|
On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with.
Come on this is becoming completely ridiculous. Yeah we can make a planetary fortress. Then surround it with missile turrets. At bunkers and supply depots. And then you complain zerg cannot harass that base? What do you think terran can do if you invest that much in static defenses around your bases?
and yeah 80 games is close to a statistically relevant sample size, especially if its 67% winrate so it doesnt matter if with more games its 63% or 71% since both would be broken also.
No, it isn't. If they were 80 uncorrelated games, then hell yeah that would be significant. But they are highly correlated games.
Aditionally it is always easy when cherry picking which games should be included and which shouldnt.
|
We'll probably be down to 5 to 7 zergs next WCS KR season, so I think blizzard will start thinking of something to buff or nerf, and I expect massive whining  .
|
On July 24 2013 18:42 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. Come on this is becoming completely ridiculous. Yeah we can make a planetary fortress. Then surround it with missile turrets. At bunkers and supply depots. And then you complain zerg cannot harass that base? What do you think terran can do if you invest that much in static defenses around your bases? Show nested quote +and yeah 80 games is close to a statistically relevant sample size, especially if its 67% winrate so it doesnt matter if with more games its 63% or 71% since both would be broken also. No, it isn't. If they were 80 uncorrelated games, then hell yeah that would be significant. But they are highly correlated games. Aditionally it is always easy when cherry picking which games should be included and which shouldnt.
cherry picking = picking all june and july games of GSTL, OSL and Proleague. yeah real cherry picking going on there. and btw taking 80 games is much better than just throwing out "ZvT is 50% right now" like snowbear and others do.
|
On July 24 2013 18:36 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:30 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:19 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 18:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:39 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 16:12 Decendos wrote:
these last sites...discussing about marine nerfs (which wont happen) and banespeed buffs (which wont happen). also some T denying that TvZ is T favored since beginning of HOTS and was only overshadowed by some roach bane all ins which are to most extent figured out.
the main problem is that zerg cant harrass without going muta (and even then its hard since you will have to use them defensively most of the time once the 3 base rally starts). even if you try to go SHs or infestors or roach hydra and even IF you somehow manage to perfectly negate his drops...you still cant harrass and punish greedy play AT ALL with those comps. this is also a ZvP problem which is also very P favored these days.
so just give Z a possibility to punish greedy play and harrass without having to do a huge coinflippy all in and finally buff nydus, ovidrop and burrowmovement which are so useless that no top level korean uses them since 4 years (except the occasional symbol 2 base roach nydus all in ZvT). once Z has an opportunity to put counterpressure to T/P that will limit the sick macro that T and also P with MsC have these days and bring back winrates to balance and most of all bring back fun to Z since right now all you do is defend and try to not die. To say that Z cannot harass is a blatant lie. I just posted some vods of games with different harasses a Z can do against T in HotS (in this very thread). All executed by Soulkey to brilliant effect. You know Soulkey, right, the reigning GSL champion. I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. championships left and right? you mean dreamhack with a bad Z and a very bad T and P lineup? you mean no Zs in RO4 OSL? you mean TvP finals in WCS? you mean proleague that is P only? you mean the 67% winrate in TvZ for T in OSL/GSTL/Proleague combined including june? and what are those harrass forms that soulkey did with non-muta comps? havent even seen him play ling infestor or roach hydra or SHs + support or doing ovidrop, nydus or burrow movement. all i have seen from him is ling bane muta which is able to harrass (never said that ling bane muta cant harrass...all other comps cant harrass AND have probs defending drops AND arent even crushing MMMM while still having those downsides). If you haven't seen, you haven't watched enough of his games. I posted vods of him doing ling/bane, roach, and burrow movement harass in this very thread. Of course, the fact that you have not seen the games will not stop you from making absolute statements like: "zergs cannot harass, ever, no matter what, it's impossible". And I do not even understand what the stuff you quoted is supposed to prove. Proleague is P only because of the format? Yes, complain to Proleague about the format and the maps. Why talk about general balance? 67% TvZ (I can quote random statistics without sources too, you know) when there have been, what, 20-30 matches. That shows nothing whatsoever. You might as well be reading tea-leaves. No Z in RO4 in FOREVER, while the reigning champion is still Z who just happened to meet the best TvZ player in the world in the RO8 and would be heavily favoured over any other T in the tournament. + Show Spoiler +P.S. You forgot Leenock, Life and Soulkey, alongside tournament winners. And Jaedong as the guy crushing multitudes of people but coming second twice. It's especially nasty that you leave out Soulkey, while citing a WCS TvP final, considering that Soulkey beat both of the finalists the week before to get the GSL championship. The bottom line is, you whine without actually having any substantial content besides your own ignorance of the tools Zergs employ to win tournament games. And as there was a nerf of terran (hellbat blue flame), the current winrates and meta are entirely up in the air. So June winrates mean bugger all. You need to do what other responsible people do, wait until you have evidence of the current state of the game being imbalanced before crying out. 1) 67% is 80 games in june and july which is close to being statistically relevant 2) post those VoDs pls 3) you completely ignore my arguments that roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support arent viable 4) you completely ignore my arguments that ovidrop, nydus and burrowmovement arent viable 5) i love how all terrans only mention hellbat drop nerfs and forget that hellbats in mid- and lategame are the same unit, banshees got a buff and hellbats are only nerfed vs drones in TvZ and still 2 shot lings even pre upgrade + do the same damage vs roaches. 