|
also
On August 10 2010 21:06 cuppatea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 21:01 ooni wrote:My Opinion Why Zerg isn't the weakest Race using statistics Just look at the statistics http://sc2ranks.com/stats56.17% (212,622) 56.50% (880,884) 56.82% (705,525) 56.32% (595,742) Look zerg win ratio is 0.2% lower than Protoss. I mean it must be the weakest. Whole 0.2%! 0.2%! I can definately tell the difference win and losing when it's 0.2%! That's the statistics for Zergs in Diamond league, top 1000 in fact. I reckon -+1% error give or take. Wait maybe Zerg is weaker at lower level of play. At Silver level: 49.74% (254,037) 49.38% (1,257,351) 49.41% (1,056,340) 49.44% (719,253) Okay... Nope just nope. I will believe Zerg is the weakest race when the statistics says so. Not just Zerg players' subjective view. 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.
this, league win% says nothing besides whether the match making system is working, and as pointed out by mr.terran, it does.
|
On August 10 2010 21:33 ooni wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 21:24 floor exercise wrote:
Do you people who constantly try to use these numbers understand those aren't win statistics of races, but of the players who are identified as choosing that race more than another?
It's the third table, not the first one... Look at it. Gosh ppl are ignorant and blind.
Again, you don't understand at all.
All that data is derived from profile pages. A player is a "zerg" because that is their most played race.
At no point does it ever look at the actual match and tell you "a terran beat a zerg" it will tell you "a player with the profile that says most played: terran, beat a player with a profile that says most played: zerg" regardless of what actual races they played.
None of that information is accurate. or I should say accurate enough to derive actual win % of match ups. Do you understand now? How can Random have a win percent. it is not an actual race. That should be your first clue
|
On August 10 2010 21:37 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 21:33 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:24 floor exercise wrote:
Do you people who constantly try to use these numbers understand those aren't win statistics of races, but of the players who are identified as choosing that race more than another?
It's the third table, not the first one... Look at it. Gosh ppl are ignorant and blind. Again, you don't understand at all. All that data is derived from profile pages. A player is a "zerg" because that is their most played race. At no point does it ever look at the actual match and tell you "a terran beat a zerg" it will tell you "a player with the profile that says most played: terran, beat a player with a profile that says most played: zerg" regardless of what actual races they played. None of that information is accurate. Do you understand now?
Rofl. These are top 1000 players. Just think for a second. Do you think as a top players you would constantly switch races? Let's say for a second, they did, let us 'imagine'. They played Zerg here and there. How would the statistics differ? Can't a Zerg player play Terran here and there? Or a Protoss player play Terran here and there. That factor you are talking about will have no or little impact to the statistics itself. I mean really?
|
On August 10 2010 21:41 ooni wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 21:37 floor exercise wrote:On August 10 2010 21:33 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:24 floor exercise wrote:
Do you people who constantly try to use these numbers understand those aren't win statistics of races, but of the players who are identified as choosing that race more than another?
It's the third table, not the first one... Look at it. Gosh ppl are ignorant and blind. Again, you don't understand at all. All that data is derived from profile pages. A player is a "zerg" because that is their most played race. At no point does it ever look at the actual match and tell you "a terran beat a zerg" it will tell you "a player with the profile that says most played: terran, beat a player with a profile that says most played: zerg" regardless of what actual races they played. None of that information is accurate. Do you understand now? Rofl. These are top 1000 players. Just think for a second. Do you think as a top players you would constantly switch races? Let's say for a second, they did, 'imagine'. They played Zerg here and there. How would the statistics differ? Can't a Zerg player play Terran here and there? Or a Protoss player play Terran here and there. That factor you are talking about will have no or little impact to the statistics itself. I mean really?
Because you say it doesn't? I am pointing out where the numbers are derived from and why they are not match up win percentages. I have cast actual, real doubt on the numbers you are deriving statistical evidence of game balance from. It doesn't really matter whether you personally think no one has ever thought to switch race or try other races. The data is flawed, accept it and move on to your next theory on why zerg is balanced
|
To all the Zerg QQ'ers out there ...
Many of you don't realize the strength of your Zerg is their ability to change tech nearly instantly, and to and equal degree to overwhelm your opponent with superior numbers.
