|
On September 20 2011 09:33 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:28 imareaver3 wrote:On September 20 2011 09:15 Dalavita wrote:I want to dig out some year old posts stating that once zergs figured out how to play they would start smashing everyone else. Only took about a year, but we got there. Edit: But honestly, the ridiculous curves that don't have any semblance of stability should show that you cannot be serious trying to pull race imbalances based on the top korean progamers. Sick Individual players like Nestea, MVP and MC can have to much sway in statistics like this, and if for whatever reason one race has more of those players, that race will end up dominating the statistics. Expecting a perfect three way split at the Code S level would be insane. Completely meaningless. 233 games played in August. Of those, roughly 2/9 were PvZ (2/3 non-mirrors, 1/3 of non-mirrors PvZ). (2/9)(233) is roughly 52. Now, it's 59-41 in Zerg's favor, that means the games are roughly 21 to 31. That's an absurdly small sample size, especially when you consider that most of the PvZ's in last GSL were complete walkovers--in favor of the Z (Foreigners vs. Koreans, DRG vs. Inca, etc. Look at my previous post) Like, you can't draw any conclusions from something like that. TvZ is even worse, the probably result was 25-27, which could mean anything. Sorry. Were you agreeing with me? I don't understand what you're trying to get at. I did state that trying to get any balance data off the Code S/A level korean players would be pointless because of the small sample size and differences made by individual gosus.
Okay, somehow I managed to quote you including your edit without reading your edit. No idea how that happened...
Yeah, you're right.
and ZvP got infestors a slighty nerf in fungal and a good nerf in neural, a nerf to blink (easier to use mutas) and a buff to ultras, I don't think it's helping tbh TT
And a range increase on immortals, and a health buff to warp prisms. Those two are pretty big changes. I'm really scared of Hero-style of zealot drop harass now...
|
The results of this graph show clear imbalance by Terran Race.
(which is obvious, but many seem to deny it (blizzard even @most)
In a balanced game one race should never be able to dominate for long times, sure there might be outburst of some weeks or month but those will change quickly by metagame changing.
Despite all this Terran always has positiv winrates Winrates (over 50%).
Blizzard states that winrates between close to 50% means the game is balanced, which is blatantly false.
Simple analogy:
If you play roulette, where your win rate odd is slightly in favor of the bank.
meaning the bank has slightly higher win chance than 50%.
What does this ensure (in the world of statistics)?
In the long run the bank will always win more and get all your money.
What does this analogy says to us is that if one race keeps positiv winrates over both other races for a very long time?
They will start to dominate the others, GSL is a prime example for that.
Why Blizzards balance logic fails is they do not that winrates close to 50% are balanced, but real fluctuations of allraces between 45-55% are what would show real balance.
But if we look at terran winrates in the long run we see there was never such fluctuation <50%, which clearly indicates imbalances in the game. (meaning either Terran is too strong, or both Zerg and Protoss are too weak)
People will now say but Zerg and Protoss are winning too (i.e. gsl), over all it wasn't even enough to keep Terran down over a big dataset (as the winrates clearly shows us for a very long time know)
If you play a gambling game, sure you will sometimes win, that doesn't mean that roulette is a "fair" game.
long story short,
- Both Zerg and Protoss race needs redesigns. ( or Terran needs quite some nerfs)
- Winrates need to change for all races from 45%-55% for game to be considered balanced
- If one races can keep winrates 50%> despite all this
- this is a clear sign of imbalance
|
I expected protoss to actually be a lot lower given all the protoss qq, I'd say the game is currently relatively balanced, we'll see how balanced the game is next month with this new patch.
|
On September 05 2011 20:33 Truedot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2011 20:29 Entropic wrote:
I like to think that this recent trend in the TvZ matchup converging to 50% is due to the new GSL maps which have been and look to be good for zergs (crossfire, dual sight, bel shir beach, daybreak).
People aren't looking at maps nearly enough I think. maps should never make or break a race. All races should have the tools to take advantage of maps or minimize their disadvantage of specific parts of maps. To say that the map makes a difference inherently implies that, in a vacuum, races are imbalanced. After all, trying to make maps that balance the races is like putting your finger in a dike. eventually it still breaks because the root problem isnt being dealt with.
I find this hard to swallow for the simple reason that map balancing is arguably what made BW as balanced as it is.
|
On September 08 2011 09:39 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 05:31 Whiplash wrote:On September 08 2011 05:28 lizzard_warish wrote:
Well hopefully the infester nerf will do SOMETHING in regards to pvz imbalance. It's not a huge change tbh I like it more as a design change than a balance change. Fungal damage may not be broken, but the philosophy of 'infestors all day err'day' certainly is. Something along the lines of a small cost increase would be ideal, but the nerf accomplishes the same thing.
