|
On November 20 2013 07:48 Crackpot wrote:
What are you guys talking about? I was discussing about "how you can fix the deathball-mechanics of protoss" and you guys discuss about the definition of Siege units?
There is three ways to break deathballing:
1) redesign/rebalance the game from scratch and force it to be more antideathballish.
2) spread out gameplay by balance patches, by decreasing the viability of deathball strategies and increasing spreading out of gameplay for all races (doesn't work if just one race in a matchup can do it, since it will force the other one to turtle against it, instead of using their own tools)
1) is not going to happen since it would require too many resources from blizzard and the game would flat out die during its redesign, since pros would leave and you'd have to do long, long beta testing for everything, followed by long phases of imbalance. All of that with an unsecure outcome or the outcome may be more visually than gameplaywise (like with less tight clumping you don't "just" get nondeathball play)
2) is imo the way to go and has happened in HotS to a certain degree (for all races). But then again, it's a balancing act. Too much of it on one side and the other has to turtle, too little and both races turtle and too much for both, and you get stuff like ZvZ mass ling/bling, mass roach and mass muta battles, since you cannot do anything but "build more of that mobile stuff" and we are back to deathball, just mobile.
Also less resources (or lower saturation) per base to force people into more expanding to spread out more does help, but is again a very questionable act of balancing.
Talking about your Colossus idea, I don't think that's reasonable. I think you could tweak them a little (like 2.25-->2.00/1.8 speed) and maybe change/raise their powerlevel a little in certain areas, so that they become better at defending bases and allow to spread out other units. But then this could also just lead to even more turtling (e.g. in ZvP, you still can't send stalkers on the map freely, since they just get killed) and even stronger deathball attacks (once they are there, they are still superstrong). Imo the core problem of Protoss is less single unit designs like forcefield, colossus, blink or whatever, it is that most units are bad harass units since the whole Protoss design seems to be "beefy but low damage and somewhat slow".
|
On November 20 2013 08:08 H0i wrote:
What you should keep in mind is the differences between ladder and tournaments. Terran has always performed quite well in tournaments, and 8/16 blizzcon players were terran. This is statistically significant because blizzcon was the result of almost a year of tournaments.
This is insignificant because the qualifier tournaments were spread across several months, patches and regions. The 8/16 Terran tournament ended up in a ZvP finals.
|
On November 20 2013 08:06 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:32 Courthead wrote:On November 20 2013 06:43 TheDwf wrote:On November 20 2013 06:14 Courthead wrote:On November 19 2013 15:54 Wingblade wrote:On November 19 2013 10:43 Courthead wrote:FYI after a week of play with the latest patch, there are now TWICE as many Protoss players in GM leagues across each server as there are Terrans: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/raceI really think TvP is a completely broken match-up nowadays. Protoss has always been quite strong in the late game, but they now have innumerable all-ins in the early game that are extremely strong, even when scouted, and quite easy to execute. In addition, the mothership core provides such an extreme defensive advantage that there aren't many openings for Terrans early-game. Given the state of the game, I will never, ever, ever understand why Blizzard thought that oracle play needed a buff. The solution, in my opinion, would be to retract the unnecessary oracle buff, and possibly nerf the starting energy of the mothership core. Admittedly, I'm not sure how this would affect other match-ups, but the Protoss defensive advantage in TvP is quite ridiculous. The fact that the new HOTS units for Terrans (mines and hellbats) have been nerfed into near-uselessness in the match-up doesn't help much either, because some of our only anti-economy early game options revolved around dropping those units in mineral lines. Sorry, but bo1s with more than likely completely unknown opponents(barcodes) are not exactly a metric for balance. In fact, this is the first time I recall in SC2 history where anyone even attempted using these statistics. 99.9999% of people play StarCraft on ladder, and yet your argument is that winrates on ladder is not "a metric for balance"? What? What, then, should we use for balance? Should 100% of the balance equation be based on small, statistically insignificant tournaments comprised of 16-32 players? Btw I'm not the first to point out winrates and racial makeup of ladder as a evidence of game imbalance. David Kim and Blizzard do it all the time. The inescapable fact is that the NA league is 29% Terran and 30% Protoss, but the Grandmaster league is 41% Protoss and 20% Terran. In other words, it's much easier for Protoss players to get high win rates, which is the very definition of imbalance. Interestingly enough, the same thing can be observed on all servers: ![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/910412GML.jpg) Racial distribution as of today, source nios.kr. Korean Terrans were even a bit less represented in the last weeks of the last season, but otherwise the 20-25/40-45/35 distribution is remarkably unchanged since I started checking those numbers at the end of September. So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone.
