|
On June 08 2011 06:53 akaname wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 06:47 Offhand wrote:On June 07 2011 23:19 Philip2110 wrote:On June 07 2011 23:17 sgtcodfish wrote:
So everything's within 3% balanced?
Seems fine to me. Obviously we have to treat all data with a little caution, but nothing seems amiss here. 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. 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...
I'd say there really isn't much whining going on in this thread in particular, but posting win-rates of the races is a good way to start a balance discussion (meaning that its bound to happen). Nothing wrong with people discussing the game on a website dedicated to it, as long as they don't make it personal, or generalize all the people of a specific race (I will admit I like to say zerg players are whiners, though its probably much better than it was months ago).
|
On June 08 2011 07:00 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 06:53 akaname wrote:On June 08 2011 06:47 Offhand wrote:On June 07 2011 23:19 Philip2110 wrote:On June 07 2011 23:17 sgtcodfish wrote:
So everything's within 3% balanced?
Seems fine to me. Obviously we have to treat all data with a little caution, but nothing seems amiss here. 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. 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... I'd say there really isn't much whining going on in this thread in particular, but posting win-rates of the races is a good way to start a balance discussion (meaning that its bound to happen). Nothing wrong with people discussing the game on a website dedicated to it, as long as they don't make it personal, or generalize all the people of a specific race (I will admit I like to say zerg players are whiners, though its probably much better than it was months ago).
actually, i've not read it all, but i'm really impressed by how well we're behaving in this thread considering it's about race win rates 
Edit: and the credit for this should go to the currently last place race, protoss... JK
|
People really seem to forget that the only reason why terran is doing so well, are the allins. I wonder how much winrate terrans have when they don't allin... Our tier 3 dies quicker then our tier 1, which says enough imo.
|
On June 08 2011 06:53 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Heh, it seems that the only thing you understood from my reply is that I am a zerg player. U completely missed my point.
I think the game seems to BE balanced, at the high level! However if you take five minutes to think about the game mechanics you will probably agree that toss is the easiest race to play at the lower level. If toss is easier at a low level, then imbalances (if there are any) would not show up in the ladder win rates, as I argued. That is 'True imbalances' ie. imbalances at the high level. Therefore i would like to see graphs only with pro games.
Regarding apm you are completely off ... Apm and game sense are the most important things in this game. That is EFFECTIVE apm. In case you dont know, many high level players spam amp in the beginning of the game as a sort of 'warm up'. Some dont. During the action there is no time to spam ...
|
there needs to be more protoss heroes instead of MC who is consistent although the time. this gives more variety in play styles which is how zerg evolved when they discovered korean, spanishiwa and mass baneling style.i feel protoss is the smallest to develop in tactics for the lategame after zerg has found a breakthrough way to deal with the 'deathball'. i think giving toss un-used units such as carrier a smaller cooldown will make them more viable lategame, they are hardly used cas they taking very long time. when u lost a 200 food army, replenishing takes ages that they can kill your bases before you get to build one. This opens carriers to be incoporated to change the composition of the deathball instead of always voidray collo stalker or collo stalker HT and changes to be carrier collo archon or carrier voidray or carrier voidray dt that have rarely been seen. I havent seen much koreans use carriers and they could shed some light on every PvX matchup especially PvZ.
|
On June 08 2011 06:53 akaname wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 06:47 Offhand wrote:On June 07 2011 23:19 Philip2110 wrote:On June 07 2011 23:17 sgtcodfish wrote:
So everything's within 3% balanced?
Seems fine to me. Obviously we have to treat all data with a little caution, but nothing seems amiss here. 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. 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...
Like any forum post about balance, it's just something to justify your losses.I don't know why it's overwhelmingly more the case for zerg, but the conversation has been like this since early-beta-roaches stopped being early-beta-roaches.
|
On June 08 2011 07:17 Hamster wrote:
there needs to be more protoss heroes instead of MC who is consistent although the time. this gives more variety in play styles which is how zerg evolved when they discovered korean, spanishiwa and mass baneling style.i feel protoss is the smallest to develop in tactics for the lategame after zerg has found a breakthrough way to deal with the 'deathball'. i think giving toss un-used units such as carrier a smaller cooldown will make them more viable lategame, they are hardly used cas they taking very long time. when u lost a 200 food army, replenishing takes ages that they can kill your bases before you get to build one. This opens carriers to be incoporated to change the composition of the deathball instead of always voidray collo stalker or collo stalker HT and changes to be carrier collo archon or carrier voidray or carrier voidray dt that have rarely been seen. I havent seen much koreans use carriers and they could shed some light on every PvX matchup especially PvZ.
