|
On August 21 2014 22:40 LSN wrote:
Well not enough time has passed yet. You cannot say 5-5-5 advance and this is why the game is balanced. We are coming from (and still are in) a state of terran under representation and therefore barely more terrans could have advanced yet than those who did.
Lets see how it develops further. In tournament wins anway terran was never behind. It was just representation on the level below tournament winners.
Anyway when all the 1 year+ terran whiners in this thread say the game is balanced, it obviously is terran favoured. :p
Terran was never behind in tournament wins over the past year? Huh?
|
|
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
To those saying 5/5/5 is a balanced state. Do you have any racial distribution among pros? I mean, do we really have 33 % of pros being Protoss, 33 % Terran and 33 % Zerg? Because if we have, say 50 % Terran, 25 % Zerg and 25 % Protoss, then 5/5/5 is NOT a balanced state.
What I want to say - judging balance on the base "5/5/5 in GSL" is stupid(the same applies on judging imbalance on this).
If you want to use this numbers, then we need a more complex information about this, racial distribution of players would help(and NO, Korean master & GM ladder does not work, because guess what, you can have multiple accounts and multiple pros actually have).
|
4713 Posts
On August 21 2014 22:20 Kuchikikun wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2014 22:15 TheDwf wrote:On August 21 2014 22:04 Kuchikikun wrote:On August 21 2014 21:45 Svizcy wrote:
We have 6 Zergs, 5 Protoss and 5 Terrans going forward in Code S- GSL seasson 3 right now from ro32 to ro16.
I think this speaks very firmly that balance vise this game is quite alright at this point. So big changes would be a mistake imho.
good day, svizcy Really? 5 Protoss out of 19 advanced,5/7 Terrans and 6/9 Zergs...that's not balance So balance is only fine when Protoss casting Time Warp on their own Nexus or failing 2-bases colo against unstimmed bio still reach RO16? Did I say that?Are you for real? Saying that a 25% advancement rate is balanced is just a biased opinion...that's all I said so don't put words into my mouth I never try to claim that the game was balanced before
If you look at it in a vacuum it does appear imbalanced. However do note that, after the terran nerfs and the switch to the god awful blink stalker map pool terran numbers plummeted in GSL. In the last season of GSL for 2013 race distribution for the round of 32 was 12 Protoss, 11 Terrans and 9 Zergs, very close to balanced. In the first season of GSL of this year race distribution was 16 Protoss, 3 Terrans and 13 Zergs. It was blatantly clear Protoss was broken and a lot of mediocre tosses where riding the wave of imbalance deeper into tournaments then they really should have. This season, after all the map pool changes, the incremental buffs to terran and nerfs to protoss you are finally seeing it even out again. The 5/16 advancement rate of protoss this season is the inferior players finally running into better players from the other races and being weeded out, dropped out back to where they belong.
|
On August 21 2014 23:15 deacon.frost wrote:
To those saying 5/5/5 is a balanced state. Do you have any racial distribution among pros? I mean, do we really have 33 % of pros being Protoss, 33 % Terran and 33 % Zerg? Because if we have, say 50 % Terran, 25 % Zerg and 25 % Protoss, then 5/5/5 is NOT a balanced state.
What I want to say - judging balance on the base "5/5/5 in GSL" is stupid(the same applies on judging imbalance on this).
If you want to use this numbers, then we need a more complex information about this, racial distribution of players would help(and NO, Korean master & GM ladder does not work, because guess what, you can have multiple accounts and multiple pros actually have).
Your implcifictly assuming then that the amount of pro players playing a certain race is unaffected by balance, however, it's not. Rather, I believe that once you reach a certain level of ladder rank/success, your more likely to become a pro player. And since ladder rank/succces is dependant on the strenght of your race, it's a useless measure.
The best unbiased measure of how many players are supposed to play in each tournament is found by how many players in total play each race. You can check this on Nios.kr, and as I remember, it's very close to 1/3 for each race (excl random).
|
And more importantly, you are the one with the claim, so it's not on us to prove something, it's on you.
|
On August 21 2014 22:27 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2014 22:20 Kuchikikun wrote:On August 21 2014 22:15 TheDwf wrote:On August 21 2014 22:04 Kuchikikun wrote:On August 21 2014 21:45 Svizcy wrote:
We have 6 Zergs, 5 Protoss and 5 Terrans going forward in Code S- GSL seasson 3 right now from ro32 to ro16.
