|
So are the data points you used to for the graph every month? So like 6 values for each race? And when you say you only tournaments/leagues, are you excluding all the KOTHs and qualifiers that are listed in the TLPD
The Korean statistics I'm most critical of. If we take for example the April statistic, I assume you're using the GSL Code A/S and the SK Gaming Asia Master tournament as the sole source of data. Now when you also consider the GSL code A and S are not even finished and that a large portion of games are mirror match ups, I just can't see how we can find value in a sample like this.
I think the huge variations we see are much more indicative of the volatility that comes from the tiny sample, rather than patches or "metagame" changes.
Do you think you could give your numbers more specifically and calculate the error? I don't think you just noting a small sample size is enough (As shown by how seriously people are taking the korean data in this thread). I think otherwise this thread is abusing statistics and giving people bad information.
|
On May 03 2011 01:15 Moriwo wrote:
I think these stats show a lot to prove that map changes and race development are making the real changes to the "balance" of the game than actual balance changes (mostly looking at the international scene).
I would imagine that the decline in overall Terran win percentages is mostly due to the introduction of bigger maps and the removal of small maps (i.e. Steppes).
Protoss had a pretty big jump in win percentage with the big Patch 1.2, but I think that's a case of correlation vs. causation. Around that time, Protosses began getting upgrades a lot faster (double forge, etc.), which really proved to be hugely effective in the PvT matchup. Also around that time began the development of the 3 gate expansion and the Void Ray/Colossus deathball in PvZ. As Protoss strategy became more fleshed out, they began winning more despite relatively small changes.
It's also nice to note how these days Zerg is getting much better in the ZvP matchup. Indeed, the infestor buff helped Zerg out a lot, but Zergs also began developing new strategies such as fast burrow, more ling/baneling styles, and more effective use of their "tier 3" units, so much so that in fact the win rates slightly favor Zerg. It was just a few months ago that Zergs everywhere were complaining about ZvP imbalance, and nowadays seem to be doing fine in the matchup.
TvZ really surprised me, although if I were to guess at why the matchup favors Terran so much, I'd probably attribute it to the massive Terran presence in Europe. European Terrans are quite strong, whereas there just aren't that many European Zergs. That's just my guess, I really don't know for sure.
Overall, this just kind of proves that the game needs time to develop and grow before we should really be calling for massive balance changes.
Just my take on ZvP trends:
Since beta it was obvious Zerg had the greatest production potential with spawn larva. The only difference was that unlike the other two races, Zerg couldn't make workers and attacking units at the same time (well it technically could, but since the units were weaker it just wouldn't work because you needed to establish a stronger economy). However, once Zerg got an economy going it was accepted that the Protoss would get rolled.
So basically Protoss play centered around the idea of not letting a Zerg get his economy up uncontested, as they would be sure to get outmacroed in the late game. This pretty much defined the dynamic of the matchup. Zerg would drone for as long as possible, and then make units in anticipation of a push. They'd crush that push and win. Meanwhile Protoss would try to work on various timing rushes and high army pressure builds to prevent this.
Recently though, it dawned on Protoss that Zerg lategame was actually quite terrible, and that Zerg couldn't beat a 200 / 200 army. On top of that Zerg couldn't saturate more than ~3 1/2 bases because ot would mean making too many workers. So for the last few months Protoss have more or less always had their core army sitting at home, turtling 3 bases, and maxing out before they pushed. Zerg would wait and build an army in anticipation of a push that never came, and then get completely rolled by a maxed out army that their units simply can't stand up to. Hence we see from ~January till now Zergs doing horribly, especially vs Protoss, because their style was still to wait for a Protoss to move out, which isn't happening until 200 / 200.
