|
On April 09 2011 09:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 06:04 hugman wrote:On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm. I agree that Zerg just feels weak, but I don't think Zerg is broken like IdrA suggests. Lets do some reverse psychology though, instead of arguing over whether or not the game is imbalanced we could discuss if we could give Zerg something that would make the game more balanced. For example: roaches were ridiculous in the beta with their 1-food 2-armor and Organic Carapace, but they were hit by the nerf hammer like few other units. Would making them 1.5 supply make the game more balanced? Also, personally I think Corruptors are just so stupid. It's probably the unit with the least uses in the entire game, and as a dedicated AA unit it still loses to a lot of other AA units that have more utility. It only exists to kill Colossi, but it's not even good at it. Vikings take up the same supply, are 25 Gas cheaper, have 50% more range and 33% more DPS against Colossi (10% more if you take Corruption into account). So you need more Corruptors than T needs Vikings, you need more supply in workers than T (because of mules and needing to stay ahead in bases) but all your ground units are less supply efficient. There are of course other things to consider in an actual game, but still =X. Corruptors are a good unit that lack any viable use in ZvT and ZvP. They were plainly meant to counter massive units. The problem is they don't counter any other air units in general. Vikings can kite them for eternity; phoenixes just run away; void rays slaughter them with superior DPS and bonus damage against armor; banshees run away and have cloak; ravens are safe with PDD; medivacs don't roam around by themselves. At the highest levels of play massive air units simply not worth the cost and build time to build in bulk, while Colossi are always with the main army. At least Vikings can land if your army is outnumbered but Corruptors? They don't seem to fit into a composition: you either make enough for the sole purpose of taking out one unit (Colossi) or you overmake them for guaranteed victory.
I'd very much like to know how a 2.75 speed unit can kite a 2.95 speed unit "for eternity".
|
United States15275 Posts
On April 09 2011 09:30 Nimic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 09:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On April 09 2011 06:04 hugman wrote:On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm. I agree that Zerg just feels weak, but I don't think Zerg is broken like IdrA suggests. Lets do some reverse psychology though, instead of arguing over whether or not the game is imbalanced we could discuss if we could give Zerg something that would make the game more balanced. For example: roaches were ridiculous in the beta with their 1-food 2-armor and Organic Carapace, but they were hit by the nerf hammer like few other units. Would making them 1.5 supply make the game more balanced? Also, personally I think Corruptors are just so stupid. It's probably the unit with the least uses in the entire game, and as a dedicated AA unit it still loses to a lot of other AA units that have more utility. It only exists to kill Colossi, but it's not even good at it. Vikings take up the same supply, are 25 Gas cheaper, have 50% more range and 33% more DPS against Colossi (10% more if you take Corruption into account). So you need more Corruptors than T needs Vikings, you need more supply in workers than T (because of mules and needing to stay ahead in bases) but all your ground units are less supply efficient. There are of course other things to consider in an actual game, but still =X. Corruptors are a good unit that lack any viable use in ZvT and ZvP. They were plainly meant to counter massive units. The problem is they don't counter any other air units in general. Vikings can kite them for eternity; phoenixes just run away; void rays slaughter them with superior DPS and bonus damage against armor; banshees run away and have cloak; ravens are safe with PDD; medivacs don't roam around by themselves. At the highest levels of play massive air units simply not worth the cost and build time to build in bulk, while Colossi are always with the main army. At least Vikings can land if your army is outnumbered but Corruptors? They don't seem to fit into a composition: you either make enough for the sole purpose of taking out one unit (Colossi) or you overmake them for guaranteed victory. I'd very much like to know how a 2.75 speed unit can kite a 2.95 speed unit "for eternity".
Over-exaggeration on my part. Still, with roughly equal speed and far superior range, vikings are much more efficient at killing corruptors than vice versa. You will reach them eventually if you just A+move your corruptors, but you will lose too many to justify it. And unlike chargelots-marines, corruptors are not especially deadly when they can attack. Their DPS is pitiful.
|
On April 09 2011 09:25 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:On April 09 2011 02:50 flowSthead wrote:
So I am addressing all Zergs and non-Zergs that believe there is an imbalance in the game with this question: What will it take for you to believe that there is not an imbalance?
This is somewhat of a loaded question so I will unpack it a bit. There are two ways to approach this question: The first from the standpoint that the game is currently imbalanced, and the second that the game is balanced. Looking at it from the first standpoint, what specific changes need to be made to make the game more balanced? Is it a few minor changes, buffs to certain zerg units, nerfs to certain protoss units, or are you looking for larger changes? What happens if Zerg gets these changes and yet Zergs keep on losing? Is the game still imbalanced?
The last two questions will make more sense when we view the original question from the standpoint of the game being relatively balanced. So again, What will it take for Zergs to not view the game as imbalanced? Is there a specific percentage of wins that Zergs need to have among pros? Do they have to win a certain number of tournaments? If Zergs make up 75% of the next GSL but a Protoss wins, is ZvP still imbalanced? What if the opposite were true?
For me, this is not even an issue of comparing it to the time it took in BroodWar for builds to be found, but for the short time that statistical data has been around, assuming that one is using statistical data and not just "I feel that game is broken". In 9 months time, how many tournaments have there been and how many pro games, as opposed to in BroodWar? In 9 months time, how many of those match ups were changed because of patches? Has there really been a good say 6 month period of time where a person can objectively look at the data, without new patches, and say "look, Zergs are only winning 35% of the time against Protoss, the imbalance is clear".
So again, what specific set of circumstances will convince a Zerg that the game is balanced?
