Individual League Results by Race

On August 08 2011 17:17 MonkSEA wrote:
Your maths is bad.

Total events = 48
Total first places = 35

Where are the 13 other First places?

Seems like a Protoss qq thread tbh..

On August 08 2011 17:23 MagickMan wrote:


Read the thread properly and click on the link. 13 spots are unknown.
Please people think before we post.

On August 08 2011 16:37 zyce wrote:
Individual League Winners and Runner-Ups (48 Events):
First place:
Terran - 18
Protoss - 6
Zerg - 11

On August 08 2011 22:05 Fig wrote:
there is absolutely NO INCENTIVE to choose a race besides terran if you are planning on playing SC2 competitively for money.

On August 08 2011 22:16 twiitar wrote:
Protoss prefer a-moving or getting bloody noses on 1-1-1 without sitting down and analyzing why they fail against it with mass stalkers and horrible positioning.

On August 08 2011 22:08 Shadrak wrote:
And no, I don't play toss but I do think they are at a disadvantage right now. Not in terms of actual power but in terms of number of viable strats which has a more severe effect in competitive play.

On August 08 2011 22:16 twiitar wrote:

That's why the people that made the most cash with SC2 progaming so far are a Protoss and a Zerg, right?

These statistics are pretty silly and only fuel the Protoss complaints about "hurr game is unbalanced durr terran too strong give us back amulet or else!11!1" which were p awful to begin with.

It's not like Protoss suck, it's just that Terrans have invested more time into finding the small tidbits that give you an advantage while Protoss prefer a-moving or getting bloody noses on 1-1-1 without sitting down and analyzing why they fail against it with mass stalkers and horrible positioning.

On August 08 2011 22:27 eourcs wrote:
I really don't like these statistics because they don't really mean anything balance wise (does this includes games from 2010?) and they just fuel the OMG MY RACE SUCKS LOOK AT THE GRAPH!!!! when really, there are few Protosses that have impressed me and there have been many Terrans/Zergs that have.

On August 08 2011 22:16 twiitar wrote:

That's why the people that made the most cash with SC2 progaming so far are a Protoss and a Zerg, right?
.

On August 08 2011 22:16 twiitar wrote:

That's why the people that made the most cash with SC2 progaming so far are a Protoss and a Zerg, right?

These statistics are pretty silly and only fuel the Protoss complaints about "hurr game is unbalanced durr terran too strong give us back amulet or else!11!1" which were p awful to begin with.

It's not like Protoss suck, it's just that Terrans have invested more time into finding the small tidbits that give you an advantage while Protoss prefer a-moving or getting bloody noses on 1-1-1 without sitting down and analyzing why they fail against it with mass stalkers and horrible positioning.

On August 08 2011 22:32 eYeball wrote:


There really hasn't been much Terran that has impressed me much either besides Bomber, MMA, MVP and perhaps Jjaki recently.. I guess the mediocrity of terrans > protoss and zerg.

On August 08 2011 22:04 naggerNZ wrote:
Personally, I think it's less due to imbalance, but the fact that there are a lot more skilled Zergs and Terrans than there are Protosses.

If I was to put it down to anything, I would argue that Protoss' mechanics don't encourage the same game sense and knowledge as Zerg's and Terran's.

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.

On August 08 2011 23:16 eourcs wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

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

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.

On August 08 2011 23:39 Belha wrote:

So, your mistakes list is "not looking", "unluck", "pay atention"...OMG, that is your conception of skill? Go post somewhere else please, or much better, think before post, elaborate before typing. Do not lower the level of the debate.

On August 08 2011 22:04 naggerNZ wrote:
Personally, I think it's less due to imbalance, but the fact that there are a lot more skilled Zergs and Terrans than there are Protosses.

If I was to put it down to anything, I would argue that Protoss' mechanics don't encourage the same game sense and knowledge as Zerg's and Terran's.

On August 08 2011 22:04 naggerNZ wrote:
Personally, I think it's less due to imbalance, but the fact that there are a lot more skilled Zergs and Terrans than there are Protosses.

