EPTPVT 13-25
PvZ 13-17
Race Win Rates Update: May - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Serdiuk
Belgium145 Posts
PVT 13-25 PvZ 13-17 | ||
|
Mithriel
Netherlands2969 Posts
On June 08 2011 06:05 Micket wrote: If myself and IdrA played 100 games and I played Terran, and I used builds ranging from 2 rax all in to 2 port banshee, and assuming IdrA doesn't over prepare for cheese every game, I would probably win 10 games, maybe more. Considering my actual skill level, this is way too high a win rate and I would not deserve such a win rate. Coin flips can lead to 50% win rates, but that does not show balance, it shows that we have a rock-paper-scissors match up. Probably you'll get more wins + Show Spoiler + Seeing Idra's tendency to GG when he is ahead | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
On June 08 2011 06:11 WindCalibur wrote: Shouldn't you discuss this at the top top levels? Rarely do you see protoss 3 gate robo these days( though i see Tyler do it time to time). Also, baneling busts can get you into master league. So can strategies like voidray rushes and such. You can argue that voidray all-ins have a 60% of winning a game and even if you don't, can only put you behind. The reason why Terrans don't all in as often these days are because its a coinflip, where the odds of winning slowly diminishes depending on your opponent's skill rather than your own. Terrans have variety, but it does not mean that a zerg is in a huge disadvantage because of so. Experience and skill can eliminate this variety and put you at even ground. I'm just giving the example to point out where the complaining comes from. I don't think it has anything to do with Zerg as a whole not being viable and everything to do with Zerg being frustrating as all hell to play against a cheesy Terran. At the top levels... I can still think of 4 or 5 allins from Terran that require completely different responses and can easily secure a lead >50% of the time, so it still applies. Regardless of opponents skill, the only determining factor is lucky guesses. | ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
On June 08 2011 05:49 Jermstuddog wrote: The assumption was vs Terran... You know... the race that is hard to scout... Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Actually, Zerg is a lot harder to scout for Protoss than Terran is, because the moment speed finishes, moving out with any units carries the immediate risk of losing them all to lings. From the moment speed finishes, to the moment Hallucination finishes, you are completely blind as Protoss in PvZ. Incidentally, ever since the Warpgate nerf, this is also a timeframe where you can get hit by a variety of Roach/Ling all-ins. The safest Protoss build against Zerg, 3 gate expand, already needs blind static defense to defend some of these. So, how exactly is Zerg in a worse position in TvZ? I would say that overlord scouts have a higher success rate than hiding probes and trying to run them into the Zerg's main. I actually do agree that the way scouting works in SC2 makes for stupid guessing games, but don't try to paint this as a problem limited to Zerg. Everyone has a hard time scouting, and everyone has to sacrifice economy if they want to be safe. Now, I don't necessarily agree with the notion of making scouting easier - I'd much prefer if the pace of the game was slowed down instead, and early units were made more robust (t1 hydras, and Zerg never loses to 2port ever again). | ||
|
sc14s
United States5052 Posts
Personally i think people cant say any 1 race is underpowered or overpowered, the current gsl bracket with less protoss cant be claimed to really be anything to do with how balanced it is imo. The reasoning behind that is from watching the protoss's get knocked out, most of them didnt play correctly + Show Spoiler + like huk last night for example MC | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
On June 08 2011 06:23 Toadvine wrote: Actually, Zerg is a lot harder to scout for Protoss than Terran is, because the moment speed finishes, moving out with any units carries the immediate risk of losing them all to lings. From the moment speed finishes, to the moment Hallucination finishes, you are completely blind as Protoss in PvZ. Incidentally, ever since the Warpgate nerf, this is also a timeframe where you can get hit by a variety of Roach/Ling all-ins. The safest Protoss build against Zerg, 3 gate expand, already needs blind static defense to defend some of these. So, how exactly is Zerg in a worse position in TvZ? I would say that overlord scouts have a higher success rate than hiding probes and trying to run them into the Zerg's main. I actually do agree that the way scouting works in SC2 makes for stupid guessing games, but don't try to paint this as a problem limited