|
I put it like that, because the whole discussion suddenly got started up again due to those games.
I think widow mines are fine as they are. I would like to see a small HP nerf on mutas though, they are way too dominant currently in the meta.
Hmm I think they could just increase the microability of the Thor instead. Give it 0 damage point and like 2.15 movement speed instead of 1.85. I think that would make controling the Thor more fun and give a bit of countermicro to magic box.
Also I am not really sure I mind the Widow Mine nerf. I do feel like its not optimal design when one hit/misclick can kill alot of units at once. And in one way, I kinda like the meta where neither support unit to biological is totally domiannt (+ mixing in Thors feels pretty cool in the later game).
The current splash of the Widow Mine IMO feels better generally, and if its slightly too weak, I rather make small tweaks to it elsewhere.
For instance, one could consider slightly lower BT as terrans typically get outmacroed in the midgame vs zerg and has to play defensively. This would also be a small buff to 1/1/1 vs protoss which would create a bit more diversity in openings.
|
On April 19 2014 05:07 Niejadek wrote:
Is David Kim on board ? What happen to Battle reports ? So few players still playing, but a lot of retired already.
Lets see on eu terran: Sjow, Lucifron, Thorzain - the biggest stars retired due to protoss.
NA terran ? I dont know anyone good.
Only hope on koreans, but cmon - changing map pool doesnt do too much.
I thought lucifron had wrist injuries and Thorzain (rightfully) decided that getting a degree is more important than playing a video game all day long.
|
On April 19 2014 18:18 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 18:13 vthree wrote:On April 19 2014 17:45 Big J wrote:On April 19 2014 14:09 vthree wrote:On April 19 2014 06:43 Big J wrote:On April 19 2014 06:38 TeeTS wrote:On April 19 2014 06:26 Big J wrote:On April 19 2014 06:08 TeeTS wrote:On April 19 2014 05:12 Big J wrote:On April 19 2014 02:56 Glorfindel! wrote:
[quote]
Sigh...
You dont see the difference with Zerg having 14 Code S-spots? Hyun just won WCS AM.
May I just ask - if there was a new Code S qualifier from scratch, do you believe we would have more than 4 Terrans making it the whole way with the same player pool? Personally I would be suprised if we even reached that.
By your arguments and statistic viewing it sounds like you believe it would be 11/11/10 or something like that O.o
using a "worst case expectation" prediction method it would roughly be 13:6:13. Using a less pessimistic method, I'd guess we'd reach 8+ Terrans, given current winrates at the highest Korean level. Not perfect, but quite above what we have now. This is a totally random number, thrown out by yourself. I could say "given the current trends of strategy and game flow, we´d reach a number of 1 or 2." Would be the same bullshit. Noone can tell, what would happen, but we have a some numbers, that are actually real. And those number show, the 2 least representations of GSL code S history go both to terran with 3 and 4. These are the numbers we have. The current system makes it easier than ever for a balance shift to affect representation numbers in code S. Without having to sit one entire season in code a only, terrams could have gone straight through, but it didn´t happen. You say some terrans underperformed in code A, maybe. Maybe others overperformed in the qualifiers. Noone knows. You say, Flash and Fantasy made horrible mistakes. During the 1-1-1 era, I could tell you stupid mistakes, that were made by protoss side, in every single Terran won game with that strategy. Still this was considered as a time of terran being OP. We had the whining "Protoss can win single games but not championships." We had this from the zerg side too for long. But now, where this is the case for terran, with the representation of terrans in finals during 2014 being the worst ever for a race since HotS release, everything is ok. If you want SC2 being a 2race game, then just admit it. It´s fine if you think so. Because that´s what it is right now. The difference is that I can explain how I got to my number. Yours is just - as you say - random bullshit you have thrown out. Code A+S has 56 spots with this season being distributed as follows: P : T : Z - 24:10:22 Giving those 56 players a way to compete for 32 Code S spots without favoring some (those that were previously Code S) you'd reach something like the numbers I gave. But this is quite pessimistic, given that 8-7-9 players had to make it through a qualifier first