That's mere speculation at best; making it up as you go along is more likely. As others have said, there are reasons why the ladder is dominated by P and T is underrepresented (all-ins help if you are anonymous and bo1) but there are unanswered questions. First, most pro players know each other's barcodes, so anonymity is not guaranteed. Second, Korea is as bad as the other regions, despite having a strong showing of terrans. Third, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on ladder. The bo1 theory does not account for this.
|
Maybe removing collosi cliff walk could make a change. It's not used for harass anyway and it would make them little harder to use and it would spread protoss ball (no walking over units).
|
On November 20 2013 08:21 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 08:08 H0i wrote:
What you should keep in mind is the differences between ladder and tournaments. Terran has always performed quite well in tournaments, and 8/16 blizzcon players were terran. This is statistically significant because blizzcon was the result of almost a year of tournaments. This is insignificant because the qualifier tournaments were spread across several months, patches and regions. The 8/16 Terran tournament ended up in a ZvP finals.
That does not make it insignificant at all.
|
On November 20 2013 08:08 H0i wrote:
What you should keep in mind is the differences between ladder and tournaments. Terran has always performed quite well in tournaments, and 8/16 blizzcon players were terran. This is statistically significant because blizzcon was the result of almost a year of tournaments.
Sure I'd rather see a more balanced ladder, but there are many factors at play. Protoss are stronger in Bo1 formats and when the opponent doesn't know who they are. This is true, for example because of the many all ins they have. Ladder is Bo1 and because of barcodes you won't know who your opponent is most of the time. Tournaments are almost never Bo1 and you always know who you're playing.
If blizz balanced the game to create equal race distribution in GM, then what would happen is terrans would do disproportionately well in tournaments, and the KR ladder top GM would be mostly dominated by terran.
Ladder and tournaments are different. Balancing for both isn't bad, but tournament balance should never be sacrificed to create more ladder balance. The ladder problem is a design issue, not so much a balance issue. Terrans are far more predictable than protoss in a ladder game. Patches would help, different terran playstyles would help. But terran isn't dying just because they're underrepresented on the ladder. Tournaments are more important.
I actually agree with you to a large extent. The way I would phrase it is: this is a design issue leading to balance issues.
What upsets me, however, is that Blizzard doesn't seem to realize this and/or has no idea how to fix it. Take the recent oracle buff, for example. The oracle is almost exclusively used for all-ins and early game harrass, two areas in which protoss already excel, contributing significantly to their success on the ladder. So not only did Blizzard make a change that was unnecessary at pro-levels, they also further hindered balance on ladder.
In addition, the fact that varied play favors protoss is something you will, eventually, see affect pro results. If you know you hold the advantage as long as your play isn't predictable, then, you will learn to vary your strategies. As the total number of possible strategies to choose from grows over time, we should see protoss doing increasingly well in the pros, which is a trend I would argue we've seen happening slowly-but-surely since the release of HOTS.
|
On November 20 2013 08:23 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 08:21 TheDwf wrote:On November 20 2013 08:08 H0i wrote:
What you should keep in mind is the differences between ladder and tournaments. Terran has always performed quite well in tournaments, and 8/16 blizzcon players were terran. This is statistically significant because blizzcon was the result of almost a year of tournaments. This is insignificant because the qualifier tournaments were spread across several months, patches and regions. The 8/16 Terran tournament ended up in a ZvP finals. That does not make it insignificant at all.
It's insignificant because there were balance changes and metagame shifts in that time, such that it's not indicative of current balance. As a case in point, the last season did not qualify a single terran.
|
EDIT: Actually, I really shouldn't.
|
On November 20 2013 08:29 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 08:23 H0i wrote:On November 20 2013 08:21 TheDwf wrote:On November 20 2013 08:08 H0i wrote:
What you should keep in mind is the differences between ladder and tournaments. Terran has always performed quite well in tournaments, and 8/16 blizzcon players were terran. This is statistically significant because blizzcon was the result of almost a year of tournaments. This is insignificant because the qualifier tournaments were spread across several months, patches and regions. The 8/16 Terran tournament ended up in a ZvP finals. That does not make it insignificant at all. It's insignificant because there were balance changes and metagame shifts in that time, such that it's not indicative of current balance. As a case in point, the last season did not qualify a single terran.