to Zerg. Everyone has a hard time scouting, and everyone has to sacrifice economy if they want to be safe. Now, I don't necessarily agree with the notion of making scouting easier - I'd much prefer if the pace of the game was slowed down instead, and early units were made more robust (t1 hydras, and Zerg never loses to 2port ever again). I watched MC expand using Stargates, Stalkers, and Sentries quite often in MLG. While the forge eventually comes with every build, it doesn't come so fast that it hurts the build as a whole... The argument still stands that Protoss can do what they're doing and be relatively safe in PvZ while Zerg has to guess and commit with the possibility of failing completely due to a bad guess in ZvT. Not the same issue. | ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
On June 08 2011 05:58 Havefa1th wrote: Negative on that math. There is no specific mineral cost to scans, as they depend on the relative cost of minerals (minerals are more valuable early game), your mineral saturation and number of bases, orbital commands, how far ahead you are in the game, etc. You can't put a flat cost on mules, threads have been closed before for trying. Also, to correct the Zerg math: The scouting overlord is generally your first one, so I'll give that to you free. If you scout with 2 overlords, that's 1 free ovie and 1 that costs 100 minerals and one larva. In addition, you NEED to replace them because they give supply... so that's 200 more minerals and 2 more larva. Edit: There ya go, something I can agree with. You CAN'T, however say that Zerg is as easy to pick up and play as Terran or Protoss because that's simply not true. Each race has different mechanics and playstyles, saying that they're equally easy to play is a fallacy. My point about the scan was mostly that its not free. And yes Toss and Terran have macro mechanics, just like larvae inject is. Which allows you to build redic amount of units and drones at the appropriate times. Yes knowing those timings is not always easy, but it doesn't mean omg zerg is harder to play. Yes I even said the mechanics are different and thats why zerg is not harder to play than others. Somethings are harder, somethings are much easier, to compare them would be like comparing apples and oranges. I know for a fact that Zergs in Plat-Low Diamond, are not particularly more skilled than their Toss and Terran counterparts. Maybe to be Masters Zergs you require something that no others do, but I seriously doubt it. We could all be much better players than we are. As a protoss the reason I would avoid 3 gate robo then expand is. The Zerg can pretty much just take a 3rd, then get a spire or infestors, and defend. I dunno, I just feel like there aren't many good 1 base timings for 3 gate robo vs zerg, which is what you are going to need to get your 2nd base up if you wasted all your resources on units and tech structures. Thats just where I want to be as a toss. Behind in bases/check, behind in tech/check, behind in workers/check. Maybe I get some immortals out and push, either way I'm down a base and I could lose my army, and its very possible my army will do no damage at all except killing zerg units, which will just be remade in time to defend. Getting 2-3 immortals off 1 base vs an expanding zerg doesn't seem safe to me. Oh and if I do attack I still have to defend against speedlings because there is no way I can win a base trade at that point. I'd much rather just get gates and units and use those to get a safe expo sooner, then tech up and get out-expanded and out tech'd. Even if I do a safe* expand with gateways units, its still on the Protoss player to do damage to the Zerg. I either have to do some 2 base all in, or do enough damage/annoying to get a 3rd up (which if you played Protoss you'd probably understand that getting a 3rd is not particularly easy). If a Protoss player just sits on 2 bases and isn't aggressive (he deserves to lose) vs a good (relative to the toss players skill) Zerg player, he will just take the map and get soooo far ahead that the toss literally has no chance of coming back. People who say its frustrating to play their race are funny. Its frustrating playing Sc2 at times because you don't always get what you want or how you want it, people need to cope with that, and realize it happens to everyone. Toss players are frustrated, Zerg players are frustrated, Terran players are frustrated. The game is hard for everyone. I'll try some 3 gate robo builds, maybe do some warp prism tricks, but I seriously doubt it will lead to a safe expo, into an even late game. Because A-the zerg counters my robo by just outproducing me and making zerglings (yeah I know OMG) which means I probably won't even get a 2nd base up, I will either kill all his units and push (probably win