|
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.
Agreed. It is highly likely that the AMM works even within the diamond league. So if you are a relatively good zerg player, it pits you against better players in diamond league to ensure approximately equal distributions of win rates. Hence diamond league win-rates will, surprise surprise, all be amazingly similar.
|
I think the "problem" with zerg is that it is the least changed race from broodwar to starcraft 2. Starcraft 2 uses a lot more +dmg modifiers for armor types and zerg is usually on the receiving end of these modifiers.
For instance, the game is balanced in a major way around two units: the roach and the mutalisk. Both units deal normal damage and both take extra damage from their counters while really effectively countering nothing (unless you consider mutalisks vs zealots or something).
This in itself really isn't the problem, such as thors and phoenixes being strong counters to the mutalisk (to the point where mutalisk production needs to stop or you lose). The problem is that these units don't have any units to pick on themselves. Technically, since the roach is armored it should have no problems with reapers and hellions. However, since the roach is slow and has 3 range, both of these units can kite the roach and keep it from effectively playing its role until there are a very large number of them (see CauthonLuck's hellion/marauder push against zerg. I really have no idea how anyone would stop this short of expanding creep at one base and building crawlers or something).
Solution for this? I don't know. Maybe there isn't one.
|
On August 11 2010 02:09 ooni wrote:Show nested quote +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: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?
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?
|
On August 10 2010 15:18 McCain wrote:
Zerg are on slightly lower footing with the other races on one base, but by far exceed the other races' macro ability when the base numbers start going up. No other race can make 14 workers simultaneously. Zerg may be weak (to Terran) but macro strength isn't the reason.
I partially agree with your post, however being able to make 14 drones simultaneously isn't really an indication of economic superiority by any means. If you're making 14 drones, depending on the game stage, you're also not building up your forces at all or you're cutting down on your snap production ability. I understand you're just speaking generally about their ability to produce on-demand much faster than terran and usually protoss, but that doesn't necessarily make them better. I like the Zerg race and enjoy playing the game as Zerg, but I do think Z needs retooling in some areas, like tech and stages of tech, because early-mid game they are so incredibly predictable and weak.
|
I don't think that most of you realize that I was not trying to discuss the entirety of the imbalance issue. I was just trying to see if the factors I thought of could play a slight role.
|
Zerg are the least mobile race. All the interesting units were removed. The units that remained were either nerfed directly or indirectly (e.g. no muta micro). Zerglings are bad. Hydras are slow as sin without creep. Spreading creep around sounds like a good mechanic, and it could be, but it contributes to the mobility problem even more.
|
On August 11 2010 02:27 MrMotionPicture wrote:
I don't think that most of you realize that I was not trying to discuss the entirety of the imbalance issue. I was just trying to see if the factors I thought of could play a slight role.
Oh come on, did you really truly believe that this thread wouldn't be hijacked into a broader balance discussion? How cute.
Sorry, but the sad truth that just solely based on the content of your OP, this was inevitable, regardless of any disclaimer that you were trying to avoid this or that.
|
On August 11 2010 02:27 marshmallow wrote:
Zerg are the least mobile race. All the interesting units were removed. The units that remained were either nerfed directly or indirectly (e.g. no muta micro). Zerglings are bad. Hydras are slow as sin without creep. Spreading creep around sounds like a good mechanic, and it could be, but it contributes to the mobility problem even more.
But what about the catchphrase "use your mobility" that every non zerg player throws out to excuse how broken zerg is??
|
On August 11 2010 02:27 MrMotionPicture wrote:
I don't think that most of you realize that I was not trying to discuss the entirety of the imbalance issue. I was just trying to see if the factors I thought of could play a slight role.
Based on your original post I would agree with you that what you discussed plays a factor, but an extraordinarily small one, at least in the very early stages. In my opinion, one of the weakest moments for a zerg player is right when your queen spawns and you use those first few extra larva, I feel like what you do with those larva decides what the rest of the game is going to be like for you, where a terran or protoss isn't going to have to decide on things necessarily in that way because of their production methods.
|
I haven't read every post, but I feel if the food cap is raised to ~300 problems would be solved. What other race can exceed Zerg in swarming? This would be an upper limit that mainly Zerg, seldom other races, would reach.
I might be wrong though, thoughts on this?
|
On August 11 2010 02:36 sirkyan wrote:
I haven't read every post, but I feel if the food cap is raised to ~300 problems would be solved. What other race can exceed Zerg in swarming? This would be an upper limit that mainly Zerg, seldom other races, would reach.
I might be wrong though, thoughts on this?
While that would probably solve a lot of the problems, it would probably create a few more. Like my CPU/GPU frying and dying a horrible painful death, for one.
|
So many Zerg threads. *Head explodes*
|
On August 10 2010 23:23 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 21:36 Jameser wrote:also 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.
Here's the problem I see
(500 lvl zerg)
The toss's and zergs I play. I win a hefty number of them. 75% probably. The terrans I play, probably 30% (if I'm lucky) . I can be matched anywhere from a high gold terran to a low plat terran and stay within that range. I'm not getting matched up against those 500pt diamond terrans. They're too busy playing 700 pt zergs and moving up.
