|
On August 20 2012 09:41 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 09:38 Zanno wrote:
why do you try taking a look at the winrates of foreign terrans and see how that's going If you read my post, that was not actually the point of it at all. I was never saying that zerg wasnt favored vs terran. I was saying that these players arent where they are because of it. Please read all of the OP. It's even bolded.
He means do it vice versa. You can compare the relative jumps to the relative decreases for a better more accurate representation imo.
At least thats what i think he means. I honestly would love to see 2 established/2new of each race, before and after. And then compare all 3.
Im guess im just curious about ALL the data :/
|
|
|
On August 20 2012 09:45 ohampatu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 09:41 nkr wrote:On August 20 2012 09:38 Zanno wrote:
why do you try taking a look at the winrates of foreign terrans and see how that's going If you read my post, that was not actually the point of it at all. I was never saying that zerg wasnt favored vs terran. I was saying that these players arent where they are because of it. Please read all of the OP. It's even bolded. He means do it vice versa. You can compare the relative jumps to the relative decreases for a better more accurate representation imo. At least thats what i think he means. I honestly would love to see 2 established/2new of each race, before and after. And then compare all 3. Im guess im just curious about ALL the data :/
I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Do you mean taking three terrans that were not top before the patch, and look at stats to see how they didn't get better?
The point here is not about zerg or terran as a race, but rather about specific players and if they got better or are winning because of zergs buff vs T.
|
haha when i first saw the term patchzerg i thought it was some initiative to fix zerg or something
|
On August 20 2012 09:46 TargA wrote:
real
damn you 
|
On August 20 2012 09:47 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 09:45 ohampatu wrote:On August 20 2012 09:41 nkr wrote:On August 20 2012 09:38 Zanno wrote:
why do you try taking a look at the winrates of foreign terrans and see how that's going If you read my post, that was not actually the point of it at all. I was never saying that zerg wasnt favored vs terran. I was saying that these players arent where they are because of it. Please read all of the OP. It's even bolded. He means do it vice versa. You can compare the relative jumps to the relative decreases for a better more accurate representation imo. At least thats what i think he means. I honestly would love to see 2 established/2new of each race, before and after. And then compare all 3. Im guess im just curious about ALL the data :/ I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Do you mean taking three terrans that were not top before the patch, and look at stats to see how they didn't get better?
he means take two already successful zergs (stephano and nerchio maybe?)
|
On August 20 2012 09:49 sertman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 09:47 nkr wrote:On August 20 2012 09:45 ohampatu wrote:On August 20 2012 09:41 nkr wrote:On August 20 2012 09:38 Zanno wrote:
why do you try taking a look at the winrates of foreign terrans and see how that's going If you read my post, that was not actually the point of it at all. I was never saying that zerg wasnt favored vs terran. I was saying that these players arent where they are because of it. Please read all of the OP. It's even bolded. He means do it vice versa. You can compare the relative jumps to the relative decreases for a better more accurate representation imo. At least thats what i think he means. I honestly would love to see 2 established/2new of each race, before and after. And then compare all 3. Im guess im just curious about ALL the data :/ I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Do you mean taking three terrans that were not top before the patch, and look at stats to see how they didn't get better? he means take two already successful zergs (stephano and nerchio maybe?)
I don't see how the statistics of nercho and stephano are useful in seeing the improvement of these three players. If you do the statistics and explain it, I'll add it to the OP.
|
France12911 Posts
Weren't most european zergs already patch zergs after the ghost nerf?
I mean I remember Stephano already crushing terrans easily but that's around that patch that foreign terrans started to get raped weren't they?
|
You need to look at who they're beating, not winrates. They've gotten so good so fast that pre patch they weren't playing big slam events. Now that they are, and suddenly they're doing better compared to what they did in online cups. They exist!
Note: does not mean I want a Z nerf or T/P buff.
|
On August 20 2012 09:52 Poopi wrote:
Weren't most european zergs already patch zergs after the ghost buff?
I mean I remember Stephano already crushing terrans easily but that's around that patch that foreign terrans started to get raped weren't they?
