EPTGSL Match Statistics - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Perscienter
957 Posts
| ||
|
K3Nyy
United States1961 Posts
| ||
|
QuixoticO
Netherlands810 Posts
On January 09 2011 23:21 Odoakar wrote: As I always knew, Protoss is having the hardest time, imagine if there wasn't MC around to keep those stats up  The same counts for Fruitdealer and IMNesTea in GSL1 and 2. I have the feeling the amount of matches played aren't enough and certain players are solely skewing the statistics. Tho once the match count goes up it should give a clearer and more statistically accurate image and I praise/thank you for starting this up. Especially the average game time was an interesting tho not very surprising value. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10330 Posts
Question, what was the average length of SC1 matches? (perhaps not throughout all 12 years ofc, but recently, what is it around? like in the korean pro level). Thanks in advance. | ||
|
MinoMino
Norway1103 Posts
On January 10 2011 04:37 Nyxs wrote: The same counts for Fruitdealer and IMNesTea in GSL1 and 2. I have the feeling the amount of matches played aren't enough and certain players are solely skewing the statistics. Tho once the match count goes up it should give a clearer and more statistically accurate image and I praise/thank you for starting this up. Especially the average game time was an interesting tho not very surprising value. With the amount of significant balance patches through out the GSL seasons, we will have to wait until the patch frequency goes down before this happens. Comparing matchups with all the seasons' matches combined doesn't make much sense. | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
Sc2 is so volatile atm, and builds are changing so quickly that there is too much randomness. One season 1 player will dominate the next 3 seasons he wont even qualify or get far. Thanks for the stats though  | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
The real problem in my opinion is how few things most toss units counter (especially gateway units) and how many units counter them. Also, how many key toss units in the early game loose their greatness as the game progresses. Sentries, immortals, stalkers, void rays, get smashed by a lot more stuff than they smash they are all strong early and not as strong mid to late game. Psi storm and colossus are great, but so expensive they are a huge investment. Zergs and Terrans are becoming less and less afraid of them because they are learning when to scout for them and making corruptors and vikings for the colossus, using emp vs HT or just dodging the storms. I play toss and terran, in my experience it is 5x harder to feedback a ghost than it is to dump and emp into a gateway ball. 1 emp hitting 9 units is 900 dmg (100 shields per unit) and no energy for casting and people bitch about storm? Which takes a lot of gas and time to get out. Yet infestors start with fungal and Ghosts start with emp, neither of which are dodgeable.... I think toss macro is awesome, but overall toss has the worst mobility of any race and the weakest harass. Phoenix and DT harass gets shut down by the same thing, turrets or spores. Phoenix major problem is you have to wait for about 3 before you can do any harass with them and then the energy runs out pretty quick. Many people have figured out that when they see phoenix early that your ground army will be much weaker and they go for the kill. I don't think making obs 25 gas cheeper, phoenix build 10 seconds faster, and halucination 80 seconds instead of 110 are going to fix the issues that exist with protoss. Scouting isn't the big issue imo. The units themselves are. It's really hard to do damage vs zerg without a huge amount of risk of loosing the game and terrans units are just much more cost effective vs toss units. The combination of MMM with a sprinkle of either ghost, viking, or tanks is just extremely hard to deal with, yet it easily deals with almost anything toss can make. I think terrans real problem in the late game vs toss is the same as their troubles vs zerg in late game. They just can't replace their armies as fast as the other races. But unlike toss, every terran unit, except BC's, can be used for effective harass in some situation. Zerg's units are pretty cost effective and they are usually ahead in economy after the 10 minute mark unless you've had some hugely successful push against them. The fact that so many naturals and 3rds are wide open is a good thing for zerg. Roaches, hydras, lings and banlings all have speed upgrades and creep to assist. There extreme mobility means they can deal with defending the key areas of maps much easier than the other races, yet still have the mobility to make huge attacks at any place anytime. The combination of this and their ability to reproduce 100 supply of and army in under a minute in the late game is why people are all ining them so much. The fear this scenario. I understand many will disagree. But watch closely in pro matches, how often zergs secure 3rds and loose the game. It's pretty