Their Zerg tech change is made possible because all their units are produced at the same building, the hatchery. You don't need to build 5 spires, 5 spawning pools, 5 ultralisk caverns, ect. If a Zerg player scouts strong anti air, he can immediately switch to hydras or zerglings. The spawn larva abiliy nicely compliments this Zerg strength. If used correctly it allows Zerg players to store up lots and lots of larva which can be combined with a tech switche.
The tech switch doesn't seem to be used much though. Recently when Idra played drewbie he kept making the same units over and over again (ling, ultra, with nearly zero micro) trying to force a win, all the while lamenting about his perceived Terran imbalance. When Idra finally made a tech switch to broodlords, he turned a 30 minute stalemate into a win in less than a minute.
The lesson, switching tech is a key element to playing Zerg correctly. The Zerg QQ'ers would do well to learn this fact.
Having said that, yes there are a few problems with Zerg. Their marco mechanic is more difficult to use than the other races, and they are punished if they don't keep on top of spawn larva. The other races have no such penalty and can catch up with their macro if they forget to drop mules or hit some building with chrono boost.
The Zerg also have supply cap and unit composition problems. Due to the supply cost of most of their units, their maxed army doesn't currently constitute "a large swarm". Blizzard either needs to lower the supply cost of some Zerg unit, or introduce another other low supply cost unit.
And on the subject of new Zerg units, yes I believe the Zerg needs at least one more unit. I have no idea what it should be, but the Zerg army currently is not diverse enough. This problem diminishes the tech change strength of the Zerg. Adding some new Zerg unit with a unique role would greatly help fix this problem. Possibly Blizzard should bring back the lurker, and make it available as a tier two upgrade (in their prior builds lurker was tier a three upgrade). I don't know what new Zerg unit is needed, but I do believe Zerg more diversity options.
Anyhow, those are my thoughts. Take of it what you will.
|
On August 10 2010 21:43 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 21:41 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:37 floor exercise wrote:On August 10 2010 21:33 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:24 floor exercise wrote:
Do you people who constantly try to use these numbers understand those aren't win statistics of races, but of the players who are identified as choosing that race more than another?
It's the third table, not the first one... Look at it. Gosh ppl are ignorant and blind. Again, you don't understand at all. All that data is derived from profile pages. A player is a "zerg" because that is their most played race. At no point does it ever look at the actual match and tell you "a terran beat a zerg" it will tell you "a player with the profile that says most played: terran, beat a player with a profile that says most played: zerg" regardless of what actual races they played. None of that information is accurate. Do you understand now? Rofl. These are top 1000 players. Just think for a second. Do you think as a top players you would constantly switch races? Let's say for a second, they did, 'imagine'. They played Zerg here and there. How would the statistics differ? Can't a Zerg player play Terran here and there? Or a Protoss player play Terran here and there. That factor you are talking about will have no or little impact to the statistics itself. I mean really? Because you say it doesn't? I am pointing out where the numbers are derived from and why they are not match up win percentages. I have cast actual, real doubt on the numbers you are deriving statistical evidence of game balance from. It doesn't really matter whether you personally think no one has ever thought to switch race or try other races. The data is flawed, accept it and move on to your next theory on why zerg is balanced
That's why I am asking you to think.
Think... How many games of your matches 'in ladder' are off race.
How significant is that? I am guessing you are a zerg player. And Blizzard has labeled you as "Zerg". So how many of your games are off race compared to your non-off race games?
^Come on bro think.
Let's even consider in another factor, just in case. There are people who player Zerg and Protoss 50:50. However, how many of them are there? Are there enough of them in Diamond league top 1000 to deter the winning percentage completely?
Yes, I'm trying to explain to you how statistics work.
It must be a mere coincedence these statistics say that all races have similar win ratio. That's what you are saying right?
|
I hate how im on 2 base with a reasonable number of drones but the 1 base terran still out econs me.
|
On August 10 2010 21:53 ooni wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 21:43 floor exercise wrote:On August 10 2010 21:41 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:37 floor exercise wrote:On August 10 2010 21:33 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:24 floor exercise wrote:
Do you people who constantly try to use these numbers understand those aren't win statistics of races, but of the players who are identified as choosing that race more than another?