I think this speaks very firmly that balance vise this game is quite alright at this point. So big changes would be a mistake imho.
good day, svizcy Really? 5 Protoss out of 19 advanced,5/7 Terrans and 6/9 Zergs...that's not balance So balance is only fine when Protoss casting Time Warp on their own Nexus or failing 2-bases colo against unstimmed bio still reach RO16? Did I say that?Are you for real? Saying that a 25% advancement rate is balanced is just a biased opinion...that's all I said so don't put words into my mouth I never try to claim that the game was balanced before What you apparently don't understand is that there should not have been as many P as T + Z players combined in the first place, so the weaker Protoss players falling is expected if Protoss no longer dominates the scene.
You and Naruto are made of patience, frankly lsn et al should be thankful you even respond to them.
Imo balance has never looked this good, but it is only very early on since the patch went live.
Drg will beat innovation again, there is a brand new stop kony 2k12 that involves ice and might actually achieve something, all is well in the world.
|
Statistics aside, I think it's fair to say the game "looks" balanced.
Other than Maru and Flash's 11/11, there doesn't seem to be a single strategy that is overpowered or wins too much even if it's scouted etc. And despite some early upsets, the "right" people are winning and the right people are losing across the board. Better players are advancing from each race.
|
Can't complain about having some Terrans win some games at last.
|
And this is why I keep reiterating that population distribution does not dictate balance. Only winrates do.
|
On August 22 2014 00:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
And this is why I keep reiterating that population distribution does not dictate balance. Only winrates do.
Wait what?
|
Guys.... there's no purely scientific way to go about it.
If Protoss is imba, for example, you have a lot of weaker Protoss getting to the top level and then losing to good Terrans and Zergs. So the win rates do not necessarily reflect imbalance because the best Terrans and Zergs are playing mediocre Protoss players.
As for population distribution, we have no way of knowing (except if we poll every single pro) why they chose their race. It could be because they liked the aesthetic, because they like the mechanic, or because it's imba (or some other arbitrary reason). So you can't necessarily say that there are less Terrans because of balance or fewer Protoss because of XYZ. You can hypothesize all day about it but not everyone will agree.
But I think some rational combination of the two approaches is the best.
What do the winrates look like? Well, they're pretty close to 50% given all variables that exist in this game.
What does the player distribution look like? Well, in all the regions right now it seems we have a pretty decent distribution with the best players from each race making Ro16.
Is there any build or strategy that looks imbalanced or that everyone is winning with? Nope. Not really.
Does that sound reasonable?
|
On August 22 2014 01:25 DinoMight wrote:
But I think some rational combination of the two approaches is the best.
I think there's a more simplistic approach which is to be sane.
|
United States1015 Posts
I've been playing mech since HotS released in Masters/Diamond and here are my thoughts currently:
TvP - I think the biggest problem here is immortals. They are just far too effiecent vs mech for how easy to use they are. Good damage, soak up huge amounts of damage, ect. I've done just about everything to try and get rid of the shields, more hellbats, ghosts for EMP, and even ravens for seekers. The thing is while you can usually take a few of the shields out the ones you aren't able to hit are still by far the most efficient unit in the battle. I could understand this being the case if Protoss was terrible against tanks in other ways, but currently most units are at least okay vs tanks in some way. I'm still hoping the tank gets like +10 damage to shields, which counts as an entirely separate attack to the normal damage it does ( doing 20 damage to immortals with shields ). Fix that and I won't have much to complain about.
TvZ - I find this match up is pretty fair, except for the swarm host problem. Mech vs Swarm hosts is basically long drawn out battle of a real army vs mostly free units. It can be beaten as Terran, but at an extremely high effort level just to move a small amount against a unit that basically just sits there. Zergs always say mech forces them to go Swarm hosts, and while I'm not sure I agree 100%, if that's how they feel I'd like to see them feeling like they can beat mech without swarm hosts, since I don't think anyone enjoys mech vs swarm host battles. Obviously this topic as been beaten to death but Swarm host needs a major redesign or removal, and if Mech is indeed too powerful or unbreakable Zerg might need more options. I really don't know if mech is too powerful because most Zergs take the easy route going swarm hosts, rather than trying vipers ( in my experience ). I've had some games where my mech army gets owned by vipers, so I don't really understand peoples mindset of "you forced me into swarm hosts".
Anyway, that's all I got.
|
On August 21 2014 21:35 Grumbels wrote:
Why, actually, do zergs make so many mistakes dealing with proxy rushes? You'd think that any zerg pro worth his salt will have played hundreds of games learning to defend this rush, but in every game I watch it seems like they're indecisive, not sure what to do, constantly switching plans.
The thing is that there is no clean way to deal with 2rax. There is a bunch of win conditions for the Terran ("oh, I got the 3bunker wall started, you lose"), which the Zerg all has to account for defensively and there is variety of ways to deal with the rush, but it depends on which opening you happen to be on what you can go for.
