I was able to crunch all the stats below, which I hope you will appreciate and conclude, just as myself, that zergs are under-represented in the higher tier for a reason (or multiple reasons, whatever).
Sorry for using an external source, but I could not post a readable format on the forum
Note that server-specific analysis is coming very soon, it's just a few minutes of copy-pasting (for each server) ...
Here are a few facts based on this [JULY 18 VERSION - ASIA DATA WASN'T ACCURATE] :
TOP 20s
- Terran is dominating, with 24 spots out of 60 - Besides random, Zerg is the least represented race with 13 spots out of 60 (less than 25%) - Win ratios between races vary greatly, the smallest spread being America (1,9% between P and Z, although there's only 3 Zers players) and the highest being Europe (with 9,5% between T and P) - The 3 most successful server-specific races are (random excluded) : Europe Terrans, Asia Terrans and Asia Zergs (in that order)
TOP 50s
- Terran domination is not as great, claiming 58 spots out of 150 - Zerg is still about as much under represented with 31 spots out of 150 (about 20%) - America is again the closest server regarding win ratios between races (with a spread of 1,5%) while Asia now has the highest spread (with 5,6% between P and Z). - The 3 most successful server-specific races are (random excluded) : Asia Zergs, Europe Terrans, Asia Terrans and America Zergs (in that order)
ALL
- The average games played/player and win ratios are highest in America, then comes Europe and finally Asia. Based on these numbers, it seems the hardest to become Diamond in America.
for the people who stills doesnt know UnknownArt(europe #1 atm), that's Madfrog, a former swedish wc3 progamer who had a pretty enjoyable style of play. He's back from retirement and i'm looking forward to see him perform in the tourneys at release !
On July 19 2010 11:49 Marou wrote: for the people who stills doesnt know UnknownArt(europe #1 atm), that's Madfrog, a former swedish wc3 progamer who had a pretty enjoyable style of play. He's back from retirement and i'm looking forward to see him perform in the tourneys at release !
glad to know! I played WC3 as UD and MaDFroG was by far the player I enjoyed the most watching, at least for the years he was active.
btw, Asia is up now and I'll update OP with a few pointers to look at (feel free to contribute!)
On July 19 2010 11:49 Marou wrote: for the people who stills doesnt know UnknownArt(europe #1 atm), that's Madfrog, a former swedish wc3 progamer who had a pretty enjoyable style of play. He's back from retirement and i'm looking forward to see him perform in the tourneys at release !
I remember Madfrog, he was godly in WC3. Here's a fpvod of him playing wc3:
and a match between him and Grubby: part 1: part 2: part 3:
Ok I am glad these stats are out so people stop bitching about "terran isnt imbalanced, they are not dominating any tourneys!!!" Yeah well like I said ages ago, that will definitely change and this comes to 0 surprise to me and I really hope they find some way to balance it.....
On July 19 2010 12:43 likeaboss wrote: Ok I am glad these stats are out so people stop bitching about "terran isnt imbalanced, they are not dominating any tourneys!!!" Yeah well like I said ages ago, that will definitely change and this comes to 0 surprise to me and I really hope they find some way to balance it.....
agreed. People who say terran isn't imbalanced are probably terran players themselves who don't want the winning to stop ^_^
Holy shit the MaDFroG is back? He was the driving force behind Undead for many years and his style is amazing. Hopefully he'll stick to this game and succeed.
On July 19 2010 11:33 Tamerlane wrote: - The average games played/player and win ratios are highest in America, then comes Europe and finally Asia. Based on these numbers, it seems the hardest to become Diamond in America.
I think you can't really make any judgments based on that. Another conclusion is that Asia is the hardest server to get diamond as the competition there is much closer (lowest win ratios).
On July 19 2010 12:43 likeaboss wrote: Ok I am glad these stats are out so people stop bitching about "terran isnt imbalanced, they are not dominating any tourneys!!!" Yeah well like I said ages ago, that will definitely change and this comes to 0 surprise to me and I really hope they find some way to balance it.....
agreed. People who say terran isn't imbalanced are probably terran players themselves who don't want the winning to stop ^_^
There really isn't enough data from this to support that terran is imbalanced- it's all about confirmation bias, and looking at whatever data you want to look at to support your conclusions which you've previously made. If we look at the top 20 we find:
- Terran: 24 spots out of 60 - Zerg: 13 spots out of 60 - Protoss/Random: 23 spots out of 60 (Probably around 18 P / 5 R? Just a guess)
Given that we don't know how many people are playing each race, it's impossible to tell if it's balanced or not. I.e. if zergs only make up 30% of the population, then they're balanced, and if terran users are slightly more prevalent than protoss, then the increased number of terrans would be justified. Given that we have an extraordinarily tiny sample size, it's fairly impossible to tell anything just from the top 60 (and the top 150, where terrans fall slightly in representation, give a better representation).
Note that I'm not saying terran isn't overpowered for sure, I'm saying it may or may not be, but it's impossible to tell just by this data. Also I play terran so I might be biased just a bit...
On July 19 2010 11:49 Marou wrote: for the people who stills doesnt know UnknownArt(europe #1 atm), that's Madfrog, a former swedish wc3 progamer who had a pretty enjoyable style of play. He's back from retirement and i'm looking forward to see him perform in the tourneys at release !
Oh crap really!? That's awesome.
Madfrog was so one of my favourite WC3 players :D
Really looking forwards to seeing more of him in SC2 then, I hadn't heard/seen anything from him at all so far.
On July 19 2010 12:43 likeaboss wrote: Ok I am glad these stats are out so people stop bitching about "terran isnt imbalanced, they are not dominating any tourneys!!!" Yeah well like I said ages ago, that will definitely change and this comes to 0 surprise to me and I really hope they find some way to balance it.....
agreed. People who say terran isn't imbalanced are probably terran players themselves who don't want the winning to stop ^_^
There really isn't enough data from this to support that terran is imbalanced- it's all about confirmation bias, and looking at whatever data you want to look at to support your conclusions which you've previously made. If we look at the top 20 we find:
- Terran: 24 spots out of 60 - Zerg: 13 spots out of 60 - Protoss/Random: 23 spots out of 60 (Probably around 18 P / 5 R? Just a guess)
Given that we don't know how many people are playing each race, it's impossible to tell if it's balanced or not. I.e. if zergs only make up 30% of the population, then they're balanced, and if terran users are slightly more prevalent than protoss, then the increased number of terrans would be justified. Given that we have an extraordinarily tiny sample size, it's fairly impossible to tell anything just from the top 60 (and the top 150, where terrans fall slightly in representation, give a better representation).
Note that I'm not saying terran isn't overpowered for sure, I'm saying it may or may not be, but it's impossible to tell just by this data. Also I play terran so I might be biased just a bit...
This is a good post. With this small of a sample size, we should not expect an exactly even distribution of players in the top 50 or 60 even if the races were perfectly balanced, not to mention the fact that the number of people playing each race is not the same.
On July 19 2010 12:57 koppik wrote: The chart needs a bit of filtering,at least for Asia. The #3 player on the Asia list is in gold, and the #4 is in bronze.
Yup dead true, the Asia list is not a list of Diamond players, just players with the most points (across all leagues).
Of the top 20 Asia, 9 of them are not in Diamond leagues, so we prob need a bit of a fix up in the base mined data before we can include Asia results in anything.
On July 19 2010 13:43 Crixus wrote: i dunno who's right or wrong, but http://starcraftrankings.com/ has different results for NA server
i tried ppl around ranked around 3000, they don't match up
i.e. hdgamer is 2140 in this one, and 3031 in starcraftrankings.com
This has to do with the update frequency of the two different sites, they are not real time but crawl the blizzard site to update. People play games and get shuffled around all the time.
Interesting data indeed. Seems its not T that is OP, as Z players have similar win ratio to avg. game count (tho much smaller representation), but its P being too weak across the board...
Hahaha 3 Zergs in the Top 20 what a joke. Now i know why i'm struggling to stay in the lower part of my diamond division, while i was top 25 of my division when i played Terran without that much of a struggle ... Each time i face a lame Terran strat i regret ever switching races but in the end of the day i just can't go back now that i tasted the Zerg play style which i love. Playing terran was so boring for me ...
On July 19 2010 12:43 likeaboss wrote: Ok I am glad these stats are out so people stop bitching about "terran isnt imbalanced, they are not dominating any tourneys!!!" Yeah well like I said ages ago, that will definitely change and this comes to 0 surprise to me and I really hope they find some way to balance it.....
agreed. People who say terran isn't imbalanced are probably terran players themselves who don't want the winning to stop ^_^
Given that we don't know how many people are playing each race, it's impossible to tell if it's balanced or not.
AH BUT WE DO KNOW! I believe this is all diamond players, but a very solid and representative sample. But really, twice as many terrans as zergs in top 20 across 3 servers? The conclusion is inescapable and people seem frantic to defend terran from being labeled imbalanced.
On July 17 2010 09:14 FatkiddsLag wrote:
Went through the data real quick with excel, here's the numbers as of July 18th, 2010 1PM PDT
1120 Protoss 921 Terran 891 Zerg 440 Random **Thanks to Primadog
On July 19 2010 11:33 Tamerlane wrote: - The average games played/player and win ratios are highest in America, then comes Europe and finally Asia. Based on these numbers, it seems the hardest to become Diamond in America.
Errr... If there are higher win ratios doesn't that mean there are more bottom feeders in US servers? Based on those numbers, it seems the easiest to become Diamond in America.
It's great to see all these old school WC3 players joining the SC2 scene... i recognize a lot of people from US West/East back in the day.
Wish blizzard would just create a global ladder system... I mean if user's can datamine their site and parse all the data in a day, it shouldn't take blizzard that long to create their own much more detailed version.
On July 19 2010 11:49 Marou wrote: for the people who stills doesnt know UnknownArt(europe #1 atm), that's Madfrog, a former swedish wc3 progamer who had a pretty enjoyable style of play. He's back from retirement and i'm looking forward to see him perform in the tourneys at release !
That's awesome, I didn't know that was MaDFroG! He was insane back in his WC3 days. He's actually #1 in the world currently in terms of points.
Isn't it really obivous that numbers like these don't say anything about balance?
Statistics are statistics.
All we can conclude from these numbers is that Zerg is highly underplayed and Protoss and Teran are somewhat overplayed.
There are far more different factors needed to conclude that a certain race or playstyle is overpowered than just the amount of players that use that certain race / playstyle. I think that this in particular has to do with the Flavor Of The Month type of hypes that every big multiplayer game, mainly MMO's, has everynow and then.
As far as I'm concerned all this says is that Zerg is a race that is either less appealing to people or, and that's probably the case, has the most inconvenient mechanics for new players.
The only thing I can't defend is the fact that this trend continues to grow towards the top of the league's and thus the people with the highest skill level. But the only thing that gives us is a slight hunch that Terran might be more effective in the hands of top players and therefore imbalanced.
But again numbers are numbers and allways will be numbers.
On July 19 2010 12:43 likeaboss wrote: Ok I am glad these stats are out so people stop bitching about "terran isnt imbalanced, they are not dominating any tourneys!!!" Yeah well like I said ages ago, that will definitely change and this comes to 0 surprise to me and I really hope they find some way to balance it.....
agreed. People who say terran isn't imbalanced are probably terran players themselves who don't want the winning to stop ^_^
There really isn't enough data from this to support that terran is imbalanced- it's all about confirmation bias, and looking at whatever data you want to look at to support your conclusions which you've previously made. If we look at the top 20 we find:
- Terran: 24 spots out of 60 - Zerg: 13 spots out of 60 - Protoss/Random: 23 spots out of 60 (Probably around 18 P / 5 R? Just a guess)
Given that we don't know how many people are playing each race, it's impossible to tell if it's balanced or not. I.e. if zergs only make up 30% of the population, then they're balanced, and if terran users are slightly more prevalent than protoss, then the increased number of terrans would be justified. Given that we have an extraordinarily tiny sample size, it's fairly impossible to tell anything just from the top 60 (and the top 150, where terrans fall slightly in representation, give a better representation).
Note that I'm not saying terran isn't overpowered for sure, I'm saying it may or may not be, but it's impossible to tell just by this data. Also I play terran so I might be biased just a bit...
Erm the population doesn't matter, it would only matter is we are assuming the game IS balanced, which is the opposite of what we are assuming. Even if there is a much higher population of Terran players than Zerg, if Zerg was OP, you'd expect more Zergs to be in the top tier than Terran. If it was balanced, then you'd expect more Terran than Zerg in the proportion relative to population.
On July 19 2010 12:43 likeaboss wrote: Ok I am glad these stats are out so people stop bitching about "terran isnt imbalanced, they are not dominating any tourneys!!!" Yeah well like I said ages ago, that will definitely change and this comes to 0 surprise to me and I really hope they find some way to balance it.....
agreed. People who say terran isn't imbalanced are probably terran players themselves who don't want the winning to stop ^_^
There really isn't enough data from this to support that terran is imbalanced- it's all about confirmation bias, and looking at whatever data you want to look at to support your conclusions which you've previously made. If we look at the top 20 we find:
- Terran: 24 spots out of 60 - Zerg: 13 spots out of 60 - Protoss/Random: 23 spots out of 60 (Probably around 18 P / 5 R? Just a guess)
Given that we don't know how many people are playing each race, it's impossible to tell if it's balanced or not. I.e. if zergs only make up 30% of the population, then they're balanced, and if terran users are slightly more prevalent than protoss, then the increased number of terrans would be justified. Given that we have an extraordinarily tiny sample size, it's fairly impossible to tell anything just from the top 60 (and the top 150, where terrans fall slightly in representation, give a better representation).
Note that I'm not saying terran isn't overpowered for sure, I'm saying it may or may not be, but it's impossible to tell just by this data. Also I play terran so I might be biased just a bit...
You make a point, however, an analysis of the situation needs a deeper explanation. True that if the population proportions are way off, this specific sample of players would be skewed as well. You have to realize though that the actual population can't be skewed unless the explanation presented (terran being op) had some partial truth. The idea that players just randomly selected more of one than can only explain very small groups. As the group grows, the possibility of random skewing becomes unlikely. Then you have to place the cause on other factors. If there are more terran players, then why is that? It can't be that people happened to pick it more. There can only be so many explanations, most of which will touch somewhat on balance.
Sort of compare it to how people study women in the workplace. People believe women should be equally represented in most sectors. Any given random sample of a population will usually yield somewhere near a 50/50 result because we know from scientific fact that gender is a 50/50 probability (assuming we don't start factoring in things like china population control, etc). So you would expect any random sample of a workplace to be 50/50 as well. So when it deviates at a statistically significant amount, what do you use to explain? According to the above posters explanation, thats just what it "happened" to be. However, if your taking a sample of 1000 people, the odds of getting a statistically significant skew at that high of sample is very very low. So then you must attribute the difference to other factors.
And the only factor that can really skew it that way, is balance.
On July 19 2010 17:18 Zignius wrote: Isn't it really obivous that numbers like these don't say anything about balance?
Statistics are statistics.
All we can conclude from these numbers is that Zerg is highly underplayed and Protoss and Zerg are somewhat overplayed.
There are far more different factors needed to conclude that a certain race or playstyle is overpowered than just the amount of players that use that certain race / playstyle. I think that this in particular has to do with the Flavor Of The Month type of hypes that every big multiplayer game, mainly MMO's, has everynow and then.
As far as I'm concerned all this says is that Zerg is a race that is either less appealing to people or, and that's probably the case, has the most inconvenient mechanics for new players.
The only thing I can't defend is the fact that this trend continues to grow towards the top of the league's and thus the people with the highest skill level. But the only thing that gives us is a slight hunch that Terran might be more effective in the hands of top players and therefore imbalanced.
But again numbers are numbers and allways will be numbers.
Holy christ, you guys are either really dirt stupid or going to great lengths to convince yourselves zerg isn't underpowered. Compared to the general population, which shows a relatively even distribution, the racial distribution of the global top 100 displays clear favoritism to protoss and terran. You can see exactly the statistics regarding how many people play what race and the fact is that they're a significant enough discrepancy between that and what people play at the top levels to easily conclude that zerg is objectively worse. Zerg isn't simply "less appealling to people", 27% play it but the composition of the top 100 players is only 17% zerg. That argument is just plain stupid.
