|
On August 09 2011 07:26 K_Dilkington wrote:It put's a smile to my face to see all of you "protoss is imba" people trying to rationalize these numbers with everything BUT the fact that protss is the weakest race. The fact that all of you have been talking shit the last 3-4 months is a big hit to the ego isn't it? On the numbers: These numbers show the same result as the number posted by sc2statistics. Protoss is unequivocally the weakest race in the game. So what is the problem? One is the fact that Protoss lacks a good way of harassing their opponent early to mid game, stargate/dt harass is easy to counter and simply to expensive to be worthwhile anymore because it hardly ever works. But we can't wait 1 year for blizzard to give Protoss a new harass unit. So something else needs to be done before that, and I'm not sure what that would be 
Even late game protoss harass is pretty lackluster. A spore and 2 spines stops dt harass cold, and pro zergs just auto do that after getting 3bases secured. Storm drops don't actually kill that much at an averagely saturated base, especially since t and z both get 2 ingame seconds to run workers before they die.
|
I made this post in the TLPD Winrate Graphs thread, but since a good deal of people are also discussing statistics here, I'll just copy my post to here as well because I'm interested in what people have to say. Note that this is based on the Korean graphs.
Interesting to see that, in terms of MUs vs. both other races, Protoss is doing the worst, while, overall, Zerg is doing the worst. Even though the graph constantly shifts for PvZ, we see that it's more dominant for Zerg when Zergs are ahead of the metagame than when Protosses are.
Zerg peaks vP: 66.7% winrate, 61.5% winrate, 70.5%, 59.4%, and, lastly, 56.6%.
Compare this to Protoss peaks vZ: 60%, 55.6%, 57.6%, and 55.8%.
Note that a couple of those (one of Zerg's and one of Protoss's) aren't strictly "peaks", but they're still a mildly significant trend that either follows or is prelude to a peak.
TvP is a similar story, except more one-sided.
Terran peaks vP: 59.7%, 55.6%, 57%, 66%, 61.2%
Protoss peaks vT: 58.3%
Again, one of that isn't strictly a peak (the 55.6% for terran), but I include it for the same reason as above.
TvZ is the most depressing graph, because I have no need to even list any Zerg peaks when there are none. Terran is either even with Zerg, or slightly/significantly dominating. With that said, it's interesting how Zerg whine has shifted toward Protoss rather than Terran, given how these matchups look. There could be a number of factors influencing this: IdrA's opinions, ladder experiences for lower-level players, and more.
In conclusion, Zerg is doing the worst overall, which is apparent from the main graph. What might not be as apparent is that that's solely due to how badly Terran has been dominating Zerg for some time, so we have this interesting situation in which ZvP has shown itself to be slightly Z-favored, but TvZ is so Terran-dominated that it skews Zerg's numbers and gives them the worst overall winrate.
Edit: Upon further thought, it doesn't really make sense for me to say that Zerg is doing the worst overall, since the statistics in this topic shows that Protoss has by far the lowest non-mirror winrate. I was simply eyeballing the main graph and the Zerg line seemed to be the most constantly below the other lines, but the statistics tell a different story.
|
I find the choice of tournaments slightly odd. I get that Korea has a lot of competition but why completely ignore tournaments that are outside of that area. If you were to take say this list: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments you get a very different picture:
Winners:
T 15
Z 12
P 11
Also if you wanted a more recent picture, taking events from May onwards (SuperTournament till now) you get:
T 3
Z 5
P 2
I think the statistics can be made to show a lot of different things depending on which you take
|
The closer I look at this, the more stupid it seems. When winning Code S in GSL adds as much to the statistic as winning a weekly cup with 128 participants or a showmatch between a top grandmaster and a platinum player, there's really not much use of it.
