|
Introduction
This is something I hear a lot of fucking arguments about, especially from people absolutely convinced that Protoss is either stronger or weaker than the other races. I saw a thread recently about race balance at D level in ICCUP, and while interesting, it doesn't really have much impact on the higher levels of the game, which are a lot more interesting to me than my own D-level (on a good day) play. So, I grabbed some information off of TLPD and analyzed that shit.
Note: I'm a philosophy student. Math and statistics are not my strong point. There are probably at least a few minor errors in here that I didn't catch, even though I made my computer do most of the figgerin' for me.
Details
Now, on to the good stuff. Basically, the charts below represent the average ELO of each player, for all races (including 'all') against all races (including 'all'). The ELO is calculated separately for each opposing race (vA, vT, vZ, vP) but together for all races (Protoss are measured against all races in their vT, but vT is not measured against vP). What this means is that if Terrans have a higher ELO than everyone else at vZ, that's significant, but if Terrans have a higher ELO vZ than vP, that isn't.
All players:
Oh yeah, protoss is imba, all right. Except it isn't. Terrans are far and away outperforming everybody else, largely due to dominance in TvZ. Zergs come in second due to strength ZvP, and Protoss comes in last because they're barely better vT (their "strong" matchup) than Terrans are. And note that Terrans are better against Protosses than other Protosses are. This means that assuming completely 'average' gamers, your best chance of beating a Protoss is with a Zerg, your best chance of beating a Zerg is with a Terran, and there's no significant difference between countering Terran with Protoss or another Terran.
Top 50 players:
Wait, what? Now Terran is significantly better vT than Protoss, and Zerg is catching up? Admittedly, Protoss are doing better vZ now, but they're still dead last there, as well as in the overall standings. What's going on?
Oh, wait, but look! Now Protoss are doing slightly better mirror than Terrans are against them. Basically, what this means is that a lot of top Terran players are relatively strong at TvP and TvT (but weak at TvZ), and the top Protoss players are relatively strong at PvZ.
Conclusions
Wow, that was actually reasonably enlightening. Basically, in progaming, T>Z, Z>P, P=T (look how TvP is just barely stronger than PvP, and PvT is just barely stronger than TvT). This isn't to say that Terran is inherently the strongest race and Protoss is inherently the weakest - I'd have to actually do work to account for all the potential factors that influence why this turned out the way it did - but Terran is currently performing the best overall, and Protoss is currently performing the worst overall.
Now what's really interesting to me is how things change when you look at the top 50 instead. TvP loses ground to PvP, and PvT loses ground to TvT. TvZ looks way less disgustingly good and PvZ and ZvT look like they actually stands a snowball's chance in hell. What this means is that, on average, the difference between the best of starcraft players and the rest of starcraft players is that the Protosses are way better against Zergs, and the Zergs are way better against Terrans, but the Terrans improve relatively equally across the board. I'm not good enough to speculate as to why that is, but I'm sure some of the rest of you have theories.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
This doesn't take into account things like maps and player skill. You can't determine game balance by looking at statistics so simply.
|
Most of this stuff is known, but thanks for the input you put in  . (If your another protoss whos angry that people say its easier, then  , but otherwise good work.)
EDIT: Also what fakesteve said about maps.
|
Terrans improve across the board because they are mechanic driven race. Protoss is more reactive and since scouting in ZvP is so crucail it makes it so that when you miss something as toss you have a high chance of losing, increasing the loss rate for them. Zerg I think are about balancing larvea with drones and units and the balancing differs from MU to MU and from situation to situation. Terran on the other hand just have to have good macro and micro and be aware of what is going on. Their role does not shift dramaticly from MU to MU unlike toss or zerg.
|
Protoss is the hardest race to play (and perform well with) at the top level, this has been well known for a long time. I attribute a lot of this to PvP has the lowest peak ELO of any matchup, and the lowest elo average as well (it's the most luck based. One unit, DTs.).
|
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.
Listen to fakie.
Still, thanks for the hard work.
|
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. Well...even if you take statistics from the entirety of progaming history, or just generally accepted truths about starcraft, they both agree with his above statistics. T>z>p=t
thats always been the formula. Tell me a period in starcraft history when it was otherwise outside of maybe 1999?
|
On July 30 2009 16:07 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +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. Well...even if you take statistics from the entirety of progaming history, or just generally accepted truths about starcraft, they both agree with his above statistics. T>z>p=t thats always been the formula. Tell me a period in starcraft history when it was otherwise outside of maybe 1999?
I think another part of this is that protoss is the race who has always been the most dependent upon maps for balance, especially for pvz (FE wasn't easily viable on many maps until recently, etc. Neo Medusa is a great example of the way a map that was once balanced can drastically swing the other way after Zergs figure out zvp on it).
|
Look at maps , players skill these are with pro gamers. terran always dominated in the pro scene but how about us in iccup everyone complain because of how much cheese they can do and get away with it terran really does require more apm to pull off
|
Nice job, it seems in general right now a lot of terrans are struggling with TvZ, though not nearly to the degree that protoss players have been struggling with PvZ. I guess there's just more mid-level terrans than mid-level zergs right now.
|
The argument isn't that protoss is stronger, but that it is easier to be good with them.
i.e. the learning curve is much easier for protoss than the other races, even if it doesn't go up further
Not saying that I necessarily have this viewpoint...
|
your balance conclusions are exactly right and the people saying otherwise have already drank the koolaid. fuck the haters. the cavailer dismissal of your statistics is pretty disgusting when the results seem to reflect the opinions of the professional league. what are the chances that it is a mere coincidence?
this of course confirms my suspicion that protoss players are, as a group, the most talented, hardest working and best looking.
as for your top 50 results the explanation is that you can't get into the top 50 if you can only win 2 of 3 matchups consistently. protoss's weak matchup is pvz, and without being able to win pvz, protosses can't get into the top 50. zerg's weak matchup is zvt, and without being able to win zvt zergs can't get into the top 50. meanwhile, since there is no weak terran matchup (or tvp very marginally so) terran players don't have a similar deficit and so you see the terran in the top 50 improve relatively homogenously in each matchup
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
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.
|
I agree terran is the strongest race but it also requires the most skill to play.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
All this says is to ban Terran =D
"I agree terran is the strongest race but it also requires the most skill to play."
