|
Recently, as you all know, Blizzard has been nerfing Protoss and Terran, while giving zerg much needed buffs. Since Launch Zerg has been struggling a lot. Zerg is by definition a "Macro" race making it the hardest to play but once mastered the best. Skilled Play has a lot of room to grow if you play zerg compared to any of the other races, especially protoss.
The Easiest Starting Race
At the lower leagues, people say that protoss is the easiest race to play. The mechanics are simple to grasp. Its a "Micro" race. Micro is very key to being a good protoss, where as zerg just needs to overwhelm you with units. The units are small, easy to control, and powerful which makes it very appealing to people new to starcraft.
Now we dive into what I call the Protoss "OP" Illusion.
Noobs Pick Terran blizzard has made claims that Protoss is winning to much at the lower levels. While statistics may show that Protoss does infact win at more then 50% in the lower leagues, it has very little to do with balancing and how "easy" the protoss race is to play. People who are new to the starcraft universe are going to play terran. Why? Because it is the featured race from the Campaign. A player with no Real Time Strategy (RTS) Experience is mostlikely going to play Terran for their first hundred matches. They are already familiar with the race, and with the competitive edge that Starcraft 2 brings it forces new players, to play terran simply because they do not want to lose.
Protoss Warpgates
People with RTS experience such as Starcraft 1, Command and Conquer, and Warcraft 3 are most likely going to play Protoss. Why? Warpgates! Warpgates is a feature that has never been seen in any RTS game (that i know of Correct me if I'm wrong). The abbility to Warp in units across the map to any pylon/warp prism area is very appealing to RTS veterans. If Protoss was running a
recruitment campaign you know they would have commercials featuring Warp Gate useage. I did some leaguing in Warcraft 3 (ESL/ICE) and about 90% of my Warcraft 3 friends have chosen Protoss as their starting race. Near around the platinum league some of them have switched, others haven't.
And Of course you will get a random % of people who will play Zerg.
Which brings me to my point. Protoss are not over powered, they simply appeal more to experienced RTS players, while the new players will go terran. Which gives Blizzard their statistic of "Protoss winning to much," which has lead to unnecessary nerfs.
For a while now, Protoss has been struggling a lot verse Terran early game. Even more so after the 5 second Zealot nerf. Don't get me wrong this was a much needed nerf as far as the Protoss vs Zerg match up where Protoss has been favored early game for quite sometime now
(Maybe not so much after roach Nerf we will have to see there). However, i still beleive
that adding the 5 seconds to the Warp Gate Zealot cooldown was unnecessary. The root of the problem for early game Protoss vs Terran seems to be the efficiency of Terrans very molbile Tier 1. A Stim Marine & Maraduer army has such a easy abbility to kite a Entire protoss army.
Micro'd correctly and staying out of range of Sentries, Terran are given quite a advantage early game. Because of this, Terran are able to apply pressure, potentionally kill a entire protoss base/army and expand at the same time with a 2 rax build. Because of this, Protoss have
been veto'ing certain maps so that they can get easy Turtling maps. Such as Steps of War (as day9 and gretorp pointed out on Day 9 Dailey 19....3 i beleive?) Protoss turtle because early game, there isn't much they can do without some sort of all-in play or at the very least
something that sets you up for a horrible economy later, Protoss turtle so that they can last to the later stages of the game where the tables turn and the Advantage goes in the Protoss favor. Late Game, Terran seem to have no answer to a Templar, Collosis, or Carrier tech. After you hit
that deadly number of templar or collosis. It becomes very hard for terran to win. However, as a Protoss player I would trade a early game, advantage for a late game one anyday.
Too Sum up, I am not entirely happy with how Blizzard is handling the Protoss vs Terran match-up. They just stated that they nerfed the voidray because Protoss were winning too much in the early league. Hopefully a thread like this will open their eyes a little to the real problem.
Comments?
Any Feeback would be nice, whether it be hate or love. I will consantly update it so that it says exactly what I am trying to state and make it more clear to the people who don't understand or don't like the thread in general.
|
Kind of funny how you put Zerg to the side as if it werent that important.
|
yeah, who cares about zerg right 
ah, someday we shall be respected !
|
I would argue that Zerg takes just as much, if not more, micro than Protoss- against Terran, one misclick can have your entire army destroyed, and vs terran and protoss, flanking, dodging storms, etc. are extremely important to not die.
I agree with some other parts of your post-except the fact that protoss can't put early pressure. Blocking the ramp/expo with pylon and cannons has become practically standard, and early pushes with zeal/sentry are still viable, along with fast 4gate pushes. It is true that all races have problems against terran early game, and thats one of the problems with terran.
For the most part, a good post, but I wouldn't say Protoss is totally balanced(but it's getting there)
|
Interesting theory, but how could you prove that people who are more experienced are more likely to pick Protoss than a newbie?
You seem to be offering a justification as to why it would be the case if it were already true (that newbies are more likely to pick Terran), but you don't actually have any evidence here.
|
Since I quit surfing TL.net all day long and started studying again I find threads like these terrible, as they try to make gigantic points and accusations based on next to no evidence and flimsy logic.
