|
On January 19 2012 22:22 HeroUlyssess wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 22:20 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:13 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:06 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:58 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 21:56 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:52 R!! wrote:On January 19 2012 21:46 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 21:42 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 21:41 xinxy wrote:
[quote]
Which reinforces the point that Terran are still too strong? I mean if the tournament had nothing but T some of them would still be eliminated, you realize that right?
More like the old Code S format made it very hard to drop out and hard to get into, and it just as easily could have been 15 Zergs in Code S or 15 protosses We can spend all day talking about hypotheticals but the fact is that overall, Terran statistically has had an edge in Korea for a significant portion of last year, and it shows in the racial distribution of Code S towards the end of last year. Also, even if you want to make the argument that it's very hard to drop out and very hard to get into, then you also have to acknowledge the fact that despite how hard you say it was to get into Code S with the old format, a disproportionate of Terrans managed to do so to make it so that there were roughly 20 Terrans for a couple seasons. They managed to do that ages ago, and stayed there because the format made it so, which created a false sense of terran dominance. The old "format" argument doesn't make any sense. It implies that the game was balanced, so the winrates were about 50/50, but poor Terrans managed to stay in because of the format. It's utter bollocks because if you look at the winrates, they were NOT 50/50. Terran still won most of their matches against Protoss in Code S for a long time. That has nothing to do with the format which retained players. Back when some of those terrans got into Code S, say back in march 2011, the game wasn't balanced. but Star2 has become far more balanced since then. but due to terrans getting in due to imbalance, a racial disparity was created that lasted for an extended period of time due to the Code S format of old. there, explained. Sorry, when you quote my post I expect you to read it first. This hypothesis that Terrans got in because of racial disparity and then despite the re-balancing managed to stay in Code S does not make sense because then the WINRATE in GSL would be equal, because the game was balanced, or even unequal because the bad Terrans would be playing on even grounds with better Protoss. But the winrate was not equal. Go to Liquipedia. Look at Terran vs Protoss winrates in Code S for last year. Apart from November, the PvT winrate was for every single month sub-50%. If you don't believe me, see here. Or here. Go through and check those winrates. Up until November, Protoss vs Terran was massively in favour of Terran in the GSL. Even in Code A, PvT was frequently sub-45%. This notion that the format alone kept Terrans who were worse than Protoss in Code S or Code A despite the game being balanced is a complete illusion. I never said that the format was the sole reason for this racial disparity. Rather, what i am trying to say is that it is a significant contributing factor to the amount of terrans in Code S. if we take the terran numbers from may (14) we can see that this is likely due to balance, and in my opinion (as a masters terran player, if that even means anything for the arguement) Terran WAS imbalanced in May. Then the following number to october (20) can be explained by the game becoming more and more balanced as time went on. However, due to terran being imbalanced in the first place, the major patches from may to october would have caused terran winrates, for the sake of arguement, to go from 65% to 60% to 55% and so an so forth. As you can see this means that as the months wore on more terrans would still (presumably) be gaining entry into Code S thanks to (possible) racial imbalances in TvP. I hope you can get my point, its 2am here now and i am not really in the mood for a proper arguement, and I am not a factual encyclopedia relating to GSL. Except you're pulling those percentages out of nowhere, and, actually, Terran had a better winrate vP in October than August (according to those links that SeaSwift posted, not sure about the overall winrate in Korea), so your "for the sake of argument" percentages are completely meaningless because they have zero statistical basis. You don't have to be a factual encyclopedia regarding the GSL but the least you could do is actually do research instead of pulling theories out of nowhere that just help conform to your biases. I don't have the graph on me, but i think you will find that the general trend for TvP balance is correlating (this is the wrong word i think :| I NEED SLEEP) in the negative direction for Terran, and the positive direction for protoss.
http://i.imgur.com/OcoyL.png
No.
|
On January 19 2012 22:05 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 21:55 Ysellian wrote:On January 19 2012 21:53 forsooth wrote:On January 19 2012 21:50 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:On January 19 2012 21:49 forsooth wrote:On January 19 2012 21:44 Corrosive wrote:
How to subtly balance whine without getting in trouble:
Say watching protoss is boring because of how the race is designed!
If a protoss does anything besides long 40 minute games it's an "all in" or its "cheese"
T-T The only thing worse than watching Protoss do a 7 gate is watching Protoss play a 40 minute game. Protoss is boring, badly designed, and never fun to watch. Balance is a different concern. Translation: I play T, P smash! rarrrrr  Except I thoroughly enjoy watching Zerg play as well, and even ZvZ. And I used to play Protoss in BW. Still do sometimes. This isn't some expression of rage about losing TvP on ladder too much. I actually do fine vs Protoss. That doesn't make Protoss well designed or interesting to play or watch, however. Protoss in brood war was the most entertaining race to watch IMHO and this coming from a BW Terran like myself. Reavers and Arbiters were always my two favorite units, especially Arbiters. Terran is always fun for me to watch though, especially players like Fantasy. I was always godawful at TvP and TvT in BW though, which is why I never mained Terran for any decent stretch of time (my vulture control is so shitty it's embarrassing). I've been giving it another go lately, but the community is pretty dead now so there's not as much excitement to it.