If I was to put it down to anything, I would argue that Protoss' mechanics don't encourage the same game sense and knowledge as Zerg's and Terran's.

On August 08 2011 23:39 Belha wrote:

So, your mistakes list is "not looking", "unluck", "pay atention"...OMG, that is your conception of skill? Go post somewhere else please, or much better, think before post, elaborate before typing. Do not lower the level of the debate.

[B]On August 08 2011 23:16 eourcs wrote:[/B
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

On August 09 2011 00:10 fadestep wrote:


Yeah bro. Protoss players are mindless idiots and whenever they win it is because Protoss is OP. And when they lose it it is because Zergs and Terrans are just sick gosu pros and professional gamers playing Protoss don't have game sense or knowledge.

Yup. That makes a lot of sense.

On August 08 2011 23:58 KingVietKong wrote:
You list the same caliber of mistakes, so I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue here. You can't just say "here are numbers" then list your own arbitrary examples, which may be so disconnected from said numbers as to cause aneurysms in your readership. You have no claim to authenticity, so don't pursue that line of argument, you only have a claim to possibility. Also, ending every post with "let's have a high-end debate" in a condescending manners is basically red flagging your own posts as being void of debatable material, and that is compounded on its own repeat.

Also, "elaborate before typing." Just, hilarity in a sentence, all I can say. So vague, yet so direct.

Why are terrans doing well? It's been a year, numbers are looking more and more in favor of an imbalance argument, but we still don't have enough to tell us if this is a strategy/player ability imbalance or if this is a set racial issue that cannot be overcome through play. However, listing arbitrary examples is not "keep the debate nicely," as you might say.

On August 09 2011 00:29 Cracked wrote:


All of your mistakes imply that the player failed. However, many of your mistakes are not THAT punishing to the terran player.

For example, getting caught unsieged, you will lose tanks. That is YOUR mistake. You siege them up, stim your marines forward, and you can still salvage the battle at a relatively even trade, or hurt them enough so that while you got put behind, they cannot finish the game.

The best example is talking about EMP and Storm. What I mean by this is the level of punishment that you get for making a mistake.

If you miss an EMP, the following happens:
- Your marines basically die
- Marauders and Tanks are hurt but are still dishing out punishing damage
- You will have an opportunity with other ghosts for additional EMPs that prevent further storms

If your Templars get EMP'ed because the game wants them to clump up, the following happens:
- Your entire army dies.

In both cases, a mistake occurs. The terran player is still dealing massive damage with tanks and mauraders, AND has an opportunity to correct his mistake with additional EMP's. He may still lose the battle, but he has hurt the attacking player enough such that he has bought himself some time to defend/rebuild/comeback.

The protoss player, just dies immediately and might as well GG out.

On August 09 2011 00:41 zyce wrote:
Any more discussion on the warp-in mechanic would be very interesting to hear opinions on. Let's keep the rest of this thread free of race-bashing please, it's not fun at all.

On August 09 2011 01:38 Zocat wrote:


Warpgate negates defender's advantage (shorter reinforcement time). Therefore P (wg) units need to be weak enough to be beaten by the other races in direct confrontation.
But since the same logic would basically apply to defending as the P they have sentries & forcefields. Perfect forcefields change the tide of battle like almost no other unit/ability (which is available so early on).
But since you can use also offensive sentries (with warpin) this also has to influence the strength of P units (weaken them).

WGs & FFs limit the strength of P units, but you cannot buff / nerf anything from it without it affecting the others as well.
Colossus / Storm also falls into this. Strong which is necessary, because the gateway units are worse - but you cannot really change it, because P probably would lose a lot more engagements without those strong AoEs. (And col/storm dont have the warpin advantage)

I dont know - I think it's really difficult to balance Protoss, since everything effects everything else

About the balance whines / statistics: I will start to care if it holds true for another 1-2 months and no P has found a solution. I mean if we look at the PvZ graph it goes up/down/up/down/... constantly.

