We are seeing huge imbalance. TvT is the least played MU because Terran is by far the least played race at higher levels of play. Winrates are not a reliable source of information on balance, they are very, very easy to break and mislead. I posted this example earlier:
Lol winrates are not reliable source of info on balance? And you prefer to look at the number of mirror matches played? That's the worst logic I've ever heard. We NEED to look at winrates, but we need to be careful which matches we look at. Low number of TvTs does not mean that Terran is weak. If we have 9 people in the room, we are not supposed to have 3 players for each race, people might favor one race for various reasons (looks, sound, design).
If anything, Terran is stupidly strong right now, and the next patch (hopefully) puts a number of nerfs that puts Terran back into balanced.
We are seeing huge imbalance. TvT is the least played MU because Terran is by far the least played race at higher levels of play. Winrates are not a reliable source of information on balance, they are very, very easy to break and mislead. I posted this example earlier:
Lol winrates are not reliable source of info on balance? And you prefer to look at the number of mirror matches played? That's the worst logic I've ever heard. We NEED to look at winrates, but we need to be careful which matches we look at. Low number of TvTs does not mean that Terran is weak. If we have 9 people in the room, we are not supposed to have 3 players for each race, people might favor one race for various reasons (looks, sound, design).
If anything, Terran is stupidly strong right now, and the next patch (hopefully) puts a number of nerfs that puts Terran back into balanced.
Talking about number of mirror matches is a sideways way of talking about race representation.
Here's the actual problem. Top terrans show that its possible to do well vs protoss. However, there are less top terrans than top protoss/zerg. People feel this makes the game imbalanced, which it is from a population stand point. However, they wish to causate that the population differences directly translate to gameplay imbalance.
A similar thing happened during GomTvT when MC and... um.... well, MC was the only consistent Protoss player in the game. He also became highly dependent on 1-2 base timing attacks (although no one wanted a macro game vs him either)
Stalkers, Zealots, Colossus, and Archons received no buffs while templars actually got nerfed. Now the same compositions that were too weak in WoL are now being heralded as OP in HotS.
We are seeing huge imbalance. TvT is the least played MU because Terran is by far the least played race at higher levels of play. Winrates are not a reliable source of information on balance, they are very, very easy to break and mislead. I posted this example earlier:
Lol winrates are not reliable source of info on balance? And you prefer to look at the number of mirror matches played? That's the worst logic I've ever heard. We NEED to look at winrates, but we need to be careful which matches we look at. Low number of TvTs does not mean that Terran is weak. If we have 9 people in the room, we are not supposed to have 3 players for each race, people might favor one race for various reasons (looks, sound, design).
If anything, Terran is stupidly strong right now, and the next patch (hopefully) puts a number of nerfs that puts Terran back into balanced.
Talking about number of mirror matches is a sideways way of talking about race representation.
Here's the actual problem. Top terrans show that its possible to do well vs protoss. However, there are less top terrans than top protoss/zerg. People feel this makes the game imbalanced, which it is from a population stand point. However, they wish to causate that the population differences directly translate to gameplay imbalance.
A similar thing happened during GomTvT when MC and... um.... well, MC was the only consistent Protoss player in the game. He also became highly dependent on 1-2 base timing attacks (although no one wanted a macro game vs him either)
Stalkers, Zealots, Colossus, and Archons received no buffs while templars actually got nerfed. Now the same compositions that were too weak in WoL are now being heralded as OP in HotS.
I wonder what Legacy of the Void will do.
I thought that the soundest theory was that it is impossible to do early pushes versus P due to the Mothership Core, and that leads to a wide variety of safe pushes that are hard to hold. Mind, TvP is not a matchup I know well.
Anyway... not so much main army compositions but, rather, strategical choices.