Yeah I love watching fantasy too (he can be frustrating at times tho  ) . Like Fantasy TvP was my better match-up (probably because my little brother always played protoss) My other match-ups were just plain terrible tho. Especially playing against Zerg frustrated me so much.
But I haven't been online for years and currently only ever watch pro's or play offline. I was shocked to see how bad my mechanics have gotten over the years. Playing some of the more lazy RTS games has ruined me XD
|
On January 19 2012 22:25 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 22:22 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:20 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:13 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:06 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:58 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 21:56 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:52 R!! wrote:On January 19 2012 21:46 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 21:42 HeroUlyssess wrote:
[quote]
More like the old Code S format made it very hard to drop out and hard to get into, and it just as easily could have been 15 Zergs in Code S or 15 protosses We can spend all day talking about hypotheticals but the fact is that overall, Terran statistically has had an edge in Korea for a significant portion of last year, and it shows in the racial distribution of Code S towards the end of last year. Also, even if you want to make the argument that it's very hard to drop out and very hard to get into, then you also have to acknowledge the fact that despite how hard you say it was to get into Code S with the old format, a disproportionate of Terrans managed to do so to make it so that there were roughly 20 Terrans for a couple seasons. They managed to do that ages ago, and stayed there because the format made it so, which created a false sense of terran dominance. The old "format" argument doesn't make any sense. It implies that the game was balanced, so the winrates were about 50/50, but poor Terrans managed to stay in because of the format. It's utter bollocks because if you look at the winrates, they were NOT 50/50. Terran still won most of their matches against Protoss in Code S for a long time. That has nothing to do with the format which retained players. Back when some of those terrans got into Code S, say back in march 2011, the game wasn't balanced. but Star2 has become far more balanced since then. but due to terrans getting in due to imbalance, a racial disparity was created that lasted for an extended period of time due to the Code S format of old. there, explained. Sorry, when you quote my post I expect you to read it first. This hypothesis that Terrans got in because of racial disparity and then despite the re-balancing managed to stay in Code S does not make sense because then the WINRATE in GSL would be equal, because the game was balanced, or even unequal because the bad Terrans would be playing on even grounds with better Protoss. But the winrate was not equal. Go to Liquipedia. Look at Terran vs Protoss winrates in Code S for last year. Apart from November, the PvT winrate was for every single month sub-50%. If you don't believe me, see here. Or here. Go through and check those winrates. Up until November, Protoss vs Terran was massively in favour of Terran in the GSL. Even in Code A, PvT was frequently sub-45%. This notion that the format alone kept Terrans who were worse than Protoss in Code S or Code A despite the game being balanced is a complete illusion. I never said that the format was the sole reason for this racial disparity. Rather, what i am trying to say is that it is a significant contributing factor to the amount of terrans in Code S. if we take the terran numbers from may (14) we can see that this is likely due to balance, and in my opinion (as a masters terran player, if that even means anything for the arguement) Terran WAS imbalanced in May. Then the following number to october (20) can be explained by the game becoming more and more balanced as time went on. However, due to terran being imbalanced in the first place, the major patches from may to october would have caused terran winrates, for the sake of arguement, to go from 65% to 60% to 55% and so an so forth. As you can see this means that as the months wore on more terrans would still (presumably) be gaining entry into Code S thanks to (possible) racial imbalances in TvP. I hope you can get my point, its 2am here now and i am not really in the mood for a proper arguement, and I am not a factual encyclopedia relating to GSL. Except you're pulling those percentages out of nowhere, and, actually, Terran had a better winrate vP in October than August (according to those links that SeaSwift posted, not sure about the overall winrate in Korea), so your "for the sake of argument" percentages are completely meaningless because they have zero statistical basis. You don't have to be a factual encyclopedia regarding the GSL but the least you could do is actually do research instead of pulling theories out of nowhere that just help conform to your biases. I don't have the graph on me, but i think you will find that the general trend for TvP balance is correlating (this is the wrong word i think :| I NEED SLEEP) in the negative direction for Terran, and the positive direction for protoss. http://i.imgur.com/OcoyL.pngNo.
Buddy, you're linking the wrong graph. This one shows Protoss winning 54.5% PvT in Nov. Link the Dec one where T is back on top.
|
Glad to see a decent number of protoss have made it to RO16 this time ! 
Some more zergs and we will finally have an interesting code S with various match-ups. I was getting pretty fed up of watching TvT every time.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
Keeeeeeen. Goddamit. Anyway, nice to see double Protoss go through, but Keeeeeen, what happened!?!