Zerg...D:
|
Very interesting stats. Thanks for the hard work.
Of course, as everyone has already said, it's nothing to draw concrete conclusions from.
|
Uhm.... Terran vs Terran ELO over all active progamers is a completely meaningless figure. In Terran vs Terran, one Terran is always going to win and one Terran is always going to lose. In other words, the Terran vs Terran ELO should in theory be at 2000. The fact that it is higher than that only proves that there has been ELO inflation.
For Top 50 gamers, these numbers like "Terran vs Terran ELO" are relevant, and what they show is the following: in Terran vs Terran, there is less of a luck component than in Zerg vs Zerg and Protoss vs Protoss. We can deduce this by seeing that the top 50 Terran players are more consistent against their own race than the top 50 Zerg and Protoss players. However, again we have to be concerned against the possibility of ELO inflation and how it affects each race separately. This is not an easy task to do.
What is ELO inflation and why does this come about? Unfortunately, this particular topic is liable to open up a veritable shitstorm on the forums, particulraly regarding the "why" as in theory ELO inflation should not happen.
However, observe the following: over time, player ELO ratings have risen across the board in Starcraft. How do we know this? Consider Boxer, for instance. His peak ELO was 2224. If you look at players right now, there are no less than 5 gamers with an ELO higher than Boxer's peak. At the time Boxer attained that ELO value, he was the undisputed bonjwa, with a whopping 87% wins in KeSPA sanctioned matches. A good observer might point out that back then there were simply fewer games being played, so it's harder to attain a high ELO rating (and this may in fact be the cause of inflation for players at the high end -- players today have more opportunities to demonstrate their skill while at peak level; certainly Boxer and NaDa and Oov never had schedules where they were playing in competition on an almost daily basis), but if we look at his first 98 games played, his record was still over 68% against the most difficult players of his day. Furthermore, because there wasn't a proleague back then, it should in theory be easier for a high ranked player to maintain a high ELO rating, since proleague is a venue in which a high ranked player is statistically more likely to end up competing against a player with a low ELO value and have a chance to lose!
Basically, the bottomline is that your points, while supported by fancy looking graphs, are not as well grounded as you think they are.
|
Oh yeah, protoss is imba, all right.
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.
|
In the history of competitive starcraft, every race has manifested through prodigies and 'bonjwas' who have dominated other players at some point or another.
Ultimately the "imba race" argument is irrelevant because the holes in a player's game are so rarely from game imbalance, but rather their own mechanics and skills.
Of course I have my own opinions about imbalances like anyone, but what makes aspects of the game difficult at an amateaur level is not what makes it difficult at the pro level
|
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.
Agreed, and I thought I made that clear. Note that I don't even look at win rates. All this is talking about is what races are best suited to defeating the other rates, given this set of players and the set of maps that they're playing on (and all the other factors that happen to exist)
|
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.
This. Also, how does progaming balance affect what is said about Protoss players at the D level??
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
It's all fairly obvious, but it's still nice to see actual statistics, always interesting.
|
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.
No. The argument was that protoss was the "easy race" because all they had to do is 1a2a3a to win or make DT. People were complaining that if a protoss just macro and attack moves their army is way stronger, would always win battles, and thus is the "overpowered" race. Why the hell would people complain to losing to protoss simply because it's just easier to play as perfectly?
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On July 30 2009 16:54 CaptainPlatypus wrote:Show nested quote +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. Agreed, and I thought I made that clear. Note that I don't even look at win rates. All this is talking about is what races are best suited to defeating the other rates, given this set of players and the set of maps that they're playing on (and all the other factors that happen to exist)
And in that light, it's an interesting set of data
|
On July 30 2009 17:05 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:And in that light, it's an interesting set of data
Thanks
Any chance of TLPD getting an export function so I don't need to make 147 player entries in an excel table by hand to do it? ;-)
|
On July 30 2009 17:05 Probe. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 16:44 Adeny wrote:Oh yeah, protoss is imba, all right. 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. No. The argument was that protoss was the "easy race" because all they had to do is 1a2a3a to win or make DT. People were complaining that if a protoss just macro and attack moves their army is way stronger, would always win battles, and thus is the "overpowered" race. Why the hell would people complain to losing to protoss simply because it's just easier to play as perfectly?