We are seeing huge imbalance. TvT is the least played MU because Terran is by far the least played race at higher levels of play. Winrates are not a reliable source of information on balance, they are very, very easy to break and mislead. I posted this example earlier:
Lol winrates are not reliable source of info on balance? And you prefer to look at the number of mirror matches played? That's the worst logic I've ever heard. We NEED to look at winrates, but we need to be careful which matches we look at. Low number of TvTs does not mean that Terran is weak. If we have 9 people in the room, we are not supposed to have 3 players for each race, people might favor one race for various reasons (looks, sound, design).
If anything, Terran is stupidly strong right now, and the next patch (hopefully) puts a number of nerfs that puts Terran back into balanced.
Talking about number of mirror matches is a sideways way of talking about race representation.
Here's the actual problem. Top terrans show that its possible to do well vs protoss. However, there are less top terrans than top protoss/zerg. People feel this makes the game imbalanced, which it is from a population stand point. However, they wish to causate that the population differences directly translate to gameplay imbalance.
A similar thing happened during GomTvT when MC and... um.... well, MC was the only consistent Protoss player in the game. He also became highly dependent on 1-2 base timing attacks (although no one wanted a macro game vs him either)
Stalkers, Zealots, Colossus, and Archons received no buffs while templars actually got nerfed. Now the same compositions that were too weak in WoL are now being heralded as OP in HotS.
I wonder what Legacy of the Void will do.
Well speaking of MC, even he couldn't hold the 1-1-1, which lead map designers to make maps where it was easier to defend the natural than on Xel Naga Caverns or Metalopolis, which became 1-1-1 city.
I wonder what games on those old maps would look like now, since Photon Overcharge mostly kills the 1-1-1 regardless of map design.
We are seeing huge imbalance. TvT is the least played MU because Terran is by far the least played race at higher levels of play. Winrates are not a reliable source of information on balance, they are very, very easy to break and mislead. I posted this example earlier:
Lol winrates are not reliable source of info on balance? And you prefer to look at the number of mirror matches played? That's the worst logic I've ever heard. We NEED to look at winrates, but we need to be careful which matches we look at. Low number of TvTs does not mean that Terran is weak. If we have 9 people in the room, we are not supposed to have 3 players for each race, people might favor one race for various reasons (looks, sound, design).
If anything, Terran is stupidly strong right now, and the next patch (hopefully) puts a number of nerfs that puts Terran back into balanced.
Talking about number of mirror matches is a sideways way of talking about race representation.
Here's the actual problem. Top terrans show that its possible to do well vs protoss. However, there are less top terrans than top protoss/zerg. People feel this makes the game imbalanced, which it is from a population stand point. However, they wish to causate that the population differences directly translate to gameplay imbalance.
A similar thing happened during GomTvT when MC and... um.... well, MC was the only consistent Protoss player in the game. He also became highly dependent on 1-2 base timing attacks (although no one wanted a macro game vs him either)
Stalkers, Zealots, Colossus, and Archons received no buffs while templars actually got nerfed. Now the same compositions that were too weak in WoL are now being heralded as OP in HotS.
I wonder what Legacy of the Void will do.
Well speaking of MC, even he couldn't hold the 1-1-1, which lead map designers to make maps where it was easier to defend the natural than on Xel Naga Caverns or Metalopolis, which became 1-1-1 city.
I wonder what games on those old maps would look like now, since Photon Overcharge mostly kills the 1-1-1 regardless of map design.
In fairness, Puma was the main person he lost to that abused the 1-1-1, MC usually held against most everyone else. It just so happened that Puma and MC kept facing off in the tail end of European tournaments so it always looked like MC kept losing to 1-1-1.
But yeah, the maps were very tiny and the mechanics of protoss at the time was very behind what it is now (Huk was an example of great micro at the time if you recall). I wonder what would a tournament with old maps look like now.
