| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Opinion
United States236 Posts
It is a balance patch... It has a ton of nerfs. Why are people still denying imbalance?! I just don't understand, please, someone explain. Blizzard "we have confirmed imbalance, changes are coming." Players "GAME IS FINE L2P" I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! | ||
|
JoKeR[X]
8 Posts
On September 02 2010 13:48 Opinion wrote: PATCH 1.1 IS COMING! It is a balance patch... It has a ton of nerfs. Why are people still denying imbalance?! I just don't understand, please, someone explain. Blizzard "we have confirmed imbalance, changes are coming." Players "GAME IS FINE L2P" I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! No one's saying it's fine the way it is... but the extreme hyperbole about Terran OPness is starting to wear itself. The upcoming tweaks are IMO good, will they definitely settle the matter? Hell no. We just have to wait it out and let them keep tweaking it. I'm sure there will be upcoming patches where Terrans get over nerfed, and they get re-buffed. It's almost a certainty. | ||
|
TheGreatWhiteHope_
United States335 Posts
On September 02 2010 07:46 cup of joe wrote: it means absolutely nothing because the sample size is tiny at the right end of the graph It does not mean nothing, there are valid arguments for terran being a deserving candidate of nerfs. However, you are correct that given the low sample size at the right end of the graph it denotes more about the players themselves as opposed to the races they are playing. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 02 2010 13:38 zomgtossrush wrote: Why were not banned/warned for this post? Simply cussing and insulting community members is not a solid argument. Because the community members are absolutely terrible at reading statistics and are wrong. What he lacks in decency and tone, he makes up for by being right. Most of this thread is an example of the worst kind of bean counting there is. Take general, non-nondescript numbers and misinterpret them to mean something very specific. He's not making a balance argument. He's making a take-Stats-101 argument. | ||
|
ChickenLips
2912 Posts
On September 02 2010 07:40 ReplayArk wrote: ![[image loading]](http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/9784/racediamond.png) Shit, we need to nerf Random, they are tearing apart 1500+ diamond. Also, great fucking post @ petzergling. + Show Spoiler + On September 02 2010 13:14 petzergling wrote: people in this thread absolutely infuriate me, the terran imbalance bullshit is seriously to a point where i cant believe it. im not saying anything regarding balance of the game, but for fuck sake just stop fucking whining, maybe if P and Z players learned how to play the fucking game instead of spending their entire fucking day writing garbage on teamliquid they would get somewhere. lets look at a few very basic facts that require absolutely no data to be proven #1 the first game released is from the terran campaign #2 every fucking post in every god damn starcraft 2 forum says something about OMFG TERRAN IMBALANCED WAT 2 do OMNFG. these 2 factors alone are going to encourage a ton more people playing terran. more people playing a race is going to lead to a greater development in strategies, leading to a more developed race lets look at some very basic statistics for all of the illiterate 12 year old retards who dont understand how to interpret anything that doesnt tell them UR A GOOD PLAYER U JUST LOST CUS THE GAME IS IMBALANCED number of players at a given level of play does not correlate with balance. AT ALL. lets say fayth made a post in sc2 strategy saying he would give 1000$ to every player who earned 1500 rating as zerg. boy these graphs would look alot different wouldnt they. does that mean that zerg is all of a sudden overpowered and stronger then terran? no. the dumbest thing by far in this thread is the 1600 and 1500 rating level graph, by far. anyone whos done anything in statistics (or has half a brain) knows that a sample size of 19 (YES THERE ARE 19 PLAYERS ABOVE 1500) is not an adequate sample size to judge something as complex as game balance. IM A MORON, WHY IS THIS PETZERGLING? each 1 person on the graph represents over 5% of the total population. lets say a T player with 1501 rating plays a Z player with 1499 rating and the Z player wins (LOL CANT HAPPEN TERRAN OP) this brings an adjustment to our graph of over 10% relative data. considering people at this level play upwards of 10 games a day. proof that this sample size is retarded? here i just re calculated the numbers courtesy of sc2ranks.com and put them on a graph ![[image loading]](http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/9837/lolimbalanve.jpg) OMFG PROTOSS UPSWING NOW PROTOSS IS IMBALANCED. no the race of players in the top 1500 fluctuates this much on a daily(hourly?) basis k im done see you idiots in disneyland | ||
|
Sideburn
United States442 Posts
On September 02 2010 14:02 Jibba wrote: Because the community members are absolutely terrible at reading statistics and are wrong. What he lacks in decency and tone, he makes up for by being right. Most of this thread is an example of the worst kind of bean counting there is. Take general, non-nondescript numbers and misinterpret them to mean something very specific. He's not making a balance argument. He's making a take-Stats-101 argument. Thank you. This isn't a "Terran are OP!" vs "Terran are fine, l2p!" thread. This thread is the perfect example of how dangerous numbers can be in the hands of the uninitiated. | ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
On September 02 2010 10:37 ReplayArk wrote: @Cloak, I would like to see the source for this number. It was in the thread with the 20,000 samples. Protoss had like ~42% prevalence vs. Terran's ~27%. I forgot the name of it, but someone will remember. It was a little dated and done back in early August. | ||
