|
On August 11 2010 00:59 RxN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:57 PanzerDragoon wrote:On August 11 2010 00:43 Opinion wrote:
The ARROGANCE of these non-Zerg players is astounding.
I personally don't play Zerg, i don't find them fun and i find their mechanics annoying and cumbersome, BUT i'm not sitting on my high horse claiming that those who do play Zerg suffer from delusions...
When Terran has problems, Terrans players complain and those problems eventually get fixed.
When Toss has problems, Toss players complain and those problems eventually get fixed.
When Zerg has problems... OMG ZERG PLAYERS SHUT UP AND L2P YOU ARE FINE LOL.
All 3 races are important, under representation is a problem, i don't want this to be Terran vs Protoss game with a side of Zerg. I want ALL 3 RACES to be present and accounted for.
There are still problems to be worked out, 2 more expansions on the way, tweaks and changes in the works and continuous player feedback is GOOD.
Zerg players are obviously not happy. This is enough for me to accept something needs to change. Happiness and comfort are important, this is a game.
Whether or not their happiness is a direct result in imbalance or simply an unknown gameplay tweak is yet to be seen and irrelevant but in the mean time, please understand that all 3 races are important and all 3 races have equal right to speak their minds about imbalances and request fixes.
Keep complaining Zerg, keep QQing, keep whining.
When Terran and Toss develop problems in the future they will do the same. The Terran and Protoss complaints were far less annoying than all the ZvT ones, and pro players weren't BMing in games saying how "they have self-respect" because they don't play terran and other utter garbage from idra and all his sycophants. Ahh, so now there are varying levels of crying and was OK for terran and toss to do it because you perceived it to be less annoying. Sounds logical.
Obviously. Since Zerg has a high-profile bm player, the race does not deserve to be balanced. = P
|
you can take examples outside idra, I personally think idra is a good mechanics player but he's less good at seeing strategic openings and finding ways around a problem (thus I don't listen to many of his balance complaints)
there was a recent game of checkprime vs justfake, where you can CLEARLY see justfake performed super-subpar and checkprime played, in my mind, as solid and adaptive as can be expected.
check did win
(this happening in tournament play results in all these 'omg look at win ratios' terran comments)
BUT the game was nail-bitingly close whereas in better balance it should have been horribly one-sided
-
to name a few motivations for why checkprime's play was superior:
- checkprime completely denied early reaper-in-bunker play (building fortifications inside an opponents base should come at a heavy cost in any reasonably balanced setup)
- justfake made a horrible choice going for reactor on factory over tech lab against a FE that was fortified by spine crawlers
- justfake's entire gameplay consisted of
build in base, walk to zerg base, back to building in own base, walk to zerg base (and still was failing to keep up with MULEs and ran out of SCVs not to mention mineral nodes (noob mistake lmfao?))
while checkprime was all over the map, harassing with mutas against thor+turrets without losing hardly anything while having such a strong economy that he was able to pull drones off the line against marine/marauder attack and still have almost a full ctrlgroup of drones for mineral mining
added: you can find the replay with lovely audio commentary from JP here
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=142890
|
Spawn larva is incredible. Zerg macro is scary if played correctly. Making 4 drones at once every 25 seconds is absurd, and don't forget that Zerg resource centers are 300 instead of 400 minerals, and that the Queen is excellent early game defense.
|
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.
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?
On August 10 2010 23:31 DTown wrote:
@ Ooni. You can argue all you want about your statistics and confidence intervals and data relevance, but I love how you completely ignore the several other posters who brought up this completely valid argument that invalidates the conclusion you have reached. Is it because you know you are wrong, but just want to keep arguing about something to save face? Or are you just a troll?
If you read all the post, all the arguments that undermines the statistics, except the factor of non-dominant race affecting the whole statistic, are actually from me. I wanted to make sure these factors were insignificant compared to statistics as a whole.
The main problem 'people' have is this so called "Race Factor".
Race factor being: What about games won and lost when you played off-race on ladder?
At the end of the day (on ladder)
1. Few games out of hundreds you played off race -> insignificant because few games ratio with all the game you played on-race are too small (this is even more so for Diamond Ladders)
2. Hybrid Race players -> insignificant because there are far too many non-hybrid race players compared to Hybrid players [btw my argument against the statistic]
So the question you have to ask is how significant is the games you played off-race?
