|
On May 03 2010 23:16 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 23:12 Tenn wrote:
Takkara: You're right that you can present almost what you want with statistics. But you can still draw some conclusions though. E.g. that it seems to be a trend that Protoss is in fact more used than the other races, in exception for the Top 10 occasion.
So sure, statistics can be misleading, but they most often show you something.. That's how insurance companies makes money.. Yes, numbers are important. But if you're going to throw a number of people around as significant, there should be a justification. For example, someone broke down the Asia numbers by people above 2000 rating and people above 1800 rating. Those are more meaningful breakdowns than just 250. Because, if you look at the data, for some weird reason it's REALLY prone to runs. So sometimes stopping at 245 instead of 250 means that you lopped off like 5 protoss, which would really change the number distribution. Case in point: The OP says that based on Euro Top 250, things look balanced there. If he did the same thing with the Top 100, he'd see Zerg as BADLY overrepresented. Same thing with the US and Protoss.
Not really. The best representative sample is 250 in this case. The top 100 gives you a misrepresentation of data. You're working backwards....
|
Terran is clearly an underpowered race at the moment. Most of this is due to macro mechanics, Terran has to seriously commit to a build and right now every single thing terran does has specific hard counters from zerg and protoss. Terrans haven't found a golden unit mix in either matchup and to be honest I don't think they will.
|
Is this a thread about the rankings on US/EU/ASIA or a thread about terran whine? I see terrans on every important tourney doing good against zergs and protoss, and even winning. Idk what are you people complaining about. Maybe less people play the race, who knows. Tourneys are a better representative imo.
|
On May 04 2010 00:04 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 23:16 Takkara wrote:On May 03 2010 23:12 Tenn wrote:
Takkara: You're right that you can present almost what you want with statistics. But you can still draw some conclusions though. E.g. that it seems to be a trend that Protoss is in fact more used than the other races, in exception for the Top 10 occasion.
So sure, statistics can be misleading, but they most often show you something.. That's how insurance companies makes money.. Yes, numbers are important. But if you're going to throw a number of people around as significant, there should be a justification. For example, someone broke down the Asia numbers by people above 2000 rating and people above 1800 rating. Those are more meaningful breakdowns than just 250. Because, if you look at the data, for some weird reason it's REALLY prone to runs. So sometimes stopping at 245 instead of 250 means that you lopped off like 5 protoss, which would really change the number distribution. Case in point: The OP says that based on Euro Top 250, things look balanced there. If he did the same thing with the Top 100, he'd see Zerg as BADLY overrepresented. Same thing with the US and Protoss. Not really. The best representative sample is 250 in this case. The top 100 gives you a misrepresentation of data. You're working backwards.... Best according to what criteria? Because you are of the opinion that those numbers look realistic?
Without additional data top xxx will always be skewed when compared to top yyy.
The worst part is when people take the asia numbers(zerg 70%) at the very top and say zerg is OP because of it. What they neglect to take into account is that 2000 rating or above or top 10 or anything extremely narrow like that is a ridiculously small sample size where its actually possible to start saying "the terrans and protosses at that level are just bad" while something like that would be ridiculous when seen across the entire population.
Now, don't get me wrong, it is entirely possible that zerg is OP at a high enough level of play, it's just that these numbers aren't nearly enough to conclusively prove it.
|
Reaper harass into marauder. Tanks, ghosts, vikings, medivacs waiting in the wings.
Terran seems pretty easy right now. You just gotta hit early with those reapers and micro well. Take out depots and not just workers.
|
Interesting numbers, although as Takkara said, not really anything that you could draw any real conclusions from. The idea that the sample size of 250 players is "big enough" is a moot point when it's not randomly selected. It only represents the top 250 and nothing else.
A random sample of 250 Platium players, for example, would at least be something you could see as representative for the distribution of the races in the Platinum League.
|
On May 03 2010 23:31 gavss wrote:
I am not surprised. Terran requires higher apm, skill and game iq right now.
Terran needs to have 4 or 5 types of units and abilities to deal with an army that has almost no unit diversity. It is ridiculous.
Terran always has lower production than spawn larva or warpgate production.
Terran doesn't have an endgame unit. Thors and battlecruisers are support units.
Terran needs to build production buildings while zerg just spawns larva.
Terran needs to build walls if he doesn't reaper rush.
Terran needs to build air units to counter some ground units like collossus.
Terran doesn't have a viable pure mech build.
i wonder if this guy is a (bad) terran player.
|
On May 04 2010 01:20 hoovehand wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 23:31 gavss wrote:
I am not surprised. Terran requires higher apm, skill and game iq right now.
Terran needs to have 4 or 5 types of units and abilities to deal with an army that has almost no unit diversity. It is ridiculous.
Terran always has lower production than spawn larva or warpgate production.
Terran doesn't have an endgame unit. Thors and battlecruisers are support units.