Which is irrelevant because those top terrans had pretty much guaranteed their spots already in S1 and S2, and they did get even more points, but it did not qualify them because they were already qualified.
Metagame and balance shifts exist but that does not make all data irrelevant. We are still playing starcraft 2, the game isn't a completely different one. And if you argue metagame, then we might as well say the whole discussion is irrelevant because the metagame can shift again towards a different balance.
|
On November 20 2013 08:23 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 08:08 H0i wrote:
What you should keep in mind is the differences between ladder and tournaments. Terran has always performed quite well in tournaments, and 8/16 blizzcon players were terran. This is statistically significant because blizzcon was the result of almost a year of tournaments.
Sure I'd rather see a more balanced ladder, but there are many factors at play. Protoss are stronger in Bo1 formats and when the opponent doesn't know who they are. This is true, for example because of the many all ins they have. Ladder is Bo1 and because of barcodes you won't know who your opponent is most of the time. Tournaments are almost never Bo1 and you always know who you're playing.
If blizz balanced the game to create equal race distribution in GM, then what would happen is terrans would do disproportionately well in tournaments, and the KR ladder top GM would be mostly dominated by terran.
Ladder and tournaments are different. Balancing for both isn't bad, but tournament balance should never be sacrificed to create more ladder balance. The ladder problem is a design issue, not so much a balance issue. Terrans are far more predictable than protoss in a ladder game. Patches would help, different terran playstyles would help. But terran isn't dying just because they're underrepresented on the ladder. Tournaments are more important. The way I would phrase it is: this is a design issue leading to balance issues.
Exactly.
In my opinion the fact that Terrans are very predictable is indeed a balance issue resulting from the game design.
One might argue that it is unfair for Protoss to have a couple of allins while Terran only has a standard build (FE into MMM) and no early game allin. Even if you scout a Protoss allin it is still hard to counter it. On the other side a skill like photon overcharge totally prevents Terrans from playing aggressive in the early/midgame.
In order to be more fair Terrans should have more than just one build order vs an equally skilled opponent in TvP.
Edit: I don't see how Terrans can have an advantage in the meta game. Simple example you expect oracles so you stay passive while protoss plays a greedy strat. Next game you expect a greedy strat and Protoss goes proxy oracles.
|
On November 20 2013 08:43 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 08:29 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 08:23 H0i wrote:On November 20 2013 08:21 TheDwf wrote:On November 20 2013 08:08 H0i wrote:
What you should keep in mind is the differences between ladder and tournaments. Terran has always performed quite well in tournaments, and 8/16 blizzcon players were terran. This is statistically significant because blizzcon was the result of almost a year of tournaments. This is insignificant because the qualifier tournaments were spread across several months, patches and regions. The 8/16 Terran tournament ended up in a ZvP finals. That does not make it insignificant at all. It's insignificant because there were balance changes and metagame shifts in that time, such that it's not indicative of current balance. As a case in point, the last season did not qualify a single terran. Which is irrelevant because those top terrans had pretty much guaranteed their spots already in S1 and S2, and they did get even more points, but it did not qualify them because they were already qualified. Metagame and balance shifts exist but that does not make all data irrelevant. We are still playing starcraft 2, the game isn't a completely different one. And if you argue metagame, then we might as well say the whole discussion is irrelevant because the metagame can shift again towards a different balance.
First, do you really want to commit yourself to saying that the game is the same as early WoL because it's a game of Starcraft 2? Think about it...
And metagame shifts make a difference. In this case, TvZ was thrown into a loop by HotS and the games today look nothing like early HotS games because both sides have developed. So it would be folly to argue that the balance of early HotS says anything about the balance we have currently. Hence, any qualifications from early HotS do not say anything about current balance.
