Hey guys this might be interesting for you since you like to read stats of the laddergames.
We covered all official games since the release of SC2 (means no beta games) and for big tourneys (256,512 or 1024 cups) we included only the games from the quarterfinals on:
Note: The system counts every single map in the games of our Matchticker without mirror matches.
The Map stats might be interesting too but we need more data for that imo. This whole page will get really interesting in a couple of years to see which race had the upperhand over all the patches that will come up in the long run.
We will also add stats broken down into the 3 matchups + seperate stats for each patch that is still to come!
PS: I'm looking for more people for my staff to help out with the matchticker data so we can deliver good statistics. We are covering all the european stuff already but i'd like to get some american people (it sucks to ticker games at 4am in the morning^^) and especially some asian in which a good knowledge of asian tourneys, leagues and cups. Let me know if you are interested or know somebody who might be Thanks!
Shows that while there probably is a imbalance towards terran it isn't really that large.
It is interesting to note how many more games terran has. Since this is quarters some might say that terran is imba getting there, I personally think it is just more terrans entering tournaments.
he was stating that with big tournaments they only counted from quarter finals on. So it rather shows that more terrans advance than it shows that more terrans enter the tournament.
The game is way too young and the strategies are by no means anywhere near refined enough to allow these kinds of statistics to have much if any meaning. If you want to discuss TvZ or whatever imbalance use rational arguments and not statistics that are only based on the status quo that is subject to ever-lasting change.
had a little mistake, its not bo3 its single matches - updated the post.
also our goal is to cover all sc2 games in the future, right now we have a pretty small staff so there is stuff missing but as for the korean scene we added the WTA garimto takedown from the quartfinals, i will add the missing 1/8 games now since it was a pretty small tourney and we cover it fully then.
Please let me know if there have been some other big korean tournaments or weekly cups so i can add them to our system Thanks!
On August 19 2010 06:56 deo.deo wrote: he was stating that with big tournaments they only counted from quarter finals on. So it rather shows that more terrans advance than it shows that more terrans enter the tournament.
If you started the tournament with 50% terran, 25% zerg 25% toss then you would have more terran in the quarterfinals. So yes the race balance entering the tournament is important as well.
On August 19 2010 07:07 ChickenLips wrote: Stats = useless
The game is way too young and the strategies are by no means anywhere near refined enough to allow these kinds of statistics to have much if any meaning. If you want to discuss TvZ or whatever imbalance use rational arguments and not statistics that are only based on the status quo that is subject to ever-lasting change.
Time is on Terran's side with this "ever-lasting change" you speak of, IMO. Terran strategies have much more room to evolve and many more tools to evolve with than Z.
Unfortunately, methinks the situation will only get worse here on out. = (
On August 19 2010 07:07 ChickenLips wrote: Stats = useless
The game is way too young and the strategies are by no means anywhere near refined enough to allow these kinds of statistics to have much if any meaning. If you want to discuss TvZ or whatever imbalance use rational arguments and not statistics that are only based on the status quo that is subject to ever-lasting change.
It's not useless from the standpoint of seeing which particular race is has the better strategies at the moment and which race needs to develop some better ones.
On August 19 2010 06:52 Lunares wrote: Shows that while there probably is a imbalance towards terran it isn't really that large.
It is interesting to note how many more games terran has. Since this is quarters some might say that terran is imba getting there, I personally think it is just more terrans entering tournaments.
Couldn't it possibly be that more terrans are entering tournaments because Terran is imbalanced?
On August 19 2010 06:50 jalstar wrote: Contains no Korean players, so probably not the best stats for determining balance, but a very nice database nonetheless. Good work!
agree , this dont show alot , maybe it show they are more good player playing terran , but that all .
