|
On April 10 2011 06:18 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 06:07 RogerChillingworth wrote:On April 10 2011 06:06 cyprin wrote:On April 10 2011 06:02 RogerChillingworth wrote:
Does anyone feel like Tyler isn't taking SC2 seriously? That, for a popular player headlining one of the most prestigious teams in the game currently, he isn't living up to what most other players--given the opportunity--would strive for?
I have a feeling that if Tyler's spot on Team Liquid were offered to one of 7 or 8 dedicated, hard working players in the community (who, for instance, aren't sponsored or are sponsored but could be a valuable addition to liquid regardless), we'd see the passion to be the best player he or she could be.
I don't want to get lambasted for calling Tyler out, but I've only chosen to say anything because it seems somewhat clear that his poor performance isn't due to a bad day or temporary slump. It's because he doesn't spend enough time playing the game and, given all the sponsorship and support of the community, it almost feels like a big middle finger to everyone rooting for him, liquid, and the success of e-sports.
Now obviously Tyler is a great guy. He's intelligent, seasoned and is no doubt capable of being a tip-top player. I'm just wondering if he's taking full advantage of this amazing opportunity. .... You realize, I hope, that Tyler was the only Liquid member to win his ro32 match? .......... irrelevant ;\ You are saying that Tyler isn't earning his spot on Team Liquid, when he outperformed every other Liquid member in the most recent tournament. How is it not relevant?
And dont forget that everyone on teamliquid has been "under performing" compared to what we are used to be seeing from them.
|
On April 10 2011 10:33 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 06:18 redux46 wrote: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.
I've taken the ZvP stats from all the GSL events this year http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagues#tblt-8315-1-default-0-gslZvP is 35:52 (40.2%) With a good sample of 87 total games, having a close to 60% win rate implies either on the whole there are better skilled protoss players and/or there is inherent difficulty in the race matchup. Just give some more detail into this let us look at the games more closely. Code S Jan ZvP 6:5 Code A Jan ZvP 1:4 Code S Mar ZvP 9:13 Code A Mar ZvP 8: 9 GSL S1 up/down ZvP 1:6 (Moon loses 4 wins 1, JookTo loses 2) Code A Mar Qualifiers ZvP 4:3 (MinSeOk wins 2, CoCa wins 2 loses 1, SiKaRi loses 2) Code S Mar Wildcard ZvP 2:0 (Jookto wins 2) GSL S2 Up/down ZvP 2:2 (Losira wins 2, Zenio loses 2) Code A May Qualifiers 2:10 (Terious loses 2, Moon loses 2 wins 1, Junwi loses 2, Royal loses 2, Cezanne loses 2 wins 1) Looking only at the actual Code S and Code A we have 24:31 which is 43.6%. Removing the last one which is at 2:10 we get 33:42 which is 44%. This indicates to me, that yes this does seem pretty bad, and it is not only because of one tournament (why I tested removing the last one which is at 2:10). Let's compare PvT: Code S Jan PvT 8:15 Code A Jan PvT 4:15 Code S Mar PvT 18:8 Code A Mar PvT 6: 7 GSL S1 up/down PvT 0:2 Code A Mar Qualifiers PvT 2:2 Code S Mar Wildcard PvT 0:0 GSL S2 Up/down PvT 4:5 Code A May Qualifiers PvT 2:6 Total 44:60 (42.3%) only CodeS/Code A 36:45 (44.4%) This indicates to me that PvT is broken, and Terran should be nerfed. Do you see the flaw in the reasoning? In my original post I included how far Zergs had made it in tournaments, not just the statistical results to show that individual Zergs are doing pretty well. I think although 87 sounds like a lot, and I appreciated that you did the statistical analysis to show that it was significant, you have to remember that this is not 87 different Protoss versus 87 different Zerg. Moon has 8 games in the 87, making his results almost 1/10 of the data. What is good about you actually checking it, shows that my reasoning is flawed as well. I cannot actually claim that ZvP is not doing well, but then neither can Zergs claim that ZvP is broken. We need more data. 87 results, of which a few players make up a lot of it, cannot be enough to get a good read on this. My reasoning depended on how individual Zergs have been doing in tournaments (relatively well although not quite as well compared to individual Protoss, making it just as far most of the time). That is clearly flawed. Your reasoning depended on how Zergs overall are doing, which I think is the better way, but with too few samples. Either way, I don't think calls for balance are justified considering how few games we have to judge it by.
first lets not fight over statistics again, it never ends well.
Second, im going to completely ignore my first statement. There is a big difference between the winrate difference in pvt and pvz, pvt is about 11% (which is still ok), but PvZ is is at 20% (which is a lot bigger.)
|
I think we just need to look at the individual games. Seems like alot of games get lost from information not possible to obtain by the zerg.
For example the 4 gate nexus cancel, if you drone up you die, if you mass units, and they dont cancel at the end, you get behind. Would overlord speed on tier 1 be overpowerd? I dont know, but it would solve alot of the early game trouble zerg has.
I also think corrupters could need a buff streight up. Its so easy to overmake them when opponent has alot of collosus, then colossus dies, protoss doesnt remake em, and you sit there with fuckloads supply in a useless unit. Pheonix and Vikings doesnt have the same problem, we saw that in ThorZain vs Tyler today, vikings on ground was actually not bad at.
|
On April 10 2011 11:20 godemperor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 10:33 flowSthead wrote:On April 10 2011 06:18 redux46 wrote: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.
I've taken the ZvP stats from all the GSL events this year http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagues#tblt-8315-1-default-0-gslZvP is 35:52 (40.2%) With a good sample of 87 total games, having a close to 60% win rate implies either on the whole there are better skilled protoss players and/or there is inherent difficulty in the race matchup. Just give some more detail into this let us look at the games more closely. Code S Jan ZvP 6:5 Code A Jan ZvP 1:4 Code S Mar ZvP 9:13 Code A Mar ZvP 8: 9 GSL S1 up/down ZvP 1:6 (Moon loses 4 wins 1, JookTo loses 2) Code A Mar Qualifiers ZvP 4:3 (MinSeOk wins 2, CoCa wins 2 loses 1, SiKaRi loses 2) Code S Mar Wildcard ZvP 2:0 (Jookto wins 2) GSL S2 Up/down ZvP 2:2 (Losira wins 2, Zenio loses 2) Code A May Qualifiers 2:10 (Terious loses 2, Moon loses 2 wins 1, Junwi loses 2, Royal loses 2, Cezanne loses 2 wins 1) Looking only at the actual Code S and Code A we have 24:31 which is 43.6%. Removing the last one which is at 2:10 we get 33:42 which is 44%. This indicates to me, that yes this does seem pretty bad, and it is not only because of one tournament (why I tested removing the last one which is at 2:10). Let's compare PvT: Code S Jan PvT 8:15 Code A Jan PvT 4:15 Code S Mar PvT 18:8 Code A Mar PvT 6: 7 GSL S1 up/down PvT 0:2 Code A Mar Qualifiers PvT 2:2 Code S Mar Wildcard PvT 0:0 GSL S2 Up/down PvT 4:5 Code A May Qualifiers PvT 2:6 Total 44:60 (42.3%) only CodeS/Code A 36:45 (44.4%) This indicates to me that PvT is broken, and Terran should be nerfed. Do you see the flaw in the reasoning? In my original post I included how far Zergs had made it in tournaments, not just the statistical results to show that individual Zergs are doing pretty well. I think although 87 sounds like a lot, and I appreciated that you did the statistical analysis to show that it was significant, you have to remember that this is not 87 different Protoss versus 87 different Zerg. Moon has 8 games in the 87, making his results almost 1/10 of the data. What is good about you actually checking it, shows that my reasoning is flawed as well. I cannot actually claim that ZvP is not doing well, but then neither can Zergs claim that ZvP is broken. We need more data. 87 results, of which a few players make up a lot of it, cannot be enough to get a good read on this. My reasoning depended on how individual Zergs have been doing in tournaments (relatively well although not quite as well compared to individual Protoss, making it just as far most of the time). That is clearly flawed. Your reasoning depended on how Zergs overall are doing, which I think is the better way, but with too few samples. Either way, I don't think calls for balance are justified considering how few games we have to judge it by. first lets not fight over statistics again, it never ends well. Second, im going to completely ignore my first statement. There is a big difference between the winrate difference in pvt and pvz, pvt is about 11% (which is still ok), but PvZ is is at 20% (which is a lot bigger.)
There wa a huge thread a while back that took the winrates of the top 50 (or 100, i forget) european non Zergs, then compared the overall win rate against their vZ win rate. On average the players' vZ winrates were higher by 7%. I don't really know how much evidence people need. Yes 87 isn't conclusive but its still quite a bit. Small sets of data will never be conclusive, but when they all show the same consistent trend I think you can start to make some reasonable assumptions.Basically all tournament first second and third place statistics show Zergs doing considerably worse than other races. Winrates have almost never shown Zerg winrate above 50% except for maybe a 3 week stretch after a patch like the roach range increase. Zerg has quite a talented player pool, definitely at least equal to that of the other races, yet Zerg hasn't even found a fraction of the success other races have. Several respected pros, including idra, morrow, ret, dimaga, catz and slush have said Zerg is weaker. And yet a majority of people will tell you there's nothing wrong, that Zerg players aren't talented enough, and all the QQ is baseless and irrational. It's so ridiculous, I have no idea what it would take for people to actualy admit that something is wrong.
|
On April 10 2011 14:04 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 11:20 godemperor wrote:On April 10 2011 10:33 flowSthead wrote:On April 10 2011 06:18 redux46 wrote: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.