E-
|
On October 17 2010 22:26 Raiden X wrote:
Kind of funny how you put Zerg to the side as if it werent that important.
Naw it wasn't that Zerg is not important, Blizzard knows the problems with Zerg and they are dealing with it. Also, I really don't know where PvZ stands so i can't really write about it. Mainly because the heat has been so much on Terran. I honestly don't know how ZvP stands, so i don't want to seem like some ignorant noob and talk about stuff i really dont know about.
|
I cant speak for everyone in the lower leagues, but some of my friends started with terran for the reasons you mentioned: They know them out of campaign. But everyone of them switched to protoss, because of pew pew lasers, shields and stuff. Also they said, with high hp/shields they feel protoss to be easier, because untis dont die that fast. And all it needs is zealot legspeed to make gold and lower mmm kiting-skills useless without the need to micro at all.
Oh, and you shouldnt hit enter each time you reach the end of a line. Everyone has a different monitor and your text wil look pretty ugly and hard to read on most of them if you do.
|
On October 17 2010 22:30 ltortoise wrote:
Interesting theory, but how could you prove that people who are more experienced are more likely to pick Protoss than a newbie?
You seem to be offering a justification as to why it would be the case if it were already true (that newbies are more likely to pick Terran), but you don't actually have any evidence here.
Yeah, there really isn't much evidance to support my theory other then what i stated
New players will pick terran because they are introduced to it in the campaign and protoss get picked because of the strats you can do. I guess my word for it would be Blind Evidance. Like Alien's :D its there i just can't prove its there! lol horrible example but still.
|
Well your theory isnt interesting at all, sorry. I'm not trying to flame you but it really looks weak.
Moreover, you could "warp" units in Company of Heroes (airborne)
|
If you compare both Terran and Zerg overall players ratio, with their ratio at the TOP, you will notice that both of them are over-represented.
The "Zerg is weak" assertion is a myth invented by Zerg players who either are clear hypocrites or who don't understack jack shit about statistics and compare the ratio of Zerg players at the TOP without taking into account how many Zerg players they are on the server.
If for instance 20% of NZ players play Zerg and that they are 22% Zerg in the TOP 200, we can definitely conclude that the zerg race isn't weak, rather imba, get it ?
Protoss while having nearly as many players as Terrans on most servers are clearly under-represented at the TOP, at least everytime I checked the numbers.
This proofs that, despite being a very interisting race, it sucks balance-wise.
|
On October 17 2010 22:30 Josealtron wrote:
I would argue that Zerg takes just as much, if not more, micro than Protoss- against Terran, one misclick can have your entire army destroyed, and vs terran and protoss, flanking, dodging storms, etc. are extremely important to not die.
I agree with some other parts of your post-except the fact that protoss can't put early pressure. Blocking the ramp/expo with pylon and cannons has become practically standard, and early pushes with zeal/sentry are still viable, along with fast 4gate pushes. It is true that all races have problems against terran early game, and thats one of the problems with terran.
For the most part, a good post, but I wouldn't say Protoss is totally balanced(but it's getting there)
What i ment was it is more of a micr race and because the unit groups are smaller, its easier to micro. a 12 zealot army = the same power of like a 40 zergling army, and when it comes down to it 12 units is always going to be easier to control then 40.
|
On October 17 2010 22:30 Grend wrote:
Since I quit surfing TL.net all day long and started studying again I find threads like these terrible, as they try to make gigantic points and accusations based on next to no evidence and flimsy logic.
E-
I agree. You make some random claim based on psycology and a few of your friends and saying that Blizzard doesn't account for it. Btw I play RTS's and I picked terran? I guess that counteracts your evidence.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 17 2010 22:22 BetterFasterStronger wrote:
Recently, as you all know, Blizzard has been nerfing Protoss and Terran, while giving zerg much needed buffs. Since Launch Zerg has been struggling a lot. Zerg is by definition a "Macro" race making it the hardest to play but once mastered the best. Skilled Play has a lot of room to grow if you play zerg compared to any of the other races, especially protoss.
The Easiest Starting Race
At the lower leagues, people say that protoss is the easiest race to play. The mechanics are simple to grasp. Its a "Micro" race. Micro is very key to being a good protoss, where as zerg just needs to overwhelm you with units. The units are small, easy to control, and powerful which makes it very appealing to people new to starcraft.
Now we dive into what I call the Protoss "OP" Illusion.
Noobs Pick Terran blizzard has made claims that Protoss is winning to much at the lower levels. While statistics may show that Protoss does infact win at more then 50% in the lower leagues, it has very little to do with balancing and how "easy" the protoss race is to play. People who are new to the starcraft universe are going to play terran. Why? Because it is the featured race from the Campaign. A player with no Real Time Strategy (RTS) Experience is mostlikely going to play Terran for their first hundred matches. They are already familiar with the race, and with the competitive edge that Starcraft 2 brings it forces new players, to play terran simply because they do not want to lose.
