|
On January 27 2017 17:39 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 17:22 Zera wrote:On January 27 2017 16:58 parkufarku wrote:On January 27 2017 16:16 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 15:51 parkufarku wrote:On January 27 2017 01:56 biryusky wrote:
god damn when is this ever gonna stop. Blizzard hasnt touched jack shit about balance since like 10 years ago. Why are we even speculating or suggesting things that dont go anywhere? Because the title of thread says "SC1 is getting patched soon" ??? Are you afraid that Blizzard will finally deservedly nerf Terran and balance ZvT? Oh no, a balanced game incoming, that sounds horrid! Terran doesn't need to be nerfed. The problem with Zergs playing ZvT is that they all do the same build, and do it every game like a robot. It's the match-up that has changed the least in the last 5 years. Respectfully disagree. BW hasn't even been alive in the past two years Have you been living under the rock? There wasn't a moment BW was not alive. That's subjective. Last 2 years BW hasn't really been as it was before. And I'm talking about the moment when Jangbi vs (forgot the other gamer) had their last tournament was pretty much the final real scene of BW since all the pros like Flash, Bisu, etc went to SC2. Killer was on top for a while but that was because most good players already left. Now the real top class players are finally coming back, and the scene is revitalizing again. You can't deny that.
So sonic Starleagues are sh*t,the game being broadcasted in OGN = sh*t,the killer era = sh*t the kwanro vs mind KSL final = sh*t,sonic rank tours epic finals Sea vs Killer = sh*t.Modesty unstopable Sky zerg = sh*t.everything non flash jaedong stork = sh*t.Jaedong goes to the army the BW scene is dead again,yup
|
On January 27 2017 17:39 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 17:22 Zera wrote:On January 27 2017 16:58 parkufarku wrote:On January 27 2017 16:16 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 15:51 parkufarku wrote:On January 27 2017 01:56 biryusky wrote:
god damn when is this ever gonna stop. Blizzard hasnt touched jack shit about balance since like 10 years ago. Why are we even speculating or suggesting things that dont go anywhere? Because the title of thread says "SC1 is getting patched soon" ??? Are you afraid that Blizzard will finally deservedly nerf Terran and balance ZvT? Oh no, a balanced game incoming, that sounds horrid! Terran doesn't need to be nerfed. The problem with Zergs playing ZvT is that they all do the same build, and do it every game like a robot. It's the match-up that has changed the least in the last 5 years. Respectfully disagree. BW hasn't even been alive in the past two years Have you been living under the rock? There wasn't a moment BW was not alive. That's subjective. Last 2 years BW hasn't really been as it was before. And I'm talking about the moment when Jangbi vs (forgot the other gamer) had their last tournament was pretty much the final real scene of BW since all the pros like Flash, Bisu, etc went to SC2. Killer was on top for a while but that was because most good players already left. Now the real top class players are finally coming back, and the scene is revitalizing again. You can't deny that.
Jangbi vs Fantasy.
A lot of A-class players were still playing (Hyia and killer, and Sea pops into mind first) and there were off line tournaments (Sonic starleague), so it was pretty much alive. BW will never be as it was before, because there are no team houses left, no Proleague, which was the main BW event. Yes the scene now is super alive, but we might not have all of this if not these people who kept it after the professional scene ended. So to claim that BW was not alive for the past two years is just ignorant 
Edit: as eonzerg said above, alive BW scene is not only TBLS.
|
On January 27 2017 13:52 ninazerg wrote:
Also, I know we all revere former progamers as gods, but their statements are merely opinions, and making that appeal to authority really does nothing to empirically show that there is an inherent imbalance in the game.
I think opinions of top players are very important to take in considering they're the only people for whom
this actually matters.
I like that you took the time to look at some statistics. However, there are a few problems with your samples, which are that, again, the few players you've selected all have winning records against Terran in ZvT. Combining the records of the three leagues you've cited, Zerg is actually losing ZvP. However, when you go on to cite statistics from Zergs with winning records against Protoss, you're reporting numbers of like 60 - 75%. Most of the ZvP stats you've cited are around 66%.