I've taken the ZvP stats from all the GSL events this year http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagues#tblt-8315-1-default-0-gslZvP is 35:52 (40.2%) With a good sample of 87 total games, having a close to 60% win rate implies either on the whole there are better skilled protoss players and/or there is inherent difficulty in the race matchup. Just give some more detail into this let us look at the games more closely. Code S Jan ZvP 6:5 Code A Jan ZvP 1:4 Code S Mar ZvP 9:13 Code A Mar ZvP 8: 9 GSL S1 up/down ZvP 1:6 (Moon loses 4 wins 1, JookTo loses 2) Code A Mar Qualifiers ZvP 4:3 (MinSeOk wins 2, CoCa wins 2 loses 1, SiKaRi loses 2) Code S Mar Wildcard ZvP 2:0 (Jookto wins 2) GSL S2 Up/down ZvP 2:2 (Losira wins 2, Zenio loses 2) Code A May Qualifiers 2:10 (Terious loses 2, Moon loses 2 wins 1, Junwi loses 2, Royal loses 2, Cezanne loses 2 wins 1) Looking only at the actual Code S and Code A we have 24:31 which is 43.6%. Removing the last one which is at 2:10 we get 33:42 which is 44%. This indicates to me, that yes this does seem pretty bad, and it is not only because of one tournament (why I tested removing the last one which is at 2:10). Let's compare PvT: Code S Jan PvT 8:15 Code A Jan PvT 4:15 Code S Mar PvT 18:8 Code A Mar PvT 6: 7 GSL S1 up/down PvT 0:2 Code A Mar Qualifiers PvT 2:2 Code S Mar Wildcard PvT 0:0 GSL S2 Up/down PvT 4:5 Code A May Qualifiers PvT 2:6 Total 44:60 (42.3%) only CodeS/Code A 36:45 (44.4%) This indicates to me that PvT is broken, and Terran should be nerfed. Do you see the flaw in the reasoning? In my original post I included how far Zergs had made it in tournaments, not just the statistical results to show that individual Zergs are doing pretty well. I think although 87 sounds like a lot, and I appreciated that you did the statistical analysis to show that it was significant, you have to remember that this is not 87 different Protoss versus 87 different Zerg. Moon has 8 games in the 87, making his results almost 1/10 of the data. What is good about you actually checking it, shows that my reasoning is flawed as well. I cannot actually claim that ZvP is not doing well, but then neither can Zergs claim that ZvP is broken. We need more data. 87 results, of which a few players make up a lot of it, cannot be enough to get a good read on this. My reasoning depended on how individual Zergs have been doing in tournaments (relatively well although not quite as well compared to individual Protoss, making it just as far most of the time). That is clearly flawed. Your reasoning depended on how Zergs overall are doing, which I think is the better way, but with too few samples. Either way, I don't think calls for balance are justified considering how few games we have to judge it by. first lets not fight over statistics again, it never ends well. Second, im going to completely ignore my first statement. There is a big difference between the winrate difference in pvt and pvz, pvt is about 11% (which is still ok), but PvZ is is at 20% (which is a lot bigger.) There wa a huge thread a while back that took the winrates of the top 50 (or 100, i forget) european non Zergs, then compared the overall win rate against their vZ win rate. On average the players' vZ winrates were higher by 7%. I don't really know how much evidence people need. Yes 87 isn't conclusive but its still quite a bit. Small sets of data will never be conclusive, but when they all show the same consistent trend I think you can start to make some reasonable assumptions.Basically all tournament first second and third place statistics show Zergs doing considerably worse than other races. Winrates have almost never shown Zerg winrate above 50% except for maybe a 3 week stretch after a patch like the roach range increase. Zerg has quite a talented player pool, definitely at least equal to that of the other races, yet Zerg hasn't even found a fraction of the success other races have. Several respected pros, including idra, morrow, ret, dimaga, catz and slush have said Zerg is weaker. And yet a majority of people will tell you there's nothing wrong, that Zerg players aren't talented enough, and all the QQ is baseless and irrational. It's so ridiculous, I have no idea what it would take for people to actualy admit that something is wrong.
A few seasons of zerg not going to the finals in the GSL would be the first step towards a concensus that something is wrong imo. In a season where the GSL finals are PvZ and the WC is + Show Spoiler + it's hard to convince most reasonable folk that zerg are "obviously so underpowered that a balance patch is needed".
|
On April 10 2011 14:40 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 14:04 loveeholicce wrote:On April 10 2011 11:20 godemperor wrote:On April 10 2011 10:33 flowSthead wrote:On April 10 2011 06:18 redux46 wrote: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.
I've taken the ZvP stats from all the GSL events this year http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagues#tblt-8315-1-default-0-gslZvP is 35:52 (40.2%) With a good sample of 87 total games, having a close to 60% win rate implies either on the whole there are better skilled protoss players and/or there is inherent difficulty in the race matchup. Just give some more detail into this let us look at the games more closely. Code S Jan ZvP 6:5 Code A Jan ZvP 1:4 Code S Mar ZvP 9:13 Code A Mar ZvP 8: 9 GSL S1 up/down ZvP 1:6 (Moon loses 4 wins 1, JookTo loses 2) Code A Mar Qualifiers ZvP 4:3 (MinSeOk wins 2, CoCa wins 2 loses 1, SiKaRi loses 2) Code S Mar Wildcard ZvP 2:0 (Jookto wins 2) GSL S2 Up/down ZvP 2:2 (Losira wins 2, Zenio loses 2) Code A May Qualifiers 2:10 (Terious loses 2, Moon loses 2 wins 1, Junwi loses 2, Royal loses 2, Cezanne loses 2 wins 1) Looking only at the actual Code S and Code A we have 24:31 which is 43.6%. Removing the last one which is at 2:10 we get 33:42 which is 44%. This indicates to me, that yes this does seem pretty bad, and it is not only because of one tournament (why I tested removing the last one which is at 2:10). Let's compare PvT: Code S Jan PvT 8:15 Code A Jan PvT 4:15 Code S Mar PvT 18:8 Code A Mar PvT 6: 7 GSL S1 up/down PvT 0:2 Code A Mar Qualifiers PvT 2:2 Code S Mar Wildcard PvT 0:0 GSL S2 Up/down PvT 4:5 Code A May Qualifiers PvT 2:6 Total 44:60 (42.3%) only CodeS/Code A 36:45 (44.4%) This indicates to me that PvT is broken, and Terran should be nerfed. Do you see the flaw in the reasoning? In my original post I included how far Zergs had made it in tournaments, not just the statistical results to show that individual Zergs are doing pretty well. I think although 87 sounds like a lot, and I appreciated that you did the statistical analysis to show that it was significant, you have to remember that this is not 87 different Protoss versus 87 different Zerg. Moon has 8 games in the 87, making his results almost 1/10 of the data. What is good about you actually checking it, shows that my reasoning is flawed as well. I cannot actually claim that ZvP is not doing well, but then neither can Zergs claim that ZvP is broken. We need more data. 87 results, of which a few players make up a lot of it, cannot be enough to get a good read on this. My reasoning depended on how individual Zergs have been doing in tournaments (relatively well although not quite as well compared to individual Protoss, making it just as far most of the time). That is clearly flawed. Your reasoning depended on how Zergs overall are doing, which I think is the better way, but with too few samples. Either way, I don't think calls for balance are justified considering how few games we have to judge it by. first lets not fight over statistics again, it never ends well. Second, im going to completely ignore my first statement. There is a big difference between the winrate difference in pvt and pvz, pvt is about 11% (which is still ok), but PvZ is is at 20% (which is a lot bigger.) There wa a huge thread a while back that took the winrates of the top 50 (or 100, i forget) european non Zergs, then compared the overall win rate against their vZ win rate. On average the players' vZ winrates were higher by 7%. I don't really know how much evidence people need. Yes 87 isn't conclusive but its still quite a bit. Small sets of data will never be conclusive, but when they all show the same consistent trend I think you can start to make some reasonable assumptions.Basically all tournament first second and third place statistics show Zergs doing considerably worse than other races. Winrates have almost never shown Zerg winrate above 50% except for maybe a 3 week stretch after a patch like the roach range increase. Zerg has quite a talented player pool, definitely at least equal to that of the other races, yet Zerg hasn't even found a fraction of the success other races have. Several respected pros, including idra, morrow, ret, dimaga, catz and slush have said Zerg is weaker. And yet a majority of people will tell you there's nothing wrong, that Zerg players aren't talented enough, and all the QQ is baseless and irrational. It's so ridiculous, I have no idea what it would take for people to actualy admit that something is wrong. A few seasons of zerg not going to the finals in the GSL would be the first step towards a concensus that something is wrong imo. In a season where the GSL finals are PvZ and the WC is + Show Spoiler + it's hard to convince most reasonable folk that zerg are "obviously so underpowered that a balance patch is needed".