|
On January 19 2012 22:27 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 22:25 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:22 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:20 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:13 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:06 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:58 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 21:56 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:52 R!! wrote:On January 19 2012 21:46 HolyArrow wrote:
[quote]
We can spend all day talking about hypotheticals but the fact is that overall, Terran statistically has had an edge in Korea for a significant portion of last year, and it shows in the racial distribution of Code S towards the end of last year. Also, even if you want to make the argument that it's very hard to drop out and very hard to get into, then you also have to acknowledge the fact that despite how hard you say it was to get into Code S with the old format, a disproportionate of Terrans managed to do so to make it so that there were roughly 20 Terrans for a couple seasons. They managed to do that ages ago, and stayed there because the format made it so, which created a false sense of terran dominance. The old "format" argument doesn't make any sense. It implies that the game was balanced, so the winrates were about 50/50, but poor Terrans managed to stay in because of the format. It's utter bollocks because if you look at the winrates, they were NOT 50/50. Terran still won most of their matches against Protoss in Code S for a long time. That has nothing to do with the format which retained players. Back when some of those terrans got into Code S, say back in march 2011, the game wasn't balanced. but Star2 has become far more balanced since then. but due to terrans getting in due to imbalance, a racial disparity was created that lasted for an extended period of time due to the Code S format of old. there, explained. Sorry, when you quote my post I expect you to read it first. This hypothesis that Terrans got in because of racial disparity and then despite the re-balancing managed to stay in Code S does not make sense because then the WINRATE in GSL would be equal, because the game was balanced, or even unequal because the bad Terrans would be playing on even grounds with better Protoss. But the winrate was not equal. Go to Liquipedia. Look at Terran vs Protoss winrates in Code S for last year. Apart from November, the PvT winrate was for every single month sub-50%. If you don't believe me, see here. Or here. Go through and check those winrates. Up until November, Protoss vs Terran was massively in favour of Terran in the GSL. Even in Code A, PvT was frequently sub-45%. This notion that the format alone kept Terrans who were worse than Protoss in Code S or Code A despite the game being balanced is a complete illusion. I never said that the format was the sole reason for this racial disparity. Rather, what i am trying to say is that it is a significant contributing factor to the amount of terrans in Code S. if we take the terran numbers from may (14) we can see that this is likely due to balance, and in my opinion (as a masters terran player, if that even means anything for the arguement) Terran WAS imbalanced in May. Then the following number to october (20) can be explained by the game becoming more and more balanced as time went on. However, due to terran being imbalanced in the first place, the major patches from may to october would have caused terran winrates, for the sake of arguement, to go from 65% to 60% to 55% and so an so forth. As you can see this means that as the months wore on more terrans would still (presumably) be gaining entry into Code S thanks to (possible) racial imbalances in TvP. I hope you can get my point, its 2am here now and i am not really in the mood for a proper arguement, and I am not a factual encyclopedia relating to GSL. Except you're pulling those percentages out of nowhere, and, actually, Terran had a better winrate vP in October than August (according to those links that SeaSwift posted, not sure about the overall winrate in Korea), so your "for the sake of argument" percentages are completely meaningless because they have zero statistical basis. You don't have to be a factual encyclopedia regarding the GSL but the least you could do is actually do research instead of pulling theories out of nowhere that just help conform to your biases. I don't have the graph on me, but i think you will find that the general trend for TvP balance is correlating (this is the wrong word i think :| I NEED SLEEP) in the negative direction for Terran, and the positive direction for protoss. http://i.imgur.com/OcoyL.pngNo. Buddy, you're linking the wrong graph. This one shows Protoss winning 54.5% PvT in Nov. Link the Dec one where T is back on top.
Well, I saw his edit where he specified May to October, so I figured that graph would be sufficient.
|
On January 19 2012 22:25 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 22:22 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:20 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:13 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:06 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:58 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 21:56 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:52 R!! wrote:On January 19 2012 21:46 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 21:42 HeroUlyssess wrote:
[quote]
More like the old Code S format made it very hard to drop out and hard to get into, and it just as easily could have been 15 Zergs in Code S or 15 protosses We can spend all day talking about hypotheticals but the fact is that overall, Terran statistically has had an edge in Korea for a significant portion of last year, and it shows in the racial distribution of Code S towards the end of last year. Also, even if you want to make the argument that it's very hard to drop out and very hard to get into, then you also have to acknowledge the fact that despite how hard you say it was to get into Code S with the old format, a disproportionate of Terrans managed to do so to make it so that there were roughly 20 Terrans for a couple seasons. They managed to do that ages ago, and stayed there because the format made it so, which created a false sense of terran dominance. The old "format" argument doesn't make any sense. It implies that the game was balanced, so the winrates were about 50/50, but poor Terrans managed to stay in because of the format. It's utter bollocks because if you look at the winrates, they were NOT 50/50. Terran still won most of their matches against Protoss in Code S for a long time. That has nothing to do with the format which retained players. Back when some of those terrans got into Code S, say back in march 2011, the game wasn't balanced. but Star2 has become far more balanced since then. but due to terrans getting in due to imbalance, a racial disparity was created that lasted for an extended period of time due to the Code S format of old. there, explained. Sorry, when you quote my post I expect you to read it first. This hypothesis that Terrans got in because of racial disparity and then despite the re-balancing managed to stay in Code S does not make sense because then the WINRATE in GSL would be equal, because the game was balanced, or even unequal because the bad Terrans would be playing on even grounds with better Protoss. But the winrate was not equal. Go to Liquipedia. Look at Terran vs Protoss winrates in Code S for last year. Apart from November, the PvT winrate was for every single month sub-50%. If you don't believe me, see here. Or here. Go through and check those winrates. Up until November, Protoss vs Terran was massively in favour of Terran in the GSL. Even in Code A, PvT was frequently sub-45%. This notion that the format alone kept Terrans who were worse than Protoss in Code S or Code A despite the game being balanced is a complete illusion. I never said that the format was the sole reason for this racial disparity. Rather, what i am trying to say is that it is a significant contributing factor to the amount of terrans in Code S. if we take the terran numbers from may (14) we can see that this is likely due to balance, and in my opinion (as a masters terran player, if that even means anything for the arguement) Terran WAS imbalanced in May. Then the following number to october (20) can be explained by the game becoming more and more balanced as time went on. However, due to terran being imbalanced in the first place, the major patches from may to october would have caused terran winrates, for the sake of arguement, to go from 65% to 60% to 55% and so an so forth. As you can see this means that as the months wore on more terrans would still (presumably) be gaining entry into Code S thanks to (possible) racial imbalances in TvP. I hope you can get my point, its 2am here now and i am not really in the mood for a proper arguement, and I am not a factual encyclopedia relating to GSL. Except you're pulling those percentages out of nowhere, and, actually, Terran had a better winrate vP in October than August (according to those links that SeaSwift posted, not sure about the overall winrate in Korea), so your "for the sake of argument" percentages are completely meaningless because they have zero statistical basis. You don't have to be a factual encyclopedia regarding the GSL but the least you could do is actually do research instead of pulling theories out of nowhere that just help conform to your biases. I don't have the graph on me, but i think you will find that the general trend for TvP balance is correlating (this is the wrong word i think :| I NEED SLEEP) in the negative direction for Terran, and the positive direction for protoss. http://i.imgur.com/OcoyL.pngNo.
