposed to. So I'm losing interest in competitive play. (but w/e having fun playing 3v3 again lol)
I don't play Z or T, but I used to enjoy occasionally. Now I don't want to get into it cause it feels like I have no choice, if I play Z I must make a fcking muta stack opening or lose to any decent T player.
I think it should be looked on a mu by mu basis. I don't consider myself competent enough for the PvT/TvP match up to propose changes there. I also really have no idea how to account for the Z>P imbalance without disrupting the ZvT and PvT matches (at least for now). But IMO the key to ZvT is the medic and really - it's not so hard to figure it out. It really would do no harm to the TvP and TvT matchups to increase medic build time with 3 seconds (+15 increase) and/or increase its cost from 50 minerals to 75 OR reducing its HP from 60 to 50. This definitely won't make terran look less "terran".
Mu by mu basis, to allow more options. Where the imbalances are is hard to pinpoint and there are many ways, etc. The muta stack, the medic yeah (I would say after reading someone else talk about it, they just heal too fast, btw this is a main factor that denies hydras in early TvZ isn't it ? I love hydras, they are a great strat option for Z with many possibilities.. but not against muta openings or medics), is the storm or reaver an imbalance that prevents M&M to play against P ? probably. Is the BC main attack too weak? (and the ghost's?) yeah right? Isn't ZvZ the most imbalanced match up? ^^ Is it cool that Ps can hardly open anything other than FE against Z and must memorize wall spots before playing the map? not for me. it's not rly about winrates, winrates aren't that bad, I agree as long as nothing is worse than 60-40 (bit harsh this, let's say 57,5-42,5 ^^) or more ideally 55-45 that's not the concern, it's the complexity of the mus in terms of playable options. imo
and the late game things, like the state of the game if you get to the dream late games, is another thing to consider. Tanks 3 supply I imagine would do a lot of good. I believe dark swarm is too strong personally. Maybe ultra could gain 1 base armor and lose the carapace upgrade. Protoss? Storm? reavers can be a mess, decrease the size of their aoe, fix the scarab stupidity? Storm drops are kinda stupid. lol
(a huge change for storm I could suggest, that I think would make things better, is to make them just last longer while dealing the same damage? allow workers also to get out of there more easily, it's too bad. Tbh I think workers with bit more health would be nice, but thats a huge change too. they die too quick to storms, vultures, and some other things, imo)
|
On May 18 2017 22:20 tanngard wrote:
Really good posts from Bakuryu, Jealous and Essbe on the last page. Thank you guys. Must read for anyone who still thinks BW should be balanced by patches from Blizzard. Next time someone starts another balance patch debate, lets just guide them to these posts so as to save time. Bookmarked.
There are always some problems with balance when there is three completely different races. But these tends to shift and decrease along the evolution of the game, in a higly comptetitive environment fueled by the collected and individual effort of the players (and mapmakers) to understand the ins and outs of the game, to reach the top, or perhaps, reach deeper into the Truth of the game.
Go back into the history records and look at all these names of legends of the past. Boxer, Yellow, Nal_ra, Nada, Reach, July, iloveoov, GoRush, Pusan, Anytime, Midas, Savior. They innovated, practiced, sacrificed. They won. They lost. They came. And they went away. But they were all part of the same story. The rules of the game never changed. Yet how it was played changed, because of what they discovered. Did they whine and cry out for a balance patch? Or did they buckle up and do the Work themselves? That is the beauty to me of BW history. Its a tale of young people, teenagers really, trying to trancend reality with its own rules of success, for another reality, another game, and just do their very best to understand, to succeed and to become the "hero". NOT to beg blizzard for help. NOT to destroy the "fine-tuned" laws of the BW universe. NOT to destroy their homeworld.
I would rather see the game become irreversible broken one day. Because then we would know that this game, this parallel universe, this logical puzzle, has run its course. When we know how it ends, we know how it truly works. And then on to the next puzzle, the next "reality".
Or maybe just forever balance it out with new maps, idk haha. Cheers everyone.