It's the third table, not the first one... Look at it. Gosh ppl are ignorant and blind. Again, you don't understand at all. All that data is derived from profile pages. A player is a "zerg" because that is their most played race. At no point does it ever look at the actual match and tell you "a terran beat a zerg" it will tell you "a player with the profile that says most played: terran, beat a player with a profile that says most played: zerg" regardless of what actual races they played. None of that information is accurate. Do you understand now? Rofl. These are top 1000 players. Just think for a second. Do you think as a top players you would constantly switch races? Let's say for a second, they did, 'imagine'. They played Zerg here and there. How would the statistics differ? Can't a Zerg player play Terran here and there? Or a Protoss player play Terran here and there. That factor you are talking about will have no or little impact to the statistics itself. I mean really? Because you say it doesn't? I am pointing out where the numbers are derived from and why they are not match up win percentages. I have cast actual, real doubt on the numbers you are deriving statistical evidence of game balance from. It doesn't really matter whether you personally think no one has ever thought to switch race or try other races. The data is flawed, accept it and move on to your next theory on why zerg is balanced That's why I am asking you to think. Think... How many games of your matches 'in ladder' are off race. How significant is that? I am guessing you are a zerg player. And Blizzard has labeled you as "Zerg". So how many of your games are off race compared to your non-off race games? ^Come on bro think. Let's even consider in another factor, just in case. There are people who player Zerg and Protoss 50:50. However, how many of them are there? Are there enough of them in Diamond league top 1000 to deter the winning percentage completely? Yes, I'm trying to explain to you how statistics work. It must be a mere coincedence these statistics say that all races have similar win ratio. That's what you are saying right?
The ladder is designed to put players where they get a 50% win ratio, so no, it is not by mere coincidence that it aligns like that.
And it does not matter in the slightest what you or I think the number of people who "offrace" (even that is not an accurate term, someone playing 51% zerg and 49% terran is not "offracing" he has two races) that is the point of statistics, they will speak for themselves.
These numbers are not accurate. All the post-analysis conjecture in the world will not change that. Only Blizzard can tell us true win percents for the match ups. You are welcome to continue speculating using your flawed data all you want, and you very well might be wearing a lab coat while sitting at your computer, but there's nothing that is going to make these numbers right, because they aren't.
Basically statistics is not the art of jamming a square peg into a round hole and explaining away the edges like you are trying to do to
|
I think the biggest drawback for zerg is the inability to be smart in building placement to use ramps effectively as choke points on many maps, especially in the early game. Both protoss and terran have excellent ways of blocking off chokes defensively in the early game.
Also, the air thing is a problem for me personally. Specificially, I feel that zerg is both
- Vulnerable to early air.
- Hard to execute early air attacks against opponents because of the decent counters of marines / stalkers against low nr of mutas which require no real tech (and spire takes too long to build, making it harder to get in a good surprise attack).
I am a bad player, so I am sure that once I learn the game better, some of this will disappear on it's own.
But overall, I do think this contributes to zerg having less options, both in building placement as part of a defensive strategy, and in attacking options since it's fairly easy for the other races to block off your early attacks.
Still think Zerg is the most fun to play.
|
On August 10 2010 21:43 sysrpl wrote:
I think a lot of people don't know or realize that the the strength of zerg is their ability to change tech nearly instantly, and also to overwhelm/swarm your opponent with superior numbers.
Their tech change is possible because all their units come from the same building, the hatchery. They don't need to build 5 spires, 5 spawning pools, 5 ultralisk caverns, ect. If a zerg player sees strong anti air, they can switch to hydras or zerglings quickly. I believe the new larva mechanic can really help out here quite a bit, in they zerg can a store up a heck of a lot of larva for one of these switches.
I haven't seen the tech switch used much in high level replays though. When Idra played drewbie he stupidly kept making the same units over and over again (ling, ultra, with nearly zero micro) trying to force a win, all the while raging about imbalance. When he finally made a tech switch to broodlords, he turned a 30 minute stalemate into a win in less than a minute.
The lesson, switching tech is a key element to playing zerg correctly, and the QQers should learn this.
Having said this, yes there are a few problems with zerg. Their marco mechanic is more difficult to use than the other races, and they are punished if they don't keep on top of spawn larva, whereas the other races have no such penalty.
The zerg also have supply cap and unit composition problems. Due to the supply cost of most of their units, their maxed army doesn't currently constitute a large swarm. They either need to lower the supply cost of something, or introduce some other low supply cost unit.