and not everybody above them would make it through as well. So an optimistic prognosis should tend more towards this 8-7-9 distribution. Now, assuming that the ones that stayed in Code S or came from Code S should be favored over those coming from the qualifiers, the realistic distribution should be in between 24 : 10 : 22 (6Terrans) and 8 : 7 : 9 (10Terrans). of course it's just a very simple method, still a thousand and one times more accurate than the nothing you present. you assume, that you would have the same ratio coming through a qualifier, when the 24 Code S players dropping down would participate there too. But that´s absolutely ridicoulus, because the quality of Z/P in the player pool of the qualifiers would increase dramatically with those 24 added, while the quality of terrans would remain widely untouched. By simplifying those complex things and making assumptions upon them, you will allways get wrong results. And no, those wrong results are not better than nothing, they are worse. Because assuming something wrong and trying to take consequences out of it is allways worse, than assuming nothing and only take consequences out of the current reality. I already said that this assumption would be too optimistic (and lead to 10Terrans) for exactly the reasons you give as well. Oh, and btw, we just had such a qualifier scenario for the Korean region. With only Zest and soO being seeded for the Global Tournament, the qualified players were 2P-4T-4Z. But if you look at the finalist of each qualifier bracket, you got 5T, 9P, 6Z. For that qualifier specifically, Ps just lost a lot of finals. They actually did quite well overall. yes. I think Terran over and Protoss underperformed in that qualifier, compared to what we should expect. But note how 5/20 (25%) in the bracket finals exactly matches my 8/32 (25%) expectations for how many Terrans we should expect coming from such a qualifier for Code S. It's actually a similar argument for Code A this season: Terrans got a lot of third places. From the 9 Terrans in Code A, there a 3 first places, 0 second places, 5 third places and 1 fourth place. As a weighted average, that makes 2.4444, pretty much the expected 2.5 outcome. They just lost a ton of decider games, some of them just barely. Again, 8/32 wouldn't be perfect still. 4/32 is really worrysome. But Code S seems to be the only place where this is happening like that, and imo math suggests that it - at least to a large degree - has to do with the 80% P>T in Code A from last season. And I really don't see what "patch conclusion for TvZ" we want to draw from flash and fantasy not making it in. Nerf roach warren build time by 5seconds? I hardly think that would change those rushes that flash died to. Buff bunker build time by 5seconds? Is it that what we want, fantasy going through with 2rax regardless whether it is scouted or not? But your expected value of 2.5 is only if you had the top 15-16 of each race playing against each other. For Code A, we had the 2-10 th terrans playing against the 4-20th protoss and zergs. So actually, we should expect the terrans to do better than 2.5. If the balance was supposedly 'fix', this should have been the case, correct? Yes, but I think the competition at the top is very tight and even the "better" player in a match will often not have more than a 5% better winrate than their "worse" opponent. So even then we shouldn't expect a massive shift that goes beyond something like 2.0.
Soulkey is 5% better than Pet?
Rain is 5% better than Tassadar?
Maybe in the current meta, because Rain doesn't have a cheesy bone in his body and cheese is more powerful than ever, and PvP is such a toss up that anyone can beat anyone, and because there's a lot of PvP, shitty Protoss can have inflated stats on the back of that MU alone.
But you can't honestly believe that Rain and players like Tails, Tassadar, Choya, Emotion, Paralyze, Yonghwa are in the same realm of skill. And aside from Rain there's Parting, sOs, herO, Zest... just for Protoss. Glorfindel's got the right of it. If all the Code S players get sent back to requalify, the only Terran I trust to make it out is Maru, full stop. And even then I wouldn't bet $50 on it.
Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 18:16 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 19 2014 17:45 Big J wrote:On April 19 2014 14:09 vthree wrote:On April 19 2014 06:43 Big J wrote:On April 19 2014 06:38 TeeTS wrote:On April 19 2014 06:26 Big J wrote:On April 19 2014 06:08 TeeTS wrote:On April 19 2014 05:12 Big J wrote:On April 19 2014 02:56 Glorfindel! wrote:
[quote]
Sigh...