P.S. If you do not have an answer to this question, then you should not be whining about imbalance. Just saying that specific strategies do not work or feel weak against a Protoss is not a legitimate, logical answer. You are merely sidestepping the real issue. The issue here is what are the necessary characteristics of the game being balanced. If it is a 50% win/loss ratio, then I would argue that no Zerg player can make the statement that the game is or is not balanced when there was a patch less than a month ago. Put simply, I'll accept Zerg is not underpowered when Zerg starts preforming equally to the other races in tournaments. I don't think its a matter of skill. There's no reason players like Slush, Idra, Morrow, Sen, Ret, and Dimaga shouldn't be finding the same success as Terran and Protoss players, but theyre not. When we actually see Zerg representation at the highest level, and Zerg tournament wins are on par with Terran and Protoss wins I'll accept Zerg is fine. So far tournament results have basically been a Zerg scattered here and there among a sea of Protoss and Terran finding success. Keep in mind I'm talking about even results over time. Yes there are going to be stretches where a race finds something new and start winning for a while until players adapt (like the mech switch in BW TvZ recently) but ultimately things should be relatively even. Since the game came out all I've seen is the basic pattern of: 1. Protoss and Terran finding something that works better than what was previously common against Zerg 2. Zerg winrates drop sharply for a while. 3. Either Zerg figure out some way to not flat out die(ex. burrow timings against 6-gate) or Blizzard patches the problem (ex. roach range increase). 4. As a result, Zerg winrate goes up slightly, but never above 50%. 5. Protoss or Terran finds a new thing that works really well, and the cycle repeats. It's never been Zerg coming up with something and other races having to adapt. You can either pin this on Zerg being inherently shit and having bad tools to work with or just the reactive nature of the race. Either way, there's a clear discrepancy right now between Zerg win rates and success in high level tournaments and the other races. Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm. Don't think that is quite true, with the win/loss part. At the time 1.3 was going to be released, Naniwa leaked a bunch of stuff that shouldn't have been leaked, including win/loss rates of "top EU players" (w.e that means), it showed that the top EU Zerg averaged a 55% win ratio against top EU Protoss...
It's been discussed to death but ladder winrates, even at masters level or w/e, aren't all that useful. Tournament results have told a much different story.
|
A true Zerg player will argue that Zerg is underpowered until they are overpowered. (More wins = profit)
That being said. I find the whole race of Zerg feels weak and fragile. It feels like the only way you can win is by throwing a shitton inadequate units at your opponent. A bit like the Soviet army in WW2, but without T-34s.
|
On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 02:50 flowSthead wrote:
So I am addressing all Zergs and non-Zergs that believe there is an imbalance in the game with this question: What will it take for you to believe that there is not an imbalance?
This is somewhat of a loaded question so I will unpack it a bit. There are two ways to approach this question: The first from the standpoint that the game is currently imbalanced, and the second that the game is balanced. Looking at it from the first standpoint, what specific changes need to be made to make the game more balanced? Is it a few minor changes, buffs to certain zerg units, nerfs to certain protoss units, or are you looking for larger changes? What happens if Zerg gets these changes and yet Zergs keep on losing? Is the game still imbalanced?
The last two questions will make more sense when we view the original question from the standpoint of the game being relatively balanced. So again, What will it take for Zergs to not view the game as imbalanced? Is there a specific percentage of wins that Zergs need to have among pros? Do they have to win a certain number of tournaments? If Zergs make up 75% of the next GSL but a Protoss wins, is ZvP still imbalanced? What if the opposite were true?
For me, this is not even an issue of comparing it to the time it took in BroodWar for builds to be found, but for the short time that statistical data has been around, assuming that one is using statistical data and not just "I feel that game is broken". In 9 months time, how many tournaments have there been and how many pro games, as opposed to in BroodWar? In 9 months time, how many of those match ups were changed because of patches? Has there really been a good say 6 month period of time where a person can objectively look at the data, without new patches, and say "look, Zergs are only winning 35% of the time against Protoss, the imbalance is clear".
So again, what specific set of circumstances will convince a Zerg that the game is balanced?
P.S. If you do not have an answer to this question, then you should not be whining about imbalance. Just saying that specific strategies do not work or feel weak against a Protoss is not a legitimate, logical answer. You are merely sidestepping the real issue. The issue here is what are the necessary characteristics of the game being balanced. If it is a 50% win/loss ratio, then I would argue that no Zerg player can make the statement that the game is or is not balanced when there was a patch less than a month ago. Put simply, I'll accept Zerg is not underpowered when Zerg starts preforming equally to the other races in tournaments. I don't think its a matter of skill. There's no reason players like Slush, Idra, Morrow, Sen, Ret, and Dimaga shouldn't be finding the same success as Terran and Protoss players, but theyre not. When we actually see Zerg representation at the highest level, and Zerg tournament wins are on par with Terran and Protoss wins I'll accept Zerg is fine. So far tournament results have basically been a Zerg scattered here and there among a sea of Protoss and Terran finding success. Keep in mind I'm talking about even results over time. Yes there are going to be stretches where a race finds something new and start winning for a while until players adapt (like the mech switch in BW TvZ recently) but ultimately things should be relatively even. Since the game came out all I've seen is the basic pattern of: 1. Protoss and Terran finding something that works better than what was previously common against Zerg 2. Zerg winrates drop sharply for a while. 3. Either Zerg figure out some way to not flat out die(ex. burrow timings against 6-gate) or Blizzard patches the problem (ex. roach range increase). 4. As a result, Zerg winrate goes up slightly, but never above 50%. 5. Protoss or Terran finds a new thing that works really well, and the cycle repeats. It's never been Zerg coming up with something and other races having to adapt. You can either pin this on Zerg being inherently shit and having bad tools to work with or just the reactive nature of the race. Either way, there's a clear discrepancy right now between Zerg win rates and success in high level tournaments and the other races. Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm.
