EPTDimaga may switch to Terran - Page 19
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Lennon
United Kingdom2275 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
Hasn't anyone noticed that regardless of balance Dimaga is probably better off as Terran? What's DiMaga's 'style'... aggressive play. What race is the worst for aggressive play? Zerg. What race is the best for aggressive play? Probably Terran. Even if the races were balanced, why would DiMaga stay on Zerg when Terran fits his style much better. the entire beta DiMaga has pretty much been fighting an uphill battle imo to make aggressive zerg work. | ||
|
Traveler
United States451 Posts
On August 15 2010 08:10 Sentient wrote: Win percentages of the ladder are useless, because the matchmaker is always trying to push you towards 50%. All they tell us is that the matchmaker is doing a good job. I'm sure Blizzard doesn't employ statisticians... I'm sure Blizzard does not look at tournaments wins, and top players games outside the official ladder. I'm sure the ladder must not matter at all, since it only carries hundreds of times the amount of games played in tournaments. Anyways yes the Matchmaker is pushing towards 50%, this is based on player skill and racial balance obviously. But if you go up and read the post about how the overall proportion of zergs is lower than that of the proportion at higher levels speaks as to how the imbalance argument based on racial proportions is not too valid, you might agree with me. | ||
|
Ouga
Finland645 Posts
On August 15 2010 07:05 NuKedUFirst wrote: Pretty much this. Terran will get nerfed and zerg players will still be losing and saying how zerg is still too weak. I think it is really the play style of the zerg players and not the race itself. Yes, nerfing terran would not make any change to anything, nerfs never do right? Thus we shall not change anything, since change wouldn't change. Logic here is beyond awesome. | ||
|
Tritonus
Denmark125 Posts
On August 15 2010 08:13 Memoria wrote: why every1 want to switch to terran . am i the only 1 whos switching from terran to zerg since its fucking annoying winning games and always gg op terran noob ... How is that working out for you? What do you think is more tiresome. Reading "gg op terran noob" or actually typing it yourself? :D | ||
|
tacrats
476 Posts
On August 15 2010 08:08 Traveler wrote: Perhaps you could enlighten us Bro with your superior statistical knowledge? Or do you feel like a 1 line post with quotes is enough to prove something? Anyways, for anyone that has some valid arguing points, I would like to hear them. Ive explained it in countless threads, as have many others. Believe it or not, you are quite late to the party and people are growing tired of people like you saying the same flawed statements over and over again in the name of statistics. Lets say i play 100 games. i win 50 games. play vs terran 25 times. lose half the time. Of those terran games. 12 losses were to equally skilled terran players, 13 are from mediocre terran players (this is very close to reality, most zergs normally beat terran players who really arnt very good and normally lose against terran players who know what they are doing, yes this is in diamond). Based on this, my win ratio is greater than 50% against terran hooray! and 50% overall! But wait, this is all due to bnet2.0 matching me up against easier players to get me at this 50/50 ratio. So at the end of the day, this situation leads to idiots such as yourself posting that since win ratios across all races are consistent, it PROVES everything is balanced. However, these people such as yourself fail to understand that there is more to starcraft-life than just win ratios. Will you guys understand it some day? Im not sure, only time will tell. Until useful data can be dissected in finer detail, people such as yourself should really just keep your mouths shut. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
 | ||
|
ziteNiA
Sweden73 Posts
| ||
|
Traveler
United States451 Posts
On August 15 2010 08:11 Meff wrote: The problem, good sir, is that numbers are not in the habit of saying anything - which is understandable, considering how few of them have functional mouths. In my experience (and I hope you will not discount this as anedoctal evidence!) it is usually people who say anything, promptly claiming that the poor numbers support them. Of course, sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong; this is why most serious statistical studies think of where they could have gone wrong - and therefore list possible methodology flaws at the end of the paper. Now, I could explain exactly where the reasoning: "The top 100 (score-wise) players have about 63% win ratio regardless of race, so the races are balanced" falls into a logical error, but I think that the following thought experiment will be much more likely to realize that you're making a bad use of statistical data. Suppose that we introduced a fourth race. This race has no units and only a single building, which has an ability that triggers one second after the start of the game. With a 63% chance*, it wins the game; otherwise you lose. Now, this race is obviously imbalanced, since you could pretty much make any household pet of your choice (cat? dog? canary bird? pet rock?) play against a korean progamer and it would still win 63% of the time. Yet, your statistical testing would lead to the conclusion that it is balanced. *it should actually not be 63%, but somewhat higher in order to balance out with the 50% win ratio in mirrors. But you get the idea. Hmm, so you are saying we introduce a race that has a 63% win ratio against each matchup, that it will always win 63% of the time. I think you are forgetting how this will affect the win ratios of the other races. If this race wins 63% of the time then the other races collectively are all averaging 37% against this race. Meaning all of their win ratios would decrease relative to this new race, meaning we would have imbalanced statistics. Sorry nice try there, it almost got me for 10 seconds. Anyways, in case you were wondering, the higher levels have higher win ratios because they had to play against lower levels in order to get there. To address Tacrats up there; you have told us basically nothing with you example other than that the matching system is trying to get you to 50% wins, and in your example, you win against bad players, and lose against good players... hmmm, sounds like a good system. Now stop covering your ass with insults and think outside the box that the masses have been creating by banding together in order to feel intelligent. | ||
|
ilbh
Brazil1606 Posts
On August 15 2010 04:16 Puosu wrote: Blizzard is taking their time for a reason, they're looking for the best possible changes they can make and not hasty ones like they had in the beta where they could afford to make mistakes. However it probably wont take more than a few weeks for the next balance patch to come out and that's probably less time than it would take for Dimaga to reach the same skill level as he has with zerg. (skill level, not rating boosted by being able to abuse terran) GOM being partners with Blizzard it makes sense for Blizzard to try to iron the balance before the tournament starts. I guess I do understand his concerns though, but imo. any race switching because of current imbalance(s) is overreacting before we reach a point Blizzard decides to start concentrating on another RTS title, the game will be changing at such a pace that if you follow the newest balance trend all the time its just going to be ridiculous and detrimental to one's skill level. Is Blizzard really going to buff zerg? Did they say something about it? | ||
|
Perkins1752
Germany214 Posts
On August 15 2010 08:15 Traveler wrote: I'm sure Blizzard doesn't employ statisticians... I'm sure Blizzard does not look at tournaments wins, and top players games outside the official ladder. I'm sure the ladder must not matter at all, since it only carries hundreds of times the amount of games played in tournaments. Anyways yes the Matchmaker is pushing towards 50%, this is based on player skill and racial balance obviously. But if you go up and read the post about how the overall proportion of zergs is lower than that of the proportion at higher levels speaks as to how the imbalance argument based on racial proportions is not too valid, you might agree with me. You still don't get it? You made the right observation, and draw a completely wrong conclusion. Zerg is underrepresented at low skill cause ITS FUCKING HARD TO PLAY! All the noobs play Terran cause the campaign is Terran. You can compete with Zerg if you have like 50 APM more then you opponent. Once more PLEASE start thinking | ||
|
Qwerty.