And lots of smaller decisions in the defense - how many drones to pull for which location of the bunker - are just not really trainable, because the situation is different every game.
And some of the strategies - like a spine defense or the "sac your natural" or the "reactive 15pool at 300minerals because you 10scouted" are just kind of giving the Terran the freechoice of playing a 3CC macro game from an even position, or still commiting/randomly winning because he lucked out on a win condition.
There are some tough choices you have to make without a whole lot of information.
Also, I think that these kinds of decision mistakes are being made by both parties. There are tons of Terrans that just get obsessed with pushing into a Zerg, instead of giving up the cheese and then plainly lose, tons of Terrans that blindly gamble on 3CC after the push, when any sort of 2base defense against a bust that has to be coming given the amount of gas mined would give them a massive lead etc.
Imo, in those kinds of situations it is kind of natural to think of the defender "making a mistake" when the bunker goes up, but you could say as well that "nobody forced the attacker to build the bunker in such a vulnurable spot" when the bunker gets shut down.
Also, unless you believe that 2rax is as good as playing macro, just opening like that is a stupid decision to begin with. 
|
On August 22 2014 03:22 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2014 21:35 Grumbels wrote:
Why, actually, do zergs make so many mistakes dealing with proxy rushes? You'd think that any zerg pro worth his salt will have played hundreds of games learning to defend this rush, but in every game I watch it seems like they're indecisive, not sure what to do, constantly switching plans. The thing is that there is no clean way to deal with 2rax. There is a bunch of win conditions for the Terran ("oh, I got the 3bunker wall started, you lose"), which the Zerg all has to account for defensively and there is variety of ways to deal with the rush, but it depends on which opening you happen to be on what you can go for. And lots of smaller decisions in the defense - how many drones to pull for which location of the bunker - are just not really trainable, because the situation is different every game. And some of the strategies - like a spine defense or the "sac your natural" or the "reactive 15pool at 300minerals because you 10scouted" are just kind of giving the Terran the freechoice of playing a 3CC macro game from an even position, or still commiting/randomly winning because he lucked out on a win condition. There are some tough choices you have to make without a whole lot of information. Also, I think that these kinds of decision mistakes are being made by both parties. There are tons of Terrans that just get obsessed with pushing into a Zerg, instead of giving up the cheese and then plainly lose, tons of Terrans that blindly gamble on 3CC after the push, when any sort of 2base defense against a bust that has to be coming given the amount of gas mined would give them a massive lead etc. Imo, in those kinds of situations it is kind of natural to think of the defender "making a mistake" when the bunker goes up, but you could say as well that "nobody forced the attacker to build the bunker in such a vulnurable spot" when the bunker gets shut down. Also, unless you believe that 2rax is as good as playing macro, just opening like that is a stupid decision to begin with.
However, I feel like Zergs actually seem to be pretty lost against 2rax. I agree on everything you say, but I think you could practise for a better defense than many Zergs display today.
Zerg players seem to pull random amount of drones and when doing so, often hesitate regarding on what they want to do with them.
As a Terran player in master league, I feel as if 2rax is the worst possible build that excist. Every time I do it on ladder I lose and that is because I rarely practise it at all. I am a catastrophe with it. I guess that goes for Zerg players who practises little against it aswell.
One thing to keep in mind aswell:
Flash used 2rax two times today. I bet he has spent hours and hours this week on those two maps, practising on how to react against different kinds of reactions from the Zergs. What Flash did was to ruin all the practise Dark and Solar had done on these maps and turn it into a game he had practised a lot. Meanwhile, I can never imagine the Zerg players spent nearly as much time on actually defending against this. That is a big advantage for the Terran player. Quite much the same you see when good players does Proxie Hatches at Terrans bases or when Zerg Queen/Spine rush from the gold on Protosses on Overgrowth. They turn the game into a game they have practised a lot and taking advantage of that.
|
On August 22 2014 03:37 Glorfindel! wrote:
What Flash did was to ruin all the practise Dark and Solar had done on these maps and turn it into a game he had practised a lot. Meanwhile, I can never imagine the Zerg players spent nearly as much time on actually defending against this. That is a big advantage for the Terran player.