6) its about winrates. taeja won a lot last june/july when TvZ was very Z favored, nestea won a lot in early WoL when TvZ was very T favored. single players winning tournaments means nothing, its about winrates. The vods are posted in this very thread. I'm not ignoring arguments, I'm showing that you have baseless empty claims with no arguments. 80 games is not even close to being statistically relevant. It takes some Z to win 13 games against Terrans to have a perfectly balanced MU. Had Soulkey beaten Innovation 3-0, rather than the reverse, the winrate would have been 63% and not 67%. That's a 4% change from a single set. That shows the numbers are way too small to tell you anything. And you cannot the hellbat nerf by saying it's the same unit. If baneling speed became hive tech, could we say that the MU is exactly the same? how is it "baseless empty claims" then i say roach hydra, ling infestor, SHs + support, ovidrop, nydus and burrow movement arent useful in a standard fashion or not useful at all? its FACTS! and yeah 80 games is close to a statistically relevant sample size, especially if its 67% winrate so it doesnt matter if with more games its 63% or 71% since both would be broken also. hellbat nerf = banelingspeed hivetech. yeah IF Z would be favored in TvZ and you would move banespeed to hive AND buff something else maybe the comparison would be correct...right now its just bad. @snowbear: MU wasnt at 65% winrate for Z but rather 55-60% and winrate in HOTS never was 50% for Z in TvZ and is worse than ever now that T got better at scouting + defending roach bane all ins.
How is it baseless empty claims? The same way "Apples and oranges grow in the ground like potatoes" is a baseless empty claim. I can claim anything, if I do not add any proof or evidence. In fact, the vods I posted demonstrate burrow movement harass by Soulkey. I'm sure you can find a ton of roach-hydra games where the terran just died (Was it KangHo versus Maru in this OSL?). So your FACTS are easily shown to be claims by showing counter-evidence. I.e., they are not facts, they are fallacies.
You really don't see a problem with 13 games being the difference between IMBA and BALANCED? Honestly, I'm stumped on this one. I bet you're the kind of guy who cries imba when the first terran beats a Z 2-0 because it's a 100% imbalance. That's already 15% of the imbalance we have now!
I'm not saying hellbat nerf = banespeednerf. I'm saying you'd (rightfully) think it INSANE someone says that the unit is exactly the same and there are no balance implications. And, indeed, perhaps cloak banshees give T a HUGE advantage, and we actually get an IMBA MU. But we do not know because there haven't been enough games yet. We need to wait for evidence.
|
On July 24 2013 18:41 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. I can't believe this is actually a disputed point, but if for a fourth base, a Terran takes a planetary and puts turrets on it, he still needs to keep army there to defend it. Otherwise ling/bane can take that out pretty easily. Sometimes you're okay with just a few widow mines for defense, but generally not. Lings can tank widow mine and PF hits, banelings can murder the thing. Supply depot and bunker walls help a little, but they only stall for a few seconds. Zerg will often just have a swarm of lings and maybe 30 banelings sitting around for this kind of thing, so even if you build ~10 supply depots to wall the thing entirely, Zerg just needs 5 or 6 banelings to break the supply depots at some point and 19 or 20 to kill the PF. If you've got a lot of SCVs, a planetary fortress, and ~10 supply depots there, that's TOTALLY worth it for the Zerg.
In what world can a zerg possibly sacrifice 60 supply of banelings and zerglings, and 600+ gas, against a 4+ orbital terran parade pushing 4m into his 4th base?
We saw soulkey just last night wipe out innovations mineral line twice, ruin his production with mutas, keep him at 150 supply vs 200 for like 2 minutes and still could not end the game. I get that innovation is the best player in the world, but soulkey isn't exactly terrible. The fact you're actually agreeing with some moron who believes the nestea style of suiciding banelings all day is how to win vs 4m is very telling.
|
On July 24 2013 18:36 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:30 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:19 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 18:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:39 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 16:12 Decendos wrote:
these last sites...discussing about marine nerfs (which wont happen) and banespeed buffs (which wont happen). also some T denying that TvZ is T favored since beginning of HOTS and was only overshadowed by some roach bane all ins which are to most extent figured out.
the main problem is that zerg cant harrass without going muta (and even then its hard since you will have to use them defensively most of the time once the 3 base rally starts). even if you try to go SHs or infestors or roach hydra and even IF you somehow manage to perfectly negate his drops...you still cant harrass and punish greedy play AT ALL with those comps. this is also a ZvP problem which is also very P favored these days.
