|
On January 11 2013 21:50 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:I seem to remember dustin browder has stated in numerous interviews that they're trying to balance the game for all levels of play, taking in information (win percentages mainly) from all levels of play, and that it would be stupid and unfair to balance based on only the pro scene and their tournaments David Kim has ALSO said this when he talked about balance in this post on battle.net's forums. Show nested quote +Adjusted ratings: (...) Please note that the way we do this calculation factors out player skill. Show nested quote +That’s good for us because, while we like seeing very solid results at the pro level, we are also always working towards a balanced experience across all skill levels.
Well of course balancing across all levels of play is what every game developer strives to do but hardly any game developer actually accomplishes.
|
On January 11 2013 21:21 Qwerty85 wrote:
Even in a perfectly balanced game, if there is like 14 terrans in a tournament and 9 zergs in a tournament, statistically, terran as a race should have higher chances of winning 1st place.
Now we see exact opposite. Even though terrans are still most represented (they get eliminated in code S then get back through code A and Up&down), they have lowest chances of winning 1st place in gsl.
and yet, source
There have been 8 Terran first place, 8 Zerg first place, and 3 protoss first place
in 1st and 2nd places there've been 17 terrans, 13 zergs, and 8 protoss.
seems to me they had the highest chances of winning 1st place in GSL, since in the finals there's been 4 more terrans than zergs, and 9 more terrans than protoss
|
I guess the OP didn't thought this through. As this post confirms how weak Terran is compared to the other races. Always more Terrans in the Round of 32 and then the Ro4 shows quiet another picture often.
It is always funny though if someone wants to show how good Terran is by using the GSL.
|
Most korean pros are terrans thats the only reason GSL still has Terrans. Terran is by far the weakest race right now.
|
Well this is easily explained by the fact that terran is the most played race (in every single region). So rather one should ask why terran isn't overrepresented in Europe and North America as well.
|
On January 11 2013 22:06 Hider wrote:
Well this is easily explained by the fact that terran is the most played race (in every single region). So rather one should ask why terran isn't overrepresented in Europe and North America as well.
Somebody said this before but, I believe it's b/c playing terran involves a certain amount of multitasking that the Koreans are better at than the foreigners are (mostly).
|
On January 11 2013 22:02 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 21:21 Qwerty85 wrote:
Even in a perfectly balanced game, if there is like 14 terrans in a tournament and 9 zergs in a tournament, statistically, terran as a race should have higher chances of winning 1st place.
Now we see exact opposite. Even though terrans are still most represented (they get eliminated in code S then get back through code A and Up&down), they have lowest chances of winning 1st place in gsl.
and yet, sourceThere have been 8 Terran first place, 8 Zerg first place, and 3 protoss first place in 1st and 2nd places there've been 17 terrans, 13 zergs, and 8 protoss. seems to me they had the highest chances of winning 1st place in GSL, since in the finals there's been 4 more terrans than zergs, and 9 more terrans than protoss
Remember that GSL seasons were shorter in 2011. So if Zerg dominated for 4 months in 2012, they would only have 2 GSLs while Terran dominating in 2011 would have 4.
|
On January 11 2013 22:13 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 22:02 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:On January 11 2013 21:21 Qwerty85 wrote:
Even in a perfectly balanced game, if there is like 14 terrans in a tournament and 9 zergs in a tournament, statistically, terran as a race should have higher chances of winning 1st place.
Now we see exact opposite. Even though terrans are still most represented (they get eliminated in code S then get back through code A and Up&down), they have lowest chances of winning 1st place in gsl.
and yet, sourceThere have been 8 Terran first place, 8 Zerg first place, and 3 protoss first place in 1st and 2nd places there've been 17 terrans, 13 zergs, and 8 protoss. seems to me they had the highest chances of winning 1st place in GSL, since in the finals there's been 4 more terrans than zergs, and 9 more terrans than protoss Remember that GSL seasons were shorter in 2011. So if Zerg dominated for 4 months in 2012, they would only have 2 GSLs while Terran dominating in 2011 would have 4.