After the ghost nerf, ZvT was by most considered somewhat balanced I think, and also the most entertaining matchup. After the queen buff is when all the cries for imbalance really got going. I can't remember people crediting the success of new zergs to the patch at that time
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
I dislike the new gamer mentality that is flowing around the past several years. Sure, there have always been present in some games, but when I played early MMORPG games, everyone was just plain friendly, even the "big shots", if anyone played DAoC and remembers Darrgen, Lagged Again, The Nameless Ones etc etc. All were actually pretty nice to their opponents. But MMORPG world aside, Warcraft III and Starcraft I were not plagued by these sudden trolls that start to resemble League of Legends of community, which is pretty abysmal.
Several games today, I've ran into Terrans and Protoss that really got outplayed by me (I am not bragging here) and I won fair and square, yet all they did was just trash-talk about how Zerg is imbalanced, it is easy-mode to play it and whatnot. I never blame anyone else other than myself for losing a game, because there is ALWAYS a way to win, if I haven't found it, it is my bad. But if the community does not shift somewhat, e-sports is not a good place to be if anything serious wants to be founded here.
Due to my time on the "internets", I started ignoring such people, this patch made it only easier for Zergs to defend the dreaded Hellion harass, and guess what, Terrans have already figured out a new strat, add Banshees to the mix. I still have difficulty defending it as easy as pros do, but one slip can cost you your early game (today, I lost a game where the opponent was just shutting my Queens down, over time, I had 3k+ minerals and no larvae to spend them on). This was also seen in a pro game, can't remember which one, but the Terran player simply sniped off all Queens and Zerg was left with a bunch of resources he can't spend (50 second Queen build time and 40 seconds for 4 Larvae adds up quickly).
If Zergs had that big of a advantage against Terran opponents, Zerg would be winning everything, which isn't the case.
I do not want to turn this into another "omg Brood Lord OP, omg use Ravens, omg Supply Depot op, omg Overlord imbalanced" and shit like that. Just, for people that are reading this, if you spread and present the community in a troll-sense, the rest will follow. Just played a LoL game in which I was carrying my team with Master Yi (grew tired of playing supports, which I normally play), and when the other team finally got a kill on me almost everyone started spamming "LOL NOOB FUCK YOUR MOTHER IDIOT SHIT CUNT" etc etc. Just don't present SC2 community in such a way to the newcomers, it will pain me to see that his community degrades into what LoL community is (taking LoL as an example, as these two are major e-sports games).
On other note, should we be naming all the Terrans that were successful at the beginning "poor design Terrans, op Terrans, imba Terrans, pre-patched Terrans" etc? Or should we label all former successful Protoss players as "4gate toss players"?
Meh, this will probably turn into another flame war.
|
On August 20 2012 09:33 Swords wrote:
Before I write my response, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to pass judgement on any of these players. I don't think it's fair to deem them "patch-zergs" until we see how they continue to do as the game develops. It's very clear to me that all three are talented and there's a strong chance they'll be around for a long time.
However, I do want to point out that the patch change to me seems to have effected ZvZ a great deal in that it favors more defensive minded players. With longer ranged queens it became much easier to defend against ling/bane all ins that previously required insane micro and lots of intense back and forth in the early game. The numbers from Vortix and Slivko ZvZs show that both are more defensive minded players and the Queen range did benefit their mirror match. Whether or not that actually means anything is up for debate. It could signify they are less skilled at early game multitasking, or it could simply suggest they are great at defensive minded play and adding queen range finally gave them the weapon they needed to improve.
OP's post doesn't take this into consideration and it's extremely important. I don't know how it got skimmed over and not replied to. ZvZ was changed by the patch.
|
I'm confused. You show giant increases in their ZvT performance and then say they are not patchzergs.
|
On August 20 2012 09:47 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 09:45 ohampatu wrote:On August 20 2012 09:41 nkr wrote:On August 20 2012 09:38 Zanno wrote:
why do you try taking a look at the winrates of foreign terrans and see how that's going If you read my post, that was not actually the point of it at all. I was never saying that zerg wasnt favored vs terran. I was saying that these players arent where they are because of it. Please read all of the OP. It's even bolded. He means do it vice versa. You can compare the relative jumps to the relative decreases for a better more accurate representation imo. At least thats what i think he means. I honestly would love to see 2 established/2new of each race, before and after. And then compare all 3. Im guess im just curious about ALL the data :/ I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Do you mean taking three terrans that were not top before the patch, and look at stats to see how they didn't get better? The point here is not about zerg or terran as a race, but rather about specific players and if they got better or are winning because of zergs buff vs T.
