EPTRace Win Rates Update: May - Page 22
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
beat farm
United States478 Posts
| ||
|
Hoodlum
United States350 Posts
| ||
|
Deathlabel
United States50 Posts
On June 07 2011 23:18 Day[9] wrote: Fantastic graphs! I have a really stupid request if possible lol: I'm used to Zerg = Red, Terran = Blue, Protoss = Green from years of surfing Teamliquid. Would it be possible to do some color swapouts? Regardless, I LOVE seeing data like this :D If you don't do what Day[9] says you are silly =] | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On June 12 2011 02:45 Mordiford wrote: What the fuck does balance discussion here do? Go do this on the Battle.net forums. We're here for the game and competitive play, not for fucking shitting on top players and trivializing their success by talking about how the game made them win and how their race is too strong, particularly when there's no reason to think that there is an issue. Defending isn't Zerg's problem in PvZ so WHAT IF "WE MAKE A SHOW ABOUT NOTHING and call it Seinfeld". Improving static defense may be something that Blizzard looks to tweak across the board, same goes for scouting, but right now, these discussions are just people spewing random shit that doesn't mean anything. Do this all you want on the Blizzard forums, what's the reason for doing it here other than getting it off your chest? I don't know, what the fuck COULD balance discussion here do? Oh, maybe solve "impossible imbalanced unit comps" and predict game changing trends at the highest level months before it is shown in tournaments. See my post here predicting baneling drops and infestors to counter the protoss "death ball". How many other people have predicted balanced changes in upcoming patches? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=189923¤tpage=39 So kindly kiss my ass and gtfo of this thread if you don't want to contribute. | ||
|
splinter9
Canada172 Posts
| ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
On June 12 2011 03:53 Blacklizard wrote: I don't know, what the fuck COULD balance discussion here do? Oh, maybe solve "impossible imbalanced unit comps" and predict game changing trends at the highest level months before it is shown in tournaments. See my post here predicting baneling drops and infestors to counter the protoss "death ball". How many other people have predicted balanced changes in upcoming patches? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=189923¤tpage=39 So kindly kiss my ass and gtfo of this thread if you don't want to contribute. Contribute to what? Incessant balance whining? Okay, I'll GTFO that with pleasure, have fun with it though. What you linked me to was a detailed discussion about strategic counters to issues being brought up, I have no issue with that, in fact, I'll encourage the hell out of that, nor do I have any issue with a specific thread to discuss imbalance but it shouldn't be in every other god damn thread. Discussing balance doesn't lead to identifying trends, that's strategy. Saying, "X is too strong/game-breaking/bullshit" is talking about imbalance, looking at win rates and going, "This should be changed because it's clearly an issue in the matchup" is balance whining. If you want to suggest random shit like "25 minerals less on spine crawler", that would be much more productive on the Blizzard forums. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
| ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
Anyways, I have always thought that the game was kinda balanced(I don't think any game will be always 100% balanced unless everything is equal) but I am glad to see this data. Thanks OP. Edit: Just to clarify I meant that the range of the data may make look stuff seem bigger on a graph. Anyways, you guys should not get so mad about this, it may not be that meaningful but as it is it its interesting. | ||
|
ETisME
12703 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... why is it in flavor of zerg? | ||
|
mcfrog
14 Posts
It doesn't tell you how many zerg/protoss/terran players were in each tournament to start with, the racial match ups in the tournament, the quality of players in the tournaments, why player x won/loss each match, and the route player x had to being the champion. A good player who just has a bad day can lose to a worse player. A 2-0 series can mean both games were extremely close or extremely one sided. You can make it to the semi final just going against one match up. All the zergs could have fought against each other instead of other races eliminating themselves. The graph is just too simplistic to make any sort of comments on the current balance of the game. | ||
|
Perplex
United States1693 Posts
Have you played the matchup at a diamond or above level? If not your opinion doesn't matter. | ||
|
ledgerhs
United States34 Posts