Hahaha, I like your passion, well said ^^
I'd like to see what some players like Flash would do on maps like Chain reaction or any other map that is difficult for terran, would be really awesome to see what kind of builds/strategies they can come up with!
|
|
|
On May 18 2017 22:25 LRM)TechnicS wrote:
ZvT (from the zerg perspective) hasn't changed almost a dime for the last 10 years. It's been 3hatch muta on 2 exp into lurk like always (I was using that bo in a game in 2003 or 2004 vs korean chogosus and I was told this was "an old build"). 2 or 3 hatch muta/lurk has almost always been the norm into a relatively quick hive into deflier/guardians/ultras. For me ZvT is now turned into your example of games that are almost absolutely the same (hence boring, at least for me) unless some player decides it's time to take big risks. Sure, the ZvT game is longer now and it takes to mine almost the whole gas out there to overcome the T, but is still the same thing repeating over and over again that makes me wonder why do I even watch progamers doing it (excluding the Mong vs Shine series here, lol, but I think that still fits in to the player-taking-big-risks category).
"Boring"? Are you serious? If you don't appreciate BW from a competitive point of view right now to the extent that you have to call a matchup "boring" then I'd argue no amount of patching will make things interesting for you, because that means you care a lot more about the aspect of variety and change and not very much at all about the thrill of winning and losing hard-fought games, or watching your favorite players compete for first price. If everyone had your attitude, tennis and darts as televised sports wouldn't exist, because on a surface level every game looks the same. I would love tennis only if I was playing it competitively myself, but as a mere observer I don't find it interesting, just like you don't find ZvT interesting. If you don't see and appreciate the nuances of BW then either competitive 1v1 is not for you or you should look to play UMS, 15 no rush and other games every now and then to fuel your need for variety. I'm not kidding by the way, those games are hella fun.
Also, in practice, balance changes are pretty much the normal thing to happen to an RTS game by Blizzard (whether it be SC, SC:BW, WC3, SC2 WOL, HOTS or LOTV or whatever title they are working on) - not that I favour them in the SC:BW case - rather than the black-box-of-pandora thing to happen.
Not really an argument. There's no need to change something for the sake of change. If you can't demonstrate that it will be for the better (instead of just crossing your fingers and hoping for the best) then people will rightfully protest change.
If you want a different RTS, by all means make one. But if you want changes in BW then you'll need a better argument than "it's been business practice throughout all of SC2, so why not?"
"Why not?" is not an argument.
Also thinking that you can "fix" terran by reducing the scv health or tank's damage shows you haven't put too much thought into that. Unless the number is stupidly looking like 2 health for the scv and 1 damage for unsieged tank, this will probably disrupt the game in a rather significant manner.
Wait, did you just argue against change? I'm foncused. Tremendously foncused.
I think it should be looked on a mu by mu basis. I don't consider myself competent enough for the PvT/TvP match up to propose changes there. I also really have no idea how to account for the Z>P imbalance without disrupting the ZvT and PvT matches (at least for now). But IMO the key to ZvT is the medic and really - it's not so hard to figure it out. It really would do no harm to the TvP and TvT matchups to increase medic build time with 3 seconds (+15 increase) and/or increase its cost from 50 minerals to 75 OR reducing its HP from 60 to 50. This definitely won't make terran look less "terran".
Well how about you figure things out first, please? If you propose changes while admitting to not being able to predict the consequences then you can't expect people to listen to you. How can you know that "it's not so hard to figure it out" when you're unable to figure it out yourself?
But far more worrisome in my eyes: did you notice that there's a certain up-and-coming zerg player who, until recently, couldn't compete with a high winrate at the top level, and who is currently making top terran pull their hairs out when he battles them? His nickname is "Larva". Over the past year or so his winrate against top terran pros has gone from almost zero to having consistent wins against Last and Flash. He's playing against Flash right now, and he's in the process of winning yet another late game.