Average percentage of off-race play on top 1000 of the world Diamond ladder is the error margin for that statistic. If you want to dismiss a statistic with a tiny error margin, that's fine with me.
Personally I don't like dismissing statistics with such a small error margin.
|
The constant claims of imba this imba that without any sort of proof are really getting boring. Just because you feel something is imba or should be imba in theory doesn't mean it actually is.
Please someone present a worldwide Diamond League win/loss ratio for TvZ*, then we can discuss. Every race has those moments where they just think something is ridiculously imbalanced but all in all I'm pretty sure it evens out and I have yet to see something that proves me wrong.
*I don't know where to find it or if such statistics even exist atm.
|
a hatch is 300 min... actually: EACH hatch is 300 min... each queen is 150... the point of more hatchs (not on the min line) is for more larva to pump more drone and units.... queen takes over that job. pump pump pump 
|
On August 11 2010 01:19 Pedo.Bear wrote:a hatch is 300 min... actually: EACH hatch is 300 min... each queen is 150... the point of more hatchs (not on the min line) is for more larva to pump more drone and units.... queen takes over that job. pump pump pump
also a hatch isn't 300 minerals, it's 300 minerals + a drone (which is not to be confused with300+50 minerals)
|
Extra larva = more drones, faster = more units, faster
Not everything has to be the same.....
|
I think that's balanced by being able to stockpile up to 19 larvae per hatchery. You killed my 200/200 army? Well I have another one within one production cycle
thats bs rly , the only thing u can mass as zerg is speedlings cause zerg units cost too much gas and its not possible to have 5k gas reserves.
too many zerg units are weaker to counter parts
ghosts > templars >>>>>>>>>infestors , emp own infestor energy is ridiculus , let alone he snipe
steaming marauders + marines > ultras , roaches , hydras , speedlings even banelings if ur good at micro and u kite with steam up
thors > mutas hydras
Siege tanks > roaches , hydras
Bcs > all zerg
Zerg lacks openings , and have old outdated mechanics.
You cant air rush , like banshee rush or even battlecruiser rush as tlo demontrated , u are rforced to go ground army at the beggining , hydralisk den should be tier 1 not 2.
You cant detect early stealth units and u can just snipe ith ghost the overseer whenever pops out , and then gg again , whereas terran can throw a free scan whenever he likes or build a turret fyi.
You lack early scouting due to wall offs and u must sacrifice units in order to scout and most of the times they die before you get the \whole picture and so on.
Overlords in theory are used to spread creep , gl with that every viking and phoenix will use them as eazy targeting and ull be suply blocked.
Creep been easily spoted with scans ravens , overseers and be killed is lame as well considering how much energy and apm u wasting to make it .
|
On August 11 2010 01:10 ooni wrote: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. 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?
|
On August 10 2010 15:24 Geo.Rion wrote:
When you set a rally point for the Command Center/Nexus, the SCV/Probe pop out on the closest spot to the rally point (most of the time the minerals).
However, for Zerg, sometimes the larvae are positioned on the opposite side of the Hatchery, and thus the Drones have to travel a slightly longer distance to the minerals.
Yes, i noticed this too, it s a minor thing, but still, no reason not to be fixed
Why i believe Zerg is "weak"or harder to play is that Zerg does not have natural response to many builds or unit composition, and in many case you are not allowed to face his army even if the composition of your army is the best your tech allows. So there are cases when a T moves out with a ball of units and atacks towards you.
1. You got to have map control, 2. Avoid the army, backstab him. 3. pay attention that defensive or reinforcing tanks or other units do not rape half of your army, 4. produce from hatcheries which arent in the way of the attack. 5. try to save your woerkers/units/overlords stuck behind, but this is impossible in most of the cases so no big worries. 6. try to chip away from his army 7. when you ve both done enoguh demage try to win the fight, preferably with more units then before.
What terran has to do 1. A move into your natural-main. 2 try and crush your army after that
So it's not imbalanced if you want that way, cuz both have chances to win it, but the Zerg has to do a lot more stuff and if 2 not that good players play and just send their armies against each otehr the Terran will win most of the times.
That's just my perspective though, i'm sure all the terran think their race is very hard.