You dont see the difference with Zerg having 14 Code S-spots? Hyun just won WCS AM.
May I just ask - if there was a new Code S qualifier from scratch, do you believe we would have more than 4 Terrans making it the whole way with the same player pool? Personally I would be suprised if we even reached that.
By your arguments and statistic viewing it sounds like you believe it would be 11/11/10 or something like that O.o
using a "worst case expectation" prediction method it would roughly be 13:6:13. Using a less pessimistic method, I'd guess we'd reach 8+ Terrans, given current winrates at the highest Korean level. Not perfect, but quite above what we have now. This is a totally random number, thrown out by yourself. I could say "given the current trends of strategy and game flow, we´d reach a number of 1 or 2." Would be the same bullshit. Noone can tell, what would happen, but we have a some numbers, that are actually real. And those number show, the 2 least representations of GSL code S history go both to terran with 3 and 4. These are the numbers we have. The current system makes it easier than ever for a balance shift to affect representation numbers in code S. Without having to sit one entire season in code a only, terrams could have gone straight through, but it didn´t happen. You say some terrans underperformed in code A, maybe. Maybe others overperformed in the qualifiers. Noone knows. You say, Flash and Fantasy made horrible mistakes. During the 1-1-1 era, I could tell you stupid mistakes, that were made by protoss side, in every single Terran won game with that strategy. Still this was considered as a time of terran being OP. We had the whining "Protoss can win single games but not championships." We had this from the zerg side too for long. But now, where this is the case for terran, with the representation of terrans in finals during 2014 being the worst ever for a race since HotS release, everything is ok. If you want SC2 being a 2race game, then just admit it. It´s fine if you think so. Because that´s what it is right now. The difference is that I can explain how I got to my number. Yours is just - as you say - random bullshit you have thrown out. Code A+S has 56 spots with this season being distributed as follows: P : T : Z - 24:10:22 Giving those 56 players a way to compete for 32 Code S spots without favoring some (those that were previously Code S) you'd reach something like the numbers I gave. But this is quite pessimistic, given that 8-7-9 players had to make it through a qualifier first and not everybody above them would make it through as well. So an optimistic prognosis should tend more towards this 8-7-9 distribution. Now, assuming that the ones that stayed in Code S or came from Code S should be favored over those coming from the qualifiers, the realistic distribution should be in between 24 : 10 : 22 (6Terrans) and 8 : 7 : 9 (10Terrans). of course it's just a very simple method, still a thousand and one times more accurate than the nothing you present. you assume, that you would have the same ratio coming through a qualifier, when the 24 Code S players dropping down would participate there too. But that´s absolutely ridicoulus, because the quality of Z/P in the player pool of the qualifiers would increase dramatically with those 24 added, while the quality of terrans would remain widely untouched. By simplifying those complex things and making assumptions upon them, you will allways get wrong results. And no, those wrong results are not better than nothing, they are worse. Because assuming something wrong and trying to take consequences out of it is allways worse, than assuming nothing and only take consequences out of the current reality. I already said that this assumption would be too optimistic (and lead to 10Terrans) for exactly the reasons you give as well. Oh, and btw, we just had such a qualifier scenario for the Korean region. With only Zest and soO being seeded for the Global Tournament, the qualified players were 2P-4T-4Z. But if you look at the finalist of each qualifier bracket, you got 5T, 9P, 6Z. For that qualifier specifically, Ps just lost a lot of finals. They actually did quite well overall. yes. I think Terran over and Protoss underperformed in that qualifier, compared to what we should expect. But note how 5/20 (25%) in the bracket finals exactly matches my 8/32 (25%) expectations for how many Terrans we should expect coming from such a qualifier for Code S. It's actually a similar argument for Code A this season: Terrans got a lot of third places. From the 9 Terrans in Code A, there a 3 first places, 0 second places, 5 third places and 1 fourth place. As a weighted average, that makes 2.4444, pretty much the expected 2.5 outcome. They just lost a ton of decider games, some of them just barely. Again, 8/32 wouldn't be perfect still. 4/32 is really worrysome. But Code S seems to be the only place where this is happening like that, and imo math suggests that it - at least to a large degree - has to do with the 80% P>T in Code A from last season. And I really don't see what "patch conclusion for TvZ" we want to draw from flash and fantasy not making it in. Nerf roach warren build time by 5seconds? I hardly think that would change those rushes that flash died to. Buff bunker build time by 5seconds? Is it that what we want, fantasy going through with 2rax regardless whether it is scouted or not? Why would you think that the only things wrong with the TvZ MU are the precise builds Flash and Fantasy died to? I think by this point most non-Terrans will agree that the WM nerf was completely unnecessary. A lot of non-Terrans understood that even when it went live. Reverting the nerf would be by far the easiest fix Blizzard could ever make. It might also be the one thing needed to push non-Raven based mech from weird 'does it work, doesn't it work?' territory into being truly viable in TvZ. I put it like that, because the whole discussion suddenly got started up again due to those games. I think widow mines are fine as they are. I would like to see a small HP nerf on mutas though, they are way too dominant currently in the meta.
