| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8556 Posts
On July 31 2009 00:10 EchOne wrote: I don't think encouraging him to focus his research on a period of anomaly will provide more accurate or helpful results. That's what he's doing right now anyways. | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On July 30 2009 16:44 Adeny wrote: This isn't the argument at all. The argument is that protoss is EASIER to play, not the better race. If you could play the game in slow motion, at 5% speed and do everything perfectly, protoss would probably be the weakest race. So aren't easier and imba pretty closely linked? | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
On July 31 2009 00:51 Avidkeystamper wrote: That's what he's doing right now anyways. The original post doesn't indicate the time range of his data, so you may very well be right. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because TLPD has records of games from 2001 onwards. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On July 30 2009 23:05 sudo.era wrote: About pro level, Savior said in an interview that zerg is, overall, the most difficult race to play. What he referred to was more the level of control for zerg, overall - not just for specific strategies - takes the highest level of attention and action. This doesn't mean there aren't specific builds and strategies the other races have that don't trump zerg in this respect. Just talking generally. ^^The same goes for comments on Protoss, but in the opposite way. Protoss, lately, have the hardest time winning, but overall take the least control. I'm not saying this with bias, just stats. Unless you see Protoss pulling off really high-apm strats, they tend to require less action to get things done. With two players at the same level of skill (in the pro leagues), it's very common to see 200-250 EAPM protoss players beat 350-400 EAPM zerg. I think I know the least about terran, except that TvP seems like a terran camp-fest - putting the burden on toss players to indirectly engage the gigantic siege line. And like I said before, TvZ is almost always in the terran's favor until hive tech. The reason Zerg require the most attention is because their units die so fast in all matchups. It's also the reason Protoss requires the least attention. Protoss units only die fast against Terran's late game maxed army, but only when tanks are sieged. Missing a second of combat as Zerg means most of your army could already be dead. With Protoss, that is less likely to be the case because their units have so much more HP. Terran falls somewhere in between because their units have HP in the middle, but are closer to Zerg in terms of how fast units die. TvZ bio is much like Zerg in attention, because all your men can die to lurker spines if you don't watch them for even a second. TvP early game is similar, because tanks are rather fragile in low numbers. | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
Starcraft is NOT perfectly balanced, u're a total idiot if you think so. For a vast majority of people protoss is definitely stronger at lower levels of play, take 2 noobs and set 1 to play zerg or terran for a little while and pitch him against the other noob playing protoss for a while. I am 100% positive if they are somewhat equal in talent the protoss would win pvt, likely he would win pvz too if zerg doesn't try agressive cheese builds in which case he might get close to 50%. Now at the higher levels of play protoss becomes an incredibly frustrating race to play, sure it's still easier to macro but if your opponent posses equal micro/macro skill to you he will gain ALOT more from his skill and you will likely have to outsmart him to stand a chance. Of course race balance is mostly affected by the map pools but that pretty much enforces the claim that starcraft is not balanced. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
I have seriously been looking for something like this for a very, very long time. I greatly appreciate your work. | ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8556 Posts
On July 31 2009 00:57 EchOne wrote: The original post doesn't indicate the time range of his data, so you may very well be right. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because TLPD has records of games from 2001 onwards. He did ELO, which is also current. It'd be the best to see a line graph showing the change in ELO, but that's not possible with the current TLPD. | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
On July 31 2009 01:50 Avidkeystamper wrote: He did ELO, which is also current. It'd be the best to see a line graph showing the change in ELO, but that's not possible with the current TLPD. Oh gotcha, thanks. I honestly didn't think it through. | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
On July 31 2009 01:24 nttea wrote: Im going to settle this race imbaness using a brain that actually works: (mine that is) Starcraft is NOT perfectly balanced, u're a total idiot if you think so. For a vast majority of people protoss is definitely stronger at lower levels of play, take 2 noobs and set 1 to play zerg or terran for a little while and pitch him against the other noob playing protoss for a while. I am 100% positive if they are somewhat equal in talent the protoss would win pvt, likely he would win pvz too if zerg doesn't try agressive cheese builds in which case he might get close to 50%. Now at the higher levels of play protoss becomes an incredibly frustrating race to play, sure it's still easier to macro but if your opponent posses equal micro/macro skill to you he will gain ALOT more from his skill and you will likely have to outsmart him to stand a chance. Of