I would like to backstab the immobile mech army but the easy efficient wall-ins don't allow it. I think a big part of the imba is that both terran and toss can wall-in extremely easily. there is no point not walling in (especially w/ terran) whereas making spine crawlers doesn't advance your gameplan and costs 150 min + larvae.
Someone brought up a good point about zerg not being able to effectively counter early cheese while not dying horribly to air and the solution to that is switching the tech places of hydra and roach. This would entail making hydra 1 food, do less damage and fulfill the role that they had in BW whereas the Roach would go back to 2 armor and get buffed more to fulfill the role of a good T2 unit.
|
Drones aren't free - a hatchery is 1 larvae, 350 minerals. The cost of forever losing that drone gives it an opportunity cost higher than either protoss or terran.
Terran research for bio should also require some hint of decision making. There's no reason not to lay down a tech lab on 2-3 rax and just get the bio research done (unless gas was saved for early mech). If the terran doesn't need the tech labs for the rax, he just lifts off and places a factory or starport there and has isntant tech switching. Zerg neglect to go hydra or spire? Insta win with banshees. Spire in the making? Instagimp with thor.
Stim, reapers, conc, shields, all these should require the academy prior to research. And starting marines with 5 range is far too strong, that should be an upgrade just like it was in BW.
MULEs should not be able to mine at a Command Center or Planetary fortress. Period.
Base hydra speed should be higher, creep speed lower. Lower DPS, 25 gas cost and 1 supply. Roaches just be returned to 1 supply OR have their base 2 armor and high regen reinstated.
|
On August 11 2010 01:26 cuppatea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 01:10 ooni wrote: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. 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?
People get faced with other leagues as well. I don't personally know how the system works but it just does. It really shouldn't imo. Plat should face plats, if they do well put them in Dia. That would work better.
What's important is if the win ratios are similar, not what the win ratios are. Similar win ratio = closer to balance. Of course you should consider other factors like metagame shift too, but we should talk about balance as of now.
|
On August 11 2010 01:46 ooni wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 01:26 cuppatea wrote:On August 11 2010 01:10 ooni wrote: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. 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
|
FULL DISCOLOSURE: I'm only a Gold, but I hover around the top of Gold. I am by no means close to a great player.
I play Random. I like the divirsity. I never cheese.
And I hate getting Zerg.
When I get Toss or Terran, I have a solid gameplan that can be adapted to almost any situation easy. I get a solid core army, with support units easy to get, and switch the percentages as-needed. It works really, really well, and with that general strategy, I feel I can beat just about anything that's thrown at me.
I have no solid strategy for Zerg. Zerg is a terrible, terrible race for low level players like myself to attempt to play. The Macro mechanic is difficult, unforgiving, and does not feel very rewarding at all. Every single unit but the Zergling feels stupidly overpriced in one way or another (Roaches in Supply, Hydras and Mutas in Gas, ect.) and massing an effective force is just impossible. They've lost the 'Swarm' feel, and have become more of a 'hit and run' feel, because all your units suck. Cost for Cost, every Zerg unit is terrible in comparison to it's Toss and Terran counterparts, they're too easy to counter, and you just don't have enough options to deal with anything.
I really hate playing Zerg. If I'm lucky, I can eek out a few wins on them, but the experience itself isn't very rewarding at all.
They need a ton of new units - they need a low tier unit that can shoot up (and isn't confined to your base). They need something mid tier that actually has some semblance of range. They need a cheap, fast, high-damage low health unit. They need extra life on those damned Hydras. They need some big scary death unit that can actually shoot up. In fact, they need something else besides the frikken Hydra that can shoot up.
Just in general, they need OPTIONS. THey have none. Heart of the Swarm better fix this.
|
On August 11 2010 01:48 Jameser wrote:Show nested quote +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: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. 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 the statistic is 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.
I'll conclude with what the statistics actually say.
And you will definately agree. Hopefully you will understand why "I" said the factors stated before are insignificant.
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.
That's not my view. That's what the statistics say. I hope that's clear enough for you guys.
|
On August 11 2010 00:55 PanzerDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On August 11 2010 00:00 RxN wrote:On August 10 2010 23:53 Hawk wrote:On August 10 2010 23:42 Opinion wrote:
Well the players who do not play Zerg have made an excellent case as to why Zerg is fine.