United States292 Posts
| ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2403 Posts
As the previous post stated, in my opinion, Terran isn't overpowered. Zerg and Protoss are just underpowered due to lack of options and hard counters. | ||
|
Sky.Technique
United States271 Posts
On August 15 2010 05:59 QuakerOats wrote: It may have been mentioned already but let's not forget Boxer switched races when they nerfed P in BW. Obviously a player is going to switch to the race they feel is the best, and the game's only been out for a month (not long enough for Dimaga to even have a main race). It's not like Jaedong switching to T. ok just to clariy for people not familiar with BW boxer. boxer changed from P to T because blizz changed the reaver AI, that was it The reaver ai was changed so he switched so lets not get carried away. just sayin.... ;; | ||
|
Meff
Italy287 Posts
On August 15 2010 08:20 Traveler wrote:Hmm, so you are saying we introduce a race that has a 63% win ratio against each matchup, that it will always win 63% of the time. I think you are forgetting how this will affect the win ratios of the other races. If this race wins 63% of the time then the other races collectively are all averaging 37% against this race. Meaning all of their win ratios would decrease relative to this new race, meaning we would have imbalanced statistics. Sorry nice try there, it almost got me for 10 seconds. Oh, good observation. Scrap the 63%, in that case, and substitute it with the adjusted average of the other races at balance point (you've surely taken a dynamical systems course along the statistics one, right?) | ||
|
jamvng
Canada244 Posts
On August 15 2010 08:21 Qwerty. wrote: sometimes I wonder if the entire fate of sc2 esports rests in david kim's hands... hahaha, he's randoming and he's doing really well, so I think it's a pretty good thing he's a balance designer. But yah, I think some people can just chill out a little, I'm sure Blizzard is listening. It's just not that easy to just spit out a patch that will fix everything. They have to figure out what to nerf/buff because it will affect other matchups (TvP and PvZ I think are pretty balanced from what I hear). They can't just spit some balance changes out like in beta and see what happens anymore since the game is in retail. Extensive testing, listening to feedback, I'm sure they listen to top players,etc. | ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
| ||
|
noproblem
United Kingdom161 Posts
As a fan of watching progamers duke it out you can totally understand the reasoning of why some players are feeling like they have to switch. Since the KotB finals there has been at least one Terran and every final I have happened watched and it is more and more likely that TvT finals are becoming the de facto norm. If you have a small percentage chance of being in a final as being a Terran over the other two races that small percentage is all it takes at the highest level. You just have to look at the Team Liquid line up which does not have a single Zerg player. Yes TLO plays Zerg occasionally but he is playing it less and less as time goes on and this I feel is no way a coincidence. Recently I have watched so many TvT casts as semis / finals that is makes me QQ (I know I keep saying this but it is true). The game is still early in its' early phases and I hope that some new JulyZerg style nuances push through rather than patch becoming necessary. Even if you do leave us Dimaga, I do hope you will find the incentive to one day will feel the need to return to the warm heart of the swarm. Until then good luck and have fun in what ever you do! Edit: I forgot about HayprO plays Zerg and therefore my argument about team Liquid line up is pretty much mute (npt that anyone noticed). | ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
zerg needs more options than just lings and two queens to defend against various bullshit because it severely limits their ability to play different openings. the problem i'm seeing my opponents run into is if i open hellion, in the pre-lair stages they have no option to defend besides very strong ling/queen micro, or roach. if they go roach, where does that leave 'em? with a weak midgame army and a huge weakness to a hellion/marauder bust. zerg's problems lie entirely in the early game. mid-game and late-game i don't see anything glaringly wrong. you don't 1a into tanks and everything is ok! an extra armor or two on roaches would make them a viable backbone unit again, cuz right now while they're certainly powerful, the terran and protoss counters dominate in small numbers; immortals crush and marauders with concussive shells is easy micro. moving hydra den to tier 1 would give zerg a new wealth of safe openings and force terran players to make more marines. btw i'm a die-hard terran fanboy~ LOL | ||
| ||