Trends are now improving with perhaps the infestor buff (although I still maintain they suck in ZvP) but more notably a greater Zerg emphasis on aggression, drops, attacks, etc that try to stop Protoss from building a 200 / 200 army uncontested, cause you're gonna lose every time they do that =_=
|
Hm. Unless there is additional information about the data (number of matches per month, especially april), I am convinced this does not proove anything (if scientific criteria would apply). In terms of balance I mean.
|
On May 03 2011 01:15 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:05 LastMan wrote:On May 03 2011 01:00 Dommk wrote:On May 03 2011 00:56 SKC wrote:On May 03 2011 00:33 hi im new wrote:On May 03 2011 00:28 Micket wrote:
In Korea:
Protoss has MC and maybee San and Alicia.
Zerg has Nestea, Losira and July.
Terran has MVP, MKP, MMA, Ryung, Bomber, NaDa, Keen!, Supernova, SC, Top, Boxer (kinda), Jinro, Cliiiiiiiiide and Hyperdub (no denying this). so you're saying out of all the people that train starcraft 2 really hard in korea (and it's a lot, trust me on this) only 1-2 protoss, 3 zergs and also a fuckton of terran players dominate the scene? unless you somehow believe that picking terran magically gives a huge boost in skill (which it doesn't) then you're saying terran is imbalanced. i agree. That post must be a joke, maybe San and Alicia but definatelly a shitload of Terrans like Hyperdub, Boxer, Clide, etc that either have one good run or haven't even showed anything besides a few Code A games or Team League games. A lot of the "Terran promises" may actually fail when time passes, like promisses always do. If you go that route, why not put Squirtle, Choya, Inca, Ace, etc? They had at least one good run, seemed promissing at the time, even if they are not the top Protosses. This is just so biased it can't be taken seriously, and doesn't even consider the fact that, if you believe in the imbalance, which I don't, maybe players like Tester would have more sucess as Terran and some of those Terrans wouldn't have the same sucess as Protoss. The korean sample is too small to start crying about anything, but the international sample definatelly says that all this Protoss OP QQ is weird, or at least premature, specially from Terrans, where the matchup has always been pretty damn close. PvZ hasn't really been stable so it's hard to say anything about it. Don't think it is imbalance, just easier to play Terran at higher levels than the other two races. NesTea even said it himself, I'm paraphrasing here, but in his interview with Artosis it went something along the lines of "Terran you can play a little bit and become a great player", "Protoss, if you work really hard and become really good at it, you will become unbeatable", "Zerg sad" getting really annoyed by this quote, mvp said terran is the weakest race so why dont u quote him, biased much? This isn't balance though....Don't think anyone thinks Terran is imbalanced, but there have been so many "great" Terran players when there has been so little for the other races, why is that? What NesTea said was right, other than MC how many very "solid" Protoss players do you have? Possibly Ace, maybe Alicia---keep in mind this is the most played race in Starcraft2 right now. What about Zerg? NesTa and Losira come to mind, but for Terran there are a plethora. The race isn't stronger than any of the other races, but it is a lot easier to be consistent and "solid" with than the other two, though keeping that in mind it doesn't take anything away from the tip top players like Bomber and MVP. Maybe in a few years it will cease to matter when people have gotten a lot better.
You would quote anything that says Protoss is hard to play, it's getting tiring to read your replies to every thread that has "balance" in it. We get it: Terran OP, Protoss UP, sympathy for Zerg to get them to agree and ending on the note that you're not implying imbalance.
|
On May 03 2011 00:33 hi im new wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 00:28 Micket wrote:
In Korea:
Protoss has MC and maybee San and Alicia.
Zerg has Nestea, Losira and July.
Terran has MVP, MKP, MMA, Ryung, Bomber, NaDa, Keen!, Supernova, SC, Top, Boxer (kinda), Jinro, Cliiiiiiiiide and Hyperdub (no denying this). so you're saying out of all the people that train starcraft 2 really hard in korea (and it's a lot, trust me on this) only 1-2 protoss, 3 zergs and also a fuckton of terran players dominate the scene? unless you somehow believe that picking terran magically gives a huge boost in skill (which it doesn't) then you're saying terran is imbalanced. i agree.
Actually, my post wasn't anything about imbalance. It was simply hard and clear fact that the majority of the good players in Korea all play Terran. Whether this is indicative of any balance is not up to me. If you look at the 2 most recent GSLs, it is very hard to argue that Terran dominates in Korea. To be honest, I firmly believe that these people are also some of the most skilled players in Korea and that their skill is what's skewing Korea's results as well as the lack of sample size.
