|
On August 11 2010 02:51 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 02:20 Azile wrote:On August 11 2010 02:09 ooni wrote:On August 11 2010 02:07 cuppatea wrote:On August 11 2010 01:53 ooni wrote:On August 11 2010 01:48 Jameser wrote:On August 11 2010 01:46 ooni wrote:On August 11 2010 01:26 cuppatea wrote:On August 11 2010 01:10 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:06 cuppatea wrote:
[quote]
You do realise the whole idea of the AMM is to give people evenly matched games, thus ensuring all but the very best have a win ratio hovering around the 50% mark, right?
If they nerfed Terran into oblivion next patch, the Terran guy with a 50% win ratio in gold would just be winning 50% of his games in silver instead.
The above stats say nothing about the balance of the game. Nope? Diamond players have to have higher win ratio because they win more when they are not matched against Diamond players (lower level players, not all the time but probablity wise yes). Conversely Bronze players should have lower win ratio because they are likely to lose when faced with higher level players. So it can't nor it should be 50% with the current match making system. Umm... Duh? I'm in diamond and only get matched against diamond level players. Occasionally that will mean a diamond level player who is stil in platinum but hasn't played enough games to get promoted yet but I can't remember the last time I faced someone who was still stuck in plat after more than 50 or so games and I haven't played anybody from below platinum since my placement matches. I just checked a random silver division and the guy at the top, who is still in silver league after nearly 200 games, has a higher win % than me, yet I'm ranked 400th in Europe and he's 4000th. Overall win percentages hovering around 50% just means that the AMM is doing it's job and, I repeat, says NOTHING about balance. Umm... Duh? uh huh... Did you also consider the fact people who lose a lot get demoted to a lower league? What's important is if the win ratios are similar, not what the win ratios are. ooni I think it's pretty clear you aren't actually arguing a point of view as much as you refuse to be wrong I say you would save more face if you just stopped posting right here but... am I wrong? That's the thing though. I'm not wrong about the win ratios being higher on Diamond because that's how the system works. Nor is having people who are 'losing players' in lower leagues 'wrong'/ I am not trying to impose my subjective view. I am trying to show people an objective view. I have argued both for and against the statistic. I even said statistics are not exact, however for Zerg to be imbalanced, the statistics must show a significant % difference between the win rates. Which is not the case here. There's never going to be a significant diffference between win rates because, as I've said throughout the thread, the AMM is designed to keep players hovering around the 50% mark. I had a 55% win rate when I was a complete noob in bronze and I have a 55% win rate now I'm near the top of my diamond division. The quality of my opposition has increased as I've improved but my win ratio has remained the same. If I started playing with one hand my rating would drop and I'd possibly get demoted but I'd still be winning around 55% of my games, just against a lower quality of opposition. All your stats prove is that the AMM works, nothing else. No one said AMM should make everything around 50%. If you lose, you will be demoted. That means it's impossible to make it close to 50% for higher leagues. Vice versa for lower leagues. I guess AMM setting might be if you lose more than 50% you are dropped, but that will make closer to 50% but never 50% especially for the highest league. Anyways using statistics, Top 1000 Players who play Zerg as main on diamond ladder have ~56.3% winning ratio. Top 1000 Players who play Protoss as main on diamond ladder have ~56.5% winning ratio. Top 1000 Players who play Terran as main on diamond ladder have ~56.8% winning ratio. Top 1000 Players who play Random as main on diamond ladder have ~56.1% winning ratio. If Zerg was to be imbalanced, Player who ladders Zerg as main would have much lower than 56% winning ratio no? Am I wrong?Doesn't it prove that at least? Yes, yes you are wrong. But it's very obvious you'll never accept that instead you'll just keep posting anyway so why even ask? what does these statistics prove but the fact that matchmaking is pretty good? Now if these where broodwar statistics id be impressed. Because iccup rank actually kind of matters. so ;/ Ill just squeal like a schoolgirl and come here stating the following: TLO FUCKING CRACKED MECH OPEN LIKE A BALLER in Day9 daily 162. What kills hellion harass? early roaches, gives you faster lair? skip queen Thor drop? fuck thor i have infestors before it comes. echonomy? well terrans onebase anyhow so ? I had fucking nerdchills. WHAT NO QUEEN WTF? and then i realised the beauty of it. hellion harass , earlier roaches. REAPERS? earlier roaches. expand? we did that on 14 just need to care against bunker. marine, tank push. I HAS SPEEDLINGS and roaches, marine tank hellion push i has infestor ;D Basically it all comes down to scouting but i mean. its solved, its cracked open and im happy ;D I want an interjew with TLO about how he feels about that opener how much its been tested and how he went about solving mech.