Your not understanding. I mean theres an easier way to find out whether or not zergs are winning because of the buff. Take your 4 zergs (or however many patchzergs people think they are), and match it up vs the same stats for Terran. You can look at both of the races to see how far zerg increased, and how far some of the terrans decreased. It gives a more accurate result imo. Seeing how far the terrans decreased in zvt is just as good seeing how high zergs increased in zvt. The first may not show you who patchzergs are, but it will give evidence as to whether or not patchzerg is even real.
On August 20 2012 09:56 SolidMoose wrote:
I'm confused. You show giant increases in their ZvT performance and then say they are not patchzergs.
The basis of his argument is that there zvz stats should have decreased if they were patchzergs. Which i dont neccesarilly agree with, because the queen change did change zvz balance. Yes its balanced, but it still makes it easier earlygame, which could mean the zergs are getting an easier ride to lategame where they can evidently win easier against better opponents. At least thats how im seeing the arguments pan out in the LR threads
|
they are true, most of the winning KesPa players in WCS are Zergs, maybe they should also be included in patchzergs. Also, you should also come up with a name for the Terrans who were strong at the beginning, but faded after they got balanced, like PrePatchTerrans or something
|
On August 20 2012 09:46 TargA wrote:
real
real
|
Indeed, their presence can no longer go unnoticed. Over the last three months, sightings of these patchzergs have become commonplace worldwide, with the highest concentrations seemingly in Europe. Environmentalists are concerned about the impact of this invasive species on the ecosystems they now inhabit, as preliminary studies have already shown a decrease in the populations of several local fauna. Though the cause of this has not been conclusively proven to be the arrival of the patchzerg, the correlative nature of the two events has merited further study.
|
Canada4020 Posts
uhh wtf is with those bans on the first page? They didnt say anything out of line -_- I think this post is a bit silly personally. I havnt seen any commentary calling them patch zergs so if anything this will only make it more prominent. It is a small sample size also. These zergs might have just opened themselves up to new strategies. You could probably find zergs doing worse since the patch also and call them antipatch zergs.
|
On August 20 2012 09:57 ohampatu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 09:47 nkr wrote:On August 20 2012 09:45 ohampatu wrote:On August 20 2012 09:41 nkr wrote:On August 20 2012 09:38 Zanno wrote:
why do you try taking a look at the winrates of foreign terrans and see how that's going If you read my post, that was not actually the point of it at all. I was never saying that zerg wasnt favored vs terran. I was saying that these players arent where they are because of it. Please read all of the OP. It's even bolded. He means do it vice versa. You can compare the relative jumps to the relative decreases for a better more accurate representation imo. At least thats what i think he means. I honestly would love to see 2 established/2new of each race, before and after. And then compare all 3. Im guess im just curious about ALL the data :/ I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Do you mean taking three terrans that were not top before the patch, and look at stats to see how they didn't get better? The point here is not about zerg or terran as a race, but rather about specific players and if they got better or are winning because of zergs buff vs T. Your not understanding. I mean theres an easier way to find out whether or not zergs are winning because of the buff. Take your 4 zergs (or however many patchzergs people think they are), and match it up vs the same stats for Terran. You can look at both of the races to see how far zerg increased, and how far some of the terrans decreased. It gives a more accurate result imo. Seeing how far the terrans decreased in zvt is just as good seeing how high zergs increased in zvt. The first may not show you who patchzergs are, but it will give evidence as to whether or not patchzerg is even real.
I don't really agree that is has any relevance here. All it will show is that terran has been doing worse versus zerg since the patch, which is not something that I was even questioning.
|
your analysis on ZvZ does NOT apply. ling/baneling became much weaker in the early game due to queen change. some zerg players may be better than ling/bling micro than others
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
