|
On September 15 2010 02:48 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:13 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 15 2010 02:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 15 2010 00:29 Klive5ive wrote:On September 14 2010 23:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote:On September 14 2010 12:02 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
It'd be so much more interesting if people discussed players and not races.
btw I'm gonna be #1 on the next ranking How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive! Search "kespa rank" in BW forum for examples. Less is known about these SC2 players than those BW players. But interesting things can be done like grabbing stats from sc2ranks and attaching them to Blizzard's ranking. People could discuss what players seem to be better at ladder and what players seem to be better at tournaments (and why this might be the case). People could point out who has high/low win percentage and high/low games played. For people to take this thread as an opportunity to discuss race balance for the billionth time is just ridiculously embarrassingly bad and so boring and unfortunately there isn't really any good reason to ban anyone for it. Why don't you explain what you're saying? What I see from the stats is that Terran is too versatile. You have gimmicky Terrans, all-in Terrans, strategic Terrans and then a few "actually good" Terrans, like Morrow. All the Zerg players are patient macro masters like IdrA and Dimaga. So yes there might be a playstyle that Zerg can be played with that allows them to win at very high level BUT the lack of versatility is very worrying. As I said before, these stats can't show high level balance, but to me what they show is a very poorly constructed game where one race has far too much versatility. What I'm saying is that it is foremost a player ranking, not a snapshot of race distribution. And even if it was a snapshot of race distribution (like if Blizzard didn't publish names, just races) then it's totally uninteresting because this forum is 90% full of people talking about race balance. It'd be just another drop in the bucket and absolutely nothing new would be discovered other than "the trend of a large number of Terrans and a small number of Zergs is still going strong on NA server" It is bad for the forum when every single topic that can potentially be turned into a discussion about race balance is turned into a discussion about race balance. There are other things to talk about. If no one was talking about race balance and this ranking was published and someone said "oh shit look at all those Terrans and where are the Zergs?!?!" that would be reasonable. But unfortunately the only thing really going on here is the stifling of any potential discussion about a player ranking by people who want to repeat the same thing about race balance for the 1000th time. What is the number 1 thing that sticks out in the OP? Obviously the dominance of T and the lack of any actual NA Z. People are naturally going to discuss why this occurred. What exactly do you propose should be the topic of discussion? "Damn, Fenix is baller." "Select is massing some games, yeah!" There's no discussion there, just comments, and the thread would have died by page 3 (although maybe you'd prefer that over it degenerating into something worse). Just think it's more appropriate in this topic than most others. If you've been following the GSL then you've probably heard many people wanting to hear more about the players so that they have some history and context and trivia to spice up the games. Ladder ranking is one of those things. That's all the topic needs to be. Not every topic has to start some huge interesting discussion. Select kinda got famous for being #1 on ladder. Yeah that's a point of interest. And if you look carefully at the ladder, you'd see there are actually some people playing quite a few games and failing to pass up Select. It's interesting. If those people then play in a tournament and do better than Select, that's interesting. But people don't know what the hell is going on on the ladder except what the race distribution is. It'd be absolutely ridiculous if someone thought "well this thread isn't going anywhere so I think I'll point out the race distribution and start up the 200th discussion about Terran's dominance and Zerg's troubles. I know that this weekly NA ranking isn't going to help us advance this discussion at all, so it'll just be more of the same, but I've gotta at least bring it up" Nobody should care about what the race distribution is at this point. If you hadn't been to TL.net in the past month and you stumbled upon this topic then yeah you might have a reason to care. But no, it's this circle jerk of newbies discussing race balance that goes from topic to topic looking for any thread to pollute with their bullshit balance discussions.
I agree with you Tyler. However, unless the mods start to block comments about imbalances, I don't think these discussions will stop.
I think it is important to talk about balance. It is an issue and it influences the game. But, people should realize that balancing takes time. There's no need to rage about it and overdo it.
Blizzard is working on it, they are patching the game. When they are not, then we rage and claim our rights.
|
Wow not 1 NA zerg in the top 20...
|
On September 15 2010 02:48 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:13 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 15 2010 02:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 15 2010 00:29 Klive5ive wrote:On September 14 2010 23:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote:On September 14 2010 12:02 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
It'd be so much more interesting if people discussed players and not races.
