EPTwell i think that should have been a warning not a ban... this is the reason i post more and more on reddit
they just give you a downvote instead of ban you if you disagree with someone...
Ladder statistics race distribution (2021?) - Page 6
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
BonitiilloO
Dominican Republic613 Posts
well i think that should have been a warning not a ban... this is the reason i post more and more on reddit they just give you a downvote instead of ban you if you disagree with someone... | ||
|
Avi-Love
Denmark423 Posts
| ||
|
Jealous
10106 Posts
On April 22 2021 04:36 BonitiilloO wrote: well i think that should have been a warning not a ban... this is the reason i post more and more on reddit they just give you a downvote instead of ban you if you disagree with someone... Maybe you, specifically, should stay there, considering your posting history is a trainwreck. | ||
|
BonitiilloO
Dominican Republic613 Posts
On April 22 2021 05:15 Jealous wrote: Maybe you, specifically, should stay there, considering your posting history is a trainwreck. dont need to be this rude... where is your warning? i lost interest in this site long ago Joined TL.net Friday, 21st of June 2013. as you can see i dont even post here because everything you said people tend to get offended by minor miss understandings, and then u get a warning for nothing or banned for nothing | ||
|
TMNT
2509 Posts
On April 22 2021 03:37 vOdToasT wrote: I completely disagree. Carriers + arbiters + HT is the strongest army in PvT, and is practical to get to if you did well and got an advantage in the midgame. In PvZ, I have seen lategame armies of only reavers, archons, and HT, which is strong af, especially if you recall them. But even if you don't they're great. I always went for this when I was ahead in PvZ and it got me to A+ on ICCup as Protoss But, what if you don't get an advantage in the midgame? I am just talking about the regular games where no one gets an advantage and both players max out for the first time. The army composition you mention is indeed strong af, but chances are if you're able to get to that composition, your opponent is probably 50 supply or so behind you. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On April 22 2021 06:48 TMNT wrote: But, what if you don't get an advantage in the midgame? I am just talking about the regular games where no one gets an advantage and both players max out for the first time. The army composition you mention is indeed strong af, but chances are if you're able to get to that composition, your opponent is probably 50 supply or so behind you. That's a bit of a conundrum. If no player has the advantage at some point (any point), that would imply they each have a 50% chance of winning moving forward (given they both play as perfectly as a human can). That would imply that any momentarily existing supply (dis)advantage would be entirely irrelevant for the question who's winning - because the premise is that there's currently no advantage on either side. A supply difference would just be cosmetics. | ||
|
TMNT
2509 Posts
On April 22 2021 07:01 Magic Powers wrote: That's a bit of a conundrum. If no player has the advantage at some point (any point), that would imply they each have a 50% chance of winning moving forward (given they both play as perfectly as a human can). That would imply that any momentarily existing supply (dis)advantage would be entirely irrelevant for the question who's winning - because the premise is that there's currently no advantage on either side. A supply difference would just be cosmetics. No I meant advantage in the midgame, like the other poster said. He was talking about Protoss army composition like Carrier + Arbiter + HT which may or may not be the strongest in the game, but is rarely seen because you can only get to it by holding some significant advantages previously. | ||
|
Essbee
Canada2371 Posts
On April 21 2021 23:22 TMNT wrote: Protoss suffers from an intrinsic gameplay problem that can never get fixed by strategy development, that their maxed out army is the weakest among 3 races, especially against Terran (not talking about unrealistic situations like 200 carriers). Take PvT for example. Switch the meta all you want, from DT to Reaver, Arbiter... but once Terran gets to 200/200 it's a mountain to climb. Same for PvZ. In a sense, Protoss is the only race who has to play against a ticking bomb. So if they dont take enough advantage until the late game, the chance for them to lose just keep increasing. I think this partly explains their inferiority at the top level. Use high templars with shuttles against a late terran army... Jangbi never had trouble dealing with a late terran. Or the Best style of just macroing back an army after losing the first one. I could go on and on since there are many many ways but protoss players just prefer complaining instead of being better. When the best protoss pro is a terran player, that should ring a bell, but nope, just blame the race instead. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On April 22 2021 07:34 TMNT wrote: No I meant advantage in the midgame, like the other poster said. He was talking about Protoss army composition like Carrier + Arbiter + HT which may or may not be the strongest in the game, but is rarely seen because you can only get to it by holding some significant advantages previously. Right, I think if I were to argue against carrier + arbiter + ht, I'd side with you on this. This army composition is extremely rare (as in we've almost never seen it over the course of 20+ years of professional SC:BW), therefore it shouldn't be used in an argument about late game balance or anything like that. A much more common late game army composition that is meaningful in a discussion about late game balance would be zeal + goon + ht + archon + reaver, for example. | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On April 22 2021 06:48 TMNT wrote: But, what if you don't get an advantage in the midgame? I am just talking about the regular games where no one gets an advantage and both players max out for the first time. The army composition you mention is indeed strong af, but chances are if you're able to get to that composition, your opponent is probably 50 supply or so behind you. Getting ahead in the midgame is not "an intrinsic problem that can never get fixed by strategy development". Being 50 psi ahead of Terran isn't unusual either; it's common, but it doesn't automatically let you go for carrier + HT, although there are strategies that revolve around guaranteed carriers. You get ahead on psi, so the Terran can't do a timing attack against you, and then you go carriers, but then you have to add the high templar later before your army truly becomes superior in a straight up battle. This style caused a headache for Terrans when it was new until they learned to play against it. Anyway, carrier arbiter HT is rare, but carrier HT isn't. It's a lot of work to get to, but the best players do occasionally get to it, and even that is a very strong lategame army. It's stronger than tank goliath vulture. Terran doesn't beat it by having a better army, but by outmanoeuvring the Protoss to get more expansions and win economically, as seen in for example Light vs Rain on Eddy (Don't remember if it was ASL or KSL). The Protoss army is only stronger when it's in a deathball, so if the Protoss stays in a deathball, you expand to all corners (with some mines to prevent lone zealots from denying the expansions), and if the Protoss splits up, you snipe templar with vultures, you ambush isolated carriers with cloaked wraiths behind goliaths that have zoned out observers, you kill small squads sent to deny your expansions with vultures, and then return to your tanks in time to protect them because the vultures are so fast, and stuff like that. The problem is not that you don't have a strong lategame army. The problem is setting yourself up for a good position before that. I think that it's time for less Terran favoured maps, but with the right maps, Protoss can thrive. We know this because even in 2021, there are maps with a positive PvT (and maps with a positive PvZ) winrate. They're just more rare. Most maps that people like to make end up good for Terran in one or both match ups. | ||
|
oxKnu
1143 Posts
On June 11 2021 21:57 vOdToasT wrote: Most maps that people like to make end up good for Terran in one or both match ups. This is the reason why we have the historical stats that. this game has had over time. Top Terran players winning the gold more often than not because they have a cumulative advantage over the other two races. Also worth noticing that in recent years this has not changed and novelty and/or risk is preferred in tournaments over choosing a very well tested balanced map-set. | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On June 11 2021 22:18 oxKnu wrote: This is the reason why we have the historical stats that. this game has had over time. Top Terran players winning the gold more often than not because they have a cumulative advantage over the other two races. Also worth noticing that in recent years this has not changed and novelty and/or risk is preferred in tournaments over choosing a very well tested balanced map-set. A problem with the metagame is not a problem with the game. I call it the metagame because the game itself allows for any kind of map, but the culture, the way that people play the game (the metagame, literally meaning "behind the game") is such that people have accepted a map that is slightly Terran favoured as "standard". The "standard" map is good for Terran. Shakuras Plateau has a 60% TvP winrate so far in 2021, and that map is considered "standard". Maps like this shouldn't be the norm. When people look at a map like Ultimate Stream, that has an expansion right next to high ground so that sunkens are immediately effective (no crawling or lurker blockades necessary), and with a free fourth base behind that one, people think that it's Zerg favoured, because it's better for Zerg than the "standard" Fighting Spirit. What are the stats for Ultimate Stream so far in 2021? Above 50% winrate TvZ. We can never have perfect balance, and we shouldn't give up interesting maps to have it. I just want the map pool to be balanced overall, so Zergs can have their Benzene (55% ZvT in 2021), and Terrans can have their Eclipse (55% TvZ so far, 50% TvP though). The point is that there should be an even amount of maps good for each match up, instead of mostly Terran maps with a few Zerg and Protoss like we have. Having 50% in some but not all match ups is good. Having 50% in all of them is great. This can't be expected to happen often, though. I can only think of one recent map that achieved this: Sylphid. (When I say 50% I mean closer to 50% than to 60%. a 51% or some thing is fine.) | ||