And on the subject of new zerg units, yes I believe the zerg needs at least one more unit. I have no idea what it should be, but the zerg army currently is not diverse enough, which goes to the tech change strength of the zerg. Adding some other unit with a unique role should really help the zerg out. Possibly Blizzard should bring back the lurker, make it available as a tier two upgrade. I dunno here, but yes zerg needs more diversity.
Anyhow, those are my thoughts.
There is a reason for this.
Every zerg unit requires a lot of gas in upgrades to be useful in the later stages of the game. This tech switching thing you speak of isn't nearly as grand as you claim. Sure they don't need to build 5 hydralisk dens but they need to use 5 hydralisk dens worth of upgrades to make the units useful.
Spot on about the supply cap BS zerg have to deal with. The fact that the Zerg do not have a 1 supply unit is fundamentally wrong and goes against their entire racial identity.
|
On August 10 2010 22:00 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 21:53 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:43 floor exercise wrote:On August 10 2010 21:41 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:37 floor exercise wrote:On August 10 2010 21:33 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:24 floor exercise wrote:
Do you people who constantly try to use these numbers understand those aren't win statistics of races, but of the players who are identified as choosing that race more than another?
It's the third table, not the first one... Look at it. Gosh ppl are ignorant and blind. Again, you don't understand at all. All that data is derived from profile pages. A player is a "zerg" because that is their most played race. At no point does it ever look at the actual match and tell you "a terran beat a zerg" it will tell you "a player with the profile that says most played: terran, beat a player with a profile that says most played: zerg" regardless of what actual races they played. None of that information is accurate. Do you understand now? Rofl. These are top 1000 players. Just think for a second. Do you think as a top players you would constantly switch races? Let's say for a second, they did, 'imagine'. They played Zerg here and there. How would the statistics differ? Can't a Zerg player play Terran here and there? Or a Protoss player play Terran here and there. That factor you are talking about will have no or little impact to the statistics itself. I mean really? Because you say it doesn't? I am pointing out where the numbers are derived from and why they are not match up win percentages. I have cast actual, real doubt on the numbers you are deriving statistical evidence of game balance from. It doesn't really matter whether you personally think no one has ever thought to switch race or try other races. The data is flawed, accept it and move on to your next theory on why zerg is balanced That's why I am asking you to think. Think... How many games of your matches 'in ladder' are off race. How significant is that? I am guessing you are a zerg player. And Blizzard has labeled you as "Zerg". So how many of your games are off race compared to your non-off race games? ^Come on bro think. Let's even consider in another factor, just in case. There are people who player Zerg and Protoss 50:50. However, how many of them are there? Are there enough of them in Diamond league top 1000 to deter the winning percentage completely? Yes, I'm trying to explain to you how statistics work. It must be a mere coincedence these statistics say that all races have similar win ratio. That's what you are saying right? The ladder is designed to put players where they get a 50% win ratio, so no, it is not by mere coincidence that it aligns like that. And it does not matter in the slightest what you or I think the number of people who "offrace" (even that is not an accurate term, someone playing 51% zerg and 49% terran is not "offracing" he has two races) that is the point of statistics, they will speak for themselves. These numbers are not accurate. All the post-analysis conjecture in the world will not change that. Only Blizzard can tell us true win percents for the match ups. You are welcome to continue speculating using your flawed data all you want, and you very well might be wearing a lab coat while sitting at your computer, but there's nothing that is going to make these numbers right, because they aren't.
Statistics are not meant to be exact. That's the point (if you don't understand statistics). It's to get an idea of what a sample is like.
For example, Do you like Icecream?
There will be people who will say no though they really like icecream.
Thus if you ask 10 people, it will not be accurate. Even though there will be people who will say yes thought they don't like icecream.
When you ask 100 people, it will be closer to being accurate.
When you ask 300 people, you got the general idea.
Good statistics ask around 500~2000 people. More people you ask more error you remove because of insignificance of the "faults" in large numbers.
No matter how many people you ask it won't be exact. However, it becomes closer.
Statistics bro~
|
On August 10 2010 22:06 ooni wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 22:00 floor exercise wrote:On August 10 2010 21:53 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:43 floor exercise wrote:On August 10 2010 21:41 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:37 floor exercise wrote:On August 10 2010 21:33 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:24 floor exercise wrote:
Do you people who constantly try to use these numbers understand those aren't win statistics of races, but of the players who are identified as choosing that race more than another?