Also counting games from before terran and protoss got nerfed and infestors became a scrubs ticket to grandmasters, I don't know.. I think a wiser filter could have been applied.
|
Something seems wrong at the tippy top. Korean ladder, w/l stats, tournament results, and watching games where no side make mistakes but toss just seems behind. I bet Blizzards internals show the same thing hence Dustin's comments. Oh well. Has no effect on 99.9 % of us who just needs to l2p better.
|
On August 08 2011 23:16 eourcs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 22:58 Belha wrote:
The huge amount of trolls/noobs talking crap about protoss in this threads is absurd, annoying, almost insulting ( protoss less skilled by nature, less hard workers, less explored, and so, WTF). Numbers are REAL living proof of the results among races match ups. The shit talk about "protoss players are less skilled" is pure bullshit without a single argument to support it.
I'LL love if players that make such judgements write a list with arguments to support their words.
I have my arguments to support my opinion about the numbers (REAL PROOF) we are seeing for about a year:
1) Terran is the best race (wanna call it "complete"? Ok... "complete", and with Palpatine voice please). Why? Simple: Is the most rewarding for flawless multi task skill, best harassing punisher race, best eco macro mechanic, most efficient all-ins, most efficient micro mechanics, AND (very important too) the least punished race per mistake. Terrans gonna hate me, yes, but PLEASE CHECK THE ENTIRE YEAR NUMBERS.
2) Average pro P player is skilled as average pro T or Z player. The problem is that P is the race that punish most the player per mistake. Bad micro (or luck) with your scouting probes aganist the faster lings in PvZ? Time to play blind till you commit to a tech investment (EVEN HUK suffer this, and is one of the top P's, he get busted a lot by a trillion of lings placing his expo, just because he plays blind). Under average ff's? Dead (again, even pros suffer this, A LOT). Not above average unit spread in PvT? You re dead aganist ghosts. Not microed your templars when the ai tends to pack it together with your army? Emp won. I can keep throwing examples of how many times the P player have to outmicro the opponent, AND if he does not, hes dead.
Please guys. Arguments, please. Let's keep the debate nicely.
You can make these stupid "most punished per mistake" arguments with every race. 1) Not paying attention for 5 seconds? All your marines dies to fungal/banelings 2)Get caught unsieged? Everything dies 3)Get unlucky? All your marines die to burrowed banelings 4)Miss an emp? Your entire army is stormed to death 5)Not looking at your army for 5 seconds? All your infestors get feedbacked/emped 6)Not looking at your army for 5 seconds? Everything gets forcefielded and you lose 3/4 of your army 7)Not looking at your mutas for a fraction of a second? All of them die to thors/marines/stalkers/templar
70% of those examples are for TVZ, and he wasnt talking about TVZ at all, you made 2 examples for TVP and i really think the forcefield argument is more the other way for toss as in "dont forcield 1/3 of their army off die to a stim timing", and wich pro player isnt looking at their army for 5 seconds while its on the map? not to mention any decent top pro can just shuttle their units back behind the forcefields with medivacs, its a very impressive feat but its dooable , terran just rewards good micro mechanics alot more , it has more tools.
And at least you can micro out of storm, there isnt any microing out of an EMP, if you have a reasonable amount of ghosts there is no reason a good pro player should let anything more than 2-3 storms through after blanketing the army in emp's. There is obviously a reason protoss is doing so poorly right now beyond "their players suck" that excuse is a total cop out for people who still perpetrate the lie that protoss is OP (mainly zerg players who hang on idra's every word imo  )
We are talking about at the highest levels here mind you so anyone not in high masters that is basing their oppinion on personal experience and not watching pro level games needs to stfu.
|
On August 09 2011 07:44 HolyArrow wrote:
I made this post in the TLPD Winrate Graphs thread, but since a good deal of people are also discussing statistics here, I'll just copy my post to here as well because I'm interested in what people have to say. Note that this is based on the Korean graphs.
Interesting to see that, in terms of MUs vs. both other races, Protoss is doing the worst, while, overall, Zerg is doing the worst. Even though the graph constantly shifts for PvZ, we see that it's more dominant for Zerg when Zergs are ahead of the metagame than when Protosses are.
Zerg peaks vP: 66.7% winrate, 61.5% winrate, 70.5%, 59.4%, and, lastly, 56.6%.