TvZ is honestly the most frustrating matchup ever. I just played a game where I nydus'd a guys main, took out his entire main (I was exploiting the immobility!) He lifts off his expo and just uses his mech ball to rape my base. What can we do if our units simply will not kill theirs?
If he gets to your natural, the game is over, because there is no way you can reinforce that fast, regardless of if you have 700 larvae saved up (coming from all over the map).
I honestly believe the issue is due to the hard counters. 3-4 banshees absolutely FORCE large amounts of hydra's or your main will get levelled (or you build spore crawlers all over and sacrifice econ) and then 2-3 tanks will completely melt your hydras.
The thing people don't understand is , yes. We can reinforce quickly. But when you go from 200/200 to 130/200 and the terran goes from 200/200 to 180/200 (maybe). You're still going to lose. and you better have done that near his base or his "immobile army" that's just as fast as your roaches off creep are going to be at your base before your reinforcements arrive.
|
Make mule have a cooldown... maybe equivalent to the time it takes to gather 25 energy (so half). Chrono is fine atm imo.
|
On August 11 2010 02:20 Azile wrote:Show nested quote +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: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? 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.
|
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 about the infestor countering the Thor drop. did he research NP and how did the 12 second nerf affect this? Does he just NP it then kill it with other units?
edit: I mean, I will definitely watch this later. but i am at work right now.
Also, I am very surprised he had enough larvae to be competitive without a queen. But hey, its TLO, I have faith.
|
On August 11 2010 03:02 DTown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 02:51 Madkipz wrote: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:
[quote]
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 about the infestor countering the Thor drop. did he research NP and how did the 12 second nerf affect this? Does he just NP it then kill it with other units? edit: I mean, I will definitely watch this later. but i am at work right now.
Well even before NP you can FG the medivac and/or Thor to buy time for a queen to pick away at it I suppose.
I gotta watch this still, seems interesting, but it also seems like it'd be vulnerable to marauders. Like really vulnerable. Barracks -> Factory -> scout no queen -> 2x Barracks + starport -> marauder/marine/medivac push & drops.
But logo lings can handle marauders! Of course they can. They also cannot be produced in sizable #s without a queen.
|
No he played BRAT_OK who goes against TLOs zerg with bio and some air but the whole idea behind TLOs zerg play can be put to use against all of the terran openers. Expansion on 14 and Delayed queen but faster tech to lair effectively means that everything changes.
You suddenly have the world at your fingertips as mutalisks can come out significantly faster, even faster than onebase mutalisk but you can also get infestation pit instead for fungal growth and infested marines.
On August 11 2010 03:08 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:02 DTown wrote:On August 11 2010 02:51 Madkipz wrote: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:
[quote]
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 about the infestor countering the Thor drop. did he research NP and how did the 12 second nerf affect this? Does he just NP it then kill it with other units? edit: I mean, I will definitely watch this later. but i am at work right now. Well even before NP you can FG the medivac and/or Thor to buy time for a queen to pick away at it I suppose. I gotta watch this still, seems interesting, but it also seems like it'd be vulnerable to marauders. Like really vulnerable. Barracks -> Factory -> scout no queen -> 2x Barracks + starport -> marauder/marine/medivac push & drops. But logo lings can handle marauders! Of course they can. They also cannot be produced in sizable #s without a queen.
yea, but who goes mass marauder against zerg now adays? Nobody goes mass marauder, it comes too late though and as i said. SCOUT it. if you see it come you should theoretically have enough lings out. you could probably even opt for early spire and get it out before the timing attack comes. need to play more with it so c ya guyse.
|
On August 11 2010 03:10 Madkipz wrote:
No he played BRAT_OK who goes against TLOs zerg with bio and some air but the whole idea behind TLOs zerg play can be put to use against all of the terran openers. Expansion on 14 and Delayed queen but faster tech to lair effectively means that everything changes.
You suddenly have the world at your fingertips as mutalisks can come out significantly faster, even faster than onebase mutalisk but you can also get infestation pit instead for fungal growth and infested marines.
So you come out cheering how TLO cracked mech like a baller, and point to a D9D where the terran doesn't even use mech? ... dude. You got me all excited for nothing. 
|
On August 11 2010 03:11 DTown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:10 Madkipz wrote:
No he played BRAT_OK who goes against TLOs zerg with bio and some air but the whole idea behind TLOs zerg play can be put to use against all of the terran openers. Expansion on 14 and Delayed queen but faster tech to lair effectively means that everything changes.
You suddenly have the world at your fingertips as mutalisks can come out significantly faster, even faster than onebase mutalisk but you can also get infestation pit instead for fungal growth and infested marines. So you come out cheering how TLO cracked mech like a baller, and point to a D9D where the terran doesn't even use mech? ... dude. You got me all excited for nothing.
dude, watch day9 daily 162 and then realise. with that opener you effectively make every terran pure mech or even into air openers against you useless.
Just open your eyes and be amazed at delayed queen play as it solves everything your heart desires it to solve. Play around with it, get a feel for it and appreciate TLO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