I don't even know what you're trying to say. You need to learn to write English before trying to formulate some sort of a reply.
TvZ is most certainly imbalanced. Bottom line, as has been said, Zerg needs more goddamn options. How do I open? I NEED speedlings to not die from harass. What next? Well, I need an expo, so I'll grab that, then I'll get my lair tech. Harass back? Oh no, I can't Terran is walled off. So I scout in his base. He has factories and raxes, with a starport. So he must be going.... wait a minute, I still have no idea. He can build a myriad of different comps from those buildings.
I've finished my lair tech, so I decide alright, I'm gonna throw up my spire. He scans - shit, that cat's out of the bag. So he builds a Thor before my spire is even done, nevermind that I have enough mutas out to actually do damage (5+). Now he sits there turtling, and building up an army. He does a push with tanks, thors, marauders, marines. So I now have slings, maybe blings, and mutas. Can I kill his army? Not without PERFECT micro. At this point, all the terran has done is scan once, seen my tech building, turtled, built an army, and walked out. All the while he could have been harassing with hellions and reapers, and I'm desperately trying to stay alive. He walks down, obliterates my army. GG
My APM is around 100 - I watch replays of terrans I play, and they play around 30 APM. And they often don't even scout AT ALL. And I lose. There's fuck all I can do.
No, I'm not a high level diamond player, but that doesn't mean I can't look at how unbalanced the game is.
CheckPrime has been mentioned a page or so ago - he is, IMO, the best zerg player out there right now. He's fucking amazing, no doubt. But every game he plays is nail-biting, he loses his natural several times, and only at the very end is able to do any sort of damage to the terran. The micro/APM required by zerg is retardedly high compared to the other races. I have a higher win % with terran in my gold bracket, and all I have to do is leapfrog tanks with support. I honestly don't even have to bother microing 90% of the time because the units are so much fucking stronger than the zerg units, cost for cost.
Zerg needs to be able to do something other than slings right off the bat. We need other options, we need the ability to early harass a walled in player SOMEHOW - we just need some more unit diversity. I have no problems with the macro mechanics of the zerg as some people do. That, IMO, is rectified by not playing at 30 APM. No, you cannot play zerg at 30 APM. That is not an issue in and of itself, but when I have absolutely no advantage playing at 100 APM over a terran playing at 30 APM, that just does not make sense.
|
ok ok, so this isn't really the point of the thread but it keeps peppering it over and over like some sort of vicious blister on that one spot on your foot you don't usually hit, but sometimes you do and it really irritates you. Ooni and other people are arguing about the win ratios in the various leagues and trying to apply it to whether or not the races are balanced. I don't really think you can do that since it's an over all win loss ratio. If a player plays Zerg as his main, and wins 75% of his games in mirror match or against protoss, but only 25% of his games against Terrans of equal skill his win loss will still show as 50%. Clearly for this hypothetical player the ZvT match up is imbalanced, but from his win/loss ratio we would never know this. Because these statistics do not track actual matches, I don't see how we can apply them to actual match balance. I'm not really sure, but I think the guy who was arguing with Ooni was trying to make this point but it never got across. Anyone?
|
On August 11 2010 04:01 Enteris wrote:
ok ok, so this isn't really the point of the thread but it keeps peppering it over and over like some sort of vicious blister on that one spot on your foot you don't usually hit, but sometimes you do and it really irritates you. Ooni and other people are arguing about the win ratios in the various leagues and trying to apply it to whether or not the races are balanced. I don't really think you can do that since it's an over all win loss ratio. If a player plays Zerg as his main, and wins 75% of his games in mirror match or against protoss, but only 25% of his games against Terrans of equal skill his win loss will still show as 50%. Clearly for this hypothetical player the ZvT match up is imbalanced, but from his win/loss ratio we would never know this. Because these statistics do not track actual matches, I don't see how we can apply them to actual match balance. I'm not really sure, but I think the guy who was arguing with Ooni was trying to make this point but it never got across. Anyone?