|
xnub
Canada610 Posts
On September 02 2010 07:40 ReplayArk wrote: I used some numbers from (sc2ranks.com) to look at the Racial Distribution at high niveau. My visualisation of the numbers can be found here: While it is known that Blizzard's Matchmaking Algorithm is functional (TL Thread), it was not clear how the same win percentage per race was computed. Some told that there is a racial divergence between diverse skill levels (Bronze League to Diamond League), because new player tend to stay at the campaign's race Terran and the Zerg mechanics may be harder to learn. An alternative to this hypothesis is that people tend to chose race's which let them easier win. If this would be true we should see a race more often if it makes winning simplier. This does not mean that if a race wins often this race would be more easy to play. Some suggested to compare the racial distribution (RD) at high skill levels as indicator for imbalance or more likely as indicator for the lack of exploitable gamestyle. I think this indicator should be seen as a trend on higher skill levels - and more important as it's change, if either new strategies and tactics are discovered, or there are gameplay changes (patches, etc.) implemented. The upcomming patch will change gameplay in special situations quite heavily and we should see a shift in the high level racial distribution over some time (player's Inertia) till an equilibrium is found again (I am not sure if there will be an equilibrium, but it could exist). The time of the shift and the endtime will be good situations to overlook some presumptions we can create right now. I think it would be interesting to do estimations about the post patch use of various units, since it gives us a little time to figure out new concepts before they are established on all servers. This thread could be general discussion about those changes - if it gets more strategy biased it could be moved to the strategy directory. *Edit: Added Sample Count* *Edit: Good post, with things I would like to see happen* *Edit: Data as CSV* *Edit: Added the "plus" to the 1500 Intervall* Doesn't add up there are 9 toss in top 20 over 1500 and 8 terran how is the terran graph double the toss Sry your graph is messed all the terran to toss ratios are fucked up but the zerg to rest seems fine Also why you wasted your time doing this when the site you were on allready does it is a little strange want to make the data swing your way do we : P http://sc2ranks.com/stats/race/all/1 | ||
|
Radio.active
United States121 Posts
| ||
|
xnub
Canada610 Posts
On September 02 2010 14:22 Radio.active wrote: see the problem with this graph, is that people are gonna read it wrong, and complain about terran even more... Its a very bad graph that is not even close to up to date also agian can get the up to date graph from the same site he is listing his data on that is not right..... Its all very strange | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
if u were looking for sc1 balance, what would u look at? top korean pros, right? so if 16 the top 20 korean pros were terran do u then complain about sample size? oh there aren't enough top korean pros to get a sample from? | ||
|
WeSt
Portugal918 Posts
I actually took the time to take a look at the sc2ranks link you posted and it prooves you either made a mistake while making the graphic or you manipulated the information. here I show u picz: ![[image loading]](http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/6386/71096862.png) | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
while this is very informative, it doesn't necessarily tell us the full story. it could simply be that diamond zerg players aren't enjoying the game as much as their racial counterparts and are just not massing enough games to push through the 1400+ barrier. however you cannot deny that the huge spike in terrans at the top isn't indicative of what everyone is saying about balance. anyway thanks for the interesting stats. | ||
|
creditmobilier
United States82 Posts
| ||
|
ChickenLips
2912 Posts
On September 02 2010 14:31 travis wrote: i love how people complain about sample size at the top of the graph if u were looking for sc1 balance, what would u look at? top korean pros, right? so if 16 the top 20 korean pros were terran do u then complain about sample size? oh there aren't enough top korean pros to get a sample from? top korean pros != top 20 ladder One changes with seasons, the other by the hour. I'll let you figure out which is which. | ||
|
Wargizmo
1237 Posts
On September 02 2010 13:14 petzergling wrote: #1 the first game released is from the terran campaign #2 every fucking post in every god damn starcraft 2 forum says something about OMFG TERRAN IMBALANCED WAT 2 do OMNFG. these 2 factors alone are going to encourage a ton more people playing terran. more people playing a race is going to lead to a greater development in strategies, leading to a more developed race I'm not going to reply to this guy's post specifically because he was banned for it, but this argument comes up time and time again and it's completely retarded for the following reason: Protoss is the most popular race, not Terran. Only in the top 200 players (that's 200 out of 60,000+ diamond players) do Terrans outnumber Protoss. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