Compare this to Protoss peaks vZ: 60%, 55.6%, 57.6%, and 55.8%.
Note that a couple of those (one of Zerg's and one of Protoss's) aren't strictly "peaks", but they're still a mildly significant trend that either follows or is prelude to a peak.
TvP is a similar story, except more one-sided.
Terran peaks vP: 59.7%, 55.6%, 57%, 66%, 61.2%
Protoss peaks vT: 58.3%
Again, one of that isn't strictly a peak (the 55.6% for terran), but I include it for the same reason as above.
TvZ is the most depressing graph, because I have no need to even list any Zerg peaks when there are none. Terran is either even with Zerg, or slightly/significantly dominating. With that said, it's interesting how Zerg whine has shifted toward Protoss rather than Terran, given how these matchups look. There could be a number of factors influencing this: IdrA's opinions, ladder experiences for lower-level players, and more.
In conclusion, Zerg is doing the worst overall, which is apparent from the main graph. What might not be as apparent is that that's solely due to how badly Terran has been dominating Zerg for some time, so we have this interesting situation in which ZvP has shown itself to be slightly Z-favored, but TvZ is so Terran-dominated that it skews Zerg's numbers and gives them the worst overall winrate.
Edit: Upon further thought, it doesn't really make sense for me to say that Zerg is doing the worst overall, since the statistics in this topic shows that Protoss has by far the lowest non-mirror winrate. I was simply eyeballing the main graph and the Zerg line seemed to be the most constantly below the other lines, but the statistics tell a different story.
Its mainly idra's oppinion unfortunately he controls the hive mind of the zerg fanboys. People like this eat up statements like "zerg isnt supposed to beat protoss" (most ignorant statement ever even for the time as zergs were still doing really well against protoss a month ago) you could show idra statistics like this and he would just say the same thing every zerg player is mirroring right now "oh thats just because protoss player suck and zerg players are just alot better"
"if i beat a protoss its because they suck" "if they beat me its because their race is OP"
|
On August 09 2011 03:01 twiitar wrote:
The temporary supremacy of certain BOs/viability of strategies is something that's been known since SCBW, back then it was usually "fixed" not by crying and complaining but rather by discovering how to beat it with a better BO/Strategy.
My sentiments exactly. A couple of months really isn't enough time to decide something is imbalanced. All these stats mean is that Protoss is having a rough time right now. If this trend continues for a year and a half and Protoss players are still having a rough time, then you might have an argument.
Unless there's something glaringly obvious (and it'd better be really freaking glaringly obvious), no one here can really say for sure whether it's because the game is inherently imbalanced or the players are just approaching the match up wrong. Think about the state of PvZ until Bisu vs Savior in 07
EDIT:
Instead of looking at the number of first/second places, I think the winrate graphs tell a lot more. PvZ has been back and forth and PvT looks fine. Did PvT take a nosedive in July? Yes. (~51:49 for May and June I'd say is pretty damn even). Does that prove anything? No. Like I said before, a few rough months proves nothing.
Although for the race winrate charts, you said they were all games. Is that all pro level games or just games in general. If they encompass diamond level games, for example, then those statistics really dont mean anything as far as balance goes.
|
hate to quote myself, but if there is any case to make on analyzing race win distribution, it is obligatory to normalize it on representation.
say, if Nestea would be the only zerg in GSL, zerg podium percentages would be insanely high. if anything, OP should have at least provided the total amount of players and racial distribution. without these numbers, any discussion is moot.
