On September 05 2011 19:11 Resilient wrote: The Korean graph for Protoss is always so depressing, please don't post it when it comes
The International graphs arent exactly heart lifting either atm
I'm not going to bother writing anything about balance, as this is pretty much the same as last month, and that discussion has been done to death already. But I will take a quote from Incontrol on the latest SOTG: "I wonder how long this needs to keep going before people start to understand that its not just "Terrans are so much better"".
On September 05 2011 19:31 MrCon wrote: Haha, the winrates are quite balanced but this turned into a QQ by anticipation thread xD
The problem is that they're a little imbalanced in the same way they've been forever - ie Zerg and Protoss getting shafted, Zerg less so since all the buffs they got.
Some imbalance each month is to be expected with a shifting metagame; the problem is that the "baseline" has been off for so long. The fact that Zerg has NEVER had even 50% winrate against Terran is absolutely ridiculous.
The next month graph should be interesting. This weekend we saw a trend of new protoss builds, a lot of protoss qualified in code A, and even in the TLOpen this was the case (so a global trend). I wonder if it'll continue or not, but I would not be surprised if the next month graph shows a nice rising bar for the protoss.
On September 05 2011 19:35 MrCon wrote: The next month graph should be interesting. This weekend we saw a trend of new protoss builds, a lot of protoss qualified in code A, and even in the TLOpen this was the case (so a global trend). I wonder if it'll continue or not, but I would not be surprised if the next month graph shows a nice rising bar for the protoss.
Not sure if the Code A quals mean anything - there were only a few Terrans anyone had heard of, frankly. I guess all the decent Terrans are already in GSL Several of the best ones knocked each other out too, Hack, Sculp, Rainbow, theStC, all out to TvTs.
As for new builds...they've been getting tried certainly, but where is the success of them?
TLOpen had like 4 Code B Koreans...
Korea graphs with 800~ games played ARE kinda meaningless. And it shows, too much variation
The sample is certainly unsatisfactory, but unfortunately it's all we've got for the highest level of play, and trends there do tend to filter through to international.
On September 05 2011 19:37 SwampZero wrote: Korea graphs with 800~ games played ARE kinda meaningless. And it shows, too much variation
They're meaningful if the results are lopsided enough. The Korean graph showing a 55% winrate for Terran in TvP can mean any amount of things, but a 70% winrate would strongly suggest a problem even with the small sample size.
On September 05 2011 19:37 SwampZero wrote: Korea graphs with 800~ games played ARE kinda meaningless. And it shows, too much variation
They're meaningful if the results are lopsided enough. The Korean graph showing a 55% winrate for Terran in TvP can mean any amount of things, but a 70% winrate would strongly suggest a problem even with the small sample size.
yeah but you see like 4 upsets in months that weren't even patch months in the PvZ korean subgraph. That p. much means that the sample size is small.
On September 05 2011 19:31 MrCon wrote: Haha, the winrates are quite balanced but this turned into a QQ by anticipation thread xD
The problem is that they're a little imbalanced in the same way they've been forever - ie Zerg and Protoss getting shafted, Zerg less so since all the buffs they got.
Some imbalance each month is to be expected with a shifting metagame; the problem is that the "baseline" has been off for so long. The fact that Zerg has NEVER had even 50% winrate against Terran is absolutely ridiculous.
The foreign one looks about as expected. I feel like many players and viewers are seeing terran domination, and even when it's 52% win rate, they feel slighted.
Terran has never been below 50% overall w/l. There are many good terran players both in the foreign and especially the Korean community. Combine this with terran's early game ability to deny scouting and repair bunker safety and suddenly you have a race which wins over 50%.
On September 05 2011 19:35 MrCon wrote: The next month graph should be interesting. This weekend we saw a trend of new protoss builds, a lot of protoss qualified in code A, and even in the TLOpen this was the case (so a global trend). I wonder if it'll continue or not, but I would not be surprised if the next month graph shows a nice rising bar for the protoss.
Not sure if the Code A quals mean anything - there were only a few Terrans anyone had heard of, frankly. I guess all the decent Terrans are already in GSL Several of the best ones knocked each other out too, Hack, Sculp, Rainbow, theStC, all out to TvTs.
As for new builds...they've been getting tried certainly, but where is the success of them?
Korea graphs with 800~ games played ARE kinda meaningless. And it shows, too much variation
The sample is certainly unsatisfactory, but unfortunately it's all we've got for the highest level of play, and trends there do tend to filter through to international.
Bleh, I started an answer but your post is so distressing TT
So if I understood correctly, terran are dominating, but all terrans are in GSL already so code A results mean nothing. But if those unknown terrans would have qualified, I imagine what kind of posts you would type right now...
A lot of new builds have been used, vT or vZ with great success this weekend, but you say "As for new builds...they've been getting tried certainly, but where is the success of them?" which doesn't makes any sense as they have been used to great success in all of last weekend tournaments. 3P5Z top 8 TLopen, 5Z5P2T code A qualifiers, isn't that a success ?
I think you fell too far in the dark imba side, so you start to distort reality so it fits the imba theory. I'm not saying this is definitive, but what I saw this weekend could very well continue, I've seen more new, successful protoss builds in 2 days than in 3 months.
On September 05 2011 19:31 MrCon wrote: Haha, the winrates are quite balanced but this turned into a QQ by anticipation thread xD
The problem is that they're a little imbalanced in the same way they've been forever - ie Zerg and Protoss getting shafted, Zerg less so since all the buffs they got.
Some imbalance each month is to be expected with a shifting metagame; the problem is that the "baseline" has been off for so long. The fact that Zerg has NEVER had even 50% winrate against Terran is absolutely ridiculous.
The foreign one looks about as expected. I feel like many players and viewers are seeing terran domination, and even when it's 52% win rate, they feel slighted.
Terran has never been below 50% overall w/l. There are many good terran players both in the foreign and especially the Korean community. Combine this with terran's early game ability to deny scouting and repair bunker safety and suddenly you have a race which wins over 50%.
You might want to look at the abilities that terran DIDN'T have in brood war, bro.
On September 05 2011 19:59 MrCon wrote: So if I understood correctly, terran are dominating, but all terrans are in GSL already so code A results mean nothing. But if those unknown terrans would have qualified, I imagine what kind of posts you would type right now...
Firstly, I said maybe, and listed some mitigating factors to the Code A qual results. Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted with them. Will be a far more entertaining Code A for me.
My point was, if Terran is indeed too strong, then what has happened in GSL is roughly what you would expect to happen. All the decent Terrans would qualify first, then when their numbers run out the decent Z/P fill in the remaining places.
If GSL develops into Code S = Terran, Code A = P/Z, then this would confirm that this is what is happening. And, sadly, this is what appears to be happening.
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.
A lot of new builds have been used, vT or vZ with great success this weekend, but you say "As for new builds...they've been getting tried certainly, but where is the success of them?" which doesn't makes any sense as they have been used to great success in all of last weekend tournaments. 3P5Z top 8 TLopen, 5Z5P2T code A qualifiers, isn't that a success ?
I wasn't disagreeing, sorry that wasn't clear - I missed many of the actual games sadly, so I didn't see these styles working. Whenever I see new stuff like zealot/archon PvZ is fails pretty miserably. I'll be delighted if the new styles are actually working against top notch players!
I think you fell too far in the dark imba side, so you start to distort reality so it fits the imba theory. I'm not saying this is definitive, but what I saw this weekend could very well continue, I've seen more new, successful protoss builds in 2 days than in 3 months.
Well I'm not saying it's hopelessly broken or anything, but I have no idea how anyone can claim that Zerg and Protoss haven't been given the short stick in SC2 since release. The data is pretty conclusive on that... I really hope I'm wrong and this is a sign of an upswing, but well, history suggests it isn't :/
Waiting for that 1.4 patch that will arrive anyday, or perhaps next month?
I feel like the new protosses that are doing pretty good in Code A prelimineries now are gonna explode once the game get's more balanced. I feel like player like Sage will hit Code S and easily own people he might be so better than now but struggling to beat, for example in vT and vP. But that's just my philosophy.
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.
Update: 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!
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.
because all of 5 people play in korea?
because the racial graphs are from 800 game samples. Which is pretty small.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
So unfinished means they must be weaker and Terran must be stronger, no? Isn't this the definition of imbalance?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Impossible for Terran? I would like a source somewhere where it's described that TvP lategame is impossible for terran.
On September 05 2011 20:33 Snowbear wrote: 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.
TvP lategame is impossible for Terran? Have you been away from the game since before the amulet removal or something? ATM Protoss is having huge trouble lategame against Terran - ghosts are wrecking face everywhere. Midgame timing attacks are the only thing ATM that Protoss are having a decent amount of success with.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tweaks like a banshee nerf would be possible.
Your post is a total joke right...The lategame of protoss is STRONG YES.but the amount of damage u can do to the protoss before he gets to lategame is kinda insane? Why the fuck an harass unit liek the banshee beats almost 2stalkers? 1v2
On September 05 2011 20:33 Snowbear wrote: 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.
TvP lategame is impossible for Terran? Have you been away from the game since before the amulet removal or something? ATM Protoss is having huge trouble lategame against Terran - ghosts are wrecking face everywhere. Midgame timing attacks are the only thing ATM that Protoss are having a decent amount of success with.
Post a game where a terran wins lategame against COLLOSSUS, ZEALOT, ARCHON and SPREADED ht's. Marauders die against zealots, so you need marines. Marines melt against HT and collossus. There is no change to win when toss has 5 bases, like they can have on those big GSL maps.
Win a battle as terran? No problem, thats 2 warpins and maxed again. Lose a battle as terran? Warp 1 round, maxed again, attack terrans raxes, GG.
On September 05 2011 20:33 Snowbear wrote: 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.