'Kay I've been trying to formulate an explanation but I'm unable to put it to words. I'll try to make a summarization of my thoughts but it's probably not going to make any sense. The amount of skill required to play protoss to a certain potential is lower at the low levels of play. The races are fairly (for the sake if it lets say perfectly) balanced if both players play their races at even potential. So if we have a protoss and a terran player playing at 20% of the maximum potential of their race (D+ or w/e), the terran player will have the stronger individual skill (separated from race), because it requires more individual skill for him to raise terran to be equal to protoss. Thus protoss is ezpzmode 1a2a3a.
|
United States10774 Posts
lol how long will the protoss 1a2a3a joke live on, especially with protoss getting raped left and right?
either way, great work on this interesting set of data ;D
|
On July 30 2009 17:27 Adeny wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 17:05 Probe. wrote:On July 30 2009 16:44 Adeny wrote:Oh yeah, protoss is imba, all right. 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. No. The argument was that protoss was the "easy race" because all they had to do is 1a2a3a to win or make DT. People were complaining that if a protoss just macro and attack moves their army is way stronger, would always win battles, and thus is the "overpowered" race. Why the hell would people complain to losing to protoss simply because it's just easier to play as perfectly? 'Kay I've been trying to formulate an explanation but I'm unable to put it to words. I'll try to make a summarization of my thoughts but it's probably not going to make any sense. The amount of skill required to play protoss to a certain potential is lower at the low levels of play. The races are fairly (for the sake if it lets say perfectly) balanced if both players play their races at even potential. So if we have a protoss and a terran player playing at 20% of the maximum potential of their race (D+ or w/e), the terran player will have the stronger individual skill (separated from race), because it requires more individual skill for him to raise terran to be equal to protoss. Thus protoss is ezpzmode 1a2a3a.
The only reason people think it's "easier" to play as protoss is because they think it's "overpowered". If all the protoss player has to do is 1a2a3a to win, it's not only easy to do that, but also that means just by attacking and macroing alone they can win a game thus the race is "overpowered".
|
On July 30 2009 16:45 gjg.instinct wrote:
I wonder if it's a factor that terran and zerg users are simply better players since their races require greater focus / precision over more aspects of the game.
this is what bad terrans actually believe
|
Well.. Jaedong > Z > P > T
Skill is still much much more important than race balance
|
On July 30 2009 18:10 Probe. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 17:27 Adeny wrote:On July 30 2009 17:05 Probe. wrote:On July 30 2009 16:44 Adeny wrote:Oh yeah, protoss is imba, all right. 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. No. The argument was that protoss was the "easy race" because all they had to do is 1a2a3a to win or make DT. People were complaining that if a protoss just macro and attack moves their army is way stronger, would always win battles, and thus is the "overpowered" race. Why the hell would people complain to losing to protoss simply because it's just easier to play as perfectly? 'Kay I've been trying to formulate an explanation but I'm unable to put it to words. I'll try to make a summarization of my thoughts but it's probably not going to make any sense. The amount of skill required to play protoss to a certain potential is lower at the low levels of play. The races are fairly (for the sake if it lets say perfectly) balanced if both players play their races at even potential. So if we have a protoss and a terran player playing at 20% of the maximum potential of their race (D+ or w/e), the terran player will have the stronger individual skill (separated from race), because it requires more individual skill for him to raise terran to be equal to protoss. Thus protoss is ezpzmode 1a2a3a. The only reason people think it's "easier" to play as protoss is because they think it's "overpowered". If all the protoss player has to do is 1a2a3a to win, it's not only easy to do that, but also that means just by attacking and macroing alone they can win a game thus the race is "overpowered".
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.
|
On July 30 2009 18:30 Adeny wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 18:10 Probe. wrote:On July 30 2009 17:27 Adeny wrote:On July 30 2009 17:05 Probe. wrote:On July 30 2009 16:44 Adeny wrote:Oh yeah, protoss is imba, all right. 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. No. The argument was that protoss was the "easy race" because all they had to do is 1a2a3a to win or make DT. People were complaining that if a protoss just macro and attack moves their army is way stronger, would always win battles, and thus is the "overpowered" race. Why the hell would people complain to losing to protoss simply because it's just easier to play as perfectly? 'Kay I've been trying to formulate an explanation but I'm unable to put it to words. I'll try to make a summarization of my thoughts but it's probably not going to make any sense. The amount of skill required to play protoss to a certain potential is lower at the low levels of play. The races are fairly (for the sake if it lets say perfectly) balanced if both players play their races at even potential. So if we have a protoss and a terran player playing at 20% of the maximum potential of their race (D+ or w/e), the terran player will have the stronger individual skill (separated from race), because it requires more individual skill for him to raise terran to be equal to protoss. Thus protoss is ezpzmode 1a2a3a. The only reason people think it's "easier" to play as protoss is because they think it's "overpowered". If all the protoss player has to do is 1a2a3a to win, it's not only easy to do that, but also that means just by attacking and macroing alone they can win a game thus the race is "overpowered". 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.
I know what you're trying to say, I just think it's stupid. People often complain that protoss is easier to play as at a low rank but i don't see how. It takes pretty much the exact same amount of skill to play any race, it's just user specific. When i started off as protoss i was D/D+ level. Soon after i tried zerg and hit C-. It takes the same amount of skill for the protoss to make and units and attack as it does for a terran or zerg to make units and defend.
Also your example sucks.
|
I think there's a slight flaw when you're looking at progaming in its entirety. Before the Bisu PvZ revolution, the T>Z>P=T theory was probably correct, but since then it has changed quite a bit.
I'd be interested to see this analysis done post Savior and Bisu's infamous MSL final.
|
On July 30 2009 17:05 Probe. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 16:44 Adeny wrote:Oh yeah, protoss is imba, all right. 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. No. The argument was that protoss was the "easy race" because all they had to do is 1a2a3a to win or make DT. People were complaining that if a protoss just macro and attack moves their army is way stronger, would always win battles, and thus is the "overpowered" race. Why the hell would people complain to losing to protoss simply because it's just easier to play as perfectly?