Protoss Warpgates
People with RTS experience such as Starcraft 1, Command and Conquer, and Warcraft 3 are most likely going to play Protoss. Why? Warpgates! Warpgates is a feature that has never been seen in any RTS game (that i know of Correct me if I'm wrong). The abbility to Warp in units across the map to any pylon/warp prism area is very appealing to RTS veterans. If Protoss was running a
recruitment campaign you know they would have commercials featuring Warp Gate useage. I did some leaguing in Warcraft 3 (ESL/ICE) and about 90% of my Warcraft 3 friends have chosen Protoss as their starting race. Near around the platinum league some of them have switched, others haven't.
And Of course you will get a random % of people who will play Zerg.
Which brings me to my point. Protoss are not over powered, they simply appeal more to experienced RTS players, while the new players will go terran. Which gives Blizzard their statistic of "Protoss winning to much," which has lead to unnecessary nerfs.
For a while now, Protoss has been struggling a lot verse Terran early game. Even more so after the 5 second Zealot nerf. Don't get me wrong this was a much needed nerf as far as the Protoss vs Zerg match up where Protoss has been favored early game for quite sometime now
(Maybe not so much after roach Nerf we will have to see there). However, i still beleive
that adding the 5 seconds to the Warp Gate Zealot cooldown was unnecessary. The root of the problem for early game Protoss vs Terran seems to be the efficiency of Terrans very molbile Tier 1. A Stim Marine & Maraduer army has such a easy abbility to kite a Entire protoss army.
Micro'd correctly and staying out of range of Sentries, Terran are given quite a advantage early game. Because of this, Terran are able to apply pressure, potentionally kill a entire protoss base/army and expand at the same time with a 2 rax build. Because of this, Protoss have
been veto'ing certain maps so that they can get easy Turtling maps. Such as Steps of War (as day9 and gretorp pointed out on Day 9 Dailey 19....3 i beleive?) Protoss turtle because early game, there isn't much they can do without some sort of all-in play or at the very least
something that sets you up for a horrible economy later, Protoss turtle so that they can last to the later stages of the game where the tables turn and the Advantage goes in the Protoss favor. Late Game, Terran seem to have no answer to a Templar, Collosis, or Carrier tech. After you hit
that deadly number of templar or collosis. It becomes very hard for terran to win. However, as a Protoss player I would trade a early game, advantage for a late game one anyday.
Too Sum up, I am not entirely happy with how Blizzard is handling the Protoss vs Terran match-up. They just stated that they nerfed the voidray because Protoss were winning too much in the early league. Hopefully a thread like this will open their eyes a little to the real problem.
Comments?
Let us make sweeping generalizations based off of shaky theorycrafting and a pale imitation of deductive reasoning while forgoing any semblance of evidentiary support. Yeah... good way to kick of your TL.net posting
Sidenote: If the case you present is so weak that even Judge Judy would laugh you out of her court..... yeah:\
|
I actually agree with you a bit.
Before I played SC 2, I played a bit of DoW and enjoyed it. When I switched to SC 2 I felt the Protoss race appealed to me the most because of the warpgate system. Having the ability to warp units in anywhere given there is a pylon? My jaw dropped. That and collossus war of the worlds lazer guns pew pew. So my personal experience actually fits your theory. Not sure about others ofc but I find it likely that the same is true.
I think other things come into it, in terms of race selection.
New players might like Protoss because of shields, hi-tech weapons and walking lazers.
New players may not like the look of zerg and the thought of creep spreading can be daunting.
Also new players might want to learn something new because they completed the campaign.
|
If we are gonna use unproven but half-logical arguments you could as well say that protoss would be picked by newer players because they seem as the "coolest" race". (SUPER TECHNOLOGY NICE ALLIENZ WIT LAZ0R ZWORDZ?!)
Also I'd say protoss is way easier than other races at lower levels because they have so viable builds that works fine against all races and takes low skill to be able to do decently. First the uber new ones could start up with 2 gate zealot rushes (I got to platinum with this, even tho it was like my 5-10th matches in sc2 and I don't have to much rts experience) and then when they evolve they can start 4 gating which works fine for quite a while.
Meanwhile the other races quicker have to figure out different tactics against different teams.
|
Protoss is far from op. It's easily the most boring race atm as Blizzard seem to like removing most toss builds and openings. DT's? Nah. Voids? Nerf.
Muta ling is going to be the next thing people complain about.
It takes less skill to win with muta ling vs a t with thor marine or vs a toss with stalker zeal.
|
On October 17 2010 22:41 TheFinalWord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 22:30 Grend wrote:
Since I quit surfing TL.net all day long and started studying again I find threads like these terrible, as they try to make gigantic points and accusations based on next to no evidence and flimsy logic.
E- I agree. You make some random claim based on psycology and a few of your friends and saying that Blizzard doesn't account for it. Btw I play RTS's and I picked terran? I guess that counteracts your evidence.
well a statement like that i can just counter with IdrA started out in starcraft 2 as protoss... and then ahhh my evidence is back! However, Protoss and Terran are the most played races and its only logical that a lot of new players will play terran because it introduces them to the campaign. The Protoss players will win with a high % before they are upgraded to another division.