i don't have the data on me to plot my own graph, but from visual inspection i think the line of best fit for th at graph would indeed be negative for the terran side of TvP.
If you take into account that the 2 spikes of 66% and 67% appear to be statistical outliers (51.5% to 66% and 54.4 to 67%) and not turly representative of the entire sample population of win-rate percentages (possibly explained by fewer games being played OR recorded during the months in question, thus causing some level of fluctuation in the data recorded) it is even more likely to be a negatively progressing line of best fit. but then I could be wrong. I don't exactly have a spreadsheet open with all the pertinent data to check.
|
On January 19 2012 22:21 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 21:47 R!! wrote:On January 19 2012 21:39 xinxy wrote:
The Terran tears in this thread are pretty delicious I gotta say. I mean there's as many T left in r16 as P and Z combined but that won't stop cries of imbalance apparently. It must be absolute Terran majority for the game to be "balanced". Except the percentage of protoss players going through is bigger whilst their skill definetely isn't ( 7gate 7gate vray allin, macro game = 20 min without starting +1 armor). Your words are very rhetorical in nature. You tell one part of the story without telling the whole story. It indicates armchair QB'ing while being a very mediocre skill level. Perhaps you should consider your lack of understanding of even the very fundamentals of gameplay let alone the subtleties before you bash players far better than you. For example, your "macro gam = 20 min without starting +1 armor) was probably the one where Puzzle cut gas to perform a timing which he recognized would fail. With very limited gas supply he realized that having FF, forcing ghosts and vikings with HT and colossi would be much better use for gas than getting 1/1. So he planned far ahead, going-> HT (unlocks +2 attack via Council to setup colossi later on when he'd have enough gas) while taking greedy expansions to metagame his opponent. Why HT first? Setup colossi and metagame Keen who likes abusive drop styles. Colossi are not as good w/o feedback + cannons therefore he needs extra minerals and have enough HTs at the right places. Some basic analysis like this would should be occurring as you watch the game would, you would think, prevent you from posting asinine comments like yours.
Cut the verborrhage, do you understand what means 19 min of game time?Puzzle had four, 4 (quatre) bases, he had 100 gas to spare, and btw what do you know of my understanding and who the hell are you to talk down on people? I'm too tired to argue with arrogant douchies, bye.