The tournament sample size wasn't big enough comparatively.
The idea here is that these are the top zergs in the world and comparing how their ZvT matchup is to their ZvP matchup to show that ZvT is comparatively more difficult.
This comes out to 151 - 108 ZvP, or about 58%, well under the individual player stats that you've cited.
For TvZ (from the sample pool), Terran wins 181 - 161, for a win:loss ratio of 53%.
This means that the extreme disparity between ZvT and ZvP win:loss ratios that you are reporting is much less, separated by about 5%.
Good stats. Weird application.
You're putting the disparity at 5 percent but comparing different things from me.
I compared ZvP and ZvT. You're doing ZvP and TvZ. In essence, what you're doing is comparing how big the two imbalances are.
ZvP: 58%
ZvT: 47%
Oh hey, a 10 percent disparity.
By map: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/188_Destination_1.1 : TvZ - 52%, ZvP - 57% http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/404_Circuit_Breaker : TvZ - 53%, ZvP - 51% http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/237_Fighting_Spirit : TvZ - 52%, ZvP - 53% http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/407_Benzene : TvZ - 64%, ZvP - 49% http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/235_Match_Point: TvZ - 55%, ZvP - 57% http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/275_Polaris_Rhapsody : TvZ - 59%, ZvP - 40% http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/536_Neo_Electric_Circuit : TvZ - 71%, ZvP - 68% http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/547_New_Sniper_Ridge : TvZ - 56%, ZvP - 30% http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/545_Neo_Jade : TvZ - 50%, ZvP - 45% http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/546_Neo_Ground_Zero : TvZ - 83%, ZvP - 47% http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/418_La_Mancha : TvZ - 52%, ZvP - 58% http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/267_New_Heartbreak_Ridge : TvZ - 60%, ZvP - 61% While some maps statistically seem to favor one race in a particular match-up, other maps seem to suggest that the map itself mitigates the advantages of that said race in the same match-up. This shows that the map in question may have a significant impact on the outcome of a match-up statistically.
Of course they do. But unless the tournaments are going to be dramatically changing the map pool and changing guidelines with which maps are made, we won't see much change. Note that none of these maps favour Zerg in TvZ btw 0/12. You know what's universal and not dependent on changing maps? Unit stats.
Of course they change by player. I was using the sample size of the top players more to point out a discrepancy exists at the very highest level (and, I'll be honest, because I was tired and I didn't want to go looking around for better stats).
I have never once said that this is not something that can be overcome through hard work. It's a 55% imbalance (averaging TvZ and ZvP). It's barely relevant. But it's there. I don't notice it when I play, 99.99% of the people in the world won't notice it when they play. But it's a damn hard 5% to overcome when you're at a pro level.
I don't think Jaedong lost to Flash because of this imbalance. Jaedong won with 2 planned-out strats and lost the other games. Flash is the better player at the moment. At the same time, if I want another FvJ, then I want it to be at a completely even level.
Here's the idea of balancing. If we can literally just magic fix these small imbalances without changing much of the strategy (as all of my changes attempt to do), why not. Why not have as close to 50% as we can?
On January 27 2017 15:16 Jealous wrote:
"TvZ: 9-4 (69.2%)
ZvP: 2-2 (50%)
TvZ normal splits. Fair sample size"
I almost spit out my beverage lol
What was the problem here?
|
I think tanks should have 99999 hp and shoot nukes in siege mode.
|
What was the problem here?
13 games is a terrible sample size.
|
On January 28 2017 00:55 Jealous wrote:13 games is a terrible sample size.
That's fair.  I'm just surprised you didn't say anything for the stuff above it then.
|
On January 28 2017 01:04 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 00:55 Jealous wrote:
What was the problem here?