Spilered my original post since it was based on the OP as it originally stood. + Show Spoiler +
I question the logic of counting mirror matches in such a way. Why would you count a mirror match that ended in a 2-1 as two wins and one loss? Why does not the losing player count in this equation?(meaning it would be one win and two losses)
I'd say exclude mirrors completely, they add nothing of value to stats like these and if you do it wrong it can skew the results. Imagine for a second that if terran would simply be more popular but not actually imbalanced, there would obviously be more terran players and as such more terran mirrors played. Since the way you count these matches would always add more wins than losses for mirror matches(since you cannot draw in sc2 tournaments) the more popular race would get a higher win percentage simply by being more popular.
Edit: For clarification, an example: First set of a PvZ tourney match, toss wins, which means protoss gets one win and zerg gets one loss. Second set, zerg wins, giving zerg a win and toss a loss in the stats. Third set, the protoss player pulls home a win and the end result is 2 wins, 1 loss for protoss, and 1 win 2 losses for zerg.
In comparison, if you count mirrors the way you do in the OP, after the first round of a ZvZ, zerg gets 1 win, but no loss(even though a zerg player lost). This obviously means no matter the outcome of a mirror match, that race would gain wins, especially in the case of 2-0 and 3-0 matches. This is in stark contrast of the non-mirrors which are zero sum(a win is always accompanied by a loss).
It is clear that going by your stats as presented terran are way overrepresented which means that the chances of a TvT occuring are waaay greater than the other mirrors(since if a race is underrepresented, the chances of a mirror of that race occuring obviously gets very rare) and this means that terran will be gaining more "free" wins than the other races.
Edit2: Also, it would also be interesting to see not only the success or failure of the races, but also the specific matchups(TvZ, ZvP, PvT).
Edit3: Since the OP was edited to clarify how mirrors are counted, my post is pretty out of date but I still say exclude mirrors as it adds nothing.
good point - we are still a brand new site and lots of stuff is beeing worked on.
right now our coder is at the IEM global challenge in cologne but i will update his bug tracker and see if he can exclude mirror matches from the race ranking.
Note: The system counts every single map in the games of our Matchticker, so for example if there is a Terran mirror with 2-1, the Terran stats will get 2 wins and 1 loss added to their score.
stoped reading here if there is a mirror between two terrans, which ends 2-1 for one of them, dude its 3wins and 3lose not 2wins and 1 lose ...
I don't like the way it factors in mirrors. If a tournament has a large number of mirror matches, then the race's win percentage is going to go up no matter what.
Actually mirrors draw the numbers closer to 50% since they always add 1 loss and 1 win to the statistic. It would be more interesting to see matchup-based winrates. But thanks for your work, seems reasonable to look at the tournament stats. It's interesting at least. I'm not even sure a patch would need to change much looking at those numbers. That's definitely in an area where other mapdesigns can lead to very good balance.
we can always add more stats into this page - im open for suggestions it all has to wait until the coder is back next week though and he also has like 30 other ToDos from me at the moment hehe but in some months everything should be done
I don't like the way it factors in mirrors. If a tournament has a large number of mirror matches, then the race's win percentage is going to go up no matter what.
someone already pointed out the flaw in this logic, but I will give an example. lets say in a tournament T was 20 - 10 against other races. That is a 67% win percent.
Lets say there were 10 TvTs. That brings the new T record to 30 - 20 for the tournament, which is actually a 60% ratio win percent. Therefore, more mirrors actually will bring a your win percent closer to 50(no matter if it is higher or lower beforehand).
this is really interesting, and will be even more so when the mirror bug is worked out.
On August 19 2010 07:30 Necrosjef wrote: Zerg espicially have hit the ceiling for getting better I think, I doubt there is much more strategies out there that no one has considered yet.
imagine saying that there are no more strategies to be worked out one month into starcraft: brood war. ridiculous
I don't like the way it factors in mirrors. If a tournament has a large number of mirror matches, then the race's win percentage is going to go up no matter what.
someone already pointed out the flaw in this logic, but I will give an example. lets say in a tournament T was 20 - 10 against other races. That is a 67% win percent.