This.
|
On August 22 2014 03:37 Glorfindel! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 03:22 Big J wrote:On August 21 2014 21:35 Grumbels wrote:
Why, actually, do zergs make so many mistakes dealing with proxy rushes? You'd think that any zerg pro worth his salt will have played hundreds of games learning to defend this rush, but in every game I watch it seems like they're indecisive, not sure what to do, constantly switching plans. The thing is that there is no clean way to deal with 2rax. There is a bunch of win conditions for the Terran ("oh, I got the 3bunker wall started, you lose"), which the Zerg all has to account for defensively and there is variety of ways to deal with the rush, but it depends on which opening you happen to be on what you can go for. And lots of smaller decisions in the defense - how many drones to pull for which location of the bunker - are just not really trainable, because the situation is different every game. And some of the strategies - like a spine defense or the "sac your natural" or the "reactive 15pool at 300minerals because you 10scouted" are just kind of giving the Terran the freechoice of playing a 3CC macro game from an even position, or still commiting/randomly winning because he lucked out on a win condition. There are some tough choices you have to make without a whole lot of information. Also, I think that these kinds of decision mistakes are being made by both parties. There are tons of Terrans that just get obsessed with pushing into a Zerg, instead of giving up the cheese and then plainly lose, tons of Terrans that blindly gamble on 3CC after the push, when any sort of 2base defense against a bust that has to be coming given the amount of gas mined would give them a massive lead etc. Imo, in those kinds of situations it is kind of natural to think of the defender "making a mistake" when the bunker goes up, but you could say as well that "nobody forced the attacker to build the bunker in such a vulnurable spot" when the bunker gets shut down. Also, unless you believe that 2rax is as good as playing macro, just opening like that is a stupid decision to begin with. However, I feel like Zergs actually seem to be pretty lost against 2rax. I agree on everything you say, but I think you could practise for a better defense than many Zergs display today. Zerg players seem to pull random amount of drones and when doing so, often hesitate regarding on what they want to do with them. As a Terran player in master league, I feel as if 2rax is the worst possible build that excist. Every time I do it on ladder I lose and that is because I rarely practise it at all. I am a catastrophe with it. I guess that goes for Zerg players who practises little against it aswell. One thing to keep in mind aswell: Flash used 2rax two times today. I bet he has spent hours and hours this week on those two maps, practising on how to react against different kinds of reactions from the Zergs. What Flash did was to ruin all the practise Dark and Solar had done on these maps and turn it into a game he had practised a lot. Meanwhile, I can never imagine the Zerg players spent nearly as much time on actually defending against this. That is a big advantage for the Terran player. Quite much the same you see when good players does Proxie Hatches at Terrans bases or when Zerg Queen/Spine rush from the gold on Protosses on Overgrowth. They turn the game into a game they have practised a lot and taking advantage of that.
I think there is definitely some truth in that. I think that's one of the big advantages of solid aggressive options in general, since it is up to you to initiate and solely train/focus on that type of play.
But I think it just has to do a lot with split second decision making as well. Like, when you send a drone to scout your own natural and see a bunker start, you can't really have a standardized amount of drones to pull. The position and progress will be different everytime. It's just a strong build (when played well) and macro follow ups aren't so weak that you can afford to overdefend. Or rather, it hits at such an awkward time for Zerg, because you don't have queens/injects, you don't have your natural in creep covert, you have to invest into a hatch and you actually would like to get speed up.
Edit: And oh, you don't do the 11/11 that often, because you prefer 8/8/8ing as far as I recall 
|
On August 20 2014 03:26 Cheren wrote:
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.
I'm pretty sure 1/1/1 would still dominate. Remember, Terran can just get an extra Raven to blank Photon Overcharge, since they have the extra 200/200 in resources relative to WoL. (no siege tech, cheaper cloak research) Protoss also has to spend 100/100 on the MSC which just gets blanked. Also, siege tanks are better now than they were.
The only real change would be that Protoss could squash 1/1/1 openings with Oracle cheese, because 1/1/1 never got an ebay, and usually relied on reactoring the barracks with only 1 or 2 marines out in order to pump out as many as possible for the push. Standard Protoss play would just die, though.
|
On August 22 2014 05:20 Xequecal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 03:26 Cheren wrote:
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. I'm pretty sure 1/1/1 would still dominate. Remember, Terran can just get an extra Raven to blank Photon Overcharge, since they have the extra 200/200 in resources relative to WoL. (no siege tech, cheaper cloak research) Protoss also has to spend 100/100 on the MSC which just gets blanked. Also, siege tanks are better now than they were. The only real change would be that Protoss could squash 1/1/1 openings with Oracle cheese, because 1/1/1 never got an ebay, and usually relied on reactoring the barracks with only 1 or 2 marines out in order to pump out as many as possible for the push. Standard Protoss play would just die, though.
1-1-1 would require you to grab a Widow Mine first, then continue the build (no build time available for Raven unless you don't want to hit the timing)
The money is not as much as a concern as the available buildings not having any time gaps to squeeze in things like a raven. the extra 200/200 would, at most, be used to grab a delayed ebay (after the tank starts production) since all the money is accounted for in the build up until that time (when you build a tank + siege mode and now its just a tank with the money for siege mode just sitting there for something else, like an ebay)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