13 games is a terrible sample size. That's fair. I'm just surprised you didn't say anything for the stuff above it then.
My amusement was growing as I read through but it reached critical levels when you said "Normal splits," about a 9-4 TvZ stat meaning that this confirms your hypothesis and then you justify it with "Fair sample size." That's jokes upon jokes. I couldn't handle the 1-2 punch.
|
jaedong didnt even plan the hydra bust imo, he just saw an opening
|
Croatia9540 Posts
On January 28 2017 00:32 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 13:52 ninazerg wrote:
Also, I know we all revere former progamers as gods, but their statements are merely opinions, and making that appeal to authority really does nothing to empirically show that there is an inherent imbalance in the game.
I think opinions of top players are very important to take in considering they're the only people for whom this actually matters.
Flash: "Blizzard asked all the major ex pro gamers about the next patch for BW around April of last year. One thing everyone told Blizzard not to do was a balance patch" (source)
|
On January 28 2017 03:07 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 00:32 neobowman wrote:On January 27 2017 13:52 ninazerg wrote:
Also, I know we all revere former progamers as gods, but their statements are merely opinions, and making that appeal to authority really does nothing to empirically show that there is an inherent imbalance in the game.
I think opinions of top players are very important to take in considering they're the only people for whom this actually matters. Flash: "Blizzard asked all the major ex pro gamers about the next patch for BW around April of last year. One thing everyone told Blizzard not to do was a balance patch" ( source)
I would totally agree with them. If it's up to Blizz, then I would expect them to fuck up the gameplay a lot.
What I'm saying is that you would probably get a different opinion if the balance changes are minor ones like the ones I proposed.
|
You know, I actually wouldn't mind it if they did add a Convenience Mode option with some modern things like MBS and increasing the select limit to 24 so its more playable that people who just want to play it casually. Also maybe add in some way do handicap matches so two people of unequal skill can play each other.
Just some random thoughts.
|
On January 28 2017 03:17 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 03:07 2Pacalypse- wrote:On January 28 2017 00:32 neobowman wrote:On January 27 2017 13:52 ninazerg wrote:
Also, I know we all revere former progamers as gods, but their statements are merely opinions, and making that appeal to authority really does nothing to empirically show that there is an inherent imbalance in the game.
I think opinions of top players are very important to take in considering they're the only people for whom this actually matters. Flash: "Blizzard asked all the major ex pro gamers about the next patch for BW around April of last year. One thing everyone told Blizzard not to do was a balance patch" ( source) I would totally agree with them. If it's up to Blizz, then I would expect them to fuck up the gameplay a lot. What I'm saying is that you would probably get a different opinion if the balance changes are minor ones like the ones I proposed.
Pretty sure minor balance changes ⊆ balance patch.
|
On January 28 2017 00:39 Sero wrote:
I think tanks should have 99999 hp and shoot nukes in siege mode.
LOL
Sero you da best
On January 28 2017 00:32 neobowman wrote:
Good stats. Weird application.
You're putting the disparity at 5 percent but comparing different things from me.
I compared ZvP and ZvT. You're doing ZvP and TvZ. In essence, what you're doing is comparing how big the two imbalances are.
ZvP: 58%
ZvT: 47%
Oh hey, a 10 percent disparity.
There's a difference. Players that you've mentioned had winning records against Terran and around 60-70% against Protoss. These figures are closer to 50%, and are based on a handful of tournament wins only, not taking into account maps used or individual player stats.
Of course they do. But unless the tournaments are going to be dramatically changing the map pool and changing guidelines with which maps are made, we won't see much change. Note that none of these maps favour Zerg in TvZ btw 0/12. You know what's universal and not dependent on changing maps? Unit stats.
You're right, I should've included Battle Royale in this map pool.
On January 28 2017 03:07 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 00:32 neobowman wrote:On January 27 2017 13:52 ninazerg wrote:
Also, I know we all revere former progamers as gods, but their statements are merely opinions, and making that appeal to authority really does nothing to empirically show that there is an inherent imbalance in the game.