Lets say there were 10 TvTs. That brings the new T record to 30 - 20 for the tournament, which is actually a 60% ratio win percent. Therefore, more mirrors actually will bring a your win percent closer to 50(no matter if it is higher or lower beforehand).
The way you added those 10 TvT's is assuming that every match went 1-1, whereas the matches against the other races went 2-1. That obviously brings the win percentage for Terran closer to 50%.
The op already edited the way mirrors are counted from
Note: The system counts every single map in the games of our Matchticker, so for example if there is a Terran mirror with 2-1, the Terran stats will get 2 wins and 1 loss added to their score.
to
Note: The system counts every single map in the games of our Matchticker, so for example if there is a Terran mirror with 2-1, the Terran stats will get 3 wins and 3 loss added to their score.
on JoshSuth's youtube channel, and I have to say that game is pretty idiotic, in my opinion. Before I was kinda neutral about the whole TvZ imbalance, but this game has made me a believer of idra/dimaga/sheth etc.
The harass from maka barely cost him anything. It wasn't an all in or something that dramatically reduced his economy, just a fairly normal opening with fast gas. He was able to cancel unfinished bunkers and salvage bunkers that were just about to be killed.
If idra went one base roaches, it would severely hurt his economy since he would be so far behind in drone production, and then even if he was able to kill the reapers(which they shouldn't be with good micro) and kill the bunker, it is the easiest thing in the world to get a few marauders, a bunker, and expand, getting your second expansion before the zerg.
If idra had gone mutas it would have once again hurt his economy, it would have been scouted considering the free reign the reapers have in idra's base (not to mention it is the only possible explanation for a fast lair) and it is very easy to defend with turrets and marine, meaning he would have once again been way ahead.
Now, don't get me wrong, not just any terran can pull that off. But for professionals, how many do you think wouldn't be able to get to that level? Maka definitely isn't some super player, any current BW terran could pull off that build in a couple months of practice.
The nice thing is that this imbalance is hardly apparent at my skill level, since I don't think most casual players can do that and would probably just sacrifice reapers. But tournament TvZ is going to get stupid very fast if this catches on.
Could we see the non-mirror matchups broken down into PvT, TvZ, and ZvP?
It's also good to see the number of mirror matches just to see how often a race gets picked and plays. If Zergs eliminate each other playing ZvZ all the time, it just looks like Zergs never make deep into the tournaments or make it in at all.
The number of participants counts and how deep they play counts for something.
It's too early to say anything about imbalance based off of stats and we're all probably too bad to talk about it from an experience or skill point of view.
Thanks for gathering this info for us! Can you do statistics for each matchup instead? Having general statistics does not indicate whether a certain matchup is imbalanced. If all 3 races were perfectly 50%, there could exist a rock paper scissors scenario where each race has a 60% win rate vs one race and 40% vs the other. On the other hand, having Zerg significantly below Terran and Protoss might indicate that Zerg is a weaker race than Protoss, but in reality, ZvP is considered a fair matchup.
Yes, Please break it down in match-up statistics, tired of Blizzard hiding Map/Race figures!! Giving us with nearly useless top XXX list... What BS, you would at least expect more data since it is "bnet 2.0".
On August 19 2010 07:30 Necrosjef wrote: Zerg espicially have hit the ceiling for getting better I think, I doubt there is much more strategies out there that no one has considered yet.
imagine saying that there are no more strategies to be worked out one month into starcraft: brood war. ridiculous
I'm getting really sick of this fallacious analogy. Things are a lot different than they were a month into BW. First off, the entire playerbase is much more experienced as a whole with RTS gaming than at that time, not to mention it is orders of fucking magnitude larger. Second off, the community is a lot more integrated and active than it ever was, and with how fast replays/etc spread compared to back then new strategies populate far faster than they used to.