so just give Z a possibility to punish greedy play and harrass without having to do a huge coinflippy all in and finally buff nydus, ovidrop and burrowmovement which are so useless that no top level korean uses them since 4 years (except the occasional symbol 2 base roach nydus all in ZvT). once Z has an opportunity to put counterpressure to T/P that will limit the sick macro that T and also P with MsC have these days and bring back winrates to balance and most of all bring back fun to Z since right now all you do is defend and try to not die. To say that Z cannot harass is a blatant lie. I just posted some vods of games with different harasses a Z can do against T in HotS (in this very thread). All executed by Soulkey to brilliant effect. You know Soulkey, right, the reigning GSL champion. I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. championships left and right? you mean dreamhack with a bad Z and a very bad T and P lineup? you mean no Zs in RO4 OSL? you mean TvP finals in WCS? you mean proleague that is P only? you mean the 67% winrate in TvZ for T in OSL/GSTL/Proleague combined including june? and what are those harrass forms that soulkey did with non-muta comps? havent even seen him play ling infestor or roach hydra or SHs + support or doing ovidrop, nydus or burrow movement. all i have seen from him is ling bane muta which is able to harrass (never said that ling bane muta cant harrass...all other comps cant harrass AND have probs defending drops AND arent even crushing MMMM while still having those downsides). If you haven't seen, you haven't watched enough of his games. I posted vods of him doing ling/bane, roach, and burrow movement harass in this very thread. Of course, the fact that you have not seen the games will not stop you from making absolute statements like: "zergs cannot harass, ever, no matter what, it's impossible". And I do not even understand what the stuff you quoted is supposed to prove. Proleague is P only because of the format? Yes, complain to Proleague about the format and the maps. Why talk about general balance? 67% TvZ (I can quote random statistics without sources too, you know) when there have been, what, 20-30 matches. That shows nothing whatsoever. You might as well be reading tea-leaves. No Z in RO4 in FOREVER, while the reigning champion is still Z who just happened to meet the best TvZ player in the world in the RO8 and would be heavily favoured over any other T in the tournament. + Show Spoiler +P.S. You forgot Leenock, Life and Soulkey, alongside tournament winners. And Jaedong as the guy crushing multitudes of people but coming second twice. It's especially nasty that you leave out Soulkey, while citing a WCS TvP final, considering that Soulkey beat both of the finalists the week before to get the GSL championship. The bottom line is, you whine without actually having any substantial content besides your own ignorance of the tools Zergs employ to win tournament games. And as there was a nerf of terran (hellbat blue flame), the current winrates and meta are entirely up in the air. So June winrates mean bugger all. You need to do what other responsible people do, wait until you have evidence of the current state of the game being imbalanced before crying out. 1) 67% is 80 games in june and july which is close to being statistically relevant 2) post those VoDs pls 3) you completely ignore my arguments that roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support arent viable 4) you completely ignore my arguments that ovidrop, nydus and burrowmovement arent viable 5) i love how all terrans only mention hellbat drop nerfs and forget that hellbats in mid- and lategame are the same unit, banshees got a buff and hellbats are only nerfed vs drones in TvZ and still 2 shot lings even pre upgrade + do the same damage vs roaches. 6) its about winrates. taeja won a lot last june/july when TvZ was very Z favored, nestea won a lot in early WoL when TvZ was very T favored. single players winning tournaments means nothing, its about winrates. The vods are posted in this very thread. I'm not ignoring arguments, I'm showing that you have baseless empty claims with no arguments. 80 games is not even close to being statistically relevant. It takes some Z to win 13 games against Terrans to have a perfectly balanced MU. Had Soulkey beaten Innovation 3-0, rather than the reverse, the winrate would have been 63% and not 67%. That's a 4% change from a single set. That shows the numbers are way too small to tell you anything. And you cannot the hellbat nerf by saying it's the same unit. If baneling speed became hive tech, could we say that the MU is exactly the same? how is it "baseless empty claims" then i say roach hydra, ling infestor, SHs + support, ovidrop, nydus and burrow movement arent useful in a standard fashion or not useful at all? its FACTS! and yeah 80 games is close to a statistically relevant sample size, especially if its 67% winrate so it doesnt matter if with more games its 63% or 71% since both would be broken also. hellbat nerf = banelingspeed hivetech. yeah IF Z would be favored in TvZ and you would move banespeed to hive AND buff something else maybe the comparison would be correct...right now its just bad. @snowbear: MU wasnt at 65% winrate for Z but rather 55-60% and winrate in HOTS never was 50% for Z in TvZ and is worse than ever now that T got better at scouting + defending roach bane all ins.
It's a FACT that the same people as you claimed that the ultra was too bad in wol. Then stephano started killing korean terrans with the ultralisk. It's a FACT that the same people as you claimed that roach hydra wasn't viable in wol. Then stephano started killing korean terrans with roach hydra (at the end of wol).
And now it's a FACT that you are claiming that all your new hots stuff doesn't work against terran. Want to bet it's sick viable and that soon, you will be only using SH's, roach, hydra and vipers vs terran? No? You don't agree? Then think about the times were you claimed ultras, roaches and hydra's weren't viable.