Don't believe it still? play a zvt against a remotely competent terran.
On July 19 2010 17:18 Zignius wrote: Isn't it really obivous that numbers like these don't say anything about balance?
Statistics are statistics.
All we can conclude from these numbers is that Zerg is highly underplayed and Protoss and Zerg are somewhat overplayed.
There are far more different factors needed to conclude that a certain race or playstyle is overpowered than just the amount of players that use that certain race / playstyle. I think that this in particular has to do with the Flavor Of The Month type of hypes that every big multiplayer game, mainly MMO's, has everynow and then.
As far as I'm concerned all this says is that Zerg is a race that is either less appealing to people or, and that's probably the case, has the most inconvenient mechanics for new players.
The only thing I can't defend is the fact that this trend continues to grow towards the top of the league's and thus the people with the highest skill level. But the only thing that gives us is a slight hunch that Terran might be more effective in the hands of top players and therefore imbalanced.
But again numbers are numbers and allways will be numbers.
Holy christ, you guys are either really dirt stupid or going to great lengths to convince yourselves zerg isn't underpowered. Compared to the general population, which shows a relatively even distribution, the racial distribution of the global top 100 displays clear favoritism to protoss and terran. You can see exactly the statistics regarding how many people play what race and the fact is that they're a significant enough discrepancy between that and what people play at the top levels to easily conclude that zerg is objectively worse. Zerg isn't simply "less appealling to people", 27% play it but the composition of the top 100 players is only 17% zerg. That argument is just plain stupid.
Don't believe it still? play a zvt against a remotely competent terran.
The only thing that means is that zerg is underpowered at lower levels of play. Z have the same win rates at high levels as other races and the underrepresentation of zerg can easily be attributed to over-presentation of P. Without doing a regression model with dummy variables you can NOT imply anything about balance.
But keep blaming balance or the science of statistics all you want.
Shouldn't win ratios and total average games played be the major stats for determining balance of the races? I'd think that racial representation would only determine the average ability of players to utilize the race rather than the races potential and balance.
I can understand that ease of use of the race can be an important balance factor, though. Either way, I really hope to see more games played. If one race starts to show an abnormally high win ratio while maintaining a high average game count I'd be worried, haha.
If one player shows an abnormally high win rate with a high game count we should probably start cutting off his/her fingers one at a time till they're balanced with the competition.
the games played r just too small to get an indicator of whats hot and whats not, i ve played nearly 3000 games in the whole beta and i suck. The reason why i lose vs any race aint them being overpowered but me being bad.
Stop being so god damn whiny cause no one really understands the game. its like i am back in 1998
- The average games played/player and win ratios are highest in America, then comes Europe and finally Asia. Based on these numbers, it seems the hardest to become Diamond in America.
that is why upmagic got to diamond in 3 days in asia and I needed the entire second phase playing as Terran in US...
Another proof that zerg is underpowered and harder to play unless you can multitask with high apm. That is why asian players are successful with zerg unlike in EU and US. Main reason probably is weaker units compared to other races also absolute need to expand more then other 2 races which is more ground to cover and space for harrasments to deal with all at once. Its quite fair to say that zerg = hard mode >_<
The main reason Zerg has a hard time is the maps. Too many chokes and not enough open ground for surrounds. Once better maps are released you'll see more wins from Zerg players.
On July 19 2010 17:42 Drowsy wrote: You can see exactly the statistics regarding how many people play what race and the fact is that they're a significant enough discrepancy between that and what people play at the top levels to easily conclude that zerg is objectively worse.
The first part of that sentence is completely correct, the second part however is not.
Here's why,
You cannot conclude whether or not something is imbalanced by how many people use it. This is not in any way compelling evidence. It could however be superb to reinforce your claim if you had any other proof.
I like how using the list in the OP with the help of SC2 WebSite you can stalk your favorite progamers... all... day... long... -.-
(They show the ".###" on SC2 website)
I think links to profiles should be turned off... "/
Other than that - AWESOME! I hope they keep updating this stuff when the game is released...
Does anyone know how points/etc will work when the game is released?! Will there be seasons?! Or people will just get points until they're like 999,999,999,999,999,etc.?
- The average games played/player and win ratios are highest in America, then comes Europe and finally Asia. Based on these numbers, it seems the hardest to become Diamond in America.
that is why upmagic got to diamond in 3 days in asia and I needed the entire second phase playing as Terran in US...
lol
Example of bad reasoning becoming bad information for the public The average games played/player and win ratios are highest in America, then comes Europe and finally Asia. -> Based on these numbers, it seems the hardest to become Diamond in America.
If you stopped to read this you would have realised there are 0 logics and 1 conclusion. High win ratios in US servers means it's harder to get into Diamond? Think about it, it just means there are bottom feeders: 'casual gamers'. The OP is jumping to conclusions. Two empty reasoning: 1. Ranking system is based on win rate 2. Not accessing the fact it's harder to win in Asia servers because of even skill distribution (a lot of people are at equal skill levels because there are much less casual starcraft gamers in Korea).
Lower win rate means it's harder to get into Diamond league. BECAUSE Lower win rate ->most of players are at equal skill levelss. If most of players have equal skills, it's harder to get to higher tier. ^Actual Reasoning
That means it's much harder get into Diamond in Asia than US.
The reason why upmagic got to diamond in 3 days in asia and you needed the entire second phase playing as Terran in US to get into Diamond is because he is better than you, in fact much better than you. Of course I cannot prove this since I don't know your skill level. ->am I jumping to conclusions, right now? Yes but at least it's logical.
I mean seriously, bad reasoning/misleading OPs make me mad!
On July 19 2010 12:43 likeaboss wrote: Ok I am glad these stats are out so people stop bitching about "terran isnt imbalanced, they are not dominating any tourneys!!!" Yeah well like I said ages ago, that will definitely change and this comes to 0 surprise to me and I really hope they find some way to balance it.....
agreed. People who say terran isn't imbalanced are probably terran players themselves who don't want the winning to stop ^_^
There really isn't enough data from this to support that terran is imbalanced- it's all about confirmation bias, and looking at whatever data you want to look at to support your conclusions which you've previously made. If we look at the top 20 we find:
- Terran: 24 spots out of 60 - Zerg: 13 spots out of 60 - Protoss/Random: 23 spots out of 60 (Probably around 18 P / 5 R? Just a guess)
Given that we don't know how many people are playing each race, it's impossible to tell if it's balanced or not. I.e. if zergs only make up 30% of the population, then they're balanced, and if terran users are slightly more prevalent than protoss, then the increased number of terrans would be justified. Given that we have an extraordinarily tiny sample size, it's fairly impossible to tell anything just from the top 60 (and the top 150, where terrans fall slightly in representation, give a better representation).
Note that I'm not saying terran isn't overpowered for sure, I'm saying it may or may not be, but it's impossible to tell just by this data. Also I play terran so I might be biased just a bit...
Erm the population doesn't matter, it would only matter is we are assuming the game IS balanced, which is the opposite of what we are assuming. Even if there is a much higher population of Terran players than Zerg, if Zerg was OP, you'd expect more Zergs to be in the top tier than Terran. If it was balanced, then you'd expect more Terran than Zerg in the proportion relative to population.
This is wrong IMO. You should assume the game IS balanced and try to prove that starting a logical argument from that and with the data we have, you end up with the conclusion that the game ISN'T balanced. Even then, you'd have to take personal preference into account (maybe most people hate zerg) so you can't jump to any conclusions regarding balance just from the number of any race in top 20/50/etc.
Back on topic, this data is hard to analyse and people should be careful about what they see in it.
Yes there are 3 zerg in global top 20 but their win ratios are 64.3% which is bigger than everyone else's! I could very well argue that actually this shows that Protoss is too weak as their global win ratios are lower than any other race (in top 20).
Interesting data but making any comments on game balance based on this is just pointless IMO. Only thing you can make comments on is state of the ladder and community habits.
- The average games played/player and win ratios are highest in America, then comes Europe and finally Asia. Based on these numbers, it seems the hardest to become Diamond in America.
that is why upmagic got to diamond in 3 days in asia and I needed the entire second phase playing as Terran in US...
lol
Europe gotta be easiest then, because I reached diamond on my second day playing and I haven't even played on iccup -.-
Zerg is not underpowered, Madfrog just needs to show all Zergs the secret to beating Terran :D
But very interesting data none the less, and I really hope Blizzard are working to solve this issue which I'm sure they're aware of... The diamond ladder is the most important for getting balance statistics...
On July 19 2010 11:49 Marou wrote: for the people who stills doesnt know UnknownArt(europe #1 atm), that's Madfrog, a former swedish wc3 progamer who had a pretty enjoyable style of play. He's back from retirement and i'm looking forward to see him perform in the tourneys at release !
This. is the best news I've heard in a long time. :D MadFroG is my all-time favourite RTS player, considering how much he invented in Wc3. Lich first, gargoyleharass, etc. And yeah, he has a very enjoyable playstyle.
Love the fact that he plays the same race as I do, too. Can't wait to see replays/vods/tourneys from him once retail hits. Maybe I can even play him once and avoid getting completely noobstomped like last time. ^^
taking this data as proof of imbalance isn't really conclusive. this is, after all, the equivelent of public servers in FPS games. the real conclusive stuff will come from competitions and tournaments. imo ladder is just for fun and a training exercise.
I've switched from Zerg to Protoss for a while. Its a laugh thats what it is.
I've had trouble facing 50 apm protoss with me cruising along at about 100 as zerg, they're still very hard to beat. While in the same match up as Protoss once you get collosi out or high templar its rather easy to be fair.
I'm having a way more relaxing and easier time as Protoss in the gold league than zerg. Because as Z you have to know everything the opponent can do in the early game, while as Terran or Protoss you basically choose what you will do.
Having that said, Zerg has a whole different mechanic compared to Terran and protoss. This is why most people play Terran or protoss in the beginning. Because it is more like the games they have played earlier.
Still, i think this proves its easier to get high points as terran or as protoss than as zerg. Which doesn't necesairily have to do with balance ( really, I've had a 10 win streak just because I ran into idiots ).
On July 19 2010 20:38 Chaosvuistje wrote: Having that said, Zerg has a whole different mechanic compared to Terran and protoss. This is why most people play Terran or protoss in the beginning. Because it is more like the games they have played earlier.
Or that's the very same reason they chose Zerg, because it's unlike anything they've played before? ^^ And they're utterly bored with those same thing? That's why I chose it anyway, can't fathom that I'd be alone here.
On July 19 2010 20:35 tarsier wrote: this list changes every 10 minutes?
huk was #1 a minute ago, now it's a zerg guy.
Still HuK, has been the entire time. Maybe you switched to Euro by mistake?
I doubt anyway can say current SC2 is balanced, but in the least, Bliz is likely to stick with it until it is. I have my host of complaints for sure... and I think, mathematically the reason T is #1 overall is no-brainer - but alas, no real sense in going on about that.
its just ladder says nothing ppl testing new stuff, ppl being inactive, internal practice
really amazing information but i dont think anyone should use it for arguments which race is best l<o<l actual important event games say 10 times more than this
One thing the OP forgot to mention is that there was a "revert changes" patch that slightly nerfed zerg, while "buffing" (aka reverting changes) to both terran and protoss. My win ratio vs Protoss was ridiculously high on the NA servers before the changes, however after the patch it is ridiculously low. probably 80% pre-patch and now 20% or lower.
This would skew win % if you look at it straight up matchup vs matchup. In my experience, it hasn't affected my ZvT win % nearly as much as my ZvP win %, however just looking at the statistics would skew it even more in favor of "zerg is balanced / OP".
I like the data you threw together overall, I have been looking for a way to compare the statistics just to see what blizzard sees when they try to buff / nerf races again, so thanks for this!
On July 19 2010 21:07 aka_star wrote: hmm would be nice to have a list that would update itself
go to blizzard and ask them to set it up on their website :p no but seriously i really hope they do this aswell but i doubt they want to do that since ppl can use it as argument to QQ because they forgot a pylon vs a ling rush
These threads always lead to Terran hate and it's so tiring. If it's imbalanced, please present arguments as to why and when that is backed by people actually winning stuff, I'll believe it.
On July 19 2010 11:49 Marou wrote: for the people who stills doesnt know UnknownArt(europe #1 atm), that's Madfrog, a former swedish wc3 progamer who had a pretty enjoyable style of play. He's back from retirement and i'm looking forward to see him perform in the tourneys at release !
Wow, that's so awesome! Can't wait to see some games from him. =D
im 2-0 vs madfrog ^^ but its scary if its indeed him how fast he get's back to the top again. Im sure hell gona pwn soon in tourns if he keeps playing.
On July 19 2010 21:15 gillon wrote: These threads always lead to Terran hate and it's so tiring. If it's imbalanced, please present arguments as to why and when that is backed by people actually winning stuff, I'll believe it.
those arguments are entirely subjective while statistics, while being statistics, gives an objective outlook.
I will throw this light on the numbers. Because Phase 2 was significantly shorter, there are a number of people, including pros, who are not seriously laddering. This can cause some skew to the "top" numbers. I can't say which way it would push it, but I don't think the "Top X" numbers are necessarily indicative of the numbers at Release. I've seen a number of pros still not really bother to push into Diamond, electing to sit in Custom Game queues.
It's certainly possible the numbers may looks different in any number of way upon release. They could look more imbalanced or possibly less.
Gillion, as i said several times, the imbalances are not great enough so people can provide proof. Arguments have been presented a million times in a lot of threads, just look for them. No one cares if it's tiring or not, what people want is a balanced game. What we have to look for now are clues, and and statistics provide those kinds of clues, and seeing these, though they constitute no proof, makes one wonder.
Actually we have to part from the assumption that the game is imbalanced until proven otherwise, and no the reverse like many people seem to be doing, because balance is a very tiny line, it's immensely easier to be on the imbalanced side. The game started to be imbalanced, so those that claim that it is balanced are the ones needed to provide arguments, not the ones that defend it's imbalanced. So instead of asking for proof on how it's imbalanced, people should be asking themselves for proof / clues that it is balanced, and in the meantime figuring out where the imbalance lies.
For me it is imbalanced, until i see definite conclusions, or strong clues that it's finally balanced.
On July 19 2010 21:04 MorroW wrote: really amazing information but i dont think anyone should use it for arguments which race is best l<o<l actual important event games say 10 times more than this
So... whats happening if the latest events actualy prove this post (by lastest I mean in the last 10 days)? Cause I watched several casts this week and it seems that terrans [in general] was kind of winning with an easier time than the 2 other races. We've been seeing LOTS of good game by protoss and zergs and actualy the terran was ALMOST always able to come back and win.
Here is a dramatized list of what a terran does in a game:
- Bunk, get 1 or 2 expand... but don't over do it... bunking is more important - Scout... errr... I mean scan... - Cheese with [reaper, hellion, hellion drop, thor drop, [cloacked]banshee, [cliff] tank drop, reaver turret... don't forget 1 success full cheese and your opp is back at 0 probe/drone or at least he has to pull back from mining for X time] - Get this huge 200/200 equilibred force - Push but leave 1 thor at base so you can defend vs 12 air unit and most ground they can throw at you, but only if you feel your opp is going to try some counter-attack/base exchange - If you don't win the fight don't worry... you did enough damage to your opp so there is no chance of a counter-attack. - If in fact he was able to manage a counter attack... lift your important structure and defend. - Repair, rince and repete.
yep that's exactly what I've seen in the latest events. Also, I played something like 50 ladder games yesterday (in the 450ish diamond which makes me 6th of my division) and spoke with EACH terran (even analysed some replays with a few that are now friends) after the game and asked them if they taught that terran was too strong and MOST of them said: Hey I just barely switched to terran... was zerg/protoss a week ago. Terran are freaking strong. [Might explain why there's alot of terrans on top right now]
Fair or not... Overpower or not... I'm not qualified to decide since I barly have time to play more than 50 games a week (eventho i'm pretty solid) and don't intend on doing much tournaments/lan... [aka playing for fun], but I'm not a morron either and as WE can all see, terrans MIGHT be a bit too strong or easy to play.
