|
Besides the fact that OP's sample sizes and general methodology are a slap in the face to statistics, I really don't get the logic behind this:
Axiom: If the last balance update in truth is the reason these zergs made it to the top, one would assume high winrates in especially TvZ and possibly PvZ (some would argue that the overlord change made it easier for zerg to be greedy in this matchup as well) while their ZvZ winrates dropped off.
This is just... so wrong. I'm not arguing that the patchzerg phenomenon is real or not real or what have you. But it just seems completely counterintuitive to me to think that because Zerg is stronger... we expect to find decreased ZvZ win rates...ZvZ winrates should remain steady. Unless you mean that the weaker zergs will rise up and face stronger zergs than they would have ordinarily faced.. but in order to argue that point you have to show in your sampling that these suspected patch zergs did indeed face a stronger calibre of zerg with more success than previously. Which you make no attempt to do.
|
I honestly don't think that there are that many people who are winning all of a sudden due to the direct effects of the patch.
In order to hang with the very best, you can't just have the advantages conferred by the patch, although they are significant. SC2 may not be Broodwar, but there are minute differences between merely top players and the very best, differences that end up being very significant in terms of how the game plays out. I would say there are many other factors that help lower ranked zergs do well against tougher opponents, such as mentality shifts caused by the imbalance in ZvT, or just plain bad games, which many people seem to disregard as a factor entirely these days.
If there's one thing I know for a fact on this issue, though, it's that we really can't name people who are succeeding solely because of the patch. I've seen one too many meteoric rises to glory to just point my finger at someone doing good suddenly and calling him a "patchzerg", something that is a pretty big insult, might I add.
|
On August 20 2012 11:04 hasuterrans wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 11:03 AngryMag wrote:On August 20 2012 11:02 hasuterrans wrote:On August 20 2012 11:00 AngryMag wrote:
read on TL long before I finally registered. This is the first time in this community that a bunch of new and upcoming players get insulted and belittled for actually being succesful. A real lowpoint for this community, everybody who shouts "patchzerg" should rather work on his own play and not belittling others. This is definitely not the first time. you had individual players insulted (Cruncher for example), but you had never a whole bunch of newcomers belittled because of the race they happen to play. Terran users in 2010.
nah back then Terran was the OP race, Toss the noob race and Zerg the no micro race, but this had a much more humourous character. Morrow got some flak for abusing reapers. But be honest to yourself:
Would have a sentence like "All these Koreans (early GSL's) are only succesful because they play the OP race gotten so much attention and acceptance?. I don't think so, seriously, especially with Gorilla Terran beasting it up in GSL.
|
This thread will never get anywhere.
On one side, you have the fans of the patch Zergs (ie. Europeans who are supporting their homegrown talent), getting offended because they think the term 'patch Zerg' implies that the players they support are seeing success only because of the patch, and nothing else. That's absurd, but what's more absurd is the fact that these supporters refuse to acknowledge that the patch definitely helped in their success.
On the other side, you have the haters of the patch Zergs (ie. Terrans, probably), hating on rising stars such as JRecco and Vortix because the players they've supported for years now (Supernova, ForGG, Naniwa, etc) are falling to them left and right - while several established pro-gamers have come out saying Zerg is OP.
You'll never come to a valid conclusion until both sides see the truths in their words.
Final thing, I have no idea why the OP chose to use the "statistics" that he did; not only is the sample size ineffective, the data doesn't really say anything solid. It doesn't consider several factors, such as their opponents not knowing who the hell they are, or how their Zerg counterparts that aren't seeing success play the race differently in a way that the patch hasn't really elevated them.