And every high zerg I knew in wol, claimed to have 60-65% winrate against terran. They were laughing with the fact that zvt was so damn easy. At the top we saw foreign zergs destroying top 4 code S terrans. That's how ridicilous the mu was. And those times are gone now, so it's understandable you want them back.
|
On July 24 2013 18:48 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:41 ChristianS wrote:On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. I can't believe this is actually a disputed point, but if for a fourth base, a Terran takes a planetary and puts turrets on it, he still needs to keep army there to defend it. Otherwise ling/bane can take that out pretty easily. Sometimes you're okay with just a few widow mines for defense, but generally not. Lings can tank widow mine and PF hits, banelings can murder the thing. Supply depot and bunker walls help a little, but they only stall for a few seconds. Zerg will often just have a swarm of lings and maybe 30 banelings sitting around for this kind of thing, so even if you build ~10 supply depots to wall the thing entirely, Zerg just needs 5 or 6 banelings to break the supply depots at some point and 19 or 20 to kill the PF. If you've got a lot of SCVs, a planetary fortress, and ~10 supply depots there, that's TOTALLY worth it for the Zerg. In what world can a zerg possibly sacrifice 60 supply of banelings and zerglings, and 600+ gas, against a 4+ orbital terran parade pushing 4m into his 4th base? We saw soulkey just last night wipe out innovations mineral line twice, ruin his production with mutas, keep him at 150 supply vs 200 for like 2 minutes and still could not end the game. I get that innovation is the best player in the world, but soulkey isn't exactly terrible. The fact you're actually agreeing with some moron who believes the nestea style of suiciding banelings all day is how to win vs 4m is very telling.
Oi, stop with the name-calling. This isn't kindergarten.
|
On July 24 2013 18:49 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:36 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 18:30 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:19 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 18:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:39 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 16:12 Decendos wrote:
these last sites...discussing about marine nerfs (which wont happen) and banespeed buffs (which wont happen). also some T denying that TvZ is T favored since beginning of HOTS and was only overshadowed by some roach bane all ins which are to most extent figured out.
the main problem is that zerg cant harrass without going muta (and even then its hard since you will have to use them defensively most of the time once the 3 base rally starts). even if you try to go SHs or infestors or roach hydra and even IF you somehow manage to perfectly negate his drops...you still cant harrass and punish greedy play AT ALL with those comps. this is also a ZvP problem which is also very P favored these days.
so just give Z a possibility to punish greedy play and harrass without having to do a huge coinflippy all in and finally buff nydus, ovidrop and burrowmovement which are so useless that no top level korean uses them since 4 years (except the occasional symbol 2 base roach nydus all in ZvT). once Z has an opportunity to put counterpressure to T/P that will limit the sick macro that T and also P with MsC have these days and bring back winrates to balance and most of all bring back fun to Z since right now all you do is defend and try to not die. To say that Z cannot harass is a blatant lie. I just posted some vods of games with different harasses a Z can do against T in HotS (in this very thread). All executed by Soulkey to brilliant effect. You know Soulkey, right, the reigning GSL champion. I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. championships left and right? you mean dreamhack with a bad Z and a very bad T and P lineup? you mean no Zs in RO4 OSL? you mean TvP finals in WCS? you mean proleague that is P only? you mean the 67% winrate in TvZ for T in OSL/GSTL/Proleague combined including june? and what are those harrass forms that soulkey did with non-muta comps? havent even seen him play ling infestor or roach hydra or SHs + support or doing ovidrop, nydus or burrow movement. all i have seen from him is ling bane muta which is able to harrass (never said that ling bane muta cant harrass...all other comps cant harrass AND have probs defending drops AND arent even crushing MMMM while still having those downsides). If you haven't seen, you haven't watched enough of his games. I posted vods of him doing ling/bane, roach, and burrow movement harass in this very thread. Of course, the fact that you have not seen the games will not stop you from making absolute statements like: "zergs cannot harass, ever, no matter what, it's impossible". And I do not even understand what the stuff you quoted is supposed to prove. Proleague is P only because of the format? Yes, complain to Proleague about the format and the maps. Why talk about general balance? 67% TvZ (I can quote random statistics without sources too, you know) when there have been, what, 20-30 matches. That shows nothing whatsoever. You might as well be reading tea-leaves. No Z in RO4 in FOREVER, while the reigning champion is still Z who just happened to meet the best TvZ player in the world in the RO8 and would be heavily favoured over any other T in the tournament. + Show Spoiler +P.S. You forgot Leenock, Life and Soulkey, alongside tournament winners. And Jaedong as the guy crushing multitudes of people but coming second twice. It's especially nasty that you leave out Soulkey, while citing a WCS TvP final, considering that Soulkey beat both of the finalists the week before to get the GSL championship. The bottom line is, you whine without actually having any substantial content besides your own ignorance of the tools Zergs employ to win tournament games. And as there was a nerf of terran (hellbat blue flame), the current winrates and meta are entirely up in the air. So June winrates mean bugger all. You need to do what other responsible people do, wait until you have evidence of the current state of the game being imbalanced before crying out. 1) 67% is 80 games in june and july which is close to being statistically relevant 2) post those VoDs pls 3) you completely ignore my arguments that roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support arent viable 4) you completely ignore my arguments that ovidrop, nydus and burrowmovement arent viable 5) i love how all terrans only mention hellbat drop nerfs and forget that hellbats in mid- and lategame are the same unit, banshees got a buff and hellbats are only nerfed vs drones in TvZ and still 2 shot lings even pre upgrade + do the same damage vs roaches. 