The situation you posited makes absolutely no sense. So you're saying that Zerg players just happen to do 2x as well against their own race then the other races, as a common phenomenon across millions of people? That doesn't make sense.
I do agree that balance cannot be proven by statistics. However, it does go to show that the disparity between the races is not as great as many people make it out to be. That the imbalance is not so great that it would be visible on a greatly generalized statistical analysis. In fact, these statistics have been far more balanced then ICCUPs ever have been, which were often 60-40 in one races favor.
|
On August 11 2010 03:17 pwnasaurus wrote:
I don't even know what you're trying to say. You need to learn to write English before trying to formulate some sort of a reply.
TvZ is most certainly imbalanced. Bottom line, as has been said, Zerg needs more goddamn options. How do I open? I NEED speedlings to not die from harass. What next? Well, I need an expo, so I'll grab that, then I'll get my lair tech. Harass back? Oh no, I can't Terran is walled off. So I scout in his base. He has factories and raxes, with a starport. So he must be going.... wait a minute, I still have no idea. He can build a myriad of different comps from those buildings.
I've finished my lair tech, so I decide alright, I'm gonna throw up my spire. He scans - shit, that cat's out of the bag. So he builds a Thor before my spire is even done, nevermind that I have enough mutas out to actually do damage (5+). Now he sits there turtling, and building up an army. He does a push with tanks, thors, marauders, marines. So I now have slings, maybe blings, and mutas. Can I kill his army? Not without PERFECT micro. At this point, all the terran has done is scan once, seen my tech building, turtled, built an army, and walked out. All the while he could have been harassing with hellions and reapers, and I'm desperately trying to stay alive. He walks down, obliterates my army. GG
My APM is around 100 - I watch replays of terrans I play, and they play around 30 APM. And they often don't even scout AT ALL. And I lose. There's fuck all I can do.
No, I'm not a high level diamond player, but that doesn't mean I can't look at how unbalanced the game is.
CheckPrime has been mentioned a page or so ago - he is, IMO, the best zerg player out there right now. He's fucking amazing, no doubt. But every game he plays is nail-biting, he loses his natural several times, and only at the very end is able to do any sort of damage to the terran. The micro/APM required by zerg is retardedly high compared to the other races. I have a higher win % with terran in my gold bracket, and all I have to do is leapfrog tanks with support. I honestly don't even have to bother microing 90% of the time because the units are so much fucking stronger than the zerg units, cost for cost.
Zerg needs to be able to do something other than slings right off the bat. We need other options, we need the ability to early harass a walled in player SOMEHOW - we just need some more unit diversity. I have no problems with the macro mechanics of the zerg as some people do. That, IMO, is rectified by not playing at 30 APM. No, you cannot play zerg at 30 APM. That is not an issue in and of itself, but when I have absolutely no advantage playing at 100 APM over a terran playing at 30 APM, that just does not make sense.
Consider the build. Delayed Queen with your gas whenever you would normally get it for early Zergling speed means you can start teching to Lair ridiculously fast (50 seconds earlier), still get Zergling speed at a reasonable time, and frankly a lot of Zerg players who get Queen/s immediately after Pool end up with more Larva than they can reasonably utilize in the early game anyway.
As far as your "zomg apm 100 loses to apm 30" argument goes, higher APM doesn't guarantee that you'll win at ANY level of play. Merely clicking buttons faster than your opponent is much, much less important than knowing when to expand, how to use your larva, when to attack and defend, etc. Furthermore, a Zerg player at the Gold-ish level is almost always going to have a higher APM than a meching Terran simply because meching Terrans will siege up and leave their tanks alone for extended periods of time, whereas Zerg players will be constantly moving things around, selecting Hatcheries and building units, etc. Having a higher APM doesn't say anything about how correctly you are or are not playing. If your APM is coming from simply running Zerglings around the map by spamming right click and spam selecting Drones, it's probably not helping you much. 100 APM put towards throwing up expansions, scouting, and resource management is far, far more efficient than 100 APM put towards spam clicking (obviously). Higher APM can be a DISADVANTAGE if you're not playing with sound mechanics in the first place.