They have THE most build order options, they are not limited by creeps or pylons, they have the easiest way to scout/detect, they have THE strongest 200/200 army... and for all those advantages they only have to deal with a mobility issue.
Hell, I played a gold terran yesterday. I beat him... the game lasted 36mins or so... it was actualy pretty hard eventho I had the game in control it took me 4 push of ultralisks/ling/infestors to finaly be able to kill the guy. I think that terran is a bit strong since other races has to be like 5 times better to win.
P.S. I play both Zerg and Protoss at relatively high diamond. Altho I have less trouble dealing with terran as protoss... I find that they are still strong/on par. As for zerg... using mobility and blah blah blah... I'm sorry but SC2 isn't BW were hydralisks are moving like trains... in SC2 you need creep and any decend terran will use reaver and kill those tumors leaving zergs with nydus (which is almost unusable since they are spewing 1 by 1 unit and overlord drops which are being massively killed by thors/vicking/detect tower.... so the USE MOBILITY trend means = use speedlings!! yay!
I'm one of those US zergs in top 20 and only reason is 1) i play a shit ton of games and 2) some of those games happen to be against protoss/zerg T_T! I have to play a terran player multiple times to latch onto his play style/maneuvers before I can win (or make good guess work)
There's so many stats in this thread, it's time to shit it up with conjecture!! I switched from T to Random and now to Z in phase 2, after discovering zerg was where I was getting all my losses. Now I have a 400pt diamond all Z account as well as my 400pt random. Neither of them being significant accomplishments, I know.
But even at what I'd say is the lower level of platinum, the amount of work you have to put in to securing a win over a clearly worse terran player is absurd. From multitasking to unit control to macro, everything has to be at a much higher level than the opponent if he chooses to press the S or T key while selecting a factory at any point in the game
On July 19 2010 17:18 Zignius wrote: Isn't it really obivous that numbers like these don't say anything about balance?
Statistics are statistics.
All we can conclude from these numbers is that Zerg is highly underplayed and Protoss and Zerg are somewhat overplayed.
There are far more different factors needed to conclude that a certain race or playstyle is overpowered than just the amount of players that use that certain race / playstyle. I think that this in particular has to do with the Flavor Of The Month type of hypes that every big multiplayer game, mainly MMO's, has everynow and then.
As far as I'm concerned all this says is that Zerg is a race that is either less appealing to people or, and that's probably the case, has the most inconvenient mechanics for new players.
The only thing I can't defend is the fact that this trend continues to grow towards the top of the league's and thus the people with the highest skill level. But the only thing that gives us is a slight hunch that Terran might be more effective in the hands of top players and therefore imbalanced.
But again numbers are numbers and allways will be numbers.
Holy christ, you guys are either really dirt stupid or going to great lengths to convince yourselves zerg isn't underpowered. Compared to the general population, which shows a relatively even distribution, the racial distribution of the global top 100 displays clear favoritism to protoss and terran. You can see exactly the statistics regarding how many people play what race and the fact is that they're a significant enough discrepancy between that and what people play at the top levels to easily conclude that zerg is objectively worse. Zerg isn't simply "less appealling to people", 27% play it but the composition of the top 100 players is only 17% zerg. That argument is just plain stupid.
Don't believe it still? play a zvt against a remotely competent terran.
I think his point was the sample size is too small to be statistically significant, selection bias rather than imbalance could be the major factor. However I do feel Terran has multiple units that are a little too strong
Making balance judgments based on a tiny player pool, a 2-week testing period and something as unreliable as ladder... sad. That said, you should be able to make SCVs explode by clicking on them 10x in 2 seconds like a critter.
AMG MADFROG! I played humans and I'm pretty sure he was the one who taught everyone to kill my peasants. I hold him responsible for MILLIONS of peasant deaths. But we both play zerg now so he's a hero! Yay
On July 19 2010 21:15 gillon wrote: These threads always lead to Terran hate and it's so tiring. If it's imbalanced, please present arguments as to why and when that is backed by people actually winning stuff, I'll believe it.
just the fact that there is a general consensus about something in these type of threads should tell you something is wrong about balance.
as for presenting arguments. whenever someone presents a argument, there is always someone like you that would say back it up with stats or "proof". so when there is actually some stats, you go around in the circle and ask for other stuff, how about you do some research on all the things people have presented about imbalance. i dont follow all the tournaments out there but tournaments dont mean everything. many of the bigger tournaments are invitationals and they often have a unbalanced number of players playing certain races. not to mention there hasnt been any big prized tournaments recently. HDH wasnt a good depiction of race balance since in the beginning of that tournament terran was buffed a lot, zerg somewhat, and toss nerfed some more.
those of you saying its a small pool of people need a lesson in stats. the OP is trying to take the top of the ladder as a indication of skill(whether that is true is another matter) but the general pool is everyone playing beta. everyone in beta has a chance to be in that set of number and we just happen to see more terran. its not like he went out and said "ima select this random group of however many ppl".
On July 19 2010 21:19 4Servy wrote: im 2-0 vs madfrog ^^ but its scary if its indeed him how fast he get's back to the top again. Im sure hell gona pwn soon in tourns if he keeps playing.
Ok I am glad these stats are out so people stop bitching about "terran isnt imbalanced, they are not dominating any tourneys!!!" Yeah well like I said ages ago, that will definitely change and this comes to 0 surprise to me and I really hope they find some way to balance it.....
I wish people would stop crying about Terran imbalance, and do something about it...like figure out a way to beat it? I sometimes feel like these forums are infested with 12-year-olds that know only how to complain and not how to handle what seems like a overwhelming opponent.
Top 50's - Terran is not dominating as much with 58/150.
Both of those are approximatly 40% > thanks for the data tho!
umm last time i checked 1/3 is .33333... which means ~33.3%. thats a whole 7% off. add another 7% to your bill that is if you pay any and you will cry
LoL some people. I wasnt disputing that terran had a Higher percentage, i was merely pointing out how terran was dominating with 40% and not dominating with 38.9%. :D
Ok I am glad these stats are out so people stop bitching about "terran isnt imbalanced, they are not dominating any tourneys!!!" Yeah well like I said ages ago, that will definitely change and this comes to 0 surprise to me and I really hope they find some way to balance it.....
I wish people would stop crying about Terran imbalance, and do something about it...like figure out a way to beat it? I sometimes feel like these forums are infested with 12-year-olds that know only how to complain and not how to handle what seems like a overwhelming opponent.
Stop crying and practice to beat it!
Isn't telling other people to beat it without offering any constructive input just as bad?
As to the stats themselves it'd be interesting to see what # the zerg population approaches the expected average. For example if there are less Zerg in the top 150 are we suddenly going to see a big surge of Zerg all in 151-300. This would probably indicate at some level zerg are being held back more than other races. Whether or not this mean an imbalance in inconclusive (tournaments and such are better for that), but it'd still be interesting.
Amazing stuff OP. Like you guys pointed out we had trouble with the asia version (being in korean and all ) I'll definitely refine the website after today. Through friends and people pm'ing me I have a few guys helping so it should go pretty fast!
On July 19 2010 23:16 trucejl wrote: umm last time i checked 1/3 is .33333... which means ~33.3%. thats a whole 7% off. add another 7% to your bill that is if you pay any and you will cry
First of all, please work on your math, and second of all, work on your reasoning skills. I cant really understand what you are trying to say anyhow.
how would this be a "small pool" of players anyhow? It is the top of ALL beta players, isnt it? How much larger do you want it to be? Gets even better with top players vs total population - if those numbers are right (Terran 30%, Protoss 39.2%, Zerg 27.4%) it is pretty OBVIOUS that terrans seem to be more favored, scoring way more top spots than proportionally expected. As the guy about me posted, terran have 30% players, yet almost 40% top spots..
I know lots of "casual" players play Protoss, so maybe we can explain their low success (proportional to the population) with this. But seriously, how many casual gamers play Zerg? All of you posted, zerg is ugly and no new/casual players like them. So who plays them? The hardcore gamers obviously. Would expect them to win more (than what proportionally expected), right?
Zerg is obviously fine tho, its simply that it is a harder race to master and all that good stuff -> Well, if Terran is easier to master, how is that balanced?
Still I like playing zerg (not the best either, upper platinum at the end of the beta). Yeah, I feel I have to play MUCH better than my terran opponent in order to win. Dont doubt we will see some nice changes soon after release tho
On July 19 2010 21:04 MorroW wrote: really amazing information but i dont think anyone should use it for arguments which race is best l<o<l actual important event games say 10 times more than this
So... whats happening if the latest events actualy prove this post (by lastest I mean in the last 10 days)? Cause I watched several casts this week and it seems that terrans [in general] was kind of winning with an easier time than the 2 other races. We've been seeing LOTS of good game by protoss and zergs and actualy the terran was ALMOST always able to come back and win.
Here is a dramatized list of what a terran does in a game:
- Bunk, get 1 or 2 expand... but don't over do it... bunking is more important - Scout... errr... I mean scan... - Cheese with [reaper, hellion, hellion drop, thor drop, [cloacked]banshee, [cliff] tank drop, reaver turret... don't forget 1 success full cheese and your opp is back at 0 probe/drone or at least he has to pull back from mining for X time] - Get this huge 200/200 equilibred force - Push but leave 1 thor at base so you can defend vs 12 air unit and most ground they can throw at you, but only if you feel your opp is going to try some counter-attack/base exchange - If you don't win the fight don't worry... you did enough damage to your opp so there is no chance of a counter-attack. - If in fact he was able to manage a counter attack... lift your important structure and defend. - Repair, rince and repete.
yep that's exactly what I've seen in the latest events. Also, I played something like 50 ladder games yesterday (in the 450ish diamond which makes me 6th of my division) and spoke with EACH terran (even analysed some replays with a few that are now friends) after the game and asked them if they taught that terran was too strong and MOST of them said: Hey I just barely switched to terran... was zerg/protoss a week ago. Terran are freaking strong. [Might explain why there's alot of terrans on top right now]
Fair or not... Overpower or not... I'm not qualified to decide since I barly have time to play more than 50 games a week (eventho i'm pretty solid) and don't intend on doing much tournaments/lan... [aka playing for fun], but I'm not a morron either and as WE can all see, terrans MIGHT be a bit too strong or easy to play.
They have THE most build order options, they are not limited by creeps or pylons, they have the easiest way to scout/detect, they have THE strongest 200/200 army... and for all those advantages they only have to deal with a mobility issue.
Hell, I played a gold terran yesterday. I beat him... the game lasted 36mins or so... it was actualy pretty hard eventho I had the game in control it took me 4 push of ultralisks/ling/infestors to finaly be able to kill the guy. I think that terran is a bit strong since other races has to be like 5 times better to win.
P.S. I play both Zerg and Protoss at relatively high diamond. Altho I have less trouble dealing with terran as protoss... I find that they are still strong/on par. As for zerg... using mobility and blah blah blah... I'm sorry but SC2 isn't BW were hydralisks are moving like trains... in SC2 you need creep and any decend terran will use reaver and kill those tumors leaving zergs with nydus (which is almost unusable since they are spewing 1 by 1 unit and overlord drops which are being massively killed by thors/vicking/detect tower.... so the USE MOBILITY trend means = use speedlings!! yay!
While trying to provide arguments to your case, please try to remain factual and not exaggerate so much - basically all of this post reeks of 'I just lost OMG'.
The biggest problem I see is that people aren't even trying to figure out ways to improve their play. The thought pattern seems to be more along the lines of: LOSE GAME -> WHINE ON TL.
Just play the game with the mindset that there is no imbalance, this is how I've played since day one. If there really are imbalances, put your trust in that they'll be fixed if that's the case because statistics and results will back it up. Discussions are great, but these threads are 100% hate and whine.
Terran is good vs idiots. Most people are idiots. There's a reason terran still isn't winning tournaments. It's because the skill discrepancy between ladder and tournaments is huge. That's not to say the game is balanced on every level, but medium skill level balance is not the same as high skill level balance. Terran is definitely not the best race when played by the best players against the best players.
On July 19 2010 23:46 HalfAmazing wrote: Terran is good vs idiots. Most people are idiots. There's a reason terran still isn't winning tournaments. It's because the skill discrepancy between ladder and tournaments is huge. That's not to say the game is balanced on every level, but medium skill level balance is not the same as high skill level balance. Terran is definitely not the best race when played by the best players against the best players.
Last zotac was terran dominated, as was the one before that. Cool just won the WTA tournament this morning. There's a terran in the final of the ESL cup that takes place today
Which phase 2 tournaments are you talking about? I confess I haven't seen many phase 2 tournaments thus far, but everything that I personally know about terran has won
On July 19 2010 23:46 HalfAmazing wrote: Terran is good vs idiots. Most people are idiots. There's a reason terran still isn't winning tournaments. It's because the skill discrepancy between ladder and tournaments is huge. That's not to say the game is balanced on every level, but medium skill level balance is not the same as high skill level balance. Terran is definitely not the best race when played by the best players against the best players.
I don't really know where that comes from is it actually true, have your or anyone actually analyzed tournament results to see what the representation is like. For example, since the roach and splash damage nerfs* Terran has had 5/8 of the Zotac Cup 1st and 2nd spots (62.5% representation).
*(not meant as a jab at ZvT, but it's the last 2 big game changing things implemented in a patch)
Actually here's the full data from when I took a look at the past 4 Zotac cups:
1st place Zerg - 0 Terran - 2 Protoss - 1 Random - 1
2nd Place Zerg - 1 Terran - 3 Protoss - 0 Random - 0
The things that set Terran apart from Toss and Zerg:
Terran player: "I want to Harass fast and not be all-in if it doesn't work"... A: Head explodes because he has so many diffrent possibilities. B: Sends fast Reaper(s)/Hellions or gets fast Banshee or gets fast Dropship with Hellion or Tank or Thor. Or maybe first sends a fast reaper, than drops some Hellions and after that drops a Cliff.... Zerg/Protoss: Well... Yeah... Uhm... He has a Wall-In ...
Terran player: "I want an expansion but my army is a little small"... Sets up Tanks on his natural cliff, flys CC down, gets a PF, places a few Turrets. Zerg/Protoss: Plants Nexus/Hatch and gets overrun or cliffdropped.
Terran player: "Let's expand and Macro up fast with minimal army" - Plants expansion, gets a Bunker, makes a PF, gets a fast Tank with siege and some Turrets. Zerg/Protoss: Dies to MM's or in the case of Zerg to a fast Banshee.
Terran player: "I'm so skilled Protoss and Zerg just don't use their cool harassing and mobility abilites like Nydus worm" Zerg/Protoss: *Facepalm*
Terran player: "I fended that attack of whiteout any problems, counter!".. Runs to Toss/Zerg base and kills it. Zerg/Protoss: Fends of Terran attack whtieout a problem, counter attacks and totally gets demolished thanks to Siegetanks/Wall-In/PF despite having 3 times the army.
Terran player: "Oh noes, i forgot to use my mule energy"... DT's begin to smack his Wall-In and get instantly countered because the Terran was a retard. Zerg/Protoss: Lose several drones/probes to Banshees or DT's until they got an Overseer/Observer (and eventually anti-air in Zergs case) or type GG.
OP says it's harder to get into diamond in the US because of more average games played and a higher ratio. This is of course not true like people are saying. They have more average games because they got like 2 days of beta before anyone else and the win ratio just shows that there's a lot of bottom feeders which helps the good players to win even more games.
---
People are saying that you can't say a race is underpowered based on the amount of players using it. This is true, HOWEVER you CAN get an indication of it if there's very few players playing it in the top. There's an 1:0.8 overall T-Z ratio but in the top 50 that ratio is 1:0.35.
People are defending this and say "well, the zerg has a higher win ratio in the top!" I simply see this as proof that only the really good zerg players are the ones managing to make it to the top.