But from all the Warcraft 3 Players i've seen that switched over, a lot of them have chosen Protoss.
|
halucination is fine wtf are you talking about
|
On October 17 2010 22:39 TeWy wrote:
If you compare both Terran and Zerg overall players ratio, with their ratio at the TOP, you will notice that both of them are over-represented.
The "Zerg is weak" assertion is a myth invented by Zerg players who either are clear hypocrites or who don't understack jack shit about statistics and compare the ratio of Zerg players at the TOP without taking into account how many Zerg players they are on the server.
If for instance 20% of NZ players play Zerg and that they are 22% Zerg in the TOP 200, we can definitely conclude that the zerg race isn't weak, rather imba, get it ?
Protoss while having nearly as many players as Terrans on most servers are clearly under-represented at the TOP, at least everytime I checked the numbers.
This proofs that, despite being a very interisting race, it sucks balance-wise.
Um... source? You're also ignoring the fact that about 30% of all players should be playing Zerg, and that 20% or 22% shows that they are underpowered. All your statistic shows is that Zerg is more capable at higher levels of play than at lower levels of play.
|
I whole heartedly agree that at top levels, Terran is overpowered in TvP.
If you look at the best korean players for each time, you will clearly see that:
OGs: Top, Ensnare
Prime: Maka
TSL: Clide
are all beasts. Imagine how good Tester would be if he switched to Terran! I think that at lower levels of play (1800-2100 diamond) Protoss players are better, because the level of skill for Terrans is generally lower.
But for the higher level TvP, it's a lot easier for top level Terran to push the pressure and force the Protoss player to make mistakes.
|
Protoss hasn't been overnerfed. I believe they're just experimenting with VR damage for not the best reasons: low level solo play, and team play.
I skrim with nothing but dirty Terrans. Bio is strong but not impossible to beat. Most of the examples you gave didn't really address the fact that gateway wasn't effected and Nexus got a nice buff. And I never really used VRs much outside of the first nerf because by then Terran were used to dealing with Range 7 VRs and having stim with marines at the outset.
Although I'm only 1200ish I skrim with 1450-1750 friends a good bit who have even MORE leet friends. And if I ever went VRs vs them I'd have to win with it, and that's never a good situation to be in. Players at that level know bio is very strong vs protoss, it's just something you gotta learn to deal with.
I agree with you on some things, like Protoss being the easiest race, and the most micro oriented. However, as Josealtron stated, the zerg army is much more fragile and definitely takes a lot more attention and micro in certain instances.
For instance, you said 12 zeals = 40 lings. In certain cases the lings take more micro, in certain cases zealots do. If you get hit open field by the lings, you attack and scoot and hope you dont get surround so you put your back to something. But if you have Zealots at a ramp, guarding a choke, 12 zealots can easily take WEELL over 40 lings, and if someone forcefields said ramp zerg took a huge loss and took virtually nothing with it.
So, while I'm a protoss player, and think my race requires more micro (so bias), if I'm being objective they're just 2 different kinds of micro.
Protoss micro is more about control
Zerg micro is more about awareness
|
On October 17 2010 22:54 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 22:39 TeWy wrote:
If you compare both Terran and Zerg overall players ratio, with their ratio at the TOP, you will notice that both of them are over-represented.
The "Zerg is weak" assertion is a myth invented by Zerg players who either are clear hypocrites or who don't understack jack shit about statistics and compare the ratio of Zerg players at the TOP without taking into account how many Zerg players they are on the server.
If for instance 20% of NZ players play Zerg and that they are 22% Zerg in the TOP 200, we can definitely conclude that the zerg race isn't weak, rather imba, get it ?
Protoss while having nearly as many players as Terrans on most servers are clearly under-represented at the TOP, at least everytime I checked the numbers.
This proofs that, despite being a very interisting race, it sucks balance-wise. Um... source? You're also ignoring the fact that about 30% of all players should be playing Zerg, and that 20% or 22% shows that they are underpowered. All your statistic shows is that Zerg is more capable at higher levels of play than at lower levels of play.
So if 30% of all players arent playing zerg then zerg is UP ? LOL!
Dont confuse taste or preference with game balance...
|
Protoss are not OP. But they're really simple. Their macro is really easy. It's so easy to dump resources.. I actually think Zerg macro is quite simple also, not as simple as Protoss but simple. You have queens you inject lava, and that is how you dump all your resources. Not that different to building shit loads of warpgates and warping in 15 units every 40 seconds. As long as you keep up with lava production you can dump resources easy.
I think the difference between the two though are the units. Protoss have real clear indications of where to tech to HT deal with almost everything at late game. Collosi deals with any ground based bio at mid - game. Their units make them simple to play. I don't think their micro is even that intensive. Sentry micro takes a bit skill, but a part from senty what else is real micro intensive? Their unit composition? not really when you have units like Zealot which automatically have charge on auto cast and run up to tank dmg.
So yes they're not OP. When did anyone really say they were OP? I thoguht Terran was always regarded as the OP race at pro level. But Blizzard have to worry about equal distrubution of players through out all three races, not just race balance. They can't have one race being overpopulated because they're too appealing/simple.
|
On October 17 2010 22:54 Acritter wrote:
You're also ignoring the fact that about 30% of all players should be playing Zerg, and that 20% or 22% shows that they are underpowered.