How can you ignore things like this while proposing balance changes?
|
|
|
im sorry technics that i didnt quote you, i kinda dont like to read post with lots of quotes especially if the post is longer.
i only responded to you at the "undefended bases" part.
after that it was kinda a rage post at all the people who think balance changes are good.
the "fixing the game by changing scv hp and tank damage" was not my idea, it came from others repeatedly as a way to balance this game.
we both dont like this idea.
|
I think balance is fine, but one thing that can be considered going forward is to have maps that are balanced specifically to a matchup. Like, for example, if there's a map that makes ZvP even, but ZvT imbalanced, it would be a ZvP map, and we could have these for all 3 matchups. The obvious problem with this solution would be hosting games in current server model. If we move to an automated matchmaking model in the future, that wouldn't be a problem for mu specific maps.
|
I am not a high level player, but it feels to me that just about everything can be solved by maps, and if the first effort to solve problems with maps doesn't work, they just change the maps even more. I'm pretty sure you can make a map completely imbalanced in favor of ZvT if you wanted. From only moderately crazy stuff like putting two geysers in the main (so zerg doesn't need to worry about getting a 3rd gas as much) to completely bollocks like not having any chokes at all, not even defending the main (aka no wall off).
So while I don't think either of these are a good idea or should be implemented, I feel scenarios like these support the argument that "imbalance can be solved with map making". The thing map makers need to do, and they have done brilliantly for many years, is to identify smaller advantages they can give to help the game feel more balanced.
|
|
|
On May 19 2017 01:24 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2017 22:25 LRM)TechnicS wrote:
ZvT (from the zerg perspective) hasn't changed almost a dime for the last 10 years. It's been 3hatch muta on 2 exp into lurk like always (I was using that bo in a game in 2003 or 2004 vs korean chogosus and I was told this was "an old build"). 2 or 3 hatch muta/lurk has almost always been the norm into a relatively quick hive into deflier/guardians/ultras. For me ZvT is now turned into your example of games that are almost absolutely the same (hence boring, at least for me) unless some player decides it's time to take big risks. Sure, the ZvT game is longer now and it takes to mine almost the whole gas out there to overcome the T, but is still the same thing repeating over and over again that makes me wonder why do I even watch progamers doing it (excluding the Mong vs Shine series here, lol, but I think that still fits in to the player-taking-big-risks category). "Boring"? Are you serious? If you don't appreciate BW from a competitive point of view right now to the extent that you have to call a matchup "boring" then I'd argue no amount of patching will make things interesting for you, because that means you care a lot more about the aspect of variety and change and not very much at all about the thrill of winning and losing hard-fought games, or watching your favorite players compete for first price. If everyone had your attitude, tennis and darts as televised sports wouldn't exist, because on a surface level every game looks the same. I would love tennis only if I was playing it competitively myself, but as a mere observer I don't find it interesting, just like you don't find ZvT interesting. If you don't see and appreciate the nuances of BW then either competitive 1v1 is not for you or you should look to play UMS, 15 no rush and other games every now and then to fuel your need for variety. I'm not kidding by the way, those games are hella fun.
ZvT feels boring to me because I know what stuff is supposed to happen from 00:01 of the game to 20:00 of the game. It has been like always 3 hatch muta from 2 bases into lurk and it's getting kind of tiring for me. Since probably the most I practiced is ZvT and it's really suffering into more suffering into more suffering to eventually survive some more/win is not very appealing (besides the knowing what happens/tiring part) to me after competing for so many years. Not to the extent I find TvT boring though... And yes, I really appreciate the fun coming out of UMSes, I've played them a lot and I really enjoy watching pros play UMSes that I also like as well like Shuttle, Larva and others.
Also, in practice, balance changes are pretty much the normal thing to happen to an RTS game by Blizzard (whether it be SC, SC:BW, WC3, SC2 WOL, HOTS or LOTV or whatever title they are working on) - not that I favour them in the SC:BW case - rather than the black-box-of-pandora thing to happen.
On May 19 2017 01:24 Magic Powers wrote:
Not really an argument. There's no need to change something for the sake of change. If you can't demonstrate that it will be for the better (instead of just crossing your fingers and hoping for the best) then people will rightfully protest change.
If you want a different RTS, by all means make one. But if you want changes in BW then you'll need a better argument than "it's been business practice throughout all of SC2, so why not?"
"Why not?" is not an argument.