Ok I am glad these stats are out so people stop bitching about "terran isnt imbalanced, they are not dominating any tourneys!!!" Yeah well like I said ages ago, that will definitely change and this comes to 0 surprise to me and I really hope they find some way to balance it.....
I wish people would stop crying about Terran imbalance, and do something about it...like figure out a way to beat it? I sometimes feel like these forums are infested with 12-year-olds that know only how to complain and not how to handle what seems like a overwhelming opponent.
Stop crying and practice to beat it!
Dude r u serious? U really think people have just been letting T mech just role over them on purpose? Of course people have been trying to figure out ways to beat it fool.
If there was matchup/map stats on profiles like in warcraftIII, we could see much more useful statistics.
I feel like maps have huge effects on those statistics. But players keep complaining ONLY about theorical race balance. That's probably why Blizzard will let us thoses maps for a long time.
Ok I am glad these stats are out so people stop bitching about "terran isnt imbalanced, they are not dominating any tourneys!!!" Yeah well like I said ages ago, that will definitely change and this comes to 0 surprise to me and I really hope they find some way to balance it.....
I wish people would stop crying about Terran imbalance, and do something about it...like figure out a way to beat it? I sometimes feel like these forums are infested with 12-year-olds that know only how to complain and not how to handle what seems like a overwhelming opponent.
Stop crying and practice to beat it!
No one is saying terran is unbeatable. I can practice and win more games against terran. So what? They are still op.
On July 19 2010 23:46 HalfAmazing wrote: Terran is good vs idiots. Most people are idiots. There's a reason terran still isn't winning tournaments. It's because the skill discrepancy between ladder and tournaments is huge. That's not to say the game is balanced on every level, but medium skill level balance is not the same as high skill level balance. Terran is definitely not the best race when played by the best players against the best players.
So call it unbalanced instead of op then. Maybe it's true that at the very highest level terran isn't op, but that just means that for 99 % of players it is. In that case the solution wouldn't be to simply nerf terrans but to change all the races to create a more even matchup through all levels. (or at least at diamon/platinum level)
On July 19 2010 23:46 HalfAmazing wrote: Terran is good vs idiots. Most people are idiots. There's a reason terran still isn't winning tournaments. It's because the skill discrepancy between ladder and tournaments is huge. That's not to say the game is balanced on every level, but medium skill level balance is not the same as high skill level balance. Terran is definitely not the best race when played by the best players against the best players.
So call it unbalanced instead of op then. Maybe it's true that at the very highest level terran isn't op, but that just means that for 99 % of players it is. In that case the solution wouldn't be to simply nerf terrans but to change all the races to create a more even matchup through all levels. (or at least at diamon/platinum level)
Making a game really balanced at one level is really hard. Making a game really balanced through all levels of play is near impossible.
On July 19 2010 23:46 HalfAmazing wrote: Terran is good vs idiots. Most people are idiots. There's a reason terran still isn't winning tournaments. It's because the skill discrepancy between ladder and tournaments is huge. That's not to say the game is balanced on every level, but medium skill level balance is not the same as high skill level balance. Terran is definitely not the best race when played by the best players against the best players.
So call it unbalanced instead of op then. Maybe it's true that at the very highest level terran isn't op, but that just means that for 99 % of players it is. In that case the solution wouldn't be to simply nerf terrans but to change all the races to create a more even matchup through all levels. (or at least at diamon/platinum level)
Making a game really balanced at one level is really hard. Making a game really balanced through all levels of play is near impossible.
That's true, but it's blizzard's job to find that possibility and apply it.
On July 19 2010 21:04 MorroW wrote: really amazing information but i dont think anyone should use it for arguments which race is best l<o<l actual important event games say 10 times more than this
So... whats happening if the latest events actualy prove this post (by lastest I mean in the last 10 days)? Cause I watched several casts this week and it seems that terrans [in general] was kind of winning with an easier time than the 2 other races. We've been seeing LOTS of good game by protoss and zergs and actualy the terran was ALMOST always able to come back and win.
Here is a dramatized list of what a terran does in a game:
- Bunk, get 1 or 2 expand... but don't over do it... bunking is more important - Scout... errr... I mean scan... - Cheese with [reaper, hellion, hellion drop, thor drop, [cloacked]banshee, [cliff] tank drop, reaver turret... don't forget 1 success full cheese and your opp is back at 0 probe/drone or at least he has to pull back from mining for X time] - Get this huge 200/200 equilibred force - Push but leave 1 thor at base so you can defend vs 12 air unit and most ground they can throw at you, but only if you feel your opp is going to try some counter-attack/base exchange - If you don't win the fight don't worry... you did enough damage to your opp so there is no chance of a counter-attack. - If in fact he was able to manage a counter attack... lift your important structure and defend. - Repair, rince and repete.
yep that's exactly what I've seen in the latest events. Also, I played something like 50 ladder games yesterday (in the 450ish diamond which makes me 6th of my division) and spoke with EACH terran (even analysed some replays with a few that are now friends) after the game and asked them if they taught that terran was too strong and MOST of them said: Hey I just barely switched to terran... was zerg/protoss a week ago. Terran are freaking strong. [Might explain why there's alot of terrans on top right now]
Fair or not... Overpower or not... I'm not qualified to decide since I barly have time to play more than 50 games a week (eventho i'm pretty solid) and don't intend on doing much tournaments/lan... [aka playing for fun], but I'm not a morron either and as WE can all see, terrans MIGHT be a bit too strong or easy to play.
They have THE most build order options, they are not limited by creeps or pylons, they have the easiest way to scout/detect, they have THE strongest 200/200 army... and for all those advantages they only have to deal with a mobility issue.
Hell, I played a gold terran yesterday. I beat him... the game lasted 36mins or so... it was actualy pretty hard eventho I had the game in control it took me 4 push of ultralisks/ling/infestors to finaly be able to kill the guy. I think that terran is a bit strong since other races has to be like 5 times better to win.
P.S. I play both Zerg and Protoss at relatively high diamond. Altho I have less trouble dealing with terran as protoss... I find that they are still strong/on par. As for zerg... using mobility and blah blah blah... I'm sorry but SC2 isn't BW were hydralisks are moving like trains... in SC2 you need creep and any decend terran will use reaver and kill those tumors leaving zergs with nydus (which is almost unusable since they are spewing 1 by 1 unit and overlord drops which are being massively killed by thors/vicking/detect tower.... so the USE MOBILITY trend means = use speedlings!! yay!
While trying to provide arguments to your case, please try to remain factual and not exaggerate so much - basically all of this post reeks of 'I just lost OMG'.
I'm sorry but I've just re-read my post and I don't know what you're talking about. My post isn't saying "omg I lost to terrans Q.Q", i'm saying that after yesterday's (well to be honest it was in 1.5 days since I went to bed inbetween) ~50 games (which were mysteriously around 60-65% vs terran since there is alot of terrans at my current level) I just msg all players and talked with em a good 5-10mins and some of them actualy agreed to watch the replay with me and find what went wrong. Supprisingly most terrans I faced, were either zergs or protoss rerolled... and all admitted that they switched to terran cause they taught they were good, perhaps too good and started to learn them.... so far whats wrong with that?
Than I get to say that terran has too much possibility (which is the case) and that their units are way to specialised making them kinda hard to counter, or actualy do damage to even by using any types of mobility advantage. I than proceed to say that terran is an easier race (which many players agree) and that is not a fact but rather my opinion on that matter and backing my opinion by giving an example of what happened vs a gold level terran and finaly stating that I'm having an easier time to deal with terran as protoss... impling that MAYBE, just MAYBE (as I stated that i'm not qualified to make balance changes) that zergs are the one that is UP and not necessairely terran bing OP altho I'm stil having trouble as protoss to deal with terran... so againt MAYBE, terrans would just need a small nerf and zerg get a buff.
That being said... I found that using ultras-infestors-speedlings was the way to go against a mech. The problem to this strat is to be able to get ultras BEFORE the terran push while sustaining SEVERAL hellions/cheese attacks that resets your drone count... which is easier said than done. I've beaten my share of terrans yesterday and some were suprised by how fast I could tech to ultras, but still I watched the replay with 2 of the terrans I've beat and we saw their flaws and could have EASILY countered my fast ultras if they pushed just a tad earlier.
I have my opinions on the TvZ and T's overall. I'm not saying that my opinion are shared by you or even by the majority (eventho I feel it's the case), but I'm certainly not crying out loud that I'm loosing games vs terrans. To be 100% honest with you.... I'm trying to find a way to win NOW so that when terrans will get the nerf or zergs gets the buff it will only be easier for me!
The main thing is that current ladder statistics are based off of a 9-day beta or whatever. The underrepresentation of zergs at the top doesn't necessarily mean that zergs are worse -- it may just mean that a lot of people felt like terran was the race to play on the ladder for this short beta period. It's a tough call.
Moreover, the OP's failure to provide specific data for randoms is disappointing and unhelpful. Let's assume there aren't any randoms at all -- there aren't any in the US top 20, after all. Then it's 13 z, 23 p, and 24 t. Not a big deal, and hardly reason to freak out.
Bnet 2.0 automatically pairs players with lower skill so every player has around a 50% win and loss ratio. Anyone citing around 50% win/loss ratio for most players as 'proof' of balance isn't aware of how Bnet 2 works.
Blizzard is trying to push this issue under the rug since they must deal with the launch of the game. But they are well aware of it.
Let me point out that it is not so much about balance, it is that playing against Terran (especially as Zerg) is not fun. We play video games for fun. Losing to greater skilled opponents is actually fun. But there is no joy for many Zerg players going against Terran mech.
On July 19 2010 23:25 Kiburn wrote: I wish people would stop crying about Terran imbalance, and do something about it...like figure out a way to beat it? I sometimes feel like these forums are infested with 12-year-olds that know only how to complain and not how to handle what seems like a overwhelming opponent.
Stop crying and practice to beat it!
As I said above, it goes beyond balance as battling a mech heavy Terran is just not fun. If the game is consistently not fun, then the game is broken. Period.
I'm a Zerg player, and I'm thinking of just playing a different race when SC2 comes out if nothing changes. I know level one diamond players who have the same frustration with Terran.
During Phase I, we saw many imbalance fixes and, looking back, they were all justified. Remember the Void Ray nerf? Void Rays are still highly used, so it is clear the range was too long. Remember the planetcracker ability on the mothership? Where were you in telling people to 'stop crying and practice to beat it'?
What most disturbs me is people telling high level Zerg players, who share this frustration with Terran mech, that they do not know to play their own race. It is a worrisome trend that points that many people would rather cradle their own ego (that some of their wins are undeserved) rather than make Starcraft 2 enjoyable and fun for players for all three races.
On July 20 2010 01:36 Macavity wrote: Bnet 2.0 automatically pairs players with lower skill so every player has around a 50% win and loss ratio. Anyone citing around 50% win/loss ratio for most players as 'proof' of balance isn't aware of how Bnet 2 works.
Blizzard is trying to push this issue under the rug since they must deal with the launch of the game. But they are well aware of it.
Let me point out that it is not so much about balance, it is that playing against Terran (especially as Zerg) is not fun. We play video games for fun. Losing to greater skilled opponents is actually fun. But there is no joy for many Zerg players going against Terran mech.
On July 19 2010 23:25 Kiburn wrote: I wish people would stop crying about Terran imbalance, and do something about it...like figure out a way to beat it? I sometimes feel like these forums are infested with 12-year-olds that know only how to complain and not how to handle what seems like a overwhelming opponent.
Stop crying and practice to beat it!
During Phase I, we saw many imbalance fixes and, looking back, they were all justified. Remember the Void Ray nerf? Void Rays are still highly used, so it is clear the range was too long. Remember the planetcracker ability on the mothership? Where were you in telling people to 'stop crying and practice to beat it'?
Hahaha, and many WERE NOT addressed and ironed themselves out over time. Marauders used to be the OP unit, and in the mid- to late-game, everything (esp protoss gateway units) lost to marauders. Then people figured out how to spam FF and use chargelots with a few immortals, and it was good. See?
More importantly, Dustin Browder has said that TvZ is 50/50 at the top of diamond league. Your argument needs to be that there are simply no Z's in the top 20. But there are! Across all servers, in the global top 60, there are 13 Z's, 23 P's, and 24 T's, after NINE days of a closed beta. OK, so now the question is -- how many people TOTAL are playing zerg, protoss, and terran? And if you don't know the answer to that, you have no statistical case.
On July 19 2010 14:19 monitor wrote: This version of the beta ladder has been out for 2 weeks and people have already played 220+ games!
On a side note, I think it is interesting that Zerg has such few players right now, considering how much potential the swarm has !!
Those bugs are just ugly.... most people do not like to use ugly race. (especially new players!)
I expect the ratio to be even more extreme in the first month of the release.
That's funny, because that's exactly why I picked them :-D Because they r so dang ugly haha. Although after seeing how easy it is to win with each race I've decided to play Terran since they seem to be so much better with mech than Z.
On July 20 2010 01:36 Macavity wrote: Bnet 2.0 automatically pairs players with lower skill so every player has around a 50% win and loss ratio. Anyone citing around 50% win/loss ratio for most players as 'proof' of balance isn't aware of how Bnet 2 works.
Blizzard is trying to push this issue under the rug since they must deal with the launch of the game. But they are well aware of it.
Let me point out that it is not so much about balance, it is that playing against Terran (especially as Zerg) is not fun. We play video games for fun. Losing to greater skilled opponents is actually fun. But there is no joy for many Zerg players going against Terran mech.
On July 19 2010 23:25 Kiburn wrote: I wish people would stop crying about Terran imbalance, and do something about it...like figure out a way to beat it? I sometimes feel like these forums are infested with 12-year-olds that know only how to complain and not how to handle what seems like a overwhelming opponent.
Stop crying and practice to beat it!
During Phase I, we saw many imbalance fixes and, looking back, they were all justified. Remember the Void Ray nerf? Void Rays are still highly used, so it is clear the range was too long. Remember the planetcracker ability on the mothership? Where were you in telling people to 'stop crying and practice to beat it'?
Hahaha, and many WERE NOT addressed and ironed themselves out over time. Marauders used to be the OP unit, and in the mid- to late-game, everything (esp protoss gateway units) lost to marauders. Then people figured out how to spam FF and use chargelots with a few immortals, and it was good. See?
More importantly, Dustin Browder has said that TvZ is 50/50 at the top of diamond league. Your argument needs to be that there are simply no Z's in the top 20. But there are! Across all servers, in the global top 60, there are 13 Z's, 23 P's, and 24 T's, after NINE days of a closed beta. OK, so now the question is -- how many people TOTAL are playing zerg, protoss, and terran? And if you don't know the answer to that, you have no statistical case.
Although we must note that the early game affected the lategame - with early game concussive shells Terran could expand incredibly early where they cannot anymore.
On July 20 2010 01:36 Macavity wrote: Bnet 2.0 automatically pairs players with lower skill so every player has around a 50% win and loss ratio. Anyone citing around 50% win/loss ratio for most players as 'proof' of balance isn't aware of how Bnet 2 works.
Blizzard is trying to push this issue under the rug since they must deal with the launch of the game. But they are well aware of it.
Let me point out that it is not so much about balance, it is that playing against Terran (especially as Zerg) is not fun. We play video games for fun. Losing to greater skilled opponents is actually fun. But there is no joy for many Zerg players going against Terran mech.
On July 19 2010 23:25 Kiburn wrote: I wish people would stop crying about Terran imbalance, and do something about it...like figure out a way to beat it? I sometimes feel like these forums are infested with 12-year-olds that know only how to complain and not how to handle what seems like a overwhelming opponent.
Stop crying and practice to beat it!
During Phase I, we saw many imbalance fixes and, looking back, they were all justified. Remember the Void Ray nerf? Void Rays are still highly used, so it is clear the range was too long. Remember the planetcracker ability on the mothership? Where were you in telling people to 'stop crying and practice to beat it'?
Hahaha, and many WERE NOT addressed and ironed themselves out over time. Marauders used to be the OP unit, and in the mid- to late-game, everything (esp protoss gateway units) lost to marauders. Then people figured out how to spam FF and use chargelots with a few immortals, and it was good. See?
