EPTSince all percentages from July changed from [July] to [Aug] I´m quite sure the stats got combined. No seperation for International and Korea.
If I´m wrong please tell me!
[Aug] TLPD Race Winrate Graphs - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Hondelul
1999 Posts
Since all percentages from July changed from [July] to [Aug] I´m quite sure the stats got combined. No seperation for International and Korea. If I´m wrong please tell me! | ||
|
SwampZero
Greece350 Posts
because the racial graphs are from 800 game samples. Which is pretty small. | ||
|
GLLvz
Norway122 Posts
On September 05 2011 19:32 Zeon0 wrote: Korean also means even less, cause of the small sample size. A single player can mess up the whole graph, if he has a good run. well if u combine both last month and this month, u get a decent sample size. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:09 Yaotzin wrote: If the unknown Terrans qualified..well..that would be just evidence that the problem is worse than it appears, obviously. If top 10 Protoss/Zerg players can't even get in Code A...thankfully this didn't happen. God forbid people qualify based on skill instead of being known. | ||
|
icarly
United States400 Posts
On September 05 2011 19:20 SwampZero wrote: Never once in the history of Starcraft II were zerg winning more than terran in TvZ ... Good. The human race is superior to Zerg scum. | ||
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
On September 05 2011 19:20 SwampZero wrote: Never once in the history of Starcraft II were zerg winning more than terran in TvZ ... It's now 2% difference, which is VERY close to balanced imo. TvP grap is thanks to the 1 1 1. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:19 Numy wrote: God forbid people qualify based on skill instead of being known. Right, so if GSL is hugely lopsided to Terrans, it's just because they're all better. It could *never* be imbalanced. I don't understand why people so hate the idea that the game just might be imbalanced. What are you proposing, that Terran players are all consistently more skilled than Zerg and Protoss players? Seriously? It's far more likely that they're just playing a race that's stronger. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:24 Yaotzin wrote: Right, so if GSL is hugely lopsided to Terrans, it's just because they're all better. It could *never* be imbalanced. I don't understand why people so hate the idea that the game just might be imbalanced. What are you proposing, that Terran players are all consistently more skilled than Zerg and Protoss players? Seriously? It's far more likely that they're just playing a race that's stronger. I'm merely saying being unknown doesn't relate to balance. There is no metric to judge imbalance and thus it's almost impossible to prove. Hence why many ignore it and focus on the game. | ||
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:24 Yaotzin wrote: Right, so if GSL is hugely lopsided to Terrans, it's just because they're all better. It could *never* be imbalanced. I don't understand why people so hate the idea that the game just might be imbalanced. What are you proposing, that Terran players are all consistently more skilled than Zerg and Protoss players? Seriously? It's far more likely that they're just playing a race that's stronger. It has been said 10000 times: Terran is a finnished race, protoss and zerg are not. It has nothing to do with imbalance. | ||
|
Tsubbi
Germany7996 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:26 Snowbear wrote: It has been said 10000 times: Terran is a finnished race, protoss and zerg are not. It has nothing to do with imbalance. i can't understand this attitude, balancing the game is a very hard task, but small tweaks could be made very easily without breaking the game, like decresing marine fire rate by 5% or decreasing mule mining by 5, then see what happens | ||
|
Entropic
Canada2837 Posts
People aren't looking at maps nearly enough I think. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:29 Tsubbi wrote: i can't understand this attitude, balancing the game is a very hard task, but small tweaks could be made very easily without breaking the game, like decresing marine fire rate by 5% or decreasing mule mining by 5, then see what happens It stands to reason that if Terran are closer to completion it would be better to bring other races to their level than weaken the race closer to completion and thus have an all round weak game. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:25 Numy wrote: I'm merely saying being unknown doesn't relate to balance. There is no metric to judge imbalance and thus it's almost impossible to prove. Hence why many ignore it and focus on the game. The metric to judge imbalance is statistics. When they are consistently in favor of one race for a full year, that race is too strong. It has been said 10000 times: Terran is a finnished race, protoss and zerg are not. It has nothing to do with imbalance. Never understood what this is supposed to mean, frankly. That Terran has more strong/viable options? If so that simply means they're too strong, not that they're "complete". Regardless of what it means, if the flaw is in the game design, that does not detract from the result of imbalance. If Zerg and Protoss need to be "finished", that can only happen in an expansion. In the meantime nerfs/buffs are needed to allow the game to be as competitive as possible. | ||