I think opinions of top players are very important to take in considering they're the only people for whom this actually matters. Flash: "Blizzard asked all the major ex pro gamers about the next patch for BW around April of last year. One thing everyone told Blizzard not to do was a balance patch" ( source)
Flash is beSt appeal to authority, so thanks for finding this.
On January 28 2017 03:17 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 03:07 2Pacalypse- wrote:On January 28 2017 00:32 neobowman wrote:On January 27 2017 13:52 ninazerg wrote:
Also, I know we all revere former progamers as gods, but their statements are merely opinions, and making that appeal to authority really does nothing to empirically show that there is an inherent imbalance in the game.
I think opinions of top players are very important to take in considering they're the only people for whom this actually matters. Flash: "Blizzard asked all the major ex pro gamers about the next patch for BW around April of last year. One thing everyone told Blizzard not to do was a balance patch" ( source) I would totally agree with them. If it's up to Blizz, then I would expect them to fuck up the gameplay a lot. What I'm saying is that you would probably get a different opinion if the balance changes are minor ones like the ones I proposed.
This is a thread about a BLIZZARD PATCH.
|
Nah, they'll not touch the balance. They didn't know what they were doing back then and happened to make the best game ever out of pure luck, they're not throwing that away...
|
I have never once said that this is not something that can be overcome through hard work. It's a 55% imbalance (averaging TvZ and ZvP). It's barely relevant. But it's there. I don't notice it when I play, 99.99% of the people in the world won't notice it when they play. But it's a damn hard 5% to overcome when you're at a pro level.
This argument is so full of bullshit that its a spreading lie at best.
People that are one tier behind or even two will feel this if there is an imbalance in the game.
For example, if its hard for zerg to take a third IT WILL MATTER ALOT in games that arent played at the pro level because if terran can block the third it gives that race a huge advantage.
Also using statistics the way blizzard do it is just nonsense, 50/50 balance doesnt mean balance it only means statistic balance.
If you instead would discuss how the games are won and lost, that would tell something.
50/50 balance right now,
zerg wins 5 lose 5. In two of those games he lost to a 2factory speed vult cheese, alright sloppy scouting.
In one game he lost to a bio normal push to his natural, he wasnt fully awake when terran moved out and didnt build sunkens in time.
You see, context matters alot more.
If zerg loses the game because terran blocked the third. Then what is important is how did terran block the third? Could zerg micro his lings/mutas better to hold off the bio force?
Was the lurker timing off this game?
If zerg had the lurker timing really well, the muta ling micro was outstanding. Then you maybe need to look further. What if at 5:00 in the game, instead of building 4 zerglings, that would have been drones. With the info the mutas bring it shouldnt have been necessary to build those 4lings so those 2drones would gain more over time.
This is how you do balance, not looking at the statstics and letting it speak for you.
|
On January 28 2017 00:39 Sero wrote:
I think tanks should have 99999 hp and shoot nukes in siege mode.
Wow, sounds cool. But to balance it, it should be an upgrade researched at a new Terran building... the 'Durh Hurh Derp Derp Derp Facility'. 
lol.
|
On January 27 2017 11:10 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 07:08 [[Starlight]] wrote:3- The person who offers earnest but obviously bad, game-breaking balance ideas, such as, well... name one. Bad, not well-thought out balance suggestions are everywhere.  4- The guy who might actually have good balance ideas but thinks his ideas are the ONLY good ones, and argues in an angry, non-constructive way with everyone else until they (he hopes) roll over and accept him as the second coming of Rob Pardo or whoever. So, you can get why some ppl hate balance discussions so much. But, they are still interesting, and some ppl do have good ideas... that will likely never be implemented.
Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance.
I'm sure if I did, you would pooh-pooh it/pick it apart. So you're saying that ideas might be criticized by me? That's... horrifying.