Necrosjef is right, zerg are more or less capping out on how "good" they can actually get because the skill ceiling of the race is much much lower than it is for Terran. In addition, time absolutely favors terran in this sense since their units have far more synergy (and there's a hell of a lot more of them) than there are for zerg. You can practically throw any two terran units together and make a good comp, while some zerg units simply cannot be used in tandem (lings + ultras, lings + broods, etc).
Look at the top ladder/tournament spots, watch the games, etc. Or better yet, switch from T to Z or vice versa and actually try to get good at it and see what happens. I went from Z to T because I figured I could argue with bullheaded Terrans who are happy with their overpowered race and want to keep it that way, or I could join them and stop losing to players who were far below me in skill level. I'm now higher than I ever was with Z and 90% of TvZ's are free wins with ANY kind of solidly executed midgame push.
The stats are even more skewed than they appear to be due to mirror matches being added to the pool. (150-150 rec in mirrors brings you significantly closer to 50% winrate). This means that there is a serious issue with balance currently. As for those of you saying the skill cap is almost being reached... That is ridiculous! Do you seriously think that people already have this game completely figured out?! It's incredibly complex just like BW was. No amount of connection between players results in any of the races being completely "mastered". No one is even remotely close yet! BW still isn't figured out after millions of hours of progamers practicing in progamer houses! I don't think it is possible to completely "master" a game like this, in the case of Starcraft 2, we're not even close.
On August 19 2010 07:07 ChickenLips wrote: Stats = useless
The game is way too young and the strategies are by no means anywhere near refined enough to allow these kinds of statistics to have much if any meaning. If you want to discuss TvZ or whatever imbalance use rational arguments and not statistics that are only based on the status quo that is subject to ever-lasting change.
That's pretty ignorant. Stats are definately not useless.
Also, rational arguments are always subjective and very prone to bias. At least with stats you can present definative findings - the conclusions of the findings is sometimes up to the observer but the numbers themselves can be argued against.
lets hope our coder can do that asap once he's back on monday - he told me he has quiet some time then i will keep you posted if we added more stuff to the stats section. for example we will add clan and nation rankings next. let me know if you have any other cool ideas to use the data except for breaking it down into the matchups aswell. Thanks!
I have the agree with others that including the mirrors messes this up. Every time a mirror happens it results in +1 win or +2 win for that race. So since there are more Terran mirrors than Zerg mirrors it has inflated the win rates for Terran.
This is really easy to see, if you add 500 Terran mirrors to your totals above and they all go 2-1 you add 1000 wins and 500 losses bringing the Terran win rate up to 1309-763 or 63%. The more mirror matches the higher the win rate just by design of your system. The more a race is played the more mirror matches you'll end up with. This has completely skewed the entire system unless I'm misunderstanding something about how you are doing it.
You should probably just remove the mirror matches completely as they are irrelevant when discussing overall balance.
On August 20 2010 07:04 EnderCN wrote: I have the agree with others that including the mirrors messes this up. Every time a mirror happens it results in +1 win or +2 win for that race. So since there are more Terran mirrors than Zerg mirrors it has inflated the win rates for Terran.
This is really easy to see, if you add 500 Terran mirrors to your totals above and they all go 2-1 you add 1000 wins and 500 losses bringing the Terran win rate up to 1309-763 or 63%. The more mirror matches the higher the win rate just by design of your system. The more a race is played the more mirror matches you'll end up with. This has completely skewed the entire system unless I'm misunderstanding something about how you are doing it.
You should probably just remove the mirror matches completely as they are irrelevant when discussing overall balance.
Each mirror adds 3 wins and 3 losses (or, I suppose, 2 wins and 2 losses if there are BO3's). There is no way for the win/loss ratio for a mirror game to not be 1:1 since when one T wins the other has to lose. Unless T is so imbalanced that they can somehow skip past this rule of numbers.