|
On January 19 2012 22:31 HeroUlyssess wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 22:25 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:22 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:20 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:13 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:06 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:58 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 21:56 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:52 R!! wrote:On January 19 2012 21:46 HolyArrow wrote:
[quote]
We can spend all day talking about hypotheticals but the fact is that overall, Terran statistically has had an edge in Korea for a significant portion of last year, and it shows in the racial distribution of Code S towards the end of last year. Also, even if you want to make the argument that it's very hard to drop out and very hard to get into, then you also have to acknowledge the fact that despite how hard you say it was to get into Code S with the old format, a disproportionate of Terrans managed to do so to make it so that there were roughly 20 Terrans for a couple seasons. They managed to do that ages ago, and stayed there because the format made it so, which created a false sense of terran dominance. The old "format" argument doesn't make any sense. It implies that the game was balanced, so the winrates were about 50/50, but poor Terrans managed to stay in because of the format. It's utter bollocks because if you look at the winrates, they were NOT 50/50. Terran still won most of their matches against Protoss in Code S for a long time. That has nothing to do with the format which retained players. Back when some of those terrans got into Code S, say back in march 2011, the game wasn't balanced. but Star2 has become far more balanced since then. but due to terrans getting in due to imbalance, a racial disparity was created that lasted for an extended period of time due to the Code S format of old. there, explained. Sorry, when you quote my post I expect you to read it first. This hypothesis that Terrans got in because of racial disparity and then despite the re-balancing managed to stay in Code S does not make sense because then the WINRATE in GSL would be equal, because the game was balanced, or even unequal because the bad Terrans would be playing on even grounds with better Protoss. But the winrate was not equal. Go to Liquipedia. Look at Terran vs Protoss winrates in Code S for last year. Apart from November, the PvT winrate was for every single month sub-50%. If you don't believe me, see here. Or here. Go through and check those winrates. Up until November, Protoss vs Terran was massively in favour of Terran in the GSL. Even in Code A, PvT was frequently sub-45%. This notion that the format alone kept Terrans who were worse than Protoss in Code S or Code A despite the game being balanced is a complete illusion. I never said that the format was the sole reason for this racial disparity. Rather, what i am trying to say is that it is a significant contributing factor to the amount of terrans in Code S. if we take the terran numbers from may (14) we can see that this is likely due to balance, and in my opinion (as a masters terran player, if that even means anything for the arguement) Terran WAS imbalanced in May. Then the following number to october (20) can be explained by the game becoming more and more balanced as time went on. However, due to terran being imbalanced in the first place, the major patches from may to october would have caused terran winrates, for the sake of arguement, to go from 65% to 60% to 55% and so an so forth. As you can see this means that as the months wore on more terrans would still (presumably) be gaining entry into Code S thanks to (possible) racial imbalances in TvP. I hope you can get my point, its 2am here now and i am not really in the mood for a proper arguement, and I am not a factual encyclopedia relating to GSL. Except you're pulling those percentages out of nowhere, and, actually, Terran had a better winrate vP in October than August (according to those links that SeaSwift posted, not sure about the overall winrate in Korea), so your "for the sake of argument" percentages are completely meaningless because they have zero statistical basis. You don't have to be a factual encyclopedia regarding the GSL but the least you could do is actually do research instead of pulling theories out of nowhere that just help conform to your biases. I don't have the graph on me, but i think you will find that the general trend for TvP balance is correlating (this is the wrong word i think :| I NEED SLEEP) in the negative direction for Terran, and the positive direction for protoss. http://i.imgur.com/OcoyL.pngNo. i don't have the data on me to plot my own graph, but from visual inspection i think the line of best fit for th at graph would indeed be negative for the terran side of TvP. If you take into account that the 2 spikes of 66% and 67% appear to be statistical outliers (51.5% to 66% and 54.4 to 67%) and not turly representative of the entire sample population of win-rate percentages (possibly explained by fewer games being played OR recorded during the months in question) it is even more likely to be a negatively progressing line of best fit. but then I could be wrong. I don't exactly have a spreadsheet open with all the pertinent data to check.
Go to sleep dude ^_^
|
On January 19 2012 22:30 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 22:27 Emperor_Earth wrote:On January 19 2012 22:25 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:22 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:20 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:13 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:06 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:58 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 21:56 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:52 R!! wrote:
[quote]
They managed to do that ages ago, and stayed there because the format made it so, which created a false sense of terran dominance. The old "format" argument doesn't make any sense. It implies that the game was balanced, so the winrates were about 50/50, but poor Terrans managed to stay in because of the format. It's utter bollocks because if you look at the winrates, they were NOT 50/50. Terran still won most of their matches against Protoss in Code S for a long time. That has nothing to do with the format which retained players. Back when some of those terrans got into Code S, say back in march 2011, the game wasn't balanced. but Star2 has become far more balanced since then. but due to terrans getting in due to imbalance, a racial disparity was created that lasted for an extended period of time due to the Code S format of old. there, explained. Sorry, when you quote my post I expect you to read it first. This hypothesis that Terrans got in because of racial disparity and then despite the re-balancing managed to stay in Code S does not make sense because then the WINRATE in GSL would be equal, because the game was balanced, or even unequal because the bad Terrans would be playing on even grounds with better Protoss. But the winrate was not equal. Go to Liquipedia. Look at Terran vs Protoss winrates in Code S for last year. Apart from November, the PvT winrate was for every single month sub-50%. If you don't believe me, see here. Or here. Go through and check those winrates. Up until November, Protoss vs Terran was massively in favour of Terran in the GSL. Even in Code A, PvT was frequently sub-45%. This notion that the format alone kept Terrans who were worse than Protoss in Code S or Code A despite the game being balanced is a complete illusion. I never said that the format was the sole reason for this racial disparity. Rather, what i am trying to say is that it is a significant contributing factor to the amount of terrans in Code S. if we take the terran numbers from may (14) we can see that this is likely due to balance, and in my opinion (as a masters terran player, if that even means anything for the arguement) Terran WAS imbalanced in May. Then the following number to october (20) can be explained by the game becoming more and more balanced as time went on. However, due to terran being imbalanced in the first place, the major patches from may to october would have caused terran winrates, for the sake of arguement, to go from 65% to 60% to 55% and so an so forth. As you can see this means that as the months wore on more terrans would still (presumably) be gaining entry into Code S thanks to (possible) racial imbalances in TvP. I hope you can get my point, its 2am here now and i am not really in the mood for a proper arguement, and I am not a factual encyclopedia relating to GSL. Except you're pulling those percentages out of nowhere, and, actually, Terran had a better winrate vP in October than August (according to those links that SeaSwift posted, not sure about the overall winrate in Korea), so your "for the sake of argument" percentages are completely meaningless because they have zero statistical basis. You don't have to be a factual encyclopedia regarding the GSL but the least you could do is actually do research instead of pulling theories out of nowhere that just help conform to your biases. I don't have the graph on me, but i think you will find that the general trend for TvP balance is correlating (this is the wrong word i think :| I NEED SLEEP) in the negative direction for Terran, and the positive direction for protoss. http://i.imgur.com/OcoyL.pngNo. Buddy, you're linking the wrong graph. This one shows Protoss winning 54.5% PvT in Nov. Link the Dec one where T is back on top. Well, I saw his edit where he specified May to October, so I figured that graph would be sufficient.