depending on how much he droned), or die on one base. B- He sees me tech robo and expand, and just does the same, but this time he makes the robo almost completely useless by choosing a tech that counters it. I think it also matters when the zerg expands, but if he is any good he probably does that quite early in the game, which would give him time to get his base up and running to stop any late robo pushes, and given that I expand he could probably just put a ton of pressure on me (yeah ling roach good homies) Many a time as a Protoss player I have scouted my opponent well, thought I could stop it, and still couldn't. I'd love it if every time I saw my opponents plan I won, but it doesn't work that way either. Edit: Someone said MC uses stargates and sentries to expand before forge. Am I missing something? I think he goes forge first on every map that he can wall off his natural. If he can stop lings and roaches with a forge nexus build he will, every time. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
I remember the last one of these had PvZ at like 30%, so we can already see it's improving drastically | ||
|
Ruscour
5233 Posts
On June 07 2011 23:24 aurum510 wrote: How can IdrA cry about ZvP... It's the most imbalanced matchup and it's in favor of Zerg... He either all-ins or goes Roach/Hydra...he needs to get over himself, sit down and figure out the matchup | ||
|
Nerski
United States1095 Posts
On June 08 2011 06:31 1Eris1 wrote: Hmm. And from some of the recent posts on this site you'd think Protoss has a 0 winrate vs both races I remember the last one of these had PvZ at like 30%, so we can already see it's improving drastically That's because as the meta game shifts people are to quick to blame balance. Which is a really bad thing to be doing seeing as any small meta game shift that makes say X build impossible can switch win rates drastically for a time until the other races meta game catches up. Even when Zerg was UP at release before a lot of terran nerfs, toss nerfs, and zerg buffs hit the game...it still would of been fool hearty to claim zerg was UP right away. Which is why you saw the changes come at a slow pace so as not to drastically change the balance then have zerg figure some stuff out and be OP. IMO people worry to much in regards to what's happening right now, sure you'll hit bumps where your races meta game will need to catch up and you'll lose more then you are use to. But until the game is 'figured out' which probably won't come until sometime after the protoss expansion, it's always going to be the case. | ||
|
fiskensfarfar
2 Posts
Regarding the actual balance I think its pretty obvious that P is by far the easiest race to play (Not at a high competitive level!!), which makes the matchup imba in any game below grand masters and perhaps top masters. For me it seems that P just require less apm than T and Z. This is why many zerg players whine. Many Z players, myself included, often felt like losing to a lesser gamer when losing a z v p. But it rarely feels like this when losing a z v z or z v t. I had this feeling until I reached top masters. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On June 07 2011 23:19 Philip2110 wrote: If you are going by that PvZ has been even closer balanced than that since February. If you read the posts by zerg in the forums you would think it wasnt that close If these graphs prove anything, it's that the amount of zerg complaining has nothing to do with game balance. | ||
|
Aruno
New Zealand748 Posts
Hopefully we could see some influences. | ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
On June 08 2011 06:26 Jermstuddog wrote: I watched MC expand using Stargates, Stalkers, and Sentries quite often in MLG. While the forge eventually comes with every build, it doesn't come so fast that it hurts the build as a whole... The argument still stands that Protoss can do what they're doing and be relatively safe in PvZ while Zerg has to guess and commit with the possibility of failing completely due to a bad guess in ZvT. Not the same issue. You can do something like Spanishiwa's build, and be safe against everything (at least that's what people claim, haven't actually tested it a whole lot). Sure, you won't be able to punish a greedy opponent, and will be behind against something like a fast third, but that's how it is for everyone. 