|
On November 20 2013 08:46 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 08:43 H0i wrote:On November 20 2013 08:29 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 08:23 H0i wrote:On November 20 2013 08:21 TheDwf wrote:On November 20 2013 08:08 H0i wrote:
What you should keep in mind is the differences between ladder and tournaments. Terran has always performed quite well in tournaments, and 8/16 blizzcon players were terran. This is statistically significant because blizzcon was the result of almost a year of tournaments. This is insignificant because the qualifier tournaments were spread across several months, patches and regions. The 8/16 Terran tournament ended up in a ZvP finals. That does not make it insignificant at all. It's insignificant because there were balance changes and metagame shifts in that time, such that it's not indicative of current balance. As a case in point, the last season did not qualify a single terran. Which is irrelevant because those top terrans had pretty much guaranteed their spots already in S1 and S2, and they did get even more points, but it did not qualify them because they were already qualified. Metagame and balance shifts exist but that does not make all data irrelevant. We are still playing starcraft 2, the game isn't a completely different one. And if you argue metagame, then we might as well say the whole discussion is irrelevant because the metagame can shift again towards a different balance. First, do you really want to commit yourself to saying that the game is the same as early WoL because it's a game of Starcraft 2? Think about it... And metagame shifts make a difference. In this case, TvZ was thrown into a loop by HotS and the games today look nothing like early HotS games because both sides have developed. So it would be folly to argue that the balance of early HotS says anything about the balance we have currently. Hence, any qualifications from early HotS do not say anything about current balance.
The difference between now and early WoL is not the same as the difference between now and earlier this year when WCS started.
There were metagame shifts, but it is not a completely different game. TvP is still very similar. TvZ changed more but we still see plenty of the 4M style regardless of the mine nerf. Some amount of balance and metagame changes does not completely invalidate the fact that terran did quite well in tournaments this year, and isn't doing badly at this very moment.
That's all I'm saying. Terran never did very well on GM ladder after the first period of WoL. They continued to do well in tournaments. Early this year terran wasn't doing great on ladder either, but they were still perfectly fine in tournaments. The same is pretty much happening these days.
|
On November 20 2013 08:21 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 08:06 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:32 Courthead wrote:On November 20 2013 06:43 TheDwf wrote:On November 20 2013 06:14 Courthead wrote:On November 19 2013 15:54 Wingblade wrote:On November 19 2013 10:43 Courthead wrote:FYI after a week of play with the latest patch, there are now TWICE as many Protoss players in GM leagues across each server as there are Terrans: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/raceI really think TvP is a completely broken match-up nowadays. Protoss has always been quite strong in the late game, but they now have innumerable all-ins in the early game that are extremely strong, even when scouted, and quite easy to execute. In addition, the mothership core provides such an extreme defensive advantage that there aren't many openings for Terrans early-game. Given the state of the game, I will never, ever, ever understand why Blizzard thought that oracle play needed a buff. The solution, in my opinion, would be to retract the unnecessary oracle buff, and possibly nerf the starting energy of the mothership core. Admittedly, I'm not sure how this would affect other match-ups, but the Protoss defensive advantage in TvP is quite ridiculous. The fact that the new HOTS units for Terrans (mines and hellbats) have been nerfed into near-uselessness in the match-up doesn't help much either, because some of our only anti-economy early game options revolved around dropping those units in mineral lines. Sorry, but bo1s with more than likely completely unknown opponents(barcodes) are not exactly a metric for balance. In fact, this is the first time I recall in SC2 history where anyone even attempted using these statistics. 99.9999% of people play StarCraft on ladder, and yet your argument is that winrates on ladder is not "a metric for balance"? What? What, then, should we use for balance? Should 100% of the balance equation be based on small, statistically insignificant tournaments comprised of 16-32 players? Btw I'm not the first to point out winrates and racial makeup of ladder as a evidence of game imbalance. David Kim and Blizzard do it all the time. The inescapable fact is that the NA league is 29% Terran and 30% Protoss, but the Grandmaster league is 41% Protoss and 20% Terran. In other words, it's much easier for Protoss players to get high win rates, which is the very definition of imbalance. Interestingly enough, the same thing can be observed on all servers: Racial distribution as of today, source nios.kr. Korean Terrans were even a bit less represented in the last weeks of the last season, but otherwise the 20-25/40-45/35 distribution is remarkably unchanged since I started checking those numbers at the end of September. So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone. That's mere speculation at best; making it up as you go along is more likely. As others have said, there are reasons why the ladder is dominated by P and T is underrepresented (all-ins help if you are anonymous and bo1) but there are unanswered questions. First, most pro players know each other's barcodes, so anonymity is not guaranteed. Second, Korea is as bad as the other regions, despite having a strong showing of terrans. Third, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on ladder. The bo1 theory does not account for this.