Well, silly sarcasm aside Nina... constructive criticism is always a good thing, and I'm pretty accepting of it. But there's constructive criticism, and then there's 'I just want to shoot down everything you say because I've already made up mind' criticism, which isn't really useful. And I suspect that's where you're going with this, not just by your tone (sarcastic), but also by your answer below...
Rather than going down that very obvious path, let's instead ask YOU, Nina, if there are any balance changes you can think of that would be beneficial. I'm guessing the answer will probably be "no"... even though in other threads, I do remember you saying "nerf tanks." But you might've been joking, I don't know.
It depends on what you mean by "beneficial". The game is fun. If it wasn't fun, I'm not sure what patch I could do to fix that.
...where you seemed to dodge a pretty straightforward question on the basis of semantics. Kinda reminded me a bit of Bill Clinton during that infamous deposition, where he asked what the meaning of "is", is...
Tell you what, Nina... YOU go ahead and define beneficial any way you like, within reason. That dispensed with, the question remains, "Can you think of ANY balance change, any change at ALL, that you would deem beneficial or positive to BW?".
We'll wait.
|
On January 28 2017 00:39 Sero wrote:
I think tanks should have 99999 hp and shoot nukes in siege mode.
Spawn broodlings would be so much more orgasmic
|
On January 28 2017 08:06 [[Starlight]] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 11:10 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 07:08 [[Starlight]] wrote:3- The person who offers earnest but obviously bad, game-breaking balance ideas, such as, well... name one. Bad, not well-thought out balance suggestions are everywhere. 4- The guy who might actually have good balance ideas but thinks his ideas are the ONLY good ones, and argues in an angry, non-constructive way with everyone else until they (he hopes) roll over and accept him as the second coming of Rob Pardo or whoever. So, you can get why some ppl hate balance discussions so much. But, they are still interesting, and some ppl do have good ideas... that will likely never be implemented.
Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance.
I'm sure if I did, you would pooh-pooh it/pick it apart. So you're saying that ideas might be criticized by me? That's... horrifying. Well, silly sarcasm aside Nina... constructive criticism is always a good thing, and I'm pretty accepting of it. But there's constructive criticism, and then there's 'I just want to shoot down everything you say because I've already made up mind' criticism, which isn't really useful. And I suspect that's where you're going with this, not just by your tone (sarcastic), but also by your answer below... Show nested quote +Rather than going down that very obvious path, let's instead ask YOU, Nina, if there are any balance changes you can think of that would be beneficial. I'm guessing the answer will probably be "no"... even though in other threads, I do remember you saying "nerf tanks." But you might've been joking, I don't know. Show nested quote +
It depends on what you mean by "beneficial". The game is fun. If it wasn't fun, I'm not sure what patch I could do to fix that.
...where you seemed to dodge a pretty straightforward question on the basis of semantics. Kinda reminded me a bit of Bill Clinton during that infamous deposition, where he asked what the meaning of "is", is... Tell you what, Nina... YOU go ahead and define beneficial any way you like, within reason. That dispensed with, the question remains, "Can you think of ANY balance change, any change at ALL, that you would deem beneficial or positive to BW?". We'll wait.
I'm not the one making any balance proposals. You're the one who, apparently, has the ideas to fix Brood War. Why would the impetus ever be on me to think up a balance change when you're the person who is making the proposal? Furthermore, I specifically asked what you meant by "beneficial", and you went to the most extreme example of lawyering with the 'is is' example. You asked a vague question, and I asked you to be more specific, and now you've refused to do so, and somehow are pointing at me and saying, "You're dodging the question."
Also, if I gonna put forward a proposal, it would definitely be to make a tank in siege mode shoot a nuke that does 99999 damage.
|
On January 28 2017 08:31 jamesuh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 00:39 Sero wrote:
I think tanks should have 99999 hp and shoot nukes in siege mode. Spawn broodlings would be so much more orgasmic
I love broodlings. They're good eatin'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
x 