I disagree strongly. Although it's possible that both nerfing Muta HP and buffing WM splash would have the exact same effect, and that either of these would solve the balance issue of TvZ, as a spectator I miss the added challenge of Zerg players having to bait out WM shots to keep their Banes alive. What WMs did was force Zerg to micro during engagements the same way Terran has to micro. The WM nerf made engaging much easier for Zerg mechanically, and considering that Terran is already the most mechanically demanding race.......... ............why?
|
I have no idea why you're so hung up on widow mines. There's nothing wrong with them in their current state. They do a reasonable amount of damage, are more "predictable" in their effects, and still can be extremely powerful when properly targeted.
|
and still can be extremely powerful when properly targeted.
During huge engagements v Zs, targeting is not possible. You simply just can't split your army and target every single WM.
So at the current state Zs are just ignoring WMs.
I dont mind leaving WMs as they are, maybe lets add some HP to hellbats so that they can tank more damage.
|
On April 20 2014 00:32 TW wrote:During huge engagements v Zs, targeting is not possible. You simply just can't split your army and target every single WM. So at the current state Zs are just ignoring WMs. I dont mind leaving WMs as they are, maybe lets add some HP to hellbats so that they can tank more damage.
You don't need to target every single one of them? As it stands now they're still cost effective if Z just ignores them and Terran doesn't target them, and they deal more or less damage depending on the level of micro either side commits to them.
And I'd say Hellbats are tanky enough as-is. If anything I'd slightly buff the tank again, but I think the matchup will stabilize on its own without any changes.
|
On April 20 2014 03:00 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 00:32 TW wrote:and still can be extremely powerful when properly targeted. During huge engagements v Zs, targeting is not possible. You simply just can't split your army and target every single WM. So at the current state Zs are just ignoring WMs. I dont mind leaving WMs as they are, maybe lets add some HP to hellbats so that they can tank more damage. You don't need to target every single one of them? As it stands now they're still cost effective if Z just ignores them and Terran doesn't target them, and they deal more or less damage depending on the level of micro either side commits to them. And I'd say Hellbats are tanky enough as-is. If anything I'd slightly buff the tank again, but I think the matchup will stabilize on its own without any changes.
Will stabilize on what Terran composition?
|
Is this the part where we pretend that TvZ hasn't been largely balanced for months?
|
On April 20 2014 03:21 RampancyTW wrote:
Is this the part where we pretend that TvZ hasn't been largely balanced for months?
Is this the part where we pretend that it's a huge coincidence that Innovation used to roll Soulkey's face in macro games, and started losing to everyone immediately after the WM nerf and now has trouble beating a B-lister like Dark?
There's a very simple mathematical formula for figuring out if TvZ is balanced. Is Innovation capable of going 50% vs. Soulkey in a series? If yes, probably balanced. If no, probably not balanced.
|
Snute and Vortix beating best Korean Terrans in macro games. It's like Dayshi beating etc. Roro.