3 Gate Expand is behind a Zerg powering drones and taking a quick third too, as is MC's 1 Gate FE into 3 Gate Stargate. Even more so if you throw down cannons blindly. Again, safety is not free, for anyone. A safe build, in any matchup, will always end up behind a greedy build, that's just common sense. The problem with SC2 is that this dynamic has too much of an effect on gameplay, because of how the macro mechanics work. If you do a safe build, and your opponent does a greedy build, then you're not a little behind, you're way behind, and can't really recover. Of course, scouting should be improved a bit, but I'd rather see more mechanics allowing for comebacks, and less super volatile macro mechanics (of which inject larvae is probably the worst offender). On June 08 2011 06:31 1Eris1 wrote: Hmm. And from some of the recent posts on this site you'd think Protoss has a 0 winrate vs both races I remember the last one of these had PvZ at like 30%, so we can already see it's improving drastically The 30% was from Korea alone, while these stats are combined from Korea and the International scene. Judging from how Protoss have been doing in the super tournament, it hasn't gotten any better. :/ | ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
On June 08 2011 06:38 fiskensfarfar wrote: It would be nice if you could do some separation of the data, like graphs for only tours or only pros. It seems that people are missing the point that league games cannot be used to discuss balance. For example: Suppose ZvP is indeed imbalanced in favor of toss. Then overall it is harder for a Z player to harvest points compared to P players, and the Z player, at whatever level he is, will be matched against P players that are lesser gamers. So it is clear that imbalances will not show up in the winrates due to the design of the ladder matchmaking. Regarding the actual balance I think its pretty obvious that P is by far the easiest race to play (Not at a high competitive level!!), which makes the matchup imba in any game below grand masters and perhaps top masters. For me it seems that P just require less apm than T and Z. This is why many zerg players whine. Many Z players, myself included, often felt like losing to a lesser gamer when losing a z v p. But it rarely feels like this when losing a z v z or z v t. I had this feeling until I reached top masters. Apm has little to do with skill. Many zerg players have +200 apm becuase they enjoy spamming the shit out of their keyboard and mouse, when they actually have nothing to do (or they do and they don't know it, cause they too busy spamming). I'm too busy making sure my spells get cast perfectly and my units are in position, to be spamming. What about zerg makes you think they require more apm? I'd really be interested to hear this. I always thought doing more with less actions was a more efficient use of my time. So if it takes you 3 actions to normally do something that would take 1, does that make you a better player? | ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
On June 08 2011 06:47 Offhand wrote: If these graphs prove anything, it's that the amount of zerg complaining has nothing to do with game balance. it's strange that zerg players have a reputation for whining most. there's no reason one group should be more inclined to complain than another. if zerg really do complain most, i'd guess then that it's either: a) ways of beating zerg that FEEL unfairer to the zerg b) zerg role models adopting a more negative approach, and this trickles down c) zerg are actually broken/weaker in some significant way (e.g. deathballs literally unstoppable after a certain time OR they lack early scouting options???) it's also funny how there was no real balance whine for 3 pages, but people were already getting defensive about it before it happened... | ||
|
Mailing
United States3087 Posts
On June 08 2011 06:31 Ruscour wrote: He either all-ins or goes Roach/Hydra...he needs to get over himself, sit down and figure out the matchup Uh... Losira either all-ins or does roach/baneling and drops IdrA either all-ins or goes roach or hydra drops Nobody has "figured out' PvZ yet. And don't even start shit about MC at MLG, letting nydus worms pop inside his main when in vision. | ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
On June 08 2011 06:51 Aruno wrote: I'd love for this data to be put on a timeline with the Starcraft 2 Patches. Hopefully we could see some influences. that would be amazing, though metagame shifts mean we couldn't say anything too definite about patch balance... | ||
|
Havefa1th
United States245 Posts
On June 08 2011 06:54 Mailing wrote: Uh... Losira either all-ins or does roach/baneling and drops IdrA either all-ins or goes roach or hydra drops Nobody has "figured out' PvZ yet. And don't even start shit about MC at MLG, letting nydus worms pop inside his main when in vision. I would go further and say that nobody has "figured out" ANY matchup. There are so many ways to win in each matchup, as well as different ways to react to the other player. There are standard builds, to be sure, but there hasn't been a Savior type deal of one player just completely dominating a matchup by "figuring it out". | ||
|
PraetorianX
Sweden780 Posts
| ||
| ||