20% Zerg players shows, that there are less Zerg players then Protoss/Terran. Everything else is an assumption you made.
Why is everyone ignoring the offical numbers? I mean
PvT: 49.6%
PvZ: 52.8%
TvZ: 49.6%
doesnt look to bad for any race. Protoss seems to be the strongest atm, but i am pretty sure thats because of all these proxy cannon rushes in PvZ.
Source
|
There is 0% factual evidence to back up your claims.
|
On October 17 2010 22:51 BetterFasterStronger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 22:41 TheFinalWord wrote:On October 17 2010 22:30 Grend wrote:
Since I quit surfing TL.net all day long and started studying again I find threads like these terrible, as they try to make gigantic points and accusations based on next to no evidence and flimsy logic.
E- I agree. You make some random claim based on psycology and a few of your friends and saying that Blizzard doesn't account for it. Btw I play RTS's and I picked terran? I guess that counteracts your evidence. well a statement like that i can just counter with IdrA started out in starcraft 2 as protoss... and then ahhh my evidence is back! However, Protoss and Terran are the most played races and its only logical that a lot of new players will play terran because it introduces them to the campaign. The Protoss players will win with a high % before they are upgraded to another division. But from all the Warcraft 3 Players i've seen that switched over, a lot of them have chosen Protoss.
Placement matches. That's really all I have to say to counter your argument, if they where better players they'd not start in the lower divisons. (For example I played wc3 a bit before sc2, but mostly wow, which doesn't help much with rts's. I started as random and I 5-0'd my first games and got to platinum, and I was only decent at wc3, and before my placements I only did like 3 1v1's vs friends and 3-4 team games.)
|
Russian Federation145 Posts
1. Where did you get the idea that more new players picked terran?
2. Where did you get the idea that protoss players are struggling against terrans?
3. Where did you get the idea that the zerg buffs were needed? Certainly not from the data I'm looking at and certainly not from GSL.
This is a veiled balance Q.Q thread that basically says T>P isn't it?
|
On October 17 2010 23:14 TheDrill wrote:
1. Where did you get the idea that more new players picked terran?
2. Where did you get the idea that protoss players are struggling against terrans?
3. Where did you get the idea that the zerg buffs were needed? Certainly not from the data I'm looking at and certainly not from GSL.
This is a veiled balance Q.Q thread that basically says T>P isn't it?
... zerg buffs weren't needed? Just because Cool completely out played a bunch of terran's doesn't all of a sudden mean Zerg is fixed. I Stated taht Terran and Protoss both have advantages and disadvantages going into the match-up. Stating fact that is nearly worldwide agreed upon that Terran is favored early game is not QQ.
Take your flame else where.
|
I wasn't aware there was an illusion that Protoss was OP?
Certainly there's a broad generalization that is easier to get good with Protoss, since the mechanics of the race are so solid and basic. However, relatively easy to grasp mechanics leading to wins at lower leagues =/= a race is OP.
I'm fairly certain that if no changes are made to the game for the rest of its life (hypothetical) Zerg will be regarded as the strongest race within a year or two, with Terran next, and Protoss the weakest. This last part is just conjecture tho, who the fuck really knows.
|
OP has no idea what he's talking about.
Did u even played anything beside protoss ?
What vOddy (top200 US zerg) said about protoss:
I can't believe how fucking easy this race is. I'm a Zerg player, and I decided to offrace Protoss for the lulz. Guess what happens? From 1600 points to 1700. LOL. I am not a P player, so why am I not getting my ass kicked?
When I switched from Terran to Zerg I lost 150 points and my win % dropped to 50%. Now that I am playing Protoss it's as if I had always been playing them.
If you are a Protoss player, you have no fucking idea how spoiled you are. StarCraft 2 is a much harder game than you know.
Here's whole thread from GR.org:
http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=680617
|
On October 17 2010 23:03 toadstool wrote:
I whole heartedly agree that at top levels, Terran is overpowered in TvP.
If you look at the best korean players for each time, you will clearly see that:
OGs: Top, Ensnare
Prime: Maka
TSL: Clide
are all beasts. Imagine how good Tester would be if he switched to Terran! I think that at lower levels of play (1800-2100 diamond) Protoss players are better, because the level of skill for Terrans is generally lower.
But for the higher level TvP, it's a lot easier for top level Terran to push the pressure and force the Protoss player to make mistakes.
