EPTOn May 03 2011 04:10 Poopi wrote:
Did the patch hit after or before the code A qualifiers?
Did the patch hit after or before the code A qualifiers?
the patch still hasn't hit...
Race balance last 6 months. - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Jayrod
1820 Posts
the patch still hasn't hit... | ||
|
Draconicfire
Canada2562 Posts
Protoss has really taken a huge dip recently. | ||
|
pycho
Paraguay372 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:41 ehalf wrote: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/region/grandmaster/1/all From what i see, protoss is dominate everywhere Nerf terran and burf protoss? U definitely want your ladder games full of PvP, dont u? What? on what information in that link did u deduce that protoss is dominating? | ||
|
Novalisk
Israel1818 Posts
On May 02 2011 23:59 TT1 wrote: lol right when the amulet nerf and infestor buff happened toss went to shit in korea Quoting a guy who knows what he's talking about. | ||
|
ehalf
408 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:48 pycho wrote: What? on what information in that link did u deduce that protoss is dominating? wtf u blind? Plz show one clue that protoss is the same as terran or zerg or weaker than those User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Gheed
United States972 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rHuxk.png) | ||
|
HolyArrow
United States7116 Posts
| ||
|
AndyBear
Canada132 Posts
| ||
|
phrenzy
United Kingdom478 Posts
For me i find playing myself and watching pro gamers that tvz is pretty balanced. The better player will usually win, early, mid and late game. So to see terran pulling infront of zerg is a bit weird, does it mean they are imbalanced. Doubtful (IMO). Personally i feel Protoss are still a little too overpowered. Colossi are difficult to deal with once there are more than 3 (as they should be), especially with decent ground support. New styles have emerged but they are risky to say the least. Micro'd right (which isnt easy even for pro players) and it looks like an easy win, miro'd wrong and its a massive fail and you lose. And in my eyes if you have to risk a lot to prevent a particular unit from being made because you know you cannot engage in a straight up fight then there is a problem somewhere. Personally i always thought pvz came down to the sentry, and thought that if they increased FF time when near pylon power and decreased it when away would help. Making it harder to abuse offensively and easier to defend. But then they decreased the pylon power radius... or are about to. edit: i would also love to know a match length breakdown for these matchups but that either sounds like hard work or impossible to gather. | ||
|
Silent331
United States356 Posts
-sample size is big enough to show the average with no deviation -all players are playing the best that their race can possibly be played -all races are proportionally represented in sample size -all games were played on a perfectly balanced map where every race has an equal chance to win in every spawn position combination -there has been no game development so nothing can happen that is unexpected if you think this shows balance than be ready to defend that you believe all the above are true. | ||
|
loveeholicce
Korea (South)785 Posts
On May 03 2011 03:44 xbankx wrote: I just never seen Pro toss just don't complain no matter how bad it looks. When you remember the period with medivac with freaken high movement speed where terran can snipe your builds then stalkers can't even catch up or when zerg was dominated with 2 base mutas into 3 base mutaling toss players like Tyler and Incontrol just said toss can always play better. They don't look at the game negatively and jump straight to imba like Idra/Artosis. Zerg being UP is a mere opinion just because pro players say it doesn't mean it is true because pro player will always want their race to be buffed until they can win every tourney. Now look at the date when the episode imbalance was posted and then look at when the infestor buff came out. Then go find as many as game in between that time when a pro toss went that strat and tell me how many you can find. I followed the scene very well during that time and even after that episode other than random ladder games I played versus nub toss. All pro games from semi big to big tourney(not counting random round of 64 of a craft cup) that I had watch, I had never seen the the strat deployed other than the first time in GSTL. How could you say it is imbalanced after the patch? It is litterally never used in the pro scene except 1 game. If it was as strong as 5 rax reaper, I expected to see more than 1 game of it. If however you are saying zergs are having trouble with it in diamond/masters, then yea it might be true. I had a hard time stopping it myself but you should never look at balance at that low of a level. Lol. You can go back just a few months and find Genius and Inca threatening to race switch, or you can go to some SotG episodes a few months ago and hear incontrol and tyler talking about how Protoss felt "bare", how they were too vulnerable to early timing rushes, how a Protoss army was incapable of safely retreating, and how Protoss needed better harass options. On May 02 2011 23:59 TT1 wrote: lol right when the amulet nerf and infestor buff happened toss went to shit in korea LOL come on..... On May 03 2011 05:14 Silent331 wrote: If you think win rates=blanace than you are assuming the following -sample size is big enough to show the average with no deviation -all players are playing the best that their race can possibly be played -all races are proportionally represented in sample size -all games were played on a perfectly balanced map where every race has an equal chance to win in every spawn position combination -there has been no game development so nothing can happen that is unexpected if you think this shows balance than be ready to defend that you believe all the above are true. I disagree. This would be true in an ideal world but its just not practical. That's why we use large sample sizes to average out all the variables. That being said....this sample size is pretty bad lol | ||
|
phyren
United States1067 Posts