Unfortunately, I don't think it does. Infestors still kill staple Protoss units in the same # of fungals pre-patch.
|
On September 22 2011 05:39 freetgy wrote:
The results of this graph show clear imbalance by Terran Race.
(which is obvious, but many seem to deny it (blizzard even @most)
In a balanced game one race should never be able to dominate for long times, sure there might be outburst of some weeks or month but those will change quickly by metagame changing.
Despite all this Terran always has positiv winrates Winrates (over 50%).
Blizzard states that winrates between close to 50% means the game is balanced, which is blatantly false.
Simple analogy:
If you play roulette, where your win rate odd is slightly in favor of the bank.
meaning the bank has slightly higher win chance than 50%.
What does this ensure (in the world of statistics)?
In the long run the bank will always win more and get all your money.
What does this analogy says to us is that if one race keeps positiv winrates over both other races for a very long time?
They will start to dominate the others, GSL is a prime example for that.
Why Blizzards balance logic fails is they do not that winrates close to 50% are balanced, but real fluctuations of allraces between 45-55% are what would show real balance.
But if we look at terran winrates in the long run we see there was never such fluctuation <50%, which clearly indicates imbalances in the game. (meaning either Terran is too strong, or both Zerg and Protoss are too weak)
People will now say but Zerg and Protoss are winning too (i.e. gsl), over all it wasn't even enough to keep Terran down over a big dataset (as the winrates clearly shows us for a very long time know)
If you play a gambling game, sure you will sometimes win, that doesn't mean that roulette is a "fair" game.
long story short,
- Both Zerg and Protoss race needs redesigns. ( or Terran needs quite some nerfs)
- Winrates need to change for all races from 45%-55% for game to be considered balanced
- If one races can keep winrates 50%> despite all this
- this is a clear sign of imbalance
It's always been weird to me too that all the changes (nerfs mostly) historically have been hitting Zerg/Protoss while Terran escapes relatively unscathed (bunker change lol) patch after patch when it's so clear that Terran is the best race or in Blizzard's own words "the race with the most options". They really need to curb Terran though and hopefully soon. =/
Also, Protoss win rates are much higher than expected. Given the QQ lately, you'd think it would be much lower... but alas, TvP is the most imbalanced matchup of all.
|
Here is the Korean August Graph that was just released a couple of days ago.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HvaeL.png)
|
On September 22 2011 05:39 freetgy wrote:
The results of this graph show clear imbalance by Terran Race.
(which is obvious, but many seem to deny it (blizzard even @most)
In a balanced game one race should never be able to dominate for long times, sure there might be outburst of some weeks or month but those will change quickly by metagame changing.
Despite all this Terran always has positiv winrates Winrates (over 50%).
Blizzard states that winrates between close to 50% means the game is balanced, which is blatantly false.
Simple analogy:
If you play roulette, where your win rate odd is slightly in favor of the bank.
meaning the bank has slightly higher win chance than 50%.
What does this ensure (in the world of statistics)?
In the long run the bank will always win more and get all your money.
What does this analogy says to us is that if one race keeps positiv winrates over both other races for a very long time?
They will start to dominate the others, GSL is a prime example for that.
Why Blizzards balance logic fails is they do not that winrates close to 50% are balanced, but real fluctuations of allraces between 45-55% are what would show real balance.
But if we look at terran winrates in the long run we see there was never such fluctuation <50%, which clearly indicates imbalances in the game. (meaning either Terran is too strong, or both Zerg and Protoss are too weak)
People will now say but Zerg and Protoss are winning too (i.e. gsl), over all it wasn't even enough to keep Terran down over a big dataset (as the winrates clearly shows us for a very long time know)
If you play a gambling game, sure you will sometimes win, that doesn't mean that roulette is a "fair" game.
long story short,
- Both Zerg and Protoss race needs redesigns. ( or Terran needs quite some nerfs)
- Winrates need to change for all races from 45%-55% for game to be considered balanced
- If one races can keep winrates 50%> despite all this
- this is a clear sign of imbalance
Your logic doesn't take into consideration that maybe Terran has the best players/most talented players playing that race (not saying it does, just giving an example). Imagine, SC2 with 5 Players playing as good as Flash and only 1 Zerg playing at the level of Jaedong.