Ummm. You do know that it's actually a matter of T MUST do heavy economic damage to P or they will lose? P >>> T in mid-late -> late game.
|
I find that it is interesting with all my friends that play that are new to starcraft in general, 8 of 10 religiously only play Terran and don't even try other races. (and they are terrible)
|
On October 17 2010 23:08 Grummler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 22:54 Acritter wrote:
You're also ignoring the fact that about 30% of all players should be playing Zerg, and that 20% or 22% shows that they are underpowered. 20% Zerg players shows, that there are less Zerg players then Protoss/Terran. Everything else is an assumption you made. Why is everyone ignoring the offical numbers? I mean PvT: 49.6% PvZ: 52.8% TvZ: 49.6% doesnt look to bad for any race. Protoss seems to be the strongest atm, but i am pretty sure thats because of all these proxy cannon rushes in PvZ. Source
And why are there less zerg players? Why does zerg have to work twice as much to be just as effective as P or T? Has anyone here thought that there are less zerg players because of the mechanically demanding skills to win as zerg?
|
On October 17 2010 23:27 agtemd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 23:08 Grummler wrote:On October 17 2010 22:54 Acritter wrote:
You're also ignoring the fact that about 30% of all players should be playing Zerg, and that 20% or 22% shows that they are underpowered. 20% Zerg players shows, that there are less Zerg players then Protoss/Terran. Everything else is an assumption you made. Why is everyone ignoring the offical numbers? I mean PvT: 49.6% PvZ: 52.8% TvZ: 49.6% doesnt look to bad for any race. Protoss seems to be the strongest atm, but i am pretty sure thats because of all these proxy cannon rushes in PvZ. Source And why are there less zerg players? Why does zerg have to work twice as much to be just as effective as P or T? Has anyone here thought that there are less zerg players because of the mechanically demanding skills to win as zerg?
I dont think theres anyone outthere who doesnt agree with this. zerg needs more macro mechanics to play on the same level as a P/T player.
|
I took a break from starcraft for a couple weeks, so let me ask the question here: do we know where these numbers come from? They say they made some adjustments to take player skills into account, what is that supposed to mean?
Sorry for derailing this topic a little; my random idea for PvT balance: slower, more expensive T infantry upgrades.
|
I agree with your post, at least most of it. But I have to say as a Protoss Player, the biggest reason for those skewed statistics in the lower leagues is 4gate. It requires a decent player to stop a 4gate, but I could learn my mom to 4gate to Platinum. But yeah it sucks being toss these days, there is simply no safe way to FE.
|
On October 17 2010 23:08 Grummler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 22:54 Acritter wrote:
You're also ignoring the fact that about 30% of all players should be playing Zerg, and that 20% or 22% shows that they are underpowered. 20% Zerg players shows, that there are less Zerg players then Protoss/Terran. Everything else is an assumption you made. Why is everyone ignoring the offical numbers? I mean PvT: 49.6% PvZ: 52.8% TvZ: 49.6% doesnt look to bad for any race. Protoss seems to be the strongest atm, but i am pretty sure thats because of all these proxy cannon rushes in PvZ. Source
The only effective statistical method to proof whether a race is imba or not, is to compare the overall ratio at {all levels} and/or {platinum-diamond} ... with their ratio at the TOP.
The MU statistics of a whole division makes no sense whatsoever and no knowledge can be extracted from them for obvious reasons. The difference of skill between a low level diamond player such as myself who play 3 games.week and someone as Idra is vast to say the least, and by far superior to the one between a silver and gold player for instance.
|
On October 17 2010 23:22 Thunderfist wrote:OP has no idea what he's talking about. Did u even played anything beside protoss ? What vOddy (top200 US zerg) said about protoss: Show nested quote +I can't believe how fucking easy this race is. I'm a Zerg player, and I decided to offrace Protoss for the lulz. Guess what happens? From 1600 points to 1700. LOL. I am not a P player, so why am I not getting my ass kicked?
When I switched from Terran to Zerg I lost 150 points and my win % dropped to 50%. Now that I am playing Protoss it's as if I had always been playing them.
If you are a Protoss player, you have no fucking idea how spoiled you are. StarCraft 2 is a much harder game than you know.
Here's whole thread from GR.org: http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=680617
Well that's official. There's a single no name American Zerg who won a few matches on ladder with Protoss. Easiest race in the game, DISCOVERED!
The whole debate is stupid.
So Protoss = Easy to be decent at =/= Easy =/= OP.
Ya dig?
|
Dominican Republic463 Posts
On October 17 2010 22:39 TeWy wrote:
If you compare both Terran and Zerg overall players ratio, with their ratio at the TOP, you will notice that both of them are over-represented.
The "Zerg is weak" assertion is a myth invented by Zerg players who either are clear hypocrites or who don't understack jack shit about statistics and compare the ratio of Zerg players at the TOP without taking into account how many Zerg players they are on the server.
If for instance 20% of NZ players play Zerg and that they are 22% Zerg in the TOP 200, we can definitely conclude that the zerg race isn't weak, rather imba, get it ?
Protoss while having nearly as many players as Terrans on most servers are clearly under-represented at the TOP, at least everytime I checked the numbers.
This proofs that, despite being a very interisting race, it sucks balance-wise.
Terran is under-represented at the top lvl of play? Really?
|
Dominican Republic463 Posts
On October 17 2010 23:14 TheDrill wrote:
1. Where did you get the idea that more new players picked terran?
2. Where did you get the idea that protoss players are struggling against terrans?
3. Where did you get the idea that the zerg buffs were needed? Certainly not from the data I'm looking at and certainly not from GSL.
This is a veiled balance Q.Q thread that basically says T>P isn't it?