We are seeing huge imbalance. TvT is the least played MU because Terran is by far the least played race at higher levels of play. Winrates are not a reliable source of information on balance, they are very, very easy to break and mislead. I posted this example earlier:
Lol winrates are not reliable source of info on balance? And you prefer to look at the number of mirror matches played? That's the worst logic I've ever heard. We NEED to look at winrates, but we need to be careful which matches we look at. Low number of TvTs does not mean that Terran is weak. If we have 9 people in the room, we are not supposed to have 3 players for each race, people might favor one race for various reasons (looks, sound, design).
If anything, Terran is stupidly strong right now, and the next patch (hopefully) puts a number of nerfs that puts Terran back into balanced.
Talking about number of mirror matches is a sideways way of talking about race representation.
Here's the actual problem. Top terrans show that its possible to do well vs protoss. However, there are less top terrans than top protoss/zerg. People feel this makes the game imbalanced, which it is from a population stand point. However, they wish to causate that the population differences directly translate to gameplay imbalance.
A similar thing happened during GomTvT when MC and... um.... well, MC was the only consistent Protoss player in the game. He also became highly dependent on 1-2 base timing attacks (although no one wanted a macro game vs him either)
Stalkers, Zealots, Colossus, and Archons received no buffs while templars actually got nerfed. Now the same compositions that were too weak in WoL are now being heralded as OP in HotS.
I wonder what Legacy of the Void will do.
Well speaking of MC, even he couldn't hold the 1-1-1, which lead map designers to make maps where it was easier to defend the natural than on Xel Naga Caverns or Metalopolis, which became 1-1-1 city.
I wonder what games on those old maps would look like now, since Photon Overcharge mostly kills the 1-1-1 regardless of map design.
In fairness, Puma was the main person he lost to that abused the 1-1-1, MC usually held against most everyone else. It just so happened that Puma and MC kept facing off in the tail end of European tournaments so it always looked like MC kept losing to 1-1-1.
But yeah, the maps were very tiny and the mechanics of protoss at the time was very behind what it is now (Huk was an example of great micro at the time if you recall). I wonder what would a tournament with old maps look like now.
i dont even want to imagine things like soul train on maps like jungle basins
On August 16 2014 14:16 Socup wrote: I don't know why people go bio anyway and then get upset over TvP matchups. Terrans got strong midgame advantage with tanks. Just siege them and do tons of damage.
Bio+tanks is slaughtered by any composition with chargelots, and only does somewhat ok against blinkstalker-colussus. Tanks without support lose to just 4 immortals, and even with non-bio support this is mech which is clearly very weak against a competent player. Tanks are not an option and do not offer terran a midgame advantage. You really don't seem to strongly understand this matchup, because if you did you would realize Terrran's options are few and far between, and all that are viable are already in use.
nah, Im on the leading fringes of meta. Ever try marauder banshee around 8-9 minute vs protoss? It wrecks their shit up, bro. I also got this build for TvZ which is landed vikings and tanks in tank mode in front vs zerg with stim rines 1-0 behind and it's a parade reinforce steamroll around 8-9 minutes.
The arrogance. Can't tell if serious or trolling.
Don't you see the brilliance of the landed viking parade push??
You are a troll and not a very good one at that.
That's a different person and I think he may be being sarcastic.
We are seeing huge imbalance. TvT is the least played MU because Terran is by far the least played race at higher levels of play. Winrates are not a reliable source of information on balance, they are very, very easy to break and mislead. I posted this example earlier:
Lol winrates are not reliable source of info on balance? And you prefer to look at the number of mirror matches played? That's the worst logic I've ever heard. We NEED to look at winrates, but we need to be careful which matches we look at. Low number of TvTs does not mean that Terran is weak. If we have 9 people in the room, we are not supposed to have 3 players for each race, people might favor one race for various reasons (looks, sound, design).
If anything, Terran is stupidly strong right now, and the next patch (hopefully) puts a number of nerfs that puts Terran back into balanced.
Talking about number of mirror matches is a sideways way of talking about race representation.