Terran needs to build production buildings while zerg just spawns larva.
Terran needs to build walls if he doesn't reaper rush.
Terran needs to build air units to counter some ground units like collossus.
Terran doesn't have a viable pure mech build. i wonder if this guy is a (bad) terran player.
i am a casual gamer in gold league.
|
On May 03 2010 23:31 gavss wrote:
I am not surprised. Terran requires higher apm, skill and game iq right now.
Terran needs to have 4 or 5 types of units and abilities to deal with an army that has almost no unit diversity. It is ridiculous.
Terran always has lower production than spawn larva or warpgate production.
Terran doesn't have an endgame unit. Thors and battlecruisers are support units.
Terran needs to build production buildings while zerg just spawns larva.
Terran needs to build walls if he doesn't reaper rush.
Terran needs to build air units to counter some ground units like collossus.
Terran doesn't have a viable pure mech build.
Wow, this guy isn't biased or anything.
- Terran army almost always needs to be flanked by zerg or engaged in a disadvantage position by toss.
- Terran units are very very effective for cost and reactors can give very high production.
- Battlecruisers are just fine. Broodlords and colossus both need army support to survive.
- Zerg has to build a specific building and research a specific upgrade for every unit they want to make and toss has three different tech trees to go up. Terrans have one tech tree that they can climb extremely quickly that gives them access to almost the entirety of their arsenal.
- Terran CAN build walls. Zerg can not wall at all and protoss don't wall as effectively. Why are you complaining about a terran advantage?
- Everyone needs to build air units to counter colossus. Guess which air unit counters colossus the hardest? Yep, the viking.
- So? Toss can't survive on only robo bay units either. Just cause mech could be used by itself in SC1 doesn't mean it needs to be an army in itself in SC2. Mix marauders with your mech, works wonders.
Seriously man, you need to spend a week playing random so that you have better situational awareness.
|
from artosis's latest vid at the playXP lan he said something like 80% of the people there were zerg and it consisted of pretty much the cream of the crop players from the asia server
he also said that on the asia ladder he plays a lot of "1-base-all-in noobie-protoss" at the top of plat league that didnt make it to the lan because theyre pretty much a 1 trick pony
|
On May 04 2010 04:54 smore wrote:
from artosis's latest vid at the playXP lan he said something like 80% of the people there were zerg and it consisted of pretty much the cream of the crop players from the asia server
he also said that on the asia ladder he plays a lot of "1-base-all-in noobie-protoss" at the top of plat league that didnt make it to the lan because theyre pretty much a 1 trick pony
Most protoss nowadays do 1 base allin play because it's really easy and really hard to stop if you don't know exactly what you're doing. The problem is in TvP you stop it with tanks/bunkers/maybe a PF. On a lot of maps you can't because of backdoors or impossible to defend naturals. Maps like LT and metalopolis aren't that bad, but everything else is pretty god awful.
This basically forces T into 1 base play, which means you're behind in eco unless you manage to damage the protoss eco or win outright in the first 10 minutes. Terran simply can't keep up with protoss eco without using every 50 energy on mule, and you can't use every 50 energy on mule because you have to be scouting. This is why so many terrans do 6 rax reaper or proxy barracks marauder cheeses. Banshees and 1 base timing pushes are no better. It's simply a way to dodge the macro game rather than find a way to win it.
It's not that T can't win, it's that T can't consistently win without cheesing. Hence, you'll see a lot more success PvT at higher level because higher level players don't die to cheese as easily (better scouting, awareness, micro, etc).
I think it's mostly a problem with the map pool tbh. I was playing some TvPs on remakes of desti and chupung the other day and it's still really hard, but it's much easier to play a macro game, and I feel like I lost due to my mistakes and not because of BOs or map design. It was also SO much more fun to play a real macro game. Btw, ghostmech = amazing on desti!
|
After playing 50 games of random, I switched to Zerg full-time because they're just so fricking good. My macro is just too good with them atm. Not surprised most of the old pros went Z.
|
I didn't realize that the Z percentage was so low there...
|
These stats mean nothing in regards to race balance.
Dustin has already stated 47% of players play Protos. Obviously there's going to be more Protos at the top if almost 50% of the community play Protos.
A tiny portion of players play Zerg, yet they make up 33% of the top ladder.
|
Any updates to the asian server list?
|
On May 04 2010 01:17 Vargavaka wrote:
Interesting numbers, although as Takkara said, not really anything that you could draw any real conclusions from. The idea that the sample size of 250 players is "big enough" is a moot point when it's not randomly selected. It only represents the top 250 and nothing else.
A random sample of 250 Platium players, for example, would at least be something you could see as representative for the distribution of the races in the Platinum League.
It's better to look at just the top 250 players. I'm not sure why people think it needs to be a random sample in a game where there's a huge learning curve.
|
On May 04 2010 00:20 rhap wrote:
Is this a thread about the rankings on US/EU/ASIA or a thread about terran whine? I see terrans on every important tourney doing good against zergs and protoss, and even winning. Idk what are you people complaining about. Maybe less people play the race, who knows. Tourneys are a better representative imo.