Yes from the GSL check the MU % from zerg they are abysmally low, only 1 zerg made it through the Ro32 and they were little zergs to begin with and won, everything else was P and T. Fuck you guys on? Jesus
Truth be told the points made by the OP arent valid.
|
most of your assumptions are based on hunch...
|
On October 17 2010 23:37 TeWy wrote:
The only effective statistical method to proof whether a race is imba or not, is to compare the overall ratio at {all levels} and/or {platinum-diamond} ... with their ratio at the TOP.
Why? Plz stop making things up.
On October 17 2010 23:37 TeWy wrote:
The MU statistics of a whole division makes no sense whatsoever and no knowledge can be extracted from them for obvious reasons.
Well, first of all these numbers are from a whole league not division. And then your statement is completly wrong. PLEASE tell me these obvious reasons. And you should write Blizzard an email, because they seem to make the same mistake as me posting these numbers on their offical newssite talking about balance.
|
ah, another wow fanboy QQ'ing... It's fine L2P 
all your claims are based on fiction and your own imagination. Fail post..
Really.. play more games. And if you're not happy with your race, just switch...
|
On October 17 2010 22:50 Tone_ wrote:
Protoss is far from op. It's easily the most boring race atm as Blizzard seem to like removing most toss builds and openings. DT's? Nah. Voids? Nerf.
Muta ling is going to be the next thing people complain about.
It takes less skill to win with muta ling vs a t with thor marine or vs a toss with stalker zeal.
Wtf are you talking about? Clump up mutas against a thor and they evaporate in seconds. The terran only has to stim/kite away from banelings which is not all that hard unless they get fungal growthed by an 80 hp unit the zerg has to micro into place.
|
On October 17 2010 23:42 ichangedmyname wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 23:22 Thunderfist wrote:OP has no idea what he's talking about. Did u even played anything beside protoss ? What vOddy (top200 US zerg) said about protoss: I can't believe how fucking easy this race is. I'm a Zerg player, and I decided to offrace Protoss for the lulz. Guess what happens? From 1600 points to 1700. LOL. I am not a P player, so why am I not getting my ass kicked?
When I switched from Terran to Zerg I lost 150 points and my win % dropped to 50%. Now that I am playing Protoss it's as if I had always been playing them.
If you are a Protoss player, you have no fucking idea how spoiled you are. StarCraft 2 is a much harder game than you know.
Here's whole thread from GR.org: http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=680617 Well that's official. There's a single no name American Zerg who won a few matches on ladder with Protoss. Easiest race in the game, DISCOVERED! The whole debate is stupid. So Protoss = Easy to be decent at =/= Easy =/= OP. Ya dig?
How do i not know what I'm talking about... i said protoss mechanics were easier to understand.
However that zerg is still a idiot. Protoss players who switch to terran say the exact same thing...
|
On October 17 2010 23:48 ozzymoto wrote:ah, another wow fanboy QQ'ing... It's fine L2P all your claims are based on fiction and your own imagination. Fail post.. Really.. play more games. And if you're not happy with your race, just switch...
I'm a 1800 Pt Diamond Protoss With 1,000 games played,
I've also never played WoW, the warcraft refrence i made was Wc3 tft.
Also there is a reason i kept Zerg out of this post, a lot of you are comparing Z to P
I mearly brought up Zerg just because that was where blizzard's attention was at the moment. With the recent patch's I think its still too early to analyze Z v P, at least from our point of view. Only IdrA, CooL, Tester and people of that level can really be the only ones that can comment on it.
|
I've played a bunch of toss at a diamond level and all I ca say is that at 1300~diamond toss is easier than terran except for terrans who dropship harass which is ridiculously good. And versus Zerg i think it's pretty balanced I'd favor zerg until late game and toss in late game. The lings are just incredible vs toss early if you get enough out and he hasn't build a tight as wall they can wreck the game. This is quite easy to get around though but mutas are even worse muta harass is pretty damn efficent versus toss. At a high level where people handle drops better though I'd say toss is really strong. It's pretty much the strength of the marauder that makes the terran a bit favored vs toss.
And zergs I think it's the most balanced matchup but as I said zerg is stronger early and toss gets stronger throughout the game.
|
On October 17 2010 23:50 Ryalnos wrote:
Wtf are you talking about? Clump up mutas against a thor and they evaporate in seconds. The terran only has to stim/kite away from banelings which is not all that hard unless they get fungal growthed by an 80 hp unit the zerg has to micro into place.
I really had to laugh out loud as i read this. So, if the zerg makes a mistake and clumps its mutas, they die faster. Thats true.
But with marines, which clump much easier than mutas AND die faster to banelings, the terran ONLY needs to stim and run, avoid infestors and find a way to not lose all units left behind to lings/mutas.
Of course thats much easier than hold position over thors and a-move with banelings.
|
Cannon rushing works hard on low levels...
|
On October 17 2010 23:51 BetterFasterStronger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 23:42 ichangedmyname wrote:On October 17 2010 23:22 Thunderfist wrote:OP has no idea what he's talking about. Did u even played anything beside protoss ? What vOddy (top200 US zerg) said about protoss: I can't believe how fucking easy this race is. I'm a Zerg player, and I decided to offrace Protoss for the lulz. Guess what happens? From 1600 points to 1700. LOL. I am not a P player, so why am I not getting my ass kicked?
