EPTThe only statistics I would like to see are win rates by map.
Why is Zerg played less? - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
HubertFelix
France631 Posts
The only statistics I would like to see are win rates by map. | ||
|
muse5187
1125 Posts
On August 11 2010 07:32 Glufs wrote: This thread is essentially not about zerg being underpowered. It's about why zerg is played less. If you read the last 10 pages it's apparent its de-railed into why zerg sucks. Any thread opened about zerg turns into this bullshit. | ||
|
Meff
Italy287 Posts
On August 11 2010 06:10 kajeus wrote:It is inconclusive, but it is powerful evidence. Oi! Statistical analysis does not work that way. Inconclusive data is not evidence of anything, much less "powerful" evidence. | ||
|
ElPeque.fogata
Uruguay462 Posts
Protoss 34% Terran 27% Zerg 26% Random 13% this is the current poll at us.battle.net | ||
|
BabelFish
United States14 Posts
I'd like to see some more time go by before I jump on the "Zerg is UP" bandwagon. Game's only been out a few weeks, there's bound to be stuff nobody's thought of yet. Heck, how many years did it take for vultures to be used in BW Terran play? | ||
|
Joroth
United States318 Posts
| ||
|
virgozero
Canada412 Posts
On August 11 2010 00:13 dybydx wrote: this is the same with SC1 i started out playing toss because it was the 1a2a3a race, building cannon d was also very intuitive. you control fewer units in total because each fighting unit was at least 2 supplies. so protoss was the noob race. terran on the other hand, almost every unit has a manually activated skill, like stim, siege, etc. you cant just 1a to victory. zerg is the hardest to play for beginners. from the get go, when to get overlord and when to get 2nd hatch is not a simple decision for a beginner. so ya, the population breakdown seems to make sense. ya thats pretty smart. I mean protoss just 1a sentry 1 a immortal 1 a collosus 1 a high templars terran has to stim and emp and siege .. no wonder so many people playing terran, it must be the most challenging race. | ||
|
ionlyplayPROtoss
Canada573 Posts
| ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On August 11 2010 07:41 Meff wrote: Oi! Statistical analysis does not work that way. Inconclusive data is not evidence of anything, much less "powerful" evidence. No, you misunderstand; I was just trying to phrase things accurately. It is powerful evidence. It is simply not perfect. Few datasets are perfect. On August 11 2010 07:33 HubertFelix wrote: Why everybody is talking about win rates on ladder? The matchmaking system gives you opponents with your "level". So, the average player will have 50% ratio after many games. The only statistics I would like to see are win rates by map. Some things you may not know about win rates... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=140724¤tpage=54#1075 | ||
|
Ksyper
Bulgaria665 Posts
I play zerg because they are awesome, and I will always play zerg. They look cool and have a pretty fun playstyle, evendough currently I think it's a bit dry before you hit lair. | ||
|
Glufs
Norway78 Posts
On August 11 2010 08:15 Ksyper wrote: In my opinion, people play the race they think is cool (looks lore style of play etc.) I play zerg because they are awesome, and I will always play zerg. They look cool and have a pretty fun playstyle, evendough currently I think it's a bit dry before you hit lair. If that was the case, then everyone would play Zerg. I assume everyone think Zerg are the coolest, because I can't see how anyone could argue against that. Maybe they don't find themselves cool enough to be worthy of playing zerg, though. I think that is the real problem. Less than 33% are cool enough to play zerg, and they know it. Problem solved? | ||
|
Meff
Italy287 Posts
On August 11 2010 08:12 kajeus wrote: No, you misunderstand; I was just trying to phrase things accurately. It is powerful evidence. It is simply not perfect. Few datasets are perfect. I would actually have to disagree, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Which null hypothesis did you formulate? What test did you run? How did you take into account the possibility of a correlation between starting skill level and race choice? | ||
|
jamesr12
United States1549 Posts
On August 11 2010 08:44 Meff wrote: I would actually have to disagree, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Which null hypothesis did you formulate? What test did you run? How did you take into account the possibility of a correlation between starting skill level and race choice? He didnt do any of these things, just another person on the internet with no background in statistics pretending like they have thier phd | ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
 ^__^ e-- aw hell yeah im a Marine, I think I was an scv before this | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
| ||
|
Yeld
Austria106 Posts
Take terran and remove the option to build hellions, reapers, banshees, ravens and siegetanks. To make up for terrans lack of defenses, increase the damage marines and marauders do per shot by X. What you get is a very one-dimensional race that still poses an even match for the other two. You got Zerg. | ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
Zerg was played 0 times in the campaign, and has a weird feel to it. over time, it will balance out. Of course, people will take a bunch of random numbers and claim those numbers indicate anything from something being underpowered to it giving you cancer. | ||
|
Swede
New Zealand853 Posts
On August 11 2010 09:49 Yeld wrote: A lot of people in this thread stated that they don't play Zerg because they find them less interesting or fun. This has nothing to do with balance or how "strong" Zerg is as a race. Take terran and remove the option to build hellions, reapers, banshees, ravens and siegetanks. To make up for terrans lack of defenses, increase the damage marines and marauders do per shot by X. What you get is a very one-dimensional race that still poses an even match for the other two. You got Zerg. This is what I've been trying to say elsewhere. A 50/50 win-rate in ZvT means nothing. Zerg could have one unit that wins the game half the time and no one would dare say the game is balanced beyond win-rates. Balance needs to be looked at holistically, taking into account things like playstyle, unit diversity and versatility etc. If Terran can play aggressively or defensively, but Zerg can only play defensively, the game is not balanced. | ||
|
Zack1900
United States211 Posts
| ||
|
SoulSever
Canada779 Posts
I just hope everyone will stop listening to Idra bitch about the race he plays very well, and play it for themselves. If pressing a hotkey and "V" every 30 seconds is too hard for you,, and you dont like being able to see to the edge of creep that you can mass expand if you miss a spawn larvae and you don't like having tons of units and you hate being able to tech-switch instantly then this is the wrong race for you. | ||
| ||