If it wasn't for a 2 rax in a final game, Inno could have lost in another macro game. Im pretty sure he cannot beat Soulkey at least at the current meta.
|
On April 20 2014 03:21 RampancyTW wrote:
Is this the part where we pretend that TvZ hasn't been largely balanced for months?
You obviously haven't followed the games for months.
|
david kim did the same thing to the mine that he did to the ghost in tvz, nerfed it into the ground.
you'd figure he'd learn to tone it down slowly but nope, just decimate it why not
|
On April 19 2014 17:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 14:09 vthree wrote:On April 19 2014 06:43 Big J wrote:On April 19 2014 06:38 TeeTS wrote:On April 19 2014 06:26 Big J wrote:On April 19 2014 06:08 TeeTS wrote:On April 19 2014 05:12 Big J wrote:On April 19 2014 02:56 Glorfindel! wrote:On April 19 2014 01:59 Big J wrote:So TvZ win ratios are in great shape,
I bet if you look at TvP with the same eyes you will see a similar pattern. Then do it. Don't be a lazy smartass and pull out those charts that include a 31-8 for Protoss from the last Code A season, the root of why we have so few Terrans in Code A/S these days. But you are probably one of those guys assuming that with perfect balance, a better player will always make it through regardless of how big of a bracket he has to play to qualify. Little heads up on that, if you only have 2 Terrans coming from Code S into Code A and every other Terran has to qualify from a bigass qualifier tournament, then the amount of Terrans making it into Code A will simply be smaller and same goes for the amount of Terrans that make it through into Code S. The probability to fall out is much higher if flash has to play 10games to qualify, than if he only had to play the 2-3 Code A matches. Hell, if fantasy and flash made it in the amount of Terrans qualified would be quite good, judging from the level they started from (3-->6). And they really did not deserve those spots, because blundering like they did has nothing to do with balance. When any race was low, they also didn't magically double or triple from one season to the next again (it's usually around +2). Even in times of power, races often would hardly grow at all. Terran took a huge blow last season, and now crying for each and everything being grossly imbalanced because recovery is not happening or slowly is just a joke. Go and analyze the big imbalance if you can, stop posting random shit about maps that has no backup. Your deep tournament runs... Zergs have just as many as Terrans. We had 2Zerg and 2Terran finalists to the 10Protoss in the last Premier tournaments. So the whole argument can be made for Zerg as well. And to your little quote... No clue what it has to do with TvZ. Sigh... You dont see the difference with Zerg having 14 Code S-spots? Hyun just won WCS AM. May I just ask - if there was a new Code S qualifier from scratch, do you believe we would have more than 4 Terrans making it the whole way with the same player pool? Personally I would be suprised if we even reached that. By your arguments and statistic viewing it sounds like you believe it would be 11/11/10 or something like that O.o using a "worst case expectation" prediction method it would roughly be 13:6:13. Using a less pessimistic method, I'd guess we'd reach 8+ Terrans, given current winrates at the highest Korean level. Not perfect, but quite above what we have now. This is a totally random number, thrown out by yourself. I could say "given the current trends of strategy and game flow, we´d reach a number of 1 or 2." Would be the same bullshit. Noone can tell, what would happen, but we have a some numbers, that are actually real. And those number show, the 2 least representations of GSL code S history go both to terran with 3 and 4. These are the numbers we have. The current system makes it easier than ever for a balance shift to affect representation numbers in code S. Without having to sit one entire season in code a only, terrams could have gone straight through, but it didn´t happen. You say some terrans underperformed in code A, maybe. Maybe others overperformed in the qualifiers. Noone knows. You say, Flash and Fantasy made horrible mistakes. During the 1-1-1 era, I could tell you stupid mistakes, that were made by protoss side, in every single Terran won game with that