Here's the actual problem. Top terrans show that its possible to do well vs protoss. However, there are less top terrans than top protoss/zerg. People feel this makes the game imbalanced, which it is from a population stand point. However, they wish to causate that the population differences directly translate to gameplay imbalance.
A similar thing happened during GomTvT when MC and... um.... well, MC was the only consistent Protoss player in the game. He also became highly dependent on 1-2 base timing attacks (although no one wanted a macro game vs him either)
Stalkers, Zealots, Colossus, and Archons received no buffs while templars actually got nerfed. Now the same compositions that were too weak in WoL are now being heralded as OP in HotS.
I wonder what Legacy of the Void will do.
Well speaking of MC, even he couldn't hold the 1-1-1, which lead map designers to make maps where it was easier to defend the natural than on Xel Naga Caverns or Metalopolis, which became 1-1-1 city.
I wonder what games on those old maps would look like now, since Photon Overcharge mostly kills the 1-1-1 regardless of map design.
In fairness, Puma was the main person he lost to that abused the 1-1-1, MC usually held against most everyone else. It just so happened that Puma and MC kept facing off in the tail end of European tournaments so it always looked like MC kept losing to 1-1-1.
But yeah, the maps were very tiny and the mechanics of protoss at the time was very behind what it is now (Huk was an example of great micro at the time if you recall). I wonder what would a tournament with old maps look like now.
i dont even want to imagine things like soul train on maps like jungle basins
Yeah, but can you imagine trying to get your natural up and running at Xel'Naga
We are seeing huge imbalance. TvT is the least played MU because Terran is by far the least played race at higher levels of play. Winrates are not a reliable source of information on balance, they are very, very easy to break and mislead. I posted this example earlier:
Lol winrates are not reliable source of info on balance? And you prefer to look at the number of mirror matches played? That's the worst logic I've ever heard. We NEED to look at winrates, but we need to be careful which matches we look at. Low number of TvTs does not mean that Terran is weak. If we have 9 people in the room, we are not supposed to have 3 players for each race, people might favor one race for various reasons (looks, sound, design).
If anything, Terran is stupidly strong right now, and the next patch (hopefully) puts a number of nerfs that puts Terran back into balanced.
Talking about number of mirror matches is a sideways way of talking about race representation.
Here's the actual problem. Top terrans show that its possible to do well vs protoss. However, there are less top terrans than top protoss/zerg. People feel this makes the game imbalanced, which it is from a population stand point. However, they wish to causate that the population differences directly translate to gameplay imbalance.
A similar thing happened during GomTvT when MC and... um.... well, MC was the only consistent Protoss player in the game. He also became highly dependent on 1-2 base timing attacks (although no one wanted a macro game vs him either)
Stalkers, Zealots, Colossus, and Archons received no buffs while templars actually got nerfed. Now the same compositions that were too weak in WoL are now being heralded as OP in HotS.
I wonder what Legacy of the Void will do.
It's not that TvP late game is imbalanced - even Avilo (of all people) says it is not imbalanced. It is the fact Protoss can reach a faster tech 2-3 minutes earlier than Terran b/c of the MSC. I laugh when a Protoss has 1 stalker and a MSC at the 7 minute mark with 2 forges and a Robo about to make Colossus. They used to have to invest in 3-4 sentries in WoL or they would just die to any Terran push. But now they just click a button. Terran also has to "over defend" to units like the Oracle, DT or Blink-all while Protoss has little risk back home b/c of units like...again...the MSC. I'm not an Avilo fanboy, but he has a point that nothing has really changed except the introduction of that unit and the Oracle for P early game. This has caused a ripple effect for Protoss reach late game faster. This is not the result of "game evolution" if that is what you are implying. It is clear why Protoss now looks OP from the faster tech vantage point.