Also keep in mind that "your race just doesnt have any good players" was the same thing Zerg heard during their worst time. And now almost everyone agrees that the race was worse than the other races during that time.

On August 08 2011 21:18 Kuskinator wrote:
the showmatch between Boxer and Yellow should not really count

On August 08 2011 22:26 Fig wrote:
The fact that you wrote "Terrans have invested more time" and "Protoss prefer a-moving" shows that you have no idea about the highest level of competition in SC2.

On August 09 2011 02:30 QTIP. wrote:
The only concern I have is that the current PvZ metagame is somewhat predictable. If a Protoss player expands with the zerg and opts for a macro game, they will often rely on Stargate / DT / Heavy Blink Play / Heavy WG to pressure or deny the third. Blink Play / Heavy WG gets annihilated by infestor/ling (see Destiny), and Stargate / DT can both be nullified by spores.

You can still do great damage with these strategies, I simply dislike how predictable it is. Every competent Zerg knows these shenanigans are coming from a Protoss player.

On August 09 2011 03:02 Inex wrote:


When you think about it ZvT is also predictable, or at least boils down to the same old unit compositions. The difference is terran can use the factory after a failed helion harass, or use the starport for medivacs/vikings. Not so with protoss and here I agree with you. A failed VR push on the other hand is way too costly for protoss, since no core army composition consists of stargate units. Toss is just way too predictable atm. A solid zerg can see what you are doing from a mile away and prepare accordingly. The zerg has high chances of winning, unless he is way too greedy. Toss right now really feels limited when it comes to openings, especially vs zerg. PvT is much better right now, but in PvZ it's really hard to put any pressure on the zerg, without damaging your economy.

On August 09 2011 03:46 NineteenSC2 wrote:
Pretty sure terran has a nerf bat coming its way. For once, protoss is not the center of attraction for nerfs .

On August 09 2011 03:46 NineteenSC2 wrote:
Pretty sure terran has a nerf bat coming its way. For once, protoss is not the center of attraction for nerfs .

On August 09 2011 03:58 Snowbear wrote:


I'm pretty sure there is nothing that can be nerfed about the terran race. Tanks are already weak (they are nerfed hard before), and a marine nerf would destroy tvz. The only sollution is a banshee nerf, but will blizzard do that?

On August 09 2011 03:57 Talin wrote:
Why would anyone get nerfed? There's nothing in the game that seems straight up wrong. What exactly WOULD you nerf? I'm not sure how you intend to accomplish the "Terran win rate reduced by 20%" nerf. It would just be nerfing for the sake of nerfing.

Better players are playing better, worse players are playing worse. Protoss players need to step it up, simple as that.

MC's spent a ton of time being a traveling superstar and now can't keep up with the competition in GSL, HuK is kinda the same (but still improving imo).

I would never expect Tester or SangHo to win anything, no matter what race they play. It's obvious they're just not champion material in SC2.

HongUn is still gimmicky as shit and I still don't think he even belongs in Code S (or at least not to make it further than group stage), even though he keeps ranking unrealistically high. His play is so unrefined and often times sloppy.

InCa is an artifact of the past at this point, and deservedly out of Code A. His play was foreigner level sloppy today.

Who do you really expect to win championships in the first place?

If you go through all the other races' winners, you'll see that they are all genuinely top players and nobody is there only because of his race. Polt is probably the only guy who is punching above his real weight (and even he won his championship in a TvT).

Can we please stop bringing up statistics as an imbalance argument? Protoss looks even worse in Brood War, and has looked like that for years. -_-

On August 09 2011 03:57 Talin wrote:
Why would anyone get nerfed? There's nothing in the game that seems straight up wrong. What exactly WOULD you nerf? I'm not sure how you intend to accomplish the "Terran win rate reduced by 20%" nerf. It would just be nerfing for the sake of nerfing.

Better players are playing better, worse players are playing worse. Protoss players need to step it up, simple as that.

MC's spent a ton of time being a traveling superstar and now can't keep up with the competition in GSL, HuK is kinda the same (but still improving imo).