That doesn't change the fact that more terrans have been to the finals than zergs. Nor does it change the amount of players in the tournament (it only means they had less time in between matches in 2011)
|
On January 11 2013 22:02 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 21:21 Qwerty85 wrote:
Even in a perfectly balanced game, if there is like 14 terrans in a tournament and 9 zergs in a tournament, statistically, terran as a race should have higher chances of winning 1st place.
Now we see exact opposite. Even though terrans are still most represented (they get eliminated in code S then get back through code A and Up&down), they have lowest chances of winning 1st place in gsl.
and yet, sourceThere have been 8 Terran first place, 8 Zerg first place, and 3 protoss first place in 1st and 2nd places there've been 17 terrans, 13 zergs, and 8 protoss. seems to me they had the highest chances of winning 1st place in GSL, since in the finals there's been 4 more terrans than zergs, and 9 more terrans than protoss
I was talking about the 5 seasons of gsl in 2012. Highest representation, lowest chances of winning. Through 5 seasons in 2012 we had total of 70 terrans and only 1 gsl championship. On the other hand, we had total of 43 zergs but 3 championships.
If you read my post carefully, I am talking about the race representation and number of wins ratio, not who won more gsl championships since 2010.
It could also be said that gsl's of 2012 are best at determining balance since players are much better now than back in 2010/early 2011, maps are better, game is much more figured out, competition is higher (every race has players capable of winning 1st place) etc.
|
If balance is 50/50/50 ie perfectly balanced, and players are evenly skilled, in that, every match is decided with a coin flip, the rest of the world is 33%33%33% races (in that when someone drops out of tourney their replacement is random race), and you start off with 80% terrans, regardless of how many seasons you simulate you'll end up with ~80% terrans left.
I thinjk.
if someone could correct me if i'm wrong i'd be happy to retract this but i'm pretty sure that's the case based on my simple head-maths.
|
Terran should be nerfed more, imo.
|
On December 02 2012 07:19 ChillPhiju wrote:
It sounds alot like: "Terrans had success and were stronger than other races so now another race is allowed to be imbalanced if so be"
And assuming you wanted to say this please don't argue like that.
Or would you like to be enslaved because we enslaved black people just because as a "revenge" they are allowed to. (I am sorry for making such a drastic comparison, but I hope everyone gets it for once and for all)
And on the other hand if Terrans were able to sustain such a amount of them in the GSL till now you shouldn't say they change the Meta because this indicates the complete opposite: They have been changing the Meta etc and it is not working anymore (Which means a buff is needed)
All in all I don't want to say any of this is true(Just wanted to point out some flaws in your argumentation which you got IMO) but Blizzard should let the possibility of buffing open.
hahahah this post is hilarious
|
In the GSL Terran can utilize the race's biggest strength due to long prep. time: variety of strategies/unit compositions available. In foreigner tournaments this is not the case. Similarly, this is why imo Zerg is so good in foreigner scene, since they can play safe and solid with a few builds that do not have hard counters. Zerg doesn't need the element of surprise nearly as much.
|
On December 02 2012 07:22 Lunares wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 07:12 peia wrote:this is because earlier, terran WAS the strongest race, ´but until mid 2012 terran has got the weakest (imao) and because earlier there were so many terrans because it was the strongest race, there still is this big MASS of korean terrans, who are still pretty good at the game, they belong into code S, and if you look at EU ladder 10 % terran, 30 % toss 60 % zerg, and also at IPL the race distribution is a big big joke  Last patch was may 2012. That's only 7 months ago, the metagame has started to shift around but it still hasn't settled. Terran never used to have to really think about how to beat BL/Infestor since they would win so often without getting there. I'm just trying to point out how slow balance/metagame changes and that we really should not be crying Zerg OP or trying to do much before HotS. All the effort for balance (especially game changes to make the matchups less stale) should be focused there.
last patch was just 1 or 2 months ago... infestor range nerf... but this patch didnt help in pvz
|
On January 11 2013 21:50 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:I seem to remember dustin browder has stated in numerous interviews that they're trying to balance the game for all levels of play, taking in information (win percentages mainly) from all levels of play, and that it would be stupid and unfair to balance based on only the pro scene and their tournaments David Kim has ALSO said this when he talked about balance in this post on battle.net's forums. Show nested quote +Adjusted ratings: (...) Please note that the way we do this calculation factors out player skill. Show nested quote +That’s good for us because, while we like seeing very solid results at the pro level, we are also always working towards a balanced experience across all skill levels.