They would... until the other races reach a skill level where they can macro and micro well. Dragoons and zealots are a lot more easier to micro than tanks and vultures and casting storms is a lot easier than dodging them. So until a Terran can micro tanks and vultures and a Zerg can storm dodge, protoss will seem a lot easier to them. Most of this protoss imba you hear are at D levels, where most of the protosses either suck at C so they bash on D, or they're at the same skill level as you are, but your race has a higher learning curve.
|
The most interesting thing i notice in these charts is that there is a huge gap between top players and other progamers. Can we know the cut-off u use for separating players in you second chart?
|
On July 30 2009 19:49 RowdierBob wrote:
I think there's a slight flaw when you're looking at progaming in its entirety. Before the Bisu PvZ revolution, the T>Z>P=T theory was probably correct, but since then it has changed quite a bit.
I'd be interested to see this analysis done post Savior and Bisu's infamous MSL final.
The matchup is still very much Z > P. Bisu's build was a nice counter to Savior's style. And Bisu's own PvZ could maintain its brilliance due to his incredible APM and multi-tasking skills. But none of that change the fact that protoss after FE is in full defensive mode. And the amount of defense they need is usually a guess. Guessing wrong usually leads to immediate gg or a huge disadvantage going into the mid-game. While guessing right simply leads to a balanced position or only slightly favorable position.
|
That sounds like speculation. As I said, I'm curious to see the stats. I could be wrong as you say, but I think PvZ in particular has become much more balanced post-Bisu.
|
On July 30 2009 18:40 Probe. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 18:30 Adeny wrote:On July 30 2009 18:10 Probe. wrote:On July 30 2009 17:27 Adeny wrote:On July 30 2009 17:05 Probe. wrote:On July 30 2009 16:44 Adeny wrote:Oh yeah, protoss is imba, all right. 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. No. The argument was that protoss was the "easy race" because all they had to do is 1a2a3a to win or make DT. People were complaining that if a protoss just macro and attack moves their army is way stronger, would always win battles, and thus is the "overpowered" race. Why the hell would people complain to losing to protoss simply because it's just easier to play as perfectly? 'Kay I've been trying to formulate an explanation but I'm unable to put it to words. I'll try to make a summarization of my thoughts but it's probably not going to make any sense. The amount of skill required to play protoss to a certain potential is lower at the low levels of play. The races are fairly (for the sake if it lets say perfectly) balanced if both players play their races at even potential. So if we have a protoss and a terran player playing at 20% of the maximum potential of their race (D+ or w/e), the terran player will have the stronger individual skill (separated from race), because it requires more individual skill for him to raise terran to be equal to protoss. Thus protoss is ezpzmode 1a2a3a. The only reason people think it's "easier" to play as protoss is because they think it's "overpowered". If all the protoss player has to do is 1a2a3a to win, it's not only easy to do that, but also that means just by attacking and macroing alone they can win a game thus the race is "overpowered". 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. I know what you're trying to say, I just think it's stupid. People often complain that protoss is easier to play as at a low rank but i don't see how. It takes pretty much the exact same amount of skill to play any race, it's just user specific. When i started off as protoss i was D/D+ level. Soon after i tried zerg and hit C-. It takes the same amount of skill for the protoss to make and units and attack as it does for a terran or zerg to make units and defend. Also your example sucks.
You must be zork.
Anyway protoss is easier to play at lower levels mechanically, through reasons that have been explained 300 times. This is why protoss is used to learn the game for most players, but after the learning stage, those players decide if they want to try another race with the skills they learnt from protoss, or stay with protoss. (Many players do play zerg or terran to start, but protoss is the favored starting race).
This could be why people hate/think protoss is overpowered, because there's so many protosseswhen they start, along with how forgiving protoss is at the start, they get annoyed, and go on about how it's easier. This thinking probably carries on to the C ranks, and then somehow at 1 stage (during the 6 dragons period) came to progaming lol. There were some people in LR threads who said protosses at progaming level finally learnt how to "1a2a3a" -_-.
|
I think i read an article which stated that protoss only became good for a short period in time. A couple of years a go the terrans where far better than zerg+protoss. (correct me if im wrong) Thinking about IloveOov and Boxer etc. And zerg has been doing good also. Protoss is starting to catch up now.
Statistics are very dangerous when things are taken out. Its difficult to take every aspect. Like strategy changes and map pools.
|
You also have to take into consideration the various trends that have taken place over the years. For a start, read this thread on ZvP Trends.
|
im disappointed that this thread got derailed into a masturbatory "which race takes more skill" wank off
|
On July 30 2009 21:01 RowdierBob wrote:
That sounds like speculation. As I said, I'm curious to see the stats. I could be wrong as you say, but I think PvZ in particular has become much more balanced post-Bisu.
You just want to see stats? Isn't that what TLPD is for?
|
I want to start off by saying that there's a major flaw in your chart, and that's that mirror matchups can't be included. I don't know how in the world they fit in, because regardless of who wins in a PvP, it will be a protoss. Overall, the percentage of protoss that win against protoss is 100%. Points are irrelevant. The reason you see less points in specific mirror matchups is that there may be less players for that race and/or less people wanting to play that matchup. I know I tend to dodge ZvZ's pretty often.
The reason terran is most dominant versus zerg early on: new zergs fail to understand that ZvT is about trying to keep the terran in his base until you get defilers and/or ultras. You can surprise the terran and try to win before he gets too many siege tanks/vessels, or even get lucky with a dodge + counter-attack. But otherwise you just want to contain and rush to hive asap. It's a hard lesson to learn when your understanding of the game is essentially "1. expand more than he does, 2. get units, 3. upgrade, 4. er... win?". And at this level of understanding, noob terrans will steamroll most noob zergs.
The same goes for some Protoss play, I'm sure. The funny thing is that, as I've heard some others say before, I believe psi storm is the most powerful ability in the game (next up being dark swarm), and it's the ability that causes me to lose most often -- yet ZvP is my best win ratio. Learning to pick off high templars pre-battle, and then predict where storms will be from remaing HT's, and then overwhelm with your army is a hard lesson to learn, just like needing hive for ZvT. And yet, I do definitely feel like ZvP is the easiest to win for me.