We are seeing huge imbalance. TvT is the least played MU because Terran is by far the least played race at higher levels of play. Winrates are not a reliable source of information on balance, they are very, very easy to break and mislead. I posted this example earlier:
Lol winrates are not reliable source of info on balance? And you prefer to look at the number of mirror matches played? That's the worst logic I've ever heard. We NEED to look at winrates, but we need to be careful which matches we look at. Low number of TvTs does not mean that Terran is weak. If we have 9 people in the room, we are not supposed to have 3 players for each race, people might favor one race for various reasons (looks, sound, design).
If anything, Terran is stupidly strong right now, and the next patch (hopefully) puts a number of nerfs that puts Terran back into balanced.
Talking about number of mirror matches is a sideways way of talking about race representation.
Here's the actual problem. Top terrans show that its possible to do well vs protoss. However, there are less top terrans than top protoss/zerg. People feel this makes the game imbalanced, which it is from a population stand point. However, they wish to causate that the population differences directly translate to gameplay imbalance.
A similar thing happened during GomTvT when MC and... um.... well, MC was the only consistent Protoss player in the game. He also became highly dependent on 1-2 base timing attacks (although no one wanted a macro game vs him either)
Stalkers, Zealots, Colossus, and Archons received no buffs while templars actually got nerfed. Now the same compositions that were too weak in WoL are now being heralded as OP in HotS.
I wonder what Legacy of the Void will do.
It's not that TvP late game is imbalanced - even Avilo (of all people) says it is not imbalanced. It is the fact Protoss can reach a faster tech 2-3 minutes earlier than Terran b/c of the MSC. I laugh when a Protoss has 1 stalker and a MSC at the 7 minute mark with 2 forges and a Robo about to make Colossus. They used to have to invest in 3-4 sentries in WoL or they would just die to any Terran push. But now they just click a button. Terran also has to "over defend" to units like the Oracle, DT or Blink-all while Protoss has little risk back home b/c of units like...again...the MSC. I'm not an Avilo fanboy, but he has a point that nothing has really changed except the introduction of that unit and the Oracle for P early game. This has caused a ripple effect for Protoss reach late game faster. This is not the result of "game evolution" if that is what you are implying. It is clear why Protoss now looks OP from the faster tech vantage point.
Nor am I disagreeing.
Just that, it was the same arguments being made during GomTvT as well. Its interesting no?
Game looks pretty balanced to me these days watching GSL and WCS AM/EU. We have a lot more Terrans in GSL and almost all the ones who made it advanced. And we have foreign Terran players beating Koreans (mostly Bunny but still).
I think the strength of the widow mine along with adapting by Terran players has weakened a lot of Protoss early allins and therefore Terran has a bit more breathing room in the early game.
We saw Flash getting early engineering bay to defend against Oracles but incorporating that into his build to hit a faster 1/1 timing. That's the kind of evolution that happens as players get used to a game.
EDIT - though it seems that ZvP in Korea is starting to shift towards Z... Only the top top Protoss are really winning that matchup convincingly. But that could just be a meta thing. It goes in cycles. There hasn't been a patch that really affects PvZ too much in a while. Perhaps the Time Warp nerf was tough on 4 gates but I see a lot more early 3rds nowadays.
On August 21 2014 05:54 DinoMight wrote: We saw Flash getting early engineering bay to defend against Oracles but incorporating that into his build to hit a faster 1/1 timing. That's the kind of evolution that happens as players get used to a game.
Err...
The game is indeed still evolving but you chose the wrong example to show it. Quick EB builds are known in TvP since a very long time. I remember seeing it the first time in a Flash vs Jangbi game as early as the 24 April 2013 for the Asian Indoor & Martial Arts Games tournament, and the game above is dated 30 April 2013.
On August 21 2014 05:54 DinoMight wrote: We saw Flash getting early engineering bay to defend against Oracles but incorporating that into his build to hit a faster 1/1 timing. That's the kind of evolution that happens as players get used to a game.