On August 09 2011 07:13 rotegirte wrote:
yeah first and foremost, KR is an awfully small set of data.
but for the sake of validity, wouldn't it be necessary to weight the winner's race against the total number of participants of that race?
for example, a x% percentage of terran winners means close to nothing if terran entries outnumber the rest of the field ten-fold.
on the other hand, let's say one zerg winner would be of more importance when he was the only zerg entering the competition to begin with.
not to bash your effort. anything else would require quite a ridiculous amount of research, but so far your numbers carry little significance (not only from set size) but especially regarding the desired interpretation.
|
On August 09 2011 16:43 rotegirte wrote:hate to quote myself, but if there is any case to make on analyzing race win distribution, it is obligatory to normalize it on representation. say, if Nestea would be the only zerg in GSL, zerg podium percentages would be insanely high. if anything, OP should have at least provided the total amount of players and racial distribution. without these numbers, any discussion is moot. Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 07:13 rotegirte wrote:
yeah first and foremost, KR is an awfully small set of data.
but for the sake of validity, wouldn't it be necessary to weight the winner's race against the total number of participants of that race?
for example, a x% percentage of terran winners means close to nothing if terran entries outnumber the rest of the field ten-fold.
on the other hand, let's say one zerg winner would be of more importance when he was the only zerg entering the competition to begin with.
not to bash your effort. anything else would require quite a ridiculous amount of research, but so far your numbers carry little significance (not only from set size) but especially regarding the desired interpretation.
Granted OP doesn't provide race distribution, he does however, provide a few charts for you to look at, one of which shows terran has been at the top of the food chain since January (7 months). On top of that TvP has been favouring terran since March and TvZ has been favouring terran since December. Protoss and Zerg triumphs have been a month long at most.
The only time zerg has been on top is october to november, and the only time protoss has been on top is a handful of days in December (pretty much dead even, not even favoured).
Say what you will, but the imbalance also shows in terran winning rates... Some terrans even hace 90% winning rates, no other race has anything of that sort.
Surely Blizzard does see this trend.
|
In my opinion this is just a temporary lul in Protoss results, from what I've seen there have been numerous times that one race has been lacking behind the others and this time it's the Protoss' turn.
I think once Blizz starts doing some balance changes and the Protoss find a really good strategy that works well against the others then their results will be on top, I think it will just need a little innovation.
|
Why would you have a spoiler saying not to talk about balance when your initial post is all about it? It's blatantly obvious if you ask me.
|
I think a lot of this could be evened out with HoTS and the rumored harras unit protoss might get. Also personally, I love toss but I recently switched to Zerg because it just has so much more "fun" value for the average player and I feel more Zerg players will invest in the time to get better on ladder than other players (not a fact but a general observation from my group of friends).
But to get onto the pro's, I hate not seeing a lot of toss players, albeit players like HuK and Naniwa are amazingly good, but there is only a handful of great toss players. They are just the underdog race imo in the current competitive scene.
|
All this is is reflecting the games change brought about by various patches since MC had his run(s).
VR were hard to deal with so they were nerfed heavily.
HT was hard to handle so KA was removed.
Zerg complained about deathballs so infesters were buffed.
Zergs complained about 4 gate being able to punish a FE so that was nerfed.
Zergs complained about Pylon blocking their ramp in the way to FE so that was nerfed.
Protoss has been severally crippled and you wonder why they are doing poor? Lets cut off your leg , race, and see how you do on podium.
|
On August 09 2011 16:54 NineteenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 16:43 rotegirte wrote:hate to quote myself, but if there is any case to make on analyzing race win distribution, it is obligatory to normalize it on representation. say, if Nestea would be the only zerg in GSL, zerg podium percentages would be insanely high. if anything, OP should have at least provided the total amount of players and racial distribution. without these numbers, any discussion is moot. On August 09 2011 07:13 rotegirte wrote:
yeah first and foremost, KR is an awfully small set of data.
but for the sake of validity, wouldn't it be necessary to weight the winner's race against the total number of participants of that race?
for example, a x% percentage of terran winners means close to nothing if terran entries outnumber the rest of the field ten-fold.
on the other hand, let's say one zerg winner would be of more importance when he was the only zerg entering the competition to begin with.
not to bash your effort. anything else would require quite a ridiculous amount of research, but so far your numbers carry little significance (not only from set size) but especially regarding the desired interpretation. Granted OP doesn't provide race distribution, he does however, provide a few charts for you to look at, one of which shows terran has been at the top of the food chain since January (7 months). On top of that TvP has been favouring terran since march and TvZ has been favouring terran since december.
it is arguable how much low-mid tier play is affecting tournament results. since this thread is about discrete placement specifically, overall win ratios come only in effect as an assumption of an "ideal" distribution.
these two scenarios are hugely different, and should be treated that way.
a more meaningful way is to gather weighted tournament win percentages and compare it to these total results, giving hints to possible grave discrepancies between skill-tiers and/or under/over-performing pro players.
|
On August 09 2011 17:07 tdt wrote:
All this is is reflecting the games change brought about by various patches since MC had his run(s).