The quoted statistic isn't really indicative of anything, because ZvZ and ZvP/vT are two separate things. The win rate could be due to imbalance, or it could be because the way zergs are playing vs other zergs makes sense, or at least everything is doing the same type of things so they'll take around an equal number of games off each other. vT or vP there's the possibility that the lower winrate isn't due to imbalance but because the way zergs are playing in those specific matchups could be better, or that they "haven't figured it out yet", but the way the current game is balanced it's possible to do so.
Basically, that statistic is meaningless because vZ and vP/vT are two separate things, so looking at the win rates and comparing them to each other doesn't make sense because there are other variables other than imbalance that could account for the different winrates.
|
On April 10 2011 14:04 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 11:20 godemperor wrote:On April 10 2011 10:33 flowSthead wrote:On April 10 2011 06:18 redux46 wrote: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.
I've taken the ZvP stats from all the GSL events this year http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagues#tblt-8315-1-default-0-gslZvP is 35:52 (40.2%) With a good sample of 87 total games, having a close to 60% win rate implies either on the whole there are better skilled protoss players and/or there is inherent difficulty in the race matchup. Just give some more detail into this let us look at the games more closely. Code S Jan ZvP 6:5 Code A Jan ZvP 1:4 Code S Mar ZvP 9:13 Code A Mar ZvP 8: 9 GSL S1 up/down ZvP 1:6 (Moon loses 4 wins 1, JookTo loses 2) Code A Mar Qualifiers ZvP 4:3 (MinSeOk wins 2, CoCa wins 2 loses 1, SiKaRi loses 2) Code S Mar Wildcard ZvP 2:0 (Jookto wins 2) GSL S2 Up/down ZvP 2:2 (Losira wins 2, Zenio loses 2) Code A May Qualifiers 2:10 (Terious loses 2, Moon loses 2 wins 1, Junwi loses 2, Royal loses 2, Cezanne loses 2 wins 1) Looking only at the actual Code S and Code A we have 24:31 which is 43.6%. Removing the last one which is at 2:10 we get 33:42 which is 44%. This indicates to me, that yes this does seem pretty bad, and it is not only because of one tournament (why I tested removing the last one which is at 2:10). Let's compare PvT: Code S Jan PvT 8:15 Code A Jan PvT 4:15 Code S Mar PvT 18:8 Code A Mar PvT 6: 7 GSL S1 up/down PvT 0:2 Code A Mar Qualifiers PvT 2:2 Code S Mar Wildcard PvT 0:0 GSL S2 Up/down PvT 4:5 Code A May Qualifiers PvT 2:6 Total 44:60 (42.3%) only CodeS/Code A 36:45 (44.4%) This indicates to me that PvT is broken, and Terran should be nerfed. Do you see the flaw in the reasoning? In my original post I included how far Zergs had made it in tournaments, not just the statistical results to show that individual Zergs are doing pretty well. I think although 87 sounds like a lot, and I appreciated that you did the statistical analysis to show that it was significant, you have to remember that this is not 87 different Protoss versus 87 different Zerg. Moon has 8 games in the 87, making his results almost 1/10 of the data. What is good about you actually checking it, shows that my reasoning is flawed as well. I cannot actually claim that ZvP is not doing well, but then neither can Zergs claim that ZvP is broken. We need more data. 87 results, of which a few players make up a lot of it, cannot be enough to get a good read on this. My reasoning depended on how individual Zergs have been doing in tournaments (relatively well although not quite as well compared to individual Protoss, making it just as far most of the time). That is clearly flawed. Your reasoning depended on how Zergs overall are doing, which I think is the better way, but with too few samples. Either way, I don't think calls for balance are justified considering how few games we have to judge it by. first lets not fight over statistics again, it never ends well. Second, im going to completely ignore my first statement. There is a big difference between the winrate difference in pvt and pvz, pvt is about 11% (which is still ok), but PvZ is is at 20% (which is a lot bigger.) There wa a huge thread a while back that took the winrates of the top 50 (or 100, i forget) european non Zergs, then compared the overall win rate against their vZ win rate. On average the players' vZ winrates were higher by 7%. I don't really know how much evidence people need. Yes 87 isn't conclusive but its still quite a bit. Small sets of data will never be conclusive, but when they all show the same consistent trend I think you can start to make some reasonable assumptions.Basically all tournament first second and third place statistics show Zergs doing considerably worse than other races. Winrates have almost never shown Zerg winrate above 50% except for maybe a 3 week stretch after a patch like the roach range increase. Zerg has quite a talented player pool, definitely at least equal to that of the other races, yet Zerg hasn't even found a fraction of the success other races have. Several respected pros, including idra, morrow, ret, dimaga, catz and slush have said Zerg is weaker. And yet a majority of people will tell you there's nothing wrong, that Zerg players aren't talented enough, and all the QQ is baseless and irrational. It's so ridiculous, I have no idea what it would take for people to actualy admit that something is wrong.
The problem is that a large portion of people don't believe Zerg is UP because they see the same thing from Zerg 99% of games, and that thing doesn't actually work. If you see 99% of Zerg play greedy-macro heavy, wait till 200/200, then let their opponent get to 200/200 on tech units while the Zerg is on mostly-roaches, you're going to conclude Zerg is doing something wrong.
I'm not saying they are, I'm saying what opinion people form based on experience. Every ladder game you play that the Zerg does the exact same thing, that loses, and loses reinforces the opinion that all Zerg are uncreative. This isn't true, but it's what people will see.
Likewise, every time they lose a game to Zerg doing something creative, they'll remember how they lost, and will think that it is due to the Zerg's creativity. It's a bit of a self-repeating cycle - you lose to strategies you are unprepared for, so believe that the strategies you lost to are good. Every time you beat a Zerg player doing the standard, you'll think he could have won using the creative strategy. As such, you dismiss Zerg whining as baseless QQ because you imagine the QQing Zergs to be the ones who do the basic strategy, and the silent ones being the ones who do something creative.
The other races all feel that they had to overcome adversity at some point to get to the skill that they are at. Protoss players have to learn to forcefield very well, very early, or lose to Terran 3-rax all-ins. Terran have to learn to micro multiple drops at once to fight the lategame of Zerg and Protoss. However, the other races accomplishments in this regard are not immediately obvious to one race. I had to think about it for about ten minutes to come up with something Terran had to learn. As such, the other races won't see what Zerg had to overcome as easily as Zerg does - they simply see it as Zerg refusing to learn to overcome adversity and begging for Blizzard to fix it.
Finally, the major (foreigner) representative of the Zerg race is known for being outspoken in his balance opinions. The quotes that most people bandy about of his are things such as "making carriers is a good skill toi have" and "apologize for playing that race." Although I know IdrA is not hyper-aggressive and rude to his fellow players outside of the game, this makes most people see him as someone who cannot see the flaws in his own play, and must blame the game. People often see the race as the extension of a major representative of it. While MC is dominating, people assume that all Protoss are the way he is - slightly arrogant and relying on strong all-in plays to win. The same is true of IdrA for Zerg, as he is such a prominent member of the community.
It's not fair, but thats how people think about it. The best way to get people to acknowledge Z is UP is, ironically, to stop telling people it's UP. Telling people that Zerg is weak simply reinforces the stereotype that Zerg plays are whining.
|
On April 10 2011 14:40 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 14:04 loveeholicce wrote:On April 10 2011 11:20 godemperor wrote:On April 10 2011 10:33 flowSthead wrote:On April 10 2011 06:18 redux46 wrote: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.