More importantly, Dustin Browder has said that TvZ is 50/50 at the top of diamond league. Your argument needs to be that there are simply no Z's in the top 20. But there are! Across all servers, in the global top 60, there are 13 Z's, 23 P's, and 24 T's, after NINE days of a closed beta. OK, so now the question is -- how many people TOTAL are playing zerg, protoss, and terran? And if you don't know the answer to that, you have no statistical case.
Although we must note that the early game affected the lategame - with early game concussive shells Terran could expand incredibly early where they cannot anymore.
No, people were saying you could not beat a marauder ball mid- and late-game. Early concussive shells were only relevant for the first few minutes, and that has nothing to do with the complaining that I'm talking about.
On July 20 2010 01:36 Macavity wrote: Bnet 2.0 automatically pairs players with lower skill so every player has around a 50% win and loss ratio. Anyone citing around 50% win/loss ratio for most players as 'proof' of balance isn't aware of how Bnet 2 works.
Blizzard is trying to push this issue under the rug since they must deal with the launch of the game. But they are well aware of it.
Let me point out that it is not so much about balance, it is that playing against Terran (especially as Zerg) is not fun. We play video games for fun. Losing to greater skilled opponents is actually fun. But there is no joy for many Zerg players going against Terran mech.
On July 19 2010 23:25 Kiburn wrote: I wish people would stop crying about Terran imbalance, and do something about it...like figure out a way to beat it? I sometimes feel like these forums are infested with 12-year-olds that know only how to complain and not how to handle what seems like a overwhelming opponent.
Stop crying and practice to beat it!
During Phase I, we saw many imbalance fixes and, looking back, they were all justified. Remember the Void Ray nerf? Void Rays are still highly used, so it is clear the range was too long. Remember the planetcracker ability on the mothership? Where were you in telling people to 'stop crying and practice to beat it'?
Hahaha, and many WERE NOT addressed and ironed themselves out over time. Marauders used to be the OP unit, and in the mid- to late-game, everything (esp protoss gateway units) lost to marauders. Then people figured out how to spam FF and use chargelots with a few immortals, and it was good. See?
More importantly, Dustin Browder has said that TvZ is 50/50 at the top of diamond league. Your argument needs to be that there are simply no Z's in the top 20. But there are! Across all servers, in the global top 60, there are 13 Z's, 23 P's, and 24 T's, after NINE days of a closed beta. OK, so now the question is -- how many people TOTAL are playing zerg, protoss, and terran? And if you don't know the answer to that, you have no statistical case.
Although we must note that the early game affected the lategame - with early game concussive shells Terran could expand incredibly early where they cannot anymore.
No, people were saying you could not beat a marauder ball mid- and late-game. Early concussive shells were only relevant for the first few minutes, and that has nothing to do with the complaining that I'm talking about.
Well the point I'm making is that if you're able to expand much sooner and safely, especially as Terran, then you're mid-lategame army is going to be that much stronger. For example, imagine in BW if Mutalisks from 2 hatch muta now come out at 3 hatch muta timing. Timings were different, which could have led to people claiming mutalisks in BW aren't very strong at all, etc. and would be too easy to counter.
Thus by expanding so fast Terran might have been able to accumulate a Marauder ball much faster, while at the same time teching stim sooner because of lack of need to get concussive, etc. I don't believe very lategame people thought this as a major issue due to colossus and forcefields.
On July 20 2010 01:36 Macavity wrote: Bnet 2.0 automatically pairs players with lower skill so every player has around a 50% win and loss ratio. Anyone citing around 50% win/loss ratio for most players as 'proof' of balance isn't aware of how Bnet 2 works.
Blizzard is trying to push this issue under the rug since they must deal with the launch of the game. But they are well aware of it.
Let me point out that it is not so much about balance, it is that playing against Terran (especially as Zerg) is not fun. We play video games for fun. Losing to greater skilled opponents is actually fun. But there is no joy for many Zerg players going against Terran mech.
On July 19 2010 23:25 Kiburn wrote: I wish people would stop crying about Terran imbalance, and do something about it...like figure out a way to beat it? I sometimes feel like these forums are infested with 12-year-olds that know only how to complain and not how to handle what seems like a overwhelming opponent.
Stop crying and practice to beat it!
During Phase I, we saw many imbalance fixes and, looking back, they were all justified. Remember the Void Ray nerf? Void Rays are still highly used, so it is clear the range was too long. Remember the planetcracker ability on the mothership? Where were you in telling people to 'stop crying and practice to beat it'?
Hahaha, and many WERE NOT addressed and ironed themselves out over time. Marauders used to be the OP unit, and in the mid- to late-game, everything (esp protoss gateway units) lost to marauders. Then people figured out how to spam FF and use chargelots with a few immortals, and it was good. See?
More importantly, Dustin Browder has said that TvZ is 50/50 at the top of diamond league. Your argument needs to be that there are simply no Z's in the top 20. But there are! Across all servers, in the global top 60, there are 13 Z's, 23 P's, and 24 T's, after NINE days of a closed beta. OK, so now the question is -- how many people TOTAL are playing zerg, protoss, and terran? And if you don't know the answer to that, you have no statistical case.
Although we must note that the early game affected the lategame - with early game concussive shells Terran could expand incredibly early where they cannot anymore.
No, people were saying you could not beat a marauder ball mid- and late-game. Early concussive shells were only relevant for the first few minutes, and that has nothing to do with the complaining that I'm talking about.
Well the point I'm making is that if you're able to expand much sooner and safely, especially as Terran, then you're mid-lategame army is going to be that much stronger. For example, imagine in BW if Mutalisks from 2 hatch muta now come out at 3 hatch muta timing. Timings were different, which could have led to people claiming mutalisks in BW aren't very strong at all, etc. and would be too easy to counter.
Thus by expanding so fast Terran might have been able to accumulate a Marauder ball much faster, while at the same time teching stim sooner because of lack of need to get concussive, etc. I don't believe very lategame people thought this as a major issue due to colossus and forcefields.
That's a very elaborate theory, but I dunno how that pans out. I think the innovation of forcefield+zealot was key, but there's no way to test that.
On July 20 2010 01:36 Macavity wrote: Bnet 2.0 automatically pairs players with lower skill so every player has around a 50% win and loss ratio. Anyone citing around 50% win/loss ratio for most players as 'proof' of balance isn't aware of how Bnet 2 works.
Blizzard is trying to push this issue under the rug since they must deal with the launch of the game. But they are well aware of it.
Let me point out that it is not so much about balance, it is that playing against Terran (especially as Zerg) is not fun. We play video games for fun. Losing to greater skilled opponents is actually fun. But there is no joy for many Zerg players going against Terran mech.
On July 19 2010 23:25 Kiburn wrote: I wish people would stop crying about Terran imbalance, and do something about it...like figure out a way to beat it? I sometimes feel like these forums are infested with 12-year-olds that know only how to complain and not how to handle what seems like a overwhelming opponent.
Stop crying and practice to beat it!
During Phase I, we saw many imbalance fixes and, looking back, they were all justified. Remember the Void Ray nerf? Void Rays are still highly used, so it is clear the range was too long. Remember the planetcracker ability on the mothership? Where were you in telling people to 'stop crying and practice to beat it'?
Hahaha, and many WERE NOT addressed and ironed themselves out over time. Marauders used to be the OP unit, and in the mid- to late-game, everything (esp protoss gateway units) lost to marauders. Then people figured out how to spam FF and use chargelots with a few immortals, and it was good. See?
More importantly, Dustin Browder has said that TvZ is 50/50 at the top of diamond league. Your argument needs to be that there are simply no Z's in the top 20. But there are! Across all servers, in the global top 60, there are 13 Z's, 23 P's, and 24 T's, after NINE days of a closed beta. OK, so now the question is -- how many people TOTAL are playing zerg, protoss, and terran? And if you don't know the answer to that, you have no statistical case.
Although we must note that the early game affected the lategame - with early game concussive shells Terran could expand incredibly early where they cannot anymore.
No, people were saying you could not beat a marauder ball mid- and late-game. Early concussive shells were only relevant for the first few minutes, and that has nothing to do with the complaining that I'm talking about.
Well the point I'm making is that if you're able to expand much sooner and safely, especially as Terran, then you're mid-lategame army is going to be that much stronger. For example, imagine in BW if Mutalisks from 2 hatch muta now come out at 3 hatch muta timing. Timings were different, which could have led to people claiming mutalisks in BW aren't very strong at all, etc. and would be too easy to counter.
Thus by expanding so fast Terran might have been able to accumulate a Marauder ball much faster, while at the same time teching stim sooner because of lack of need to get concussive, etc. I don't believe very lategame people thought this as a major issue due to colossus and forcefields.
That's a very elaborate theory, but I dunno how that pans out. I think the innovation of forcefield+zealot was key, but there's no way to test that.
Not very elaborate at all... very simple concept.
Early game is slightly stronger --> compounding effects into the middle/late game. Imagine Zerg could have a queen SPAWN with every hatchery they build - FEing as Zerg would be MUCH more easy (and more prevalent) and it would allow Zerg to mass up to a much stronger mid-lategame, while not having *significant* effects in the mid-late game. Obviously a much more extreme example, but same concept as "early game affects midgame affects lategame potential."
Not saying this IS what happened with Marauders, I'm just saying don't discount how easy Terran used to be able to expand at that point.
I think the main problem is the tech path for Zerg. Ultras are the logical choice to combat Terran mech, but getting the tech takes twice as long as Battle Cruisers/Thors/Colossus/Carriers and costs almost double the gas. If you can get to Ultras it's easier to deal with, but with constant pressure from Terran you may not have time or resources.
I think if they lower the build time and gas cost of the hive so ultras and brood lords can be more in line with every other tier 3 unit, the matchup would be a lot more reasonable. Zerg are just stuck on tier 2 units for far too long and that creates an easy matchup for T/P to strategize against. Lings, mutas, roaches, hydras are very straight-forward units, with infestors being the only potential curve ball.
New change - fungal growth causes all siege tanks to immediately unsiege!
Don't question the logic! Just make the change!
EDIT: On a more serious note, I wouldn't mind seeing corruption have some sort of similar ability, in the sense that corrupt causes enemy units to "malfunction" / "become corrupted" and all abilities are researched tech becomes disabled on that target....
including Siege Tank ability to Siege, Thor ability to cannon strike, Templar Storm (keeps feedback), all Zerg units unburrow/can't reburrow, Infestor loses NP, BC's lose Yamato, Ravens lose HSM, Banshees/Ghost uncloack, (void rays become corrupt and can't charge?!?!), hellions lose pre-ignitor, Marauders lose concussive/stim, marines lose shield/stim, etc.!
Would be a 200/200 research on the Greater Spire and cost 125 energy. Could also have that all units cast on also start losing energy instead of gaining it (same rate though, not rapid loss).
On July 20 2010 01:42 kajeus wrote: More importantly, Dustin Browder has said that TvZ is 50/50 at the top of diamond league. Your argument needs to be that there are simply no Z's in the top 20. But there are! Across all servers, in the global top 60, there are 13 Z's, 23 P's, and 24 T's, after NINE days of a closed beta. OK, so now the question is -- how many people TOTAL are playing zerg, protoss, and terran? And if you don't know the answer to that, you have no statistical case.
I'd say that if you want to quote Dustin Browder do it in it's FULL state... not just what you like about this chat. At several points in the chat Dustin clearly sees that there is SOMETHING WRONG but just can't put his finger on it. When he stated that the numbers showed 50/50 he still stated that he felt like SOMETHING WAS WRONG but that he had to keep watching things since they don't know where to start. Here is a few examples:
Guest-306: Are you planning any changes around Terran Air and Mech units to make their roles more defined or specialized?
DustinB:: I'm not sure I understand the question. Terran mech and air are insanely specialized. In fact most players claim they are TOO specialized. Thors trash Mutas, Vikings wreck Battlecruisers, etc. I think if anything we may need to consider making terran mech a little bit more muddy and less dangerous on a counter-by-counter basis. Hellions for example are truly terrifying in many circumstances.
Guest-89: Many top players feel that TvZ is difficult for Zerg, mostly because of Siege Tanks. The concensus is that the problem lies in their "smart-targeting" A.I. Do you have any plans for this matchup?
DustinB:: Yeah, I have the same feeling. But the numbers don't support that. ZvT is almost 50/50 win/loss right now. We are studying the issue and trying to figure out if we should make a move and what that move should be. Also the Siege Tanks do not smart target. It's just the way the code works. To help with perfomance, units do not fire all at once. There is a tiny offset between different units firing their weapons. From the users perspective it is almost simultaenous, but the shots are actually 1/8-1/16th of a second apart. Since units cannot target units that are already dead and since Siege Tanks hit their targets instantly, this creates the situation you are describing, where Siege Tanks waste fewer shots.
As a zerg player, I have trouble pinpointing exactly why I have trouble with Terran. After some thought, I believe it is just there flexibility.
Bio- Easy enough to hold off with some lings and banelings. Mech- Need roaches for the fast hellion/marine harass; also need some spinecrawlers Air- Need to tech to fast lair, and either get out some hydras or spire tech.
The problem? Too many options for Terran, not enough for Zerg in the Early-Mid Game. Maybe I am not scouting enough, but it's tough to know what the Terran is going. If I go roaches, and he goes heavy marrauder bio build, I am pretty much screwed. Now I don't want to say the MU is imbalanced or anything, just because I'm only like 350 Diamond, but I think it's just tougher for Zerg. The only way for Zerg to be the agressor, is with all ins like baneling bust or 1 base roach rush. Each of the terran tech has units to deal with any problem. Marrauder for roaches, marines for lings/Hellion and Seige for light ground Thor for air and armored. It feels overwhelming to the Zerg player.
Re: Dustin Browder. I'm not sure what your point is. He says it's even, so although he feels like something is wrong, it doesn't appear to be wrong statistically. Sounds like most people should take a cue from him and be scientific about this -- numbers over "gut".
On July 20 2010 02:50 kajeus wrote: Re: Dustin Browder. I'm not sure what your point is. He says it's even, so although he feels like something is wrong, it doesn't appear to be wrong statistically. Sounds like most people should take a cue from him and be scientific about this -- numbers over "gut".
"The masses" are wrong about a lot.
or that
DustinB::I think if anything we may need to consider making terran mech a little bit more muddy and less dangerous on a counter-by-counter basis.
On July 20 2010 02:50 kajeus wrote: Re: Dustin Browder. I'm not sure what your point is. He says it's even, so although he feels like something is wrong, it doesn't appear to be wrong statistically. Sounds like most people should take a cue from him and be scientific about this -- numbers over "gut".
DustinB::I think if anything we may need to consider making terran mech a little bit more muddy and less dangerous on a counter-by-counter basis.
No, you don't seem to understand what he's talking about. He was talking about the overspecialization and hard-counter focus of Terran. He didn't even mention tanks there!
Tanks aren't scary because they counter what they counter too hard! They're scary because they do a lot of damage in general.
On July 20 2010 02:54 kajeus wrote: No, you don't seem to understand what he's talking about. He was talking about the overspecialization and hard-counter-focus of Terran. He didn't even mention tanks there!
I totaly understood what he ment... and the problem is actualy THERE for the ZvT MU.
Tanks > Zerglins, Hydras and Roaches (and does alot of damage to ultralisk before the ultra reach them) Could be dealt with Mutalisks but:
Thors > Mutalisk, Ultralisk, Corrupters, Broodlords, Roaches Thors could be dealt with lings, hydras but they are currently owned by tanks
Hellions > Zerglin force or Drone :D
Vicking > Corrupters, Broodlords or Drones Countered by mutal but to no avails since thors = gg
Leaving you with 1 unit... infestors NP which now last only 12 and the infestor itself has a shorter range than tanks and has 80HP!
here you have the solution.... despecialise Tmech and you'll have happy zergs again.
On that note, i'm leaving this tread now since it's useless like any other "nerf terran" post. You get the mass of players that states their opinions give good numbers and alot of players that used to play zerg/protoss switching to terran and you have on the other side the terran that just goes: hahaha nubs L2P numbers are showing 50/50 (than again we don't have any proofs of that... nor the way they calculate it).