Fair enough. So let us look at some results.
GSL1 and GSL2 were both Zerg wins, but most people think these were too long ago, so let's ignore those.
GSL3 Zerg were knocked out in the round of 8. PvZ win statistic accourding to liquipedia is 53.3%.
January Code S, Zerg made it to the round of 4, Protoss did not. PvZ is 45.5%.
January Code A, Zerg and Protoss made it to round of 8. PvZ is a ridiculous 80% (only 5 games played).
March Code S, Zerg made it to the final match and lost, Statistics are not updated on liquipedia for PvZ for Code S, but we can see that Zerg beat Protoss 4 times in the group play and Protoss beat Zergs 4 times in group play. Equal amounts. Round of 16, 2 protoss take out 2 zergs. Round of 4 One zerg beats one protoss. Finals, One protoss beats one Zerg. PvZ is probably over 50% for Protoss, but not significantly more.
March Code A, Zerg won finals. PvZ is 52.9%
IEM Season V. Global Challenge Cologne, Zerg in final Match.
American Championship, Zerg did not even make it to round of 4, only one protoss did.
European Championship, Only 4 Zergs participated, and did not make it out of group stage.
Southeast Asian Championship, Zerg won.
IEM World Championship, Zerg made it to the final round.
IEM seems more Terran favored in general, but a Zerg did make it to the final round.
Looking at the GSL though, Zergs are doing fine against PvZ statistically. The fact that a Zerg has not won the whole thing (at least in Code S) since GSL2, is more that individual players have not won since then, not that Zergs are doing predominantly worse than Protoss.
Are there other tournaments you can give me information on that show Zergs doing substantially worse?
Looking at the GSL predominantly, Zergs are not doing significantly worse against Protoss. It is fairly even, which according to your criteria suggests that perhaps there is no imbalance. Including IEM, Zergs seem to be doing worse against Terran.
GSL 3 had way more Zerg than Protoss, with Protoss just having a phenomenal 62.5% win rate against Terran and Terran having a 57% win rate against Zerg, thus it seems like Protoss is dominating Zergs.
Code S January, equal number of Zerg and Protoss, Zerg makes it farther.
Code A, January, equal number of Zerg and Protoss, both make it to round of 8, and lose to Terrans. Code A statistics favors protoss at 80%, but only 5 games played. TvZ is an even 50%, and PvT is a phenomenal 21.1% out of 19 games, favoring Terran.
Code S March, one less Zerg than Protoss and make it to the final round.
Code A March, more Zergs than Protoss, and wins.
There are predominantly more Terrans overall in the GSL than both Zerg and Protoss, but individual Protoss have been doing well (MC). Zergs overall are not doing worse in GSL than Protoss.
This is basically my point. All of the things that Idra was saying, were things that he feels are happening with the game, not the actual "State of the Game". That could be because Idra himself is in a slight slump in regards with how he plays against Protoss. The actual statistics, and Zerg performance in tournaments, does not seem to back this up.
|
If you have a favorite Zerg besides nestea then there's an interview somewhere of them complaining about ZvP. It's not just Idra.
I say besides Nestea because I don't think i've ever seen him talk about his thoughts on the state of the game.
|
On April 09 2011 12:19 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:On April 09 2011 02:50 flowSthead wrote:
So I am addressing all Zergs and non-Zergs that believe there is an imbalance in the game with this question: What will it take for you to believe that there is not an imbalance?
This is somewhat of a loaded question so I will unpack it a bit. There are two ways to approach this question: The first from the standpoint that the game is currently imbalanced, and the second that the game is balanced. Looking at it from the first standpoint, what specific changes need to be made to make the game more balanced? Is it a few minor changes, buffs to certain zerg units, nerfs to certain protoss units, or are you looking for larger changes? What happens if Zerg gets these changes and yet Zergs keep on losing? Is the game still imbalanced?
The last two questions will make more sense when we view the original question from the standpoint of the game being relatively balanced. So again, What will it take for Zergs to not view the game as imbalanced? Is there a specific percentage of wins that Zergs need to have among pros? Do they have to win a certain number of tournaments? If Zergs make up 75% of the next GSL but a Protoss wins, is ZvP still imbalanced? What if the opposite were true?
For me, this is not even an issue of comparing it to the time it took in BroodWar for builds to be found, but for the short time that statistical data has been around, assuming that one is using statistical data and not just "I feel that game is broken". In 9 months time, how many tournaments have there been and how many pro games, as opposed to in BroodWar? In 9 months time, how many of those match ups were changed because of patches? Has there really been a good say 6 month period of time where a person can objectively look at the data, without new patches, and say "look, Zergs are only winning 35% of the time against Protoss, the imbalance is clear".
So again, what specific set of circumstances will convince a Zerg that the game is balanced?