I've taken the ZvP stats from all the GSL events this year http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagues#tblt-8315-1-default-0-gslZvP is 35:52 (40.2%) With a good sample of 87 total games, having a close to 60% win rate implies either on the whole there are better skilled protoss players and/or there is inherent difficulty in the race matchup. Just give some more detail into this let us look at the games more closely. Code S Jan ZvP 6:5 Code A Jan ZvP 1:4 Code S Mar ZvP 9:13 Code A Mar ZvP 8: 9 GSL S1 up/down ZvP 1:6 (Moon loses 4 wins 1, JookTo loses 2) Code A Mar Qualifiers ZvP 4:3 (MinSeOk wins 2, CoCa wins 2 loses 1, SiKaRi loses 2) Code S Mar Wildcard ZvP 2:0 (Jookto wins 2) GSL S2 Up/down ZvP 2:2 (Losira wins 2, Zenio loses 2) Code A May Qualifiers 2:10 (Terious loses 2, Moon loses 2 wins 1, Junwi loses 2, Royal loses 2, Cezanne loses 2 wins 1) Looking only at the actual Code S and Code A we have 24:31 which is 43.6%. Removing the last one which is at 2:10 we get 33:42 which is 44%. This indicates to me, that yes this does seem pretty bad, and it is not only because of one tournament (why I tested removing the last one which is at 2:10). Let's compare PvT: Code S Jan PvT 8:15 Code A Jan PvT 4:15 Code S Mar PvT 18:8 Code A Mar PvT 6: 7 GSL S1 up/down PvT 0:2 Code A Mar Qualifiers PvT 2:2 Code S Mar Wildcard PvT 0:0 GSL S2 Up/down PvT 4:5 Code A May Qualifiers PvT 2:6 Total 44:60 (42.3%) only CodeS/Code A 36:45 (44.4%) This indicates to me that PvT is broken, and Terran should be nerfed. Do you see the flaw in the reasoning? In my original post I included how far Zergs had made it in tournaments, not just the statistical results to show that individual Zergs are doing pretty well. I think although 87 sounds like a lot, and I appreciated that you did the statistical analysis to show that it was significant, you have to remember that this is not 87 different Protoss versus 87 different Zerg. Moon has 8 games in the 87, making his results almost 1/10 of the data. What is good about you actually checking it, shows that my reasoning is flawed as well. I cannot actually claim that ZvP is not doing well, but then neither can Zergs claim that ZvP is broken. We need more data. 87 results, of which a few players make up a lot of it, cannot be enough to get a good read on this. My reasoning depended on how individual Zergs have been doing in tournaments (relatively well although not quite as well compared to individual Protoss, making it just as far most of the time). That is clearly flawed. Your reasoning depended on how Zergs overall are doing, which I think is the better way, but with too few samples. Either way, I don't think calls for balance are justified considering how few games we have to judge it by. first lets not fight over statistics again, it never ends well. Second, im going to completely ignore my first statement. There is a big difference between the winrate difference in pvt and pvz, pvt is about 11% (which is still ok), but PvZ is is at 20% (which is a lot bigger.) There wa a huge thread a while back that took the winrates of the top 50 (or 100, i forget) european non Zergs, then compared the overall win rate against their vZ win rate. On average the players' vZ winrates were higher by 7%. I don't really know how much evidence people need. Yes 87 isn't conclusive but its still quite a bit. Small sets of data will never be conclusive, but when they all show the same consistent trend I think you can start to make some reasonable assumptions.Basically all tournament first second and third place statistics show Zergs doing considerably worse than other races. Winrates have almost never shown Zerg winrate above 50% except for maybe a 3 week stretch after a patch like the roach range increase. Zerg has quite a talented player pool, definitely at least equal to that of the other races, yet Zerg hasn't even found a fraction of the success other races have. Several respected pros, including idra, morrow, ret, dimaga, catz and slush have said Zerg is weaker. And yet a majority of people will tell you there's nothing wrong, that Zerg players aren't talented enough, and all the QQ is baseless and irrational. It's so ridiculous, I have no idea what it would take for people to actualy admit that something is wrong. A few seasons of zerg not going to the finals in the GSL would be the first step towards a concensus that something is wrong imo. In a season where the GSL finals are PvZ and the WC is + Show Spoiler + it's hard to convince most reasonable folk that zerg are "obviously so underpowered that a balance patch is needed".
Zergs in the GSL not stating that they would like to play against protoss might also do something for your argument.
|
On April 10 2011 14:04 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 11:20 godemperor wrote:On April 10 2011 10:33 flowSthead wrote:On April 10 2011 06:18 redux46 wrote: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.
I've taken the ZvP stats from all the GSL events this year http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagues#tblt-8315-1-default-0-gslZvP is 35:52 (40.2%) With a good sample of 87 total games, having a close to 60% win rate implies either on the whole there are better skilled protoss players and/or there is inherent difficulty in the race matchup. Just give some more detail into this let us look at the games more closely. Code S Jan ZvP 6:5 Code A Jan ZvP 1:4 Code S Mar ZvP 9:13 Code A Mar ZvP 8: 9 GSL S1 up/down ZvP 1:6 (Moon loses 4 wins 1, JookTo loses 2) Code A Mar Qualifiers ZvP 4:3 (MinSeOk wins 2, CoCa wins 2 loses 1, SiKaRi loses 2) Code S Mar Wildcard ZvP 2:0 (Jookto wins 2) GSL S2 Up/down ZvP 2:2 (Losira wins 2, Zenio loses 2) Code A May Qualifiers 2:10 (Terious loses 2, Moon loses 2 wins 1, Junwi loses 2, Royal loses 2, Cezanne loses 2 wins 1) Looking only at the actual Code S and Code A we have 24:31 which is 43.6%. Removing the last one which is at 2:10 we get 33:42 which is 44%. This indicates to me, that yes this does seem pretty bad, and it is not only because of one tournament (why I tested removing the last one which is at 2:10). Let's compare PvT: Code S Jan PvT 8:15 Code A Jan PvT 4:15 Code S Mar PvT 18:8 Code A Mar PvT 6: 7 GSL S1 up/down PvT 0:2 Code A Mar Qualifiers PvT 2:2 Code S Mar Wildcard PvT 0:0 GSL S2 Up/down PvT 4:5 Code A May Qualifiers PvT 2:6 Total 44:60 (42.3%) only CodeS/Code A 36:45 (44.4%) This indicates to me that PvT is broken, and Terran should be nerfed. Do you see the flaw in the reasoning? In my original post I included how far Zergs had made it in tournaments, not just the statistical results to show that individual Zergs are doing pretty well. I think although 87 sounds like a lot, and I appreciated that you did the statistical analysis to show that it was significant, you have to remember that this is not 87 different Protoss versus 87 different Zerg. Moon has 8 games in the 87, making his results almost 1/10 of the data. What is good about you actually checking it, shows that my reasoning is flawed as well. I cannot actually claim that ZvP is not doing well, but then neither can Zergs claim that ZvP is broken. We need more data. 87 results, of which a few players make up a lot of it, cannot be enough to get a good read on this. My reasoning depended on how individual Zergs have been doing in tournaments (relatively well although not quite as well compared to individual Protoss, making it just as far most of the time). That is clearly flawed. Your reasoning depended on how Zergs overall are doing, which I think is the better way, but with too few samples. Either way, I don't think calls for balance are justified considering how few games we have to judge it by. first lets not fight over statistics again, it never ends well. Second, im going to completely ignore my first statement. There is a big difference between the winrate difference in pvt and pvz, pvt is about 11% (which is still ok), but PvZ is is at 20% (which is a lot bigger.) There wa a huge thread a while back that took the winrates of the top 50 (or 100, i forget) european non Zergs, then compared the overall win rate against their vZ win rate. On average the players' vZ winrates were higher by 7%. I don't really know how much evidence people need. Yes 87 isn't conclusive but its still quite a bit. Small sets of data will never be conclusive, but when they all show the same consistent trend I think you can start to make some reasonable assumptions.Basically all tournament first second and third place statistics show Zergs doing considerably worse than other races. Winrates have almost never shown Zerg winrate above 50% except for maybe a 3 week stretch after a patch like the roach range increase. Zerg has quite a talented player pool, definitely at least equal to that of the other races, yet Zerg hasn't even found a fraction of the success other races have. Several respected pros, including idra, morrow, ret, dimaga, catz and slush have said Zerg is weaker. And yet a majority of people will tell you there's nothing wrong, that Zerg players aren't talented enough, and all the QQ is baseless and irrational. It's so ridiculous, I have no idea what it would take for people to actualy admit that something is wrong.
Can you point me to the thread? I'd like to see the data for myself.
My issue isn't with the idea that Zerg players are not talented or not, but it is with the irrationality of it all. Just because Idra, Morrow, Ret, Dimaga, Catz and Slush all say the same thing, it does not make it true. And their "feelings" about it are irrelevant. This really has little do with theorycrafting or the opinions of pros. Balance is about the actuality separated from individual personality. Large amounts of small sets of data may indeed be conclusive, but I have yet to see this large amount of small sets of data. For that matter, if all of those small sets are from the same 20 players, how conclusive can they really be?
To give an ok comparison, if I and 30 other people were to tell you that Christmas is one of the most depressing times of the year, and the most suicides happen on that day, does that make it true? What if I worked in a hospital and I saw a lot of suicides on Christmas, does that make it true? No, it does not. It means my particular hospital might have more suicides on Christmas, or because Christmas is an odd time for me to work, I remember them more clearly. (For reference, the actual data suggests suicides are at their lowest on Christmas).
The reason people keep on bringing up Idra's mindset, is exactly because regardless of Idra's winrate against Protoss, he has the idea that he cannot win in his mind. Examples where he wins he will remember less often than examples when he losses. I believe this is an example of selection bias? (Don't quote me on that, I can't remember my psych classes that well). It's some kind of bias.
Looking at Idra's data from teamliquid.net, he has a Korean winrate in SC2 of 66.67% against Protoss (this data I believe is old) for Standard leagues and a winrate of 60% against Protoss when special events and offline are included.
For Idra the international player (newer data in other words) he has a winrate of 54.05% against P for standard leagues and a winrate of 52.17% including special events and offline.
This last part does not include MLG Dallas info, where he is 0-2 versus Kiwikaki, 2-0 versus Socke, 1-2 the first time versus Huk, and then 3-0 versus huk the second time. Overall he is 6-4 against Protoss at MLG, which still keeps him positive.
The issue is that his winrates against Terran and Zerg are higher than his winrates against Protoss. This means that he will naturally feel that Protoss is harder than Terran and Zerg.
All of the people you mentioned, this according to teamliquid.net data, have positive winrates against Protoss (except for Slush who is at an even 50.00% winrate).
For Catz, it's his highest winrate. Morrow it is in the middle. Dimaga it is his lowest. SLush is in the middle. Ret is in the middle as well.