It brings nutting to keep trying to convince you or any other terran players as "the masses" will be rewarded one day or another. As I stated before: "you know when a game is balanced when the QQ comes equaly" and it is not the case.
Meanwhile, I'm still going to play zerg and learn new ways to defeat terrible terrible imba terran and WHEN they'll nerf it of again maybe buff zerg... it will just be easier for me. In any case I know how to play protoss as well and will switch on my toss account to vent a bit when needed!
It's impossible to tell whether DB was talking about the ZvT match-up with that quote. You seem to be extrapolating a whollllle lot from a couple of sentences that say nothing about tanks -- which is what most people say is the real problem!
So I'm gonna have to shrug at your interpretation... I doubt that's what he was saying, though, personally.
The average games played/player and win ratios are highest in America, then comes Europe and finally Asia. Based on these numbers, it seems the hardest to become Diamond in America.
You know that US got the beta back like 3 days before the other servers? Also there are new divisions created if someone should be promoted into Diamond and there is no free spot.(I was the one and (l)only in mine) It should be about the same difficulty as the other servers which means not very difficult.
Damn terrans! get some fckn skills instead of trying to retain ur OP race abilities! do you terrans think it's a coincidence that 90% of zerg players whine about terran being OP? try playing some zvt plz~~
On July 20 2010 03:14 abandonallhope wrote: Why did all the WC3 and WoW-players come here? I can't stand the crying.
Stupid post. I'm a SC1, WC3 (very good, to shamelessly self-plug) player, and I have yet to cry. Why did all the "elitists" (likely D- ICCUP players who, at the mention of BRAIN/FISH go "wuts dats? lolnoob") come here to cry about crying? Seriously, these posts piss me off.
If you need a refresher on who 4k/MyM]Grubby, SK.MaDFroG, MyM]spirit_moon (who has now been hired be WeMadeFOX), etc. are, please go get one. If you're too fucking lazy to research before your "baw crying" posts, just look at their team tags. At the mention of a WC3 pioneer, and a currently top-ranked EU beta player, you go bitching about "wc3 players crying"? I don't get it. Your attitude is not appreciated.
On-topic: Tamerlane, you're awesome. I seriously love all the datamining going on. I was a bit apprehensive that Blizz would be trying to hide all this data to prevent any sort of this analysis going on, except in-house, but now I see that isn't the case. Your efforts are much appreciated, sir All analyses should be taken and given with a large grain of salt. Statistics are statistics. And these are statistics of a pre-release phase that is not representative of the total sample of players that will be available for postulating and hypothesizing after release. So any conclusion you could draw will be invalid to the game at release anyway, and only valid to some old set of data... Not that they aren't still very interesting to think up, read, consider, and debate. All in fun. That is all.
On July 20 2010 03:49 FabledIntegral wrote: Broodlords actually counter Thors, just fyi.
It's a pity that zerg players seldom gets to Broodlords. If Broodlords are what zergs are supposed to use to counter Thors then Blizzard should consider lowering some building times.
Building times until Terrans can build Thors Barracks 60 Factory 65 Tech Lab 25 (can be built in parallell with the armory) Armory 65 = 190 seconds
Building times until Zergs can build Broodlords Spawning Pool 65 Lair 80 Spire 100 Infestation Pit 50 (can be built in parallell with the spire) Hive 100 Greater Spire 100 = 445 seconds
The time it takes to get to Zergs higher tiers sucks.
On July 20 2010 05:09 Wr3k wrote: Finally some non-anecdotal evidence supporting the idea that Z is a little weak lately.
Lol... ever heard of 6 base (1 gold), hive tech, ultra/roach massing with max upgrades zerg losing to 3 base terran?!
Yeah... thors and tanks is all he needs... hellions help too since they're a mineral sink (a damn effective one at that!)...
When we finished the battle (I was maxed) it wasn't even close!!! No matter how many units I tried to remake from 6 hatches, it seemed like he had his whole army in tact! "/
Broodlords is the only choice, huh?! Very versatile race! If you don't spread creep - you lose! If you don't get broodlords, you lose... while terran can kill you with anything besides pure marines... and even those with decent micro can kill you and banelings won't have anything to say about it... other than that it's a-move, siege/unsiege... -.-
On July 20 2010 05:11 oxxo wrote: Bad zergs sitting on roach/hydra vs mech and then complaining about it are pathetic.
Broodlords and ultralisks are EXTREMELY good (if not OP). Use them.
Way to be a giant ignoramus.
Rofl.. yeah Ultras are extremely good vs BIO... but too bad to have ultras AND broodlors you need quite a lot of expos to support... but wait! Terran makes vikings/banshees and omg where did my army go!?!?!
Zerg has 1 GtA unit (not counting queen and infested terran). Zergs detection is very limited now. Most maps are Terran friendly. Zerg take forever to get broodlords which actually get owned by thors if terran has a decent amount... oh wait! That's all terrans mass!!! Hellion/thor/tank and you're fucked. Hellion/thor/tank/raven and/or viking and you're DEFINITELY fucked!
Now that NP is a joke it's even harder to deal with... I honestly only beat Terrans that are clueless... if a guy is equally matched or slightly better - there's no way you can win!!!
There is a massive problem with trying to analyze this data. You must first define what "Protoss," "Terran," "Zerg," and "Random" mean. If the data is defined by the race of most use, that means that 49% of the games for which the data is collected for a "race x" player could actually be from the other 3 "races."
Until that is defined, or game statistics with games/race for each player are added, this data cannot be statistically evaluated.
From looking at the data, the only thing it implies is that Protoss might be weaker while Terran and Zerg are about equal.
The number of players of each race in the top 20 means nothing, but win % by race does have statistical significance (limited by sample size though). The P win % is somewhat lower than T and Z.
I don't think these should be discussed as statistics. The word "statistics" implies some sort of probabilistic ratios. It implies the standard errors are known and defined, but we have none of that. These are the data as they are. The data tell us that Zerg is underperforming relative to the other races. Without actual statistics it's difficult to say why that is, but the facts remain.
makes me feel all fuzzy inside when i see my name on the ranking list haha
i think the lack of zerg at the higher levels is just a preference thing - not really a balance thing; most people just dont have the mindset to "fit" zerg.
Actually it doesn't even mean the races are underplayed. Since you don't know how many games a "protoss" player has actually played as protoss, theres no possible way to know with this set of data what the proper win ratios are, and how many games were played with each race.
Just because it says protoss next to your name, does not mean you have played ONLY protoss. I'm not sure why nobody has picked up on this.
Example: You could be a "terran" player that has played 100 games, 34 with terran, 33 with zerg, and 33 with protoss and 0 with random. In this case 66% of your games could be with a race OTHER than terran, which is YOUR "race." This means that you can't do any accurate statistical analysis on this data set.
What you need to see to try to make conclusions about balance is GAMES/race, and the wins losses for each game. You cannot dissociate win/loss data from race and hope to make any comments on balance.
On July 19 2010 18:07 Zombo Joe wrote: The main reason Zerg has a hard time is the maps. Too many chokes and not enough open ground for surrounds. Once better maps are released you'll see more wins from Zerg players.
This above anything else is probally the case. Map balancing is probally harder than you would think. In sc1 there were no cliff hopping units. In sc2 there are cliff hopping units the reason maps are currently designed the way they are. Such as: metaopolis and Krivine is to allow this new cliff hopping feaure to be used.
On July 20 2010 01:00 Konsume wrote:
yep that's exactly what I've seen in the latest events. Also, I played something like 50 ladder games yesterday (in the 450ish diamond which makes me 6th of my division) and spoke with EACH terran (even analysed some replays with a few that are now friends) after the game and asked them if they taught that terran was too strong and MOST of them said: Hey I just barely switched to terran... was zerg/protoss a week ago. Terran are freaking strong. [Might explain why there's alot of terrans on top right now]
The part I have in bold could be the very reason why people are arguing that the statistics aren't valid. Switched a week ago=== I switched for phase 2. I'm sure the win/loss ratios ect. are just from phase 2. So if people decided to switch to terran just to try them out for a little bit it seems only natural that there would be alot of terran wins as more people that actually had expieriance are trying the terrans out. In short people think the terrans are strong which can account to their win/loss ratio...But the number of terran players also accounts for this.
On July 20 2010 02:23 Disp wrote: I think the main problem is the tech path for Zerg. Ultras are the logical choice to combat Terran mech, but getting the tech takes twice as long as Battle Cruisers/Thors/Colossus/Carriers and costs almost double the gas. If you can get to Ultras it's easier to deal with, but with constant pressure from Terran you may not have time or resources.
I think if they lower the build time and gas cost of the hive so ultras and brood lords can be more in line with every other tier 3 unit, the matchup would be a lot more reasonable. Zerg are just stuck on tier 2 units for far too long and that creates an easy matchup for T/P to strategize against. Lings, mutas, roaches, hydras are very straight-forward units, with infestors being the only potential curve ball.
Please explain yourself here, I'm no zerg expert but the buildtime of the hive seems to be the only factor here. You compared ultra tech with battlecruisers and thors as far as terran go and colossus and carriers as far as the toss go.
Terran getting bc's keep in mind this also assumes the terran goes mech which would mean the zerg would want ultras. CC-->rax--->Tech-factory (125 gas)--->Tech-starport(125 gas)--->fusion core(150 gas) Total gas 400 Terran goes for thors. CC--->rax---->Tech-factory(125 gas)---->armory(100 gas) [plus an optional 100/150 gas for a reactor or no ractor port to give the thors more mobility.] Total gas 225/325/375
Zerg teching to ultras. Hatchery---->pool---->lair(100gas)---->infestors pit(100)---->hive(150 gas)---->ultra cavern(200 gas) Total gas 550.
Now I am going to go on the assumption that the zerg player has 3 bases and the terran has 2. Which is not a bad assumption. So given that the zerg tech is about the same in gas if terran goes bc's and about twice as expensive if terran goes thors. Keep in mind that You off of those 3 bases assuming you have the gas for the army can make up to 18ultras similataneously while for a thor terran to even get 1/5 of that prduction capability he would have to make 3 more tech-factories and now the gas cost for both techs are the same excluding the possible starport to give the thors mobility.
It's funny how Protoss across the board have the most games played per player.
Top 20: 219 games compared to 157 (T) and 159 (Z)
Top 50: 192 games compared to 165 (T) and 173 (Z)
And so forth. The spread between Protoss and the other two races narrows as you begin to include more players, but this seems to reflect the general playstyle of protoss, with 4 gate and other "all-in" builds being really popular, resulting in shorter games, allowing Protoss players to play more. Interesting.
On July 20 2010 08:28 terranghost wrote: Please explain yourself here, I'm no zerg expert but the buildtime of the hive seems to be the only factor here. You compared ultra tech with battlecruisers and thors as far as terran go and colossus and carriers as far as the toss go.
I want to answer this question because it is probably not obvious for non zerg players.
For reference I am a low-mid diamond player (90 ish APM) and play almost only zerg,
/this is a rough estimate, add a hellion or whatever, and make scvs pretty constantly (this build has one of the best econs in the game for 1 base play given the mules and I don't think the Terran needs to sack many scvs).
The marines behind rax-factory can stop any early zerg attack (except maybe a 1 base roach at which point a quick siege tank or a marauder will suffice).
Add on a starport (during Armory) and a medivac (during thor building) and you have a fast thor drop.
Note that this build allows good early defense, a decent econ (for 1 basing) and the Terran player can now very easily produce any factory unit, any barracks unit and any starport unit except the battlecruiser (with a tech lab swap or building a new one with the barracks).
The zerg player can go offensive early with a baneling bust or 1 base roach. If he does so he sacrifices his econ and the Terran player should be able to hold then kill him so let's leave those out.
So the zerg goes a standard 14 pool, 16 hatch, 2 queens when he can and overlords. He needs 6ish zerglings just in case reapers or a bunker rush show up (a bunker with marines is a pain and the terran automatically has the tech for this). The zerg almost always needs a tier 1.5 option and possibly some spine crawlers (to avoid hellions if possible or an early marauder rush, note that this too is tough to scout because the barracks with tech lab is there and you only get 1 early overlord over there to sacrifice).
Once we have that (and somehow guessed that we didn't need speedlings, most zerg would use 100 gas here too) we can get our lair. So we get our lair and our (kind and caring) terran player has yet to bother us.
Now we are at lair and quite scared of what the terran may be cooking up, so we need air defense. This can be covered by an extra queen, but to avoid dying we are going to need either hydras (100 gas) or mutalisks (200 gas). Around here the Thor drop will happen, so hopefully having scouted this with our omniscience we ave made a few mutas or hydras (300 gas at least).
Now that we know what is happening we make the great decision to tech to tier 3, which requires an infestation pit (100 gas) a hive (150 gas) and the tier 3 of choice. We can then start producing those units, hoping that the enemy hasn't made a viking or banshee and does not react by making one.
Units accessible: Marine Marauder Hellion Siege tank Thor Viking Medivac Banshee
Note that you have access to almost every piece of tech Terran can get as well as every possible attack by zerg covered in some way (the pieces you are missing, namely turrets, ghosts and battlecruisers have roles that are also accomplished by other units). Several of these things can also be built simultaneously (starport and armory, tech labs) and several can also produce units while the others are building (marines and hellions with a wall in).
Additional is all within 1 building (Fusion Core, Ghost academy, Engineering Bay).
Units accessible: Zergling Baneling Hydralisk Infestor Ultralisk
Note that I took every cheap option I could while realistically surviving (well not really you would need a unit other than lings and crawlers) until ultralisks (if you make a roach warren you need at least 4 roaches early for 100 gas). You have also conveniently not needed to make any banelings or hydras. The broodlord route costs 50 more and gives you access to corruptors and broodlords and mutas but no ultras or hydras.
You have counters to several things, but lack any flying units and can get annihilated by siege tanks. Additional tech is pretty expensive (notably the mutalisk/broodlord) without giving you more production ability. You also have no burrow (probably required with the banelings) or baneling speed or hydra range (another requirement) or if you went roaches, roach speed.
On top of that the number of things having another for prerequisite is huge even without the gas lock issue. Regardless of the strategy implemented by the Terran you get hit before tier 3 (Thor drop comes while Hive is morphing at the latest I think though I quite honestly never tested a fast track Hive because it is suicidal). This means you need an army and defenses not to mention you are vulnerable to harass (no walls here).
Even with great scouting there is always the possibility that the Terran player does a quick swap and pops out a banshee or a viking or two so you have to be ready to lose a bunch of things or have counters up fast.
My point is for me to build a signifcant tech and production strucures to go mech requires the same gas as ultra tech (T3 zerg stuff is more of a time constraint then gas constraint).
If terrans can make a mech army off of 2 bases and tech to thors which I have already proven is as expensive as ultra tech seeing as how you will need multiple factories. Also all I included was the gas of the buildings thors are 200 gas tanks are 125 and vikings if are 75 gas. So if the terrans can build a mech army and tech to thors while the zerg is teching towards ultras they will not have just lings. Just for the sake of the example I will say the terrans build 10 tanks and 3 thors and siege mode (keep in mind all we are doing is talking about the units that cost gas I am ignoring hellions for the time being) that costs the terran player including the cost of the tech and 3 factories is 2500 gas. Infestors are on your tech path to a hive anyway so including the cost of ultra tech that is enough gas for 16 infestors plus the NP research your zerglings roaches whatever other units you are building should be able to kill that pretty easy if the terran moves out else just sit back and wait for your ultras.
On July 20 2010 11:43 terranghost wrote: My point is for me to build a signifcant tech and production strucures to go mech requires the same gas as ultra tech (T3 zerg stuff is more of a time constraint then gas constraint).