So your example of 500 T mirrors to the totals adds 1500 wins and 1500 losses which brings it to 1793 wins 1747 losses which is significantly closer to 50% (50.x% I think, just looking at it)
On August 20 2010 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:Each mirror adds 3 wins and 3 losses (or, I suppose, 2 wins and 2 losses if there are BO3's). There is no way for the win/loss ratio for a mirror game to not be 1:1 since when one T wins the other has to lose. Unless T is so imbalanced that they can somehow skip past this rule of numbers.
So your example of 500 T mirrors to the totals adds 1500 wins and 1500 losses which brings it to 1793 wins 1747 losses which is significantly closer to 50% (50.x% I think, just looking at it)
Out of 3,800 views congratulations on being the only one so completely sure of a bad assumption.
On August 20 2010 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:Each mirror adds 3 wins and 3 losses (or, I suppose, 2 wins and 2 losses if there are BO3's). There is no way for the win/loss ratio for a mirror game to not be 1:1 since when one T wins the other has to lose. Unless T is so imbalanced that they can somehow skip past this rule of numbers.
So your example of 500 T mirrors to the totals adds 1500 wins and 1500 losses which brings it to 1793 wins 1747 losses which is significantly closer to 50% (50.x% I think, just looking at it)
Out of 3,800 views congratulations on being the only one so completely sure of a bad assumption.
540 matches total for terran. Assuming 33% mirrors (not accurate, I'm sure, but it's the most fitting number in my mind with 3 possible matchups) 180 mirrors therefore terran has a 113-67 record outside of the mirror. This means that outside of the mirror Terran has roughly a 62.8% win rate. It would effect the other races In the opposite way due to their stats being below a .500 win rate. For example: 224 z Matches 75 mirrors 16-58 outside of mirrors. It wouldn't quite be this drastic because there would be less zvz mirrors due to less games played by zerg (only 19.5% of games played were zerg). However, this also means that terrans stats would be Even higher than what I suggested due to more TvT's than any other mirror.
I might have made a mistake, it's late here, if you find one point it out and I'll fix with an edit.
Once the mirror matches are removed, the results will be more shocking. Remember, mirror matches make the number closer to 50%. Therefore, the Terran numbers will be boosted while the zerg numbers will decrease. The toss numbers will decrease a little as well.
Although numbers/stats like this should not be a major factor when it comes to balancing, these numbers should indeed cause all those "It's a 50/50 matchup!" people to shut up. Finally there's a good and pretty reliable reference we can copy and paste now.
One problem (that I've been reading/skimmed) however is the lack of the asian server/asian tourneys, which may scew these numbers even more...it may make the numbers worse, or it may cause the numbers to be more even...If someone can clear this up, that would be great!
On August 19 2010 07:07 ChickenLips wrote: Stats = useless
The game is way too young and the strategies are by no means anywhere near refined enough to allow these kinds of statistics to have much if any meaning. If you want to discuss TvZ or whatever imbalance use rational arguments and not statistics that are only based on the status quo that is subject to ever-lasting change.
Time is on Terran's side with this "ever-lasting change" you speak of, IMO. Terran strategies have much more room to evolve and many more tools to evolve with than Z.
Unfortunately, methinks the situation will only get worse here on out. = (
And what give Terrans the time to use their many early offensive strategies? Yes, you guessed it ... THE TINY BLIZZARD MAPS! The whole supposed imbalance issue is not about the units and their abilities, it is only about the maps which are small enough to make very very early cheesy rushes viable and which negate the disadvantages of an immobile army. Thats why Scrap Station is so Zerg favored ... very long walkway until you open up the path ... and for early rushes this walkway isnt open.
On August 20 2010 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:Each mirror adds 3 wins and 3 losses (or, I suppose, 2 wins and 2 losses if there are BO3's). There is no way for the win/loss ratio for a mirror game to not be 1:1 since when one T wins the other has to lose. Unless T is so imbalanced that they can somehow skip past this rule of numbers.