strategy. Still this was considered as a time of terran being OP. We had the whining "Protoss can win single games but not championships." We had this from the zerg side too for long. But now, where this is the case for terran, with the representation of terrans in finals during 2014 being the worst ever for a race since HotS release, everything is ok. If you want SC2 being a 2race game, then just admit it. It´s fine if you think so. Because that´s what it is right now. The difference is that I can explain how I got to my number. Yours is just - as you say - random bullshit you have thrown out. Code A+S has 56 spots with this season being distributed as follows: P : T : Z - 24:10:22 Giving those 56 players a way to compete for 32 Code S spots without favoring some (those that were previously Code S) you'd reach something like the numbers I gave. But this is quite pessimistic, given that 8-7-9 players had to make it through a qualifier first and not everybody above them would make it through as well. So an optimistic prognosis should tend more towards this 8-7-9 distribution. Now, assuming that the ones that stayed in Code S or came from Code S should be favored over those coming from the qualifiers, the realistic distribution should be in between 24 : 10 : 22 (6Terrans) and 8 : 7 : 9 (10Terrans). of course it's just a very simple method, still a thousand and one times more accurate than the nothing you present. you assume, that you would have the same ratio coming through a qualifier, when the 24 Code S players dropping down would participate there too. But that´s absolutely ridicoulus, because the quality of Z/P in the player pool of the qualifiers would increase dramatically with those 24 added, while the quality of terrans would remain widely untouched. By simplifying those complex things and making assumptions upon them, you will allways get wrong results. And no, those wrong results are not better than nothing, they are worse. Because assuming something wrong and trying to take consequences out of it is allways worse, than assuming nothing and only take consequences out of the current reality. I already said that this assumption would be too optimistic (and lead to 10Terrans) for exactly the reasons you give as well. Oh, and btw, we just had such a qualifier scenario for the Korean region. With only Zest and soO being seeded for the Global Tournament, the qualified players were 2P-4T-4Z. But if you look at the finalist of each qualifier bracket, you got 5T, 9P, 6Z. For that qualifier specifically, Ps just lost a lot of finals. They actually did quite well overall. yes. I think Terran over and Protoss underperformed in that qualifier, compared to what we should expect. But note how 5/20 (25%) in the bracket finals exactly matches my 8/32 (25%) expectations for how many Terrans we should expect coming from such a qualifier for Code S. It's actually a similar argument for Code A this season: Terrans got a lot of third places. From the 9 Terrans in Code A, there a 3 first places, 0 second places, 5 third places and 1 fourth place. As a weighted average, that makes 2.4444, pretty much the expected 2.5 outcome. They just lost a ton of decider games, some of them just barely. Again, 8/32 wouldn't be perfect still. 4/32 is really worrysome. But Code S seems to be the only place where this is happening like that, and imo math suggests that it - at least to a large degree - has to do with the 80% P>T in Code A from last season. And I really don't see what "patch conclusion for TvZ" we want to draw from flash and fantasy not making it in. Nerf roach warren build time by 5seconds? I hardly think that would change those rushes that flash died to. Buff bunker build time by 5seconds? Is it that what we want, fantasy going through with 2rax regardless whether it is scouted or not?
I think we agree that T is underrepresented at the moment, not only in Code S, mind you, but everywhere taken together. We just don't see as many T players in tournaments, and definitely not in the higher stages. This is best represented by the amount of TvT mirror matches compared to PvP and especially ZvZ.
I think we also agree that we need a period of T dominance just to get even numbers of players into Code S again. If T goes 50% against all races in the next months, it will end up always having 3-4 players in Code S.