Lolwhat. My argument is at least as reasonable (imo moreso) than "omgwtfbbq look at % of ppl playing terran = UP." As many people have already said the winrates do not show Terran being absurdly underpowered. My argument makes much more sense and I only said there are plenty of other explanations and, again, low % of terran players does not directly translate to imbalance. It is you who are trying to make these figures seem like more than they are.
|
On November 20 2013 09:19 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 08:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 08:06 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:32 Courthead wrote:On November 20 2013 06:43 TheDwf wrote:On November 20 2013 06:14 Courthead wrote:On November 19 2013 15:54 Wingblade wrote:On November 19 2013 10:43 Courthead wrote:FYI after a week of play with the latest patch, there are now TWICE as many Protoss players in GM leagues across each server as there are Terrans: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/raceI really think TvP is a completely broken match-up nowadays. Protoss has always been quite strong in the late game, but they now have innumerable all-ins in the early game that are extremely strong, even when scouted, and quite easy to execute. In addition, the mothership core provides such an extreme defensive advantage that there aren't many openings for Terrans early-game. Given the state of the game, I will never, ever, ever understand why Blizzard thought that oracle play needed a buff. The solution, in my opinion, would be to retract the unnecessary oracle buff, and possibly nerf the starting energy of the mothership core. Admittedly, I'm not sure how this would affect other match-ups, but the Protoss defensive advantage in TvP is quite ridiculous. The fact that the new HOTS units for Terrans (mines and hellbats) have been nerfed into near-uselessness in the match-up doesn't help much either, because some of our only anti-economy early game options revolved around dropping those units in mineral lines. Sorry, but bo1s with more than likely completely unknown opponents(barcodes) are not exactly a metric for balance. In fact, this is the first time I recall in SC2 history where anyone even attempted using these statistics. 99.9999% of people play StarCraft on ladder, and yet your argument is that winrates on ladder is not "a metric for balance"? What? What, then, should we use for balance? Should 100% of the balance equation be based on small, statistically insignificant tournaments comprised of 16-32 players? Btw I'm not the first to point out winrates and racial makeup of ladder as a evidence of game imbalance. David Kim and Blizzard do it all the time. The inescapable fact is that the NA league is 29% Terran and 30% Protoss, but the Grandmaster league is 41% Protoss and 20% Terran. In other words, it's much easier for Protoss players to get high win rates, which is the very definition of imbalance. Interestingly enough, the same thing can be observed on all servers: Racial distribution as of today, source nios.kr. Korean Terrans were even a bit less represented in the last weeks of the last season, but otherwise the 20-25/40-45/35 distribution is remarkably unchanged since I started checking those numbers at the end of September. So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone. That's mere speculation at best; making it up as you go along is more likely. As others have said, there are reasons why the ladder is dominated by P and T is underrepresented (all-ins help if you are anonymous and bo1) but there are unanswered questions. First, most pro players know each other's barcodes, so anonymity is not guaranteed. Second, Korea is as bad as the other regions, despite having a strong showing of terrans. Third, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on ladder. The bo1 theory does not account for this. Lolwhat. My argument is at least as reasonable (imo moreso) than "omgwtfbbq look at % of ppl playing terran = UP." As many people have already said the winrates do not show Terran being absurdly underpowered. My argument makes much more sense and I only said there are plenty of other explanations and, again, low % of terran players does not directly translate to imbalance. It is you who are trying to make these figures seem like more than they are.
Your argument about Terrans being underrepresented because their high level players would be more bored by their race is totally far-fetched. You don't even have the beginning of a proof for that.