rare. Usually, toss or terran never secure a 3rd vs zerg unless the zerg lets them and decides to take even more bases going up to 5 base. Yes, I know it's a bunch of qq and I agree wholeheartedly that toss is the easiest to learn and play in general (zerg being the hardest) . But at high levels it looses its luster against an opponent who understands protoss's weaknesses and scout at the right times. When these new larger macro oriented maps come into play. I have a feeling pvz is going to plummet for the toss winning percent and pvt will start swinging in Toss's favor. Zerg will start owning terrans and toss's in the months to come. Feel free to disagree and make a well stated, thought out rebuttal that doesn't include a slew of insults and vast generalizations. | ||
|
xiaofan
United States513 Posts
| ||
|
Comeh
United States18918 Posts
| ||
|
.Aar
2177 Posts
| ||
|
Perscienter
957 Posts
| ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
imagine a world without oGsMC - it would be a dull place to live.The games seem shorter; as a lot of pros have said the Koreans are great at early aggression and they execute this well.. New maps will also affect any future results as any new maps im sure will be more macro oriented. | ||
|
suejak
Japan545 Posts
On behalf of the often socially retarded Starcraft community, I would like to say thank you, OP, for everything you've done, and please only take the above as suggestions if you ever feel the desire to put even more time into this. You've done so much cool stuff already! | ||
|
Genovi
Sweden388 Posts
| ||
|
carbon_based
United States46 Posts
edit and expansion: and as for gateway units i think early game dominance and late game weakness is as it should be, and this is my perspective as a night elf player in war3, think about it, the stalker is super fast, ranged, and does extra vs armored, typically the units that "counter" the stalker, it is built much like the huntress, however, as soon as a snare or stun ability comes into play, that expensive, powerful unit is a liability, this is balance, your opponent sees you getting something that is good vs their composition and has a route to counter, protoss has this except its options are typically at tier 3, making the tier 2 scout so important, however the only real viable t2 scout is the observer which is what this patch is for, it is lowering the scouting burden for all 3 tech paths, the problem with this, however, is at the highest levels the protoss tech choice is going to be revealed by their scouting method, pay attention cuz this is some good info. if you see hallucinations, they went twilight council. if you see phoenix, stargate, obs, robo. good protoss should realize this and they should not throw down any t3 tech until that scout has revealed the response that your opponent makes to which scout he sees, i'm not sure if this is good but it is at least an improvement, but i really think the obs should be built from the nexus as soon as tier 2 is reached from stargate, twilight, or robo, because cloak banshee and dark templar threat still force robo in any non-rush game against terran and toss. | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
I would say maybe S1 with/without FD, S2 with/without Nestea, S3 with/without MC, etc. because the winners of the each season all won convincingly.... | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On January 10 2011 04:44 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Wow thanks for these numbers! Question, what was the average length of SC1 matches? (perhaps not throughout all 12 years ofc, but recently, what is it around? like in the korean pro level). Thanks in advance. Not too sure but I'm pretty positive it'll be at least 20-25 minutes easy. | ||
|
thragar
Canada450 Posts
On January 10 2011 11:32 Silidons wrote: Should do it like I saw a few weeks ago in the BW forum, the W/L rates WITH Flash/Jaedong and those WITHOUT. I would say maybe S1 with/without FD, S2 with/without Nestea, S3 with/without MC, etc. because the winners of the each season all won convincingly.... I actually completely disagree, and think it should go the other way. The game is balanced for the top tier of players, so perhaps we should only look at data from the top 32 or top 16. Or maybe do it like figure skating and remove both ends of the outliers. Nice post, btub, this was very interesting to read. It amazes me that the current season PvT stats are decided so heavily by Delta Quadrant. Protoss should start vetoing that map! | ||
|
ieatpasta
United States49 Posts
| ||
|
PopoChampion
Australia91 Posts
Right now if you were to take GSL 4, which is the most recent and therefore the most accurate GSL to be taking statistics from, and put the numbers together, it shows that Zerg is having a really really rough time with the other races. Of course, you have to take into account the amount of games that have been played, which isn't much at all. As you approach infinity games, the real percentage will present itself, so by the end of GSL we should have a nice percentage of win loss. | ||
| ||