btw I'm gonna be #1 on the next ranking How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive! Search "kespa rank" in BW forum for examples. Less is known about these SC2 players than those BW players. But interesting things can be done like grabbing stats from sc2ranks and attaching them to Blizzard's ranking. People could discuss what players seem to be better at ladder and what players seem to be better at tournaments (and why this might be the case). People could point out who has high/low win percentage and high/low games played. For people to take this thread as an opportunity to discuss race balance for the billionth time is just ridiculously embarrassingly bad and so boring and unfortunately there isn't really any good reason to ban anyone for it. Why don't you explain what you're saying? What I see from the stats is that Terran is too versatile. You have gimmicky Terrans, all-in Terrans, strategic Terrans and then a few "actually good" Terrans, like Morrow. All the Zerg players are patient macro masters like IdrA and Dimaga. So yes there might be a playstyle that Zerg can be played with that allows them to win at very high level BUT the lack of versatility is very worrying. As I said before, these stats can't show high level balance, but to me what they show is a very poorly constructed game where one race has far too much versatility. What I'm saying is that it is foremost a player ranking, not a snapshot of race distribution. And even if it was a snapshot of race distribution (like if Blizzard didn't publish names, just races) then it's totally uninteresting because this forum is 90% full of people talking about race balance. It'd be just another drop in the bucket and absolutely nothing new would be discovered other than "the trend of a large number of Terrans and a small number of Zergs is still going strong on NA server" It is bad for the forum when every single topic that can potentially be turned into a discussion about race balance is turned into a discussion about race balance. There are other things to talk about. If no one was talking about race balance and this ranking was published and someone said "oh shit look at all those Terrans and where are the Zergs?!?!" that would be reasonable. But unfortunately the only thing really going on here is the stifling of any potential discussion about a player ranking by people who want to repeat the same thing about race balance for the 1000th time. What is the number 1 thing that sticks out in the OP? Obviously the dominance of T and the lack of any actual NA Z. People are naturally going to discuss why this occurred. What exactly do you propose should be the topic of discussion? "Damn, Fenix is baller." "Select is massing some games, yeah!" There's no discussion there, just comments, and the thread would have died by page 3 (although maybe you'd prefer that over it degenerating into something worse). Just think it's more appropriate in this topic than most others. If you've been following the GSL then you've probably heard many people wanting to hear more about the players so that they have some history and context and trivia to spice up the games. Ladder ranking is one of those things. That's all the topic needs to be. Not every topic has to start some huge interesting discussion. Select kinda got famous for being #1 on ladder. Yeah that's a point of interest. And if you look carefully at the ladder, you'd see there are actually some people playing quite a few games and failing to pass up Select. It's interesting. If those people then play in a tournament and do better than Select, that's interesting. But people don't know what the hell is going on on the ladder except what the race distribution is. It'd be absolutely ridiculous if someone thought "well this thread isn't going anywhere so I think I'll point out the race distribution and start up the 200th discussion about Terran's dominance and Zerg's troubles. I know that this weekly NA ranking isn't going to help us advance this discussion at all, so it'll just be more of the same, but I've gotta at least bring it up" Nobody should care about what the race distribution is at this point. If you hadn't been to TL.net in the past month and you stumbled upon this topic then yeah you might have a reason to care. But no, it's this circle jerk of newbies discussing race balance that goes from topic to topic looking for any thread to pollute with their bullshit balance discussions.
The thing is, do you know his playstyle? Feel free to talk about it. But they are just names to me. I've never seen him play. I've played a few games vs Fenix before and was thoroughly stomped all 3x. All 3x were Thor drop and more so around the beginning of game release (maybe beta?). The thing is I don't think anyone really knows anything so how is this discussion going to start? You more than anyone should be qualified to talk about him considering you're one of the ones that even competes at that top level that you'd be getting matched against him.
It's not as much to do with "this thread isn't going anywhere" as much as it is "this thread is specifically detailing the lack of any NA zerg in the top 20 and the complete dominance of Terran in the top 20." As I said before, I think you're crazy to suggest this wouldn't be the topic, if it has to happen, where such speculation on imbalance would occur. Sure, the discussion has nearly plagued the forums and turned up nearly everywhere. So is it really that surprising that it resurfaces in a thread so insanely relevant to it?! Instead you should get annoyed that every thread can someone turn into this balance debate, as opposed to ones that are clearly portraying racial distributions amongst the top and T dominance on the ladder.
|
A solution to the out of control balance talk that is going on in almost every thread, is to create a subforum for balance. If you got beef with balance, take it up there.
Please do something to increase the quality life of this forum.
|
the only zerg in the american top 20 is actually a korean zerg in disguise.
yeehaw
|
I'm not a mod but I don't see why people posting about balance in this thread can't get a warning? This topic has nothing to do with balance itself. You may learn something perhaps related to balance here, for example that apparently there is 1 Zerg in top 20 NA, but you don't post about it here because this topic is about the rankings themselves. I would say, go post it in an appropriate location, but I am not a mod.
I would be more interested in discussing what types of games the best players pull off in order to keep their rank, trends related to the top players styles and strategies, etc. In fact, I think if this was what was being talked about, Zerg players might get some potential ideas out of the constructive discussion...
|
On September 15 2010 02:59 crappen wrote:
A solution to the out of control balance talk that is going on in almost every thread, is to create a subforum for balance. If you got beef with balance, take it up there.
Please do something to increase the quality life of this forum.
I wouldn't argue with that, but you'd still expect in threads like these, for maybe not while discussing balance changes, for balance comments to be brought up (oh wow, look how T is dominating, etc.).