|
On November 20 2013 09:19 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 08:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 08:06 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:32 Courthead wrote:On November 20 2013 06:43 TheDwf wrote:On November 20 2013 06:14 Courthead wrote:On November 19 2013 15:54 Wingblade wrote:On November 19 2013 10:43 Courthead wrote:FYI after a week of play with the latest patch, there are now TWICE as many Protoss players in GM leagues across each server as there are Terrans: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/raceI really think TvP is a completely broken match-up nowadays. Protoss has always been quite strong in the late game, but they now have innumerable all-ins in the early game that are extremely strong, even when scouted, and quite easy to execute. In addition, the mothership core provides such an extreme defensive advantage that there aren't many openings for Terrans early-game. Given the state of the game, I will never, ever, ever understand why Blizzard thought that oracle play needed a buff. The solution, in my opinion, would be to retract the unnecessary oracle buff, and possibly nerf the starting energy of the mothership core. Admittedly, I'm not sure how this would affect other match-ups, but the Protoss defensive advantage in TvP is quite ridiculous. The fact that the new HOTS units for Terrans (mines and hellbats) have been nerfed into near-uselessness in the match-up doesn't help much either, because some of our only anti-economy early game options revolved around dropping those units in mineral lines. Sorry, but bo1s with more than likely completely unknown opponents(barcodes) are not exactly a metric for balance. In fact, this is the first time I recall in SC2 history where anyone even attempted using these statistics. 99.9999% of people play StarCraft on ladder, and yet your argument is that winrates on ladder is not "a metric for balance"? What? What, then, should we use for balance? Should 100% of the balance equation be based on small, statistically insignificant tournaments comprised of 16-32 players? Btw I'm not the first to point out winrates and racial makeup of ladder as a evidence of game imbalance. David Kim and Blizzard do it all the time. The inescapable fact is that the NA league is 29% Terran and 30% Protoss, but the Grandmaster league is 41% Protoss and 20% Terran. In other words, it's much easier for Protoss players to get high win rates, which is the very definition of imbalance. Interestingly enough, the same thing can be observed on all servers: Racial distribution as of today, source nios.kr. Korean Terrans were even a bit less represented in the last weeks of the last season, but otherwise the 20-25/40-45/35 distribution is remarkably unchanged since I started checking those numbers at the end of September. So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone. That's mere speculation at best; making it up as you go along is more likely. As others have said, there are reasons why the ladder is dominated by P and T is underrepresented (all-ins help if you are anonymous and bo1) but there are unanswered questions. First, most pro players know each other's barcodes, so anonymity is not guaranteed. Second, Korea is as bad as the other regions, despite having a strong showing of terrans. Third, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on ladder. The bo1 theory does not account for this. Lolwhat. My argument is at least as reasonable (imo moreso) than "omgwtfbbq look at % of ppl playing terran = UP." As many people have already said the winrates do not show Terran being absurdly underpowered. My argument makes much more sense and I only said there are plenty of other explanations and, again, low % of terran players does not directly translate to imbalance. It is you who are trying to make these figures seem like more than they are.
you do realize winrates on ladder are meant to approximate 50%, thats how you get higher/lower on the ladder, right? However if we break down the winrates for terran its VERY common to have something like 70% in tvt and 40% or even less in tvp. Very common. So give me a break with your guesswork.
|
On November 20 2013 09:22 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 09:19 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 08:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 08:06 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:32 Courthead wrote:On November 20 2013 06:43 TheDwf wrote:On November 20 2013 06:14 Courthead wrote:On November 19 2013 15:54 Wingblade wrote:
[quote]
Sorry, but bo1s with more than likely completely unknown opponents(barcodes) are not exactly a metric for balance. In fact, this is the first time I recall in SC2 history where anyone even attempted using these statistics. 99.9999% of people play StarCraft on ladder, and yet your argument is that winrates on ladder is not "a metric for balance"? What? What, then, should we use for balance? Should 100% of the balance equation be based on small, statistically insignificant tournaments comprised of 16-32 players? Btw I'm not the first to point out winrates and racial makeup of ladder as a evidence of game imbalance. David Kim and Blizzard do it all the time. The inescapable fact is that the NA league is 29% Terran and 30% Protoss, but the Grandmaster league is 41% Protoss and 20% Terran. In other words, it's much easier for Protoss players to get high win rates, which is the very definition of imbalance. Interestingly enough, the same thing can be observed on all servers: Racial distribution as of today, source nios.kr. Korean Terrans were even a bit less represented in the last weeks of the last season, but otherwise the 20-25/40-45/35 distribution is remarkably unchanged since I started checking those numbers at the end of September. So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone. That's mere speculation at best; making it up as you go along is more likely. As others have said, there are reasons why the ladder is dominated by P and T is underrepresented (all-ins help if you are anonymous and bo1) but there are unanswered questions. First, most pro players know each other's barcodes, so anonymity is not guaranteed. Second, Korea is as bad as the other regions, despite having a strong showing of terrans. Third, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on ladder. The bo1 theory does not account for this. Lolwhat. My argument is at least as reasonable (imo moreso) than "omgwtfbbq look at % of ppl playing terran = UP." As many people have already said the winrates do not show Terran being absurdly underpowered. My argument makes much more sense and I only said there are plenty of other explanations and, again, low % of terran players does not directly translate to imbalance. It is you who are trying to make these figures seem like more than they are. Your argument about Terrans being underrepresented because their high level players would be more bored by their race is totally far-fetched. You don't even have the beginning of a proof for that.
Show me your proof that low % of Terrans in GM = imbalance. Oh that's right, there is none. The winrates are within 1%, you have nothing. But keep complaining if you want.