I also do not play Zerg, therefore i consider my opinion about Zerg balance to be slightly more credible than someone who plays Zerg.
My verdict:
Zerg is fine, L2P. history teaches you shit, namely in this case, that the people complaining are babiess who haven't adapted yet. seach all the fun pvz imbalance threads from 2006. Those tears went away as soon as someone with talent and a little creativity conjured up the bisu build and changed gameplay forever with the exact same game build as the year before.... this happens all the time with every little 'imbalance'. It happened in BW. It will happen in SC2. There were mountains of terran tears a few months ago when toss was stomping their heads in. Those tears went away when blizzard *gasp* changed the balance! What's your point? patches changed way less about that then a huge change in playstyle. back then evryone did mostly bio , tanks were considered weak, no one harrassed. inshort evryone was playing shit. gameplay evolved and much of the problems disappeared. sc2 forum on tl is sadly almost as bad as bnet today. evryone is highfiving eachother over how terrible their race is. its sad ,stupid and incredibly annoying. switch race or spam blizzard with your tears. no one here wants to read the angry rants of silver players and it def wont change anything. and thank you hawk for bringing some sense into this thread. always nice to see that im not the only one whos pissed off by the endless QQ bandwagon that the sc2 forum has become. On August 11 2010 00:13 floor exercise wrote:On August 11 2010 00:06 Hawk wrote:On August 11 2010 00:00 RxN wrote:On August 10 2010 23:53 Hawk wrote:On August 10 2010 23:42 Opinion wrote:
Well the players who do not play Zerg have made an excellent case as to why Zerg is fine.
I also do not play Zerg, therefore i consider my opinion about Zerg balance to be slightly more credible than someone who plays Zerg.
My verdict:
Zerg is fine, L2P. history teaches you shit, namely in this case, that the people complaining are babiess who haven't adapted yet. seach all the fun pvz imbalance threads from 2006. Those tears went away as soon as someone with talent and a little creativity conjured up the bisu build and changed gameplay forever with the exact same game build as the year before.... this happens all the time with every little 'imbalance'. It happened in BW. It will happen in SC2. There were mountains of terran tears a few months ago when toss was stomping their heads in. Those tears went away when blizzard *gasp* changed the balance! What's your point? So you mean to tell me that in just three months, people have figured out everything about SC2? When Broodwar is still evolving to this very day?? Or perhaps it's a new game filled with a bunch of people who have an inflated sense of skill. And those people just sit and copy pro strats without having the slightest clue why. Innovation is only happening at the tippy top of diamond and it's just a few months in. I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting the numerous Protoss nerfs throughout beta, and the significant zerg nerfs at the end of beta shouldn't have happened? Since the game evolves, I mean how do we know it wasn't perfectly balanced to begin with? I'm not really sure where the line is drawn between "lol u gotta l2p" and "there is a balance issue" or specifically why you seem to be so sure that there is no balance issue now but I don't see you demanding we revert the game to pre-phase 1. What has changed to signify that turning point between "balanced" and "u gotta to innovate, use ur mobility, bisu build" dont think anyone can state the game is balanced or not right now. the difference is good/smart guys try to get better and find ways to win. while 99% of the guys that constantly bitch about their race do nothing but .. well bitch about their race. and when evry single thread is filled with tears now it gets annoying to a point where after 7 years of tl think twice about visiting the forums now. You have no one else to blame but TL celebrities like Idra and Artosis, whose crying in high profile matches make players think its ok to act like they do. Frankly, its embarrassing.
i fully agree on this.
but still its the stupid mind of all the newguys that only playd shit games like wow so far and cry their little eyes out on tl now. 90% of balance QQ comes from guys joined in 2010 that flood the forums with their bnet forums posting style. i just wish there was a "balance tears go here" forum or very strict rules against such behavior.
|
On August 11 2010 02:03 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:55 PanzerDragoon wrote:On August 11 2010 00:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On August 11 2010 00:00 RxN wrote:On August 10 2010 23:53 Hawk wrote:On August 10 2010 23:42 Opinion wrote:
Well the players who do not play Zerg have made an excellent case as to why Zerg is fine.
I also do not play Zerg, therefore i consider my opinion about Zerg balance to be slightly more credible than someone who plays Zerg.