About pro level, Savior said in an interview that zerg is, overall, the most difficult race to play. And given he's better at every race than anybody in this forum, I tend to believe him. Alot of people would misinterpret this as meaning that zerg has the most difficult time winning, but that's not really the case. At that level of skill, you should have the ability to pull off more difficult maneuvers by reflex alone.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.
So yeah, theres... all of that. Feel free to disagree.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On July 30 2009 17:16 CaptainPlatypus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 17:05 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:And in that light, it's an interesting set of data Thanks Any chance of TLPD getting an export function so I don't need to make 147 player entries in an excel table by hand to do it? ;-) Almost zero
Bug pop about it, im sure he'll help out
|
About pro level, Savior said in an interview that zerg is, overall, the most difficult race to play.
Ugh.. who cares?
Also, I don't, and I suspect most people don't, think that APM or EAPM = skill.
|
On July 30 2009 23:25 errol1001 wrote:Show nested quote +About pro level, Savior said in an interview that zerg is, overall, the most difficult race to play. Ugh.. who cares? Also, I don't, and I suspect most people don't, think that APM or EAPM = skill.
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.
|
8751 Posts
On July 30 2009 15:54 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
This doesn't take into account things like maps and player skill.
imo that doesn't need to be done
|
On July 30 2009 17:39 OneOther wrote:
lol how long will the protoss 1a2a3a joke live on, especially with protoss getting raped left and right?
It will never die, beacuse stereotypes defy all logic. Nevermind the fact that the idea that Protoss are easier to play would mean that Protoss progamers would have an easier time then others winning titles (which they do not). Nevermind the fact that the Protoss have never had a bonjwa of their own (and likely never will in BW) and that the only potential bonjwa they have is heavily disputed. Nevermind the fact that Brood War is famous for being well balanced and thus not giving any race an advantage.
No, people will rather warp the very fabric of reality and convince themselves that the race they are facing is overpowered rather then admit that it is the faults in their own skill which prevent them from beating that race. Sadly, that is the nature of a game with asymmetrical races, regardless of how well balanced those are.
|
Well, you chose a period where most protoss are slumping. Try seeing what you get in the Golden Age or Arena MSL time.
|
On July 30 2009 23:37 Tom Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 17:39 OneOther wrote:
lol how long will the protoss 1a2a3a joke live on, especially with protoss getting raped left and right?
It will never die, beacuse stereotypes defy all logic. Nevermind the fact that the idea that Protoss are easier to play would mean that Protoss progamers would have an easier time then others winning titles (which they do not). Nevermind the fact that the Protoss have never had a bonjwa of their own (and likely never will in BW) and that the only potential bonjwa they have is heavily disputed. Nevermind the fact that Brood War is famous for being well balanced and thus not giving any race an advantage. No, people will rather warp the very fabric of reality and convince themselves that the race they are facing is overpowered rather then admit that it is the faults in their own skill which prevent them from beating that race. Sadly, that is the nature of a game with asymmetrical races, regardless of how well balanced those are.
I doubt many people will read my ridiculously long post, so I'll surmise how it applies in this reply.
level of necessary control != ease of winning
Where "skill" fits in is relative to your perspective.
|
On July 30 2009 23:05 sudo.era wrote:
I want to start off by saying that there's a major flaw in your chart, and that's that mirror matchups can't be included. I don't know how in the world they fit in, because regardless of who wins in a PvP, it will be a protoss. Overall, the percentage of protoss that win against protoss is 100%.
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.
|
On July 30 2009 23:57 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 23:05 sudo.era wrote:
I want to start off by saying that there's a major flaw in your chart, and that's that mirror matchups can't be included. I don't know how in the world they fit in, because regardless of who wins in a PvP, it will be a protoss. Overall, the percentage of protoss that win against protoss is 100%. 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.
Well yes, of course there's always a winner and loser. That's the point. We're not looking at one specific player and how he has done in every matchup. We're getting an average.
Say we get an average of 2 protoss players in their PvP records. They've only played eachother, so each win is included in the average, as is each loss. Now in reality, each protoss player doesn't play against another exclusively. But, when you're taking an average of every single pvp, it's the same exact thing. You're averaging in every win and every loss of every game. When player B wins, player Z loses.
For every win, there is a loss. It is exactly 50% wins and 50% losses.
|
On July 30 2009 23:46 sudo.era wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 23:37 Tom Phoenix wrote:On July 30 2009 17:39 OneOther wrote:
lol how long will the protoss 1a2a3a joke live on, especially with protoss getting raped left and right?
It will never die, beacuse stereotypes defy all logic. Nevermind the fact that the idea that Protoss are easier to play would mean that Protoss progamers would have an easier time then others winning titles (which they do not). Nevermind the fact that the Protoss have never had a bonjwa of their own (and likely never will in BW) and that the only potential bonjwa they have is heavily disputed. Nevermind the fact that Brood War is famous for being well balanced and thus not giving any race an advantage. No, people will rather warp the very fabric of reality and convince themselves that the race they are facing is overpowered rather then admit that it is the faults in their own skill which prevent them from beating that race. Sadly, that is the nature of a game with asymmetrical races, regardless of how well balanced those are. I doubt many people will read my ridiculously long post, so I'll surmise how it applies in this reply. level of necessary control != ease of winning Where "skill" fits in is relative to your perspective.
No offence, but level of necessary control means that whoever requires less of it has an advantage, which then translates into who has an easier time of winning. This means that "level of necessary control" and "ease of winning" are closely connected.
|
On July 31 2009 00:04 Tom Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 23:46 sudo.era wrote:On July 30 2009 23:37 Tom Phoenix wrote:On July 30 2009 17:39 OneOther wrote:
lol how long will the protoss 1a2a3a joke live on, especially with protoss getting raped left and right?