So your example of 500 T mirrors to the totals adds 1500 wins and 1500 losses which brings it to 1793 wins 1747 losses which is significantly closer to 50% (50.x% I think, just looking at it)
Out of 3,800 views congratulations on being the only one so completely sure of a bad assumption.
Where is the bad assumption?
Well he changed the wording of the post, before he changed it what you just said was an assumption that it would be 3-3. It actually said 2-1 before and it sounded like he was adding 2 wins and 1 loss for a 2-1 mirror.
I don't see how anyone can look at these stats and say that everything is fine. I had a feeling after watching the results of alot of cups lately that it would be skewed towards terran.. But not by this much.. Take out mirror matches and it'll be even worse.
On August 20 2010 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:Each mirror adds 3 wins and 3 losses (or, I suppose, 2 wins and 2 losses if there are BO3's). There is no way for the win/loss ratio for a mirror game to not be 1:1 since when one T wins the other has to lose. Unless T is so imbalanced that they can somehow skip past this rule of numbers.
So your example of 500 T mirrors to the totals adds 1500 wins and 1500 losses which brings it to 1793 wins 1747 losses which is significantly closer to 50% (50.x% I think, just looking at it)
Out of 3,800 views congratulations on being the only one so completely sure of a bad assumption.
Where is the bad assumption?
Well he changed the wording of the post, before he changed it what you just said was an assumption that it would be 3-3. It actually said 2-1 before and it sounded like he was adding 2 wins and 1 loss for a 2-1 mirror.
By the time I had read the first post it was already changed to 3-3.
ok we removed all mirror matches from the stats page and my coder just confirmed that he will add PvZ, PvT and ZvT as seperate ranking boxes + we will have stats for each patch and archive all data so you will have a overall stat page and then 1 additional dropdown box to see the stats of a one single patch
I don't understand what's the point of adding mirror matches to the win ratio other than to mess it up?
To the OP:
Let's say Terran is in games played without mirror matches
Wins 1250 Losses 1000
That's 55.5% win ratio.
But if you for some reason want to add 500 mirror matches to that (don't know why because everyone knows they're always 50%)
It would become
W 1750 L 1500
Which is 53.8%
So, i ask, what's the point of adding mirror matches to the statistics? Adding them will put win ratio closer to 50% changing the information that's being presented, skweing the results making it seem more balanced. Take them out and you'll see the real win ratio.
Thanks for updating the mirror thing. This passes the feel test to me, 40% win rate for Zerg at high play levels sounds about right given their current issues. Shouldn't take very many balance changes to get that closer to 50%.
well it was just "easier" for the coder to add All matches (means also mirrors) and the natural thing to do. He s not an SC2 expert so we had to tell him to exclude them and now its done
On August 19 2010 07:07 ChickenLips wrote: Stats = useless
The game is way too young and the strategies are by no means anywhere near refined enough to allow these kinds of statistics to have much if any meaning. If you want to discuss TvZ or whatever imbalance use rational arguments and not statistics that are only based on the status quo that is subject to ever-lasting change.
Generally this would make sense, but when the stats match up exactly with what the community has been saying, something's probably up.
your welcome - we will have a huge update once all SC2CL 1v1s are added, right now we are only 2 ppl in the staff and i have to work until 7pm each day so its hard to keep up right now
On September 10 2010 18:41 Tak3r wrote: your welcome - we will have a huge update once all SC2CL 1v1s are added, right now we are only 2 ppl in the staff and i have to work until 7pm each day so its hard to keep up right now
Are you including Korean tournaments aswell?(GSL, Playxp, Gomtv show matchs, GSL qualifiers?)
Can you breakdown the results by matchup stats aswell, I mean you guys have the data already.
know what would fix the lack of zerg placement? make the metabolic boost wings allow speed zerglings to have a short ranged super hop or fly ability.10 pool speed rush to hop cliffs into min lines? yes.