And yes, Hyperdub, Clide, and the like are jokes. I tried to make it obvious with the sarcasm.
|
Sample size is smaller for Korea but deviation from average is ridiculously huge. If you do a chi squared, I'm sure it would reject the null at 95% confidence, probably even 99% confidence. 700 games is pretty damn sizeable. PvT and PvZ are looking like absolute garbage right now.
|
I love reading over the replies of people here that you see often whining about balance (STOG thread, etc) now wanting to take a step back and look at the bigger picture :D
|
Really nice job. The international one is especially cool, and suggests that given a year or two, it's not unreasonable to expect 50% winrates across the board.
|
On May 03 2011 01:43 Mafe wrote:
Hm. Unless there is additional information about the data (number of matches per month, especially april), I am convinced this does not proove anything (if scientific criteria would apply).
i agree, having the complete data tables or at the very least an explanation of how such data was created would validate the findings a lot more.
to the OP, the more data you include with polls like this the better.
|
On May 03 2011 01:48 Micket wrote:
Actually, my post wasn't anything about imbalance. It was simply hard and clear fact that the majority of the good players in Korea all play Terran.
Or Terran makes it easier to look good, so more Terrans look good than other races.
Whether this is indicative of any balance is not up to me. If you look at the 2 most recent GSLs, it is very hard to argue that Terran dominates in Korea.
They don't dominate like they used to, but they're still the most common race by far at the top level. Whether you want to call that domination or not is semantics.
To be honest, I firmly believe that these people are also some of the most skilled players in Korea and that their skill is what's skewing Korea's results as well as the lack of sample size.
Meh, people said the same when Terran was winning 70% of everything. Most of those Terran players vanished as they became less OP.
|
Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing. 
|
On May 03 2011 01:15 Dommk wrote:
This isn't balance though....Don't think anyone thinks Terran is imbalanced, but there have been so many "great" Terran players when there has been so little for the other races, why is that?
Why is that?
Terran in the earlier stages of Starcraft 2's development were doing really well (whether it was balance or simply meta game is another debate). A lot of players chose which race was doing the best when the game first came out. At this point, players are more or less committed to their race (given some exceptions of course). This is no indication of the PRESENT state of Terran in the grand scheme of balance.
Your argument would make sense if players were recently switching to Terran and excelling in success, but that is not the case. Had Zerg been dominant at the very start of SC2 release, we would likely be seeing a higher quantity of Zerg players and less Terran players.
|
On May 03 2011 01:45 Saechiis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:15 Dommk wrote:On May 03 2011 01:05 LastMan wrote:On May 03 2011 01:00 Dommk wrote:On May 03 2011 00:56 SKC wrote:On May 03 2011 00:33 hi im new wrote:On May 03 2011 00:28 Micket wrote:
In Korea:
Protoss has MC and maybee San and Alicia.
Zerg has Nestea, Losira and July.
