EPT1 colossi out of 3 was just sitting back hitting the CC
Still rolls the Terran
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 889
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
1 colossi out of 3 was just sitting back hitting the CC Still rolls the Terran | ||
|
Survivor61316
United States470 Posts
| ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
| ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mvaPc8Z.png) + Show Spoiler [table] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EdvDNHM.png) Source: Racial Balance in GSL (2010-2013 WoL) http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On January 24 2014 21:07 Sapphire.lux wrote: Just when Terran was looking interesting with more options besides MMM we get this ridiculous race distribution in code S... Yeah, Zerg's qualification rate is insane. Protoss almost as high but couldn't knock Zerg off that top spot. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On January 24 2014 21:54 -Celestial- wrote: Yeah, Zerg's qualification rate is insane. Protoss almost as high but couldn't knock Zerg off that top spot. Yeah its totally the zerg thats the problem... | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On January 24 2014 21:54 -Celestial- wrote: Yeah, Zerg's qualification rate is insane. Protoss almost as high but couldn't knock Zerg off that top spot. You got shat on by everyone, including super-neutrals like Opterown, when you brought about this argument last time, and you want to try it again? What was the definition of insanity again? | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On January 24 2014 21:58 Bagi wrote: Yeah its totally the zerg thats the problem... The responses to this Code A are so funny. Zerg gets the highest qualification rate followed by Protoss with a very strong showing, Terran bombs hard. But lets ignore the high rate of qualification for Zerg because it suits us. On January 24 2014 22:03 Ghanburighan wrote: You got shat on by everyone, including super-neutrals like Opterown, when you brought about this argument last time, and you want to try it again? What was the definition of insanity again? I actually didn't read the responses last time (to elaborate: there's little point reading blind rage, instead I tend to read responses which discuss actual changes). I'm just finding it funny that apparently its absolutely unacceptable to allow Protoss to have a high qualification rate whilst Zerg has EVEN HIGHER and gets a free pass on it. And you can throw insults about all you like. Facts are facts. Stating them is not a balance argument but a point of observation. | ||
|
Glorfindel!
Sweden1815 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
HEY PROTOSS WHY NOT JUST TRY IT OUT AND SEE GIVE IT SOME TIME WHY NOT INNOVATE GOSH HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S SO IMBA, SMALL SAMPLE SIZE | ||
|
Glorfindel!
Sweden1815 Posts
| ||
|
Swisslink
2954 Posts
On January 24 2014 22:09 -Celestial- wrote: The responses to this Code A are so funny. Zerg gets the highest qualification rate followed by Protoss with a very strong showing, Terran bombs hard. But lets ignore the high rate of qualification for Zerg because it suits us. Not really the reason. The problem is that, while in ZvT the Winrates are quite okay, there was only one Terran beating a Protoss in the entire Code A season 1 out of 16, or 8 maps in about 40 (?)). So yeah, ignoring the high rate for Zerg isn't a bad thing to do, because Zerg do about as well as they should do in both matchups (maybe slightly too good if you look at the Win%, but that's okay for such a small number of games.) Zerg didn't really have an insane winrate, Protoss on the other hand did. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On January 24 2014 22:16 Swisslink wrote: Not really the reason. The problem is that, while in ZvT the Winrates are quite okay, there was only one Terran beating a Protoss in the entire Code A season. So yeah, ignoring the high rate for Zerg isn't a bad thing, because Zerg do about as well as they should do in both matchups (maybe slightly too good if you look at the Win%, but that's okay for such a small number of games.) Aha, and finally someone comes along with something other than blind anger. Kudos to you, sir. So lets see how constructive we can be with someone who isn't raging. Looking at the situation as a whole what seems to be happening is Zerg murders Protoss on both Daedalus and Heavy Rain (this seems to have been overlooked and I might be missing something here but by my count Zerg is 4-1 on Heavy Rain from Code A, a better win rate than Daedalus actually). Zerg is, in fact, 11-5 in sets in Code A against Protoss. In order to match the Zerg strength, Protoss utterly destroys Terran to claim their own spots (as is fairly self evident by the amount of indignation going around). This could actually be a somewhat feasible system if Terran was strong against Zerg but they're not, in fact they've got a losing rate against Zerg as well. So Zerg feeds off both Terran and Protoss and Protoss beat the Terrans down to secure their own places (which is probably where this anti-Protoss tunnel vision comes from because it feels more focussed). The real question is whether you want a P>T>Z>P system or whether you want P=Z=T. But lets assume the latter for now. What to be done? Well one interesting little thing gleaned from examining Code A is that Heavy Rain is the map that seems to bounce back and forth between Terran win and Protoss win (its 4-3 P-T by my count). I can't help but feel that looking at this map specifically might well provide some extremely useful insights beyond the "OMG NERF X, Y AND Z". Indication there that something about that map helps to fix the matchup. Can't say I sat and watched every game of Code A (there's a lot and I'm usually in work) but when I go home I think I'm going to be reviewing those seven games. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12337 Posts
What's lacking: - Something about Msc vision. What's wrong: - Probably the way protoss has been buffed vs swarmhost late, a less passive buff would be better, and one that can't help vs P and T. All the rest seems pretty decent, right? | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On January 24 2014 22:52 Nebuchad wrote: So can we agree that we finally have a patch that makes a lot of sense? What's lacking: - Something about Msc vision. What's wrong: - Probably the way protoss has been buffed vs swarmhost late, a less passive buff would be better, and one that can't help vs P and T. All the rest seems pretty decent, right? The hydra buff is too much, and the proposed changes do very little for TvP. The patch feels more like a stab in the dark for me. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On January 24 2014 22:52 Nebuchad wrote: So can we agree that we finally have a patch that makes a lot of sense? What's lacking: - Something about Msc vision. What's wrong: - Probably the way protoss has been buffed vs swarmhost late, a less passive buff would be better, and one that can't help vs P and T. All the rest seems pretty decent, right? Honestly I think the Tempest buff is going to be a problem. Mistake to include it. The passive Swarmhost style is a problem; but that isn't going to fix it and its going to mess about with other matchups in unpredictable ways. That hydra buff came out of nowhere though. I mean...what? >_> Edit: That being said when I random I goddamn love Ghosts so the Ghost change to me is just ♥ | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12337 Posts
On January 24 2014 22:54 Bagi wrote: The hydra buff is too much, and the proposed changes do very little for TvP. The patch feels more like a stab in the dark for me. Don't you have a problem with the notion that this patch is a "stab in the dark", considering it tries to fix (and granted, sometimes fail) every complaint that the community has had on recently? | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
| ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
| ||
| ||