I would never expect Tester or SangHo to win anything, no matter what race they play. It's obvious they're just not champion material in SC2.

HongUn is still gimmicky as shit and I still don't think he even belongs in Code S (or at least not to make it further than group stage), even though he keeps ranking unrealistically high. His play is so unrefined and often times sloppy.

InCa is an artifact of the past at this point, and deservedly out of Code A. His play was foreigner level sloppy today.

Who do you really expect to win championships in the first place?

If you go through all the other races' winners, you'll see that they are all genuinely top players and nobody is there only because of his race. Polt is probably the only guy who is punching above his real weight (and even he won his championship in a TvT).

Can we please stop bringing up statistics as an imbalance argument? Protoss looks even worse in Brood War, and has looked like that for years. -_-

On August 09 2011 04:07 Amui wrote:


Well for the record, a 3/3/3 stalker still loses to a banshee. That's how much stalkers suck against banshees, and why the current iteration of 1/1/1 is so strong. Can't make more than 4-5 or you will just get contained because squishy stalkers die, but banshees are pretty ridiculously good.

On August 09 2011 03:55 EmilA wrote:


If you had ever read patch notes, you'd notice that terran has been (rigthfully) nerfed 3x as hard as protoss. I'd love to sacrifice 3 seconds buildtime on marines for collosi's beamdamage to be reduced to 2x11 ^^) Protoss stats are screwed by 1/1/1 allin, no doubt, yet I can't think of an idea how to nerf it without breaking TvZ - the only unit you can really touch in that comp is the banshee.

On August 09 2011 04:26 Snowbear wrote:


Well yeah, the only nerf possible is a banshee nerf imo. But tank rine allins are strong too, no?

On August 09 2011 04:18 QTIP. wrote:
A harsh and unrealistic evaluation of Protoss players.

I'm not sure how MC "can't keep up with the competition" anymore. Top 8 GSL is bad now? Going out to Hongun (a truly wild + unpredictable player) in a PvP now makes him any less of a favorite? (i.e. You will liquibet Hongun next time they play?)

How is MVP anymore of a "genuinely top player" than MC? I'm very confused here.

Are these really the arguments you want to make to justify the results?

On August 09 2011 04:18 QTIP. wrote:


1) Protoss players are unskilled
2) Need to "step up"
3) Haven't been practicing enough

Are these really the arguments you want to make to justify the results?

It's one thing to make an effort an formulate a counter argument, while it is another to make no effort and simply say "well, you're just not trying hard enough." Especially when you apply this to Korean players.

I am not nailing down imbalance as the sole cause, nor if it is a cause at all, but given the practice culture in Korea - Protoss players in Korea do not suffer from a "lack of effort."

On August 09 2011 04:37 SafeAsCheese wrote:
NesTea and Losira are the only two zergs doing CONSISTENTLY well in Code S, just like MC was the only protoss doing consistently well.

On August 08 2011 23:39 Belha wrote:

So, your mistakes list is "not looking", "unluck", "pay atention"...OMG, that is your conception of skill? Go post somewhere else please, or much better, think before post, elaborate before typing. Do not lower the level of the debate.

On August 09 2011 04:39 Yaotzin wrote:

In mid-lategame it looks pretty nicely balanced.

On August 09 2011 04:56 Snowbear wrote:


In midgame its indeed balanced, but lategame is P favoured imo. I almost never saw a terran winning when toss had more then 4 bases.

On August 09 2011 05:17 Sabu113 wrote:


Thorzain, Puma.

Honestly think Terrans are just unused to games that last too long. By that point toss suddenly gets the ability to be aggressive and confront terran. Toss can suddenly be cost effective especially if terran engages in the wrong spots.

Another question to ask is how often do you see toss killing a terran before 10 min?

On August 09 2011 05:17 Sabu113 wrote:


Thorzain, Puma.

Honestly think Terrans are just unused to games that last too long. By that point toss suddenly gets the ability to be aggressive and confront terran. Toss can suddenly be cost effective especially if terran engages in the wrong spots.