The game is indeed still evolving but you chose the wrong example to show it. Quick EB builds are known in TvP since a very long time. I remember seeing it the first time in a Flash vs Jangbi game as early as the 24 April 2013 for the Asian Indoor & Martial Arts Games tournament, and the game above is dated 30 April 2013.
Haha. Well that's what I get for listening to WCS casters.
I think what they meant was widow mines being a little stronger compensate for the lack of units early EB builds left you with.
On August 21 2014 05:54 DinoMight wrote: Game looks pretty balanced to me these days watching GSL and WCS AM/EU. We have a lot more Terrans in GSL and almost all the ones who made it advanced. And we have foreign Terran players beating Koreans (mostly Bunny but still).
I think the strength of the widow mine along with adapting by Terran players has weakened a lot of Protoss early allins and therefore Terran has a bit more breathing room in the early game.
We saw Flash getting early engineering bay to defend against Oracles but incorporating that into his build to hit a faster 1/1 timing. That's the kind of evolution that happens as players get used to a game.
EDIT - though it seems that ZvP in Korea is starting to shift towards Z... Only the top top Protoss are really winning that matchup convincingly. But that could just be a meta thing. It goes in cycles. There hasn't been a patch that really affects PvZ too much in a while. Perhaps the Time Warp nerf was tough on 4 gates but I see a lot more early 3rds nowadays.
Code A has been nearly 80% for Protoss. As you say, it may go in cycles (adjustments) and there is quite some deviation to be accounted for. But yeah, Code S has been going pretty amazingly for Z, despite the TvZ patch.
Stalkers, Zealots, Colossus, and Archons received no buffs while templars actually got nerfed. Now the same compositions that were too weak in WoL are now being heralded as OP in HotS.
I wonder what Legacy of the Void will do.
T3 Protoss units have always been considered OP even in WOL days. It's funny looking back that so few had taken advantage of HTs with Khaydarian Amulet (San!). Imagine if we had that upgrade today. XD
Stalkers, Zealots, Colossus, and Archons received no buffs while templars actually got nerfed. Now the same compositions that were too weak in WoL are now being heralded as OP in HotS.
I wonder what Legacy of the Void will do.
T3 Protoss units have always been considered OP even in WOL days. It's funny looking back that so few had taken advantage of HTs with Khaydarian Amulet (San!). Imagine if we had that upgrade today. XD
Khaydarin Amulet got nerfed not primarily because it was imba, but because it caused protoss players to just warp in HTs whenever they needed emergency storms, and so they were being used in ways that didn't really explore any depth to the potential of the unit. I wouldn't mind the upgrade's return, if it was changed to do something like increase energy recharge rate by 20% or something. The main thing is that HTs need to not be able to use storm immediately upon warping in.
Stalkers, Zealots, Colossus, and Archons received no buffs while templars actually got nerfed. Now the same compositions that were too weak in WoL are now being heralded as OP in HotS.
I wonder what Legacy of the Void will do.
T3 Protoss units have always been considered OP even in WOL days. It's funny looking back that so few had taken advantage of HTs with Khaydarian Amulet (San!). Imagine if we had that upgrade today. XD
Khaydarin Amulet got nerfed not primarily because it was imba, but because it caused protoss players to just warp in HTs whenever they needed emergency storms, and so they were being used in ways that didn't really explore any depth to the potential of the unit. I wouldn't mind the upgrade's return, if it was changed to do something like increase energy recharge rate by 20% or something. The main thing is that HTs need to not be able to use storm immediately upon warping in.
But what it did make was San having consistent 40+ minute macro games as a protoss mass expanding with constant harass. It was sexy as fuck.
Freewins from proxy marine rushes in TvZ continue. I guess it is hardly defendable when terran executes it right (and not like the guys years ago in the vods from you dwf).