It's the third table, not the first one... Look at it. Gosh ppl are ignorant and blind. Again, you don't understand at all. All that data is derived from profile pages. A player is a "zerg" because that is their most played race. At no point does it ever look at the actual match and tell you "a terran beat a zerg" it will tell you "a player with the profile that says most played: terran, beat a player with a profile that says most played: zerg" regardless of what actual races they played. None of that information is accurate. Do you understand now? Rofl. These are top 1000 players. Just think for a second. Do you think as a top players you would constantly switch races? Let's say for a second, they did, 'imagine'. They played Zerg here and there. How would the statistics differ? Can't a Zerg player play Terran here and there? Or a Protoss player play Terran here and there. That factor you are talking about will have no or little impact to the statistics itself. I mean really? Because you say it doesn't? I am pointing out where the numbers are derived from and why they are not match up win percentages. I have cast actual, real doubt on the numbers you are deriving statistical evidence of game balance from. It doesn't really matter whether you personally think no one has ever thought to switch race or try other races. The data is flawed, accept it and move on to your next theory on why zerg is balanced That's why I am asking you to think. Think... How many games of your matches 'in ladder' are off race. How significant is that? I am guessing you are a zerg player. And Blizzard has labeled you as "Zerg". So how many of your games are off race compared to your non-off race games? ^Come on bro think. Let's even consider in another factor, just in case. There are people who player Zerg and Protoss 50:50. However, how many of them are there? Are there enough of them in Diamond league top 1000 to deter the winning percentage completely? Yes, I'm trying to explain to you how statistics work. It must be a mere coincedence these statistics say that all races have similar win ratio. That's what you are saying right? The ladder is designed to put players where they get a 50% win ratio, so no, it is not by mere coincidence that it aligns like that. And it does not matter in the slightest what you or I think the number of people who "offrace" (even that is not an accurate term, someone playing 51% zerg and 49% terran is not "offracing" he has two races) that is the point of statistics, they will speak for themselves. These numbers are not accurate. All the post-analysis conjecture in the world will not change that. Only Blizzard can tell us true win percents for the match ups. You are welcome to continue speculating using your flawed data all you want, and you very well might be wearing a lab coat while sitting at your computer, but there's nothing that is going to make these numbers right, because they aren't. Statistics are not meant to be exact. That's the point (if you don't understand statistics). It's to get an idea of what a sample is like. For example, Do you like Icecream? There will be people who will say no though they really like icecream. Thus if you ask 10 people, it will not be accurate. Even though there will be people who will say yes thought they don't like icecream. When you ask 100 people, it will be closer to being accurate. When you ask 300 people, you got the general idea. Good statistics ask around 500~2000 people. More people you ask more error you remove because of insignificance of the "faults" in large numbers. No matter how many people you ask it won't be exact. However, it becomes closer. Statistics bro~
This entire time I thought you were just confused, not flat out retarded. None of what you just said has any relevance at all. The fact is the data you are trying to draw a conclusion from is wrong. It is not representative of what you thought it was. That's it. I have explained why it is wrong. Your sophomoric explanation of sample size has literally nothing to do with anything at this point.
|
Main problem is the maps, 2 gate into 4 warp gate is almost impossible to hold off on certain maps like blistering sands and especially the new 1v1 map with 3 entrances in to the natural as relaying on spine crawlers is not an option.
There are also too many builds that T and P can do to get an early win that requires much less to pull of than it takes to defend. The hard counter system doesn't favor zerg either until u get to ultralisks, and if you do you would probably win anyways.
|
On August 10 2010 22:16 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 22:06 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 22:00 floor exercise wrote:On August 10 2010 21:53 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:43 floor exercise wrote:On August 10 2010 21:41 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:37 floor exercise wrote:On August 10 2010 21:33 ooni wrote:On August 10 2010 21:24 floor exercise wrote:
Do you people who constantly try to use these numbers understand those aren't win statistics of races, but of the players who are identified as choosing that race more than another?