6) its about winrates. taeja won a lot last june/july when TvZ was very Z favored, nestea won a lot in early WoL when TvZ was very T favored. single players winning tournaments means nothing, its about winrates. The vods are posted in this very thread. I'm not ignoring arguments, I'm showing that you have baseless empty claims with no arguments. 80 games is not even close to being statistically relevant. It takes some Z to win 13 games against Terrans to have a perfectly balanced MU. Had Soulkey beaten Innovation 3-0, rather than the reverse, the winrate would have been 63% and not 67%. That's a 4% change from a single set. That shows the numbers are way too small to tell you anything. And you cannot the hellbat nerf by saying it's the same unit. If baneling speed became hive tech, could we say that the MU is exactly the same? how is it "baseless empty claims" then i say roach hydra, ling infestor, SHs + support, ovidrop, nydus and burrow movement arent useful in a standard fashion or not useful at all? its FACTS! and yeah 80 games is close to a statistically relevant sample size, especially if its 67% winrate so it doesnt matter if with more games its 63% or 71% since both would be broken also. hellbat nerf = banelingspeed hivetech. yeah IF Z would be favored in TvZ and you would move banespeed to hive AND buff something else maybe the comparison would be correct...right now its just bad. @snowbear: MU wasnt at 65% winrate for Z but rather 55-60% and winrate in HOTS never was 50% for Z in TvZ and is worse than ever now that T got better at scouting + defending roach bane all ins. It's a FACT that the same people as you claimed that the ultra was too bad in wol. Then stephano started killing korean terrans with the ultralisk. It's a FACT that the same people as you claimed that roach hydra wasn't viable in wol. Then stephano started killing korean terrans with roach hydra (at the end of wol). And now it's a FACT that you are claiming that all your new hots stuff doesn't work against terran. Want to bet it's sick viable and that soon, you will be only using SH's, roach, hydra and vipers vs terran? No? You don't agree? Then think about the times were you claimed ultras, roaches and hydra's weren't viable. And every high zerg I knew in wol, claimed to have 60-65% winrate against terran. They were laughing with the fact that zvt was so damn easy. At the top we saw foreign zergs destroying top 4 code S terrans. That's how ridicilous the mu was. And those times are gone now, so it's understandable you want them back.
This is such a false dichotomy, there are more than 2 balance states.
PS:Ultra's were bad in WoL, but infestor's were imba.
|
On July 24 2013 18:47 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:42 Sissors wrote:On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. Come on this is becoming completely ridiculous. Yeah we can make a planetary fortress. Then surround it with missile turrets. At bunkers and supply depots. And then you complain zerg cannot harass that base? What do you think terran can do if you invest that much in static defenses around your bases? and yeah 80 games is close to a statistically relevant sample size, especially if its 67% winrate so it doesnt matter if with more games its 63% or 71% since both would be broken also. No, it isn't. If they were 80 uncorrelated games, then hell yeah that would be significant. But they are highly correlated games. Aditionally it is always easy when cherry picking which games should be included and which shouldnt. cherry picking = picking all june and july games of GSTL, OSL and Proleague. yeah real cherry picking going on there. and btw taking 80 games is much better than just throwing out "ZvT is 50% right now" like snowbear and others do.
Yes, that is cherry picking. Because if WCS EU had shown a strong terran performance you would have included that. If proleague had bad ZvT you would have removed it because of the format (you would have a point then btw).
Aditionally one can argue that winrates fundamentally are fairly random, and you can better check if the top X players show players from every race. And if you then check the OSL RO32 stats the conclusion would be zerg is OP. Yeah if you check the RO8 you could conclude terran OP. But then the question is, if it is only the case for the best 8 players worldwide, do you then really want to upset the balance for all others?
|
On July 24 2013 18:48 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:41 ChristianS wrote:On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. I can't believe this is actually a disputed point, but if for a fourth base, a Terran takes a planetary and puts turrets on it, he still needs to keep army there to defend it. Otherwise ling/bane can take that out pretty easily. Sometimes you're okay with just a few widow mines for defense, but generally not. Lings can tank widow mine and PF hits, banelings can murder the thing. Supply depot and bunker walls help a little, but they only stall for a few seconds. Zerg will often just have a swarm of lings and maybe 30 banelings sitting around for this kind of thing, so even if you build ~10 supply depots to wall the thing entirely, Zerg just needs 5 or 6 banelings to break the supply depots at some point and 19 or 20 to kill the PF. If you've got a lot of SCVs, a planetary fortress, and ~10 supply depots there, that's TOTALLY worth it for the Zerg. In what world can a zerg possibly sacrifice 60 supply of banelings and zerglings, and 600+ gas, against a 4+ orbital terran parade pushing 4m into his 4th base? We saw soulkey just last night wipe out innovations mineral line twice, ruin his production with mutas, keep him at 150 supply vs 200 for like 2 minutes and still could not end the game. I get that innovation is the best player in the world, but soulkey isn't exactly terrible. The fact you're actually agreeing with some moron who believes the nestea style of suiciding banelings all day is how to win vs 4m is very telling.