This is like arguing that your girl is so hot that she'd look great w/o fake tits. Then you cut off her head.
Winning an auxiliary argument to lose a critical one is not a victorious strategy.
|
On January 19 2012 22:32 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 22:31 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:25 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:22 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:20 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:13 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:06 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:58 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 21:56 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:52 R!! wrote:
[quote]
They managed to do that ages ago, and stayed there because the format made it so, which created a false sense of terran dominance. The old "format" argument doesn't make any sense. It implies that the game was balanced, so the winrates were about 50/50, but poor Terrans managed to stay in because of the format. It's utter bollocks because if you look at the winrates, they were NOT 50/50. Terran still won most of their matches against Protoss in Code S for a long time. That has nothing to do with the format which retained players. Back when some of those terrans got into Code S, say back in march 2011, the game wasn't balanced. but Star2 has become far more balanced since then. but due to terrans getting in due to imbalance, a racial disparity was created that lasted for an extended period of time due to the Code S format of old. there, explained. Sorry, when you quote my post I expect you to read it first. This hypothesis that Terrans got in because of racial disparity and then despite the re-balancing managed to stay in Code S does not make sense because then the WINRATE in GSL would be equal, because the game was balanced, or even unequal because the bad Terrans would be playing on even grounds with better Protoss. But the winrate was not equal. Go to Liquipedia. Look at Terran vs Protoss winrates in Code S for last year. Apart from November, the PvT winrate was for every single month sub-50%. If you don't believe me, see here. Or here. Go through and check those winrates. Up until November, Protoss vs Terran was massively in favour of Terran in the GSL. Even in Code A, PvT was frequently sub-45%. This notion that the format alone kept Terrans who were worse than Protoss in Code S or Code A despite the game being balanced is a complete illusion. I never said that the format was the sole reason for this racial disparity. Rather, what i am trying to say is that it is a significant contributing factor to the amount of terrans in Code S. if we take the terran numbers from may (14) we can see that this is likely due to balance, and in my opinion (as a masters terran player, if that even means anything for the arguement) Terran WAS imbalanced in May. Then the following number to october (20) can be explained by the game becoming more and more balanced as time went on. However, due to terran being imbalanced in the first place, the major patches from may to october would have caused terran winrates, for the sake of arguement, to go from 65% to 60% to 55% and so an so forth. As you can see this means that as the months wore on more terrans would still (presumably) be gaining entry into Code S thanks to (possible) racial imbalances in TvP. I hope you can get my point, its 2am here now and i am not really in the mood for a proper arguement, and I am not a factual encyclopedia relating to GSL. Except you're pulling those percentages out of nowhere, and, actually, Terran had a better winrate vP in October than August (according to those links that SeaSwift posted, not sure about the overall winrate in Korea), so your "for the sake of argument" percentages are completely meaningless because they have zero statistical basis. You don't have to be a factual encyclopedia regarding the GSL but the least you could do is actually do research instead of pulling theories out of nowhere that just help conform to your biases. I don't have the graph on me, but i think you will find that the general trend for TvP balance is correlating (this is the wrong word i think :| I NEED SLEEP) in the negative direction for Terran, and the positive direction for protoss. http://i.imgur.com/OcoyL.pngNo. i don't have the data on me to plot my own graph, but from visual inspection i think the line of best fit for th at graph would indeed be negative for the terran side of TvP. If you take into account that the 2 spikes of 66% and 67% appear to be statistical outliers (51.5% to 66% and 54.4 to 67%) and not turly representative of the entire sample population of win-rate percentages (possibly explained by fewer games being played OR recorded during the months in question) it is even more likely to be a negatively progressing line of best fit. but then I could be wrong. I don't exactly have a spreadsheet open with all the pertinent data to check. Go to sleep dude ^_^
Im cooling down my brain, I am still in a heightened state from the arguments and games tonight, I am hopoing some low level (and probably wrong) statistics will help my brain calm down :| its working so far. i give myself 5-10 more minutes before i am asleep at my desk.
|
Bah, protoss day. Why did Nada and Keen have to lose? There are so many terrans in code S that I don't like.
|
On January 19 2012 22:32 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 22:30 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:27 Emperor_Earth wrote:On January 19 2012 22:25 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:22 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:20 HolyArrow wrote:On January 19 2012 22:13 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 22:06 SeaSwift wrote:On January 19 2012 21:58 HeroUlyssess wrote:On January 19 2012 21:56 SeaSwift wrote:
[quote]
The old "format" argument doesn't make any sense. It implies that the game was balanced, so the winrates were about 50/50, but poor Terrans managed to stay in because of the format. It's utter bollocks because if you look at the winrates, they were NOT 50/50. Terran still won most of their matches against Protoss in Code S for a long time.