It's the third table, not the first one... Look at it. Gosh ppl are ignorant and blind. Again, you don't understand at all. All that data is derived from profile pages. A player is a "zerg" because that is their most played race. At no point does it ever look at the actual match and tell you "a terran beat a zerg" it will tell you "a player with the profile that says most played: terran, beat a player with a profile that says most played: zerg" regardless of what actual races they played. None of that information is accurate. Do you understand now? Rofl. These are top 1000 players. Just think for a second. Do you think as a top players you would constantly switch races? Let's say for a second, they did, 'imagine'. They played Zerg here and there. How would the statistics differ? Can't a Zerg player play Terran here and there? Or a Protoss player play Terran here and there. That factor you are talking about will have no or little impact to the statistics itself. I mean really? Because you say it doesn't? I am pointing out where the numbers are derived from and why they are not match up win percentages. I have cast actual, real doubt on the numbers you are deriving statistical evidence of game balance from. It doesn't really matter whether you personally think no one has ever thought to switch race or try other races. The data is flawed, accept it and move on to your next theory on why zerg is balanced That's why I am asking you to think. Think... How many games of your matches 'in ladder' are off race. How significant is that? I am guessing you are a zerg player. And Blizzard has labeled you as "Zerg". So how many of your games are off race compared to your non-off race games? ^Come on bro think. Let's even consider in another factor, just in case. There are people who player Zerg and Protoss 50:50. However, how many of them are there? Are there enough of them in Diamond league top 1000 to deter the winning percentage completely? Yes, I'm trying to explain to you how statistics work. It must be a mere coincedence these statistics say that all races have similar win ratio. That's what you are saying right? The ladder is designed to put players where they get a 50% win ratio, so no, it is not by mere coincidence that it aligns like that. And it does not matter in the slightest what you or I think the number of people who "offrace" (even that is not an accurate term, someone playing 51% zerg and 49% terran is not "offracing" he has two races) that is the point of statistics, they will speak for themselves. These numbers are not accurate. All the post-analysis conjecture in the world will not change that. Only Blizzard can tell us true win percents for the match ups. You are welcome to continue speculating using your flawed data all you want, and you very well might be wearing a lab coat while sitting at your computer, but there's nothing that is going to make these numbers right, because they aren't. Statistics are not meant to be exact. That's the point (if you don't understand statistics). It's to get an idea of what a sample is like. For example, Do you like Icecream? There will be people who will say no though they really like icecream. Thus if you ask 10 people, it will not be accurate. Even though there will be people who will say yes thought they don't like icecream. When you ask 100 people, it will be closer to being accurate. When you ask 300 people, you got the general idea. Good statistics ask around 500~2000 people. More people you ask more error you remove because of insignificance of the "faults" in large numbers. No matter how many people you ask it won't be exact. However, it becomes closer. Statistics bro~ This entire time I thought you were just confused, not flat out retarded. None of what you just said has any relevance at all. The fact is the data you are trying to draw a conclusion from is wrong. It is not representative of what you thought it was. That's it. I have explained why it is wrong. Your sophomoric explanation of sample size has literally nothing to do with anything at this point.
nice. Going for insults. I was just being nice trying to explain how statistics work. Just face it, it doesn't have to be "exact", and to show imbalance you would have to show a huge difference between the win rate, which there isn't.
Just incase, I'll give another shot explaining
Let's say mixed race player's win is X
Z is main zerg win
T is main terran win
P is main protoss win
ZTZPZTZZXZ <- this is random sample. 10% of this sample contains error because of X
ZTZPZTZZXZZTZPZTZPPT <- Another sample, 5% of this sample contains error because of X
Larger the sample, there are less X portion. Even though there are more X with larger number, the proportion of X would decrease making X more insignificant with bigger sample size.
Thus at large sample size, X is so insignifican't it doesn't matter.
Thus the factor you are considering is insignificant due to the large sample size.
Thus, the statistics stand and there is no huge imbalance against zerg.
|
On August 10 2010 22:05 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 21:43 sysrpl wrote:
I haven't seen the tech switch used much in high level replays though. When Idra played drewbie he stupidly kept making the same units over and over again (ling, ultra, with nearly zero micro) trying to force a win, all the while raging about imbalance. When he finally made a tech switch to broodlords, he turned a 30 minute stalemate into a win in less than a minute. There is a reason for this. Every zerg unit requires a lot of gas in upgrades to be useful in the later stages of the game. This tech switching thing you speak of isn't nearly as grand as you claim. Sure they don't need to build 5 hydralisk dens but they need to use 5 hydralisk dens worth of upgrades to make the units useful. Spot on about the supply cap BS zerg have to deal with. The fact that the Zerg do not have a 1 supply unit is fundamentally wrong and goes against their entire racial identity.
I keep reading people saying that the Zerg doesn't have a one supply unit. I am in an alternately reality or doesn't a zergling cost one supply (actually it costs 0.5 supply)?