Terran has MVP, MKP, MMA, Ryung, Bomber, NaDa, Keen!, Supernova, SC, Top, Boxer (kinda), Jinro, Cliiiiiiiiide and Hyperdub (no denying this). so you're saying out of all the people that train starcraft 2 really hard in korea (and it's a lot, trust me on this) only 1-2 protoss, 3 zergs and also a fuckton of terran players dominate the scene? unless you somehow believe that picking terran magically gives a huge boost in skill (which it doesn't) then you're saying terran is imbalanced. i agree. That post must be a joke, maybe San and Alicia but definatelly a shitload of Terrans like Hyperdub, Boxer, Clide, etc that either have one good run or haven't even showed anything besides a few Code A games or Team League games. A lot of the "Terran promises" may actually fail when time passes, like promisses always do. If you go that route, why not put Squirtle, Choya, Inca, Ace, etc? They had at least one good run, seemed promissing at the time, even if they are not the top Protosses. This is just so biased it can't be taken seriously, and doesn't even consider the fact that, if you believe in the imbalance, which I don't, maybe players like Tester would have more sucess as Terran and some of those Terrans wouldn't have the same sucess as Protoss. The korean sample is too small to start crying about anything, but the international sample definatelly says that all this Protoss OP QQ is weird, or at least premature, specially from Terrans, where the matchup has always been pretty damn close. PvZ hasn't really been stable so it's hard to say anything about it. Don't think it is imbalance, just easier to play Terran at higher levels than the other two races. NesTea even said it himself, I'm paraphrasing here, but in his interview with Artosis it went something along the lines of "Terran you can play a little bit and become a great player", "Protoss, if you work really hard and become really good at it, you will become unbeatable", "Zerg sad" getting really annoyed by this quote, mvp said terran is the weakest race so why dont u quote him, biased much? This isn't balance though....Don't think anyone thinks Terran is imbalanced, but there have been so many "great" Terran players when there has been so little for the other races, why is that? What NesTea said was right, other than MC how many very "solid" Protoss players do you have? Possibly Ace, maybe Alicia---keep in mind this is the most played race in Starcraft2 right now. What about Zerg? NesTa and Losira come to mind, but for Terran there are a plethora. The race isn't stronger than any of the other races, but it is a lot easier to be consistent and "solid" with than the other two, though keeping that in mind it doesn't take anything away from the tip top players like Bomber and MVP. Maybe in a few years it will cease to matter when people have gotten a lot better. You would quote anything that says Protoss is hard to play, it's getting tiring to read your replies to every thread that has "balance" in it. We get it: Terran OP, Protoss UP, sympathy for Zerg to get them to agree and ending on the note that you're not implying imbalance.
I haven't made an opinion about balance or any race being easier/harder to play in a LONG LONG time... I think I maybe mentioned it once right after the interview with NesTea but that is it-- and just like this time, I said it wasn't that big of an issue as in a few years when people get better it might change
|
Italy12248 Posts
What is mostly ironic is that while the P matchups seem fine (as in, the shifts in winning percentage shifts are probably caused by metagame changes, as has been pointed out), TvZ statistically has always been fairly T favoured, while being looked at as the "balanced" matchup.
Having said that, i will link this every time someone on ladder flames me with ZOMG PROTOSS OP...at platinum/diamond level -.-
|
Zergs could have 80% winrates in every matchup (including zvz) and they'd still find something to whine about. It's just the way the game works. Have you ever beaten a zerg who actually thought they deserved to lose? It is just the way Zerg play has developed; apparently being beaten into the ground by 5rax reaper for so long didn't sit well with them and they've grouped any loss they've suffered with a similar abuse. It is sad, really. A lot of zergs I know are losing because of their mindset rather than their play; they are beating themselves.
|
On May 03 2011 01:42 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:15 Moriwo wrote:
I think these stats show a lot to prove that map changes and race development are making the real changes to the "balance" of the game than actual balance changes (mostly looking at the international scene).
I would imagine that the decline in overall Terran win percentages is mostly due to the introduction of bigger maps and the removal of small maps (i.e. Steppes).
Protoss had a pretty big jump in win percentage with the big Patch 1.2, but I think that's a case of correlation vs. causation. Around that time, Protosses began getting upgrades a lot faster (double forge, etc.), which really proved to be hugely effective in the PvT matchup. Also around that time began the development of the 3 gate expansion and the Void Ray/Colossus deathball in PvZ. As Protoss strategy became more fleshed out, they began winning more despite relatively small changes.
It's also nice to note how these days Zerg is getting much better in the ZvP matchup. Indeed, the infestor buff helped Zerg out a lot, but Zergs also began developing new strategies such as fast burrow, more ling/baneling styles, and more effective use of their "tier 3" units, so much so that in fact the win rates slightly favor Zerg. It was just a few months ago that Zergs everywhere were complaining about ZvP imbalance, and nowadays seem to be doing fine in the matchup.