The reason why this isn't happening is to do with the current balance in the meta. Due to WM nerfs and mech having major vulnerabilities still, T players are forced to play overly greedy. If they play the greediest they possibly can (I'll cite Libo here: `playing on bigger maps doesn't benefit terrans because they are already playing the greediest they possibly can on every map'), they merely end up even with P or Z in the midgame (and behind if they don't do damage then). If they play safer, they end up behind in the midgame. This means that T players are forced into high risk builds (super greed or cheese) every game, making every MU more volatile. This also means that fantastic players like Flash and TY lose to players who they should not be losing to on paper, and they do so consistently. Lesser T players lose a lot of games all the time, because their own mistakes make the riskier plays suicide.
|
On April 19 2014 06:08 TeeTS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 05:12 Big J wrote:On April 19 2014 02:56 Glorfindel! wrote:On April 19 2014 01:59 Big J wrote:So TvZ win ratios are in great shape,
I bet if you look at TvP with the same eyes you will see a similar pattern. Then do it. Don't be a lazy smartass and pull out those charts that include a 31-8 for Protoss from the last Code A season, the root of why we have so few Terrans in Code A/S these days. But you are probably one of those guys assuming that with perfect balance, a better player will always make it through regardless of how big of a bracket he has to play to qualify. Little heads up on that, if you only have 2 Terrans coming from Code S into Code A and every other Terran has to qualify from a bigass qualifier tournament, then the amount of Terrans making it into Code A will simply be smaller and same goes for the amount of Terrans that make it through into Code S. The probability to fall out is much higher if flash has to play 10games to qualify, than if he only had to play the 2-3 Code A matches. Hell, if fantasy and flash made it in the amount of Terrans qualified would be quite good, judging from the level they started from (3-->6). And they really did not deserve those spots, because blundering like they did has nothing to do with balance. When any race was low, they also didn't magically double or triple from one season to the next again (it's usually around +2). Even in times of power, races often would hardly grow at all. Terran took a huge blow last season, and now crying for each and everything being grossly imbalanced because recovery is not happening or slowly is just a joke. Go and analyze the big imbalance if you can, stop posting random shit about maps that has no backup. Your deep tournament runs... Zergs have just as many as Terrans. We had 2Zerg and 2Terran finalists to the 10Protoss in the last Premier tournaments. So the whole argument can be made for Zerg as well. And to your little quote... No clue what it has to do with TvZ. Sigh... You dont see the difference with Zerg having 14 Code S-spots? Hyun just won WCS AM. May I just ask - if there was a new Code S qualifier from scratch, do you believe we would have more than 4 Terrans making it the whole way with the same player pool? Personally I would be suprised if we even reached that. By your arguments and statistic viewing it sounds like you believe it would be 11/11/10 or something like that O.o using a "worst case expectation" prediction method it would roughly be 13:6:13. Using a less pessimistic method, I'd guess we'd reach 8+ Terrans, given current winrates at the highest Korean level. Not perfect, but quite above what we have now. This is a totally random number, thrown out by yourself. I could say "given the current trends of strategy and game flow, we´d reach a number of 1 or 2." Would be the same bullshit. Noone can tell, what would happen, but we have a some numbers, that are actually real. And those number show, the 2 least representations of GSL code S history go both to terran with 3 and 4. These are the numbers we have. The current system makes it easier than ever for a balance shift to affect representation numbers in code S. Without having to sit one entire season in code a only, terrams could have gone straight through, but it didn´t happen. You say some terrans underperformed in code A, maybe. Maybe others overperformed in the qualifiers. Noone knows. You say, Flash and Fantasy made horrible mistakes . During the 1-1-1 era, I could tell you stupid mistakes, that were made by protoss side, in every single Terran won game with that strategy. Still this was considered as a time of terran being OP. We had the whining "Protoss can win single games but not championships." We had this from the zerg side too for long. But now, where this is the case for terran, with the representation of terrans in finals during 2014 being the worst ever for a race since HotS release, everything is ok. If you want SC2 being a 2race game, then just admit it. It´s fine if you think so. Because that´s what it is right now.
Interesting that your're commenting now at all then.
|
There is also another problem for Terrans - the bigger the map the more problems T has.
Zergs have very fast and mobile army, P can warp in, what can T do?
Lets say T wins an engagement near his opponent base, he needs just a little reinforcements to end the game, but wait? since the maps are so big, by the time his new army reaches the opposite side of the map, both P and Z can already rebuild their armies.
This is also the reason why buffing tanks after WM nerfs would never work, they are just to immobile.
|
On April 19 2014 13:56 Mutineer wrote:
What all people who quate win rate between races do not understand, win rate does not indicate ballance, it indicate change.