Another serious question, how many of the players who switched from BW to SC2 are currently playing Terran, vs Zerg or Protoss?
Besides said case, Terran and Protoss have by far the largest # of people playing said race, IIRC sc2ranks had around 290,000 people for T, 280,000 for P, and 210,000 for Zerg (these are the number of active players in leagues currently). Wouldn't that mean there is a higher probability for more skilled players for T and P, and yet, Z is so close to surpassing T in win ratio and already has surpassed P currently?
|
On September 22 2011 05:39 freetgy wrote:
jizz
the only important winrates are the ones with the patch we are playing at the moment. you cant just nerf terran becuz they were very strong when the game came out and say "herp derp, the games balanced when terrans under 45& for like 5 months". the goal should always be the 50-50-50 regardless of the past. it simply does NOT matter.
also i dont see why sooo many ppl QQ, get emotional and wish for fast "fixes". just because t is strong in the highest ranks of korea doesnt mean its imbalanced in your average platleague.
edit: lol new graphs wtf. i like the looks of it.
|
because gamebalance is discussed on the highest level of play obviously.
And the past definitly matter surely not minor balance changes that are some sort of quick changes.
there seem to be fundamental flaws in both Zerg and Protoss race design which Terran luckily does not seem to have.
This needs to be sorted out by Blizzard quickly, though i doubt this will be doable by small steps like blizzard does.
|
On September 22 2011 06:22 freetgy wrote:
because gamebalance is discussed on the highest level of play obviously.
correct. but why do ppl get emotional? becuz they think, that they suck bcuz of balance issues and just want an easier life on ladder.
|
On September 22 2011 06:24 harhar! wrote:
correct. but why do ppl get emotional? becuz they think, that they suck bcuz of balance issues and just want an easier life on ladder.
just because imbalance is not the whole reason someone lost doesn't mean it didn't play any role. (in how he approached the game)
What people want is actually pretty simple.
If i know the strategy of a player and can't defend it despite knowing what it comes alot earlier this game isn't designed well.
This only becomes worse, if you have to add even strategies that are unscoutable.
|
The point is that people do not like watching the highest level of play being so one-sided. It should be a triangle!
|
On September 22 2011 06:18 SniXSniPe wrote:
Your logic doesn't take into consideration that maybe Terran has the best players/most talented players playing that race (not saying it does, just giving an example). Imagine, SC2 with 5 Players playing as good as Flash and only 1 Zerg playing at the level of Jaedong.
This is honestly something a lot of people don't think about. There are obviously limits to how skewed a race can be, but you can't expect equal numbers. If this game is supposed to be about the best players winning, it's almost impossible that the best players are going to be evenly distributed among all three races. It's far more likely that one or two races are going to be skewed, otherwise it's admitting this game doesn't take skill and is a matter of making each matchup a 50/50 coinflip.
The same thing can be said about GSL race distribution being skewed. Starcraft isn't supposed to be reaching quotas, it's having the best players win.
|
On September 22 2011 06:31 SolidMoose wrote:
This is honestly something a lot of people don't think about. There are obviously limits to how skewed a race can be, but you can't expect equal numbers. If this game is supposed to be about the best players winning, it's almost impossible that the best players are going to be evenly distributed among all three races. It's far more likely that one or two races are going to be skewed, otherwise it's admitting this game doesn't take skill and is a matter of making each matchup a 50/50 coinflip.
The same thing can be said about GSL race distribution being skewed. Starcraft isn't supposed to be reaching quotas, it's having the best players win.
this argument is scewed because you will never be able to decide whether it was imbalance or the players skill that made the difference.
Using this argument is nonsense, but what we clearly see is that Terran has "complete" design while Zerg and Protoss do not.
Which is one form of imbalance.
Would you call a game balanced in the future if everyone was playing terran in the end? obviously not.
If you would recommend someone who want to become pro which race he should play?
This would obviously be Terran, if the game was balanced, there shouldn't be a race to recommend.
|
On September 22 2011 06:31 SolidMoose wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 06:18 SniXSniPe wrote:
Your logic doesn't take into consideration that maybe Terran has the best players/most talented players playing that race (not saying it does, just giving an example). Imagine, SC2 with 5 Players playing as good as Flash and only 1 Zerg playing at the level of Jaedong.
This is honestly something a lot of people don't think about. There are obviously limits to how skewed a race can be, but you can't expect equal numbers. If this game is supposed to be about the best players winning, it's almost impossible that the best players are going to be evenly distributed among all three races. It's far more likely that one or two races are going to be skewed, otherwise it's admitting this game doesn't take skill and is a matter of making each matchup a 50/50 coinflip. The same thing can be said about GSL race distribution being skewed. Starcraft isn't supposed to be reaching quotas, it's having the best players win.