If indeed Zerg is weaker, then all of these players must be substantially better than their Protoss counterparts if they all have winrates above 50%. I don't think that is a defensible thesis.
Again though, even looking at just these players, I cannot conclusively say that there is no balance issue. I cannot say that the game is perfectly balanced, or that it is imbalanced. All I can say, is that I would like more data, and I honestly do not care to hear that yet another Zerg pro thinks the game is imbalanced. I don't even care if a random, or terran, or protoss pro thinks the game is balanced. Their perspective is just that, a personal perspective. I mean, how does one even argue that they are working harder and expending more energy and work into getting their wins? That would be the argument against the statistics, that the statistics do not show the imbalance because they work that much harder against Protoss. How does one even argue that they work harder versus Protoss? Because the mechanics are different? The mechanics have to be different, that is what makes the races different.
If you read this entire post, then I would like to remind you that I would like you to point me to the thread you mentioned about the top European pros and their winrates. I am curious to look at the data.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
actually idra lost 2-1 the first time around (idra 2 huk 1) ^_^
|
On April 10 2011 14:59 iNcontroL wrote:
actually idra lost 2-1 the first time around (idra 2 huk 1) ^_^
That's what I said? He won 1, and Huk won 2? I'm confused.
Edit: P.S. I think it's awesome Incontrol responded to me, even if it was for a correction? I don't care <3.
|
Do you guys think Bisu's back?
|
On April 10 2011 15:13 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 14:59 iNcontroL wrote:
actually idra lost 2-1 the first time around (idra 2 huk 1) ^_^ That's what I said? He won 1, and Huk won 2? I'm confused. Edit: P.S. I think it's awesome Incontrol responded to me, even if it was for a correction? I don't care <3.
he's making reference to the hallucination game, he's implying that IdrA would have won had he not left the game.
|
On April 10 2011 14:58 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 14:04 loveeholicce wrote:On April 10 2011 11:20 godemperor wrote:On April 10 2011 10:33 flowSthead wrote:On April 10 2011 06:18 redux46 wrote: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.
I've taken the ZvP stats from all the GSL events this year http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagues#tblt-8315-1-default-0-gslZvP is 35:52 (40.2%) With a good sample of 87 total games, having a close to 60% win rate implies either on the whole there are better skilled protoss players and/or there is inherent difficulty in the race matchup. Just give some more detail into this let us look at the games more closely. Code S Jan ZvP 6:5 Code A Jan ZvP 1:4 Code S Mar ZvP 9:13 Code A Mar ZvP 8: 9 GSL S1 up/down ZvP 1:6 (Moon loses 4 wins 1, JookTo loses 2) Code A Mar Qualifiers ZvP 4:3 (MinSeOk wins 2, CoCa wins 2 loses 1, SiKaRi loses 2) Code S Mar Wildcard ZvP 2:0 (Jookto wins 2) GSL S2 Up/down ZvP 2:2 (Losira wins 2, Zenio loses 2) Code A May Qualifiers 2:10 (Terious loses 2, Moon loses 2 wins 1, Junwi loses 2, Royal loses 2, Cezanne loses 2 wins 1) Looking only at the actual Code S and Code A we have 24:31 which is 43.6%. Removing the last one which is at 2:10 we get 33:42 which is 44%. This indicates to me, that yes this does seem pretty bad, and it is not only because of one tournament (why I tested removing the last one which is at 2:10). Let's compare PvT: Code S Jan PvT 8:15 Code A Jan PvT 4:15 Code S Mar PvT 18:8 Code A Mar PvT 6: 7 GSL S1 up/down PvT 0:2 Code A Mar Qualifiers PvT 2:2 Code S Mar Wildcard PvT 0:0 GSL S2 Up/down PvT 4:5 Code A May Qualifiers PvT 2:6 Total 44:60 (42.3%) only CodeS/Code A 36:45 (44.4%) This indicates to me that PvT is broken, and Terran should be nerfed. Do you see the flaw in the reasoning? In my original post I included how far Zergs had made it in tournaments, not just the statistical results to show that individual Zergs are doing pretty well. I think although 87 sounds like a lot, and I appreciated that you did the statistical analysis to show that it was significant, you have to remember that this is not 87 different Protoss versus 87 different Zerg. Moon has 8 games in the 87, making his results almost 1/10 of the data. What is good about you actually checking it, shows that my reasoning is flawed as well. I cannot actually claim that ZvP is not doing well, but then neither can Zergs claim that ZvP is broken. We need more data. 87 results, of which a few players make up a lot of it, cannot be enough to get a good read on this. My reasoning depended on how individual Zergs have been doing in tournaments (relatively well although not quite as well compared to individual Protoss, making it just as far most of the time). That is clearly flawed. Your reasoning depended on how Zergs overall are doing, which I think is the better way, but with too few samples. Either way, I don't think calls for balance are justified considering how few games we have to judge it by. first lets not fight over statistics again, it never ends well. Second, im going to completely ignore my first statement. There is a big difference between the winrate difference in pvt and pvz, pvt is about 11% (which is still ok), but PvZ is is at 20% (which is a lot bigger.) There wa a huge thread a while back that took the winrates of the top 50 (or 100, i forget) european non Zergs, then compared the overall win rate against their vZ win rate. On average the players' vZ winrates were higher by 7%. I don't really know how much evidence people need. Yes 87 isn't conclusive but its still quite a bit. Small sets of data will never be conclusive, but when they all show the same consistent trend I think you can start to make some reasonable assumptions.Basically all tournament first second and third place statistics show Zergs doing considerably worse than other races. Winrates have almost never shown Zerg winrate above 50% except for maybe a 3 week stretch after a patch like the roach range increase. Zerg has quite a talented player pool, definitely at least equal to that of the other races, yet Zerg hasn't even found a fraction of the success other races have. Several respected pros, including idra, morrow, ret, dimaga, catz and slush have said Zerg is weaker. And yet a majority of people will tell you there's nothing wrong, that Zerg players aren't talented enough, and all the QQ is baseless and irrational. It's so ridiculous, I have no idea what it would take for people to actualy admit that something is wrong. Can you point me to the thread? I'd like to see the data for myself. My issue isn't with the idea that Zerg players are not talented or not, but it is with the irrationality of it all. Just because Idra, Morrow, Ret, Dimaga, Catz and Slush all say the same thing, it does not make it true. And their "feelings" about it are irrelevant. This really has little do with theorycrafting or the opinions of pros. Balance is about the actuality separated from individual personality. Large amounts of small sets of data may indeed be conclusive, but I have yet to see this large amount of small sets of data. For that matter, if all of those small sets are from the same 20 players, how conclusive can they really be? To give an ok comparison, if I and 30 other people were to tell you that Christmas is one of the most depressing times of the year, and the most suicides happen on that day, does that make it true? What if I worked in a hospital and I saw a lot of suicides on Christmas, does that make it true? No, it does not. It means my particular hospital might have more suicides on Christmas, or because Christmas is an odd time for me to work, I remember them more clearly. (For reference, the actual data suggests suicides are at their lowest on Christmas). The reason people keep on bringing up Idra's mindset, is exactly because regardless of Idra's winrate against Protoss, he has the idea that he cannot win in his mind. Examples where he wins he will remember less often than examples when he losses. I believe this is an example of selection bias? (Don't quote me on that, I can't remember my psych classes that well). It's some kind of bias. Looking at Idra's data from teamliquid.net, he has a Korean winrate in SC2 of 66.67% against Protoss (this data I believe is old) for Standard leagues and a winrate of 60% against Protoss when special events and offline are included. For Idra the international player (newer data in other words) he has a winrate of 54.05% against P for standard leagues and a winrate of 52.17% including special events and offline. This last part does not include MLG Dallas info, where he is 0-2 versus Kiwikaki, 2-0 versus Socke, 1-2 the first time versus Huk, and then 3-0 versus huk the second time. Overall he is 6-4 against Protoss at MLG, which still keeps him positive. The issue is that his winrates against Terran and Zerg are higher than his winrates against Protoss. This means that he will naturally feel that Protoss is harder than Terran and Zerg. All of the people you mentioned, this according to teamliquid.net data, have positive winrates against Protoss (except for Slush who is at an even 50.00% winrate). For Catz, it's his highest winrate. Morrow it is in the middle. Dimaga it is his lowest. SLush is in the middle. Ret is in the middle as well. If indeed Zerg is weaker, then all of these players must be substantially better than their Protoss counterparts if they all have winrates above 50%. I don't think that is a defensible thesis. Again though, even looking at just these players, I cannot conclusively say that there is no balance issue. I cannot say that the game is perfectly balanced, or that it is imbalanced. All I can say, is that I would like more data, and I honestly do not care to hear that yet another Zerg pro thinks the game is imbalanced. I don't even care if a random, or terran, or protoss pro thinks the game is balanced. Their perspective is just that, a personal perspective. I mean, how does one even argue that they are working harder and expending more energy and work into getting their wins? That would be the argument against the statistics, that the statistics do not show the imbalance because they work that much harder against Protoss. How does one even argue that they work harder versus Protoss? Because the mechanics are different? The mechanics have to be different, that is what makes the races different. If you read this entire post, then I would like to remind you that I would like you to point me to the thread you mentioned about the top European pros and their winrates. I am curious to look at the data.