On May 03 2011 05:14 Silent331 wrote: If you think win rates=blanace than you are assuming the following -sample size is big enough to show the average with no deviation -all players are playing the best that their race can possibly be played -all races are proportionally represented in sample size -all games were played on a perfectly balanced map where every race has an equal chance to win in every spawn position combination -there has been no game development so nothing can happen that is unexpected if you think this shows balance than be ready to defend that you believe all the above are true. I'm not arguing that win rates are the same thing as balance, but I think the idea in this quote is incorrect. -certainly sample size matters, and it will only grow with time, though already there are so many tournaments going on that we should have a pretty good pool to draw from. Of course the balance changes and developing metagame mean data from a couple months ago may already be useless for talking about the game today. -hopefully, the end goal is not to make a game that is only balanced when everyone is able to play in a strategically and mechanically perfect manner (seeing as this is impossible for anyone, much less everyone). To talk about true balance you need perfect or at least near perfect players, but we wouldn't want one race to be absolute shit until your mechanics reached some plateau. Ideally the game can be somewhat competitive at all skill levels. The bnet 2.0 mmr system helps this. (this has been discussed in other threads) -on ladder maps are chosen randomly, as are spawn. Over a large enough sample size any random variation gets washed out on average. This would only be a significant concern if you were trying to say that a significant majority of maps or spawn positions significantly imbalance the game in a consistent way (i.e. 70% of maps favor p over z, and the remaining 30% don't have a strong enough reverse imbalance to counter this). Also, several tournaments (from which this data comes) allow the players to choose maps or thumb down maps, so this complicates things, but it also means that either players were able to alternate choosing favorable maps or they were able to cancel the effects of grossly imbalanced maps. -on the contrary, these graphs could be used to argue that there has been game development as we can see large swinging in win percentages of the races. | ||
|
nn42
Sweden18 Posts
- I would argue the sample size would equal out racial misstakes - No numbers are presented, but sc2ranks shows a close dispersion of close to 30% of each race, so I would for the sake of ease here suspect that the same ratio is applied here, again because of the sample size. - Have no numbers. It's always hard to look at maps and balance, since various tactics are near equal to the importance of races on various maps. Scrap station really premiers muta ling and drops, which means protoss has a hard time against those specific builds/tactics on the special maps. my point is that maps are hard to argue balance on. - There have been game changes, and the 'metagame' is a part of Blizzard balance. The recent 4gate nerf is a part of something I'd argue isn't op at all, but it's getting a nerf because Blizzard wants more various builds in PvP I'm not saying Blizzard should balance the game just out of these graphs, I state that the graphs prove so much QQing wrong. | ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
On May 03 2011 05:14 phrenzy wrote: Interesting data. Though its discouraging to see though how people will completely define balance around it. For me i find playing myself and watching pro gamers that tvz is pretty balanced. The better player will usually win, early, mid and late game. So to see terran pulling infront of zerg is a bit weird, does it mean they are imbalanced. Doubtful (IMO). Personally i feel Protoss are still a little too overpowered. Colossi are difficult to deal with once there are more than 3 (as they should be), especially with decent ground support. New styles have emerged but they are risky to say the least. Micro'd right (which isnt easy even for pro players) and it looks like an easy win, miro'd wrong and its a massive fail and you lose. And in my eyes if you have to risk a lot to prevent a particular unit from being made because you know you cannot engage in a straight up fight then there is a problem somewhere. Personally i always thought pvz came down to the sentry, and thought that if they increased FF time when near pylon power and decreased it when away would help. Making it harder to abuse offensively and easier to defend. But then they decreased the pylon power radius... or are about to. edit: i would also love to know a match length breakdown for these matchups but that either sounds like hard work or impossible to gather. http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom has the match length statistic if that's what you want  | ||
|
DragonDefonce
United States790 Posts
| ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
On May 03 2011 05:14 Silent331 wrote: If you think win rates=blanace than you are assuming the following -sample size is big enough to show the average with no deviation -all players are playing the best that their race can possibly be played -all races are proportionally represented in sample size -all games were played on a perfectly balanced map where every race has an equal chance to win in every spawn position combination -there has been no game development so nothing can happen that is unexpected if you think this shows balance than be ready to defend that you believe all the above are true. - sample size is pretty good here - The graphs shows that better maps are influencing the winrates - The races doesn't need to be proportional at all. Having less of a race just diminish its sample size but has no effect on winrate at all. - The graph shows that game development influenced winrates This is still the best tool to evaluate balance, even if winrate isn't balance, it's still pretty close to the same thing. This shows that for a group of players who aim to improve at the game and to have the highest possible skill, the race doesn't (or does if there is imbalance) influence the results. | ||
|
Sporadic44
United States533 Posts
it would be cool if we could get more information like this on the site. not necessarily line graphs but sets of observable data. for example if you click on metalopolis you could pull up some data on wins/losses regarding matches. played on that map. or other information such as average match length. just some examples. i have limited knowledge on statistics, entry level college math, and a scientific understanding of analyzing and displaying data through biology labs. but i feel this could be something worth at least trying to work on. if anyone else likes the idea send a pm my way. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
You really think an IM House match between Horror and Seed on iCCup Testbug represents balance? No, it doesn't. They don't even know the map! Throwing in random games to make up the numbers is stupid. GSL Code A and Code S combined give ZvP as being 10-8, so Z has a slight edge on a very small sample size. GSL TvP is a lot different and is 29-15 TvP, so maybe there is a story there, but throwing up a small sample which includes basically joke/entertainment games, not serious competition, is pretty silly when those games make up the majority of your sample size (42 games zvp, 18 from GSL, the rest from other competitions). | ||
|
K3Nyy
United States1961 Posts
On May 03 2011 00:11 oxxo wrote: MVP is talking about GSL maps. These stats include ALOT of stuff on the non-GSL small maps. IIRC, the new GSL maps win ratios were still in favor of terran. | ||
|
Barett
Canada454 Posts
On May 02 2011 23:50 Zaros wrote: Nice to know the PvZ troubles i have been having is echoed in korea. Very interesting results. Haha I was just thinking the same thing. PvZ is my strongest matchup, but whenever I play someone close to my level or better then me I found the matchup very hard and frustrating. I know this is not exactly a balance chart lol. Just interesting to see. | ||
| ||