TvP lategame is impossible for Terran? Have you been away from the game since before the amulet removal or something? ATM Protoss is having huge trouble lategame against Terran - ghosts are wrecking face everywhere. Midgame timing attacks are the only thing ATM that Protoss are having a decent amount of success with.
Post a game where a terran wins lategame against COLLOSSUS, ZEALOT, ARCHON and SPREADED ht's. Marauders die against zealots, so you need marines. Marines melt against HT and collossus. There is no change to win when toss has 5 bases, like they can have on those big GSL maps.
Win a battle as terran? No problem, thats 2 warpins and maxed again. Lose a battle as terran? Warp 1 round, maxed again, attack terrans raxes, GG.
Top vs Genius on Antiga Shipyard. But that's not really relevant to the topic.
That's the July numbers. He hasn't done the August ones yet.
I guess he don´t do August ones. Have updated OP, there are discrepancies from Julys stats between the 2 month. So I´m quite sure he combined Korea and International stats.
On September 05 2011 20:33 Snowbear wrote: 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.
TvP lategame is impossible for Terran? Have you been away from the game since before the amulet removal or something? ATM Protoss is having huge trouble lategame against Terran - ghosts are wrecking face everywhere. Midgame timing attacks are the only thing ATM that Protoss are having a decent amount of success with.
Post a game where a terran wins lategame against COLLOSSUS, ZEALOT, ARCHON and SPREADED ht's. Marauders die against zealots, so you need marines. Marines melt against HT and collossus. There is no change to win when toss has 5 bases, like they can have on those big GSL maps.
Win a battle as terran? No problem, thats 2 warpins and maxed again. Lose a battle as terran? Warp 1 round, maxed again, attack terrans raxes, GG.
Top vs Genius on Antiga Shipyard. But that's not really relevant to the topic.
Don't troll-bait
It's obvious that claiming terran is UP vs toss in lategame when EMP has crushed souls lately must be a troll...
On September 05 2011 20:33 Snowbear wrote: 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.
TvP lategame is impossible for Terran? Have you been away from the game since before the amulet removal or something? ATM Protoss is having huge trouble lategame against Terran - ghosts are wrecking face everywhere. Midgame timing attacks are the only thing ATM that Protoss are having a decent amount of success with.
Post a game where a terran wins lategame against COLLOSSUS, ZEALOT, ARCHON and SPREADED ht's. Marauders die against zealots, so you need marines. Marines melt against HT and collossus. There is no change to win when toss has 5 bases, like they can have on those big GSL maps.
Win a battle as terran? No problem, thats 2 warpins and maxed again. Lose a battle as terran? Warp 1 round, maxed again, attack terrans raxes, GG.
Top vs Genius on Antiga Shipyard. But that's not really relevant to the topic.
Don't troll-bait
It's obvious that claiming terran is UP vs toss in lategame when EMP has crushed souls lately must be a troll...
Several grandmaster toss friends are telling me that tvp lategame is EASY. They complain about 1-1-1, but if terran goes into a macrogame and they can get 4 bases up, its 90% win. That's THEIR word, not mine!
Another thing they say is that 80% of the terrans are 1-1-1'ing on ladder.
On September 05 2011 20:33 Snowbear wrote: 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.
TvP lategame is impossible for Terran? Have you been away from the game since before the amulet removal or something? ATM Protoss is having huge trouble lategame against Terran - ghosts are wrecking face everywhere. Midgame timing attacks are the only thing ATM that Protoss are having a decent amount of success with.
Post a game where a terran wins lategame against COLLOSSUS, ZEALOT, ARCHON and SPREADED ht's. Marauders die against zealots, so you need marines. Marines melt against HT and collossus. There is no change to win when toss has 5 bases, like they can have on those big GSL maps.
Win a battle as terran? No problem, thats 2 warpins and maxed again. Lose a battle as terran? Warp 1 round, maxed again, attack terrans raxes, GG.
Top vs Genius on Antiga Shipyard. But that's not really relevant to the topic.
Don't troll-bait
It's obvious that claiming terran is UP vs toss in lategame when EMP has crushed souls lately must be a troll...
Several grandmaster toss friends are telling me that tvp lategame is EASY. They complain about 1-1-1, but if terran goes into a macrogame and they can get 4 bases up, its 90% win. That's THEIR word, not mine!
I'm sure some Protoss are comfortable with it. It's not horribly imbalanced or anything. Equally though, plenty of Terrans have been wrecking Protoss face with ghosts. MC v Puma for example.
The idea that it's impossible for Terran is just comically wrong.
Terrans are doing 1-1-1 all the time because it's so damn strong, not because they're scared of lategame or w/e.
no point in arguing, stats speak for themselves anyways
terran above 50% winrate from release despite serveral nerf / buffs to other races says everything, lets see if the minor adjustments in 1.4 will change that (doubt that very much though)
On September 05 2011 20:33 Snowbear wrote: 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.
TvP lategame is impossible for Terran? Have you been away from the game since before the amulet removal or something? ATM Protoss is having huge trouble lategame against Terran - ghosts are wrecking face everywhere. Midgame timing attacks are the only thing ATM that Protoss are having a decent amount of success with.
Post a game where a terran wins lategame against COLLOSSUS, ZEALOT, ARCHON and SPREADED ht's. Marauders die against zealots, so you need marines. Marines melt against HT and collossus. There is no change to win when toss has 5 bases, like they can have on those big GSL maps.
Win a battle as terran? No problem, thats 2 warpins and maxed again. Lose a battle as terran? Warp 1 round, maxed again, attack terrans raxes, GG.
Top vs Genius on Antiga Shipyard. But that's not really relevant to the topic.
Don't troll-bait
It's obvious that claiming terran is UP vs toss in lategame when EMP has crushed souls lately must be a troll...
Several grandmaster toss friends are telling me that tvp lategame is EASY. They complain about 1-1-1, but if terran goes into a macrogame and they can get 4 bases up, its 90% win. That's THEIR word, not mine!
I'm sure some Protoss are comfortable with it. It's not horribly imbalanced or anything. Equally though, plenty of Terrans have been wrecking Protoss face with ghosts. MC v Puma for example.
The idea that it's impossible for Terran is just comically wrong.
MC v Puma is a great example for a toss how to not play. MC clumped his HT's, and puma could emp them all. I am talking about the combination of 3-3 collossae, ht's, zealots and archons.
Let me remake my statement:
"TvP lategame is possible for T, if toss clumps up his whole ball".
Theorycrafting is garbage. Reality is that MC is probably the best toss, at least top 3. And he gets crushed in lategame PvT. So calling TvP lategame impossible is a joke.
Great stuff! I always look forward to seeing the statistics of the month!
I've got one little question though; is it possible that the stats may be misinterpreted at a glance since the winrate percentages are only represented in graphs were the axes are ranged from 40-60%? If you just take a quick look at the graphs without actually looking at the axis values and the point value of the line, the matchup winrates appear ridiculously imbalanced. I realize that for clarity, having a 0-100% axis is inconvenient, but maybe a graph with that could be added as well? You know, just to avoid confusion and misunderstanding
Sorry if I'm being a pedantic and pretentious douche, please just ignore me if you feel that way. Keep up the great work! :D
I'm not sure about these statistics - After watching GSL MLG and playing lots I suspect it's actually much worse for Protoss at the moment than it suggests...
On September 05 2011 20:33 Snowbear wrote: 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.
TvP lategame is impossible for Terran? Have you been away from the game since before the amulet removal or something? ATM Protoss is having huge trouble lategame against Terran - ghosts are wrecking face everywhere. Midgame timing attacks are the only thing ATM that Protoss are having a decent amount of success with.
Post a game where a terran wins lategame against COLLOSSUS, ZEALOT, ARCHON and SPREADED ht's. Marauders die against zealots, so you need marines. Marines melt against HT and collossus. There is no change to win when toss has 5 bases, like they can have on those big GSL maps.
Win a battle as terran? No problem, thats 2 warpins and maxed again. Lose a battle as terran? Warp 1 round, maxed again, attack terrans raxes, GG.
Top vs Genius on Antiga Shipyard. But that's not really relevant to the topic.
Don't troll-bait
It's obvious that claiming terran is UP vs toss in lategame when EMP has crushed souls lately must be a troll...
Several grandmaster toss friends are telling me that tvp lategame is EASY. They complain about 1-1-1, but if terran goes into a macrogame and they can get 4 bases up, its 90% win. That's THEIR word, not mine!
Another thing they say is that 80% of the terrans are 1-1-1'ing on ladder.
It's easy cause terrans are not used to play macrogames, they do much worse
and even if protoss is ok balanced against terran lategame theres mid and early game that I won't even discuss
also there's pvz infestors..... ok it's depressing me
edit: oh I forgot my lately experiences in pvt lategame when terrans just emp every single ht in a scale of a emp per ht, it doesn't matter about splitting
Mhmmm.... That happens when Protoss wins most games with Timing-attacks and ppl start to figure them out IMHO, while Korean Terran-Players also know how to macro very well.... Btw. Why don't we see Death-Balls from Protoss that often anymore against Zerg? It's not like the build got nerfed or sth.
I also think that Protoss will soon get a better win-stat against Terran, cuz they'll too figure out how to beat abusing timing-attacks aka the 1/1/1-Build.
But I guess with the patch coming up and if Protoss utilizes the Prism more, it could even out quite a bit.
I highly question the use of this Graph though, cuz most players are still using the Ladder-Maps and on those Maps, it's a totally different story, especially on high masters where so many ppl just abuse the hell out of early aggression etc.
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.
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.
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.
Why med game terran would be too good if they buff "thor, ravens, BC" ? Because Terran can have them a lot quicker then zerg or toss have their End Game unit ?
if so, then add 20s (random number here :D) building time factory / starport / armory / Fusion core.