P.S. If you do not have an answer to this question, then you should not be whining about imbalance. Just saying that specific strategies do not work or feel weak against a Protoss is not a legitimate, logical answer. You are merely sidestepping the real issue. The issue here is what are the necessary characteristics of the game being balanced. If it is a 50% win/loss ratio, then I would argue that no Zerg player can make the statement that the game is or is not balanced when there was a patch less than a month ago. Put simply, I'll accept Zerg is not underpowered when Zerg starts preforming equally to the other races in tournaments. I don't think its a matter of skill. There's no reason players like Slush, Idra, Morrow, Sen, Ret, and Dimaga shouldn't be finding the same success as Terran and Protoss players, but theyre not. When we actually see Zerg representation at the highest level, and Zerg tournament wins are on par with Terran and Protoss wins I'll accept Zerg is fine. So far tournament results have basically been a Zerg scattered here and there among a sea of Protoss and Terran finding success. Keep in mind I'm talking about even results over time. Yes there are going to be stretches where a race finds something new and start winning for a while until players adapt (like the mech switch in BW TvZ recently) but ultimately things should be relatively even. Since the game came out all I've seen is the basic pattern of: 1. Protoss and Terran finding something that works better than what was previously common against Zerg 2. Zerg winrates drop sharply for a while. 3. Either Zerg figure out some way to not flat out die(ex. burrow timings against 6-gate) or Blizzard patches the problem (ex. roach range increase). 4. As a result, Zerg winrate goes up slightly, but never above 50%. 5. Protoss or Terran finds a new thing that works really well, and the cycle repeats. It's never been Zerg coming up with something and other races having to adapt. You can either pin this on Zerg being inherently shit and having bad tools to work with or just the reactive nature of the race. Either way, there's a clear discrepancy right now between Zerg win rates and success in high level tournaments and the other races. Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm. Fair enough. So let us look at some results. GSL1 and GSL2 were both Zerg wins, but most people think these were too long ago, so let's ignore those. GSL3 Zerg were knocked out in the round of 8. PvZ win statistic accourding to liquipedia is 53.3%. January Code S, Zerg made it to the round of 4, Protoss did not. PvZ is 45.5%. January Code A, Zerg and Protoss made it to round of 8. PvZ is a ridiculous 80% (only 5 games played). March Code S, Zerg made it to the final match and lost, Statistics are not updated on liquipedia for PvZ for Code S, but we can see that Zerg beat Protoss 4 times in the group play and Protoss beat Zergs 4 times in group play. Equal amounts. Round of 16, 2 protoss take out 2 zergs. Round of 4 One zerg beats one protoss. Finals, One protoss beats one Zerg. PvZ is probably over 50% for Protoss, but not significantly more. March Code A, Zerg won finals. PvZ is 52.9% IEM Season V. Global Challenge Cologne, Zerg in final Match. American Championship, Zerg did not even make it to round of 4, only one protoss did. European Championship, Only 4 Zergs participated, and did not make it out of group stage. Southeast Asian Championship, Zerg won. IEM World Championship, Zerg made it to the final round. IEM seems more Terran favored in general, but a Zerg did make it to the final round. Looking at the GSL though, Zergs are doing fine against PvZ statistically. The fact that a Zerg has not won the whole thing (at least in Code S) since GSL2, is more that individual players have not won since then, not that Zergs are doing predominantly worse than Protoss. Are there other tournaments you can give me information on that show Zergs doing substantially worse? Looking at the GSL predominantly, Zergs are not doing significantly worse against Protoss. It is fairly even, which according to your criteria suggests that perhaps there is no imbalance. Including IEM, Zergs seem to be doing worse against Terran. GSL 3 had way more Zerg than Protoss, with Protoss just having a phenomenal 62.5% win rate against Terran and Terran having a 57% win rate against Zerg, thus it seems like Protoss is dominating Zergs. Code S January, equal number of Zerg and Protoss, Zerg makes it farther. Code A, January, equal number of Zerg and Protoss, both make it to round of 8, and lose to Terrans. Code A statistics favors protoss at 80%, but only 5 games played. TvZ is an even 50%, and PvT is a phenomenal 21.1% out of 19 games, favoring Terran. Code S March, one less Zerg than Protoss and make it to the final round. Code A March, more Zergs than Protoss, and wins. There are predominantly more Terrans overall in the GSL than both Zerg and Protoss, but individual Protoss have been doing well (MC). Zergs overall are not doing worse in GSL than Protoss. This is basically my point. All of the things that Idra was saying, were things that he feels are happening with the game, not the actual "State of the Game". That could be because Idra himself is in a slight slump in regards with how he plays against Protoss. The actual statistics, and Zerg performance in tournaments, does not seem to back this up.
Look at :
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagues
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues
|
On April 09 2011 12:34 AssuredVacancy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 12:19 flowSthead wrote:On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:On April 09 2011 02:50 flowSthead wrote:
So I am addressing all Zergs and non-Zergs that believe there is an imbalance in the game with this question: What will it take for you to believe that there is not an imbalance?
This is somewhat of a loaded question so I will unpack it a bit. There are two ways to approach this question: The first from the standpoint that the game is currently imbalanced, and the second that the game is balanced. Looking at it from the first standpoint, what specific changes need to be made to make the game more balanced? Is it a few minor changes, buffs to certain zerg units, nerfs to certain protoss units, or are you looking for larger changes? What happens if Zerg gets these changes and yet Zergs keep on losing? Is the game still imbalanced?
The last two questions will make more sense when we view the original question from the standpoint of the game being relatively balanced. So again, What will it take for Zergs to not view the game as imbalanced? Is there a specific percentage of wins that Zergs need to have among pros? Do they have to win a certain number of tournaments? If Zergs make up 75% of the next GSL but a Protoss wins, is ZvP still imbalanced? What if the opposite were true?
For me, this is not even an issue of comparing it to the time it took in BroodWar for builds to be found, but for the short time that statistical data has been around, assuming that one is using statistical data and not just "I feel that game is broken". In 9 months time, how many tournaments have there been and how many pro games, as opposed to in BroodWar? In 9 months time, how many of those match ups were changed because of patches? Has there really been a good say 6 month period of time where a person can objectively look at the data, without new patches, and say "look, Zergs are only winning 35% of the time against Protoss, the imbalance is clear".