It will never die, beacuse stereotypes defy all logic. Nevermind the fact that the idea that Protoss are easier to play would mean that Protoss progamers would have an easier time then others winning titles (which they do not). Nevermind the fact that the Protoss have never had a bonjwa of their own (and likely never will in BW) and that the only potential bonjwa they have is heavily disputed. Nevermind the fact that Brood War is famous for being well balanced and thus not giving any race an advantage. No, people will rather warp the very fabric of reality and convince themselves that the race they are facing is overpowered rather then admit that it is the faults in their own skill which prevent them from beating that race. Sadly, that is the nature of a game with asymmetrical races, regardless of how well balanced those are. I doubt many people will read my ridiculously long post, so I'll surmise how it applies in this reply. level of necessary control != ease of winning Where "skill" fits in is relative to your perspective. No offence, but level of necessary control means that whoever requires less of it has an advantage, which then translates into who has an easier time of winning. This means that "level of necessary control" and "ease of winning" are closely connected.
Nope, strategy.
Your gameplan and how it fits into your opponent's is an enormous factor, if the not the majority determining factor. For example, something we see everyday, even in low-level iccup games -- control will not help you if your base is being harassed while your units are outside your base.
There's also decisionmaking ability, which is part strategy but also has much to do with unit distrobution and expansion/upgrade timing. If you chose a poor army distrobution, control will not help. If you're at a section of the game where you need just one more minute before you have the necessary units/upgrades/abilities to push out, and then you get attacked and overwhelmed, control may not save the game.
Winning in a specific situation can also have much to do with chance - out of each player's control.
To end it, I want to point out that as long as you can provide the necessary control for your race/build/strategy, it isn't an issue. Pros who need more control to do what they do -- do it, and get themselves on equal footing.
|
On July 30 2009 23:37 Avidkeystamper wrote:
Well, you chose a period where most protoss are slumping. Try seeing what you get in the Golden Age or Arena MSL time.
I don't think encouraging him to focus his research on a period of anomaly will provide more accurate or helpful results.
|
On July 31 2009 00:07 sudo.era wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2009 00:04 Tom Phoenix wrote:On July 30 2009 23:46 sudo.era wrote:On July 30 2009 23:37 Tom Phoenix wrote:On July 30 2009 17:39 OneOther wrote:
lol how long will the protoss 1a2a3a joke live on, especially with protoss getting raped left and right?
It will never die, beacuse stereotypes defy all logic. Nevermind the fact that the idea that Protoss are easier to play would mean that Protoss progamers would have an easier time then others winning titles (which they do not). Nevermind the fact that the Protoss have never had a bonjwa of their own (and likely never will in BW) and that the only potential bonjwa they have is heavily disputed. Nevermind the fact that Brood War is famous for being well balanced and thus not giving any race an advantage. No, people will rather warp the very fabric of reality and convince themselves that the race they are facing is overpowered rather then admit that it is the faults in their own skill which prevent them from beating that race. Sadly, that is the nature of a game with asymmetrical races, regardless of how well balanced those are. I doubt many people will read my ridiculously long post, so I'll surmise how it applies in this reply. level of necessary control != ease of winning Where "skill" fits in is relative to your perspective. No offence, but level of necessary control means that whoever requires less of it has an advantage, which then translates into who has an easier time of winning. This means that "level of necessary control" and "ease of winning" are closely connected. Nope, strategy. Your gameplan and how it fits into your opponent's is an enormous factor, if the not the majority determining factor. Talking about something we see everyday, even in low-level iccup games, control will not help you if your base is being harassed while your units are outside your base.
You deflect attention from the connection by mentioning a section that fails to actually disprove.
Regardless of strategy, when the level of necessary control is lower, the player has more liberty to exercise control beyond the necessary. Pushing the envelope this way is not always relevant to victory since an opponent's strategy can mitigate this advantage, but this mitigation is variable and it is impossible for strategy to totally negate the advantage in all cases. In the aggregate, greater liberty to multitask or over-micro must bestow greater chances of winning.
|
On July 31 2009 00:18 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2009 00:07 sudo.era wrote:On July 31 2009 00:04 Tom Phoenix wrote:On July 30 2009 23:46 sudo.era wrote:On July 30 2009 23:37 Tom Phoenix wrote:On July 30 2009 17:39 OneOther wrote:
lol how long will the protoss 1a2a3a joke live on, especially with protoss getting raped left and right?
It will never die, beacuse stereotypes defy all logic. Nevermind the fact that the idea that Protoss are easier to play would mean that Protoss progamers would have an easier time then others winning titles (which they do not). Nevermind the fact that the Protoss have never had a bonjwa of their own (and likely never will in BW) and that the only potential bonjwa they have is heavily disputed. Nevermind the fact that Brood War is famous for being well balanced and thus not giving any race an advantage. No, people will rather warp the very fabric of reality and convince themselves that the race they are facing is overpowered rather then admit that it is the faults in their own skill which prevent them from beating that race. Sadly, that is the nature of a game with asymmetrical races, regardless of how well balanced those are. I doubt many people will read my ridiculously long post, so I'll surmise how it applies in this reply. level of necessary control != ease of winning Where "skill" fits in is relative to your perspective. No offence, but level of necessary control means that whoever requires less of it has an advantage, which then translates into who has an easier time of winning. This means that "level of necessary control" and "ease of winning" are closely connected. Nope, strategy. Your gameplan and how it fits into your opponent's is an enormous factor, if the not the majority determining factor. Talking about something we see everyday, even in low-level iccup games, control will not help you if your base is being harassed while your units are outside your base. You deflect attention from the connection by mentioning a section that fails to actually disprove. Regardless of strategy, when the level of necessary control is lower, the player has more liberty to exercise control beyond the necessary. Pushing the envelope this way is not always relevant to victory since an opponent's strategy can mitigate this advantage, but this mitigation is variable and it is impossible for strategy to totally negate the advantage in all cases. In the aggregate, greater liberty to multitask or over-micro must bestow greater chances of winning.