My verdict:
Zerg is fine, L2P. history teaches you shit, namely in this case, that the people complaining are babiess who haven't adapted yet. seach all the fun pvz imbalance threads from 2006. Those tears went away as soon as someone with talent and a little creativity conjured up the bisu build and changed gameplay forever with the exact same game build as the year before.... this happens all the time with every little 'imbalance'. It happened in BW. It will happen in SC2. There were mountains of terran tears a few months ago when toss was stomping their heads in. Those tears went away when blizzard *gasp* changed the balance! What's your point? patches changed way less about that then a huge change in playstyle. back then evryone did mostly bio , tanks were considered weak, no one harrassed. inshort evryone was playing shit. gameplay evolved and much of the problems disappeared. sc2 forum on tl is sadly almost as bad as bnet today. evryone is highfiving eachother over how terrible their race is. its sad ,stupid and incredibly annoying. switch race or spam blizzard with your tears. no one here wants to read the angry rants of silver players and it def wont change anything. and thank you hawk for bringing some sense into this thread. always nice to see that im not the only one whos pissed off by the endless QQ bandwagon that the sc2 forum has become. On August 11 2010 00:13 floor exercise wrote:On August 11 2010 00:06 Hawk wrote:On August 11 2010 00:00 RxN wrote:On August 10 2010 23:53 Hawk wrote:On August 10 2010 23:42 Opinion wrote:
Well the players who do not play Zerg have made an excellent case as to why Zerg is fine.
I also do not play Zerg, therefore i consider my opinion about Zerg balance to be slightly more credible than someone who plays Zerg.
My verdict:
Zerg is fine, L2P. history teaches you shit, namely in this case, that the people complaining are babiess who haven't adapted yet. seach all the fun pvz imbalance threads from 2006. Those tears went away as soon as someone with talent and a little creativity conjured up the bisu build and changed gameplay forever with the exact same game build as the year before.... this happens all the time with every little 'imbalance'. It happened in BW. It will happen in SC2. There were mountains of terran tears a few months ago when toss was stomping their heads in. Those tears went away when blizzard *gasp* changed the balance! What's your point? So you mean to tell me that in just three months, people have figured out everything about SC2? When Broodwar is still evolving to this very day?? Or perhaps it's a new game filled with a bunch of people who have an inflated sense of skill. And those people just sit and copy pro strats without having the slightest clue why. Innovation is only happening at the tippy top of diamond and it's just a few months in. I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting the numerous Protoss nerfs throughout beta, and the significant zerg nerfs at the end of beta shouldn't have happened? Since the game evolves, I mean how do we know it wasn't perfectly balanced to begin with? I'm not really sure where the line is drawn between "lol u gotta l2p" and "there is a balance issue" or specifically why you seem to be so sure that there is no balance issue now but I don't see you demanding we revert the game to pre-phase 1. What has changed to signify that turning point between "balanced" and "u gotta to innovate, use ur mobility, bisu build" dont think anyone can state the game is balanced or not right now. the difference is good/smart guys try to get better and find ways to win. while 99% of the guys that constantly bitch about their race do nothing but .. well bitch about their race. and when evry single thread is filled with tears now it gets annoying to a point where after 7 years of tl think twice about visiting the forums now. You have no one else to blame but TL celebrities like Idra and Artosis, whose crying in high profile matches make players think its ok to act like they do. Frankly, its embarrassing. i fully agree on this. but still its the stupid mind of all the newguys that only playd shit games like wow so far and cry their little eyes out on tl now. 90% of balance QQ comes from guys joined in 2010 that flood the forums with their bnet forums posting style. i just wish there was a "balance tears go here" forum or very strict rules against such behavior.
I'm sorry, is player feedback and balance discussions on a brand new game that is much more probably imbalanced than not hurting your elitist TL ego?
Once again, assuming that everyone who joined in 2010 has no clue what they are talking about is arrogant and stupid. I joined in 2010, I've never played WoW, I played BW casually for many years, and I'd like to do my best to ensure that SCII is a balanced and fun game. I apologize if my opinions offend your sensitivities, you are by no means required to read them.
|
On August 11 2010 01:53 ooni wrote:Show nested quote +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: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. 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.
|
On August 11 2010 02:07 cuppatea wrote:Show nested quote +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: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. 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