The fact that these guys have only recently splashed on the scene means your data pool will be much smaller, but that doesn't mean you can't extrapolate. This is on Day9's channel:
Vortix vs Supernova (Group D)
Game 1 - Ohana - Wins with Broodlords (25:40)
Game 2 - Daybreak - Loses with Broodlords to Mech [Thor,Viking,Raven] (31:13)
Game 3 - Entombed - Loses with T1/Infestors to Bio (19:10)
VortiX vs ForGG (RO16)
Game 1 - Ohana - Wins with Broodlords (25:50)
Game 2 - Daybreak - Wins with T1/Mutalisks to Bio (16:19)
Game 3 - Cloud Kingdom - Wins with Broodlords (23:67)
Vortix vs Supernova (Quarterfinals)
Game 1 - Entombed - Loses with Broodlords to Mech [Thor,Hellion,Raven] (23:25)
Game 2 - Ohana - Wins with Broodlords (21:45)
Game 3 - Cloud Kingdom - Loses with T1/Mutalisks to Bio [with Tanks] (14:52)
Game 4 - Metropolis - Wins with Broodlords (32:29)
Game 5 - Antiga - Wins with Broodlords (36:58)
Vortix vs Mvp (Semifinals)
Game 1 - Ohana - Loses with Broodlords to Mech [Thor,Viking,Tank] (28:42)
Game 2 - Antiga - Loses with Ultra/Infestor/Bling to Bio [with Tanks] (20:10)
Game 3 - Daybreak - Wins with T1/Mutalisks to Bio [with Tanks] (15:59)
Game 4 - Cloud Kingdom - Loses with Broodlords to Bio [with Vikings] (25:53)
|
i think that what happened is these guys saw that zvt was their weaker matchup and they practice this matchup hardcore to get better...thats what the pros do right? practice their weaker matchup until its their strongest?
|
Idk, maybe they just figured out the game, or maybe they are able to commit more time to it. I feel like the community doesn't know that much about the players you listed. But why would zergs such as an Idra not have success then, if the patch suddenly made zergs who we never heard of before win?
|
On August 20 2012 11:03 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 11:02 hasuterrans wrote:On August 20 2012 11:00 AngryMag wrote:
read on TL long before I finally registered. This is the first time in this community that a bunch of new and upcoming players get insulted and belittled for actually being succesful. A real lowpoint for this community, everybody who shouts "patchzerg" should rather work on his own play and not belittling others. This is definitely not the first time. you had individual players insulted (Cruncher for example), but you had never a whole bunch of newcomers belittled because of the race they happen to play.
How's Cruncher doing nowadays?
|
On August 20 2012 09:27 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 09:27 See.Blue wrote:
Post sample sizes or this is meaningless (hint: its likely meaningless). The sample sizes are in the post if you actually bothered reading it. I can't believe you just actually posted this.
I read through the post, your "sample sizes" are the problem. At best this would be called a case study, but it's not nearly indepth enough to actually understand any change in their results. Pulling 3 zergs out of the thousands of play and examining their win rates says nothing. There could be an extreme effect and they'd all have mitigating variables, all this is is speculation albeit not very good.
Your axiom also is false, there's not necessarily any reason a buff to zergs would negatively effect the zvz match up. Undoubtedly it would cause changes, despite what you say, but it in no ways implies that they would all go lower.
TL;DR: Observational attempts won't ever really prove anything, and while I understand people's wants to analyze stuff like the effects of patch 1.4.3 It's dam near impossible to do so at the moment because of the situation short of full blown experiments constraining extraneous variables. What appears as imbalance temporarily may be a weakness later as strategies evolve, it's anyone's guess, but just that, a guess.
|
I think it's about time TL puts a stamp down on all of these threads... This is honestly worse than the Blizzard forums, like a magnitude worse. We aren't balancing shit, this is Teamliquid and discussing things is great but everything should be done in moderation and this is approximately the 10th topic related to ZvT post patch or HOTS.