it seems to me that a lot of people are taking a subsection of a population and arbitrarily labeling it the general population (which is something i don't think you're supposed to do). i could very easily say that since 1600 is higher than 1500 so they are better players, therefore, i can disregard all players 1599 and lower and have the population of players 1600+. now that i'm only taking the population of players at 1600 terran imbalance isn't as pronounced and you're all wrong. i may be misusing the word sample size but you wouldn't draw a line of best fit with only two data points. it also seems to me that separating the graph by random 100 point intervals (what's the basis for separating them by 100 points?) makes the "trend" of terran imbalance look extremely obvious until you look at the sample size of each 100 point interval and notice that as terran imbalance gets higher sample size gets smaller. it also skews the bars to hell making it look way worse than it would be if you combine all the data points of 1200+ players. to me it would make more sense to separate by player rank intervals. as other people said there are also other factors that can skew the data like how many games each player is playing? normally this wouldn't matter if you were looking at the general population as it would tend to iron itself out (i think), however, the "trend" of imbalance is less than 1000 players. i suppose it would be ok then to say that currently in 1200-1600 terrans are over-represented (if they even are) but this is a very limiting conclusion don't you think? it doesn't tell us anything about 1700+ which doesn't (but probably will) exist. that last line probably doesn't make too much sense but you get what i'm saying right? | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On September 02 2010 14:31 travis wrote: i love how people complain about sample size at the top of the graph if u were looking for sc1 balance, what would u look at? top korean pros, right? so if 16 the top 20 korean pros were terran do u then complain about sample size? oh there aren't enough top korean pros to get a sample from? Except for one thing. The Blizzard ladder is not a reliable method of measuring "the top players in the world". Almost Every single top person on the ladder is not a top tier tourny player, and one former one has been a hacker. If you actually think about "Top tier players" in SC2, it actually pans out quite well. Almost all tournaments have very fair racial distribution, once averaged toghether. MLG was predominantly won by toss players, while IEM had a fair distribution of zerg. If you look beyond that, the data is not more skewed then it was in BW. http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/content/news/maps_of_the_week_n13_04.html Look at race stats. plz get perspective newcomers. petzergling was just temp banned for 2 days by Jibba. That account was created on 2008-08-21 21:47:27 and had 405 posts. Reason: There hasn't been a martyr so right since Jesus Christ. Amen brotha. | ||
|
The.Doctor
Canada333 Posts
On September 02 2010 13:14 petzergling wrote: people in this thread absolutely infuriate me, the terran imbalance bullshit is seriously to a point where i cant believe it. im not saying anything regarding balance of the game, but for fuck sake just stop fucking whining, maybe if P and Z players learned how to play the fucking game instead of spending their entire fucking day writing garbage on teamliquid they would get somewhere. lets look at a few very basic facts that require absolutely no data to be proven #1 the first game released is from the terran campaign #2 every fucking post in every god damn starcraft 2 forum says something about OMFG TERRAN IMBALANCED WAT 2 do OMNFG. these 2 factors alone are going to encourage a ton more people playing terran. more people playing a race is going to lead to a greater development in strategies, leading to a more developed race lets look at some very basic statistics for all of the illiterate 12 year old retards who dont understand how to interpret anything that doesnt tell them UR A GOOD PLAYER U JUST LOST CUS THE GAME IS IMBALANCED number of players at a given level of play does not correlate with balance. AT ALL. lets say fayth made a post in sc2 strategy saying he would give 1000$ to every player who earned 1500 rating as zerg. boy these graphs would look alot different wouldnt they. does that mean that zerg is all of a sudden overpowered and stronger then terran? no. the dumbest thing by far in this thread is the 1600 and 1500 rating level graph, by far. anyone whos done anything in statistics (or has half a brain) knows that a sample size of 19 (YES THERE ARE 19 PLAYERS ABOVE 1500) is not an adequate sample size to judge something as complex as game balance. IM A MORON, WHY IS THIS PETZERGLING? each 1 person on the graph represents over 5% of the total population. lets say a T player with 1501 rating plays a Z player with 1499 rating and the Z player wins (LOL CANT HAPPEN TERRAN OP) this brings an adjustment to our graph of over 10% relative data. considering people at this level play upwards of 10 games a day. proof that this sample size is retarded? here i just re calculated the numbers courtesy of sc2ranks.com and put them on a graph OMFG PROTOSS UPSWING NOW PROTOSS IS IMBALANCED. no the race of players in the top 1500 fluctuates this much on a daily(hourly?) basis k im done see you idiots in disneyland User was temp banned for this post. Thisx1000. Moreover, irregardless if the new balancing patches coming out, you can't use race distribution in the game to prove balances. This distribution just shows distribution. It does not hint at anything else, though, you can come up with explanations as to why it is like that. | ||
|
SnuggleKittens
Australia57 Posts
On September 02 2010 08:03 Zombee wrote: ---Na, just kidding, but out of 20 games today I spawned friggin 17 times Zerg xD. The chance of this happening is 1 in 382,323. Consider yourself lucky, (or unlucky).  | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
IPSL
Dragon vs Ret
Patches Events
RSL Revival
Solar vs Rogue
Maru vs NightMare
Sparkling Tuna Cup
IPSL
Bonyth vs Hawk
GSL
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