If terrans can make a mech army off of 2 bases and tech to thors which I have already proven is as expensive as ultra tech seeing as how you will need multiple factories. Also all I included was the gas of the buildings thors are 200 gas tanks are 125 and vikings if are 75 gas. So if the terrans can build a mech army and tech to thors while the zerg is teching towards ultras they will not have just lings. Just for the sake of the example I will say the terrans build 10 tanks and 3 thors (keep in mind all we are doing is talking about the units that cost gas I am ignoring hellions for the time being) that costs the terran player including the cost of the tech and 3 factories is 2100 gas. Infestors are on your tech path to a hive anyway so including the cost of ultra tech that is enough gas for 10 infestors plus the NP research your zerglings roaches whatever other units you are building should be able to kill that pretty easy if the terran moves out else just sit back and wait for your ultras.
Edits in Italic
Yes easy, lol.
While you were theorycrafting you forgot that zerg need to have at least 1400 gas and 2100 minerals stockpiled to build 7 ultras. And the fact that atacking with them before armor upgrade is researched is a waste of money (plus they take forever to build).
Good fucking luck surviving that long with your 10 theoretical infestors. Neural parasite is a trash spell anyway since it was nerfed. No sane zerg uses infestors for NP anymore.
The problem isn't actually not being able to tech up to tier 3. The problem is that terrans always push out a short while after you're on 3 bases. Any commitment to teching or switching to ultras/broodlords at this point will have you killed.
Additionally, tanks and thors are an actual part of the terran's main army. They're the integral, and most important part of the army that sets out to steamroll the zerg.
You cannot count 10 tanks and 3thors and completely disregard all the tier 1 and 2 units zerg has to have as a buffert. What you're suggesting with your arithmetics is zerg staying on 0 units and hoping terran is a dumb shit idiot who doesn't know how to scan or scout.
Correct math would be including all the roaches and hydras zerg must have in stand by. You know, the army that would actually stop a push from a terran player who isn't kind enough to wait for you to get your ultras up.
There is no smooth transition into tier 3 for zerg unless they are considerably ahead in the game. Whenever you stop building tier 1-2 units you're putting yourself at risk. And you have to stop producing if you want any substantial amount of ultras/broodlords. There's no way for zerg to treat their tech switch as "normal macroing". With tanks and thors being the bulk of the army terran can just macro like usual without even having to think.
Compare it to terran having to build 6 factories with tech labs and start producing thors out of them simultaneously as a "tech switch". That's what zerg has to do. Zerg can't get their "thors" without building 6 factories and starting producing from them simultaneously.
Imagine how much fun zerg could have with terran, if terran teching to thors would be as risky and hard as explained above. In Broodwar, the only reason zerg could pull this off was because of the defiler. In SC2 terran are probably even more cost efficient than in BW. Yet zerg lacks the defiler, but they're still expected to somehow magically survive and tech switch at the same time. Without a unit that can "delay" the terran push, this is never going to happen.
Don't even know why I'm arguing with some bronze league theorycrafter.
also, I agree with LaLuSh (specially on the arguing with the bronze players part - I'm diamond and I don't even know wtf I'm talking about), even if his name sounds funny!
(sorry for the other quadzillion of posters - Day[9] exaggeration style deactivated - I just got home from a 13h work day and don't feel like reading, except for LaLuSh because his name currently sounds funnier to me right now than it usually does)
It is theorycraft as I am not a zerg player. I will reiterate my points.
1.) Ultra tech is the same amount of gas as thor tech. (The fact that multiple factories must be built is the reason for this) The problem with getting ultras is the time for the buildings to build NOT the gas cost as it is the same as thor tech 2.) The zerg only having zerglings when the terran pushes out seems unrealistic as if the terran can spend gas on mech units the zerg can spend gas on units to hold the terran back or harass him to prevent him from moving out. 3.) zerg almost always if they are doing what they are supposed to will have more bases than the terran player meaning they have more gas. 4.) If you look at my edit I made a miscalculation you can actually buy 16 infestors so using your counter argument of 10 infestors(which is more than enough you could actually beat my theoretical terran army with less) That would leave gas for 5 ultras. Once you get the tech up.
I'm not saying I disagree or agree with the OP and the idea that zerg is underpowered. All I am trying to do is correct people whose theories and proof are not accurate (or not completely accurate)
On July 20 2010 12:55 terranghost wrote: 2.) The zerg only having zerglings when the terran pushes out seems unrealistic as if the terran can spend gas on mech units the zerg can spend gas on units to hold the terran back or harass him to prevent him from moving out.
wait, hold on there, you mean that zerg CAN harass a T ?? (I'm talking early/mid game)
ok, sure, zergs can pop down a nydus canal at the mere cost of 1 thor and lose it nearly instantly (really, if you lose to a nydus drop, you should fix your scouting skills)
zergs can also use mutas to harass the worker line for 2-5 seconds until the marines come in while the terran is...either not prevented of doing anything at all AND/OR laughing his ass off
glings/banes bust is a good harassment combo though, as long as the terran doesn't have tanks (usually the case), hellions or marauders (ie. if he's teching straight to thors or something)
I have yet to see an infestors harass though, maybe that is possible if the terran leaves his base opened without detectors, but that doesn't ever stop him from killing anything else the zerg has
On July 20 2010 12:55 terranghost wrote: 3.) zerg almost always if they are doing what they are supposed to will have more bases than the terran player meaning they have more gas.
you are right on this one, at least when the zerg can survive the push of doom (hint : it's called the push of doom for a reason)
Hi. Maybe you might be interested in neutral/spectator's point of view concerning balance. First of all I am not biased at all. I never played SC2 beta. Watched a lot of streams and replays including tournaments. I know some will say that I have to play before I can say anything about balance. But believe me its not like watching movie and we can see what is going on and determine skills/efforts/tactics of the players in some degree. I am not going to discuss ingame details. This is just a general observation.
I have several reasons to think that terran is overpowered: 1. A lot of whining/complaints from zergs (and protoss ocassionally) in threads, none from terrans. 2. Terrans are dominating latest tournaments 3. Best random player switching to terran. Because he wins more games with it. As simple as that. 4. Statistics in OP. 5. Games, where terran fails to properly harass/attack opponent and yet they are leading. 6. Miracle comebacks. I've never seen them in protoss or zerg games. 7. Games, where zerg or protoss are in clear advantage and somehow lose without doing any major mistake. 8. Some complaints from pros (Dimaga, Tester, WhiteRa).
I don't know how to fix balance but I know that problem exists. Please, don't bash me. I really tried to prove myself wrong.
All we can conclude from these numbers is that Zerg is highly underplayed and Protoss and Zerg are somewhat overplayed.
I don't exactly know why you quoted what I said, but whether it's because of the fact that I typed in Zerg twice instead of one, or the fact that you agree with me, you might want to edit that because I also rectified the orignal post.
Or maybe you don't want to, it's fine either way. :p
On July 20 2010 14:21 bokeevboke wrote: Hi. Maybe you might be interested in neutral/spectator's point of view concerning balance. First of all I am not biased at all. I never played SC2 beta. Watched a lot of streams and replays including tournaments. I know some will say that I have to play before I can say anything about balance. But believe me its not like watching movie and we can see what is going on and determine skills/efforts/tactics of the players in some degree. I am not going to discuss ingame details. This is just a general observation.
I have several reasons to think that terran is overpowered: 1. A lot of whining/complaints from zergs (and protoss ocassionally) in threads, none from terrans. 2. Terrans are dominating latest tournaments 3. Best random player switching to terran. Because he wins more games with it. As simple as that. 4. Statistics in OP. 5. Games, where terran fails to properly harass/attack opponent and yet they are leading. 6. Miracle comebacks. I've never seen them in protoss or zerg games. 7. Games, where zerg or protoss are in clear advantage and somehow lose without doing any major mistake. 8. Some complaints from pros (Dimaga, Tester, WhiteRa).
I don't know how to fix balance but I know that problem exists. Please, don't bash me. I really tried to prove myself wrong.
Dead on, on all points.
To me, it comes back to the Roach/Marauder/Immortal shit triangle with the Marauder being the best out of the lot. Good range, 125hp which only drops to 105 once stimmed, can stim for higher RoF and movement, low cost, T1.5 unit... the list goes on. Moreover, look at the miracle comeback games, almost all are due to Marauder play.
I know this topic has been beaten to death, but if you compare the points on the triangle of shit, the Marauder is grossly the best of the 3 interms of cost versus effectiveness - especially against P (where the bulk of the miracles occur).
All we can conclude from these numbers is that Zerg is highly underplayed and Protoss and Zerg are somewhat overplayed.
I don't exactly know why you quoted what I said, but whether it's because of the fact that I typed in Zerg twice instead of one, or the fact that you agree with me, you might want to edit that because I also rectified the orignal post.
Or maybe you don't want to, it's fine either way. :p
Too be honest I was going to say something about it but I forgot what I was gonna say and accidentally posted it.
OverSight made a detailed thread (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=137262) suggesting a change to the overseer giving it an ability similar to the medics "blind" from Brood War.
I'm really curious what players like LaLush think of making a change like this. It would give tier 2 zerg armies a much better chance against this "doom push."
This is from blizzard forums,opinion about zerg and protoss:
Post by Cygnusx1 * USEast
I have played over 2000 games with Zerg and other races over the course of Beta phase 1 and 2. What I have noticed playing the much tougher players is how Protoss are the most aggressive race. Why you might ask?
1 pylon can warp any unit on from anywhere on the map 1 warp prism does same role just mentioned dark templars great harassers and require your enemy to waste money on detectors (especially zerg 50 minerals,100 gas, and food count) high templar great for noobs who ball up there units void rays great for base and other structure harassments warp gates are able to spawn an entire army in a matter of a second (of course that's if and only if you have lots of warp gates) warpcate cool-down is only about 20 seconds- 30 seconds Collosus heavy counter against biological units Immortal heavy counter against armor Archon soft counter against units in balled units because it has splash damage. However, has overlapping roles with the hard countered units which creates the unit mainly useless for its resources Sentry has a great ability to use force fields to block out melee units to protect there stalkers and Colossus Mass carriers always wins in a game reaching close to the 1 hour mark Zealot strong against marines,zerglings, hydralisk, infestors, queens, and drones Phoenixes are great for sniping down mutalisk and Overlords(preventing your ally from having food) and Phoenixes can attack while moving while mutalisk can not. Therefore, with good micro phoenixes can own mutalisks any day.
As you can see Protoss has the answer for about any given situation in any part of the game and very easy to take the easy aggression on the zerg from the begging of to the end of the game.
Zerg has mass producing ability if and only if you keep on top of that queen spawning larvae and after a while it just feels some what annoying and frustrating for keeping up this vs Protoss uses one probe to build a gateway and then upgrades it to a warpgate and then the microing is over for the rest of the game and not to mention you can double click all the gateways at once and just make them all into warpgates and now set a control group like control group 0 then you just push 0 and warp your units into battle anywhere on the map that has a pylon
The micro and macroing involved is so ridiculous easy compared what the zerg have to do. If I hot key my queen and set her to 0 well that's just 1 queen and now I have to hot key my hatchery that takes up another hot-key say for example 9. Now, I have to use additionally hot-key to just to build the larvae by clicking V then clicking on the Hatchery. Now, that was all just to take care spawning larvae and we haven't even built anything yet. Now, I have to use more hot-key just to build the unit I want which now I push S then hokey that represents the unit that I want. I have to do all this just to quickly keep up with someone who is using hot-keys and equally good player as well. Not to mention I have to hot-key more Queens just to spread creep over the map just so I can make my units move quicker on the map to be able to take the aggression and expand quickly. Also, I have to make sure to get all those speed upgrades or else I can't put that aggressive pressure as well. Now, about 15 minutes in the game I have used up all my control groups 1-9. While the Protoss player has only used probably 3. 1 for his Nexus to arbitrary amount of create probes, 1 for his warpgates, and 1 for cluster of units they have accumulated by pushing shift + the control group number they have used. Now, if you want to get more fancy you set a control group for a primary builder for the Protoss like control group 4 and now you push 4 and shift click a million buildings with their hot-key and now are way ahead of your opponent on the teching.
I felt that it was necessary to bring out these key things about microing and macroing Zerg vs Protoss and how there is no payoff at all compared to all the work you must do to keep up with an equally good Protoss player. This is why I believe the top players in the US servers are Protoss. Yes, they are not the most overpowered race (Terran), but they are not the weakest (Zerg). Playing Zerg feels too much like a chore and if your not playing your best every single game or make one simple mistake like forget to not spawn lavare its GG. Also, not to mention that Zerg CONSTANTLY has to make a decision to MAKE DRONES or MAKE AN ARMY. No other race has to make this difficulty choice. Also, the only way you know if its safe to make drones is if you have take over the map with your creep,overlords, and taking over ALL the watchtowers. However, sometimes even knowing all that doesn't seem to be enough.
Finally, what it comes down to it. The Protoss have way more strategies, easier micro and marco, and hard counters. While zerg have least amount of units in the game, the longest tech time to get to tier 3 out of all races, hardest micro/macro, least amount of stradegies (most units are attack move), have a chore of spreading creep, have a chore of spwaning lavare, and need to make sure to keep there queen alive or else they fall behind as well, and more soft counters than hard counters. Too many key factors are invovled while playing Zerg and after a while makes them quite unplayable for all these obvious reasons. I am not here to post this thread for people to agree or disagree, but simply here to state the facts of someone who has been Beta Testing for over 3 months now. Blizzard please realize all this and help improve the Zerg for the sake of a Beta Tester who nothing better to do than test your produc to its full potential and the many man hours to do so. Also, to note I am a Computer Scientist who test software for a living and I am not your average joe.
i do agree most of the parts of this post. ! Discuss ;p
i really really hope for a juicy Terran nerf by the release i planned not to buy the game because i didnt like the the balance, but from a reason i m forced to
On July 20 2010 15:01 TTL wrote: This is from blizzard forums,opinion about zerg and protoss:
<snipped>
i do agree most of the parts of this post. ! Discuss ;p
As a bronze protoss player I just want to point out that protoss needs two or three hotkeys for production (nexus, robotics/stargate) and zerg likewise (queens/hatcheries, with several different methods of achieving fast spawn larva).
And wait, what's this about needing hotkeys to spawn larva? Needing hotkeys to build different unit types? Ugh? I think he's confusing hotkeys and control groups.
As for the other issues, I'm not skilled enough to comment on those. But with these discrepancies I'm not inclined to take just his word on the basic issues he describes.
On July 20 2010 08:28 terranghost wrote: Keep in mind that You off of those 3 bases assuming you have the gas for the army can make up to 18ultras similataneously while for a thor terran to even get 1/5 of that prduction capability he would have to make 3 more tech-factories and now the gas cost for both techs are the same excluding the possible starport to give the thors mobility.
Not talking about production capability at all. The fact that you can get the tech for your tier 3 Thor out in the same time it takes a Zerg to get hydra tech, a tier 2 unit, is silly. Ultras are just not even on the horizon for a 9-12 minute large Terran push with any combination of Thor/siege tank/MM/Hellion.
Ultras and Broodlords are awesome units and if there were a way to get them out earlier I think it would make mech a lot less intimidating to Zerg and a lot more feasible to deal with. Why does it take soooo much longer to get end-game tech than the two other races?
On July 20 2010 11:43 terranghost wrote: My point is for me to build a signifcant tech and production strucures to go mech requires the same gas as ultra tech (T3 zerg stuff is more of a time constraint then gas constraint).
If terrans can make a mech army off of 2 bases and tech to thors which I have already proven is as expensive as ultra tech seeing as how you will need multiple factories. Also all I included was the gas of the buildings thors are 200 gas tanks are 125 and vikings if are 75 gas. So if the terrans can build a mech army and tech to thors while the zerg is teching towards ultras they will not have just lings. Just for the sake of the example I will say the terrans build 10 tanks and 3 thors and siege mode (keep in mind all we are doing is talking about the units that cost gas I am ignoring hellions for the time being) that costs the terran player including the cost of the tech and 3 factories is 2500 gas. Infestors are on your tech path to a hive anyway so including the cost of ultra tech that is enough gas for 16 infestors plus the NP research your zerglings roaches whatever other units you are building should be able to kill that pretty easy if the terran moves out else just sit back and wait for your ultras.