I can't remember a single hold against this in the recent history of sc2 progaming. IMO when a race needs to defend smth like this with workers this early, it can't be any good. It is not the same as defending cannon rushes, as cannons/pylons are a bigger commitment for protoss and must stay where they were built (and therefore can be killed or dodged without any much risk), while marines is what the terran builds anyways, bunkers can be salvaged and barracks are flying back. Its a win/lose situation for terran/zerg that can be induced freely by the terran whenever he wants that borders to the denial of playing a fair game and freewinning.
Yes it is somehow somewhen possible to hold it, but the chances and risks are not equally distributed at all IMO. In many cases of a hold or dodge the terran wont even be behind but the zerg (due to comparably low commitment of terran).
Apart from this, it is very concerning for me, in terms of balance, that zergs seem to be not confident anymore to win vs terrans in normal macro games using muta/bling. And in fact they do barely win any games with muta/bling. Instead all-ins and semi all-ins in the likes of roaches, roach/hydra or roach/bane become more and more common and the way for zerg to win. I am very sure in the last 20-30 pro level tvzs that I saw only very few were won out of macro game but the major part of it with roach/hydra semi all-ins.
Now it is still early enough after patch to sit still and observe how this is continuing to develop. But the concerns are there. Remember: We are now in a state of balance, that last year caused having like 8-9 terrans on top of the blizzcon qualifiers board but now we have buffed tanks, buffed hellbats.
That zergs learned to deal with it was a myth spread by terrans. A very few zergs were able to exactly study the always same terran style of play (4m push) at this time and learned to perfectly react to it, then defend terran pushes a dozen of times in a row in order to then finally be able to get superiority in the delayed endgame.
Now the situation is different: Terran has alot more various combinations with the buffed hellbats, tanks, and mines (not to forget thor change). A perfect response (that was anyway required from zergs to not just get rolled over ~one year ago) is not that easily achievable anymore. A terran can mix in mines, hellbats, thors and tanks more effectively. A zerg response to bio+mine (that is what terrans say "was figured out") might/is not equally perfect vs any combination of the above mentioned buffed/changed units and as well not really predictable (1 fax with tech-lab can produce any of these and also rotate).
IMO a clear indication for lacking balance is that zergs mostly choose roach semi all-ins instead of macro muta/bling play. And in fact the most games where zergs win are these semi all-ins. Roach semi all-ins are getting figured out by terrans soon.
This time we have interesting results. The patch went through on the 25th of July, so both 116 and 117 are pertinent for our analysis.
The first thing to notice, PvT has been consistently at ~45% since the patch. (Down from 48%, 52%, 52%, 50%, 46% in previous lists).
TvZ has been hovering around 50%, which has roughly been the norm over all quoted lists (it sometimes dips to ~46% for short periods).
PvZ has climbed back to ~50%, from a short 47% dip.
Population numbers are becoming more even. TvTs make up 58% of the ZvZs, and PvPs 85% of ZvZs. TvTs also make up 68% of TvTs. This is a marked improvement from the time when there were for example 4x or 5x more ZvZs than TvTs (and smaller advantages for PvPs, still measured as nx).
Population wise, there's also a non-significant improvement for P compared to Z.
The conclusion from the first month after the balance change appears to be that T is doing better, but mostly with respect to games against P. Albeit, you could make the argument that as there are more terrans in tournaments, but the winrates against Z are equal, terrans are actually doing better, it's merely weaker terrans that are losing more.
What's clearly the case is that we can no longer count how many times more ZvZs and PvPs there are than TvTs.
Anyone who actually watched the games should comment further.
On August 08 2014 05:03 Ghanburighan wrote: Aligulac list 116.
Regarding winrates, T had an edge against P, and a very small edge against T. PvZ is even.
Regarding populations, there were only about twice as many PvPs as TvTs and 2.5x ZvZs as TvTs, so there's improvement.
While we're looking at winrates, here's another Aligulac list:
Just looking at winrates, PvT is rather even, and so is PvZ but TvZ has gone down to the dumps again.