course race balance is mostly affected by the map pools but that pretty much enforces the claim that starcraft is not balanced. your funny. and you claim to have a brain ahaha. SC is the best balanced rts game around, no one else comes close. Your thinking about this in a closed minded environment. | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On July 31 2009 01:55 StorrZerg wrote: your funny. and you claim to have a brain ahaha. SC is the best balanced rts game around, no one else comes close. Your thinking about this in a closed minded environment. Being the best balanced rts game around doesn't say much at all, T still wins more over zerg than they do over p and t, z wins more over p than they do vs z and t. And theres units still in the game that are practically useless, scout?? ghost??. I'm not saying the balance is bad but it annoys me to death to see how many people have a totally unfounded fanatical faith that starcraft is for some reason a perfectly balanced game without any flaws whatsoever. It is not, it's just a great game and perhaps the greatest rts that will ever be made. | ||
|
errol1001
454 Posts
On July 30 2009 23:30 sudo.era wrote: I do, and apparently you don't. Maybe it'd be more succinct to say, "I don't care." Skill is interpretive, and has little to do with APM. Never said otherwise. I think you missed the part where I said "at the same level of skill," literally. It's right there. So, to repeat, I was talking about necessary action. The amount of action necessary, I'd argue, can definitely determine difficulty. "Skill" is such an obtuse concept I wouldn't even try to define it. I don't think so. The concepts are too closely tied together to make this kind of distinction. You're saying that apm determines the difficulty required in playing a race. Obviously, it is more difficult to achieve 350 rather than 250 apm. But difficulty is evident in plenty of other parts of the game besides apm. You can't say that it is more difficult to play zerg rather than protoss at a high level because of apm. Physically more difficult, but that is all. Your detachment of skill and difficulty is just bizarre to me; I wouldn't even attempt to do that. More skilled players can do more difficult things. More difficult things require more skill to be done. Which is why when you said 'equal skill, but the zerg player is doing something harder', I really read it as: the zerg player is more skilled, but he still loses!!! Re: Savior. Come on, is it surprising that he might say that? I'm sure that other top players have different opinions. Someone being better than you doesn't make a difference here. It's always nice to think that the race you are playing is the hardest though, aka, I'm more skilled/better than these other people. | ||
|
wiesel
Germany727 Posts
Being the best balanced rts game around doesn't say much at all, T still wins more over zerg than they do over p and t, z wins more over p than they do vs z and t. And theres units still in the game that are practically useless, scout?? ghost??. I'm not saying the balance is bad but it annoys me to death to see how many people have a totally unfounded fanatical faith that starcraft is for some reason a perfectly balanced game without any flaws whatsoever. It is not, it's just a great game and perhaps the greatest rts that will ever be made. Doesn't say much at all.. yea true when theres no other balanced game like Sc it doesn't say much at all..... right. What is even your point? What has an unused unit to do with balance? Sc is perfectly fine balanced so it comes down to maps and player abilities. And noone cares about those iccup D level protoss, a game has to be balanced for the very top players not for some noob Terrans on iccup. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On July 30 2009 18:30 Adeny wrote: You are stubborn. Okay, lets try a metaphor. 6 marines can kill one reaver comfortably with the proper micro. Which army is greater, 6 marines or one reaver? The 6 marines ofcourse. However if the terran doesn't go to the length of individually spreading every marine so that each shot never hits 2 marines, the reaver will win the fight. If the terran is simply not skilled enough to spread his marines against the reaver, HE STILL HAS THE GREATER ARMY HE JUST ISN'T ABLE TO UTILIZE ITS POTENTIAL to overcome the opponent's army. So at a low level where terrans can't spread their marines properly (metaphorically speaking ofcourse), my mom could win by playing the reaver, and my mom could win as easily as Bisu could, however the terran would have to be above a certain skill threshold to be able to make his superior army actually win. See the 6 marines as the terran's tools in a game, and the reaver as the protoss' tools. I'm out of ideas on how to explain this so that'll have to be my last attempt. If terran is trying to kill a reaver with 6 marines, he screwed up really badly in scouting. | ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
On July 30 2009 15:54 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: This doesn't take into account things like maps and player skill. You can't determine game balance by looking at statistics so simply. I only half a gree with this, maps and player skill (when looking at these kind of stats as a whole) should be more or less evened out - the talent pool at any one point is generally about the same so it should be accurate to some reasonable degree. Metagame shifts however, are not accounted for and are going to skew the numbers a bit (ok fine - you can make a case that metagame shifts are populated by individual players so player skill is actually relevant). The specific reason I did mine the way I did it was to rule out these kinds of considerations, which is why you end up with the conclusions only being applicable to a small slice of starcraft. This skill argument is absolutely absurd and anyone who thinks that you can make some conclusion about which race is "hardest" or "most skillful" at the highest level of play is delusional. Its absolutely irrelevant when the population we're measuring is the top slice of players who have been paid professionals for many years. AT BEST we can hope to look at the variance in a matchup and make some determinations as to the luck factor in any given game. | ||