|
Tsubbi
Germany7996 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:30 Numy wrote: It stands to reason that if Terran are closer to completion it would be better to bring other races to their level than weaken the race closer to completion and thus have an all round weak game. i agree, but these huge (game design) changes will come with the addons, don't get why other tweaks cannot be made before to adjust win percentages | ||
|
sitromit
7051 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:26 Snowbear wrote: It has been said 10000 times: Terran is a finnished race, protoss and zerg are not. It has nothing to do with imbalance. So unfinished means they must be weaker and Terran must be stronger, no? Isn't this the definition of imbalance? | ||
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:29 Tsubbi wrote: i can't understand this attitude, balancing the game is a very hard task, but small tweaks could be made very easily without breaking the game, like decresing marine fire rate by 5% or decreasing mule mining by 5, then see what happens No, it's not possible to nerf marines, same for marauders. If you knew terran, they you knew that there is no lategame unit. Blizzard is known for making balanced games, so do you really think they won't nerf something when it's possible? For example: TvP lategame is impossible for terran, but blizzard can't change this. Why not? Because buffing one of the "supposed" lategame units (like thors, ravens or BC's) would make them too good medgame. The result is that thors, ravens and BC's get demolished lategame, so terrans have to rely on MMM, ghosts and vikings. This is tier 1,5- tier 2 and it's normal that the protoss tier 3 destroys this. Can blizzard do something about this? No. Can they nerf the marine? No. | ||
|
Truedot
444 Posts
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. | ||
|
Truedot
444 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:33 Snowbear wrote: No, it's not possible to nerf marines, same for marauders. If you knew terran, they you knew that there is no lategame unit. Blizzard is known for making balanced games, so do you really think they won't nerf something when it's possible? For example: TvP lategame is impossible for terran, but blizzard can't change this. Why not? Because buffing one of the "supposed" lategame units (like thors, ravens or BC's) would make them too good medgame. The result is that thors, ravens and BC's get demolished lategame, so terrans have to rely on MMM, ghosts and vikings. This is tier 1,5- tier 2 and it's normal that the protoss tier 3 destroys this. Can blizzard do something about this? No. Can they nerf the marine? No. so you're saying there's a fundamental design flaw with the game. Im pretty sure a patch can add an additional unit. See it all the time in Eve Online, where "expansions" are free. its not that hard to give us the solution now instead of forcing customers to pay even more money to fix a broken game. How would you like to buy a computer that was given to you as "complete" only to have it break down and you need to replace some of its parts at a cost 66% or greater of the original price you bought it for? Doesn't look so good does it? you'd kill the person who sold you the defective object wouldn't you? | ||
|
Entropic
Canada2837 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:33 Truedot wrote: 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. Brood War would be broken without good maps. Map makers basically balanced Brood War after the last patch. In a perfect world, every race should have an even chance on Steppes of War but I'm not that idealistic. Also to compare balance in a vacuum is just stupid since maps are a huge part of the game. You have to have some baseline map. Otherwise if maps WERENT supposed to be a factor then what about distance between starting locations? High ground low ground features? 3rd/4th/5th base locations? Narrowness vs openness of the map in general or certain areas, etc, etc. Are you implying balance should be considered with a totally flat map in mind? | ||
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:34 Truedot wrote: so you're saying there's a fundamental design flaw with the game. Yes, there actually is. They can never make terran lategame better, because this would mean that terran medgame would be too strong. People always see the terran in early and medgame, but never lategame. You will never say "nerf the marauder or nerf the marine" when you played lategame terran. Good luck fighting HT + collo + zealot + archon with a nerfed marauder / marine. Good luck fighting infestor + ultra or infestor + broodlord with a nerfed marauder / marine. Every supposed lategame terran unit gets destroyed lategame: BC's, thors and even tanks. Try to see the terran side too guys... Also watch EU and NA terrans and tourneys. Korean terrans are dominating, EU and NA terrans are doing avarage. Tweaks like a banshee nerf would be possible. | ||
| ||