You DON'T need the ability to harass a walled-in player in the early game. You can exploit his wall-in by expanding, establishing map control (vision, naga towers), etc.
Does the TvZ match-up currently favor Terran? Yes, there is no denying that. Is it because of unit balance or knowledge? We don't REALLY know right now. There are certainly changes that could be made that would help Zerg players, but at the same time I'm hesitant to attribute all of Zerg's perceived vulnerability to a lack of options when so many opening possibilities have yet to be explored.
The fact of the matter is Tester awhile back asserted that Terran would be the strongest race when people figured out how to play them, and this was when Zerg was dominating the Korean servers handily. Now that people have figured out how to play Terran in a more effective way than before, could we not change the way we approach the match-up from Zerg's point-of-view and potentially alter the "balance" again?
|
On August 11 2010 02:51 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 02:20 Azile wrote:On August 11 2010 02:09 ooni wrote:On August 11 2010 02:07 cuppatea wrote:On August 11 2010 01:53 ooni wrote:On August 11 2010 01:48 Jameser wrote:On August 11 2010 01:46 ooni wrote:On August 11 2010 01:26 cuppatea wrote:On August 11 2010 01:10 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:06 cuppatea wrote:
[quote]
You do realise the whole idea of the AMM is to give people evenly matched games, thus ensuring all but the very best have a win ratio hovering around the 50% mark, right?
If they nerfed Terran into oblivion next patch, the Terran guy with a 50% win ratio in gold would just be winning 50% of his games in silver instead.
The above stats say nothing about the balance of the game. Nope? Diamond players have to have higher win ratio because they win more when they are not matched against Diamond players (lower level players, not all the time but probablity wise yes). Conversely Bronze players should have lower win ratio because they are likely to lose when faced with higher level players. So it can't nor it should be 50% with the current match making system. Umm... Duh? I'm in diamond and only get matched against diamond level players. Occasionally that will mean a diamond level player who is stil in platinum but hasn't played enough games to get promoted yet but I can't remember the last time I faced someone who was still stuck in plat after more than 50 or so games and I haven't played anybody from below platinum since my placement matches. I just checked a random silver division and the guy at the top, who is still in silver league after nearly 200 games, has a higher win % than me, yet I'm ranked 400th in Europe and he's 4000th. Overall win percentages hovering around 50% just means that the AMM is doing it's job and, I repeat, says NOTHING about balance. Umm... Duh? uh huh... Did you also consider the fact people who lose a lot get demoted to a lower league? What's important is if the win ratios are similar, not what the win ratios are. ooni I think it's pretty clear you aren't actually arguing a point of view as much as you refuse to be wrong I say you would save more face if you just stopped posting right here but... am I wrong? That's the thing though. I'm not wrong about the win ratios being higher on Diamond because that's how the system works. Nor is having people who are 'losing players' in lower leagues 'wrong'/ I am not trying to impose my subjective view. I am trying to show people an objective view. I have argued both for and against the statistic. I even said statistics are not exact, however for Zerg to be imbalanced, the statistics must show a significant % difference between the win rates. Which is not the case here. There's never going to be a significant diffference between win rates because, as I've said throughout the thread, the AMM is designed to keep players hovering around the 50% mark. I had a 55% win rate when I was a complete noob in bronze and I have a 55% win rate now I'm near the top of my diamond division. The quality of my opposition has increased as I've improved but my win ratio has remained the same. If I started playing with one hand my rating would drop and I'd possibly get demoted but I'd still be winning around 55% of my games, just against a lower quality of opposition. All your stats prove is that the AMM works, nothing else. No one said AMM should make everything around 50%. If you lose, you will be demoted. That means it's impossible to make it close to 50% for higher leagues. Vice versa for lower leagues. I guess AMM setting might be if you lose more than 50% you are dropped, but that will make closer to 50% but never 50% especially for the highest league. Anyways using statistics, Top 1000 Players who play Zerg as main on diamond ladder have ~56.3% winning ratio. Top 1000 Players who play Protoss as main on diamond ladder have ~56.5% winning ratio. Top 1000 Players who play Terran as main on diamond ladder have ~56.8% winning ratio. Top 1000 Players who play Random as main on diamond ladder have ~56.1% winning ratio. If Zerg was to be imbalanced, Player who ladders Zerg as main would have much lower than 56% winning ratio no? Am I wrong?Doesn't it prove that at least? Yes, yes you are wrong. But it's very obvious you'll never accept that instead you'll just keep posting anyway so why even ask? what does these statistics prove but the fact that matchmaking is pretty good? Now if these where broodwar statistics id be impressed. Because iccup rank actually kind of matters. so ;/ Ill just squeal like a schoolgirl and come here stating the following: TLO FUCKING CRACKED MECH OPEN LIKE A BALLER in Day9 daily 162. What kills hellion harass? early roaches, gives you faster lair? skip queen Thor drop? fuck thor i have infestors before it comes. echonomy? well terrans onebase anyhow so ? I had fucking nerdchills. WHAT NO QUEEN WTF? and then i realised the beauty of it. hellion harass , earlier roaches. REAPERS? earlier roaches. expand? we did that on 14 just need to care against bunker. marine, tank push. I HAS SPEEDLINGS and roaches, marine tank hellion push i has infestor ;D Basically it all comes down to scouting but i mean. its solved, its cracked open and im happy ;D I want an interjew with TLO about how he feels about that opener how much its been tested and how he went about solving mech.