On August 19 2010 06:52 Lunares wrote: Shows that while there probably is a imbalance towards terran it isn't really that large.
It is interesting to note how many more games terran has. Since this is quarters some might say that terran is imba getting there, I personally think it is just more terrans entering tournaments.
Couldn't it possibly be that more terrans are entering tournaments because Terran is imbalanced?
But the winrate is lower then that of toss. Imo, people just like to bandwagon a race to whine about. Terran isn't perfect, but it isn't really that bad.
And coming from a Zerg player, T is 90% fine, P is gay, and Z is a tiny bit under powered.
I don't know, yeah stats are pretty useless by themselves, but when people pull these from all kinds of different places in different systems (tournaments + ladder and ladder analyzed in different way) and they all come up with the same results (zerg very UP, terran very OP, protoss slightly OP) it's hard to discount these stats.
it's like when somebody wants to analyze how many fishes are in the sea and goes looking on the beach next to his house, sees no fish at all and concludes that fish have become extinct. of course that's bullshit. but now people from other places get worried and do the same thing in local lakes, at their beaches and even on open the open sea and with submarines in the ocean and they all can't find any fish. kind of looks like fish are really extinct after all, even though a few of those EVIL LOW APM NO MULTITASKING fish hunters argue that it's all a lie and in reality there are still fish we just have to look harder or wait for the "metasea" to evolve until new fish show up :D
On September 10 2010 20:17 Geo.Rion wrote: i m shocked Terran is only at 56%, are you sure about that? It seemed to me every random cup i tuned in to watch was almost all terran towards the end
Exactly. Terrans beating Terrans does nothing for their win %.
On September 10 2010 18:41 Tak3r wrote: your welcome - we will have a huge update once all SC2CL 1v1s are added, right now we are only 2 ppl in the staff and i have to work until 7pm each day so its hard to keep up right now
Are you including Korean tournaments aswell?(GSL, Playxp, Gomtv show matchs, GSL qualifiers?)
Can you breakdown the results by matchup stats aswell, I mean you guys have the data already.
Yes we do include korean games, showgames only if its a really big one or if money is involved. GSL is in and also the WTA garimto takedown, the other WTA league will be added soon. Can you give me a bracket link / info link to the Playxp stuff please? We will add it add later then.
Right now we are just 2 ppl so we try to get the current stuff going well - maybe some of you guys are interested to join our site - check out this News then
On August 19 2010 07:30 Necrosjef wrote: Zerg espicially have hit the ceiling for getting better I think, I doubt there is much more strategies out there that no one has considered yet.
This is where I disagree with most of the people on these boards. Everybody dismisses some of Zerg's more creative options as "gimmicky," but I feel like movement while burrowed and nydus play is still largely untapped potential.
Look at how much the magic box changed the metagame in ZvT! Look how much of an impact reapers have had on the same matchup, too. Back at release, mech was the answer to all Zerg's threats, and now most T go bio (and it's only 2 months later).
Think how much the game could change in 6 months. There's a lot of units in the Zerg arsenal that don't see much use. I rarely see hydralisks in ZvT and I rarely see banelings in ZvP. I doubt that's because those units are completely ineffective in those matchups -- instead, I bet it's because nobody has innovated a way (yet) to make them effective in the current metagame. That doesn't mean it'll never happen, though.
On September 10 2010 18:41 Tak3r wrote: your welcome - we will have a huge update once all SC2CL 1v1s are added, right now we are only 2 ppl in the staff and i have to work until 7pm each day so its hard to keep up right now
Are you including Korean tournaments aswell?(GSL, Playxp, Gomtv show matchs, GSL qualifiers?)
Can you breakdown the results by matchup stats aswell, I mean you guys have the data already.
ah didnt read the 2nd part sorry: as i said before we will break them up into the matchups - coderj ust has lotsof work to do right now :o
EPT
Thanks!