Edits in Italic
You are assuming both sides play defense until then with mostly minerals. While certainly doable for a Terran it would be suicide for a Zerg.
So UnknownArt is ranked second globally as Zerg (the other top 5 spots is occupied by Terrans). That is a feat for sure, but I wonder where I can find VODs or replays of his games. Youtube gave no results, and with a winrate of 72% I am really interested to see his Zerg style. He have not even competed in any tournaments? Any ideas where to watch his games? You diamond guys from the EU server, what can you tell me about his style?
On July 19 2010 17:18 Zignius wrote: Isn't it really obivous that numbers like these don't say anything about balance?
Statistics are statistics.
All we can conclude from these numbers is that Zerg is highly underplayed and Protoss and Teran are somewhat overplayed.
There are far more different factors needed to conclude that a certain race or playstyle is overpowered than just the amount of players that use that certain race / playstyle. I think that this in particular has to do with the Flavor Of The Month type of hypes that every big multiplayer game, mainly MMO's, has everynow and then.
As far as I'm concerned all this says is that Zerg is a race that is either less appealing to people or, and that's probably the case, has the most inconvenient mechanics for new players.
The only thing I can't defend is the fact that this trend continues to grow towards the top of the league's and thus the people with the highest skill level. But the only thing that gives us is a slight hunch that Terran might be more effective in the hands of top players and therefore imbalanced.
But again numbers are numbers and allways will be numbers.
Sadly I must agree. Stats can only say so much. It's that Blizzard seems to rely too much on their stat tracking to balance things. It seems they overnerfed zerg because they saw koreans dominating with them so much. It looks like artosis is right that the shift would go to terran.
But I don't know how sophisticated their stat tracking is. It could be possible that they can see that zerg lose within the first 5 minutes more than any other race, but win when it gets to 30 minutes or more.
- The average games played/player and win ratios are highest in America, then comes Europe and finally Asia. Based on these numbers, it seems the hardest to become Diamond in America.
that is why upmagic got to diamond in 3 days in asia and I needed the entire second phase playing as Terran in US...
lol
Example of bad reasoning becoming bad information for the public The average games played/player and win ratios are highest in America, then comes Europe and finally Asia. -> Based on these numbers, it seems the hardest to become Diamond in America.
If you stopped to read this you would have realised there are 0 logics and 1 conclusion. High win ratios in US servers means it's harder to get into Diamond? Think about it, it just means there are bottom feeders: 'casual gamers'. The OP is jumping to conclusions. Two empty reasoning: 1. Ranking system is based on win rate 2. Not accessing the fact it's harder to win in Asia servers because of even skill distribution (a lot of people are at equal skill levels because there are much less casual starcraft gamers in Korea).
Lower win rate means it's harder to get into Diamond league. BECAUSE Lower win rate ->most of players are at equal skill levelss. If most of players have equal skills, it's harder to get to higher tier. ^Actual Reasoning
That means it's much harder get into Diamond in Asia than US.
The reason why upmagic got to diamond in 3 days in asia and you needed the entire second phase playing as Terran in US to get into Diamond is because he is better than you, in fact much better than you. Of course I cannot prove this since I don't know your skill level. ->am I jumping to conclusions, right now? Yes but at least it's logical.
I mean seriously, bad reasoning/misleading OPs make me mad!
Blizzard got the exact data and they WILL fix imbalanced things. Please don't come with the agrument "blizzard wants terran to be OP because the campaign is about terran". People seem to forget that blizzard wants to make an ESPORTS game.
Terran will be nerfed or zerg will be buffed. I'm 100% sure about this.
It's a little more complicated than that, you can't just balance by win/loss data. It has more to do with matchups and timings. However there are some units that are a little too good in my opinion regardless of matchups or timings. I do think Blizzard will be quicker to make adjustments with SC2 than they were with SC.
On July 20 2010 14:21 bokeevboke wrote: Hi. Maybe you might be interested in neutral/spectator's point of view concerning balance. First of all I am not biased at all. I never played SC2 beta. Watched a lot of streams and replays including tournaments. I know some will say that I have to play before I can say anything about balance. But believe me its not like watching movie and we can see what is going on and determine skills/efforts/tactics of the players in some degree. I am not going to discuss ingame details. This is just a general observation.
I have several reasons to think that terran is overpowered: 1. A lot of whining/complaints from zergs (and protoss ocassionally) in threads, none from terrans. 2. Terrans are dominating latest tournaments 3. Best random player switching to terran. Because he wins more games with it. As simple as that. 4. Statistics in OP. 5. Games, where terran fails to properly harass/attack opponent and yet they are leading. 6. Miracle comebacks. I've never seen them in protoss or zerg games. 7. Games, where zerg or protoss are in clear advantage and somehow lose without doing any major mistake. 8. Some complaints from pros (Dimaga, Tester, WhiteRa).
I don't know how to fix balance but I know that problem exists. Please, don't bash me. I really tried to prove myself wrong.
I had to quote this for truth, because he puts together several facts that point to imbalance from the Terran part few people seem to mention, yet they are significant.
On July 20 2010 17:49 Dente wrote: People seem to forget that blizzard wants to make an ESPORTS game.
You seem to forget that most of Blizzard's realisations towards their objectives so far have been counter-productive in regards to the needs of serious gamers :
- connecting the community together - creating a competitive arena for everyone - the always-connected experience
I don't see why they would succeed in making SC2 an e-sports game until they fire those people who make terrible decisions.
On July 20 2010 17:49 Dente wrote: People seem to forget that blizzard wants to make an ESPORTS game.
You seem to forget that most of Blizzard's realisations towards their objectives so far have been counter-productive in regards to the needs of serious gamers :
- connecting the community together - creating a competitive arena for everyone - the always-connected experience
I don't see why they would succeed in making SC2 an e-sports game until they fire those people who make terrible decisions.
Lan will be added, chatchannels will be added, you will be able to switch servers (will be added), etc. They will do everything possible to make this THE esports game.
On July 20 2010 08:28 terranghost wrote: Keep in mind that You off of those 3 bases assuming you have the gas for the army can make up to 18ultras similataneously while for a thor terran to even get 1/5 of that prduction capability he would have to make 3 more tech-factories and now the gas cost for both techs are the same excluding the possible starport to give the thors mobility.
Not talking about production capability at all. The fact that you can get the tech for your tier 3 Thor out in the same time it takes a Zerg to get hydra tech, a tier 2 unit, is silly. Ultras are just not even on the horizon for a 9-12 minute large Terran push with any combination of Thor/siege tank/MM/Hellion.
Ultras and Broodlords are awesome units and if there were a way to get them out earlier I think it would make mech a lot less intimidating to Zerg and a lot more feasible to deal with. Why does it take soooo much longer to get end-game tech than the two other races?
Not quite sure why I was quoted I think I made it quite clear in my posts that I was simply comparing the gas costs between the 2 and did say the main issue was time.
On July 20 2010 11:43 terranghost wrote: My point is for me to build a signifcant tech and production strucures to go mech requires the same gas as ultra tech (T3 zerg stuff is more of a time constraint then gas constraint).
If terrans can make a mech army off of 2 bases and tech to thors which I have already proven is as expensive as ultra tech seeing as how you will need multiple factories. Also all I included was the gas of the buildings thors are 200 gas tanks are 125 and vikings if are 75 gas. So if the terrans can build a mech army and tech to thors while the zerg is teching towards ultras they will not have just lings. Just for the sake of the example I will say the terrans build 10 tanks and 3 thors [i]and siege mode (keep in mind all we are doing is talking about the units that cost gas I am ignoring hellions for the time being) that costs the terran player including the cost of the tech and 3 factories is 2500 gas. Infestors are on your tech path to a hive anyway so including the cost of ultra tech that is enough gas for 16infestors plus the NP research your zerglings roaches whatever other units you are building should be able to kill that pretty easy if the terran moves out else just sit back and wait for your ultras.
Edits in Italic
You are assuming both sides play defense until then with mostly minerals. While certainly doable for a Terran it would be suicide for a Zerg.
[/i]
Actually I am not the infestors are just one example of what you can use that gas on and you can get them about the same time as tanks.
Look at my theoretical army again10 tanks 3 thors. I compared this and said the zerg could get 16 infestors for the same gas cost thats 3 extra infestors with that number you could NP everything. But having that many infestors probally isnt the case I say later that 10 infestors is more likely but even so more than enough which means you could lower the number more allowing you to build other units that require gas such as roaches or hydras if you manage to NP even 2 of the thors and they have the cannons researched 2 thors will die right then and there and mutas are much more likely option if you spread them out.
It takes about 3-4 mutas to beat a thor if the mutas don't take splash. Reminds me alot of micro tournament in BW. 4sairs vs 6 mutas.
On July 20 2010 21:35 Dente wrote: Lan will be added, chatchannels will be added, you will be able to switch servers (will be added), etc. They will do everything possible to make this THE esports game.
Real LAN support will never be in the game. Anyway, all those "will be added" are really chocking. Their game is maybe finished, but Bnet is obviously not finished.
Blizzard should be way less arrogant in its communication since they're going to sell us a non totally finished product.
I'll have to break my promise of not comming back on this post since I taught it would have died/being closed yesterday and out of curiosity I came to read all the terran defenders and to my huge suprise there was actualy good posts in this tread!
here is just a few
On July 20 2010 14:21 bokeevboke wrote: I have several reasons to think that terran is overpowered: 1. A lot of whining/complaints from zergs (and protoss ocassionally) in threads, none from terrans. 2. Terrans are dominating latest tournaments 3. Best random player switching to terran. Because he wins more games with it. As simple as that. 4. Statistics in OP. 5. Games, where terran fails to properly harass/attack opponent and yet they are leading. 6. Miracle comebacks. I've never seen them in protoss or zerg games. 7. Games, where zerg or protoss are in clear advantage and somehow lose without doing any major mistake. 8. Some complaints from pros (Dimaga, Tester, WhiteRa).
I don't understand why someone that have yet to play the game understands more about the game than the actualy "diamond" players. Anyway, good job bokeevboke for clearly stating whats in most zerg player's mind.
On your point #8 should have added: Artosis, IdrA..... etc.
and you missed one thing: several "top players" are currently thinking about switching to Terran if it's not already done... at least some of them admitted that they are currently practicing with them in order to not be too beind when the game gets live.
Not going to quote all LaLush's post but here are the important parts
On July 20 2010 12:34 LaLuSh wrote:
The problem isn't actually not being able to tech up to tier 3. The problem is that terrans always push out a short while after you're on 3 bases. Any commitment to teching or switching to ultras/broodlords at this point will have you killed.
Additionally, tanks and thors are an actual part of the terran's main army. They're the integral, and most important part of the army that sets out to steamroll the zerg.
You cannot count 10 tanks and 3thors and completely disregard all the tier 1 and 2 units zerg has to have as a buffert. What you're suggesting with your arithmetics is zerg staying on 0 units and hoping terran is a dumb shit idiot who doesn't know how to scan or scout.
There is no smooth transition into tier 3 for zerg unless they are considerably ahead in the game.
Compare it to terran having to build 6 factories with tech labs and start producing thors out of them simultaneously as a "tech switch". That's what zerg has to do.
In Broodwar, the only reason zerg could pull this off was because of the defiler. Yet zerg lacks the defiler, but they're still expected to somehow magically survive and tech switch at the same time. Without a unit that can "delay" the terran push, this is never going to happen.
I'd also like to add that it's impossible for a zerg to harass a terran player early game. Baneling bust isn't harass it's actualy an ALL-IN... as if it fails you're put being beyond all ways to get back in the game. It can also be blocked by walling with rax/facto on several maps. Next step would be mutalisk but since thors gets out at around the same time... it makes mutalisk useless to make in a TvZ matchup.
I just wish zerg expansion comes next and in about 3months cause I doupt blizzard will change any serious thing about zerg before they touch their expansion!
Good to see that there is not a significant domination by one race. Also MADFROG is back holy shizzz, he is one of the first (pro)gamers i have seen in person together with Sven, Slayer88 and Satanik in Prague year 2002 (i think it was). Can't wait unfil SC2 kicks off - only sadness is that i won't be playing it cause of being too busy.
Wow people are drawing way too many wrong conclusions based on the statistics. First off the sample sizes are way too small to draw any conclusions that would give us any information regarding the population, not to mention that if there any balance issues it will take time to solve them.
People do not always find a quick way to counter certain strategies and as such would be reflected into statistics. Phase two has only been out for two weeks...
On July 20 2010 11:43 terranghost wrote: My point is for me to build a signifcant tech and production strucures to go mech requires the same gas as ultra tech (T3 zerg stuff is more of a time constraint then gas constraint).
If terrans can make a mech army off of 2 bases and tech to thors which I have already proven is as expensive as ultra tech seeing as how you will need multiple factories. Also all I included was the gas of the buildings thors are 200 gas tanks are 125 and vikings if are 75 gas. So if the terrans can build a mech army and tech to thors while the zerg is teching towards ultras they will not have just lings. Just for the sake of the example I will say the terrans build 10 tanks and 3 thors (keep in mind all we are doing is talking about the units that cost gas I am ignoring hellions for the time being) that costs the terran player including the cost of the tech and 3 factories is 2100 gas. Infestors are on your tech path to a hive anyway so including the cost of ultra tech that is enough gas for 10 infestors plus the NP research your zerglings roaches whatever other units you are building should be able to kill that pretty easy if the terran moves out else just sit back and wait for your ultras.
Edits in Italic
Yes easy, lol.
While you were theorycrafting you forgot that zerg need to have at least 1400 gas and 2100 minerals stockpiled to build 7 ultras. And the fact that atacking with them before armor upgrade is researched is a waste of money (plus they take forever to build).
Good fucking luck surviving that long with your 10 theoretical infestors. Neural parasite is a trash spell anyway since it was nerfed. No sane zerg uses infestors for NP anymore.
The problem isn't actually not being able to tech up to tier 3. The problem is that terrans always push out a short while after you're on 3 bases. Any commitment to teching or switching to ultras/broodlords at this point will have you killed.
Additionally, tanks and thors are an actual part of the terran's main army. They're the integral, and most important part of the army that sets out to steamroll the zerg.
You cannot count 10 tanks and 3thors and completely disregard all the tier 1 and 2 units zerg has to have as a buffert. What you're suggesting with your arithmetics is zerg staying on 0 units and hoping terran is a dumb shit idiot who doesn't know how to scan or scout.
Correct math would be including all the roaches and hydras zerg must have in stand by. You know, the army that would actually stop a push from a terran player who isn't kind enough to wait for you to get your ultras up.
There is no smooth transition into tier 3 for zerg unless they are considerably ahead in the game. Whenever you stop building tier 1-2 units you're putting yourself at risk. And you have to stop producing if you want any substantial amount of ultras/broodlords. There's no way for zerg to treat their tech switch as "normal macroing". With tanks and thors being the bulk of the army terran can just macro like usual without even having to think.
Compare it to terran having to build 6 factories with tech labs and start producing thors out of them simultaneously as a "tech switch". That's what zerg has to do. Zerg can't get their "thors" without building 6 factories and starting producing from them simultaneously.
Imagine how much fun zerg could have with terran, if terran teching to thors would be as risky and hard as explained above. In Broodwar, the only reason zerg could pull this off was because of the defiler. In SC2 terran are probably even more cost efficient than in BW. Yet zerg lacks the defiler, but they're still expected to somehow magically survive and tech switch at the same time. Without a unit that can "delay" the terran push, this is never going to happen.
Don't even know why I'm arguing with some bronze league theorycrafter.
No one listens to me... maybe they'll listen to LaLuSh! lol
The funny thing is half of these people have no clue what BW is or how it was played... and I guess Blizz forgot that Zerg really wouldn't be shit in BW without Dark Swarm... (At least not vs T...)
Atm, as I said before, the only way for Z to win is if terran is completely clueless... or if you get lucky! Other than that all of the fancy stuff that you "can do" are useless... Maybe that's why Dimaga baneling busts every game... -.-
EPT
Can't wait to see replays/vods/tourneys from him once retail hits. Maybe I can even play him once and avoid getting completely noobstomped like last time. ^^
.