For the balance part, it's just a normal thing to happen for an RTS game, I don't like the box of pandora analogy. Unless the person making balance changes is a randomly clicking here and there person that has absolutely no idea what is doing lol.
On May 19 2017 01:24 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +Also thinking that you can "fix" terran by reducing the scv health or tank's damage shows you haven't put too much thought into that. Unless the number is stupidly looking like 2 health for the scv and 1 damage for unsieged tank, this will probably disrupt the game in a rather significant manner. Wait, did you just argue against change? I'm foncused. Tremendously foncused.
I argue that changing SCV's health or tank's damage by 10% (somewhat meaningful/reasonable amount) will be a terrible choice for a balance change. If we change SCV's health by 2hp or tank's damage by 1 it will be looking rather weird however suitable it might happen to be. I have no idea what "foncused" means.
I think it should be looked on a mu by mu basis. I don't consider myself competent enough for the PvT/TvP match up to propose changes there. I also really have no idea how to account for the Z>P imbalance without disrupting the ZvT and PvT matches (at least for now). But IMO the key to ZvT is the medic and really - it's not so hard to figure it out. It really would do no harm to the TvP and TvT matchups to increase medic build time with 3 seconds (+15 increase) and/or increase its cost from 50 minerals to 75 OR reducing its HP from 60 to 50. This definitely won't make terran look less "terran".
On May 19 2017 01:24 Magic Powers wrote:
Well how about you figure things out first, please? If you propose changes while admitting to not being able to predict the consequences then you can't expect people to listen to you. How can you know that "it's not so hard to figure it out" when you're unable to figure it out yourself?
My experience in competing (with Z) and observing the competition on the highest foreigner and korean level for years makes me feel competent in the ZvT/TvZ and ZvP/PvZ matchups. I should have phrased it better I guess - I haven't put a really thorough effort (at least for now) into thinking solutions for the Z>P imbalance without affecting the ZvT and PvT matches hence the "i have no idea for now what's up". Not that I do not feel competent in the ZvP/PvZ matchup. I did for ZvT and for me it's not so hard to figure out that if there was a balance change to address the ZvT/TvZ matchup the key will be to make the medic more expensive and/or with less hp and/or built slower.
On May 19 2017 01:24 Magic Powers wrote:
But far more worrisome in my eyes: did you notice that there's a certain up-and-coming zerg player who, until recently, couldn't compete with a high winrate at the top level, and who is currently making top terran pull their hairs out when he battles them? His nickname is "Larva". Over the past year or so his winrate against top terran pros has gone from almost zero to having consistent wins against Last and Flash. He's playing against Flash right now, and he's in the process of winning yet another late game.
How can you ignore things like this while proposing balance changes?
I have been enjoying all top level zergs' streams in the recent years - Larva's stream included - and I am expecting his and other top zergs vs T stats for this month as I do for any other month. I am also looking forward to Shine's bag of builds for ZvT and whether they could be implemented and done consistently vs T. Larva specifically plays almost always 3 hatch muta into lurk and him winning many 30 minute games against FlaSh and Last is definitely amazing but I still don't feel there's something new happening in the ZvT matchup overall.
Also, to make it clear, I do not favour balance changes for SC:BW even though it's not something to be afraid of. Most probably the first step should be a thorough players-mapmakers cooperation when making the new maps for competitive play.
|
Well it's good to know you're not for change for the sake of change. However, I still don't understand what your motivation is. Do you want more diverse openings in TvZ in order to have new things to explore in your own games and as a spectator (in short: fun) or do you want greater game theoretical balance at the top level (in short: balance)?
I think changing the game in order to create a more fun experience is not a good argument, because you can't guarantee that the number of playable builds will be greater in the end. In fact it's equally likely that the number will drop, unless you can prove otherwise. Also, it could be argued that, if you want more diverse builds then you can have them, just maybe at the cost of your winrate. But that'd be a sacrifice you're not willing to make, are you? Are you willing to be a pioneer to stand for your visions, or do you rather demand changes from the game? Are you the Bisu kind of person or not? Do you see my point?