No one expects equal numbers, but the fact that over 90% of GSL games played last season included a terran is a bit too unequal to be purely random. The problem is that even Blizzard has admitted that terran is the most complete race. When anyone who wants to make their livelihood playing SC2 joins the scene, what race do you think they will choose? Terran! It gives them the best chance to win right now. Therefore even if more of the skilled players are choosing terran, it just shows that they think it gives them greatest opportunity to succeed, meaning the game is not balanced well enough.
|
On September 22 2011 06:26 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 06:24 harhar! wrote:
correct. but why do ppl get emotional? becuz they think, that they suck bcuz of balance issues and just want an easier life on ladder. just because imbalance is not the whole reason someone lost doesn't mean it didn't play any role. (in how he approached the game) What people want is actually pretty simple. If i know the strategy of a player and can't defend it despite knowing what it comes alot earlier this game isn't designed well. This only becomes worse, if you have to add even strategies that are unscoutable.
you cant derive it 1to1 from the pros performance though. im sure there are plenty of imbalances in all the leagues and in some skillclasses one race and in the other another is strong.
so you have 0% winpercentage against those strats? seems like your doing something wrong, cuz it should match you to players with equal success on ladder.
|
On September 22 2011 06:42 harhar! wrote:
you cant derive it 1to1 from the pros performance though. im sure there are plenty of imbalances in all the leagues and in some skillclasses one race and in the other another is strong.
so you have 0% winpercentage against those strats? seems like your doing something wrong, cuz it should match you to players with equal success on ladder.
obviously there is no 100% definit way to measure imbalance, even a seemingly 50-50 matchup can be imbalanced.
even mirros as odd as this sounds (it all comes down to design)
But there are many indicators, and one of them of course is the highest level of play,
|
I can see why people get upset and a bit emotional, and its mostly a self-feeding system.
Unfortunately, getting the game patched in your race's favor seems to be a function of winning public opinion, and the past really does play a role in that. If you 'Used to be OP' then its much harder to argue you're now weaker. If you 'Used to be UP' then you can continue to play the victim even when you're fixed.
People also tend to find their match-ups very imbalanced... if you're 65% wins in your mirror matchup, 55% in say, PvT, but 35% PvZ....you're going to to be thinking that this one this is holding you back unfairly.
There's also the question of 'Burden' at any given time. If whatever, say Zerg pro players are doing is something you can copy and it works very well...for instance a lot of Destiny builds, or the Spanishiwa type builds....it's totally innovative, but it's very easy to copy it.
Compare it to say, the response innovations...which would be Mass Phoenixes, or Warp Prism microing HTs or even Mass Blink Stalkers...
They aren't easy to copy. Using 15 Phoenix to pick up Hydras is difficult. Blinking 30 stalkers individually is difficult. Its not something your average Plat player can do.
So there's a burden on one race of 'It's your turn to innovate'
And there's also the burden where while one race's strategy may require Skill level X to execute, the response may require Skill level X+50 to do.
My personal emotional response to it comes largely from the actual spectator side of things.
I just don't want to watch TvTs, and in my experience...nobody wants to watch TvTs.
So when every MLG or GSL comes down to 'Which of these top 4 Terrans is going to win?'
and 20 out of 32 players in Code S are Terran...I just lose interest. I don't want to watch that.
So to me its frustrating to watch yet another patch hit without truly doing anything to slow down the Terran juggernaut.
I have a winning record myself vs Terran, but that's at Diamond level...there's clearly clearly something wrong at the high level, so when you see another patch come out that doesn't address fundamental issues with Terran...that's frustrating because you know at this point you may be waiting for HoTS to see another change, and if we end up with 28 Code S Terrans in the mean time, its just really damaging to the game.
So I do understand people getting very frustrated and emotional over it.
|
its not hard to see terran is a phenomal race, more designed and refined. I'm not sure why anyone is arguing the game is balanced right now when clearly Terran is a total package while the other races are works in progress. The sheer options Terran has is astounding in comparison, the units are better and good players are going to show it.
feels bad that we're playing a game and sponsoring players and hosting tournaments for an incomplete game. however even in its current form it's the 'best' option for an RTS esport in the west.
I guess I just feel emo because I don't really like the direction the game is headed and while the community is fucking outstanding the game is developing into a let down. I find myself looking more forward to diablo 3 and dota 2 than HoTS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