So again, what specific set of circumstances will convince a Zerg that the game is balanced?
P.S. If you do not have an answer to this question, then you should not be whining about imbalance. Just saying that specific strategies do not work or feel weak against a Protoss is not a legitimate, logical answer. You are merely sidestepping the real issue. The issue here is what are the necessary characteristics of the game being balanced. If it is a 50% win/loss ratio, then I would argue that no Zerg player can make the statement that the game is or is not balanced when there was a patch less than a month ago. Put simply, I'll accept Zerg is not underpowered when Zerg starts preforming equally to the other races in tournaments. I don't think its a matter of skill. There's no reason players like Slush, Idra, Morrow, Sen, Ret, and Dimaga shouldn't be finding the same success as Terran and Protoss players, but theyre not. When we actually see Zerg representation at the highest level, and Zerg tournament wins are on par with Terran and Protoss wins I'll accept Zerg is fine. So far tournament results have basically been a Zerg scattered here and there among a sea of Protoss and Terran finding success. Keep in mind I'm talking about even results over time. Yes there are going to be stretches where a race finds something new and start winning for a while until players adapt (like the mech switch in BW TvZ recently) but ultimately things should be relatively even. Since the game came out all I've seen is the basic pattern of: 1. Protoss and Terran finding something that works better than what was previously common against Zerg 2. Zerg winrates drop sharply for a while. 3. Either Zerg figure out some way to not flat out die(ex. burrow timings against 6-gate) or Blizzard patches the problem (ex. roach range increase). 4. As a result, Zerg winrate goes up slightly, but never above 50%. 5. Protoss or Terran finds a new thing that works really well, and the cycle repeats. It's never been Zerg coming up with something and other races having to adapt. You can either pin this on Zerg being inherently shit and having bad tools to work with or just the reactive nature of the race. Either way, there's a clear discrepancy right now between Zerg win rates and success in high level tournaments and the other races. Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm. Fair enough. So let us look at some results. GSL1 and GSL2 were both Zerg wins, but most people think these were too long ago, so let's ignore those. GSL3 Zerg were knocked out in the round of 8. PvZ win statistic accourding to liquipedia is 53.3%. January Code S, Zerg made it to the round of 4, Protoss did not. PvZ is 45.5%. January Code A, Zerg and Protoss made it to round of 8. PvZ is a ridiculous 80% (only 5 games played). March Code S, Zerg made it to the final match and lost, Statistics are not updated on liquipedia for PvZ for Code S, but we can see that Zerg beat Protoss 4 times in the group play and Protoss beat Zergs 4 times in group play. Equal amounts. Round of 16, 2 protoss take out 2 zergs. Round of 4 One zerg beats one protoss. Finals, One protoss beats one Zerg. PvZ is probably over 50% for Protoss, but not significantly more. March Code A, Zerg won finals. PvZ is 52.9% IEM Season V. Global Challenge Cologne, Zerg in final Match. American Championship, Zerg did not even make it to round of 4, only one protoss did. European Championship, Only 4 Zergs participated, and did not make it out of group stage. Southeast Asian Championship, Zerg won. IEM World Championship, Zerg made it to the final round. IEM seems more Terran favored in general, but a Zerg did make it to the final round. Looking at the GSL though, Zergs are doing fine against PvZ statistically. The fact that a Zerg has not won the whole thing (at least in Code S) since GSL2, is more that individual players have not won since then, not that Zergs are doing predominantly worse than Protoss. Are there other tournaments you can give me information on that show Zergs doing substantially worse? Looking at the GSL predominantly, Zergs are not doing significantly worse against Protoss. It is fairly even, which according to your criteria suggests that perhaps there is no imbalance. Including IEM, Zergs seem to be doing worse against Terran. GSL 3 had way more Zerg than Protoss, with Protoss just having a phenomenal 62.5% win rate against Terran and Terran having a 57% win rate against Zerg, thus it seems like Protoss is dominating Zergs. Code S January, equal number of Zerg and Protoss, Zerg makes it farther. Code A, January, equal number of Zerg and Protoss, both make it to round of 8, and lose to Terrans. Code A statistics favors protoss at 80%, but only 5 games played. TvZ is an even 50%, and PvT is a phenomenal 21.1% out of 19 games, favoring Terran. Code S March, one less Zerg than Protoss and make it to the final round. Code A March, more Zergs than Protoss, and wins. There are predominantly more Terrans overall in the GSL than both Zerg and Protoss, but individual Protoss have been doing well (MC). Zergs overall are not doing worse in GSL than Protoss. This is basically my point. All of the things that Idra was saying, were things that he feels are happening with the game, not the actual "State of the Game". That could be because Idra himself is in a slight slump in regards with how he plays against Protoss. The actual statistics, and Zerg performance in tournaments, does not seem to back this up. Look at : http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagueshttp://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues
I see a lot of terran in the first one, MC dominating as the only Protos, and more Zergs in general in the finals and runner up.
For the second link there are 4 Protoss over Zerg wins and 4 Zerg over Protoss wins. In general there are 10 Protoss wins and 12 Zerg wins. What is your point?
|
On April 09 2011 12:19 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:On April 09 2011 02:50 flowSthead wrote:
So I am addressing all Zergs and non-Zergs that believe there is an imbalance in the game with this question: What will it take for you to believe that there is not an imbalance?