Another question to ask is how often do you see toss killing a terran before 10 min?

On August 09 2011 05:23 kodas wrote:

Thorzain loses lategame TVPs a lot more than he wins, just look at the blizz eu invite, IPL, Assembly,
I wouldn't say that Terrans are just unused to lategame, lategame is wher it gets really hard for the Terran. It would be unfair not to mention earlygame and midgame is hard for the Protoss.

On August 09 2011 05:27 Mentalizor wrote:


To be honest, this is because almost every single T player gets stuck on bio... Sure they mix in ghosts and vikings... But if you actually made a transition into mech or air T would be fine against end game toss... (I realize a transition from pure bio --> mech is hard and near suicide)

But being able to apply pressure and being costeffective for the first 10-15minutes is what you'll get from bio... Ofc t1 and t1½ can't be super good against a 200/200 protoss with temps, colo and archon

On August 08 2011 22:05 Fig wrote:
The main problem is exactly what Dustin Browder admitted to in his last interview. "Terran is the most complete race." He said they were having trouble finding anything to add to terran in the expansion. By admitting that terrans have more tools and more answers than the other two races right now, there is absolutely NO INCENTIVE to choose a race besides terran if you are planning on playing SC2 competitively for money. Even if he says something like they are looking into giving toss a harass unit in HotS, what toss wants to wait through almost a year of being disadvantaged in every tournament. If Blizzard doesn't want the GSL to be almost all terrans by the time the expansion comes out, some things need to change now.

On August 09 2011 05:27 Mentalizor wrote:


To be honest, this is because almost every single T player gets stuck on bio... Sure they mix in ghosts and vikings... But if you actually made a transition into mech or air T would be fine against end game toss... (I realize a transition from pure bio --> mech is hard and near suicide)

But being able to apply pressure and being costeffective for the first 10-15minutes is what you'll get from bio... Ofc t1 and t1½ can't be super good against a 200/200 protoss with temps, colo and archon

On August 09 2011 05:50 GoKu` wrote:
it really bothers me that people think stats mean anything. This is already sparking a balance discussion which is truely sad.



... good example right here...
Most of the Korean terrans have 10 years of Bw experience. + A lot of these stats are from when Terran was winning everything and was heavly imbalanced.

I would really have to see the Matches of how P is losing 60% of the time to terran because a month ago it was the exact opposite.

EDIT: You included... yellow vs boxer...

On August 08 2011 22:16 twiitar wrote:

That's why the people that made the most cash with SC2 progaming so far are a Protoss and a Zerg, right?

These statistics are pretty silly and only fuel the Protoss complaints about "hurr game is unbalanced durr terran too strong give us back amulet or else!11!1" which were p awful to begin with.

It's not like Protoss suck, it's just that Terrans have invested more time into finding the small tidbits that give you an advantage while Protoss prefer a-moving or getting bloody noses on 1-1-1 without sitting down and analyzing why they fail against it with mass stalkers and horrible positioning.

On August 09 2011 05:55 StarscreamG1 wrote:
1-1-1 is MMM or Marines, banshees and tanks all-in?

On August 09 2011 05:57 Snowbear wrote:
We start with MMM and we end with MMM + viking + ghost, and nothing else is viable. It's tier 1,5 against tier 3, which is a disaster. Everyone seems to forget this problem. I understand that alot of terrans are going 1base allin.

On August 09 2011 06:10 Yaotzin wrote:

Bomber - probably the best macro TvPer, does just fine (by just fine I mean dominates the fuck out of them) against the best PvTers around. Puma and others look similarly strong too. This idea that Terran can't compete in the mid-late game is a myth from the days of warpin storms and no one making ghosts.

If anything ghosts are going to be nerfed because of the number of times Protoss players just die to mass emp. Basically if the Protoss can't snipe the Terran's ghosts he loses, horribly.

On August 09 2011 06:10 Yaotzin wrote:

Bomber - probably the best macro TvPer, does just fine (by just fine I mean dominates the fuck out of them) against the best PvTers around. Puma and others look similarly strong too. This idea that Terran can't compete in the mid-late game is a myth from the days of warpin storms and no one making ghosts.