It's really getting exhausting.
|
TBH i had no idea the term Patchzerg existed until now. But there does seem like a ton of out of nowhere zergs coming into the scene and a lot of other players just flat out not performing anymore.
|
most retarded idea for a thread i have ever seen
|
Slivko is not a patch Zerg. He's been getting decent results since IEM Sao Paulo, which was the start of the year.
|
On August 20 2012 11:05 JeanLuc wrote:Besides the fact that OP's sample sizes and general methodology are a slap in the face to statistics, I really don't get the logic behind this: Show nested quote +Axiom: If the last balance update in truth is the reason these zergs made it to the top, one would assume high winrates in especially TvZ and possibly PvZ (some would argue that the overlord change made it easier for zerg to be greedy in this matchup as well) while their ZvZ winrates dropped off. This is just... so wrong. I'm not arguing that the patchzerg phenomenon is real or not real or what have you. But it just seems completely counterintuitive to me to think that because Zerg is stronger... we expect to find decreased ZvZ win rates...ZvZ winrates should remain steady. Unless you mean that the weaker zergs will rise up and face stronger zergs than they would have ordinarily faced.. but in order to argue that point you have to show in your sampling that these suspected patch zergs did indeed face a stronger calibre of zerg with more success than previously. Which you make no attempt to do.
Is it just me that thinks its wonky to even include zvz in this? o_O;; Interesting topic though, as "patchzerg" actually popped up in my mind as I watched Suppy beat Hero in the game I was watching. But then again ZvP hasn't really been affected that much by the patch, it's only simply been figured out since Stephano, DRG and other zergs led the way.
|
I have no idea if there are any patchzergs or not, but like others said before, there is just not enough statistics to say anything in the data you present.
I don't think even the most radical patchzerg supporter claim more than a 10% imbalance + Show Spoiler +ie, from 45-55 in favour of terran to 55-45 in favour of zerg, 50-50 to 60-40 (in favour of zerg), or 40-60 (in favour of terran) to 50-50
To separate even 0% from 10% with any significance to speak of, you would need several hundreds of independent samples. You have between 20 and 50 samples for each zerg after patch, and they are in no way independent (maybe slivko just improved his ZvT, playing same opponent several games in each series, metagame, slump/roll, etc). So the numbers you present for these players do not support your conclusion. Try calculating the errors of your number. even assuming independent games you will see everything eaten up by the errors.
And apart from that, even if there would be enough statistics, you would have to compensate for your bias in choosing upcoming players. There have been new players popping up all the time, and the new players frequently will be especially strong in one of their matchups, even if their appearance did not coincide with a patch. So even if you would prove that a few players got stronger ZvT after the patch, you would need to compare to some random dates and see if you have similar effects, by studying the new upcoming players at those dates.
So these number here are no more than punches in the air, and effectively just another balance whine magnet. 
No offence meant to OP, I appreciate the effort. Next time though, remember to check your errors. 
(btw, vortix prepatch ZvZ: 15-13 --> 53.6%, not 60%)
|
I think these are good players, and always were, and the patch gave them the boost necessary to make it to the next level.
|
In Starcraft 2, anyone can be anyone on a given day due elements of randomness in the game. Cheeses, proxies, what have you. No Namers can take games off of higher level players. However No Namers don't just come up and roll multiple Code S level Terrans using standard macro game tatics. MVP, ForGG, Supernova are all veteran players of Starcraft this point. They've all been in GSL Code S. They all know how to handle themselves in a tournament. They don't just lose to No Namers playing macro games ZvT.
This is not a fluke, something is wrong.
|
On August 20 2012 11:30 lannisport wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 11:05 JeanLuc wrote:Besides the fact that OP's sample sizes and general methodology are a slap in the face to statistics, I really don't get the logic behind this: Axiom: If the last balance update in truth is the reason these zergs made it to the top, one would assume high winrates in especially TvZ and possibly PvZ (some would argue that the overlord change made it easier for zerg to be greedy in this matchup as well) while their ZvZ winrates dropped off. This is just... so wrong. I'm not arguing that the patchzerg phenomenon is real or not real or what have you. But it just seems completely counterintuitive to me to think that because Zerg is stronger... we expect to find decreased ZvZ win rates...ZvZ winrates should remain steady. Unless you mean that the weaker zergs will rise up and face stronger zergs than they would have ordinarily faced.. but in order to argue that point you have to show in your sampling that these suspected patch zergs did indeed face a stronger calibre of zerg with more success than previously. Which you make no attempt to do. Is it just me that thinks its wonky to even include zvz in this? o_O;; Interesting topic though, as "patchzerg" actually popped up in my mind as I watched Suppy beat Hero in the game I was watching. But then again ZvP hasn't really been affected that much by the patch, it's only simply been figured out since Stephano, DRG and other zergs led the way.