Okay, so balance isn't perfect. Perhaps it never will be.
But do you not think that soulkey being ahead in supply, doing economic damage, and still losing can just be a throw? The game is not -THAT- imbalanced. At the top level in WoL, did a 150 supply zerg with brood/infestor manage to beat a 200/200 terran? Nope.
Innovation made a come-back, it happens.
/edit
And since you seem to not realize, those banes will clear the planetary, leaving all the harvesters vulnerable. A couple more banes and lings now will make up for all the resources spent into destroying the planetary.
|
On July 24 2013 18:41 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. I can't believe this is actually a disputed point, but if for a fourth base, a Terran takes a planetary and puts turrets on it, he still needs to keep army there to defend it. Otherwise ling/bane can take that out pretty easily. Sometimes you're okay with just a few widow mines for defense, but generally not. Lings can tank widow mine and PF hits, banelings can murder the thing. Supply depot and bunker walls help a little, but they only stall for a few seconds. Zerg will often just have a swarm of lings and maybe 30 banelings sitting around for this kind of thing, so even if you build ~10 supply depots to wall the thing entirely, Zerg just needs 5 or 6 banelings to break the supply depots at some point and 19 or 20 to kill the PF. If you've got a lot of SCVs, a planetary fortress, and ~10 supply depots there, that's TOTALLY worth it for the Zerg. We already established that Zerg can break it with his army ("half his army" is what a previous poster said).
The issue is harass, not killing bases with armies.
On July 24 2013 18:42 Sissors wrote:
Come on this is becoming completely ridiculous. Yeah we can make a planetary fortress. Then surround it with missile turrets. At bunkers and supply depots. And then you complain zerg cannot harass that base? What do you think terran can do if you invest that much in static defenses around your bases? You don't need to invest ANYTHING in supply depots seeing as you're already going to build them. That's like saying Protoss needs to invest in pylons for the wall off. No Protoss player resorts to those depths. They also don't whine about having to build cannons, which are far less cost efficient than the Terran static defence.
Right...I believe I am done here...
|
On July 24 2013 18:58 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:47 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 18:42 Sissors wrote:On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. Come on this is becoming completely ridiculous. Yeah we can make a planetary fortress. Then surround it with missile turrets. At bunkers and supply depots. And then you complain zerg cannot harass that base? What do you think terran can do if you invest that much in static defenses around your bases? and yeah 80 games is close to a statistically relevant sample size, especially if its 67% winrate so it doesnt matter if with more games its 63% or 71% since both would be broken also. No, it isn't. If they were 80 uncorrelated games, then hell yeah that would be significant. But they are highly correlated games. Aditionally it is always easy when cherry picking which games should be included and which shouldnt. cherry picking = picking all june and july games of GSTL, OSL and Proleague. yeah real cherry picking going on there. and btw taking 80 games is much better than just throwing out "ZvT is 50% right now" like snowbear and others do. Yes, that is cherry picking. Because if WCS EU had shown a strong terran performance you would have included that. If proleague had bad ZvT you would have removed it because of the format (you would have a point then btw). Aditionally one can argue that winrates fundamentally are fairly random, and you can better check if the top X players show players from every race. And if you then check the OSL RO32 stats the conclusion would be zerg is OP. Yeah if you check the RO8 you could conclude terran OP. But then the question is, if it is only the case for the best 8 players worldwide, do you then really want to upset the balance for all others?
This. Imagine that top 8 best players ATM are protosses and terrans. Do we need to buff zerg?
|
On July 24 2013 18:42 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. Come on this is becoming completely ridiculous. Yeah we can make a planetary fortress. Then surround it with missile turrets. At bunkers and supply depots. And then you complain zerg cannot harass that base? What do you think terran can do if you invest that much in static defenses around your bases? .
Repairable PFs are an entirely different kettle of fish from other static defenses. It's a much larger commitment to take out than other sorts of base defenses. There's no reason why every terran base can't be ling proof via depots. It's not an insane investment all in all. Turrets and delayed minerals.
Comparing it to a bunch of cannons defending a base I think the major difference is that the cannoned base is more likely for the same (significant investment now) to take damage/ be wiped out/suffer more probe losses than the PF base due to splash/repairheal.