TvZ really surprised me, although if I were to guess at why the matchup favors Terran so much, I'd probably attribute it to the massive Terran presence in Europe. European Terrans are quite strong, whereas there just aren't that many European Zergs. That's just my guess, I really don't know for sure.
Overall, this just kind of proves that the game needs time to develop and grow before we should really be calling for massive balance changes. Just my take on ZvP trends: Since beta it was obvious Zerg had the greatest production potential with spawn larva. The only difference was that unlike the other two races, Zerg couldn't make workers and attacking units at the same time (well it technically could, but since the units were weaker it just wouldn't work because you needed to establish a stronger economy). However, once Zerg got an economy going it was accepted that the Protoss would get rolled. So basically Protoss play centered around the idea of not letting a Zerg get his economy up uncontested, as they would be sure to get outmacroed in the late game. This pretty much defined the dynamic of the matchup. Zerg would drone for as long as possible, and then make units in anticipation of a push. They'd crush that push and win. Meanwhile Protoss would try to work on various timing rushes and high army pressure builds to prevent this. Recently though, it dawned on Protoss that Zerg lategame was actually quite terrible, and that Zerg couldn't beat a 200 / 200 army. On top of that Zerg couldn't saturate more than ~3 1/2 bases because ot would mean making too many workers. So for the last few months Protoss have more or less always had their core army sitting at home, turtling 3 bases, and maxing out before they pushed. Zerg would wait and build an army in anticipation of a push that never came, and then get completely rolled by a maxed out army that their units simply can't stand up to. Hence we see from ~January till now Zergs doing horribly, especially vs Protoss, because their style was still to wait for a Protoss to move out, which isn't happening until 200 / 200. Trends are now improving with perhaps the infestor buff (although I still maintain they suck in ZvP) but more notably a greater Zerg emphasis on aggression, drops, attacks, etc that try to stop Protoss from building a 200 / 200 army uncontested, cause you're gonna lose every time they do that =_=
I think that's spot on.
But I personnally don't think ZvP is balanced though. If you look at the stats ZvP has been very imbalanced in the past months.
The fact that we are seeing more zergs winning can just mean that the bad protoss players previously getting undeserved wins cannot handle the changes in the metagame.
|
I really want to know what kind of strategy the Koreans are using in ZvP. 70% win ratio is RIDICULOUS!
|
On May 03 2011 01:29 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:25 Jayrod wrote:
Enough of my digression. Basically, protoss' very weak base defense is being taken advantage of by these races in recent games. I think protoss users will need to come up with some creative uses of air (not deathball air, i mean map control style air) in the near future. I don't think you can say our base defence is bad. Templar + phoenixs + warpins is very, very strong. But yes, I agree, the threat of medivacs is not well accounted for with current playstyles, and that's being abused (templar in the ball and stalkers are pretty much the only AA). Incontrol is right - phoenixs will see increasing usage.
What I meant/tried to say was that it costs the protoss alot more to properly defend. You give up alot more in other areas than the other races. Zerg has creep (probably the single best defensive factor in SC2) and terrans have a 1500 hp building that does splash damage and can be prepared as well as generally a group of units rallied to a spot between their bases. Combine those things with their relative strength in medium size numbers compared to toss and you have a situation where its very difficult to defend as protoss.
InControl has generally been wrong about every prediction I've seen him make
"NASL is going to be the best thing since sliced bread"
"Phoenix are going to be a staple in PvP". Even the PvP I saw him win against cruncher with a phoenix switch was only possible by cruncher's mistake missing a gigantic timing window. (backwater gulch game couple weeks ago or last week). Everyone was so impressed, but TBH cruncher has a massive advantage in tech and comp, but just didn't attack.
If I agree with the increase in phoenix usage I have to say its going to come with this restructuring of protoss in general. With current builds and trends adding phoenix is like squeezing blood from a turnip. The builds are very tight and have to hit very specific timings or automatically become unsafe. As other races learn to abuse the builds (which they seem to be) protoss is going to have to adapt and change, which will take time and alot of frustrating losses.
|
On May 03 2011 02:03 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:42 loveeholicce wrote:On May 03 2011 01:15 Moriwo wrote:
I think these stats show a lot to prove that map changes and race development are making the real changes to the "balance" of the game than actual balance changes (mostly looking at the international scene).