So I just watched the D9D. While this is a viable alternative to put on some early roach pressure on a T player, this is in no way the "answer to the terran mech problem." In fact, if Brad OK had just gotten out a couple tanks with siege mode, that would be game over for TLO. This game barely involved mech at all and your theorycrafting about this delayed queen opening being the answer to terran mech is misleading and inappropriate. Just wanted to give the rest of you a heads up.
|
meh sorry for the post... Have nothing more to add.
|
1) Macro ability is much harder to use and less forgiving
2) Must continue spreading creep with queens and managing overlords and their creep vomit.
3) No armored mid-range unit like marauder or stalker.
4) Overall lack of unit diversity and options.
5) No long-range unit like Siege Tank or Collosus in tier 2. Have to wait much longer for Tier 3.
6) Zerg units do not do well with one big ball and 1 attacking moving. Whereas a Terran Bioball w/ medivacs or a Stalker/Collosi/Sentry ball excels especially in tight areas.
7) Zerg excel in open areas unfortunately in SC2, all the maps have very little open areas and you are almost always forced to fight in chokepoints and small ramps.
8) Burrow ability is much more difficult to use and again requires more micro and planning.
9) Terran on the other hand, have units like the reaper that can just climb up a cliff and continue shooting you. Zerg had a unit like that, became un-hittable and still attacked, the lurker, but of course now...
10) Zerg requires focus on positioning or you will likely lose the fight with superior supply. Terran and Protoss balls work fine just 1a moving and seem to be designed to make the harder working zerg player even less effective with stimpack and forcefields which are very easy to use.
11) Did I mention how zerg units suck off creep and it's a pain in the ass to spread it everywhere and how the decent units are in tier 3? It's like Blizzard wants Zerg to just play long games.
12) Zerg only have 2 options for breaking into a turtling terran or protoss. Early baneling bust. If that fails, tough luck, you have to try to survive to brood lords. Which is unlikely since the Terran/Protoss can work very effectively off one or two bases and even a Zerg with 5 bases will get rolled by the 1 a army with collosi and siege tanks/thors unless the zerg player is significantly outplaying their opponent and even then it's just a much more difficult way to play. All the creep spreading, planning, burrowing, flanking, managing queen larvae mechanic at every hatchery.
T and P on the other hand are just build CC/nexus, pump workers from there, pump units from buildings, build huge 1 A army and move out slowly killing all zerg you come in contact with.
|
On August 10 2010 21:16 Jameser wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 21:14 MindRush wrote:On August 10 2010 15:16 geno.thebluedoll wrote:
Good point on the extra distance drones must travel depending on your starting location. I can see that having a slight disadvantage in a pro game. ....there is also the "cat and mouse" aspect of the game, where you make your opponet spawn unit X, thinking it counters your unit Y. But you just show him unit Y and mass unit Z which owns unit Y. .... I think unit Z should own unit X :D
yeah, meant one thing and wrote another, but u get the idea
On August 10 2010 22:28 AcOrP wrote:
well 200/200 armies zerg cannot have perfect army composition to deal with the T and P army composition becouse there was a change in the beta that made roach 2 supply which is quite big deal for 200/200 armies becouse 50 roach and 100 roach is quite hugee. I guess blizzard inicialy balance things then they made this huge change,without enought time to work things out and rebalance the damage done.,I don't say that roaches shouldn't be nerfed but additional changes should be made so it don't imbalance zerg so much.