[B]On November 20 2013 09:25 Snusmumriken wrote:
you do realize winrates on ladder are meant to approximate 50%, thats how you get higher/lower on the ladder, right? However if we break down the winrates for terran its VERY common to have something like 70% in tvt and 40% or even less in tvp. Very common. So give me a break with your guesswork.
You do realize that even aligulac and other sources show winrates within 1% of 50? And we're getting even race distributions for most tournaments. Yes obviously Protoss has some advantage over Terran but people are blowing it out of proportion.
|
On November 20 2013 09:25 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 09:22 TheDwf wrote:On November 20 2013 09:19 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 08:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 08:06 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:32 Courthead wrote:On November 20 2013 06:43 TheDwf wrote:On November 20 2013 06:14 Courthead wrote:
[quote]
99.9999% of people play StarCraft on ladder, and yet your argument is that winrates on ladder is not "a metric for balance"? What?
What, then, should we use for balance? Should 100% of the balance equation be based on small, statistically insignificant tournaments comprised of 16-32 players? Btw I'm not the first to point out winrates and racial makeup of ladder as a evidence of game imbalance. David Kim and Blizzard do it all the time.
The inescapable fact is that the NA league is 29% Terran and 30% Protoss, but the Grandmaster league is 41% Protoss and 20% Terran. In other words, it's much easier for Protoss players to get high win rates, which is the very definition of imbalance. Interestingly enough, the same thing can be observed on all servers: Racial distribution as of today, source nios.kr. Korean Terrans were even a bit less represented in the last weeks of the last season, but otherwise the 20-25/40-45/35 distribution is remarkably unchanged since I started checking those numbers at the end of September. So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone. That's mere speculation at best; making it up as you go along is more likely. As others have said, there are reasons why the ladder is dominated by P and T is underrepresented (all-ins help if you are anonymous and bo1) but there are unanswered questions. First, most pro players know each other's barcodes, so anonymity is not guaranteed. Second, Korea is as bad as the other regions, despite having a strong showing of terrans. Third, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on ladder. The bo1 theory does not account for this. Lolwhat. My argument is at least as reasonable (imo moreso) than "omgwtfbbq look at % of ppl playing terran = UP." As many people have already said the winrates do not show Terran being absurdly underpowered. My argument makes much more sense and I only said there are plenty of other explanations and, again, low % of terran players does not directly translate to imbalance. It is you who are trying to make these figures seem like more than they are. Your argument about Terrans being underrepresented because their high level players would be more bored by their race is totally far-fetched. You don't even have the beginning of a proof for that. Show me your proof that low % of Terrans in GM = imbalance. Oh that's right, there is none. The winrates are within 1%, you have nothing. But keep complaining if you want.
I did not talk about imbalance, though it depends whether or not you include the difficulty to play in that notion.
|
On November 20 2013 09:25 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 09:19 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 08:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 08:06 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:32 Courthead wrote:On November 20 2013 06:43 TheDwf wrote:On November 20 2013 06:14 Courthead wrote:On November 19 2013 15:54 Wingblade wrote:
[quote]
Sorry, but bo1s with more than likely completely unknown opponents(barcodes) are not exactly a metric for balance. In fact, this is the first time I recall in SC2 history where anyone even attempted using these statistics. 99.9999% of people play StarCraft on ladder, and yet your argument is that winrates on ladder is not "a metric for balance"? What? What, then, should we use for balance? Should 100% of the balance equation be based on small, statistically insignificant tournaments comprised of 16-32 players? Btw I'm not the first to point out winrates and racial makeup of ladder as a evidence of game imbalance. David Kim and Blizzard do it all the time. The inescapable fact is that the NA league is 29% Terran and 30% Protoss, but the Grandmaster league is 41% Protoss and 20% Terran. In other words, it's much easier for Protoss players to get high win rates, which is the very definition of imbalance. Interestingly enough, the same thing can be observed on all servers: Racial distribution as of today, source nios.kr. Korean Terrans were even a bit less represented in the last weeks of the last season, but otherwise the 20-25/40-45/35 distribution is remarkably unchanged since I started checking those numbers at the end of September. So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone. That's mere speculation at best; making it up as you go along is more likely. As others have said, there are reasons why the ladder is dominated by P and T is underrepresented (all-ins help if you are anonymous and bo1) but there are unanswered questions. First, most pro players know each other's barcodes, so anonymity is not guaranteed. Second, Korea is as bad as the other regions, despite having a strong showing of terrans. Third, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on ladder. The bo1 theory does not account for this. Lolwhat. My argument is at least as reasonable (imo moreso) than "omgwtfbbq look at % of ppl playing terran = UP." As many people have already said the winrates do not show Terran being absurdly underpowered. My argument makes much more sense and I only said there are plenty of other explanations and, again, low % of terran players does not directly translate to imbalance. It is you who are trying to make these figures seem like more than they are. you do realize winrates on ladder are meant to approximate 50%, thats how you get higher/lower on the ladder, right? However if we break down the winrates for terran its VERY common to have something like 70% in tvt and 40% or even less in tvp. Very common. So give me a break with your guesswork.