First of all, there are way less Terrans high up in the Tournaments than Zerg and Protoss. Look at the Zotac-Cups for example:
14 different players overall made it to the Finals in the 10 times so far, only 3 of them were Terrans and only one of them was able to win and that was a long time ago in Cup#3.
The reason why Terran is underperforming atm. and will keep getting weaker and weaker is IMHO, because Terran has to surprise the opponent in some way to be able to win with early harrassment (reaper), fast-tech to certain Units (Banshee-rush) or surprise the opponent with Thor-Drop's, Hellion-Drop's, Tanks on Cliffs etc. if you don't just want to rely on Mass-Marauders.
It's IMHO very hard for Terran to play a standard-game because for one thing all their Units have very strong counters to them and they just aren't that good at defending anymore, one example:
- You wan't to get up a fairly early expansion with T against P without dying to cheese, so what do you have to prepare for?
1) DT's (even if you see no council/shrine, it could be a proxy somewhere on the map)
--> Save Scans, which are basically 275 minerals, which is A LOT to kill one DT or get up turrets which aren't that good against DT's anymore either, because they cost more than in SC:BW, but do more DMG, but what does the DMG-buff help against DT's?
2) VR-Rush (even if you scout properly, it could again be a proxy)
--> you need a lot of Marines and vikings and/or turrets - everything quite expensive
3) 4-Warpgate timing-push
--> you need Bunkers and lots of Units
4) Timing-Push with Immortals
--> you need M&M's and probably Ghost for EMP
5) Collossi-rush
--> you shouldn't have many Marines and most likely you'd want to have some vikings
6) Protoss goes for a rather fast exe
--> you'd want to have the least amount of minerals spent on static defense as possible
So for a safe build you need let's say 3 Turrets (e-bay cost's 125, 3 Turrets 300, which is 425 - more than one expansion worth of money just to be kinda safe while defending against cheese/rushes?) But now comes the timing-push, against which you'll definitely loose with more than 400 minerals worth of stuff that doesn't help against warpgate-units and Immortal or that is a waste if the Protoss opted to go for an expansion himself. Also, the Mass Marines against VR's/Immo's get raped by Collossi and the Marauders by Immortals, without EMP-support... to defend against the same sort of stuff (VR/DT/Timing-push), Protoss just has to go robo and "waste" 50/100 for mobile detection and splash a bit more stalkers/sentries in their Unitmix as Antiair! So it's also easier to defend against timing-pushes and be economical nonetheless. Same is with Zerg - they don't have to go far out into other techroutes and build stuff they don't need if the opponent does not choose to go a certain way in his tech, cuz Queens are Anti-Air (so just splash in additional queens if necessary) and at T2, you can morph an Ovi into overseer and you have AntiAir anyways with Mutas/Hydras and economy-wise, Z should be fine with their FE anyways.
The Problem here is that the different ways to deal with the Protoss potential strategy are very different, so it's hard to be cost-effective and play safe at the same time. Besides, T is IMHO the race which is depending the most on Upgrades and Synergies between the Units. So besides wanting to play safe and having some Turrets and a good Unitmix AND the fact you want to get up your Expansion as fast as possible, you also want to get stim, shield-upgrade, marauder-upgrade, Medivacs to support your Infantry-Units etc.
I'm not saying that Terran Unit's aren't good, but if you want to come up with a fairly solid build, which is something you have to do to play solid on a higher level, T has just a hard time. Of course, this may not only be due to balancing-issues, but it's IMHO a Problem T's suffer from atm.
What I want to see, just to be able to come up with a safe build for starters, is just better static defense to hold of cheese/rushes/timing-attacks. With that I mean for example cheaper Turrets and no Bonus-DMG against Buildings because they are considered "armored", so you can actually keep a bunker alive by repairing it in dire situations. Also, Make E-Bay cheaper and able to fly, so you can defend better against stuff on your cliffs.
|
On May 04 2010 04:48 Antpile wrote:
- Everyone needs to build air units to counter colossus. Guess which air unit counters colossus the hardest? Yep, the viking.
.
![[image loading]](http://i39.tinypic.com/8xlow5.jpg)
Not saying I disagree with you on the rest but this is the unit that does double damage to massive 
|
On May 06 2010 17:02 TheElitists wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2010 04:48 Antpile wrote:
- Everyone needs to build air units to counter colossus. Guess which air unit counters colossus the hardest? Yep, the viking.
. + Show Spoiler +Not saying I disagree with you on the rest but this is the unit that does double damage to massive
Vikings are cheaper, have 3 more range and deal more DPS to colossi. They have less HP, but their insane range compensates very well for that.
|
on an unrelated note damn corruptors look creepy as hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