God, I hope people read your post. :|
|
On April 10 2011 14:58 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 14:40 Treehead wrote:On April 10 2011 14:04 loveeholicce wrote:On April 10 2011 11:20 godemperor wrote:On April 10 2011 10:33 flowSthead wrote:On April 10 2011 06:18 redux46 wrote: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.
I've taken the ZvP stats from all the GSL events this year http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagues#tblt-8315-1-default-0-gslZvP is 35:52 (40.2%) With a good sample of 87 total games, having a close to 60% win rate implies either on the whole there are better skilled protoss players and/or there is inherent difficulty in the race matchup. Just give some more detail into this let us look at the games more closely. Code S Jan ZvP 6:5 Code A Jan ZvP 1:4 Code S Mar ZvP 9:13 Code A Mar ZvP 8: 9 GSL S1 up/down ZvP 1:6 (Moon loses 4 wins 1, JookTo loses 2) Code A Mar Qualifiers ZvP 4:3 (MinSeOk wins 2, CoCa wins 2 loses 1, SiKaRi loses 2) Code S Mar Wildcard ZvP 2:0 (Jookto wins 2) GSL S2 Up/down ZvP 2:2 (Losira wins 2, Zenio loses 2) Code A May Qualifiers 2:10 (Terious loses 2, Moon loses 2 wins 1, Junwi loses 2, Royal loses 2, Cezanne loses 2 wins 1) Looking only at the actual Code S and Code A we have 24:31 which is 43.6%. Removing the last one which is at 2:10 we get 33:42 which is 44%. This indicates to me, that yes this does seem pretty bad, and it is not only because of one tournament (why I tested removing the last one which is at 2:10). Let's compare PvT: Code S Jan PvT 8:15 Code A Jan PvT 4:15 Code S Mar PvT 18:8 Code A Mar PvT 6: 7 GSL S1 up/down PvT 0:2 Code A Mar Qualifiers PvT 2:2 Code S Mar Wildcard PvT 0:0 GSL S2 Up/down PvT 4:5 Code A May Qualifiers PvT 2:6 Total 44:60 (42.3%) only CodeS/Code A 36:45 (44.4%) This indicates to me that PvT is broken, and Terran should be nerfed. Do you see the flaw in the reasoning? In my original post I included how far Zergs had made it in tournaments, not just the statistical results to show that individual Zergs are doing pretty well. I think although 87 sounds like a lot, and I appreciated that you did the statistical analysis to show that it was significant, you have to remember that this is not 87 different Protoss versus 87 different Zerg. Moon has 8 games in the 87, making his results almost 1/10 of the data. What is good about you actually checking it, shows that my reasoning is flawed as well. I cannot actually claim that ZvP is not doing well, but then neither can Zergs claim that ZvP is broken. We need more data. 87 results, of which a few players make up a lot of it, cannot be enough to get a good read on this. My reasoning depended on how individual Zergs have been doing in tournaments (relatively well although not quite as well compared to individual Protoss, making it just as far most of the time). That is clearly flawed. Your reasoning depended on how Zergs overall are doing, which I think is the better way, but with too few samples. Either way, I don't think calls for balance are justified considering how few games we have to judge it by. first lets not fight over statistics again, it never ends well. Second, im going to completely ignore my first statement. There is a big difference between the winrate difference in pvt and pvz, pvt is about 11% (which is still ok), but PvZ is is at 20% (which is a lot bigger.) There wa a huge thread a while back that took the winrates of the top 50 (or 100, i forget) european non Zergs, then compared the overall win rate against their vZ win rate. On average the players' vZ winrates were higher by 7%. I don't really know how much evidence people need. Yes 87 isn't conclusive but its still quite a bit. Small sets of data will never be conclusive, but when they all show the same consistent trend I think you can start to make some reasonable assumptions.Basically all tournament first second and third place statistics show Zergs doing considerably worse than other races. Winrates have almost never shown Zerg winrate above 50% except for maybe a 3 week stretch after a patch like the roach range increase. Zerg has quite a talented player pool, definitely at least equal to that of the other races, yet Zerg hasn't even found a fraction of the success other races have. Several respected pros, including idra, morrow, ret, dimaga, catz and slush have said Zerg is weaker. And yet a majority of people will tell you there's nothing wrong, that Zerg players aren't talented enough, and all the QQ is baseless and irrational. It's so ridiculous, I have no idea what it would take for people to actualy admit that something is wrong. A few seasons of zerg not going to the finals in the GSL would be the first step towards a concensus that something is wrong imo. In a season where the GSL finals are PvZ and the WC is + Show Spoiler + it's hard to convince most reasonable folk that zerg are "obviously so underpowered that a balance patch is needed". Zergs in the GSL not stating that they would like to play against protoss might also do something for your argument.
It means that there is a perception that P is advantaged against Z.
But the only way to know that Z is weak, and that's an inherent problem with the game that needs a patch, is a lot of high-level games. In statistics, "a lot" is generally around 1,000 samples (high-level games). That's needed to wash out the effects of random chance. As someone before me posted, a disproportionally huge chunk of GSL ZvPs were played by Moon.
So, it won't be until at least after the NASL Season 1 championships (which incidentally gives the metagame time to evolve) that we can go "Yeah, I think a patch might be called for".
Then, if the numbers say Z is UP, it's up to the pros to give their thoughts on potentially why. I understand that July and Nestea and I guess Idra are pretty friggen good, but that doesn't give them the magical ability to say "Despite the fact that new Zerg styles and builds are appearing, none of them will ever fix a core issue".
Edit: Actually, since it's ZvP that's considered broken and not ZvT (or at least ZvT is "less" broken), we have a way of testing for that pretty thoroughly: It's it's indeed much harder to ZvP than it is to ZvT (regardless of whether ZvT is balanced or not), then we should expect to see a lot of Zergs with much better winrates versus Terran than versus Protoss, right?
|
On April 10 2011 15:49 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 14:58 Treehead wrote:On April 10 2011 14:40 Treehead wrote:On April 10 2011 14:04 loveeholicce wrote:On April 10 2011 11:20 godemperor wrote:On April 10 2011 10:33 flowSthead wrote:On April 10 2011 06:18 redux46 wrote: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.
I've taken the ZvP stats from all the GSL events this year http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagues#tblt-8315-1-default-0-gslZvP is 35:52 (40.2%) With a good sample of 87 total games, having a close to 60% win rate implies either on the whole there are better skilled protoss players and/or there is inherent difficulty in the race matchup. Just give some more detail into this let us look at the games more closely. Code S Jan ZvP 6:5 Code A Jan ZvP 1:4 Code S Mar ZvP 9:13 Code A Mar ZvP 8: 9 GSL S1 up/down ZvP 1:6 (Moon loses 4 wins 1, JookTo loses 2) Code A Mar Qualifiers ZvP 4:3 (MinSeOk wins 2, CoCa wins 2 loses 1, SiKaRi loses 2) Code S Mar Wildcard ZvP 2:0 (Jookto wins 2) GSL S2 Up/down ZvP 2:2 (Losira wins 2, Zenio loses 2) Code A May Qualifiers 2:10 (Terious loses 2, Moon loses 2 wins 1, Junwi loses 2, Royal loses 2, Cezanne loses 2 wins 1) Looking only at the actual Code S and Code A we have 24:31 which is 43.6%. Removing the last one which is at 2:10 we get 33:42 which is 44%. This indicates to me, that yes this does seem pretty bad, and it is not only because of one tournament (why I tested removing the last one which is at 2:10). Let's compare PvT: Code S Jan PvT 8:15 Code A Jan PvT 4:15 Code S Mar PvT 18:8 Code A Mar PvT 6: 7 GSL S1 up/down PvT 0:2 Code A Mar Qualifiers PvT 2:2 Code S Mar Wildcard PvT 0:0 GSL S2 Up/down PvT 4:5 Code A May Qualifiers PvT 2:6 Total 44:60 (42.3%) only CodeS/Code A 36:45 (44.4%) This indicates to me that PvT is broken, and Terran should be nerfed. Do you see the flaw in the reasoning? In my original post I included how far Zergs had made it in tournaments, not just the statistical results to show that individual Zergs are doing pretty well. I think although 87 sounds like a lot, and I appreciated that you did the statistical analysis to show that it was significant, you have to remember that this is not 87 different Protoss versus 87 different Zerg. Moon has 8 games in the 87, making his results almost 1/10 of the data. What is good about you actually checking it, shows that my reasoning is flawed as well. I cannot actually claim that ZvP is not doing well, but then neither can Zergs claim that ZvP is broken. We need more data. 87 results, of which a few players make up a lot of it, cannot be enough to get a good read on this. My reasoning depended on how individual Zergs have been doing in tournaments (relatively well although not quite as well compared to individual Protoss, making it just as far most of the time). That is clearly flawed. Your reasoning depended on how Zergs overall are doing, which I think is the better way, but with too few samples. Either way, I don't think calls for balance are justified considering how few games we have to judge it by. first lets not fight over statistics again, it never ends well. Second, im going to completely ignore my first statement. There is a big difference between the winrate difference in pvt and pvz, pvt is about 11% (which is still ok), but PvZ is is at 20% (which is a lot bigger.) There wa a huge thread a while back that took the winrates of the top 50 (or 100, i forget) european non Zergs, then compared the overall win rate against their vZ win rate. On average the players' vZ winrates were higher by 7%. I don't really know how much evidence people need. Yes 87 isn't conclusive but its still quite a bit. Small sets of data will never be conclusive, but when they all show the same consistent trend I think you can start to make some reasonable assumptions.Basically all tournament first second and third place statistics show Zergs doing considerably worse than other races. Winrates have almost never shown Zerg winrate above 50% except for maybe a 3 week stretch after a patch like the roach range increase. Zerg has quite a talented player pool, definitely at least equal to that of the other races, yet Zerg hasn't even found a fraction of the success other races have. Several respected pros, including idra, morrow, ret, dimaga, catz and slush have said Zerg is weaker. And yet a majority of people will tell you there's nothing wrong, that Zerg players aren't talented enough, and all the QQ is baseless and irrational. It's so ridiculous, I have no idea what it would take for people to actualy admit that something is wrong. A few seasons of zerg not going to the finals in the GSL would be the first step towards a concensus that something is wrong imo. In a season where the GSL finals are PvZ and the WC is + Show Spoiler + it's hard to convince most reasonable folk that zerg are "obviously so underpowered that a balance patch is needed". Zergs in the GSL not stating that they would like to play against protoss might also do something for your argument. It means that there is a perception that P is advantaged against Z. But the only way to know that Z is weak, and that's an inherent problem with the game that needs a patch, is a lot of high-level games. In statistics, "a lot" is generally around 1,000 samples (high-level games). That's needed to wash out the effects of random chance. As someone before me posted, a disproportionally huge chunk of GSL ZvPs were played by Moon. So, it won't be until at least after the NASL Season 1 championships (which incidentally gives the metagame time to evolve) that we can go "Yeah, I think a patch might be called for". Then, if the numbers say Z is UP, it's up to the pros to give their thoughts on potentially why. I understand that July and Nestea and I guess Idra are pretty friggen good, but that doesn't give them the magical ability to say "Despite the fact that new Zerg styles and builds are appearing, none of them will ever fix a core issue". Edit: Actually, since it's ZvP that's considered broken and not ZvT (or at least ZvT is "less" broken), we have a way of testing for that pretty thoroughly: It's it's indeed much harder to ZvP than it is to ZvT (regardless of whether ZvT is balanced or not), then we should expect to see a lot of Zergs with much better winrates versus Terran than versus Protoss, right?