This is somewhat of a loaded question so I will unpack it a bit. There are two ways to approach this question: The first from the standpoint that the game is currently imbalanced, and the second that the game is balanced. Looking at it from the first standpoint, what specific changes need to be made to make the game more balanced? Is it a few minor changes, buffs to certain zerg units, nerfs to certain protoss units, or are you looking for larger changes? What happens if Zerg gets these changes and yet Zergs keep on losing? Is the game still imbalanced?
The last two questions will make more sense when we view the original question from the standpoint of the game being relatively balanced. So again, What will it take for Zergs to not view the game as imbalanced? Is there a specific percentage of wins that Zergs need to have among pros? Do they have to win a certain number of tournaments? If Zergs make up 75% of the next GSL but a Protoss wins, is ZvP still imbalanced? What if the opposite were true?
For me, this is not even an issue of comparing it to the time it took in BroodWar for builds to be found, but for the short time that statistical data has been around, assuming that one is using statistical data and not just "I feel that game is broken". In 9 months time, how many tournaments have there been and how many pro games, as opposed to in BroodWar? In 9 months time, how many of those match ups were changed because of patches? Has there really been a good say 6 month period of time where a person can objectively look at the data, without new patches, and say "look, Zergs are only winning 35% of the time against Protoss, the imbalance is clear".
So again, what specific set of circumstances will convince a Zerg that the game is balanced?
P.S. If you do not have an answer to this question, then you should not be whining about imbalance. Just saying that specific strategies do not work or feel weak against a Protoss is not a legitimate, logical answer. You are merely sidestepping the real issue. The issue here is what are the necessary characteristics of the game being balanced. If it is a 50% win/loss ratio, then I would argue that no Zerg player can make the statement that the game is or is not balanced when there was a patch less than a month ago. Put simply, I'll accept Zerg is not underpowered when Zerg starts preforming equally to the other races in tournaments. I don't think its a matter of skill. There's no reason players like Slush, Idra, Morrow, Sen, Ret, and Dimaga shouldn't be finding the same success as Terran and Protoss players, but theyre not. When we actually see Zerg representation at the highest level, and Zerg tournament wins are on par with Terran and Protoss wins I'll accept Zerg is fine. So far tournament results have basically been a Zerg scattered here and there among a sea of Protoss and Terran finding success. Keep in mind I'm talking about even results over time. Yes there are going to be stretches where a race finds something new and start winning for a while until players adapt (like the mech switch in BW TvZ recently) but ultimately things should be relatively even. Since the game came out all I've seen is the basic pattern of: 1. Protoss and Terran finding something that works better than what was previously common against Zerg 2. Zerg winrates drop sharply for a while. 3. Either Zerg figure out some way to not flat out die(ex. burrow timings against 6-gate) or Blizzard patches the problem (ex. roach range increase). 4. As a result, Zerg winrate goes up slightly, but never above 50%. 5. Protoss or Terran finds a new thing that works really well, and the cycle repeats. It's never been Zerg coming up with something and other races having to adapt. You can either pin this on Zerg being inherently shit and having bad tools to work with or just the reactive nature of the race. Either way, there's a clear discrepancy right now between Zerg win rates and success in high level tournaments and the other races. Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm. Fair enough. So let us look at some results. GSL1 and GSL2 were both Zerg wins, but most people think these were too long ago, so let's ignore those. GSL3 Zerg were knocked out in the round of 8. PvZ win statistic accourding to liquipedia is 53.3%. January Code S, Zerg made it to the round of 4, Protoss did not. PvZ is 45.5%. January Code A, Zerg and Protoss made it to round of 8. PvZ is a ridiculous 80% (only 5 games played). March Code S, Zerg made it to the final match and lost, Statistics are not updated on liquipedia for PvZ for Code S, but we can see that Zerg beat Protoss 4 times in the group play and Protoss beat Zergs 4 times in group play. Equal amounts. Round of 16, 2 protoss take out 2 zergs. Round of 4 One zerg beats one protoss. Finals, One protoss beats one Zerg. PvZ is probably over 50% for Protoss, but not significantly more. March Code A, Zerg won finals. PvZ is 52.9% IEM Season V. Global Challenge Cologne, Zerg in final Match. American Championship, Zerg did not even make it to round of 4, only one protoss did. European Championship, Only 4 Zergs participated, and did not make it out of group stage. Southeast Asian Championship, Zerg won. IEM World Championship, Zerg made it to the final round. IEM seems more Terran favored in general, but a Zerg did make it to the final round. Looking at the GSL though, Zergs are doing fine against PvZ statistically. The fact that a Zerg has not won the whole thing (at least in Code S) since GSL2, is more that individual players have not won since then, not that Zergs are doing predominantly worse than Protoss. Are there other tournaments you can give me information on that show Zergs doing substantially worse? Looking at the GSL predominantly, Zergs are not doing significantly worse against Protoss. It is fairly even, which according to your criteria suggests that perhaps there is no imbalance. Including IEM, Zergs seem to be doing worse against Terran. GSL 3 had way more Zerg than Protoss, with Protoss just having a phenomenal 62.5% win rate against Terran and Terran having a 57% win rate against Zerg, thus it seems like Protoss is dominating Zergs. Code S January, equal number of Zerg and Protoss, Zerg makes it farther. Code A, January, equal number of Zerg and Protoss, both make it to round of 8, and lose to Terrans. Code A statistics favors protoss at 80%, but only 5 games played. TvZ is an even 50%, and PvT is a phenomenal 21.1% out of 19 games, favoring Terran. Code S March, one less Zerg than Protoss and make it to the final round. Code A March, more Zergs than Protoss, and wins. There are predominantly more Terrans overall in the GSL than both Zerg and Protoss, but individual Protoss have been doing well (MC). Zergs overall are not doing worse in GSL than Protoss. This is basically my point. All of the things that Idra was saying, were things that he feels are happening with the game, not the actual "State of the Game". That could be because Idra himself is in a slight slump in regards with how he plays against Protoss. The actual statistics, and Zerg performance in tournaments, does not seem to back this up.