On September 05 2011 22:10 kickinhead wrote: Mhmmm.... That happens when Protoss wins most games with Timing-attacks and ppl start to figure them out IMHO, while Korean Terran-Players also know how to macro very well.... Btw. Why don't we see Death-Balls from Protoss that often anymore against Zerg? It's not like the build got nerfed or sth.
I also think that Protoss will soon get a better win-stat against Terran, cuz they'll too figure out how to beat abusing timing-attacks aka the 1/1/1-Build.
But I guess with the patch coming up and if Protoss utilizes the Prism more, it could even out quite a bit.
I highly question the use of this Graph though, cuz most players are still using the Ladder-Maps and on those Maps, it's a totally different story, especially on high masters where so many ppl just abuse the hell out of early aggression etc.
Because MC and other people changed how people play normally to almost always blink stalker. Its more effective than a ball because of its ridiculous mobility.
zerg status mobility with protoss damage and HP values, and the ability to have ever living units, vs building a ball that gets chain fungaled.
Its still viable, its still damn deadly in the right hands, and it still overpowers a zerg that doesn't just mass infestors forever, but its not as efficient as blink stalker.
On September 05 2011 22:10 kickinhead wrote: Mhmmm.... That happens when Protoss wins most games with Timing-attacks and ppl start to figure them out IMHO, while Korean Terran-Players also know how to macro very well.... Btw. Why don't we see Death-Balls from Protoss that often anymore against Zerg? It's not like the build got nerfed or sth.
LOL at this post. You are saying that korean terrans prefer to macro, but most of the times they win with 1-1-1, interesting. We don't see deathballs against zerg because of the infestor.
Eh, these numbers are incredibly close, I don't understand why you're all complaining. I think it's reasonable to assume that the balance changes next patch will bump protoss up a fair bit and providing no metagame changes, will leave us with very good stats.
On September 05 2011 22:19 EmilA wrote: Eh, these numbers are incredibly close, I don't understand why you're all complaining. I think it's reasonable to assume that the balance changes next patch will bump protoss up a fair bit and providing no metagame changes, will leave us with very good stats.
what? how can you say its balanced? have you looked at it historically? :|
For the P who missed this weekend games (code A and TLOpen), I really recommend watching the protoss runs in those. In the TLOpen I saw more warp prism in 6 hours than in 1 year, and used in a non gimmicky way. There was some really good games. I saw threads in the strat forum about those builds already.
On September 05 2011 22:10 kickinhead wrote: Mhmmm.... That happens when Protoss wins most games with Timing-attacks and ppl start to figure them out IMHO, while Korean Terran-Players also know how to macro very well.... Btw. Why don't we see Death-Balls from Protoss that often anymore against Zerg? It's not like the build got nerfed or sth.
I also think that Protoss will soon get a better win-stat against Terran, cuz they'll too figure out how to beat abusing timing-attacks aka the 1/1/1-Build.
But I guess with the patch coming up and if Protoss utilizes the Prism more, it could even out quite a bit.
I highly question the use of this Graph though, cuz most players are still using the Ladder-Maps and on those Maps, it's a totally different story, especially on high masters where so many ppl just abuse the hell out of early aggression etc.
Because MC and other people changed how people play normally to almost always blink stalker. Its more effective than a ball because of its ridiculous mobility.
zerg status mobility with protoss damage and HP values, and the ability to have ever living units, vs building a ball that gets chain fungaled.
Its still viable, its still damn deadly in the right hands, and it still overpowers a zerg that doesn't just mass infestors forever, but its not as efficient as blink stalker.
infestors are the counter to "deathball", its like the counter to everything in the game, imagine mass infestors with full energy... ridiculous
On September 05 2011 20:16 Hondelul wrote: Update: 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!
It's both Korea and International.
There is no "combination" of the stats, that is, it's not cumulative. The reason the July numbers have changed is that I reload all the data from TLPD every month, so any games added later will now show up. Sometimes tournaments are late with submitting their results, or the TLPD guys are busy.
Forgive me as I've only been following for a few months but what happened back in January to cause zerg to have a sudden plummet to 42% when both toss and Terran was 50? Also things seemed stable for all three in June but now we are seeing a bit of disparity again as everyone does the think up new strats dance.
On September 05 2011 22:32 ladyumbra wrote: Forgive me as I've only been following for a few months but what happened back in January to cause zerg to have a sudden plummet to 42% when both toss and Terran was 50? Also things seemed stable for all three in June but now we are seeing a bit of disparity again as everyone does the think up new strats dance.
On September 05 2011 22:23 MrCon wrote: For the P who missed this weekend games (code A and TLOpen), I really recommend watching the protoss runs in those. In the TLOpen I saw more warp prism in 6 hours than in 1 year, and used in a non gimmicky way. There was some really good games. I saw threads in the strat forum about those builds already.
A v subjective and amateur viewpoint here; apologies beforehand. I used to play age of empires and age of mythology extensively a few years back, and could not help but notice some interesting distinctions between that series and starcraft 2 (I have no experience with broodwar).
In the age series, macro focused around four resources and the ease of collection of each varied according to its relative importance. For example, gold (or stone) would be randomly flung about the map in concentrated amounts, wood was abundant for the most part etc. Additionally, resource collection required only a low cost dumping structure (such as a granary)*. The effect of this multiplicity of resources was that harassment (or raiding as it is known in that community) was a v integral part of the game. Constant raiding was a feature of even the most macro oriented games (the age series had a interesting blend of hard macro and intensive harass). Since games did not usually end with a few decisive encounters, it was the ability of players to resupply and macro up constantly that won games, and this was what the continuous harass targeted.
iamke55 in an excellent thread** outlines the PvT metagame, which ends in the current state (forget the 1-1-1 for now) of terran taxing protoss multitasking with constant harass. Terran in particular are v suited to this style of play, all thanks (imo) to the mule. This is critical to their playstyle. Count the raiding avenues they have: Reapers, hellions, banshees and drops.
The shift in the zerg meta game may be attributed to the aggressive nestea-losira style (in tastosis terms, nestea being pure reactionary harass, while losira forcing his will on the opponent with constant harass). Zerg have speedlings, mutas and even baneling drops (nydus worms are less seen).
Toss have at best, blink stalkers and phoenix, the latter of which I think are neutralized by a few turrets. I am unsure of the efficacy of DTs, they seem to do better late game, when the opponents attention is stretched over multiple bases, early to mid game a single detector can neutralize them, and they are (taking the tech path into consideration) cost ineffective. Warp prisms are rarely seen, and early to midgame appear to be cost ineffective, due to the constraints the macro game places on toss army size (all ins aside). The interesting thing is that both terran and zerg can effectively pressure from the get go, toss is at a disadvantage here; this is sort of how the game is supposed to be. It would seem toss needs a raiding unit of some sort, to exert some counter pressure cost effectively***.
*This basically meant a single raid wasn't usually game ending, good macro could always resupply efficiently. It was only one part of a larger war of attrition, and effects multiplied the longer the game got. Also note that four resources provided more avenues for effective harass; in sc2 the concentration of two resources at one generally hard to access and defensible spot means the efficacy of harass, when it happens, is vastly increased i.e. a single good raid can end the game.The distinction between harassment and timing attacks is obvious. **http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=196385 ***The inability to do this imo, provides timing windows, which builds like the 1-1-1 exploit.
Is there anyone who knows statistics who can analyze these graphs and actually tell us whether this graph means anything? Is 24000 sample size enough to infer something from these results? Until someone analyzes using statistical methods, we're all talking out of our asses here.
On September 05 2011 20:16 Hondelul wrote: Update: 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!
It's both Korea and International.
There is no "combination" of the stats, that is, it's not cumulative. The reason the July numbers have changed is that I reload all the data from TLPD every month, so any games added later will now show up. Sometimes tournaments are late with submitting their results, or the TLPD guys are busy.
Your statement is confusing. Both international and korea games are just represented now in the graph, right ?
On September 05 2011 22:23 MrCon wrote: For the P who missed this weekend games (code A and TLOpen), I really recommend watching the protoss runs in those. In the TLOpen I saw more warp prism in 6 hours than in 1 year, and used in a non gimmicky way. There was some really good games. I saw threads in the strat forum about those builds already.
It's true. Zerg players used to be pretty retarded for forgetting about infestors in every game. Once Blizzard put a shiny gold star from the infestor buff, infestors have pretty much become theb est caster of all 3 races ...
Not to mention full energy infestors with tons of infested marines is ridiculously strong. It's almost hydra strong due to the instant bullet instead of spines. =/
On September 05 2011 20:16 Hondelul wrote: Update: 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!
It's both Korea and International.
There is no "combination" of the stats, that is, it's not cumulative. The reason the July numbers have changed is that I reload all the data from TLPD every month, so any games added later will now show up. Sometimes tournaments are late with submitting their results, or the TLPD guys are busy.
Your statement is confusing. Both international and korea games are just represented now in the graph, right ?
Hrrm, yeah sorry. That was confusing. =P
It is both Korea and International combined. Just want to make it clear that the data is not cumulative!
On September 05 2011 20:16 Hondelul wrote: Update: 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!
It's both Korea and International.
There is no "combination" of the stats, that is, it's not cumulative. The reason the July numbers have changed is that I reload all the data from TLPD every month, so any games added later will now show up. Sometimes tournaments are late with submitting their results, or the TLPD guys are busy.
Your statement is confusing. Both international and korea games are just represented now in the graph, right ?
Hrrm, yeah sorry. That was confusing. =P
It is both Korea and International combined. Just want to make it clear that the data is not cumulative!
On September 05 2011 22:45 chestnutcc wrote: A v subjective and amateur viewpoint here; apologies beforehand. I used to play age of empires and age of mythology extensively a few years back, and could not help but notice some interesting distinctions between that series and starcraft 2 (I have no experience with broodwar).