Most of the people out there don't understand anything about Z's claiming P is imbalanced. You will never "see" it in the stats, because it's more about in game match up design.
Most of the time a zerg player win against a protoss, I'm sorry to say, but it's because the zerg is better. Watch IdrA vs HuK, seriously, as good as HuK is, IdrA is superior in everything during the match, more bases, stronger eco, special tactics and shit. Look at the hallucinate void ray game, IdrA is dropping all over the place, taking a lead bit by bit over HuK.
The problem is if you watch the match up the over way around: protoss never try to harass, never try to hinder zerg's economy... it's all about massing a force and crushing the zerg. That's why everybody feel it is imbalance when, in fact, maybe it's not, but the design of the protoss race is fucked up. What happen when Morrow loose ? He work his ass off, play the best he can, and then he get crushface by a a+click superior force. You have to think the game is "imbalance" in some way after that.
Something actually needs to be done to protoss, and I'm not talking about nerf, I'm talking about game design change to change protoss from a win or loose race to a play good, use special tactics and win race.
With protoss, everything feels all in, and if you don't prepare, you loose.
|
On April 10 2011 15:49 Ribbon wrote:
[
Edit: Actually, since it's ZvP that's considered broken and not ZvT (or at least ZvT is "less" broken), we have a way of testing for that pretty thoroughly: It's it's indeed much harder to ZvP than it is to ZvT (regardless of whether ZvT is balanced or not), then we should expect to see a lot of Zergs with much better winrates versus Terran than versus Protoss, right?
Another way of looking at this is look at the winrates of top protosses, and seeing if they have a disproportionately higher winrate against zergs, compared to other match-ups.
|
On April 10 2011 18:26 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 15:49 Ribbon wrote:On April 10 2011 14:58 Treehead wrote:On April 10 2011 14:40 Treehead wrote:On April 10 2011 14:04 loveeholicce wrote:On April 10 2011 11:20 godemperor wrote:On April 10 2011 10:33 flowSthead wrote:On April 10 2011 06:18 redux46 wrote: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.
I've taken the ZvP stats from all the GSL events this year http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagues#tblt-8315-1-default-0-gslZvP is 35:52 (40.2%) With a good sample of 87 total games, having a close to 60% win rate implies either on the whole there are better skilled protoss players and/or there is inherent difficulty in the race matchup. Just give some more detail into this let us look at the games more closely. Code S Jan ZvP 6:5 Code A Jan ZvP 1:4 Code S Mar ZvP 9:13 Code A Mar ZvP 8: 9 GSL S1 up/down ZvP 1:6 (Moon loses 4 wins 1, JookTo loses 2) Code A Mar Qualifiers ZvP 4:3 (MinSeOk wins 2, CoCa wins 2 loses 1, SiKaRi loses 2) Code S Mar Wildcard ZvP 2:0 (Jookto wins 2) GSL S2 Up/down ZvP 2:2 (Losira wins 2, Zenio loses 2) Code A May Qualifiers 2:10 (Terious loses 2, Moon loses 2 wins 1, Junwi loses 2, Royal loses 2, Cezanne loses 2 wins 1) Looking only at the actual Code S and Code A we have 24:31 which is 43.6%. Removing the last one which is at 2:10 we get 33:42 which is 44%. This indicates to me, that yes this does seem pretty bad, and it is not only because of one tournament (why I tested removing the last one which is at 2:10). Let's compare PvT: Code S Jan PvT 8:15 Code A Jan PvT 4:15 Code S Mar PvT 18:8 Code A Mar PvT 6: 7 GSL S1 up/down PvT 0:2 Code A Mar Qualifiers PvT 2:2 Code S Mar Wildcard PvT 0:0 GSL S2 Up/down PvT 4:5 Code A May Qualifiers PvT 2:6 Total 44:60 (42.3%) only CodeS/Code A 36:45 (44.4%) This indicates to me that PvT is broken, and Terran should be nerfed. Do you see the flaw in the reasoning? In my original post I included how far Zergs had made it in tournaments, not just the statistical results to show that individual Zergs are doing pretty well. I think although 87 sounds like a lot, and I appreciated that you did the statistical analysis to show that it was significant, you have to remember that this is not 87 different Protoss versus 87 different Zerg. Moon has 8 games in the 87, making his results almost 1/10 of the data. What is good about you actually checking it, shows that my reasoning is flawed as well. I cannot actually claim that ZvP is not doing well, but then neither can Zergs claim that ZvP is broken. We need more data. 87 results, of which a few players make up a lot of it, cannot be enough to get a good read on this. My reasoning depended on how individual Zergs have been doing in tournaments (relatively well although not quite as well compared to individual Protoss, making it just as far most of the time). That is clearly flawed. Your reasoning depended on how Zergs overall are doing, which I think is the better way, but with too few samples. Either way, I don't think calls for balance are justified considering how few games we have to judge it by. first lets not fight over statistics again, it never ends well. Second, im going to completely ignore my first statement. There is a big difference between the winrate difference in pvt and pvz, pvt is about 11% (which is still ok), but PvZ is is at 20% (which is a lot bigger.) There wa a huge thread a while back that took the winrates of the top 50 (or 100, i forget) european non Zergs, then compared the overall win rate against their vZ win rate. On average the players' vZ winrates were higher by 7%. I don't really know how much evidence people need. Yes 87 isn't conclusive but its still quite a bit. Small sets of data will never be conclusive, but when they all show the same consistent trend I think you can start to make some reasonable assumptions.Basically all tournament first second and third place statistics show Zergs doing considerably worse than other races. Winrates have almost never shown Zerg winrate above 50% except for maybe a 3 week stretch after a patch like the roach range increase. Zerg has quite a talented player pool, definitely at least equal to that of the other races, yet Zerg hasn't even found a fraction of the success other races have. Several respected pros, including idra, morrow, ret, dimaga, catz and slush have said Zerg is weaker. And yet a majority of people will tell you there's nothing wrong, that Zerg players aren't talented enough, and all the QQ is baseless and irrational. It's so ridiculous, I have no idea what it would take for people to actualy admit that something is wrong. A few seasons of zerg not going to the finals in the GSL would be the first step towards a concensus that something is wrong imo. In a season where the GSL finals are PvZ and the WC is + Show Spoiler + it's hard to convince most reasonable folk that zerg are "obviously so underpowered that a balance patch is needed". Zergs in the GSL not stating that they would like to play against protoss might also do something for your argument. It means that there is a perception that P is advantaged against Z. But the only way to know that Z is weak, and that's an inherent problem with the game that needs a patch, is a lot of high-level games. In statistics, "a lot" is generally around 1,000 samples (high-level games). That's needed to wash out the effects of random chance. As someone before me posted, a disproportionally huge chunk of GSL ZvPs were played by Moon. So, it won't be until at least after the NASL Season 1 championships (which incidentally gives the metagame time to evolve) that we can go "Yeah, I think a patch might be called for". Then, if the numbers say Z is UP, it's up to the pros to give their thoughts on potentially why. I understand that July and Nestea and I guess Idra are pretty friggen good, but that doesn't give them the magical ability to say "Despite the fact that new Zerg styles and builds are appearing, none of them will ever fix a core issue". Edit: Actually, since it's ZvP that's considered broken and not ZvT (or at least ZvT is "less" broken), we have a way of testing for that pretty thoroughly: It's it's indeed much harder to ZvP than it is to ZvT (regardless of whether ZvT is balanced or not), then we should expect to see a lot of Zergs with much better winrates versus Terran than versus Protoss, right? Most of the people out there don't understand anything about Z's claiming P is imbalanced. You will never "see" it in the stats, because it's more about in game match up design. Most of the time a zerg player win against a protoss, I'm sorry to say, but it's because the zerg is better. Watch IdrA vs HuK, seriously, as good as HuK is, IdrA is superior in everything during the match, more bases, stronger eco, special tactics and shit. Look at the hallucinate void ray game, IdrA is dropping all over the place, taking a lead bit by bit over HuK. The problem is if you watch the match up the over way around: protoss never try to harass, never try to hinder zerg's economy... it's all about massing a force and crushing the zerg. That's why everybody feel it is imbalance when, in fact, maybe it's not, but the design of the protoss race is fucked up. What happen when Morrow loose ? He work his ass off, play the best he can, and then he get crushface by a a+click superior force. You have to think the game is "imbalance" in some way after that. Something actually needs to be done to protoss, and I'm not talking about nerf, I'm talking about game design change to change protoss from a win or loose race to a play good, use special tactics and win race. With protoss, everything feels all in, and if you don't prepare, you loose.