My entire point is that if there ever was an appropriate topic for discussion such as this, it would be THIS topic or the tourney topic about tourney winners. Because it asks, "Why are there so many T's on the top of the ladder," or "why are T's dominating all tournaments?" Imbalance shouldn't be someone's first thoughts, until people see the extremities at which are occurring. Once again, no I'm not even claiming TvZ is imba or even trying to bring it up, I'm just trying to say it's appropriate that discussion about it is brought up here rather than elsewhere.
|
Gogo Masq 
Thanks for updating. I never take the time to check official SC2 site for these things.
|
Not going to make a separate thread for the Europe rankings:
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/683001
1. Demuslim (T)
2. Naama (T)
3. Morrow (T)
4. Pokeroffkas (T)
5. Mana (P)
6. Cloud (T)
7. Tarson (T)
8. SharkGSjow (T)
9. HuK (P)
10. DuckloadRa (P)
11. Darkforce (Z)
12. Keysu (T)
13. Lucifron (T)
14. Pomi (P)
15. KiwiKaki (P)
16. srsRAZERnAni (P)
17. BratOK (T)
18. Strelok (T)
19. Dimaga (Z)
20. ServyOa (T)
T - 12
P - 6
Z - 2
I will say regardless of any balance discussion Demuslim is a beast. 191 - 43 is just nasty!
|
Nerf marauders/tanks plz.
way too many terran
|
I definitely agree with the general sentiment that Zergs are underpowered. However, there is some truth to the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy in Terran popularity. If everyone thinks Terran is OP, then more players will be inclined to play them, thereby further increasing the disparity between Terran representation and all the other races.
|
|
|
On September 15 2010 02:33 SniXSniPe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:
highly doubt it. If you're a random player you've never played vs 2gate proxy at natural. I bet you have zero experience holding that off. Sure I have. I also know when/how to scout properly. Besides that... 2gate proxy. I haven't seen this since like... placement matches, or some 2v2 games. Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:03 Ghazwan wrote:
So what you are arguing is that T is the most fun to play and Z is dull and the point of this argument is that you can get to top 20 in no time, even as a Z player? OK!
Btw, you can't.
Perhaps the reason Zerg has a lower player count than the other races is because it is not a very appealing race/seems quite dull, compared to say, Terran, thus a lower percentage of players are in the top 200, as there is a lower population (also contributions from "imba"). But has anyone taken a look at the average diamond player zerg stats? That would be the most interesting to me. Also I could. Are you mad that I could with any of the three races? It's really not that difficult for any good player, so long as they have plenty of time to play games.
No, no you couldn't.
|
Seriously all the people complaining that T is OP spurs more people to play T. And since they really don't seem to care to be innovative or try something new or tightening up their play the more T's there are vs the more under represented Z's creates and even bigger race and "skill disparity".
People who don't even analyze the "apparent" balance issues but complain just cause their race to suffer more until they reach a point where Blizzards like, "this is probably gonna break the game but whatever at least we'll get the monkeys off our backs."
|
Just some historical numbers for perspective. Top 20 is a bit unstable. But the Top 200 hasn't changed much in four weeks.
Top 20 NA
8/23 T=10 P=9 Z=1
8/30 T=9 P=8 Z=3
9/7 T=11 P=6 Z=3
9/14 T=15 P=4 Z=1
Top 200 NA
8/23 T=89 P=64 Z=42
8/30 T=92 P=63 Z=38
9/7 T=92 P=59 Z=42
9/14 T=90 P= 66 Z=37
|
Would be curious to see how these stack up to the sc2ranks site, with +/- in ranking for the top 100. Perhaps we could then get a better handle on how Blizz actually ranks the players internally.
|
Interesting point: 2 weeks ago I had almost exactly 1 week of inactivity in ladder, the next week (I had about 3 days of ladder before the rankings) I was off the top 200 even when I had the points to be in there (Daboo was on I think and I had just beaten him twice that day and there was like 100 points between us) and now I jumped to #137.
So it seems activity is an appreciable factor. Idra was on there for a certain time so it probably drops you a certain amount based on days inactive.
Another note: Draco playing P at #182!
|
The past 3 top 20 articles I have read on here have a max of about 3 zerg, BOTH NA and EU.
Honestly its just disgusting, how can somebody NOT talk about racial imbalance at this point considering only P and T have been winning tournaments on top of it.
This game is becoming Starcraft 2: Wings of Terran/Protoss
|
terran is OP we all know that, they need to nerf Marauder drops
|
On September 14 2010 16:47 swuSC2 wrote:
Except when you actually look at NON-US, NON-EUROPE Top 20 you'd see that:
Taiwan: P 6/ T 6 / 8 Z / 1 R
SEA: 12 P/ 4 T / 4 Z
Korea: P 5 / 8 T /7 Z
So stop throwing statistics at why T is OP. I mean if you look at this is Protoss OP in SEA then? I mean if all the Zerg players hating on T in the US+Europe are just basing their rationale on Top XX players then maybe white people can't play Z?
How about you people post something useful on another post actually analyzing why something or not being over powered instead of jumping into these posts and saying stuff like "Wow these statistics are IMBA.
Am I the only one who finds Terran players that whine about Zerg whiners even more annoying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