there are i think a lot of zerg heroes because zerg felt like the underdog for a long time (i'm protoss player, but usually want zergs to win). while people were saying zerg were weak, i was loving the wins of July and Losira and Nestea - somewhat more impressive when it feels against the odds...
i sort of feel as well that yes, protoss hasn't had to evolve as much and thus has the smallest tactics range. Terran feel like they've got more tactics available, and zerg have had to try more tricks to get where they are now.
|
On June 08 2011 07:14 fiskensfarfar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 06:53 Wrongspeedy wrote: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? Heh, it seems that the only thing you understood from my reply is that I am a zerg player. U completely missed my point. I think the game seems to BE balanced, at the high level! However if you take five minutes to think about the game mechanics you will probably agree that toss is the easiest race to play at the lower level. If toss is easier at a low level, then imbalances (if there are any) would not show up in the ladder win rates, as I argued. That is 'True imbalances' ie. imbalances at the high level. Therefore i would like to see graphs only with pro games. Regarding apm you are completely off ... Apm and game sense are the most important things in this game. That is EFFECTIVE apm. In case you dont know, many high level players spam amp in the beginning of the game as a sort of 'warm up'. Some dont. During the action there is no time to spam ...
My point was that you don't need 200 apm to do everything in this game. You still haven't given reasons why protoss is easier to play. My other point is that many Zerg players who are not pros, waste many actions, effort, and thought doing things like spamming, which is unnecessary and unless you are a pro, your probably hurting yourself. Think about it buddy, if you send your zerglings across the map by clicking 15 times, then someone does the samething using 2-3 clicks, your apm will be higher, but you are much worse off. This is why you don't see a bunch of Plat-Diamond toss players with +200 apm. They don't need it, and their time is used more effectively by not wasting their energy and thought on useless clicking. 3 actions is all it takes to FF (select units, press F, select space), but if I place the FF wrong I almost def lose because of it. So how does useless spamming (+200 apm in sc2 before like 3 base and multipronged attacks is almost assuredly wasting actions). Seriously dude, you have 2 posts, please explain why zerg needs more actions to be effective. Which strategies do you mean? Have you ever had to control 5-6 phoenix, while building structures, building units from 3-4 (different) structures, and controlling a separate army? Not that easy, but I don't even think that requires 200 apm.
Edit:Also, when in a zerg army are almost all your units casters that require actions to be used effectively? As a toss I frequently have 2-3-4 different casters in the same army, if I don't use them all I'm being ineffective. I have to keep my units in position, graviton shield, ff, then storm or feedback (usually feedback would come before the storms), then lift units, then blink my stalkers. Yeah dude soooo easy.
|
actually zerg has the most effectiv a click units (colossi may be the best but zerg has more then one hehe), which makes zerg the strongest race for low level, the only reason they lose is because they have to build workers and fight units from the same building. (could write a novel on this but that would be to much to read)
But i guess terran is probably still the strongest on the lower level just because they can force one base play and have a +5 on mineral workers.
|
On June 08 2011 04:32 Hristiyan wrote:
The guy is saying that one way or another that issue will be addressed for all 3 races. However if HotS is 1 year away and so is the solution, then this race is pointless right now or a coin-flip at best.
The other two races can wait, but not that one .... solution is needed right now!
I agree, NesTea should switch to Terran or he won't win any tournaments.
|
On June 08 2011 07:13 Dente wrote:
People really seem to forget that the only reason why terran is doing so well, are the allins. I wonder how much winrate terrans have when they don't allin... Our tier 3 dies quicker then our tier 1, which says enough imo.
"The All-ins" are still producing a higher then 50% winrate though. There's only been one month where terran wasn't the highest performing race by the looks of the graph.
|
The ZvT chart looks like a fish.
|
zerg can't scout that well early game? what? they have the ability to suicide overlords and speedlings that can gather all the information you need.
on the other hand protoss has nothing once the first set of lings/the first marine is out you are now blind for an eternity.
and yet zergs constantly whine about how they have bad scouting early game? i don't understand
i really don't get zerg complaining about their scout. and i play mostly zerg recently and don't even feel much of a need to know exactly what's going on because it's always possible to shit out tons of lings in case you get attacked (which you immidiatly know because you keep a few lings in front of their base) and vs anything crazy overseers have a 10 second morph time and you always have a couple spines that you can rearrange so who gives a shit
zergs honestly don't appreciate enough how GOOD their scouting is.
