EPTIts that god damn 1-1-1 messing up the stats.
[July] TLPD Race Winrate Graphs - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Hypemeup
Sweden2783 Posts
Its that god damn 1-1-1 messing up the stats. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I wonder what kind of new unit Terran will be able to incorporate in their one base allins in HotS. :D | ||
|
dooraven
Australia2820 Posts
On August 07 2011 15:58 repEAT wrote: Not necessarily. Protoss gets a ton of wins from MC, but Nestea and MVP give them a lot of losses as well. Nestea? Sure, MVP? No. The removal of MC would be devastating to Protoss since Terran has still have Polt/Bomber/other insanely good TvP and Zerg still have Losira/Coca who have very great ZvP. Protoss has.....? | ||
|
illumn
New Zealand437 Posts
Why am I arguing about people arguing? I don't know. Consider me out of the argument. | ||
|
repEAT
United States45 Posts
On August 07 2011 16:08 dooraven wrote: Nestea? Sure, MVP? No. The removal of MC would be devastating to Protoss since Terran has still have Polt/Bomber/other insanely good TvP and Zerg still have Losira/Coca who have very great ZvP. Protoss has.....? That's kindof the point...I'm not saying it would improve protoss winrate. But if excluding MC drops protoss to like 25% or something, then that's saying a lot more. | ||
|
Yew
United States940 Posts
On August 07 2011 16:08 dooraven wrote: Nestea? Sure, MVP? No. The removal of MC would be devastating to Protoss since Terran has still have Polt/Bomber/other insanely good TvP and Zerg still have Losira/Coca who have very great ZvP. Protoss has.....? Yeah, MC pretty much IS protoss. Puzzle and him are basically the two protoss hopes. Sure, Hongun/Anypro can get deep, but would you really call them the best in their race? | ||
|
Executor1
1353 Posts
On August 07 2011 16:05 HolyArrow wrote: If he had said EMP had 12 range, I would have understood what he meant, since it's reasonable to say that a 10-range AoE attack with a radius of 2 has 12 effective range. But he said the range was 13, and no matter what definition of range he was talking about, 13 is flat out wrong, so my original point stands. I fail to see how we're saying the exact same thing. I don't really know how to be clearer on this -_-;; If a guy says EMP has 13 range, he is wrong, no matter what definition of range he uses. If someone says EMP has 10 range, he is indeed right with the assumption that you're talking about cast range. Okay so he was wrong but so were you, you didnt say casting range. Your gettings super nitpicky and i doubt you would have kept arguing it was 10 until someone pointed out AOE range if you were actually taking aoe range into account/ realising that it had 2 extra range because of aoe. Honestly though who cares he was 1 range off is it really that big of a deal, whenever ive heard anyone talk about emp range that knows what they are talking about they say 12 and take the aoe into account, you didnt you just looked it up on liquipedia and immediately assumed you were right, and you would have been if you said casting range wich you didnt. If your just talking about range in general i would say 12 is more right then 10(even you sort of admitted that) and since neither of you specified in your original post i guess your both wrong (but someone corrected him right under his post, you could have just left it at that) | ||
|
nt-rAven
Canada405 Posts
| ||
|
IceSlipper
Australia1028 Posts
On August 07 2011 16:08 dooraven wrote: Nestea? Sure, MVP? No. The removal of MC would be devastating to Protoss since Terran has still have Polt/Bomber/other insanely good TvP and Zerg still have Losira/Coca who have very great ZvP. Protoss has.....? Its getting ridiculous people including coca when talking about great zergs, because he won a couple zvp's in the last gsl and made a good run.. if you are going to include coca as a great zerg player, you cant just exclude a protoss player like alicia or even huk (edit: even puzzle/anypro/hongun are on par with coca, hell even the horrible inca made a further run in the gsl than coca).. Not that it matters.. i think its pretty clear that its T>Z>P in terms of balance but the difference is so miniscule that the better play SHOULD still win every time.. | ||
|
Let it Raine
Canada1245 Posts
1-1-1 is probably not balanced though | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6231 Posts
Surely guys like Oov and Savior would have smashed the KR winrates into 70+ at different stages, but BW is still considered balanced. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the plots looked even worse than this. | ||
|
Executor1
1353 Posts
On August 07 2011 16:14 Let it Raine wrote: stats =/= balance 1-1-1 is probably not balanced though Agreed, that build is a bit ridiculous its just too many things to prepare for so early on in the game. Stats do not equal balance but they are a good indicator of shifts in strategies, such as 1/1/1 balance comes into the equation when the metagame ( i never know if im using this term correctly but you know what i mean) doesnt equal out as people learn to defend these strategies, if 1/1/1 remains prevalent for months then balance is an issue. | ||
|
iamahydralisk
United States813 Posts