If anything ghosts are going to be nerfed because of the number of times Protoss players just die to mass emp. Basically if the Protoss can't snipe the Terran's ghosts he loses, horribly.

On August 09 2011 06:19 windsupernova wrote:
On the 1-1-1 Build, I still think we need to let the game develop before we scream for nerfs.Accoring to Jinro on the Korean ladder people have figured out how to stop it

On August 09 2011 06:21 Elefanto wrote:
Games like MC vs Puma should be basic terran play for TvP, constantly dropping, threaten attacks at expos etc. , and if you don't do that, you get punished for letting the protoss get his ball. Playing against protoss should be like playing against mech in broodwar. You shouldnt under any circumstances be able to win head on a 200/200 vs 200/200 fight.

On August 09 2011 04:36 Talin wrote:

How is MVP anymore of a "genuinely top player" than MC? I'm very confused here.

MC said himself he hasn't been keeping up, he hasn't had the best practice and that he was behind the top players right now due to traveling to all the foreign events and having little time to settle down and practice for GSL. So why don't you go and argue your points with him instead. -_-

What did MVP win in Korea recently? When he was winning, he was pretty much the best player in the world (over Nestea even).

On August 09 2011 06:35 QTIP. wrote:
I have no reason to argue my points with MC, you are not quoting him as you suggest -- you're making an entirely subjective statement. Him saying "I have been lacking in practice and feel like I am behind" and you stating "MC can't keep up with the competition" is not the same thing. Hopefully I don't have to explain how you have misconstrued this information and put your own spin on things. Again, if you watch the games (as you like to emphasize), MC lost to a 1-1-1 all-in from Bomber, dominated Inca in a PvP, and annihilated Kyrix. He then proceeds to best Huk who has shown that his PvP is among the world's best (HSC III).

On August 09 2011 06:35 QTIP. wrote:
I would be one of the first to tell you that Hongun / Sangho / Inca / Tester are not on the same level as Nestea / Losira / Bomber / MVP. I am not arguing that these Protoss players are of lesser skill than the counter parts you mention. I simply emphasize that your argument of Protoss' needing to "step it up" is both naive and ignorant -- and this was done in my original post.

On August 09 2011 06:35 QTIP. wrote:All I ask is that you make a somewhat coherent counter argument that is backed up by statements that address my points. When you copy / paste my question into your ensuing post, address it.

On August 09 2011 06:35 QTIP. wrote:
How does this, in any way/shape/form, suggest that MVP is anymore of a "genuinely top player" than MC? When MC was winning (2 GSL Titles) - he was also considered the best player in the world (over Nestea even). How is this an argument that MVP is more of a "genuinely top player?"

On August 09 2011 06:35 QTIP. wrote:
I have no reason to argue my points with MC, you are not quoting him as you suggest -- you're making an entirely subjective statement. Him saying "I have been lacking in practice and feel like I am behind" and you stating "MC can't keep up with the competition" is not the same thing.

On August 09 2011 06:35 QTIP. wrote:
Again, if you watch the games (as you like to emphasize), MC lost to a 1-1-1 all-in from Bomber, dominated Inca in a PvP, and annihilated Kyrix. He then proceeds to best Huk who has shown that his PvP is among the world's best (HSC III).

On August 09 2011 06:35 QTIP. wrote:
For the second part of you argument -- What has MVP done since his win over a diluted player pool in the "World Tournament"? Knocked down to Code A, and failed to advance out of a GSL group with nothing but T / Z (his stronger matchups), and failing to hold down the fort against FXO.qxc. I'm not hating on MVP here, I'm just pointing out that MVP has shown plenty of struggles in "keeping up with the competition" as you say MC is. Again, your argument is not a counter argument - you do not even address my question.