yeah but if zerg has enough resources, they can engage T/P and rebuild their army so fast the next battle is going to be 200 vs 150, then the next 200 vs.90 so on..............
|
On August 11 2010 05:42 epik640x wrote:
1) Macro ability is much harder to use and less forgiving
2) Must continue spreading creep with queens and managing overlords and their creep vomit.
3) No armored mid-range unit like marauder or stalker.
4) Overall lack of unit diversity and options.
5) No long-range unit like Siege Tank or Collosus in tier 2. Have to wait much longer for Tier 3.
6) Zerg units do not do well with one big ball and 1 attacking moving. Whereas a Terran Bioball w/ medivacs or a Stalker/Collosi/Sentry ball excels especially in tight areas.
7) Zerg excel in open areas unfortunately in SC2, all the maps have very little open areas and you are almost always forced to fight in chokepoints and small ramps.
8) Burrow ability is much more difficult to use and again requires more micro and planning.
9) Terran on the other hand, have units like the reaper that can just climb up a cliff and continue shooting you. Zerg had a unit like that, became un-hittable and still attacked, the lurker, but of course now...
10) Zerg requires focus on positioning or you will likely lose the fight with superior supply. Terran and Protoss balls work fine just 1a moving and seem to be designed to make the harder working zerg player even less effective with stimpack and forcefields which are very easy to use.
11) Did I mention how zerg units suck off creep and it's a pain in the ass to spread it everywhere and how the decent units are in tier 3? It's like Blizzard wants Zerg to just play long games.
12) Zerg only have 2 options for breaking into a turtling terran or protoss. Early baneling bust. If that fails, tough luck, you have to try to survive to brood lords. Which is unlikely since the Terran/Protoss can work very effectively off one or two bases and even a Zerg with 5 bases will get rolled by the 1 a army with collosi and siege tanks/thors unless the zerg player is significantly outplaying their opponent and even then it's just a much more difficult way to play. All the creep spreading, planning, burrowing, flanking, managing queen larvae mechanic at every hatchery.
T and P on the other hand are just build CC/nexus, pump workers from there, pump units from buildings, build huge 1 A army and move out slowly killing all zerg you come in contact with.
1. You're way oversimplifying how T and P play.
2. At different levels, different matchups will require different skill levels on different sides. For example, in BW, TvP was vastly harder for Terran than it was for Protoss at the D to C levels. However, once you reach high C to B levels, being good with Protoss (i.e. winning) was harder than being good with Terran. At the high B to pro level, races are relatively equal and balance is mostly determined by the map pool. Why? Because as the skill levels go up, players gain better mechanics and can handle and utilize their races to its full extent. Once the skill cap is reached, difficulty should play no part in balance. Skill cap is lower in Sc2, but has not been reached in any means.
Zerg has to position. True. Protoss has to position in PvT, too. You don't hear any omgimba threads recently about that do you ('cept for EMP, but that's not so much positioning). Stim is easy to use. So is FF. But spamming creep tumors is easy to use too! I want a near-global maphack that increases movespeed for my race too! :[ Sure you can clear tumors w/ obs or scan, but you can also break FF with ultras and stim cuts unit hp by 1/4-1/5.
|
yeah but if zerg has enough resources, they can engage T/P and rebuild their army so fast the next battle is going to be 200 vs 150, then the next 200 vs.90 so on..............
Yeah just keep saying this to yourself. Maybe you will believe this someday. Have you actually seen any game where this happens or are you just another T who does not want to lose his free wins against zerg?
|
But spamming creep tumors is easy to use too! I want a near-global maphack that increases movespeed for my race too! :[
OK, deal, you can have X% global move-speed maphack. As long as we get to decrease the move-speed of all your units by X% (and tanks by 2X%) if they are not on a very slowly expanding piece of the map that shrinks at your opponents whim. That is what creep is, and don't pretend otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