I would imagine that the decline in overall Terran win percentages is mostly due to the introduction of bigger maps and the removal of small maps (i.e. Steppes).
Protoss had a pretty big jump in win percentage with the big Patch 1.2, but I think that's a case of correlation vs. causation. Around that time, Protosses began getting upgrades a lot faster (double forge, etc.), which really proved to be hugely effective in the PvT matchup. Also around that time began the development of the 3 gate expansion and the Void Ray/Colossus deathball in PvZ. As Protoss strategy became more fleshed out, they began winning more despite relatively small changes.
It's also nice to note how these days Zerg is getting much better in the ZvP matchup. Indeed, the infestor buff helped Zerg out a lot, but Zergs also began developing new strategies such as fast burrow, more ling/baneling styles, and more effective use of their "tier 3" units, so much so that in fact the win rates slightly favor Zerg. It was just a few months ago that Zergs everywhere were complaining about ZvP imbalance, and nowadays seem to be doing fine in the matchup.
TvZ really surprised me, although if I were to guess at why the matchup favors Terran so much, I'd probably attribute it to the massive Terran presence in Europe. European Terrans are quite strong, whereas there just aren't that many European Zergs. That's just my guess, I really don't know for sure.
Overall, this just kind of proves that the game needs time to develop and grow before we should really be calling for massive balance changes. Just my take on ZvP trends: Since beta it was obvious Zerg had the greatest production potential with spawn larva. The only difference was that unlike the other two races, Zerg couldn't make workers and attacking units at the same time (well it technically could, but since the units were weaker it just wouldn't work because you needed to establish a stronger economy). However, once Zerg got an economy going it was accepted that the Protoss would get rolled. So basically Protoss play centered around the idea of not letting a Zerg get his economy up uncontested, as they would be sure to get outmacroed in the late game. This pretty much defined the dynamic of the matchup. Zerg would drone for as long as possible, and then make units in anticipation of a push. They'd crush that push and win. Meanwhile Protoss would try to work on various timing rushes and high army pressure builds to prevent this. Recently though, it dawned on Protoss that Zerg lategame was actually quite terrible, and that Zerg couldn't beat a 200 / 200 army. On top of that Zerg couldn't saturate more than ~3 1/2 bases because ot would mean making too many workers. So for the last few months Protoss have more or less always had their core army sitting at home, turtling 3 bases, and maxing out before they pushed. Zerg would wait and build an army in anticipation of a push that never came, and then get completely rolled by a maxed out army that their units simply can't stand up to. Hence we see from ~January till now Zergs doing horribly, especially vs Protoss, because their style was still to wait for a Protoss to move out, which isn't happening until 200 / 200. Trends are now improving with perhaps the infestor buff (although I still maintain they suck in ZvP) but more notably a greater Zerg emphasis on aggression, drops, attacks, etc that try to stop Protoss from building a 200 / 200 army uncontested, cause you're gonna lose every time they do that =_= I think that's spot on. But I personnally don't think ZvP is balanced though. If you look at the stats ZvP has been very imbalanced in the past months. The fact that we are seeing more zergs winning can just mean that the bad protoss players previously getting undeserved wins cannot handle the changes in the metagame.
An issue is that even if the results are skewed one way or another, it does not necessarily mean the tools available to both races make it possible for both to win about equally. The metagame changed with the roach buff patch and zerg is just now starting to adapt away from their old standard. Basically it went: Zerg struggle ZvP. Blizz buffs roach range. Toss struggle PvZ and resort to defensive style that beats roach builds with high success rate. Zerg continues to do roach/hydra until they figure out how to adapt. Now they're adapting out of their very bad standard unit mix.
|
Korean Terrans have many of the best players in the world-- MVP, MKP, Nada, oGs Top, oGs SuperNova, Bomber, MMA, etc. Because the sample size is so small, Terran has a very high winning %.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