Why? Because if one race stronger then other then if on ladder, one race will start to drop it's mmr and mmr of second race will start to increase until win rate balanced on 50%. The same try for competitions. One race start to drop until it will play easier opponents. At the end win rate again stop at 50%.
What REAL indicator of balance is race representation on top level. If one race underrepresented, that mean it fall down until only absolutly best members of that race can compete on this level.
This guy gets it.
|
On April 20 2014 19:31 llaMWell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 13:56 Mutineer wrote:
What all people who quate win rate between races do not understand, win rate does not indicate ballance, it indicate change.
Why? Because if one race stronger then other then if on ladder, one race will start to drop it's mmr and mmr of second race will start to increase until win rate balanced on 50%. The same try for competitions. One race start to drop until it will play easier opponents. At the end win rate again stop at 50%.
What REAL indicator of balance is race representation on top level. If one race underrepresented, that mean it fall down until only absolutly best members of that race can compete on this level. This guy gets it.
I've said this so often, but most people don't seem to (want to) get it.
|
On April 20 2014 19:34 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 19:31 llaMWell wrote:On April 19 2014 13:56 Mutineer wrote:
What all people who quate win rate between races do not understand, win rate does not indicate ballance, it indicate change.
Why? Because if one race stronger then other then if on ladder, one race will start to drop it's mmr and mmr of second race will start to increase until win rate balanced on 50%. The same try for competitions. One race start to drop until it will play easier opponents. At the end win rate again stop at 50%.
What REAL indicator of balance is race representation on top level. If one race underrepresented, that mean it fall down until only absolutly best members of that race can compete on this level. This guy gets it. I've said this so often, but most people don't seem to (want to) get it.
One place where I believe win rates would be relevant though, is Proleague, seeing as the players don't have to qualify. Is there anywhere one can find the statistics from there?
|
On April 20 2014 19:50 llaMWell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 19:34 SC2Toastie wrote:On April 20 2014 19:31 llaMWell wrote:On April 19 2014 13:56 Mutineer wrote:
What all people who quate win rate between races do not understand, win rate does not indicate ballance, it indicate change.
Why? Because if one race stronger then other then if on ladder, one race will start to drop it's mmr and mmr of second race will start to increase until win rate balanced on 50%. The same try for competitions. One race start to drop until it will play easier opponents. At the end win rate again stop at 50%.
What REAL indicator of balance is race representation on top level. If one race underrepresented, that mean it fall down until only absolutly best members of that race can compete on this level. This guy gets it. I've said this so often, but most people don't seem to (want to) get it. One place where I believe win rates would be relevant though, is Proleague, seeing as the players don't have to qualify. Is there anywhere one can find the statistics from there?
They have to qualify from their team internal tournament, so we still have same problem. That's why proleague is PvProleague in the first two rounds.
|
On April 20 2014 20:12 imrusty269 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 19:50 llaMWell wrote:On April 20 2014 19:34 SC2Toastie wrote:On April 20 2014 19:31 llaMWell wrote:On April 19 2014 13:56 Mutineer wrote:
What all people who quate win rate between races do not understand, win rate does not indicate ballance, it indicate change.
Why? Because if one race stronger then other then if on ladder, one race will start to drop it's mmr and mmr of second race will start to increase until win rate balanced on 50%. The same try for competitions. One race start to drop until it will play easier opponents. At the end win rate again stop at 50%.
What REAL indicator of balance is race representation on top level. If one race underrepresented, that mean it fall down until only absolutly best members of that race can compete on this level. This guy gets it. I've said this so often, but most people don't seem to (want to) get it. One place where I believe win rates would be relevant though, is Proleague, seeing as the players don't have to qualify. Is there anywhere one can find the statistics from there? They have to qualify from their team internal tournament, so we still have same problem. That's why proleague is PvProleague in the first two rounds.
Proleague also has the problem that the maps don´t have to be balanced so this will affect what race is send to play on specific map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