On August 07 2011 10:04 TUski wrote: Blue flames is probably the development that caused the spike in TvZ and overall Edit: Holy crap I'm a hydralisk :O You called? But srsly, to be on topic, Terrans learned how to hellion. | ||
|
Lncognit0
United States97 Posts
| ||
|
HolyArrow
United States7116 Posts
On August 07 2011 16:10 illumn wrote: ...he admitted to that mistake. Yup. But then he felt the need to nitpick my statement as if my statement was equally as fallacious as his was, when, actually, 10 range is in fact correct in the typical definition of the term. I believe I have already made that argument clear. I don't know how I can improve my clarity. Person A makes fallacious statement, that, no matter how you interpret it, is incorrect. Person B corrects Person A with a statement that, under a typical assumption (the assumption that "range" is the same thing as "casting range", which is a reasonable assumption since that's how it's defined on liquipedia), is indeed correct. | ||
|
Darclite
United States1021 Posts
On August 07 2011 16:18 HolyArrow wrote: Yup. But then he felt the need to nitpick my statement as if my statement was equally as fallacious as his was, when, actually, 10 range is in fact correct in the typical definition of the term. I believe I have already made that argument clear. I don't know how I can improve my clarity. Person A makes fallacious statement, that, no matter how you interpret it, is incorrect. Person B corrects Person A with a statement that, under a typical assumption (the assumption that "range" is the same thing as "casting range", which is a reasonable assumption since that's how it's defined on liquipedia), is indeed correct. So you saw him post something misleading, so you posted something misleading? Why didn't you just correct him and say that it was 10 + 2 rather than say it was 10? I understand what you are saying here describing why you did it...but why not respond to an inaccuracy by being very accurate? | ||
|
Executor1
1353 Posts
On August 07 2011 16:18 HolyArrow wrote: Yup. But then he felt the need to nitpick my statement as if my statement was equally as fallacious as his was, when, actually, 10 range is in fact correct in the typical definition of the term. I believe I have already made that argument clear. I don't know how I can improve my clarity. Person A makes fallacious statement, that, no matter how you interpret it, is incorrect. Person B corrects Person A with a statement that, under a typical assumption (the assumption that "range" is the same thing as "casting range", which is a reasonable assumption since that's how it's defined on liquipedia), is indeed correct. I really dont think he was nitpicking, i think its reasonable thing to say. If anyone says "emp has 10 range" its reasonable to say, "well its 10 range +2 if you take into account the AOE" And if you actually remembered that it was 10+2 then why not just say that? Edit: not to mention you made a condescending statement after you corrected him and technically yours wasnt exactly right either. | ||
|
dooraven
Australia2820 Posts
On August 07 2011 16:13 IceSlipper wrote: Its getting ridiculous people including coca when talking about great zergs, because he won a couple zvp's in the last gsl and made a good run.. if you are going to include coca as a great zerg player, you cant just exclude a protoss player like alicia or even huk (edit: even puzzle/anypro/hongun are on par with coca, hell even the horrible inca made a further run in the gsl than coca).. Not that it matters.. i think its pretty clear that its T>Z>P in terms of balance but the difference is so miniscule that the better play SHOULD still win every time.. Coca has good ZvP, , he has a 70% win rate in that matchup. His other Matchups are pretty bad, but I'm only taking his ZvP. I'm not stating he's a good Zerg because there are many more deserving of that. | ||
|
JustTray
127 Posts
| ||
|
HolyArrow
United States7116 Posts
On August 07 2011 16:21 Darclite wrote: So you saw him post something misleading, so you posted something misleading? Why didn't you just correct him and say that it was 10 + 2 rather than say it was 10? I understand what you are saying here describing why you did it...but why not respond to an inaccuracy by being very accurate? You're indeed correct. I should have said, "EMP has 10 range, or, if you want to talk about true range, then it has 12 range. But 13 is neither of those numbers, so you're wrong." However, I had too much faith that people make the same semantical assumptions that I do, even though my assumptions I'd argue are well-supported, since they're in line with the same way "range" is used on liquipedia, and I'm pretty sure that's how "range" is defined in-game as well. On August 07 2011 16:21 Executor1 wrote: I really dont think he was nitpicking, i think its reasonable thing to say. If anyone says "emp has 10 range" its reasonable to say, "well its 10 range +2 if you take into account the AOE" And if you actually remembered that it was 10+2 then why not just say that? Edit: not to mention you made a condescending statement after you corrected him and technically yours wasnt exactly right either. Because I'm defining "range" as casting range. Look on liquipedia. What does it define range as? It defines range the same way that I defined it. | ||
| ||