GSL 1 & 2, although won by a Zerg, were basically dominated by Terrans. Heck, the final 3 of 4 for both were Terran, but as you said the game has changed so much since then that its kind of irrelevant.
GSL3 and really up to the last GSL Protoss wasn't really that amazing. PvZ was still protoss favored but not as much as it is now. The 2 main factors I'd say are 1. the bigger maps, which turn out to be helping toss a lot more and 2. The fact that the GSL 3 stastics are skewed by the roach buff. After the buff a lot of protoss were complainign about PvZ, and it took a while to adapt. You're right in saying that PvZ was showing only slight imbalance up to this point though, but Zerg statistics as a whole were still shit because of how hard ZvT was. It was really the introduction of the big maps, along with a more refined fast expo, new unit compositions, and better forcefield control that have made ZvP a nightmare for Zergs now. I rememeber a thread a few days after the GSL said PvZ winrate for this Code S was ~57%.ZvP is definitely more of a problem now than it was before, and it was still quite tough before.
One interesting point you raise though is PvT statistics that have been kinda swept under the radar. That same thread showed PvT winrate in the last GSL Code S was actually in the low 60% for Protoss....that's quite huge. It's interesting the topic hasn't recived as much discussion as Zerg weakness but yes Protoss are enjoying quite a lot of success vs Terrans, and statistics show the matchup is more skewed than PvZ at the moment. One reason might be because Zerg has been crap since beta, while Terran hasn't struggled for very long. There might still be a lot of new room to explore in TvP, as Terrans havent spent nearly as much time as Zergs being weak and having to reconsider their gameplay.
When Idra was crying imbalance and citing tournament statistics to prove it I don't think he was refering to ZvP neccesarily. Zerg has traditionally struggled much more aganist Terran, and either way statistics show the number of gold silver and bronze medals Zerg players have earned isn't even a fraction of the other races. People now are just focusing more on ZvP to complain about because its become the toughest matchup in the last 3 or so months.
Sorry if my grammar or spelling or coherency is off, its late here and I'm really tired =/
|
On April 09 2011 10:09 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 09:30 Nimic wrote:On April 09 2011 09:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On April 09 2011 06:04 hugman wrote:On April 09 2011 04:11 loveeholicce wrote:Right now, though, I feel (in ZvP at least) that the imbalance has gone beyond being some surprise unit composition or timing attack skewing statistics. Zerg just feels really weak in a normal game, and its units just dont seem to do as much as they need to be legitimate in a lategame situation. Like Idra said, the tools and potential are there but some of them just aren't strong enough atm. I agree that Zerg just feels weak, but I don't think Zerg is broken like IdrA suggests. Lets do some reverse psychology though, instead of arguing over whether or not the game is imbalanced we could discuss if we could give Zerg something that would make the game more balanced. For example: roaches were ridiculous in the beta with their 1-food 2-armor and Organic Carapace, but they were hit by the nerf hammer like few other units. Would making them 1.5 supply make the game more balanced? Also, personally I think Corruptors are just so stupid. It's probably the unit with the least uses in the entire game, and as a dedicated AA unit it still loses to a lot of other AA units that have more utility. It only exists to kill Colossi, but it's not even good at it. Vikings take up the same supply, are 25 Gas cheaper, have 50% more range and 33% more DPS against Colossi (10% more if you take Corruption into account). So you need more Corruptors than T needs Vikings, you need more supply in workers than T (because of mules and needing to stay ahead in bases) but all your ground units are less supply efficient. There are of course other things to consider in an actual game, but still =X. Corruptors are a good unit that lack any viable use in ZvT and ZvP. They were plainly meant to counter massive units. The problem is they don't counter any other air units in general. Vikings can kite them for eternity; phoenixes just run away; void rays slaughter them with superior DPS and bonus damage against armor; banshees run away and have cloak; ravens are safe with PDD; medivacs don't roam around by themselves. At the highest levels of play massive air units simply not worth the cost and build time to build in bulk, while Colossi are always with the main army. At least Vikings can land if your army is outnumbered but Corruptors? They don't seem to fit into a composition: you either make enough for the sole purpose of taking out one unit (Colossi) or you overmake them for guaranteed victory. I'd very much like to know how a 2.75 speed unit can kite a 2.95 speed unit "for eternity". Over-exaggeration on my part. Still, with roughly equal speed and far superior range, vikings are much more efficient at killing corruptors than vice versa. You will reach them eventually if you just A+move your corruptors, but you will lose too many to justify it. And unlike chargelots-marines, corruptors are not especially deadly when they can attack. Their DPS is pitiful.
Without saying that Corruptors are better than Vikings, I'd just like to point out that they have 75 more hp and 2 more armor. People very much like to point out that vikings have better dps and range, and that they can land (however useless they are once they're there), but let's get some perspective here. It doesn't serve anyone, certainly not the debate, to under-represent one side of the argument.
|
On April 08 2011 15:25 BryanSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 13:54 Hashbaz wrote:
Just want to say it's been fantastic having Sean back these past couple of weeks, and at full attention now that his thesis is done. The show was missing something vital without him. Really? Personally I find him to be the one who consistently contributes the least to the show. Perhaps it may feel like he filled a role just because Geoff wasn't there. I'd rather have Idra than Day9 on the show, or at the very least have Idra become a permanent member.