And about the tech switch, yes it is important. It's one of the main strengths. Nothings says you must get all upgrades. Make a tech switch, flank the enemy, surprise him. Hydras still counter air without getting all their upgrades. Lings still counter immortals and stalkers without upgrades.
If you scout the enemy army composition heavy in one area, switch tech and gain and advantage. Use spawn larva and your hatcheries to store up a ton of larva. Don't be like Idra and throw away all your units to some something which wont work (muta+ling versus thor+hellion). That is just stupid. Switch tech.
And yes again, I do agree Zerg needs fixing, as I've outlined in my prior post. All I am trying to do is pointing out bad gameplay and enlighten some of the complainers. After that, I believe it's in Blizzard's hands to come up with the correct solution (another low supply Zerg unit).
|
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.
|
I feel like I'm getting dumber talking to you.
Those numbers are not win percentages of races. They have never been win percentages of races. They are not what you think they are. They will at no point in the future magically transform into what you think they are.
They have nothing to do with how much zerg wins, let alone how much they win against terrans or protoss.
You do not have the data you think you do. You are misinterpreting it at a fundamental level making everything you say wrong.
I understand normal distribution and confidence intervals, it is all irrelevant when you don't have the data you think you do. You cannot manipulate it or contort it in any way to make it something it isn't. I'm done posting now, because I am probably going to get temp banned with my next post directed at you. You are utterly clueless
|
On August 10 2010 22:35 floor exercise wrote:
I feel like I'm getting dumber talking to you.
Yep. Thx for the insult once again.
However, the data still stands sorry to say. You would have to prove to me there are large proportion of mixed race, non-random players to change the data significantly for me to believe the data is wrong. It is you who is looking at this wrongly. Sorry to say.
|
On August 10 2010 21:36 Jameser wrote:also Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 21:06 cuppatea wrote:On August 10 2010 21:01 ooni wrote:My Opinion Why Zerg isn't the weakest Race using statistics Just look at the statistics http://sc2ranks.com/stats56.17% (212,622) 56.50% (880,884) 56.82% (705,525) 56.32% (595,742) Look zerg win ratio is 0.2% lower than Protoss. I mean it must be the weakest. Whole 0.2%! 0.2%! I can definately tell the difference win and losing when it's 0.2%! That's the statistics for Zergs in Diamond league, top 1000 in fact. I reckon -+1% error give or take. Wait maybe Zerg is weaker at lower level of play. At Silver level: 49.74% (254,037) 49.38% (1,257,351) 49.41% (1,056,340) 49.44% (719,253) Okay... Nope just nope. I will believe Zerg is the weakest race when the statistics says so. Not just Zerg players' subjective view. 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. this, league win% says nothing besides whether the match making system is working, and as pointed out by mr.terran, it does.
Ok, whatever. But combine some of what he says -- zerg players in diamond have identical win ratios to protoss and terran players in diamond -- with the fact that zergs are as well represented in diamond, at all levels, as they are in the general population. This is true even AFTER you adjust for the unexpectedly high rate (by 1.15%) at which zergs make it to diamond.
Now, if zergs are getting identical win rates in diamond AND are as well-represented at all levels of diamond as you would expect them to be going by their overall proportion of the overall population, there is STRONG EVIDENCE that there is no balance problem.
Some have suggested that the overall distribution data is useless because people can race-switch a lot and still stay labelled as one or the other. Yeah, maybe tons of people do that. Maybe they don't. Diamond players probably don't. Everything lines up so well with prediction that it seems like a minor issue, but no data set is ever perfect.
The more important thing is that there is exactly ZERO statistical evidence for an underpowered zerg.
|
Why are terrible threads like this always created by crappy players and only crappy players respond??
This is just the same as all the balance threads in BW. Those of you complaining suck and are blaming it on something other than your own skill. You are in gold because you are terrible, not because zerg units are inferior.
This:
On August 10 2010 20:45 Mr.Tinkles wrote:
re-balancing spawn larvae to be a more forgiving mechanic (ie, no need to execute it perfectly every 30 seconds) would make playing zerg about 9000 times easier. it is the literal need to set a timer that beeps every 30 seconds to remind you to spawn larvae that makes zerg macro such a mission.
gives you an idea of the skill of the average person posting here. Get to diamond and play over 200 games before you come in pretending like you know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