Historically ZvT has been the "omfg kill me" matchup, ZvP quite recently so there won't be enough (under your standards) stats to reflect Protoss against Zerg specifically for a while. But I dunno, I think we've had 9 months of stats that show Zerg as a whole simply isn't winning. The number of 1st 2nd and 3rd places Zerg has gotten is so absurdly small compared to the other races I think you can definitely say the race is weak. I'm definitely not skilled enough to say if the main factor the early game volatility, the lack of defensive options, the difficulty Zerg has in hiding its intentions, the lack of viable early pressure, units with not that great offensive capability, and a horrible hive tech or some combination of those but Zerg just isn't winning tournaments.
|
On April 10 2011 14:46 DystopiaX wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 14:40 Treehead wrote:On April 10 2011 14:04 loveeholicce wrote:On April 10 2011 11:20 godemperor wrote:On April 10 2011 10:33 flowSthead wrote:On April 10 2011 06:18 redux46 wrote: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.
I've taken the ZvP stats from all the GSL events this year http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/individual-leagues#tblt-8315-1-default-0-gslZvP is 35:52 (40.2%) With a good sample of 87 total games, having a close to 60% win rate implies either on the whole there are better skilled protoss players and/or there is inherent difficulty in the race matchup. Just give some more detail into this let us look at the games more closely. Code S Jan ZvP 6:5 Code A Jan ZvP 1:4 Code S Mar ZvP 9:13 Code A Mar ZvP 8: 9 GSL S1 up/down ZvP 1:6 (Moon loses 4 wins 1, JookTo loses 2) Code A Mar Qualifiers ZvP 4:3 (MinSeOk wins 2, CoCa wins 2 loses 1, SiKaRi loses 2) Code S Mar Wildcard ZvP 2:0 (Jookto wins 2) GSL S2 Up/down ZvP 2:2 (Losira wins 2, Zenio loses 2) Code A May Qualifiers 2:10 (Terious loses 2, Moon loses 2 wins 1, Junwi loses 2, Royal loses 2, Cezanne loses 2 wins 1) Looking only at the actual Code S and Code A we have 24:31 which is 43.6%. Removing the last one which is at 2:10 we get 33:42 which is 44%. This indicates to me, that yes this does seem pretty bad, and it is not only because of one tournament (why I tested removing the last one which is at 2:10). Let's compare PvT: Code S Jan PvT 8:15 Code A Jan PvT 4:15 Code S Mar PvT 18:8 Code A Mar PvT 6: 7 GSL S1 up/down PvT 0:2 Code A Mar Qualifiers PvT 2:2 Code S Mar Wildcard PvT 0:0 GSL S2 Up/down PvT 4:5 Code A May Qualifiers PvT 2:6 Total 44:60 (42.3%) only CodeS/Code A 36:45 (44.4%) This indicates to me that PvT is broken, and Terran should be nerfed. Do you see the flaw in the reasoning? In my original post I included how far Zergs had made it in tournaments, not just the statistical results to show that individual Zergs are doing pretty well. I think although 87 sounds like a lot, and I appreciated that you did the statistical analysis to show that it was significant, you have to remember that this is not 87 different Protoss versus 87 different Zerg. Moon has 8 games in the 87, making his results almost 1/10 of the data. What is good about you actually checking it, shows that my reasoning is flawed as well. I cannot actually claim that ZvP is not doing well, but then neither can Zergs claim that ZvP is broken. We need more data. 87 results, of which a few players make up a lot of it, cannot be enough to get a good read on this. My reasoning depended on how individual Zergs have been doing in tournaments (relatively well although not quite as well compared to individual Protoss, making it just as far most of the time). That is clearly flawed. Your reasoning depended on how Zergs overall are doing, which I think is the better way, but with too few samples. Either way, I don't think calls for balance are justified considering how few games we have to judge it by. first lets not fight over statistics again, it never ends well. Second, im going to completely ignore my first statement. There is a big difference between the winrate difference in pvt and pvz, pvt is about 11% (which is still ok), but PvZ is is at 20% (which is a lot bigger.) There wa a huge thread a while back that took the winrates of the top 50 (or 100, i forget) european non Zergs, then compared the overall win rate against their vZ win rate. On average the players' vZ winrates were higher by 7%. I don't really know how much evidence people need. Yes 87 isn't conclusive but its still quite a bit. Small sets of data will never be conclusive, but when they all show the same consistent trend I think you can start to make some reasonable assumptions.Basically all tournament first second and third place statistics show Zergs doing considerably worse than other races. Winrates have almost never shown Zerg winrate above 50% except for maybe a 3 week stretch after a patch like the roach range increase. Zerg has quite a talented player pool, definitely at least equal to that of the other races, yet Zerg hasn't even found a fraction of the success other races have. Several respected pros, including idra, morrow, ret, dimaga, catz and slush have said Zerg is weaker. And yet a majority of people will tell you there's nothing wrong, that Zerg players aren't talented enough, and all the QQ is baseless and irrational. It's so ridiculous, I have no idea what it would take for people to actualy admit that something is wrong. A few seasons of zerg not going to the finals in the GSL would be the first step towards a concensus that something is wrong imo. In a season where the GSL finals are PvZ and the WC is + Show Spoiler + it's hard to convince most reasonable folk that zerg are "obviously so underpowered that a balance patch is needed". The quoted statistic isn't really indicative of anything, because ZvZ and ZvP/vT are two separate things. The win rate could be due to imbalance, or it could be because the way zergs are playing vs other zergs makes sense, or at least everything is doing the same type of things so they'll take around an equal number of games off each other. vT or vP there's the possibility that the lower winrate isn't due to imbalance but because the way zergs are playing in those specific matchups could be better, or that they "haven't figured it out yet", but the way the current game is balanced it's possible to do so. Basically, that statistic is meaningless because vZ and vP/vT are two separate things, so looking at the win rates and comparing them to each other doesn't make sense because there are other variables other than imbalance that could account for the different winrates.
Sorry what? I dont understand the reasoning. Yes vZ vP and vT are different things (duh). The fact that almost everyone exclusively has better vZ indicates its easier to score wins against Zergs than it is against other players. Of course there's variables, there always are, which is why you use a big sample size to heopfully account for these variables.
|
lets take idra as an example, he is always gonna drop games to cheese i think, but he has proved time and time again that he probably has the best understanding and macro of any foreigner. he has something absurd like a 95% win ratio in a volatile matchup that cannot ever be imbalanced; the mirror. compare this to his 52~% vs protoss where he appears to lose to protoss who don't actually do anything. take cruncher for example. one of his wins was basically take 3 bases that are close enough together that its nearly impossible to effectively harass, then amove across the map. his second win was a well disguised warp gate all in. idra sacrificed 3 overlords that game and had overlord speed on the way but it was not enough to know what was coming.
take the series vs huk too, one of his wins was a random warp gate unit all in, the other was the famous hallucination game. but huk didn't actually do anything that game, idra was all over the place doing a ton of stuff whilst huk sat on his thumbs with inferior macro, and i think if protoss was not favored idra would have had the game won 10 minutes prior to the incident.
i honestly think protoss changes would really help the game, as we can see from the gsl group drawings, all 3 races want to avoid protoss in general. the correct nerf could even fix the mirror which i think would be most welcome to protoss players themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4249
1211
856
162
EPT