In the age series, macro focused around four resources and the ease of collection of each varied according to its relative importance. For example, gold (or stone) would be randomly flung about the map in concentrated amounts, wood was abundant for the most part etc. Additionally, resource collection required only a low cost dumping structure (such as a granary)*. The effect of this multiplicity of resources was that harassment (or raiding as it is known in that community) was a v integral part of the game. Constant raiding was a feature of even the most macro oriented games (the age series had a interesting blend of hard macro and intensive harass). Since games did not usually end with a few decisive encounters, it was the ability of players to resupply and macro up constantly that won games, and this was what the continuous harass targeted.
iamke55 in an excellent thread** outlines the PvT metagame, which ends in the current state (forget the 1-1-1 for now) of terran taxing protoss multitasking with constant harass. Terran in particular are v suited to this style of play, all thanks (imo) to the mule. This is critical to their playstyle. Count the raiding avenues they have: Reapers, hellions, banshees and drops.
The shift in the zerg meta game may be attributed to the aggressive nestea-losira style (in tastosis terms, nestea being pure reactionary harass, while losira forcing his will on the opponent with constant harass). Zerg have speedlings, mutas and even baneling drops (nydus worms are less seen).
Toss have at best, blink stalkers and phoenix, the latter of which I think are neutralized by a few turrets. I am unsure of the efficacy of DTs, they seem to do better late game, when the opponents attention is stretched over multiple bases, early to mid game a single detector can neutralize them, and they are (taking the tech path into consideration) cost ineffective. Warp prisms are rarely seen, and early to midgame appear to be cost ineffective, due to the constraints the macro game places on toss army size (all ins aside). The interesting thing is that both terran and zerg can effectively pressure from the get go, toss is at a disadvantage here; this is sort of how the game is supposed to be. It would seem toss needs a raiding unit of some sort, to exert some counter pressure cost effectively***.
*This basically meant a single raid wasn't usually game ending, good macro could always resupply efficiently. It was only one part of a larger war of attrition, and effects multiplied the longer the game got. Also note that four resources provided more avenues for effective harass; in sc2 the concentration of two resources at one generally hard to access and defensible spot means the efficacy of harass, when it happens, is vastly increased i.e. a single good raid can end the game.The distinction between harassment and timing attacks is obvious. **http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=196385 ***The inability to do this imo, provides timing windows, which builds like the 1-1-1 exploit.
Good post. I would like to add to this that the reason Warp Prisms are rarely seen is due to a three fundamental problems it has:
#1 The unit has no other uses. Medivacs and Overlords are necessary pieces in nearly every T and every Z build even if they don't drop units, and thus drops become a cheap option for both races that they can deploy if they sense a weakness. If you build a Warp Prism and suddenly the window to drop closes, you've wasted 200 minerals.
#2 The Warp Prism takes away precious time from the Robo facility.
#3 Protoss doesn't have a really good worker kills that you would want to drop. 8 Marines with Stim can decimate workers, as can Zerglings/Hellions/Banelings. Zealots do decent damage but are too slow, Stalkers, Immortals and Sentries cost too much and do too little DPS.
DT's are HT's are the best options, but both are very high up the tech tree, and thus still open up timings like the 1-1-1. Furthermore, since DT's are cloaked, they often do no need the help of a Warp Prism to reach the opponents mineral line.
The proposed change to increase the shields of the Warp Prism is welcome, but doesn't solve the three fundamental problems with the unit.
It sounds like Blizzard knows this from what I've heard, and will include better harrassment options for Protoss.
Good post. I would like to add to this that the reason Warp Prisms are rarely seen is due to a three fundamental problems it has:
#1 The unit has no other uses. Medivacs and Overlords are necessary pieces in nearly every T and every Z build even if they don't drop units, and thus drops become a cheap option for both races that they can deploy if they sense a weakness. If you build a Warp Prism and suddenly the window to drop closes, you've wasted 200 minerals.
#2 The Warp Prism takes away precious time from the Robo facility.
#3 Protoss doesn't have a really good worker kills that you would want to drop. 8 Marines with Stim can decimate workers, as can Zerglings/Hellions/Banelings. Zealots do decent damage but are too slow, Stalkers, Immortals and Sentries cost too much and do too little DPS.
DT's are HT's are the best options, but both are very high up the tech tree, and thus still open up timings like the 1-1-1. Furthermore, since DT's are cloaked, they often do no need the help of a Warp Prism to reach the opponents mineral line.
The proposed change to increase the shields of the Warp Prism is welcome, but doesn't solve the three fundamental problems with the unit.
It sounds like Blizzard knows this from what I've heard, and will include better harrassment options for Protoss.
Good points. Time off the robo facility is crucial. Maybe all it takes is to allow warp prisms from the gateway/nexus and make them a static shield battery.
B-b-but Teamliquid told me that the game was broken and unless you are X or Y race you had 0 chance of winning!
On a more serious note, this statistics are not the end all means of determining balance(but to be honest we don't really have a reliable tool to measure that)
Protoss seem to be having a rough time, hopefully the next patch helps them a bit.
On September 05 2011 23:14 Zaros wrote: when is the korea graph coming out ?
I only have around 200 (non-mirror) games in TLPD for Korea this month, so it's pretty useless. There may be more games in the backlog not added yet though.
For the record, P is at around 45% in those games.
On September 05 2011 23:14 Zaros wrote: when is the korea graph coming out ?
I only have around 200 (non-mirror) games in TLPD for Korea this month, so it's pretty useless. There may be more games in the backlog not added yet though.
For the record, P is at around 45% in those games.
Really? I didn't count games that don't count for elo, I guess Protoss won a bunch of those? Or possibly I can't count! :3
On September 05 2011 23:14 Zaros wrote: when is the korea graph coming out ?
I only have around 200 (non-mirror) games in TLPD for Korea this month, so it's pretty useless. There may be more games in the backlog not added yet though.
For the record, P is at around 45% in those games.
Really? I didn't count games that don't count for elo, I guess Protoss won a bunch of those? Or possibly I can't count! :3
On September 05 2011 22:10 kickinhead wrote: Mhmmm.... That happens when Protoss wins most games with Timing-attacks and ppl start to figure them out IMHO, while Korean Terran-Players also know how to macro very well.... Btw. Why don't we see Death-Balls from Protoss that often anymore against Zerg? It's not like the build got nerfed or sth.
I also think that Protoss will soon get a better win-stat against Terran, cuz they'll too figure out how to beat abusing timing-attacks aka the 1/1/1-Build.
But I guess with the patch coming up and if Protoss utilizes the Prism more, it could even out quite a bit.
I highly question the use of this Graph though, cuz most players are still using the Ladder-Maps and on those Maps, it's a totally different story, especially on high masters where so many ppl just abuse the hell out of early aggression etc.
The typical deathball army of protoss is no longer that effective against Zerg due to Fungal buff; the entire clumped up ball get fungalled to death nowadays, and Neural on Colosseus is very effective. Protoss players need to shift from a "I turtle, make my big ball, A-move toward the Zerg" to "I need to scout and go HT / Archon if he goes heavy investor, and micro them". It is not that easy, a little bit like when Terran players realized they had to make one expansion before pushing against Zerg.
I think I'll see the game as balanced once with see a T winrate below 50% for 2 consecutive months. Until that happens there's no indication that any "metagame" shifts are actually going to affect the races somewhat equally.
Also the current spate of one race finals is pretty unwatchable. MLG, Code A...
On September 05 2011 22:19 EmilA wrote: Eh, these numbers are incredibly close, I don't understand why you're all complaining. I think it's reasonable to assume that the balance changes next patch will bump protoss up a fair bit and providing no metagame changes, will leave us with very good stats.
what? how can you say its balanced? have you looked at it historically? :|
What on earth does january or march results have to do with the state of the game in august? Current balance should be gauged from recent results. From these numbers, protoss isn't doing too badly, and the next patch brings considerable buffs/nerfs that overall are in great favour of protoss.
Its a shame that all threads end up being a balance crapstorm QQ.
Guys play the game, watch the game, enjoy. I even got my GSL games spoiled because of this kind of crap. if it bothers you guys that much quit playing the game or wait for the patches, complaining in forums(and please don't call it discussion, most people who want to discuss balance just want to confirm their views) is futile since nobody but Blizzard can patch the freaking game.
On September 06 2011 02:18 windsupernova wrote: Its a shame that all threads end up being a balance crapstorm QQ.
Guys play the game, watch the game, enjoy. I even got my GSL games spoiled because of this kind of crap. if it bothers you guys that much quit playing the game or wait for the patches, complaining in forums(and please don't call it discussion, most people who want to discuss balance just want to confirm their views) is futile since nobody but Blizzard can patch the freaking game.
Jeeez, sorry for venting.
Well the point is that if no one complains, then Blizzard will think everyone believes the game is balanced, and they will leave it as is. Most people do not enjoy a game when it is not balanced. They complain because they want the game to be balanced in the future. That way they do not have to sit through the same few matchups over and over when watching a tournament. Blizzard needs to keep their customers happy, and so you see them patch the game if there is something bothering a race.
Even the pros complain about things. Nestea, who has 3 championships, still complains about balance. Think about it, this game is his livelihood. If you feel you are being wronged, and do nothing about it, you will be losing chances at supporting yourself. And to go a step farther, because you will never stop some people from complaining, when those people are complaining, they are gaining ground and you are losing it, unless you share their race. Complaining will exist for a long time in SC2 because the game is still so young that no one can possibly know how balanced it is yet.
The WP is a good unit and is yet to be really explored by Protoss, IMO. I think fixing the Immortal, and I've said this before, so that it returns to being a gateway unit would free up the robo for multiple WP and multiple observers. A slight buff to strength, speed and warp-in radius would also be nice. But, in the right hands, the WP can perhaps be used similarly to the Zerg lingbyes, or for cutting off Zerg reinforcement lines to a battle, or even for insta-cannon rushes to new expansions with a probe. Just theorycrafting a little, but hopefully the buff to the WP (with ideally more to come) will help us Protoss explore some new (non gimmicky) avenues in play; we seem to be a creative lot.