It's arguably a silly design choice but there are so many others and PFs are a fact of the game. Maybe zergs have to park roaches out of range like toss park stalkers. Meh.
|
On July 24 2013 18:58 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:47 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 18:42 Sissors wrote:On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. Come on this is becoming completely ridiculous. Yeah we can make a planetary fortress. Then surround it with missile turrets. At bunkers and supply depots. And then you complain zerg cannot harass that base? What do you think terran can do if you invest that much in static defenses around your bases? and yeah 80 games is close to a statistically relevant sample size, especially if its 67% winrate so it doesnt matter if with more games its 63% or 71% since both would be broken also. No, it isn't. If they were 80 uncorrelated games, then hell yeah that would be significant. But they are highly correlated games. Aditionally it is always easy when cherry picking which games should be included and which shouldnt. cherry picking = picking all june and july games of GSTL, OSL and Proleague. yeah real cherry picking going on there. and btw taking 80 games is much better than just throwing out "ZvT is 50% right now" like snowbear and others do. Yes, that is cherry picking. Because if WCS EU had shown a strong terran performance you would have included that. If proleague had bad ZvT you would have removed it because of the format (you would have a point then btw). Aditionally one can argue that winrates fundamentally are fairly random, and you can better check if the top X players show players from every race. And if you then check the OSL RO32 stats the conclusion would be zerg is OP. Yeah if you check the RO8 you could conclude terran OP. But then the question is, if it is only the case for the best 8 players worldwide, do you then really want to upset the balance for all others?
What numbers do you believe then? Just curious. Or should we continue to discuss balance without numbers because no stats is perfect? I'm not saying 67% from 80 games or whatever alone is enough to prove anything, but if we start to deny any numbers because either 1. not enough sample size or 2. too many lower skilled players, then we can't use any numbers.
|
On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets.
The answer is simple ... NOT AT ALL ... just go for the Terran PRODUCTION LINE which can NOT be ringed by static ground defenses and only very very few people actually protect them with a large number of turrets. Now get Overlord speed and carrying capacity upgrades - I know, no one does it so it must be crap, eh? - and then drop a bunch of Roaches or Zerglings on top of that and start killing the addons. Terrans cant replenish them fast enough to be able to continue producing their high tech units while you attack him directly (and forget about the economy).
Narrow pathways and the stupid building placement of too many Terrans (all barracks/factories in one row so you cant get through OR evade) will make it easy to pull off. Having an Infestor or two for some Fungals will corral potential defensive forces and give you extra time to do what is necessary.
tl;dr
If you want to harrass a Terran late in the game GO FOR THE PRODUCTION, because that makes him much more vulnerable than a few SCVs which are partially replaced by temporary MULEs anyways. Terrans need the biggest number of buildings to produce an army constantly and if you get rid of parts of it he will be severely hampered in his offense.
|
On July 24 2013 19:06 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:58 Sissors wrote:On July 24 2013 18:47 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 18:42 Sissors wrote:On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. Come on this is becoming completely ridiculous. Yeah we can make a planetary fortress. Then surround it with missile turrets. At bunkers and supply depots. And then you complain zerg cannot harass that base? What do you think terran can do if you invest that much in static defenses around your bases? and yeah 80 games is close to a statistically relevant sample size, especially if its 67% winrate so it doesnt matter if with more games its 63% or 71% since both would be broken also. No, it isn't. If they were 80 uncorrelated games, then hell yeah that would be significant. But they are highly correlated games. Aditionally it is always easy when cherry picking which games should be included and which shouldnt. cherry picking = picking all june and july games of GSTL, OSL and Proleague. yeah real cherry picking going on there. and btw taking 80 games is much better than just throwing out "ZvT is 50% right now" like snowbear and others do. Yes, that is cherry picking. Because if WCS EU had shown a strong terran performance you would have included that. If proleague had bad ZvT you would have removed it because of the format (you would have a point then btw). Aditionally one can argue that winrates fundamentally are fairly random, and you can better check if the top X players show players from every race. And if you then check the OSL RO32 stats the conclusion would be zerg is OP. Yeah if you check the RO8 you could conclude terran OP. But then the question is, if it is only the case for the best 8 players worldwide, do you then really want to upset the balance for all others? What numbers do you believe then? Just curious. Or should we continue to discuss balance without numbers because no stats is perfect? I'm not saying 67% from 80 games or whatever alone is enough to prove anything, but if we start to deny any numbers because either 1. not enough sample size or 2. too many lower skilled players, then we can't use any numbers.
You can use the same numbers, only when you have more of them. Of course, if there are balance patches, we need to wait longer. I repeat: nothing wrong with using numbers, it's just that, at the moment, they allow for no conclusions.
|
lol so in your opinion picking the highest level tournaments is cherry picking....wow...thats...amazing lol.
also just because soulkey used it in 1-3 games doesnt make it a viable strat. just because roach hydra won some games doesnt mean its viable, i can also give you many examples where it loses. its about stats and math when it comes down to balance and its about strats like roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support not being viable and about burrow movement, ovidrop and nyuds also not being viable. thats a design thing that can be fixed AND in the same time fixing balance.