I agree with what someone else wrote that the shows without Day9 tend to become very serious and/or mean. He provides a lot of levity and good-natured trolling, whereas Geoff provides a lot of sarcasm and trolling of questionable intent. They're both fantastic, core aspects of the show, but they fill different roles. I feel like there are fewer moments where they all just lose it and laugh for 30 seconds straight when Day isn't around. Moments like those are what make me truly love this podcast and tune in religiously every week. With Sean missing or mostly asleep/distracted, the show just isn't as good. I do agree however that he contributes less in the way of useful analysis and coherent arguments than say Tyler or Idra. And I would totally love for Idra or Artosis to become a new pillar.
|
On April 09 2011 15:21 Hashbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 15:25 BryanSC wrote:On April 08 2011 13:54 Hashbaz wrote:
Just want to say it's been fantastic having Sean back these past couple of weeks, and at full attention now that his thesis is done. The show was missing something vital without him. Really? Personally I find him to be the one who consistently contributes the least to the show. Perhaps it may feel like he filled a role just because Geoff wasn't there. I'd rather have Idra than Day9 on the show, or at the very least have Idra become a permanent member. I agree with what someone else wrote that the shows without Day9 tend to become very serious and/or mean. He provides a lot of levity and good-natured trolling, whereas Geoff provides a lot of sarcasm and trolling of questionable intent. They're both fantastic, core aspects of the show, but they fill different roles. I feel like there are fewer moments where they all just lose it and laugh for 30 seconds straight when Day isn't around. Moments like those are what make me truly love this podcast and tune in religiously every week. With Sean missing or mostly asleep/distracted, the show just isn't as good. I do agree however that he contributes less in the way of useful analysis and coherent arguments than say Tyler or Idra. And I would totally love for Idra or Artosis to become a new pillar.
That was me  .
What's great about Day 9 is that he's opinionated but doesn't take himself too seriously. And that attitude ends up rubbing off on everyone else.
|
On April 09 2011 16:10 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 15:21 Hashbaz wrote:On April 08 2011 15:25 BryanSC wrote:On April 08 2011 13:54 Hashbaz wrote:
Just want to say it's been fantastic having Sean back these past couple of weeks, and at full attention now that his thesis is done. The show was missing something vital without him. Really? Personally I find him to be the one who consistently contributes the least to the show. Perhaps it may feel like he filled a role just because Geoff wasn't there. I'd rather have Idra than Day9 on the show, or at the very least have Idra become a permanent member. I agree with what someone else wrote that the shows without Day9 tend to become very serious and/or mean. He provides a lot of levity and good-natured trolling, whereas Geoff provides a lot of sarcasm and trolling of questionable intent. They're both fantastic, core aspects of the show, but they fill different roles. I feel like there are fewer moments where they all just lose it and laugh for 30 seconds straight when Day isn't around. Moments like those are what make me truly love this podcast and tune in religiously every week. With Sean missing or mostly asleep/distracted, the show just isn't as good. I do agree however that he contributes less in the way of useful analysis and coherent arguments than say Tyler or Idra. And I would totally love for Idra or Artosis to become a new pillar. That was me . What's great about Day 9 is that he's opinionated but doesn't take himself too seriously. And that attitude ends up rubbing off on everyone else.
I agree. Without Day9 all the shows turned into 2 hour arguments about tournament structure or imbalance, which got tiring. Good points were made but after a point they just start repeating their arguments and it doesn't really get anywhere. To that end, I think JP could to a better job moderating the discussion so that they don't drag out so long; if he moved them along then I think that even the serious discussions would be fine.
|
Love the door analogy, Tyler lol.
Anyone seen some of Spanishiwa's games? Some really crazy strategies there. Cool stuff.
|
United States15275 Posts
On April 09 2011 14:04 Nimic wrote:
Without saying that Corruptors are better than Vikings, I'd just like to point out that they have 75 more hp and 2 more armor. People very much like to point out that vikings have better dps and range, and that they can land (however useless they are once they're there), but let's get some perspective here. It doesn't serve anyone, certainly not the debate, to under-represent one side of the argument.
Vikings have bonus damage against armored units, plus their superior range allows them to target individual corruptors easily. Corruptor armor only really comes into play against massive air units with low-damage rapid attacks, which are what corruptors perfectly counter. I don't have a problem with that but the lack of flexibility in their usefulness bugs me, even more because I really like the concept and really disagree with the aim. It would have been sufficient to make corruptors a dedicated anti-air unit that's good against all air instead of some air that's rarely made.
|
Can't wait for them to discuss TSL on SOTG this week!!!
|
I love day9 back, I almost forgot how much i love that guy.
|
Hi my name is LiquidTyler and I like to talk about other protoss bad play but I finihed 16th at MLg and got 3-0ed by thorzain. But MC play is stil bad.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 10 2011 04:22 DISHU wrote:
Hi my name is LiquidTyler and I like to talk about other protoss bad play but I finihed 16th at MLg and got 3-0ed by thorzain. But MC play is stil bad.
its stupid to say something like this. by your logic nobody can ever judge skill unless they are at least on the same skill level, when anyone that has knowledge of the game can use reasoning to say what a player does bad and does good in a match. tyler is a good player, but that is irrelevant.
|
11589 Posts
On April 10 2011 04:22 DISHU wrote:
Hi my name is LiquidTyler and I like to talk about other protoss bad play but I finihed 16th at MLg and got 3-0ed by thorzain. But MC play is stil bad.
You're a classy one, aren't you?
It doesn't take a GSL winner to see that MC's play is RISKY. He never said he was bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