|
caldo149
United States469 Posts
Of course the data could be slightly skewed from certain individuals performing abnormally well at times (Boxer, Jaedong, iloveoov, etc) or that certain maps favor certain races, but the sample size is probably large enough that it doesn't matter. This was a pretty good study and it happened to support the T>Z>P>T idea pretty well except for T=P, which was surprising actually.  anyway, good job OP. | ||
|
AzureEye
United States1360 Posts
The thing is, Protoss mechanics are quite easy, but people forget the fact that Protoss army cannot just 1a2a3a into Terran army or it will get killed Protoss has to send zealots to clear mines, shuttle drop zealots onto tanks, storming within range (if your HT survive before then), recall, stasis, flanking, etc. This is why Protoss is actually harder to play than TvP imo. Yes you could win with a simple DT when he has no detection but if the T didn't prepare for detection until that time, he really deserves that loss because he did nothing to prepare for it. (Using DT = more effort/apm than doing nothing to prepare for DT) Terrans really need to stop complaining, they get to dominate Zerg so much in TvZ, and when Protoss has to use every tech tree and magic skill to defeat T army, they get angry and start calling Protoss 1a2a3a race | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On July 30 2009 16:31 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: How can you possibly know weather its a lack of skill or just the difficulty in the race holding back strong players? I mean the chances that the race is hard, and therefore adapting to new play is difficult is a hell of a lot more likely than an eleven year run where almost no talented players picked protoss....uh for the record all i said is that there needs to be more thought put into the matter, accounting for maps, shifts in the metagame and how long it took the playerbase at that time to adapt, etc. i didn't say the conclusion was incorrect  There has also been a significant lack of talent in the Protoss player pool compared to the Zerg and Terran player pool at certain points in progaming. Protoss players emulating Stork's cheese builds (who only he was consistent in winning with) and getting rolled for a period of like 8 months messes the statistics, Protoss players being unable to deal with Savior's skullcrushery for so long until Bisu provided an answer, stuff like that. On July 31 2009 00:51 Avidkeystamper wrote: You realize right now, this period, is consistent with the history of protoss as a whole? Hell they are still winning pvz from time to time, so if anything its better than the majority of starcraft history...That's what he's doing right now anyways. On July 30 2009 23:57 Zato-1 wrote: Do you guys not even understand the chart? Its elo not win rate. ELO determines dominance in a match up, not statistical results. A higher elo in pvp shows a greater amount of pvp players who show dominant consistent results in the match up [ala flash leta in tvt], but outside of Bisu there isn't really a dominant pvp player. They do meh against terran, get smashed by zergs, and cant expect much consistency in pvp either, contrary to the other races.That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be to say, 'Protoss always loses in the mirror'- no matter who wins, Protoss always loses. It makes just as much sense as your own argument. How do you make sense of it? Look at how it's done in the other matchups. If Protoss player A has played against T 100 times and won 55 games, you say his winrate in PvT is 55%. If he's played 100 games vZ and won 40 of those, you say his winrate in PvZ is 40%. If he's played 100 games vP and won 52 of those, you say his winrate PvP is 52%. If you're only considering the top 50 players, I'd expect the average PvP winrate will be somewhat over 50% because protosses in the top 50 should have a better than even win record vs Protosses below the top 50. | ||
|
errol1001
454 Posts
On July 31 2009 04:58 Dazed_Spy wrote: How can you possibly know weather its a lack of skill or just the difficulty in the race holding back strong players? I mean the chances that the race is hard, and therefore adapting to new play is difficult is a hell of a lot more likely than an eleven year run where almost no talented players picked protoss.... Yeah, I don't think it's fair to the players. Like if you made the gateway cost 300 minerals, would you then say 'wow, there are no good protoss players'? Metagame stuff is something, but to be like 'well, there were few good protoss players during these periods' is, in my opinion, crap. I don't know how you would go about accounting for maps. It's a totally different ballgame. In most cases, I'm not sure how easy it is to say that something is due to the game being imbalanced (races) or the map being imbalanced. It can pretty much always be either. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Cure vs Rogue
Maru vs TBD
MaxPax vs TBD
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Afreeca Starleague
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