This post says it all. The top 32 race representation does not say anything about balance because it does not factor out player skill. Furthermore, even IF it says something about balance (it doesn't), it would only be relevant to highest level of play. So any conclusions that can be drawn from it mean absolutely nothing for the 99.999% of us who do not play at that level.
|
Haha so fun to se the terrans squirming trying to undermine the objective numbers to support their view... Cheers with your tears.
|
On January 11 2013 23:05 Elp wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 21:50 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:I seem to remember dustin browder has stated in numerous interviews that they're trying to balance the game for all levels of play, taking in information (win percentages mainly) from all levels of play, and that it would be stupid and unfair to balance based on only the pro scene and their tournaments David Kim has ALSO said this when he talked about balance in this post on battle.net's forums. Adjusted ratings: (...) Please note that the way we do this calculation factors out player skill. That’s good for us because, while we like seeing very solid results at the pro level, we are also always working towards a balanced experience across all skill levels. This post says it all. The top 32 race representation does not say anything about balance because it does not factor out player skill. Furthermore, even IF it says something about balance (it doesn't), it would only be relevant to highest level of play. So any conclusions that can be drawn from it mean absolutely nothing for the 99.999% of us who do not play at that level.
Yeah, but when you look at the most successful foreign players (almost all Zerg), people will just say "PatchZerg" instead of "Oh foreign players just prefer Zerg".
It's the double standard of the argument that makes it weak.
|
On January 11 2013 23:05 Elp wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 21:50 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:I seem to remember dustin browder has stated in numerous interviews that they're trying to balance the game for all levels of play, taking in information (win percentages mainly) from all levels of play, and that it would be stupid and unfair to balance based on only the pro scene and their tournaments David Kim has ALSO said this when he talked about balance in this post on battle.net's forums. Adjusted ratings: (...) Please note that the way we do this calculation factors out player skill. That’s good for us because, while we like seeing very solid results at the pro level, we are also always working towards a balanced experience across all skill levels. This post says it all. The top 32 race representation does not say anything about balance because it does not factor out player skill. Furthermore, even IF it says something about balance (it doesn't), it would only be relevant to highest level of play. So any conclusions that can be drawn from it mean absolutely nothing for the 99.999% of us who do not play at that level.
Well Blizzard only said they use a formula to make adjusted win rates that factor out player skill. They never actually revealed the formula.Also, ladder functions in a way player will always have around 50% win rate. I am not really a math person but "skill" seems like a complicated thing to rule out from a game that requires a much skill to play as Sc2.
Not to mention that all other stats collected from non-blizzard sources don't support their statements about game being fine at highest level of play.
Other problem is that Blizzard seems to change the importance of criteria to determine balance. In my previous post I put the Janury 2012 statement from Blizzard that shows they put a heavy emphasis on Korean results. Now when terran, although much more represented, only won 1/5 championships in 2012, this criteria is no longer as important.
It seems to me that if you change importance of criteria you use to determine balance, you don't have anything stable to monitor the results over a longer period of time.
Their approach looks more like trial&error to me..
|
On December 02 2012 07:35 Talack wrote:
I love how people try to bring up 1-2 year old statistics in order to argue a point about a constantly evolving game.
"Hey guys? Did you hear? The maps are too small, these statistics from GSL season 1 prove it"
And I cannot believe people still take tournament winners as proof one race is OP or UP...
The number of players per race in ro32 is much better info then any top 4 finishers or winners. Once we get to ro8 and ro4 it is not about race anymore but quality of players. During the time Zerg was UP they had like 2-3 people in ro 16 and so did toss during its weakest time. When zerg won GSL early it was always only this one player that managed to survive into later stages and win and that did not mean Zerg was OP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