That part makes kindof sense to me actually.
- A patchzerg is supposedly a player that got big not because he stepped up his play, but because the patch allowed him to beat up the terrans (and maybe the toss). Thus, you would expect a patchzerg to have his ZvT winrate jump up, maybe his ZvP, but definitely not his ZvZ.
- A "non-patch" new zerg player got big because he improved his play. This would in general reflect through all matchups, although not necessarily exactly equal improvement in all matchups.
Thus, if you see a new player that got his increased winrate from ZvZ as much as from the other matchups, you can conclude that he is not a patchzerg. So I don't see any flaw in the approach. Not sure if I would expect a lowered ZvZ matchup from a patchzerg though, but definitely not increased.
But again, the OP didn't show any of those things, as there is not enough statistics. 
|
How do you pronounce Imagniary?
Sorry I can't take a misspelled title seriously.
|
On August 20 2012 10:36 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 10:33 KawaiiRice wrote:
I can't really understand how you came to the conclusion that they're not patch zergs from your "data". . . .
not that I really care but the OP looks uber flawed. I guess you didn't care enough to read what I wrote before " my data ". You'll find why my conclusion is what it is. You say it looks flawed but not why, which makes me think you only looked at the results without reading the rest. Please read it and give me a more detailed opinion, I would love to hear it from a respectable player like yourself. That is... if you care.
1. The sample size of the games you used are too small. Using a statistic like this
After patch ZvT 9-13 (40,9%)
doesn't mean anything when pros play more than 21 games... in a single day.
2. The patch most obviously affected ZvT significantly, instantly (in less than 2 hours after patch I played a korean that went 6 queen fast 3rd lol). So how can you note an obvious increase in ZvT winrates, ignore it and talk about how they're doing okay in ZvZ? (Also, do you know why zerg enjoyed a good period against terran? Because of the patch)
They all have gotten a boost versus terran, quite a big one in vortix case from being mediocre, but that is expected since zerg in general has enjoyed a good period against that race. ZvT is still not a dominant matchup for either player.
3. Maybe a little biased but ... your conclusions are overly reliant on these zergs ... being good against each other?
All of the players seem to do very good against the zergs they face even after making it up to the higher level. I decided to take a look at some results these players have against more notable zergs since the patch.
I can see that you're saying they can win zvz to prove that they can compete in the other matchups as well, but you're focusing most of your argument on it when ZvZ is known to be lucky/build order win based (and ofc your sample size is really small too). i.e.: when Vortix 3-0'ed Golden I know for a fact that Golden was slumping hard in ZvZ and on metropolis he had some epic misclick or bug or something which threw all his infestors away. (Pretty extreme example lol !_!).
|
On August 20 2012 11:36 BanditX wrote:
In Starcraft 2, anyone can be anyone on a given day due elements of randomness in the game. Cheeses, proxies, what have you. No Namers can take games off of higher level players. However No Namers don't just come up and roll multiple Code S level Terrans using standard macro game tatics. MVP, ForGG, Supernova are all veteran players of Starcraft this point. They've all been in GSL Code S. They all know how to handle themselves in a tournament. They don't just lose to No Namers playing macro games ZvT.
This is not a fluke, something is wrong.
This is true folks, we can never have up and coming players. It is impossible. Code-S players are the best in the world, I mean look at MC, he never loses a No Name player. And Code-S players play in the hardest tournament in the world. I mean it's format is completely different from IEM and they play far fewer games, because they are better. And Code-S players never suffer from travel fatigue or jet lag. Unlike No-Name players, who can't even win in their own country unless there is some sort of imbalance.
Clearly this is not a fluke, something is totally wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