also if you always know exactly what's going on and react accordingly as zerg you can't lose a single game
that's why most maphackers who play on a somewhat higher level are zerg.
other races don't instawin when they have vision of everything.
more ontopic:
the graph is pretty surprising to me by the way, i thought it would be more imbalanced against protoss. then again it's a huge number of games so even just the 5% in pvz makes it a pretty big difference in games won and there is a LOT of skill difference in eu/na as well which brings it close to 50% again.
personally i'd really like to see korean graphs where skill level is much more even throughout all tournament games.
i hope blizzard does look at something like this when looking at overall trends in matchups and doesn't rely too much on ladder statistics. even when they probably suggest the same things it's by a much smaller margin.
|
I think it's just disgusting how Terran has almost a 100% win rate in one of their matchups, Blizzard really needs to fix TvT.
On a serious note, do you see the lower win % of Protoss as an indicator of a lack of good Protoss players, or as something else?
|
PvZ: January 2011- Protoss Deathball > Anything of Zerg
April- May 2011- Infestors are now a bit too strong if not borderline overpowered. The actual damage isn't the biggest problem, but the fact that us protoss can no longer move away from surrounding speedlings or ultralisks. This isn't the case with psistorm as they may be able to run away from them. I think that HT's are a good counter with the feedback, but once they get out enough infestors, a few fungals will be all they need.
ZvT: Most of the same. More usage of infestors now, but its still mostly marine-tank play.
PvT: Right now, I find that Protoss vs Terran is the hardest matchup for me currently. (I am a high diamond Protoss). I feel that on maps such as shakuras plateau, they can go for a 1rax expansion, put up a few bunkers, and then as toss we cannot do any damage to them without sacrificing our economy. Though you may say that we should also expand while they are, by the time you are able to scout with anything (has to be obs) it means that your robotech is already out which means that if we were to get an expansion, it would be much more delayed then the terrans which allows the terrans to have a higher economical advantage over us (mules and such) over most of the game. Based, on the chart, I see that many protoss are also having trouble with the terran race.... Any suggestions?
Thanks
|
On June 08 2011 07:48 Malarkey817 wrote:
The ZvT chart looks like a fish.
Someone on /r/starcraft had the exact same thought:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/flPzS.png) http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/htrd3/win_rates_may_update_fixed/
Anyways, interesting to see Zerg players start to pull ahead in ZvP. It seems that the Infestor+Baneling style as well as perhaps the mass muta style are starting to pick apart standard Protoss play. Seeing these fluctuations in win percentages really makes me doubt any balance whine.
|
On June 07 2011 23:32 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 23:30 Tuczniak wrote:
Great work.
Though it says almost nothing about balance. It's more about trends.
If roach + ling allins works now, it doesn't mean the game is balanced or isn't. How come no one said this during the "deathball" phase?
The reason why no one said that during the "deathball" phase is because they are different situations. The roach/ling allin will be taken care of with a different build order, It is a trend. The "deathball" phase is more resilient, it is an endgame army that is noted as being practically unbeatable, You can't change a building placement and make sure to make roaches at time X to prevent situation Z.
Now that I have said that, the Roach/ling allin will change the mu even after it is gone (unless you can just sim city it away) because it will change how greedy protoss players can be. Eventually the standard protoss play will be fairly immune to the roach/ling play and zerg will go back to macro play with the option* of the all-in. The way it will change the mu is hopefully making it so the protoss has to play safer (ie slower) and the zerg will reach a point where they can fight the "Deathball".
|
Consider Zerg has been the bottom since the beginning of time and the rise could possibly be attributed to mass ling/roach all-ins, yeah, I think zerg have plenty to complain about.
|
On June 08 2011 08:11 GosuSheep wrote:
Consider Zerg has been the bottom since the beginning of time and the rise could possibly be attributed to mass ling/roach all-ins, yeah, I think zerg have plenty to complain about.
Yeah the bottom. Won the first GSL.
|
On June 08 2011 05:19 Hristiyan wrote:Totally agree with that. ZvT is the most balanced match-up late game in my opinion ( after the mirrors ), but early game is just a joke if the terran decides to abuse you.
It's zerg favoured now in the mid-late game due to infestors. It was balanced till the buff and it still mostly is. Early game is very much on the terran to abuse though, and proper defense by a zerg evens the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