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.
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.
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.
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.
See games in may for all races. The lowest win rate and the highest win rate oppose each other.
They add up to 100 together which converts to 100%.
Example 1: PvT may 45.1 vs 55.9 opposing numbers in percentages, add them together to get 100.
Example 2: ZvT may. 59.3 vs 40.7
again, the numbers oppose each other. add them up to 100.
this is basic math.
is it possible that youre really this stupid? Is there a universe out there in which such a stupid person exists?
haha this really made me laugh :D does he believe in what he is saying?? and if so tell me how for example in march 52,8% + 45% makes 100%????
for the PvT, ZvT, ZvP graphs you're right of course, but your example 1... :D
sigh..
just look at the graph and find the T numbers that correlate to my examples for the MUs, on the first graph, and the ZvT graph.
I'm not wrong. I don't understand why you guys are trying to imply that.
someone stated that P was below 33% (it shows 32%) and that T was off the chart. Yet as I've demonstrated, when its the lowest and the highest win rate of different races in the same month, the lowest number opposes the highest one in, and vice versa, in exactly the quantity to make 100, which is of course 100%.
so 32% can only mean that T is 68%.
This is the first thing I noticed looking at the graph ffs.
On September 05 2011 19:23 Yaotzin wrote: Protoss has been over 50% winrate for 2 months out of 11 Terran for 10 months out of 11 Zerg for 1 month out of 11
It's just that the Terran players are all better! Promise!
Korean graphs are going to be so ugly :/
Of course all the Terrans are better. Thought we already figured this one out a long time ago.
On September 05 2011 22:45 chestnutcc wrote: A v subjective and amateur viewpoint here; apologies beforehand. I used to play age of empires and age of mythology extensively a few years back, and could not help but notice some interesting distinctions between that series and starcraft 2 (I have no experience with broodwar).
In the age series, macro focused around four resources and the ease of collection of each varied according to its relative importance. For example, gold (or stone) would be randomly flung about the map in concentrated amounts, wood was abundant for the most part etc. Additionally, resource collection required only a low cost dumping structure (such as a granary)*. The effect of this multiplicity of resources was that harassment (or raiding as it is known in that community) was a v integral part of the game. Constant raiding was a feature of even the most macro oriented games (the age series had a interesting blend of hard macro and intensive harass). Since games did not usually end with a few decisive encounters, it was the ability of players to resupply and macro up constantly that won games, and this was what the continuous harass targeted.
iamke55 in an excellent thread** outlines the PvT metagame, which ends in the current state (forget the 1-1-1 for now) of terran taxing protoss multitasking with constant harass. Terran in particular are v suited to this style of play, all thanks (imo) to the mule. This is critical to their playstyle. Count the raiding avenues they have: Reapers, hellions, banshees and drops.
The shift in the zerg meta game may be attributed to the aggressive nestea-losira style (in tastosis terms, nestea being pure reactionary harass, while losira forcing his will on the opponent with constant harass). Zerg have speedlings, mutas and even baneling drops (nydus worms are less seen).
Toss have at best, blink stalkers and phoenix, the latter of which I think are neutralized by a few turrets. I am unsure of the efficacy of DTs, they seem to do better late game, when the opponents attention is stretched over multiple bases, early to mid game a single detector can neutralize them, and they are (taking the tech path into consideration) cost ineffective. Warp prisms are rarely seen, and early to midgame appear to be cost ineffective, due to the constraints the macro game places on toss army size (all ins aside). The interesting thing is that both terran and zerg can effectively pressure from the get go, toss is at a disadvantage here; this is sort of how the game is supposed to be. It would seem toss needs a raiding unit of some sort, to exert some counter pressure cost effectively***.
*This basically meant a single raid wasn't usually game ending, good macro could always resupply efficiently. It was only one part of a larger war of attrition, and effects multiplied the longer the game got. Also note that four resources provided more avenues for effective harass; in sc2 the concentration of two resources at one generally hard to access and defensible spot means the efficacy of harass, when it happens, is vastly increased i.e. a single good raid can end the game.The distinction between harassment and timing attacks is obvious. **http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=196385 ***The inability to do this imo, provides timing windows, which builds like the 1-1-1 exploit.
Good post. I would like to add to this that the reason Warp Prisms are rarely seen is due to a three fundamental problems it has:
#1 The unit has no other uses. Medivacs and Overlords are necessary pieces in nearly every T and every Z build even if they don't drop units, and thus drops become a cheap option for both races that they can deploy if they sense a weakness. If you build a Warp Prism and suddenly the window to drop closes, you've wasted 200 minerals.
#2 The Warp Prism takes away precious time from the Robo facility.
#3 Protoss doesn't have a really good worker kills that you would want to drop. 8 Marines with Stim can decimate workers, as can Zerglings/Hellions/Banelings. Zealots do decent damage but are too slow, Stalkers, Immortals and Sentries cost too much and do too little DPS.
DT's are HT's are the best options, but both are very high up the tech tree, and thus still open up timings like the 1-1-1. Furthermore, since DT's are cloaked, they often do no need the help of a Warp Prism to reach the opponents mineral line.
The proposed change to increase the shields of the Warp Prism is welcome, but doesn't solve the three fundamental problems with the unit.
It sounds like Blizzard knows this from what I've heard, and will include better harrassment options for Protoss.
I'd like to add that I loved the Age of mythology game for exactly that reason. Not only was playing norse cool to me, with their wolf head/fur wearing basic attack unit guys, but the gameplay style, as mentioned above seemed perfectly strategic. you could go for a head on attack, and you could easily harass and take away resources, but superior gameplay tended to win out ever time.
IN SC2, because Dustin Browder and Co tried to make it "e-sport friendly, where wild upsets and degrees of success lead to the winner and its more entertaining", suddenly the game is a lot more uncertain about win or loss based on skill, and sometimes you can simply nuke something important that ends the game before they even lose their army.
Warp prisms don't have more uses? Proxy pylon that can fly over cliffs seems like a damn good use?
ever try a warp prism following a colossus into a fight, and morphing it right at the start to reinforce on the spot? its deadly to zergs in a standup fight. I just don't see that argument holding water. If you said LIMITED, I might agree.
On September 05 2011 22:45 chestnutcc wrote: A v subjective and amateur viewpoint here; apologies beforehand. I used to play age of empires and age of mythology extensively a few years back, and could not help but notice some interesting distinctions between that series and starcraft 2 (I have no experience with broodwar).
In the age series, macro focused around four resources and the ease of collection of each varied according to its relative importance. For example, gold (or stone) would be randomly flung about the map in concentrated amounts, wood was abundant for the most part etc. Additionally, resource collection required only a low cost dumping structure (such as a granary)*. The effect of this multiplicity of resources was that harassment (or raiding as it is known in that community) was a v integral part of the game. Constant raiding was a feature of even the most macro oriented games (the age series had a interesting blend of hard macro and intensive harass). Since games did not usually end with a few decisive encounters, it was the ability of players to resupply and macro up constantly that won games, and this was what the continuous harass targeted.
iamke55 in an excellent thread** outlines the PvT metagame, which ends in the current state (forget the 1-1-1 for now) of terran taxing protoss multitasking with constant harass. Terran in particular are v suited to this style of play, all thanks (imo) to the mule. This is critical to their playstyle. Count the raiding avenues they have: Reapers, hellions, banshees and drops.
The shift in the zerg meta game may be attributed to the aggressive nestea-losira style (in tastosis terms, nestea being pure reactionary harass, while losira forcing his will on the opponent with constant harass). Zerg have speedlings, mutas and even baneling drops (nydus worms are less seen).
Toss have at best, blink stalkers and phoenix, the latter of which I think are neutralized by a few turrets. I am unsure of the efficacy of DTs, they seem to do better late game, when the opponents attention is stretched over multiple bases, early to mid game a single detector can neutralize them, and they are (taking the tech path into consideration) cost ineffective. Warp prisms are rarely seen, and early to midgame appear to be cost ineffective, due to the constraints the macro game places on toss army size (all ins aside). The interesting thing is that both terran and zerg can effectively pressure from the get go, toss is at a disadvantage here; this is sort of how the game is supposed to be. It would seem toss needs a raiding unit of some sort, to exert some counter pressure cost effectively***.
*This basically meant a single raid wasn't usually game ending, good macro could always resupply efficiently. It was only one part of a larger war of attrition, and effects multiplied the longer the game got. Also note that four resources provided more avenues for effective harass; in sc2 the concentration of two resources at one generally hard to access and defensible spot means the efficacy of harass, when it happens, is vastly increased i.e. a single good raid can end the game.The distinction between harassment and timing attacks is obvious. **http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=196385 ***The inability to do this imo, provides timing windows, which builds like the 1-1-1 exploit.
Good post. I would like to add to this that the reason Warp Prisms are rarely seen is due to a three fundamental problems it has:
#1 The unit has no other uses. Medivacs and Overlords are necessary pieces in nearly every T and every Z build even if they don't drop units, and thus drops become a cheap option for both races that they can deploy if they sense a weakness. If you build a Warp Prism and suddenly the window to drop closes, you've wasted 200 minerals.
#2 The Warp Prism takes away precious time from the Robo facility.
#3 Protoss doesn't have a really good worker kills that you would want to drop. 8 Marines with Stim can decimate workers, as can Zerglings/Hellions/Banelings. Zealots do decent damage but are too slow, Stalkers, Immortals and Sentries cost too much and do too little DPS.
DT's are HT's are the best options, but both are very high up the tech tree, and thus still open up timings like the 1-1-1. Furthermore, since DT's are cloaked, they often do no need the help of a Warp Prism to reach the opponents mineral line.