On August 09 2011 06:35 QTIP. wrote:
I would be one of the first to tell you that Hongun / Sangho / Inca / Tester are not on the same level as Nestea / Losira / Bomber / MVP. I am not arguing that these Protoss players are of lesser skill than the counter parts you mention. I simply emphasize that your argument of Protoss' needing to "step it up" is both naive and ignorant -- and this was done in my original post.

On August 09 2011 06:59 Talin wrote:


I would ask you to do the same thing actually. -_-



I never implied that MVP was more of a top player than MC, that's something you pretty much made up on your own when you brought MVP up. It wasn't an argument I ever made.

Admittedly I did answer to your (loaded) question of "how is MVP more of a top player" - although the only thing I specifically said was that he WAS better at some point in time, so I don't see where exactly am I wrong in this.



I'm stating that MC can't keep up with the competition right now, which doesn't imply that he doesn't have the ability to keep up with the top any more [in the future].

And "I have been lacking in practice and feel like I am behind [the top competition, obviously]" IS pretty much equal to "MC can't keep up with the competition right now because of all the traveling", so yes it is the same thing.

And even if you didn't take it as such, then I'm telling you now I meant it as such. -_-



What does this information have to do with anything I've said?

If it was supposed to demonstrate how MC is playing at a top level and doing his best right now, then no, those aren't really good enough arguments at all.



Again, that isn't any part of my argument at all (at least in regards to MVP vs MC discussion that you pretty much made up on your own).

I did bring up MVP myself as a player who is a class above other Protoss players even right now, which is something you obviously agree with:



So you agree that Hongun, Sangho, Inca and Tester are not on the same level as Nestea, Losira, MVP and Bomber.

But at the same time you think that my statement that Hongun/Sangho/Tester need to "step it up" if they want to ever win against Nestea/Losira/Bomber/MVP is naive and ignorant?

You're making no sense at all.

Your original argument was that Protoss players aren't winning anything. Obviously they (as in Hongun/Sangho/Tester class of players) can either step it up, or they can stay at the level they're at right now (mediocre with a tendency to fall even further behind the top).

Just like MC has to settle down in Korea and step it up to catch up with NesTea (and even Losira and Bomber who are on the rise right now).

Basically all your arguments just point to my own conclusion, but then you decide to disagree in the end for whatever reason.

On August 09 2011 04:18 QTIP. wrote:
I am not nailing down imbalance as the sole cause, nor if it is a cause at all, but given the practice culture in Korea - Protoss players in Korea do not suffer from a "lack of effort."

So you agree that Hongun, Sangho, Inca and Tester are not on the same level as Nestea, Losira, MVP and Bomber.

On August 09 2011 07:15 awesomoecalypse wrote:


Why are you bringing up a bunch of mid-level Toss and comparing them to the best Z and Ts? A guy like Sangho who literally doesn't have a single result worth mentioning isn't as good as the best Zerg in the world? Color me shocked.

I would say that Puzzle has shown a skillset, in terms of multitasking, mechanics and gamesense, that is roughly on part with guys like Losira and Bomber. Now that Puzzle is in Code S, we'll see whether he can post good results.

The equivalents of the HongUns and IncAs of the world are people like Ensnare and Kyrix. Good enough to give great players decent matches, but no one seriously thinks they're champion material. If someone like Ensnare rolled someone like Puzzle, that would be genuinely worrisome from a balance perspective.

What I find a little worrisome is how EASILY Ret rolled Naniwa. Ret is talented, but by his own admission barely practices, and is nowhere near one of the best Zergs in the world. Naniwa is a practice nut and may well be a top 5 Protoss, and until this point has looked like a vastly more complete player than Ret. And Ret made him look like a joke--and it wasn't like he even did anything innovative. If the guy who barely tries can stomp a more skilled guy who is absolutely busting his ass...that is not a good sign for balance.

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

On August 08 2011 23:16 eourcs wrote:


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

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.

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.

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.

On August 09 2011 16:54 NineteenSC2 wrote:


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.

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.

On August 09 2011 17:37 lahey wrote:
idra right now is like damn, i must just suck

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.

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.

On August 09 2011 17:53 sleepingdog wrote:
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.