Are there any statistics that prove that mech is overpowered vs. Zerg? A lot of people just claim that, but i don't get the impression from watching pro games.

Why do you care so much about statistics ? They give no explanation about how the game works and thus how to change the game if it needs to be done.
Mech is overpowered against zerg because :
1) Their late game army destroys with ease everything zerg has
2) It became very easy to play mech (combined upgrade, tanks buff, hellbat buff, SH nerf, banshee buff...)
3) Zerg has no tools to harass the terran player in a somehow cost-effective way

Terrans players played bio everytime they play a zerg for years, suddendly terrans play mech... This strategy needs to be insanely broken for terran to do something else than 3 CCs into bio.

wrong, zerg is op against mech because:
1) Their midgame destroys with ease everything mech has
2) it became very easy to play zerg (blinding cloud buff, roach burrow movespeed buff, mutalisk speed/regen, hydralisk speed, ultra buff)
3) terran has no tools to harass the zerg player in a somehow cost-effective way.

see why you need statistics to bback your statements up?
Without statistics everyone can just spew subjective bullshit. Fact is if statistics are fine the game isn't imbalanced. Doesn't matter if you have problems with mech on ladder. I also have problems with protoss but I don't say it's imba.

There isn't a single high level zerg that doesn't think mech is too strong (in hots). Call it subjectivity but everyone hates playing against it. You don't need statistics on this one, you just need to play or watch the game. Mech is completely absurd. It's things like Terran mech in HoTS which drive good players away from playing the game. BL/Infestor wasn't unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination, but it was absurd and bad for the game. Same with Terran mech.

One race having the ability to play ultra defensive and build a godlike army is absolutely cancerous.

What ppl consider a problem with mech is a problem based on mules actually. If mules were removed or weakened then mech couldn't use over supply and at the same time harrassment on T eco would matter more than it does now. The natural weakness of mech is to have the terran split its army up.

I think it is not enough time now before release to do big changes. Mid and long term Blizzard needs to find a way to remove mules and potentially replace them with anything else and adapt other race's MM. Mules are the most detrimental unit to the game.

People throw away scv in lotv? I haven't done it yet since I find them too valuable to keep with reduced income and all..

Currently there is too much imbalanced stuff in the game, which is why games tend to end rather early. As soon as the game is sufficiently balanced and games go to the late game more often, you will see it.

TimeSpiral

United States1010 Posts

October 10 2015 19:05 GMT

#122

On October 10 2015 21:42 CheddarToss wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 10 2015 18:15 jinjin5000 wrote:

On October 10 2015 06:24 LSN wrote:

On October 09 2015 22:49 91matt wrote:

On October 09 2015 22:32 Charoisaur wrote:

On October 09 2015 18:58 FireCake wrote:

On October 09 2015 16:48 cmdspinner1 wrote:

On October 09 2015 09:30 Pugfarmer wrote:

On October 09 2015 08:46 Charoisaur wrote:

On October 09 2015 08:44 Pugfarmer wrote:
Just separate mech upgrades in HOTS and problem solved.

Which problem?

The problem with Mech being overpowered vs Zerg, and creating the same slow turtle games that the old swarm hosts did.

Are there any statistics that prove that mech is overpowered vs. Zerg? A lot of people just claim that, but i don't get the impression from watching pro games.

People throw away scv in lotv? I haven't done it yet since I find them too valuable to keep with reduced income and all..

The games, on the whole, cannot be longer than what we're seeing in HotS though. Once you hit the 25-30 minute mark in LotV bases 1-3 are completely mined out and you're in a split-map situation, usually. It's completely crazy, with fights happening everywhere (at least in Archon mode, probably not so much in 1v1).

BronzeKnee

United States5217 Posts

October 10 2015 20:33 GMT

#123

On October 09 2015 15:56 Nezgar wrote:

Show nested quote +

Since it came up a few times, this is how the balance in the past 12 months looked like (according to Aligulac):
[image loading]

That's... the most balanced period this game ever had. The win rates in each match-up have been between 46-53% the entire time.
For comparison, this is how the entire graph for SC2 looks like:
[image loading]

I've highlighted the past 12 months. If we can trust Aligulac ratings then yes, the game has near perfect balance right now.

Whether or not the individual match-ups have their own problems or not is a different matter entirely, though. I dislike watching Mech vZ atm, but that doesn't mean that the races are severely imbalanced right now.

Oh crap. It happened.

I sent a message to Aliguac a long time asking for this chart, because it had important information in regards to balance the other chart they have up does not, and avoids several problems. They listened and created it because they are awesome, but warned me people might misuse it.

"The performance difference chart shows the approximate difference between actual performance as evidenced by results and predicted performance by rating"

So what it shows is that if there a trend where Terran is too strong, it will predict that lesser Terran players will beat better Protoss players. Therefore, even if Terran is too strong, if lesser Terran players are beating better Protoss players, the chart will have everything at the 50% line, because it is as predicted.

Overtime time, patches. the map pool and the metagame disrupts balance, so while that lesser Terran might have won against the superior Protoss earlier, he is now losing. If we charted that, it would show a dramatic rise for Protoss above 50% and drop for Terran below 50%. Despite how the chart would look, the game would be more balanced.

Overtime, the chart would predict this new metagame where the lesser Terran loses to the superior Protoss, and it would trend toward 50% until reaching it. So this chart does not show or predict balance, it just shows when the performance of a race changes.

The chart is very useful when you have an established baseline to see how certain races responds to changes in the map pool, metagame or balance patches. But it is the this last, key line that matters more than anything when it comes to this chart:

"However, as ratings catch up to the performances of the players, this chart will tend toward equilibrium, even if balance never changes."

So you misrepresented the chart, and thus you're argument is based on flawed data.

The balance report is the chart you meant to use, but unfortunately for your argument, it is far more volatile.

jalstar

United States8198 Posts

October 12 2015 01:23 GMT

#124

and we don’t want to risk Zerg being on the stronger side for BlizzCon finals

Blizzard admitting that the current map pool is good for Zerg I guess. Zerg is probably the weakest race but has the best maps, and they don't want to create another late 2014 situation where they buffed Terran right after giving them a favored map pool.