The proposed change to increase the shields of the Warp Prism is welcome, but doesn't solve the three fundamental problems with the unit.
It sounds like Blizzard knows this from what I've heard, and will include better harrassment options for Protoss.
I'd like to add that I loved the Age of mythology game for exactly that reason. Not only was playing norse cool to me, with their wolf head/fur wearing basic attack unit guys, but the gameplay style, as mentioned above seemed perfectly strategic. you could go for a head on attack, and you could easily harass and take away resources, but superior gameplay tended to win out ever time.
IN SC2, because Dustin Browder and Co tried to make it "e-sport friendly, where wild upsets and degrees of success lead to the winner and its more entertaining", suddenly the game is a lot more uncertain about win or loss based on skill, and sometimes you can simply nuke something important that ends the game before they even lose their army.
Warp prisms don't have more uses? Proxy pylon that can fly over cliffs seems like a damn good use?
ever try a warp prism following a colossus into a fight, and morphing it right at the start to reinforce on the spot? its deadly to zergs in a standup fight. I just don't see that argument holding water. If you said LIMITED, I might agree.
Or you could just proxy a pylon instead which would reinforce at virtually the same speed and give you +8 supply instead of -2, not take robo time away from other units, and lastly costs half as much.
Where warp prisms really shine is in the late game where you are able to warp in units (dts) at 2+ different bases on different sides of maps and maybe take out a key tech building. They are virtually useless for trying to maximize efficient army reinforcing, that's why you never see anyone do it.
do the MLG results count? if yes, then it would be a major flaw in these statistics, since they always invite like 6 t and 2 p and z. and obviously a t will be winning.
On September 06 2011 07:54 harhar! wrote: do the MLG results count? if yes, then it would be a major flaw in these statistics, since they always invite like 6 t and 2 p and z. and obviously a t will be winning.
That actually not the way it works at all. Even if there were a million T player and one P player, if the game were balanced you'd expect 50% win loss record for both races.
On September 06 2011 07:56 SniXSniPe wrote: Is GSL Code A qualifiers even included in this?
Every tournament is included, so MLG, code A, code S, code A qualifiers...as long the game is played between august 1 and 31 and is registered in TLPD, it's in the graph. About terrans in MLG, with a sample size of thousands of games, the results can't be skewed by a single good run of one or a few players (that's why a big sample is important)
On September 06 2011 07:54 harhar! wrote: do the MLG results count? if yes, then it would be a major flaw in these statistics, since they always invite like 6 t and 2 p and z. and obviously a t will be winning.
That actually not the way it works at all. Even if there were a million T player and one P player, if the game were balanced you'd expect 50% win loss record for both races.
Thats only considering if those players are of equal skill. Majority of the invites to mlg from korea are terran and dominate NA players, greatly skewing in terran's favour.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tell that to MVP who used ghosts last night too completely obliterate any tier 3 composition zerg has.
On September 06 2011 08:41 Derity wrote: july had no composition, he sent like 10 ultras without support into nothing and some more weird moves
stats looks quite good to me.
The last attack Jully had 13 Ultralisks, 9 Broodlords, 7ish Infestors and some Corruptors. + random zerg cannon fodders.
Ghosts killed 80% of that using just snipe and the 6 Thors finished the clean-up. He EMPed ONCE and disabled all the Infestors.
After seeing that game I think EMP needs to be a single target ability.
July had like 2 infestors. July was behind after his first attack with all those banelings was terribly cost inefficient. MVP had a ridiculous amount of ghosts as well. Also MVP killed off July's two mining bases. There are tons of reasons why July lost that game and they have nothing to do with the ghost.
On September 06 2011 08:41 Derity wrote: july had no composition, he sent like 10 ultras without support into nothing and some more weird moves
stats looks quite good to me.
The last attack Jully had 13 Ultralisks, 9 Broodlords, 7ish Infestors and some Corruptors. + random zerg cannon fodders.
Ghosts killed 80% of that using just snipe and the 6 Thors finished the clean-up. He EMPed ONCE and disabled all the Infestors.
After seeing that game I think EMP needs to be a single target ability.
July had like 2 infestors. July was behind after his first attack with all those banelings was terribly cost inefficient. MVP had a ridiculous amount of ghosts as well. Also MVP killed off July's two mining bases. There are tons of reasons why July lost that game and they have nothing to do with the ghost.
July wasn't that behind after the first attack. He just made a really bad decision to try to go infestor/broodlord, which is incredibly overrated in my opinion. MVP's drops also did a disgusting amount of damage.
Problem with these are that the ladder also tries to adapt so that people winning alot get paired with better people etc. so even if there was some race difference and a Terran player is better than he should be : He gets paired with better Zerg/Protoss players and the gap is somewhat closed... which means that those differences in % should actually be even larger.
On September 06 2011 09:30 Krehlmar wrote: Problem with these are that the ladder also tries to adapt so that people winning alot get paired with better people etc. so even if there was some race difference and a Terran player is better than he should be : He gets paired with better Zerg/Protoss players and the gap is somewhat closed... which means that those differences in % should actually be even larger.
These aren't ladder stats lol They're TLPD games, just like the OP says
On September 05 2011 19:36 RealQ wrote: Protoss korea winrate is gonna set a all time low, i for one wont be surprised if it drops under 30%
Wow these forums are kind of pathetic about balance. No matter what if you graph balance out onto an axis one race is going to show a lead. More times than not it's going to be the same race each month because developers aren't perfect. Here we see that terrans win 52% of the time and protoss wins 47% of the time. WOW. Big Deal. Yeah. I really expect protoss winrate to drop below 30% lol. Especially considering the drastic change it is showing every month.
On September 06 2011 09:30 Krehlmar wrote: Problem with these are that the ladder also tries to adapt so that people winning alot get paired with better people etc. so even if there was some race difference and a Terran player is better than he should be : He gets paired with better Zerg/Protoss players and the gap is somewhat closed... which means that those differences in % should actually be even larger.
Aren't these TLpd games (tournament games, showmatches) and NOT ladder games?
On September 05 2011 19:36 RealQ wrote: Protoss korea winrate is gonna set a all time low, i for one wont be surprised if it drops under 30%
Wow these forums are kind of pathetic about balance. No matter what if you graph balance out onto an axis one race is going to show a lead. More times than not it's going to be the same race each month because developers aren't perfect. Here we see that terrans win 52% of the time and protoss wins 47% of the time. WOW. Big Deal. Yeah. I really expect protoss winrate to drop below 30% lol. Especially considering the drastic change it is showing every month.
You misunderstood RealQ. He specifically mentioned that he expected Korean Protoss winrate to drop under 30%. Last month, in the PvT matchup, the Protoss winrate was 38%. This month, he wouldn't be surprised if it dropped under 30%.
His prediction makes sense because 1) Terran have started massing ghosts against Protoss to great effect and 2) the 1-1-1 build has had unprecedented success.
So, be careful before proclaiming the forums are pathetic.
not total per EMP; it drains a max 100 energy per target it hits... it used to drain all energy from everything it hit...have you played this game in the last few months?
On September 06 2011 08:41 Derity wrote: july had no composition, he sent like 10 ultras without support into nothing and some more weird moves
stats looks quite good to me.
The last attack Jully had 13 Ultralisks, 9 Broodlords, 7ish Infestors and some Corruptors. + random zerg cannon fodders.
Ghosts killed 80% of that using just snipe and the 6 Thors finished the clean-up. He EMPed ONCE and disabled all the Infestors.
After seeing that game I think EMP needs to be a single target ability.
Make storm and fungal a single target ability then.
Sounds like July needs to just control his units better then. If he split his infestors/controlled his units much better that probably wouldn't have happened.
Still very far from good balance. Last pro league for bw was 49:50:51 for TP, clearly the maps are a problem in sc2. Why are maps such as xelnaga in the map pool? Imbalanced maps deserve to go.
2nd biggest problem is STILL early game scouting. There is a problem in the game when super greedy builds require complete blind all ins to counter them. Stuff like Terran double expanding vs Zerg is very hard to beat. Play safe - lose, play greedy - even/disadvantage, play all in - insta win. In bw, if a Terran got 3 quick bases and it wasn't scouted, he is going to die regardless. Pokes and pressures which are available to all races can actually kill your opponent in brood war. In star craft 2, an unscouted 3rd for 5 minutes has already removed any potential timing window.
These stats keep bumming me out. Terran just seem to be Terran from the launch last year. So many options on one base and 100 ways to deny scouting. Except for scans. You can never stop a scan.
It's probably to be expected terrans will score better at the very highest level. How many really good terrans are there compared to zerg or protoss? I would say at least two times as much and honestly some of that must have to do with the popularity of the race right at release (when they were strongest and a lot of people were starting to play with the goal of becoming competitive)
not total per EMP; it drains a max 100 energy per target it hits... it used to drain all energy from everything it hit...have you played this game in the last few months?
this confirms all the stuff i thought, protoss continually gets shafted and has a losing rate in all matchups sans pvp. I like the fact that when i beat a zerg or a terran they complain that toss is OP and yet toss has the worst win percentages. Though ZvT is also depressing, its not nearly as bad as the current PvT that is just horrid. It just goes to show that the constant nerfing of toss has really set us back. Maybe with some buffs, we can come back to a respectable position. Mind you that zerg is 38% of players terran is 26% random 4% or so and toss is 32%. it seems like lower level terrans switched to zerg with the constant buffing, along with some minor nerfs. I think what needs to change is the meta game, terran has incredibly powerful units in the early game, as seen by the fact that the marine is so infamous for countering its counters. Coupled with the fact that if one lets zerg macro, basically you lose control of the game. I think there needs to be a paradigm shift in the Toss and the Terran, the zerg have had their changes and they are quite powerful now (as seen by the switch from toss to terran and from terran to zerg making zerg the most populous race) What needs to happen is Blizz needs to continue to make the protoss units viable, they have done a great job with the archon and obs and now maybe the immortal, warp prism, and mothership, maybe even the carrier will be next. Whats next needs to be the carrier being made useful and the battlecruiser made viable since the ultra has been made viable by this next patches notes. thats just my very humble opinion, i could be wrong
not total per EMP; it drains a max 100 energy per target it hits... it used to drain all energy from everything it hit...have you played this game in the last few months?