Not if 'over-micro' provides no advantage. And I'd argue it doesn't. If you need to move unit A to position B, you do it. You don't need to move it halfway, back to A, then to B.
The 'amount of necessary control' isn't a baseline. It's the relative ceiling before spam. It's what the player does that he wants done - that should be done. Anything more is excessive and accomplishes nothing.
Anyway, the point is null. I already pointed out that, at the pro level, you can see that the average protoss player has less EAPM (even APM) than the average Zerg player. This is just an example matchup. If you were correct, the protoss players would simply 'over-micro' and catch up in actions. But they don't, because they don't need to -- unless they're executing a specific strategy that requires it.
(Before somebody reads the above paragraph and interprets it as a comment on skill, fuck off and read further up in the convo. Thanks.)
|
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.
My thoughts exactly.
This is a "classic" scientifical dumbed-down analysis of something that lacks parameters like how good the actual players are, regardless of race. Also maps play in as we all know. This is almost as dumb as people who only look at map statistics and go:
"wow 4-2 PvT, this map favours protoss over terran".
Your stats might as well imply that Terrans have generally been the better players, regardless of race. It's just way more complicated than you think.
Also, the reason protoss never got more dominant overall is PvZ. You maybe didn't hear it here first, but it's the goddamned truth.
|
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 dont fully agree with this. if we take an average/all maps+players into considertation it should even out (assuming that the maps dont "ALL" favor a specific race). but i do agree that the determination or conclusion which can be made by this form/amount of data is really really insufficient.
there are some points which i would take into consideration before making any form of analysis:
1. wheighting of datas: how many players actually play T/Z/P ? you cant just take them all as average since higher amounts of a certain race thin out the actual performance of skill/ELO (its not chess or tennis where everyone has the "same" race)
2. how many of the top50 are T/P/Z ? it will influence the overall performance if wed assume for instance like 25 T players 15 Z and only 10 Ps since the Ts should naturally do better than the other 2 races in the top50 if there are more of them (well else they wouldnt be there right)?
3. it would be more intresting to see how the vs balance changes from lowranks ( D-C) to midranks (C+ -B+) and "kor" ranks (A-olympic). if you'd wheighted out the players oer race/ELO you can probably see/determine in what kind of "vs mu" -> actual strength weaknesses of races develop according to the ranklvl of iccup.
meaning: then you would actually see which matchups change significantly and therefor are easier/harder to play at a certain skilllvl-> metagame changes etc.
those are some basic ideas which came into my mind when i read your post. i guess a real mathematics student could even give you a deeper analysis and tool usage into that matter.
|
On July 31 2009 00:25 sudo.era wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2009 00:18 EchOne wrote:On July 31 2009 00:07 sudo.era wrote:On July 31 2009 00:04 Tom Phoenix wrote:On July 30 2009 23:46 sudo.era wrote:On July 30 2009 23:37 Tom Phoenix wrote:On July 30 2009 17:39 OneOther wrote:
lol how long will the protoss 1a2a3a joke live on, especially with protoss getting raped left and right?
It will never die, beacuse stereotypes defy all logic. Nevermind the fact that the idea that Protoss are easier to play would mean that Protoss progamers would have an easier time then others winning titles (which they do not). Nevermind the fact that the Protoss have never had a bonjwa of their own (and likely never will in BW) and that the only potential bonjwa they have is heavily disputed. Nevermind the fact that Brood War is famous for being well balanced and thus not giving any race an advantage. No, people will rather warp the very fabric of reality and convince themselves that the race they are facing is overpowered rather then admit that it is the faults in their own skill which prevent them from beating that race. Sadly, that is the nature of a game with asymmetrical races, regardless of how well balanced those are. I doubt many people will read my ridiculously long post, so I'll surmise how it applies in this reply. level of necessary control != ease of winning Where "skill" fits in is relative to your perspective. No offence, but level of necessary control means that whoever requires less of it has an advantage, which then translates into who has an easier time of winning. This means that "level of necessary control" and "ease of winning" are closely connected. Nope, strategy. Your gameplan and how it fits into your opponent's is an enormous factor, if the not the majority determining factor. Talking about something we see everyday, even in low-level iccup games, control will not help you if your base is being harassed while your units are outside your base. You deflect attention from the connection by mentioning a section that fails to actually disprove. Regardless of strategy, when the level of necessary control is lower, the player has more liberty to exercise control beyond the necessary. Pushing the envelope this way is not always relevant to victory since an opponent's strategy can mitigate this advantage, but this mitigation is variable and it is impossible for strategy to totally negate the advantage in all cases. In the aggregate, greater liberty to multitask or over-micro must bestow greater chances of winning. Not if 'over-micro' provides no advantage. And I'd argue it doesn't. If you need to move unit A to position B, you do it. You don't need to move it halfway, back to A, then to B. The 'amount of necessary control' isn't a baseline. It's the ceiling. It's what the player does that he wants done - that should be done. Anything more is excessive and accomplishes nothing. Anyway, the point is null. I already pointed out that, at the pro level, you can see that the average protoss player has less EAPM (even APM) than the average Zerg player. This is just an example matchup. If you were correct, the protoss players would simply 'over-micro' and catch up in actions. But they don't, because they don't need to -- unless they're executing a specific strategy that requires it. (Before somebody reads the above paragraph and interprets it as a comment on skill, fuck off and read further up in the convo.)