@snowbear: i know you are biased but please keep it objective and dont put words in my mouth. i never said i want zerg to have 55-60% winrate like in the end of WoL again (you even said 65% which is just a lie: http://www.aligulac.com/reports/). i just want a balanced and fun game where you can use different strats and stuff in a viable, macrogame fashion. thats why i am all for a buff to mech for example.
|
On July 24 2013 18:58 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:48 bo1b wrote:On July 24 2013 18:41 ChristianS wrote:On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. I can't believe this is actually a disputed point, but if for a fourth base, a Terran takes a planetary and puts turrets on it, he still needs to keep army there to defend it. Otherwise ling/bane can take that out pretty easily. Sometimes you're okay with just a few widow mines for defense, but generally not. Lings can tank widow mine and PF hits, banelings can murder the thing. Supply depot and bunker walls help a little, but they only stall for a few seconds. Zerg will often just have a swarm of lings and maybe 30 banelings sitting around for this kind of thing, so even if you build ~10 supply depots to wall the thing entirely, Zerg just needs 5 or 6 banelings to break the supply depots at some point and 19 or 20 to kill the PF. If you've got a lot of SCVs, a planetary fortress, and ~10 supply depots there, that's TOTALLY worth it for the Zerg. In what world can a zerg possibly sacrifice 60 supply of banelings and zerglings, and 600+ gas, against a 4+ orbital terran parade pushing 4m into his 4th base? We saw soulkey just last night wipe out innovations mineral line twice, ruin his production with mutas, keep him at 150 supply vs 200 for like 2 minutes and still could not end the game. I get that innovation is the best player in the world, but soulkey isn't exactly terrible. The fact you're actually agreeing with some moron who believes the nestea style of suiciding banelings all day is how to win vs 4m is very telling. Okay, so balance isn't perfect. Perhaps it never will be. But do you not think that soulkey being ahead in supply, doing economic damage, and still losing can just be a throw? The game is not -THAT- imbalanced. At the top level in WoL, did a 150 supply zerg with brood/infestor manage to beat a 200/200 terran? Nope. Innovation made a come-back, it happens. /edit And since you seem to not realize, those banes will clear the planetary, leaving all the harvesters vulnerable. A couple more banes and lings now will make up for all the resources spent into destroying the planetary.
Did you even watch that game? Calling it a throw is bizarre if you have.
In any event, soulkey did kill 40ish workers in that game and achieved fuck all. I just don't think you understand how much of a commitment 30 banelings is vs a good bio mine player.
|
On July 24 2013 19:10 Decendos wrote:lol so in your opinion picking the highest level tournaments is cherry picking....wow...thats...amazing lol. also just because soulkey used it in 1-3 games doesnt make it a viable strat. just because roach hydra won some games doesnt mean its viable, i can also give you many examples where it loses. its about stats and math when it comes down to balance and its about strats like roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support not being viable and about burrow movement, ovidrop and nyuds also not being viable. thats a design thing that can be fixed AND in the same time fixing balance. @snowbear: i know you are biased but please keep it objective and dont put words in my mouth. i never said i want zerg to have 55-60% winrate like in the end of WoL again (you even said 65% which is just a lie: http://www.aligulac.com/reports/). i just want a balanced and fun game where you can use different strats and stuff in a viable, macrogame fashion. thats why i am all for a buff to mech for example.
You said nothing at all. If it's about math and stats, provide them. Per claim. So far all you do is assert the same claims without any evidence or argumentation, which we can happily ignore just like you can ignore other baseless claims such as: "Blue feathered birds always fly North."
|
On July 24 2013 19:06 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:58 Sissors wrote:On July 24 2013 18:47 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 18:42 Sissors wrote:On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. Come on this is becoming completely ridiculous. Yeah we can make a planetary fortress. Then surround it with missile turrets. At bunkers and supply depots. And then you complain zerg cannot harass that base? What do you think terran can do if you invest that much in static defenses around your bases? and yeah 80 games is close to a statistically relevant sample size, especially if its 67% winrate so it doesnt matter if with more games its 63% or 71% since both would be broken also. No, it isn't. If they were 80 uncorrelated games, then hell yeah that would be significant. But they are highly correlated games. Aditionally it is always easy when cherry picking which games should be included and which shouldnt. cherry picking = picking all june and july games of GSTL, OSL and Proleague. yeah real cherry picking going on there. and btw taking 80 games is much better than just throwing out "ZvT is 50% right now" like snowbear and others do. Yes, that is cherry picking. Because if WCS EU had shown a strong terran performance you would have included that. If proleague had bad ZvT you would have removed it because of the format (you would have a point then btw). Aditionally one can argue that winrates fundamentally are fairly random, and you can better check if the top X players show players from every race. And if you then check the OSL RO32 stats the conclusion would be zerg is OP. Yeah if you check the RO8 you could conclude terran OP. But then the question is, if it is only the case for the best 8 players worldwide, do you then really want to upset the balance for all others? What numbers do you believe then? Just curious. Or should we continue to discuss balance without numbers because no stats is perfect? I'm not saying 67% from 80 games or whatever alone is enough to prove anything, but if we start to deny any numbers because either 1. not enough sample size or 2. too many lower skilled players, then we can't use any numbers.
so true, over the course of wol these korean stats were the holy grail, its THE most important data we can aquire atm
calling the data of all official korean matches cherry picking is simply wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