Are you forcefully ignorant or just stupid? I linked the source "EMP now drains up to 100 energy instead of all available energy" as of patch 1.30
Just a suggestion. Perhaps we could include in the graphs prevalent builds or changes every time there is a substantial shift in win-rates. I don't know if other people will be more interested with seeing that or it's just me.
I don't see why everyone is complaining so hard. From what I see there is nothing over a 5% deviation, which is pretty good, i'm sorry your race isn't on the uprise
so, can anyone explain to me how terran is always at the top of winrates, yet they vehemently insist that they're overpowered. (please, for my sanity, don't just say "they're overpowered" or "they say that to try to not get nerfed"
Based on the sample size for August there's about a 2% Margin of Error. Basically, we can take it to mean that if the sample size were larger for the month of August, Terran could actually be around 50.4%, and Protoss around 48.9%. That's relatively balanced.
That said, we haven't seen the Korean graphs. The win rates may not be so forgiving in Korea.
On September 06 2011 10:20 Grumbels wrote: It's probably to be expected terrans will score better at the very highest level. How many really good terrans are there compared to zerg or protoss? I would say at least two times as much and honestly some of that must have to do with the popularity of the race right at release (when they were strongest and a lot of people were starting to play with the goal of becoming competitive)
That's stupid, especially for Korea. People pick the race that's perceived to be the strongest with the most potential. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the overpopulation of Terrans.
On September 06 2011 11:11 Cassel_Castle wrote: You'll never get 50% winrates for each race. 53-55% is perfectly normal for a balanced game, just look at BW.
Each one you took has less than 100 of each matchup. That's not really enough to judge because 1-2 games skews it heavily one way or another.
From what I can see in those BW stats, each race is slightly favoured in one of their matchups as a trend. This isn't the case for the SC2 statistics. Terran is favoured in ALL matchups, and has been for months now. Protoss in particular is having a hard time of it.
SC2 is not even in the 53-55% range, it's much less balanced than that. Look at the Korean numbers (the equivalent to the shinhan proleague numbers from BW).
For balance, the only thing you can look at is the highest levels. Assuming people of relatively equal skill pick up each race, think about this. If the game is harder to win for protoss players, they won't make it as far at the higher levels as people of the other races. This means less representation at that highest level, and lower win percentages at that level. We see both of these at the moment.
And don't say that you can't assume equal skill since there are so many "talented terrans." This wouldn't make any sense for there to be randomly twice as many skilled terran players compared to the other races. Therefore if they really are more talented then the only other explanation is that there are more people picking up terran in the first place, which isn't true based on stats about how many people play each race.
It could be that the people who want to play competitively are the ones choosing terran more. But that would mean they thought it gave them the best chance to win, which if most of the up-and-comers do, then it is also bad for the game, because even they perceive it as the strongest race.
not total per EMP; it drains a max 100 energy per target it hits... it used to drain all energy from everything it hit...have you played this game in the last few months?
Are you forcefully ignorant or just stupid? I linked the source "EMP now drains up to 100 energy instead of all available energy" as of patch 1.30
you're both saying the same thing.....
maybe we are? in that case I apologize and the only thing i edited in my post was a semicolon for clarity.
When he says, 100 energy drained per emp, to me that sounds like 1 emp will only drain a total of 100 energy no matter how many units it hits. I wanted to clarify that it drains 100 energy from every unit it hits, so 1 EMP could drain upwords of 600 energy (per emp). Its just semantics if we are in agreement and this is derailment anyway so on topic:
The international PvX winrates are close enough, the korean ones are a little bit far out of the margin of error. People say the sample size is too small but it is universally agreed that the concentration of good players and overall understanding of the game is much higher in korea, which gives added weight to their numbers.
Based on the sample size for August there's about a 2% Margin of Error. Basically, we can take it to mean that if the sample size were larger for the month of August, Terran could actually be around 50.4%, and Protoss around 48.9%. That's relatively balanced.
That said, we haven't seen the Korean graphs. The win rates may not be so forgiving in Korea.
Or it could be 54.4 and 46.9 based on that logic. You can't just add and subtract wherever you want. If you use 2% as your confidence interval though, then all you can say is that you are confident that T wins 'more than it should' and vice versa for P.
Besides, margin of error is only relevant when you are taking a sample from a larger population. In this case I would say that the entire population has been sampled (or close), namely official tournament games. So there is no margin of error. This of course raises questions about what you want your population to be, but I think what has been used is a fair trade off regarding play level and having a decent number of games. You definitely wouldn't want to include ladder stats of any level for example, even if it was possible.
Talk of 'anything under 5% is balanced' is just ridiculous. Fluctuations in the rate are going to happen as strategies develop and this causes movements from month to month. However to suggest a long term average of 47.5 to 52.5 in a matchup is close enough to balanced if we are looking at a stable game is just wrong. It indicates a significant imbalance. At the moment though, I would say the development of strategies and patch changes mean its impossible to draw any real conclusions. All you can say is that T has without a doubt had it good the entire time since release with Z and P struggling at different points. I do think overall gameplay has started to settle down though. The level of play seen and builds executed are no longer all over the place.
On September 06 2011 10:15 Gegenschein wrote: People should learn not to put green and red in a graph, especially when there are only 3 colors involved. They'd make us color blind folks happy.
Yeah, I agree with this. Especially because it was so clear during the earlier months and also because red-green color blindness is actually not all that uncommon (I think its almost like 1 in every 10 males is red-green colorblind). It used to be yellow for P, purple for Z and red for T and it was very vibrant and easily distinguishable, I think the colors actually suited each race better as well. I guess it wasn't traditional enough as far as the TL color icons went so they switched it to match those.
On September 06 2011 12:55 Not_That wrote: He initially used different colors, until Day[9] remarked that he should follow the race color convention that has been used on TL since SC1.
On September 06 2011 10:20 Grumbels wrote: It's probably to be expected terrans will score better at the very highest level. How many really good terrans are there compared to zerg or protoss? I would say at least two times as much and honestly some of that must have to do with the popularity of the race right at release (when they were strongest and a lot of people were starting to play with the goal of becoming competitive)
That's stupid, especially for Korea. People pick the race that's perceived to be the strongest with the most potential. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the overpopulation of Terrans.
actually he made alot of good points, and you just said "HEY NO ITS NOT THATS STUPID!! HEY!! STUPID!!"
I don't know how you can argue that. His argument boils down to 'Terran players are just better'. How does one go about proving such a thing? In a game with millions of players (and 114,000 players on the Korean server), can you really make the argument that the ones who chose Terran are simply better? Wouldn't it be more realistic to consider the possibility that the game is not balanced?
The worst thing about playing protoss is that people still bitch at you for playing because they remember that short golden era of protoss when we all go our timing attacks down the let us win the game outright of cripple you so much that we would win later.
The Korean stats are relevant. We've all looked at Korean Pro-BW stats for years as indicative of the general balance (with slight rock/paper/scissors features; T > Z > P > T) and they're a small sample size too. We've also used small numbers of matches to create map statistics to determine the balance of the specific map in BW too. Again, it's not really questioned, and maps that have shown win rates much > 70 odd % have generally found themselves quickly of of use...
They (korean pros) are the pinnacle of the game and large variance in win % in their game pools is concerning.
Okay, it is officially time. Once brutal enemies the zerg and protoss must unite forces to take out the dreaded terran. For too long has their domination go unhindered, for too long have we stood idly by and watched as they dominated in all match ups. Gentleman: You all know the mission, and what is at stake. I have come to trust each of you with my life -- but I have also heard murmurs of discontent. I share your concerns. We are trained for battle; we would be legends, but the terran exist. Glory in battle is not our way. Think of our heroes; the Gracken, who defeated a nation with a single complaint. Or the ObamaToss, who kept drops at bay with his mighty "penixes". These giants do not seem to give us solace here, but they are not all that we are. Before the network, there was the fleet. Before diplomacy, there were soldiers! Our influence stopped the Overmind, but before that we held the line! Our influence stopped the UED, but before that, we held the line! Our influence will stop Terran; in the battle today, we will hold the line!
Let us sons of the Xel'Naga cease our fighting, unite, and make sure that when next month rolls around, it is the terran at the bottom of the win chart!
On September 06 2011 13:48 Brett wrote: No surprises there, frankly...
The Korean stats are relevant. We've all looked at Korean Pro-BW stats for years as indicative of the general balance (with slight rock/paper/scissors features; T > Z > P > T) and they're a small sample size too. We've also used small numbers of matches to create map statistics to determine the balance of the specific map in BW too. Again, it's not really questioned, and maps that have shown win rates much > 70 odd % have generally found themselves quickly of of use...
They (korean pros) are the pinnacle of the game and large variance in win % in their game pools is concerning.
I agree. That's why I think the Korean graph should be posted for the month of August, and not just the international graph.
On September 06 2011 13:32 Not_That wrote: I don't know how you can argue that. His argument boils down to 'Terran players are just better'. How does one go about proving such a thing? In a game with millions of players (and 114,000 players on the Korean server), can you really make the argument that the ones who chose Terran are simply better? Wouldn't it be more realistic to consider the possibility that the game is not balanced?
You can make the argument that Terran is the easiest transition from BW, since all of the mechanics basically shifted over with a few additions. Compared to chrono, inject, and warpgates, there's not much different about Terran from BW. Mix that with a population who feasts on BW and a strong showing at release and you have a recipe for attracting a lot of good, curious players.