VR were hard to deal with so they were nerfed heavily.
HT was hard to handle so KA was removed.
Zerg complained about deathballs so infesters were buffed.
Zergs complained about 4 gate being able to punish a FE so that was nerfed.
Zergs complained about Pylon blocking their ramp in the way to FE so that was nerfed.
Protoss has been severally crippled and you wonder why they are doing poor? Lets cut off your leg , race, and see how you do on podium.
Ya, I think if they didnt remove KA and they left 4gate alone protoss mus would be closer to 50%. Trying to "fix" 4gate, which wasn't broken was a dumb move.
|
idra right now is like damn, i must just suck
|
For those saying "the meta game has changed" and "toss need to step it up" I would counter when the game changes then it's just a game change not a meta change. Patches are game changes and little things can make a huge shift. It's amazing really. Have a look how archons are used today vs prior to patch and they got a miniscule buff. The same drastic effects can be applied to nerfs.
I don't envy Blizzards job.
|
On August 09 2011 17:37 lahey wrote:
idra right now is like damn, i must just suck
This made me lol...
I would consider myself as one of the not-so-whiny toss players (although I like to qq once in a while) and I appreciate the effort of the OP. Not because it gives me real data to base my qq on, but because it makes all the other complaints, mainly by zerg, look pretty stupid.
We have been told for months that zerg can't beat protoss....every other PvZ I play I get flamed by the zerg for playing an easy/imba race. I've never really known why zergs hate on protoss instead of terran, but damn it feels good to see how injustified their whine really is overall.
Then the terran players joined in, complaining that you just can't beat protoss with amulet. Seems like amulet was the reason why toss managed to get "slightly" (!) ahead, and now falling again far (!) behind. Also the only really effective all-in we had, the voidray + 3 gate all-in, was quickly taken away - which I will never forgive Blizzard, since they never responded to protoss complaining about the million different strong terran all-ins.
Overall, I don't have a problem with playing a "slightly hard" race - I just hate it when the whole world somehow got the impression that protoss would be "overpowered". Just feels good to see the actual data that proves them wrong.
|
On August 09 2011 17:07 tdt wrote:
All this is is reflecting the games change brought about by various patches since MC had his run(s).
VR were hard to deal with so they were nerfed heavily.
HT was hard to handle so KA was removed.
Zerg complained about deathballs so infesters were buffed.
Zergs complained about 4 gate being able to punish a FE so that was nerfed.
Zergs complained about Pylon blocking their ramp in the way to FE so that was nerfed.
Protoss has been severally crippled and you wonder why they are doing poor? Lets cut off your leg , race, and see how you do on podium.
And during this same time with all these nerfs what buffs have Protoss had?
Archon range/massive: Making the Archon usable (which is good but only really helps in late mid/ late game which is generally where Protoss has the least worries)
Sentry train time decreased: Helps very early game, only before warpgate is out.
Zealot Charge always hits once: Nice but not game changing.
Sorry if there are any important ones I have missed, but I think it's pretty clear Protoss has been nerfed quite badly.
On August 09 2011 17:53 sleepingdog wrote:.
Overall, I don't have a problem with playing a "slightly hard" race - I just hate it when the whole world somehow got the impression that protoss would be "overpowered". Just feels good to see the actual data that proves them wrong.
I totally agree with this, I am so sick of every other game I win against Zerg it's because I'm playing the "overpowered race" but when I come up against a Zerg who knows how to play I feel so helpless. I know this is more to do with peoples own opinions rather than any actual facts, but it is still frustrating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