|
oxKnu
1143 Posts
On June 11 2021 22:24 vOdToasT wrote: A problem with the metagame is not a problem with the game. I call it the metagame because the game itself allows for any kind of map, but the culture, the way that people play the game (the metagame, literally meaning "behind the game") is such that people have accepted a map that is slightly Terran favoured as "standard". The "standard" map is good for Terran. Shakuras Plateau has a 60% TvP winrate so far in 2021, and that map is considered "standard". Maps like this shouldn't be the norm. When people look at a map like Ultimate Stream, that has an expansion right next to high ground so that sunkens are immediately effective (no crawling or lurker blockades necessary), and with a free fourth base behind that one, people think that it's Zerg favoured, because it's better for Zerg than the "standard" Fighting Spirit. What are the stats for Ultimate Stream so far in 2021? Above 50% winrate TvZ. We can never have perfect balance, and we shouldn't give up interesting maps to have it. I just want the map pool to be balanced overall, so Zergs can have their Benzene (55% ZvT in 2021), and Terrans can have their Eclipse (55% TvZ so far, 50% TvP though). The point is that there should be an even amount of maps good for each match up, instead of mostly Terran maps with a few Zerg and Protoss like we have. Having 50% in some but not all match ups is good. Having 50% in all of them is great. This can't be expected to happen often, though. I can only think of one recent map that achieved this: Sylphid. (When I say 50% I mean closer to 50% than to 60%. a 51% or some thing is fine.) Sylphid is balanced because it's a completely new map so it didn't carry the statistical load of purists regurgitating 10 year old stats in pro league matches between donkeys that haven't played the game since then. Benzene is another good example where at some point it was considered ok and balanced but recent games on it has shown us that it's not that. Tau Cross is an even better example. A map that has 'perfect' stats but is absolutely horrendous and unplayable by modern standards in the current metagame. ASL maps that get labelled as unbalanced, get that label over a sample of 10 games or less so they quickly see the bin because of that. Neo-Sylphid has had thousands of games played under the same meta by top players so it has been battle tested and proven to be balanced. In most other scenarios, the actual real test of whether a map is balanced or not doesn't even exist. Even ladder is not good enough of a barometer since those stats end up always deviating from pro-stats by a significant margin (in the few cases where ladder maps are also played in spon-matches frequently). | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On June 11 2021 23:21 oxKnu wrote: Sylphid is balanced because it's a completely new map so it didn't carry the statistical load of purists regurgitating 10 year old stats in pro league matches between donkeys that haven't played the game since then. Benzene is another good example where at some point it was considered ok and balanced but recent games on it has shown us that it's not that. Tau Cross is an even better example. A map that has 'perfect' stats but is absolutely horrendous and unplayable by modern standards in the current metagame. ASL maps that get labelled as unbalanced, get that label over a sample of 10 games or less so they quickly see the bin because of that. Neo-Sylphid has had thousands of games played under the same meta by top players so it has been battle tested and proven to be balanced. In most other scenarios, the actual real test of whether a map is balanced or not doesn't even exist. Even ladder is not good enough of a barometer since those stats end up always deviating from pro-stats by a significant margin (in the few cases where ladder maps are also played in spon-matches frequently). | ||
|
stambe
Bulgaria492 Posts
On June 11 2021 23:21 oxKnu wrote: Sylphid is balanced because it's a completely new map so it didn't carry the statistical load of purists regurgitating 10 year old stats in pro league matches between donkeys that haven't played the game since then. Benzene is another good example where at some point it was considered ok and balanced but recent games on it has shown us that it's not that. Tau Cross is an even better example. A map that has 'perfect' stats but is absolutely horrendous and unplayable by modern standards in the current metagame. ASL maps that get labelled as unbalanced, get that label over a sample of 10 games or less so they quickly see the bin because of that. Neo-Sylphid has had thousands of games played under the same meta by top players so it has been battle tested and proven to be balanced. In most other scenarios, the actual real test of whether a map is balanced or not doesn't even exist. Even ladder is not good enough of a barometer since those stats end up always deviating from pro-stats by a significant margin (in the few cases where ladder maps are also played in spon-matches frequently). | ||
|
XenOsky
Chile2215 Posts
On April 21 2021 20:09 vOdToasT wrote: Imagine complaining about a 53% winrate when it's 50% on some maps ^ THIS | ||
| ||