When I switched from Terran to Zerg I lost 150 points and my win % dropped to 50%. Now that I am playing Protoss it's as if I had always been playing them.
If you are a Protoss player, you have no fucking idea how spoiled you are. StarCraft 2 is a much harder game than you know.
Here's whole thread from GR.org: http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=680617 Well that's official. There's a single no name American Zerg who won a few matches on ladder with Protoss. Easiest race in the game, DISCOVERED! The whole debate is stupid. So Protoss = Easy to be decent at =/= Easy =/= OP. Ya dig? How do i not know what I'm talking about... i said protoss mechanics were easier to understand. However that zerg is still a idiot. Protoss players who switch to terran say the exact same thing...
One player can say anything they want. I swapped races with a Z friend (both 1600+) and beat him with mutaling, then won playing Z against their T. What of it? Does that mean Z mechanics are the easiest?
Way too much assumption and theorycraft here.
|
Top 50 Orc player on WC3 USEast. Went Terran in SC2.
fuck the haters
|
On October 18 2010 00:02 Grummler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 23:50 Ryalnos wrote:
Wtf are you talking about? Clump up mutas against a thor and they evaporate in seconds. The terran only has to stim/kite away from banelings which is not all that hard unless they get fungal growthed by an 80 hp unit the zerg has to micro into place.
I really had to laugh out loud as i read this. So, if the zerg makes a mistake and clumps its mutas, they die faster. Thats true. But with marines, which clump much easier than mutas AND die faster to banelings, the terran ONLY needs to stim and run, avoid infestors and find a way to not lose all units left behind to lings/mutas. Of course thats much easier than hold position over thors and a-move with banelings.
Dunno i found zerg micro hardest of all races. Those who say zerg just a-moves and wins with superior amount of units never played zerg.
|
On October 17 2010 22:50 Tone_ wrote:It takes less skill to win with muta ling vs a t with thor marine or vs a toss with stalker zeal.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh wow, that's the most hilarious thing I've heard all week. Almost spit up my drink laughing.
|
On October 17 2010 23:27 agtemd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 23:08 Grummler wrote:On October 17 2010 22:54 Acritter wrote:
You're also ignoring the fact that about 30% of all players should be playing Zerg, and that 20% or 22% shows that they are underpowered. 20% Zerg players shows, that there are less Zerg players then Protoss/Terran. Everything else is an assumption you made. Why is everyone ignoring the offical numbers? I mean PvT: 49.6% PvZ: 52.8% TvZ: 49.6% doesnt look to bad for any race. Protoss seems to be the strongest atm, but i am pretty sure thats because of all these proxy cannon rushes in PvZ. Source And why are there less zerg players? Why does zerg have to work twice as much to be just as effective as P or T? Has anyone here thought that there are less zerg players because of the mechanically demanding skills to win as zerg?
Uh oh, one race is harder to play than the other.
Just in case you weren't around for BW, this is how it was in BW as well. T was much more mechanically demanding than either P or Z at the lower levels. You can't make three distinct and unique races without there being some kind of gap in what skills are required to effectively play as that race. It's simply unreasonable to expect otherwise.
|
It's a decent read and there are a couple of good points.....BUT u lack good evidence and the fact that you're basically talking a lot about lower level play just makes this argument useless. The game is balanced around high level play because that's where the true potential of each race is shown.
|
On October 18 2010 00:35 EliteAzn wrote:
It's a decent read and there are a couple of good points.....BUT u lack good evidence and the fact that you're basically talking a lot about lower level play just makes this argument useless. The game is balanced around high level play because that's where the true potential of each race is shown.
Actually blizzard said the Voidray nerf was because Protoss were winning to much in the lower leagues. This thread is just in response to that.
|
On October 17 2010 23:48 Grummler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 23:37 TeWy wrote:
The only effective statistical method to proof whether a race is imba or not, is to compare the overall ratio at {all levels} and/or {platinum-diamond} ... with their ratio at the TOP.
Why? Plz stop making things up. Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 23:37 TeWy wrote:
The MU statistics of a whole division makes no sense whatsoever and no knowledge can be extracted from them for obvious reasons. Well, first of all these numbers are from a whole league not division. And then your statement is completly wrong. PLEASE tell me these obvious reasons. And you should write Blizzard an email, because they seem to make the same mistake as me posting these numbers on their offical newssite talking about balance.
I wouldn't waste my time explaining complex statistical methods to people who don't seem to understand the necessity to take into account the overall race's ratio at different division/league instead of simply counting how many X are on the TOP ? and comparing it with other races.
It is obvious if you have a decent mathematical intuition.
And I explained in the second part of my message (that you just cut for some reasons) why it was stupid to believe that the MU statistics of a given league is not meaningless in terms of balance.
|
Hungary11279 Posts
This is like community / accessibility theory crafting. Closing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