And the argument of changing the game in order to have balance is also questionable, unless you can prove that the pros have reached an equilibrium, which I'd say they quite obviously have not. We see very significant variance in the player hierarchy, the type that you wouldn't expect in such an equilibrium. As long as the top ranks are being fought for with such intensity, all the while the samplesize clearly not being statistically significant, I don't see how you can propose balance changes unironically.
PS: foncused = confused. I was just being silly 
|
If we are to argue the point that players adapted to the meta and as a result overcame, what would be different to the case where terran has to overcome units being patched to be more expensive? Could it be possible that the other races has had to adapt for decades to lesser units and be that much better or mindful on how to use their units to seem on an equal level?
Any argument that says other races had to adapt and evolve playstyles is arguing from an assumption that the game was already balanced and players just figured out their potential and the game was actually balanced.
So lets examine both cases, lets say in case 1 protoss and zerg are slightly weaker overall in terms of all match ups and they simply have to play better to overcome terrans slight advantage, and therefore that becomes the meta, the norm, whether people realize it or not, how much skill one has to display to win can be subjective but lets say in this case that protoss and zerg have to be slightly better if we are assuming terran is slightly stronger as a race. Just because we had things go like this where protoss and zerg play better doesnt make it balanced, it just means that, protoss and zerg need to play significantly better to win against a lesser terran.
Now case 2 we have the camp that says the game is 99% balanced and it is 99% up to the players skill to which race wins. And there is constant shift in meta that show spikes of winrates,etc. If that is the case we should see a proportionate amount of spikes and winrates across time. With nearly 2 decades of progaming history, we still have zerg and protoss lagging slightly behind, but still a significant percentage.
Again i dont think anyone is arguing terran is overly powered, but slightly, based on their winrates at the highest level for YEARS. Not just because of flash, but for YEARS we have had terran dominate the scene more frequently and for longer.
|
|
|
The game is almost perfectly balanced 
ZerO - 김명운
Kim Myung Woon
vP: 81-26 (75.70%)
vT: 73-75 (49.32%)
-------------------------------------
The difference is 26.38
EffOrt - 김정우
Kim Jung Woo
vP: 31-12 (72.09%)
vT: 40-30 (57.14%)
-------------------------------------
The difference is 14.95
by.hero - 조일장
Jo Il Jang
vP: 140-62 (69.31%)
vT: 100-102 (49.50%)
-------------------------------------
The difference is 19.81
Larva - 임홍규
Lim Hong Gyu
vP: 98-69 (58.68%)
vT: 54-89 (37.76%)
-------------------------------------
The difference is 20.92
|
|
|
How many more people are going to post random numbers and figures and argue that they represent a trend in balance? How many more silly arguments are we going to see where Maks points out 4 players' relative stats and uses them to explain the overarching issues with the game, with absolutely no statistical analysis whatsoever?
How many more arguments are we going to see about "Terran dominance?" I fucking wish I was home and not on vacation so I could shut you down with some serious knowledge, but for now consider this:
While Terran (Flash) may have won more leagues than Zerg, did you know that Zergs consistently had more players in the top 8/top 16 of every tournament? Doesn't that mean that Zerg is imbalanced, since they can fit more players into the highest echelons of tournaments, and Flash is just that good?
Or wait, perhaps pointing out nominal data and extrapolating them to a mathematical trend without any sort of statistical analysis is the witchdoctor of medicine, the blood-letting of hygiene, the ponzi scheme of economics, the grape Jolly Rancher? In other words, a total joke?
Here is how many of you like to argue about balance:
People with more TVs are imba because more of them get into better secondary education and have better dental hygiene than people with less TVs. TVs make their teeth whiter and increase their chances during applications. My friend Johnny, he got into Dental school because his teeth were so clean, and he had SO many TVs, that he got in no problem. Let's ignore that Johnny had the highest GPA in his high school and did a lot of community service; although, that is probably because he had more TVs too. I mean, look at these statistics:
Chance of going to medical school vs. amount of TVs you own:
10% - 0
15% - 1
30% - 2
80% - 3+
That's right folks, if you have 1 TV and you buy 2 more, you will be more than 5x more likely to get into med school. That's how statistics works. Just look at the years of dominance by TV-having people in the realm of medical school applications, and it becomes clear that TVs are at least slightly OP.