On the other hand, the population numbers are the worst ever for Terran. It looks like T has a constant of around 100 games every period, but with the added number of games (last period has 1799 games, this one 3866), only Z and P seem to have added more mirrors.
So there are 4.8x as many ZvZ as TvT, and 3.8x as many PvP as TvT. This also means that P has once again caught up with Z populations, last period it was 1.3 ZvZ for every 1 PvP, now it's 1.2.
On July 10 2014 20:15 Ghanburighan wrote: Here's the latest Aligulac list (114) with pretty new formatting.
With regard to P, nothing seems to have changed. Just like the first half of June, P>T by a slight margin, P and Z are roughly even, and there are roughly the same number of PvP MU's in tournaments.
Z did worse in this period, while it was at >55% against T last time, it's now even in winrates.
More importantly, looking at populations, while there were 5x more ZvZ than TvT, and 2x more ZvZ than PvP, then now there are only roughly 3x more ZvZ than TvT, and a just over a fourth more ZvZ than PvPs. This suggests that Z is doing worse, and it's mainly doing worse against T (note that worse doesn't imply that they're doing bad, this is a comparison with the previous period).
Looking more closely at the population numbers, there appear to have been fewer games, the total for 114 is 1835 and for 113 it was 2379.
So for the previous 113 list Z MUs made up 72% of all MUs. P MUs made up 55% (note that the overlap is due to the fact that P plays Z...). T MUs made up 36% of all MUs.
In this list, 114, Z MUs made up 65% of all MUs. P MUs made up 57%. T MUs made up 42% of all MUs.
So Z is down 7%, P is up 2% and T is up 6%. (with rounding)
The previous lists can be found below.
On June 29 2014 05:42 Ghanburighan wrote: Sorry for the delay, here's Aligulac 113.. The previous list(s) can be found at the end of this post.
Looking at the winrates, P has extended its advantage over T, P has also gained some ground back against Z, yet TvZ has strongly turned in Z favour once gain (it's as bad as it was before the hellbat patch in April).
Population numbers are also worse. Previously there were 4x more ZvZ games than TvT games, now there are more than 5x. PvP's have not changed in number, so it's mostly just less terrans and more zergs getting further that's creating the problem.
All in all, balance-wise this was a very depressing period.
On June 12 2014 15:32 Ghanburighan wrote: Time to post the latest Aligulac list. The previous list can be found at the end of this post.
Regarding winrates, PvT has fluctuated back from T having a slight advantage to P having a minuscule advantage. In PvZ, P has also improved although it hasn't caught up with Z. On the other hand, T has improved in the TvZ MU (110 had 45%, 111 had 47%) and its even now.
In terms of populations measured in numbers of mirror MUs, there's virtually no change compared to the last list, the proportions are very close. This means that there is no repopulation of terrans according to these numbers and there are 4 times fewer TvTs than ZvZs.
As T MUs have even winrates, there cannot really be a repopulation with these numbers.
Furthermore, a word of caution, I'd say that this was one of the best periods for Terran in a long while, Taeja won Hsc 9 (where Z had a comparatively weaker list of players), Maru is tearing up Code S, and Innovation is kicking as in teamleagues and the Dragon cup. I don't think they contributed overly much to the final winrates (their games are still a small fraction of all the games), but taken together they did contribute significantly. If they don't keep their winning ways going, winrates can plunge below 50% again. And, their wins aren't helping repopulate in any way.
On May 29 2014 02:45 Ghanburighan wrote: Uploading the latest Aligulac list.
Unfortunately there was a TvZ patch in the middle of the period, so those numbers could be anything now.
But it looks like P is doing worse against Z in terms of winrate. But the population ratios haven't changed compared to the last list, though. It's still roughly 1/4 TvT, 2/4 PvP and 1/1 ZvZ.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9r04q4l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mqKrKFk.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6zp9WrK.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/280eKxW.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Oc9x1bJ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pKEYuFe.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wem39XJ.png)