That has nothing to do with the format which retained players. Back when some of those terrans got into Code S, say back in march 2011, the game wasn't balanced. but Star2 has become far more balanced since then. but due to terrans getting in due to imbalance, a racial disparity was created that lasted for an extended period of time due to the Code S format of old. there, explained. Sorry, when you quote my post I expect you to read it first. This hypothesis that Terrans got in because of racial disparity and then despite the re-balancing managed to stay in Code S does not make sense because then the WINRATE in GSL would be equal, because the game was balanced, or even unequal because the bad Terrans would be playing on even grounds with better Protoss. But the winrate was not equal. Go to Liquipedia. Look at Terran vs Protoss winrates in Code S for last year. Apart from November, the PvT winrate was for every single month sub-50%. If you don't believe me, see here. Or here. Go through and check those winrates. Up until November, Protoss vs Terran was massively in favour of Terran in the GSL. Even in Code A, PvT was frequently sub-45%. This notion that the format alone kept Terrans who were worse than Protoss in Code S or Code A despite the game being balanced is a complete illusion. I never said that the format was the sole reason for this racial disparity. Rather, what i am trying to say is that it is a significant contributing factor to the amount of terrans in Code S. if we take the terran numbers from may (14) we can see that this is likely due to balance, and in my opinion (as a masters terran player, if that even means anything for the arguement) Terran WAS imbalanced in May. Then the following number to october (20) can be explained by the game becoming more and more balanced as time went on. However, due to terran being imbalanced in the first place, the major patches from may to october would have caused terran winrates, for the sake of arguement, to go from 65% to 60% to 55% and so an so forth. As you can see this means that as the months wore on more terrans would still (presumably) be gaining entry into Code S thanks to (possible) racial imbalances in TvP. I hope you can get my point, its 2am here now and i am not really in the mood for a proper arguement, and I am not a factual encyclopedia relating to GSL. Except you're pulling those percentages out of nowhere, and, actually, Terran had a better winrate vP in October than August (according to those links that SeaSwift posted, not sure about the overall winrate in Korea), so your "for the sake of argument" percentages are completely meaningless because they have zero statistical basis. You don't have to be a factual encyclopedia regarding the GSL but the least you could do is actually do research instead of pulling theories out of nowhere that just help conform to your biases. I don't have the graph on me, but i think you will find that the general trend for TvP balance is correlating (this is the wrong word i think :| I NEED SLEEP) in the negative direction for Terran, and the positive direction for protoss. http://i.imgur.com/OcoyL.pngNo. Buddy, you're linking the wrong graph. This one shows Protoss winning 54.5% PvT in Nov. Link the Dec one where T is back on top. Well, I saw his edit where he specified May to October, so I figured that graph would be sufficient. This is like arguing that your girl is so hot that she'd look great w/o fake tits. Then you cut off her head. Winning an auxiliary argument to lose a critical one is not a victorious strategy.
I specified may to October because I only have data pertinent to that time period and any other arguments i make are only extrapolations and thus lose s good measure of weight.
|
Poor underpowered Protoss
|
On January 19 2012 22:31 R!! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 22:21 Emperor_Earth wrote:On January 19 2012 21:47 R!! wrote:On January 19 2012 21:39 xinxy wrote:
The Terran tears in this thread are pretty delicious I gotta say. I mean there's as many T left in r16 as P and Z combined but that won't stop cries of imbalance apparently. It must be absolute Terran majority for the game to be "balanced". Except the percentage of protoss players going through is bigger whilst their skill definetely isn't ( 7gate 7gate vray allin, macro game = 20 min without starting +1 armor). Your words are very rhetorical in nature. You tell one part of the story without telling the whole story. It indicates armchair QB'ing while being a very mediocre skill level. Perhaps you should consider your lack of understanding of even the very fundamentals of gameplay let alone the subtleties before you bash players far better than you. For example, your "macro gam = 20 min without starting +1 armor) was probably the one where Puzzle cut gas to perform a timing which he recognized would fail. With very limited gas supply he realized that having FF, forcing ghosts and vikings with HT and colossi would be much better use for gas than getting 1/1. So he planned far ahead, going-> HT (unlocks +2 attack via Council to setup colossi later on when he'd have enough gas) while taking greedy expansions to metagame his opponent. Why HT first? Setup colossi and metagame Keen who likes abusive drop styles. Colossi are not as good w/o feedback + cannons therefore he needs extra minerals and have enough HTs at the right places. Some basic analysis like this would should be occurring as you watch the game would, you would think, prevent you from posting asinine comments like yours. Cut the verborragy, do you understand what means 19 min of game time?Puzzle had four, 4 (quatre) bases, he had 100 gas to spare, and btw what do you know of my understanding and who the hell are you to talk down on people? I'm too tired to argue with arrogant douchies, bye.
Again you're not telling the whole story. How many bases did Keen have relatively? What was his army composition relatively speaking? What is his playstyle?
4. Bio centric + medivacs. Drop centric.
Please make a good argument for why 2-1 and having to spread your equally upgraded (pure gateway! because you would rather he be on three bases with gateway units only with all his gas tied up in upgrades via twi council, 0-1, and 2-0) units is preferable to having HTs + cannons at each expo (save 75/assim + mins instead of gas from mining). Oh right. Puzzle is a progamer and actually thought his play out... not from the comfort of observing.