Here's another example:
I take a random sample of 100 TeamLiquid players. 33 of them are Terran, 40 are Zerg, and 27 are Protoss. 10 of them are gay, 1 is trans, and 10 are homophobic. 3 of the 10 gay players are Terran, 3 are Zerg, and 4 are Protoss. That means that 1/11 of Terrans are gay, 3/40 of Zerg are gay, and 4/27 Protoss are gay. 1/11 = .09090909 etc. 3/40 = .075. 4/27= .148. That's right everyone, it's official: Protoss are almost twice as likely to be gay as Zerg are. I have a sample size of 100 players, 67 Zerg/Protoss, and 10 gay players to prove it.
Seriously, do any of you realize that statistics isn't just compelling-sounding word combinations, self-evident subtraction or division, pretty graphs and quaint hypothetical scenarios that only occur in ideal worlds with no mitigating factors, confounding elements, and that everything is causation? FFS I can't anymore.
Wait a few weeks. I will be back with impartial statistical analyses. Until then, wallow in your ignorance.
|
On May 19 2017 07:51 Jealous wrote:
How many more people are going to post random numbers and figures and argue that they represent a trend in balance? How many more silly arguments are we going to see where Maks points out 4 players' relative stats and uses them to explain the overarching issues with the game, with absolutely no statistical analysis whatsoever?
How many more arguments are we going to see about "Terran dominance?" I fucking wish I was home and not on vacation so I could shut you down with some serious knowledge, but for now consider this:
While Terran (Flash) may have won more leagues than Zerg, did you know that Zergs consistently had more players in the top 8/top 16 of every tournament? Doesn't that mean that Zerg is imbalanced, since they can fit more players into the highest echelons of tournaments, and Flash is just that good?
Or wait, perhaps pointing out nominal data and extrapolating them to a mathematical trend without any sort of statistical analysis is the witchdoctor of medicine, the blood-letting of hygiene, the ponzi scheme of economics, the grape Jolly Rancher? In other words, a total joke?
Here is how many of you like to argue about balance:
People with more TVs are imba because more of them get into better secondary education and have better dental hygiene than people with less TVs. TVs make their teeth whiter and increase their chances during applications. My friend Johnny, he got into Dental school because his teeth were so clean, and he had SO many TVs, that he got in no problem. Let's ignore that Johnny had the highest GPA in his high school and did a lot of community service; although, that is probably because he had more TVs too. I mean, look at these statistics:
Chance of going to medical school vs. amount of TVs you own:
10% - 0
15% - 1
30% - 2
80% - 3+
That's right folks, if you have 1 TV and you buy 2 more, you will be more than 5x more likely to get into med school. That's how statistics works. Just look at the years of dominance by TV-having people in the realm of medical school applications, and it becomes clear that TVs are at least slightly OP.
Here's another example:
I take a random sample of 100 TeamLiquid players. 33 of them are Terran, 40 are Zerg, and 27 are Protoss. 10 of them are gay, 1 is trans, and 10 are homophobic. 3 of the 10 gay players are Terran, 3 are Zerg, and 4 are Protoss. That means that 1/11 of Terrans are gay, 3/40 of Zerg are gay, and 4/27 Protoss are gay. 1/11 = .09090909 etc. 3/40 = .075. 4/27= .148. That's right everyone, it's official: Protoss are almost twice as likely to be gay as Zerg are. I have a sample size of 100 players, 67 Zerg/Protoss, and 10 gay players to prove it.
Seriously, do any of you realize that statistics isn't just compelling-sounding word combinations, self-evident subtraction or division, pretty graphs and quaint hypothetical scenarios that only occur in ideal worlds with no mitigating factors, confounding elements, and that everything is causation? FFS I can't anymore.
Wait a few weeks. I will be back with impartial statistical analyses. Until then, wallow in your ignorance.
Well I will be waiting for that. My point all along was that the game is actually very balanced. And while I know I may have reached to the conclusion in a bad way I still feel it is true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