On June 10 2011 21:42 Inex wrote: Well toss has 3 units that it rarely uses, namely the warp prism, carrier and the mothership. There are some problems with those units that make them strategically bad. A good example is that if you go DTs against Z, you force detection around his bases, that then deny your Observers any information about the Z who's overdroning or doing tech switches. It's suicide strategically, until very late in the endgame, where all the drones and tech is already out. Warp Prism might look like it's a tool for drop play. But in reality, it's not. It's a movable proxy pylon and something that lets you micro manage immortals and templar in and out of roach/lings way. The fault isn't necessarily in the Warp Prism itself, but the units you'd "drop" with it. P doesn't have a stimmed rine/rauder pack to drop that does insanely sick damage in a short time window, or Cracklings/Hydras. Why drops are so sick for terran is that you can drop somewhere, leave your dropship somewhere safer from queens and micro manage towards that safe location with ranged units while doing tons and tons of damage, and then retreat with little losses. What would you drop as P? DTs have the problem described in the first paragraph. Zealots need Charge, and you're most likely gonna sac em and hope they deal enough damage to drones before dying, meaning at least few drone kills per zealot. Most of the time it won't happen though. Stalkers are too costy for too little DPS, and need Blink to retreat with. Also, the metagame problems. Z contains P with mutas in the early midgame till lategame, typically. Even if not, they go for either Infestors or Corruptors to deal with deathballs, and all those tech paths utterly nullify the usefulness of a drop play prism. And atop of all that, there's Queens, spores, spines, speed of Z units on creep, and so forth. Carrier also has a ton of problems like this. The responses to carrier could be Corruptors rather than Hydras, in which case the Z is then also prepped nicely against Colossus tech and suddenly Protoss play is narrowed down to Gateways, Templar and Immortals. If the opposing Zerg goes for Hydras, your Interceptor build time is too slow to make them effective as a unit in your core composition, and makes them more of a hit/run type of unit. But it's also too slow at retreating for that, so you might even need a Mothership to supplement it. Also Colossus already does what Carrier does, but better, and builds faster and cheaper. So they don't really seem to have a good role. Defensive mothership is amazing. Defensive Vortex buys time against counterattacks, Recall saves a ton of money in the form of saved units and allows you to do hit and run tactics. But P cant regenerate armor, just the shields regenerate, so if you save a colossus at 10 hp with recall, it's only a half of colossus in the next battle, and still eats into supply count as if it was a full one. Also since people use Corruptors to specifically snipe down colossi, those are typically the first units to drop, while your GW buffer still stands. So it's not all that straightforward. If they gave MShip an ability to regenerate armor, I guess we'd see it more. It's absurd to think that pros who sit down and play this game for tens of hours in a day don't experiment on these extensively. These units just have strategical problems that make them bad investment in most of the games, and if people win games going these ways, the game typically was either already won or lost before the tech, or the opposing player didn't respond correctly and lost due to his own mistakes. Also PvZ is already very Z favoured in terms of economy. At what point do you decide that you can sacrifice 33% to 50% of your probe production speed for 160 seconds to get a defensive measure that might be useful? I haven't really found that window just yet. | ||
|
ATUkno
United States17 Posts
| ||
|
lindn
Sweden833 Posts
On June 14 2011 11:33 Perplex wrote: Have you played the matchup at a diamond or above level? If not your opinion doesn't matter. i have and it's not in the zergs favor. it's pretty finely balanced as off now. | ||
|
Konsume
Canada466 Posts
On June 14 2011 11:33 Perplex wrote: Have you played the matchup at a diamond or above level? If not your opinion doesn't matter. 1350master here... ZvP sucks for me... I lose 70% of em! seems I never have the right units... and when I do... DTs rape anyways | ||
|
mikyaJ
1834 Posts
Firstly it's 52.8% in favor of Zerg, it's pretty strange that you missed that seeing as what thread you're in, and secondly, yay more people who read the first page only. You realize there's been 22 pages between that comment and your response. Don't worry about Korean Protoss guys, Sage, Puzzle, and Genius will spearhead new Protoss resurgence in Korea. You'll see. Also lol flavor | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
 On topic: we have a saying, which I don't know if translates well to English, but it's "to make a camel out of a mosquito". As someone stated, given the amount of data, any imbalance found is of the order of 2 standard deviationts. Put in layman's term: the lines in the graphs should be actually so thick that you won't see any difference between them and thus you'd think that the game is perfectly balanced. And yes, I think that that's actually what Blizzard should consider when "balancing" the game. SC2 is amazingly balanced and it has been so for quite a long time already. Any attempt to make it "more balanced" is purely futile, as they are just fighting against fluctuations. I am all for making changes that fix something that is purely annoying (mainly in the early game) - that means that the patch is based on the actual gameplay. But there is just no reason to "balance" anything based simply on overall results. | ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
On June 14 2011 11:33 Perplex wrote: Have you played the matchup at a diamond or above level? If not your opinion doesn't matter. oh boy here comes the pretentious garbage. The fact pro matches are so far away from being standardized along with the constant variations in maps makes it hard to get too much out of these graphs. | ||
|
Not_That
287 Posts
| ||
|
TheAmazombie
United States3714 Posts
| ||
| ||