Amusingly, if one group of terrans has a very high TvT winrate and low winrate in the other matchups, then there must be another group of terrans with a significantly lower TvT winrate, and thus, a much better winrate in the other matchups.
|
Balance at ladder =/= Balance at professional level.
But, for the ordinary ladderer, the likelihood of getting into GM is higher if playing as Protoss : as evidenced by the fact that despite similar percentage of players overall on ladder, protoss double the number of Terrans in GM.
Is this relevant to the professional scene? Only if substantiated by other sources like Aligulac. And since I do trust Aligulac, I have to refrain some crying "imba" about Protoss until the data shows a clear imbalance.
Having said this, the oracle buff (from what little I've seen, mind you) has failed to achieve it's stated objective of making oracle usage more prevalent in the mid to late-game scenario.
|
On November 20 2013 09:51 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 09:25 Snusmumriken wrote:On November 20 2013 09:19 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 08:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 08:06 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:32 Courthead wrote:On November 20 2013 06:43 TheDwf wrote:On November 20 2013 06:14 Courthead wrote:
[quote]
99.9999% of people play StarCraft on ladder, and yet your argument is that winrates on ladder is not "a metric for balance"? What?
What, then, should we use for balance? Should 100% of the balance equation be based on small, statistically insignificant tournaments comprised of 16-32 players? Btw I'm not the first to point out winrates and racial makeup of ladder as a evidence of game imbalance. David Kim and Blizzard do it all the time.
The inescapable fact is that the NA league is 29% Terran and 30% Protoss, but the Grandmaster league is 41% Protoss and 20% Terran. In other words, it's much easier for Protoss players to get high win rates, which is the very definition of imbalance. Interestingly enough, the same thing can be observed on all servers: Racial distribution as of today, source nios.kr. Korean Terrans were even a bit less represented in the last weeks of the last season, but otherwise the 20-25/40-45/35 distribution is remarkably unchanged since I started checking those numbers at the end of September. So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone. That's mere speculation at best; making it up as you go along is more likely. As others have said, there are reasons why the ladder is dominated by P and T is underrepresented (all-ins help if you are anonymous and bo1) but there are unanswered questions. First, most pro players know each other's barcodes, so anonymity is not guaranteed. Second, Korea is as bad as the other regions, despite having a strong showing of terrans. Third, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on ladder. The bo1 theory does not account for this. Lolwhat. My argument is at least as reasonable (imo moreso) than "omgwtfbbq look at % of ppl playing terran = UP." As many people have already said the winrates do not show Terran being absurdly underpowered. My argument makes much more sense and I only said there are plenty of other explanations and, again, low % of terran players does not directly translate to imbalance. It is you who are trying to make these figures seem like more than they are. you do realize winrates on ladder are meant to approximate 50%, thats how you get higher/lower on the ladder, right? However if we break down the winrates for terran its VERY common to have something like 70% in tvt and 40% or even less in tvp. Very common. So give me a break with your guesswork. Amusingly, if one group of terrans has a very high TvT winrate and low winrate in the other matchups, then there must be another group of terrans with a significantly lower TvT winrate, and thus, a much better winrate in the other matchups.
Some terrans have high tvt winrate and some have high tvz winrate, almost none have high tvp winrate. Amusing? I think not.
Moreover, its fucking boring playing protoss all the fucking time. Its the same shit in masters and grandmasters, twice the amount of protoss as terrans. Its really fucking boring, and its really infuriating to keep losing to protoss allins. Oh wait did I say allins? Protoss has almost no allins anymore just high reward zero risk earlygame pressures. You didnt scout that one place on the map where he randomly placed his stargate/twilight/dt shrine? Tough shit youre dead. You found it? No worries contain till ahead.
Its a fucking joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