See, with BW, we TL.nets took someone's play and first asked why did they make this and this decision and what can I learn from these players that are much better than me.
Somehow, in SC2 the newcomers flip that around and chide progamers for not playing our style, whether it's macro oriented or harass oriented, upgrade heavy or unit heavy. Then we talk about how these progamers made the wrong decisions and how we know the better ones.
Really? The odds are the progamers know far more than we do and we should be making efforts to see what they see, the decisions they make from much more limited intel.
|
We´re talking about balance man.. balance.. watching GSL games with terran always ends on balance.. stop talking about balance.. lol
HOTS isnt even out , the game is 1/3 out.. And this first expansion highlights the terran race.. Get better , player is as important as race ..
Sitting here watching GSL but were talking about balance..
|
On January 19 2012 22:41 tapk69 wrote:
We´re talking about balance man.. balance.. watching GSL games with terran always ends on balance.. stop talking about balance.. lol
HOTS isnt even out , the game is 1/3 out.. And this first expansion highlights the terran race.. Get better , player is as important as race ..
Sitting here watching GSL but were talking about balance..
Nice effort.. But it sounded a bit forced.
|
On January 19 2012 22:41 tapk69 wrote:
We´re talking about balance man.. balance.. watching GSL games with terran always ends on balance.. stop talking about balance.. lol
HOTS isnt even out , the game is 1/3 out.. And this first expansion highlights the terran race.. Get better , player is as important as race ..
Sitting here watching GSL but were talking about balance..
Great effort. Did not sound forced at all. =)
|
On January 19 2012 22:39 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 22:31 R!! wrote:On January 19 2012 22:21 Emperor_Earth wrote:On January 19 2012 21:47 R!! wrote:On January 19 2012 21:39 xinxy wrote:
The Terran tears in this thread are pretty delicious I gotta say. I mean there's as many T left in r16 as P and Z combined but that won't stop cries of imbalance apparently. It must be absolute Terran majority for the game to be "balanced". Except the percentage of protoss players going through is bigger whilst their skill definetely isn't ( 7gate 7gate vray allin, macro game = 20 min without starting +1 armor). Your words are very rhetorical in nature. You tell one part of the story without telling the whole story. It indicates armchair QB'ing while being a very mediocre skill level. Perhaps you should consider your lack of understanding of even the very fundamentals of gameplay let alone the subtleties before you bash players far better than you. For example, your "macro gam = 20 min without starting +1 armor) was probably the one where Puzzle cut gas to perform a timing which he recognized would fail. With very limited gas supply he realized that having FF, forcing ghosts and vikings with HT and colossi would be much better use for gas than getting 1/1. So he planned far ahead, going-> HT (unlocks +2 attack via Council to setup colossi later on when he'd have enough gas) while taking greedy expansions to metagame his opponent. Why HT first? Setup colossi and metagame Keen who likes abusive drop styles. Colossi are not as good w/o feedback + cannons therefore he needs extra minerals and have enough HTs at the right places. Some basic analysis like this would should be occurring as you watch the game would, you would think, prevent you from posting asinine comments like yours. Cut the verborragy, do you understand what means 19 min of game time?Puzzle had four, 4 (quatre) bases, he had 100 gas to spare, and btw what do you know of my understanding and who the hell are you to talk down on people? I'm too tired to argue with arrogant douchies, bye. Again you're not telling the whole story. How many bases did Keen have relatively? What was his army composition relatively speaking? What is his playstyle? 4. Bio centric + medivacs. Drop centric. Please make a good argument for why 2-1 and having to spread your equally upgraded (pure gateway! because you would rather he be on three bases with gateway units only with all his gas tied up in upgrades via twi council, 0-1, and 2-0) units is preferable to having HTs + cannons at each expo (save 75/assim + mins instead of gas from mining). Oh right. Puzzle is a progamer and actually thought his play out... not from the comfort of observing. See, with BW, we TL.nets took someone's play and first asked why did they make this and this decision and what can I learn from these players that are much better than me. Somehow, in SC2 the newcomers flip that around and chide progamers for not playing our style, whether it's macro oriented or harass oriented, upgrade heavy or unit heavy. Then we talk about how these progamers made the wrong decisions and how we know the better ones. Really? The odds are the progamers know far more than we do and we should be making efforts to see what they see, the decisions they make from much more limited intel.
Yes, his builds are so well thought out and smart that every game I call his build simply based on the map and his lackluster play, the guy tries to hold off incoming 2 rax by chronoing warpgate instead of the gateways, not every progamer's forte is their brain you know.
|
if you dont take non korean-team players into account (sen, idra, jyp, zenio)
then
5/7 protoss advanced (71%)
3/6 zerg advanced (50%)
8/15 terran advanced (53%)
now lets call the gsl ro16 the "higher stages of the game" then one could assume that protoss currently have an edge and zerg terran are doing equally well, with terran having the edge in the mid-upper echelon.
edit: if you want to take non korean-team players into account, then dont forget that idra never earned his gsl spot, he stole it from naniwa, so failure was inevitable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