Sorry about my misunderstanding of necessary control. I was thinking that from your premise of an average Protoss having ~100 less EAPM than an average Zerg while winning PvZ, whatever control he won with becomes what is necessary to perform the winning strategy. However, once his EAPM equals the Zerg's, he can leverage it into what I should really call a strategic change here, executing play like Bisu's that actually demands multitask and promises returns.
While we're poking at each others' semantics, I'll question you again. Ease here refers to liberty from difficulty. If we take control to be difficult, and more control to be increasingly difficult, a lower level of necessary control (tied to a winning strategy as your understanding goes) should imply greater ease of winning. Obviously they're not equal, but how do you conclude that they're not at all related?
To clarify my assumption on necessary control being related to a winning strategy: your understanding indicates that the control is a function of what the player should do, which essentially makes it the arm of decision making, which is what comprises a strategy. If anything greater than necessary control is always excessive and unproductive, necessary control at least ideally must refer to a strategy that will win. If a strategy fails, clearly a different strategy could have succeeded, with different necessary control requirements. Since strategy and control must vary in tandem to reach victory, the effect of one does not obviate deficiencies in the other.
|
On July 31 2009 00:10 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 23:37 Avidkeystamper wrote:
Well, you chose a period where most protoss are slumping. Try seeing what you get in the Golden Age or Arena MSL time. 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.
|
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?
|
On July 31 2009 00:51 Avidkeystamper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2009 00:10 EchOne wrote:On July 30 2009 23:37 Avidkeystamper wrote:
Well, you chose a period where most protoss are slumping. Try seeing what you get in the Golden Age or Arena MSL time. 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.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
OMFG THANK YOU
I have seriously been looking for something like this for a very, very long time. I greatly appreciate your work.
|
On July 31 2009 00:57 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2009 00:51 Avidkeystamper wrote:On July 31 2009 00:10 EchOne wrote:On July 30 2009 23:37 Avidkeystamper wrote:
Well, you chose a period where most protoss are slumping. Try seeing what you get in the Golden Age or Arena MSL time. 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. 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.
|
On July 31 2009 01:50 Avidkeystamper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2009 00:57 EchOne wrote:On July 31 2009 00:51 Avidkeystamper wrote:On July 31 2009 00:10 EchOne wrote:On July 30 2009 23:37 Avidkeystamper wrote:
Well, you chose a period where most protoss are slumping. Try seeing what you get in the Golden Age or Arena MSL time. 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. 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.
Oh gotcha, thanks. I honestly didn't think it through.
|
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.
|
On July 31 2009 01:55 StorrZerg wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On July 30 2009 23:30 sudo.era wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 23:25 errol1001 wrote:About pro level, Savior said in an interview that zerg is, overall, the most difficult race to play. Ugh.. who cares? Also, I don't, and I suspect most people don't, think that APM or EAPM = skill. 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.
|
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.
|
On July 30 2009 18:30 Adeny wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 18:10 Probe. wrote:On July 30 2009 17:27 Adeny wrote:On July 30 2009 17:05 Probe. wrote:On July 30 2009 16:44 Adeny wrote:Oh yeah, protoss is imba, all right. 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. No. The argument was that protoss was the "easy race" because all they had to do is 1a2a3a to win or make DT. People were complaining that if a protoss just macro and attack moves their army is way stronger, would always win battles, and thus is the "overpowered" race. Why the hell would people complain to losing to protoss simply because it's just easier to play as perfectly? 'Kay I've been trying to formulate an explanation but I'm unable to put it to words. I'll try to make a summarization of my thoughts but it's probably not going to make any sense. The amount of skill required to play protoss to a certain potential is lower at the low levels of play. The races are fairly (for the sake if it lets say perfectly) balanced if both players play their races at even potential. So if we have a protoss and a terran player playing at 20% of the maximum potential of their race (D+ or w/e), the terran player will have the stronger individual skill (separated from race), because it requires more individual skill for him to raise terran to be equal to protoss. Thus protoss is ezpzmode 1a2a3a. The only reason people think it's "easier" to play as protoss is because they think it's "overpowered". If all the protoss player has to do is 1a2a3a to win, it's not only easy to do that, but also that means just by attacking and macroing alone they can win a game thus the race is "overpowered". 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.
|
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.
|
I think people are trying to extrapolate way to much out of this study than what is actually there; average ELO scores. ELO is a measure of relative ability (based on win/loss), so this study just tells us that, at the PROGAMER level, how the races have fared against each other. By using progamers I think it would be safe to assume that variation between players' skill levels is minimal as compared to any other sample group.
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.
|
You guys are taking this discussion way too far.
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
|
On July 30 2009 16:31 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: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. 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....
On July 31 2009 00:51 Avidkeystamper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2009 00:10 EchOne wrote:On July 30 2009 23:37 Avidkeystamper wrote:
Well, you chose a period where most protoss are slumping. Try seeing what you get in the Golden Age or Arena MSL time. 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. 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...On July 30 2009 23:57 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 23:05 sudo.era wrote:
I want to start off by saying that there's a major flaw in your chart, and that's that mirror matchups can't be included. I don't know how in the world they fit in, because regardless of who wins in a PvP, it will be a protoss. Overall, the percentage of protoss that win against protoss is 100%. 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. 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.
|
On July 31 2009 04:58 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2009 16:31 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: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. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i27.tinypic.com/2wmhnd5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i30.tinypic.com/dnzewn.jpg)