The reality is that there are far more top Ts in Korea than any other race. If MC and Genius have slumps, that means P winrate drops off the face of the earth. If MVP and MMA have slumps, well Polt, MKP, Bomber, Ganzi, TOP, SC, etc. can still make up the numbers of Terran. That doesn't inherently mean T is imba, just that more top players picked T. It's not like we watch GSL these days and gawk at how bad Terrans are, yet still winning. We don't see SCV conga lines grabbing wins off better players like we did a year ago.
terran is the most popular race in korea. korean has more top pros playing terran. not only does this affect the numbers by itself, but builds and strategies grow exponentially faster because there are more heads working together. not saying terran isn't the strongest overall, but its certainly not dramatic. and i would love for a zerg to argue tvz is imbalanced.
On September 06 2011 13:32 Not_That wrote: I don't know how you can argue that. His argument boils down to 'Terran players are just better'. How does one go about proving such a thing? In a game with millions of players (and 114,000 players on the Korean server), can you really make the argument that the ones who chose Terran are simply better? Wouldn't it be more realistic to consider the possibility that the game is not balanced?
You can make the argument that Terran is the easiest transition from BW, since all of the mechanics basically shifted over with a few additions. Compared to chrono, inject, and warpgates, there's not much different about Terran from BW. Mix that with a population who feasts on BW and a strong showing at release and you have a recipe for attracting a lot of good, curious players.
The reality is that there are far more top Ts in Korea than any other race. If MC and Genius have slumps, that means P winrate drops off the face of the earth. If MVP and MMA have slumps, well Polt, MKP, Bomber, Ganzi, TOP, SC, etc. can still make up the numbers of Terran. That doesn't inherently mean T is imba, just that more top players picked T. It's not like we watch GSL these days and gawk at how bad Terrans are, yet still winning. We don't see SCV conga lines grabbing wins off better players like we did a year ago.
Agreed. When you compare Korean terrans vs foreigner terrans, the gap in skill is obvious. When you compare Korean zergs vs foreigner zergs, the gap in skill is obvious. When you compare Korean protoss vs foreigner protoss, the gap in skill is obvious...with only MC. Just look at the performance of code S protoss in foreign tournements. I saw nothing in Sangho, Tester or Alicia that would indicate they are any measure better than elite foreign protoss like Naniwa, Whitera or Mana. If 2nd tier Korean protoss are only as good as foreigners, then it's reasonable to suggest Korea is lacking in good protoss.
On September 06 2011 13:32 Not_That wrote: I don't know how you can argue that. His argument boils down to 'Terran players are just better'. How does one go about proving such a thing? In a game with millions of players (and 114,000 players on the Korean server), can you really make the argument that the ones who chose Terran are simply better? Wouldn't it be more realistic to consider the possibility that the game is not balanced?
You can make the argument that Terran is the easiest transition from BW, since all of the mechanics basically shifted over with a few additions. Compared to chrono, inject, and warpgates, there's not much different about Terran from BW. Mix that with a population who feasts on BW and a strong showing at release and you have a recipe for attracting a lot of good, curious players.
The reality is that there are far more top Ts in Korea than any other race. If MC and Genius have slumps, that means P winrate drops off the face of the earth. If MVP and MMA have slumps, well Polt, MKP, Bomber, Ganzi, TOP, SC, etc. can still make up the numbers of Terran. That doesn't inherently mean T is imba, just that more top players picked T. It's not like we watch GSL these days and gawk at how bad Terrans are, yet still winning. We don't see SCV conga lines grabbing wins off better players like we did a year ago.
This is illogical.
You list macro mechanic changes for Protoss and Zerg and leave out Terran's? I don't see how you can state that Terran is "not much different about Terran from BW". I would think the people calling for vultures, goliaths, firebats, science vessels, wraiths and every other BW unit would disagree with you.
Then you state that because there are far more Terran's who are consistently doing well, they are not imbalanced. I am not going to argue they are imbalanced but this hardly supports your argument. Rather, perhaps they are doing well because they have an advantage. It goes both ways. Remember, imbalance doesn't have to be "SCV conga lines grabbing wins", it is the thin edge of wedge, that gives a player an advantage. See Day9's awesome article on this point.
Argue that there isn't enough data, or that its biased, or that the variance is due to chance; but the argument you put forward is illogical.
On September 06 2011 13:32 Not_That wrote: I don't know how you can argue that. His argument boils down to 'Terran players are just better'. How does one go about proving such a thing? In a game with millions of players (and 114,000 players on the Korean server), can you really make the argument that the ones who chose Terran are simply better? Wouldn't it be more realistic to consider the possibility that the game is not balanced?
You can make the argument that Terran is the easiest transition from BW, since all of the mechanics basically shifted over with a few additions. Compared to chrono, inject, and warpgates, there's not much different about Terran from BW. Mix that with a population who feasts on BW and a strong showing at release and you have a recipe for attracting a lot of good, curious players.
The reality is that there are far more top Ts in Korea than any other race. If MC and Genius have slumps, that means P winrate drops off the face of the earth. If MVP and MMA have slumps, well Polt, MKP, Bomber, Ganzi, TOP, SC, etc. can still make up the numbers of Terran. That doesn't inherently mean T is imba, just that more top players picked T. It's not like we watch GSL these days and gawk at how bad Terrans are, yet still winning. We don't see SCV conga lines grabbing wins off better players like we did a year ago.
This is illogical.
You list macro mechanic changes for Protoss and Zerg and leave out Terran's? I don't see how you can state that Terran is "not much different about Terran from BW". I would think the people calling for vultures, goliaths, firebats, science vessels, wraiths and every other BW unit would disagree with you.
Then you state that because there are far more Terran's who are consistently doing well, they are not imbalanced. I am not going to argue they are imbalanced but this hardly supports your argument. Rather, perhaps they are doing well because they have an advantage. It goes both ways. Remember, imbalance doesn't have to be "SCV conga lines grabbing wins", it is the thin edge of wedge, that gives a player an advantage. See Day9's awesome article on this point.
Argue that there isn't enough data, or that its biased, or that the variance is due to chance; but the argument you put forward is illogical.
I'm so tired of balance whining against terran at this point that I'd accept massive nerfs to my race if it meant people didn't delegitimize wins anymore.
On September 06 2011 10:15 Gegenschein wrote: People should learn not to put green and red in a graph, especially when there are only 3 colors involved. They'd make us color blind folks happy.
Yeah, I agree with this. Especially because it was so clear during the earlier months and also because red-green color blindness is actually not all that uncommon (I think its almost like 1 in every 10 males is red-green colorblind). It used to be yellow for P, purple for Z and red for T and it was very vibrant and easily distinguishable, I think the colors actually suited each race better as well. I guess it wasn't traditional enough as far as the TL color icons went so they switched it to match those.
Yeah, sorry about that. I think the TL colors are ideal for most of the community, but obviously not all. I was hoping the symbols would make it somewhat readable for color blind.
It's very little work for me to release an alternate color version if you are interested.
Based on the sample size for August there's about a 2% Margin of Error. Basically, we can take it to mean that if the sample size were larger for the month of August, Terran could actually be around 50.4%, and Protoss around 48.9%. That's relatively balanced.
That said, we haven't seen the Korean graphs. The win rates may not be so forgiving in Korea.
If so, this could also mean that Protoss have 44.9% win rate.
Protoss is struggling heavily these days and i really hope the new patch will make it more balanced. I think that for many terran players own sake, they need the nerf. Just to be able to legitmize their wins.
On September 06 2011 13:32 Not_That wrote: I don't know how you can argue that. His argument boils down to 'Terran players are just better'. How does one go about proving such a thing? In a game with millions of players (and 114,000 players on the Korean server), can you really make the argument that the ones who chose Terran are simply better? Wouldn't it be more realistic to consider the possibility that the game is not balanced?
You can make the argument that Terran is the easiest transition from BW, since all of the mechanics basically shifted over with a few additions. Compared to chrono, inject, and warpgates, there's not much different about Terran from BW. Mix that with a population who feasts on BW and a strong showing at release and you have a recipe for attracting a lot of good, curious players.
The reality is that there are far more top Ts in Korea than any other race. If MC and Genius have slumps, that means P winrate drops off the face of the earth. If MVP and MMA have slumps, well Polt, MKP, Bomber, Ganzi, TOP, SC, etc. can still make up the numbers of Terran. That doesn't inherently mean T is imba, just that more top players picked T. It's not like we watch GSL these days and gawk at how bad Terrans are, yet still winning. We don't see SCV conga lines grabbing wins off better players like we did a year ago.
This is illogical.
You list macro mechanic changes for Protoss and Zerg and leave out Terran's? I don't see how you can state that Terran is "not much different about Terran from BW". I would think the people calling for vultures, goliaths, firebats, science vessels, wraiths and every other BW unit would disagree with you.
Then you state that because there are far more Terran's who are consistently doing well, they are not imbalanced. I am not going to argue they are imbalanced but this hardly supports your argument. Rather, perhaps they are doing well because they have an advantage. It goes both ways. Remember, imbalance doesn't have to be "SCV conga lines grabbing wins", it is the thin edge of wedge, that gives a player an advantage. See Day9's awesome article on this point.
Argue that there isn't enough data, or that its biased, or that the variance is due to chance; but the argument you put forward is illogical.
i'd like to nominate this post for longest-post-that-says-nothing for this thread.
seriously dude wtf are you trying to argue lol? that he cant argue? like wat?
This is pretty much irrelevant to 99% of people on here i believe this stats are from tournys etc? so these figures literally prove nothing for how your game is playing even, on like the Gm ladder? For example i believe in my situatuon which is eu dia its like a 4:4:3 ratio for p/z/t and t has the lowest winrate and imo is the hardest to play that level, the top level of play says otherwise but for me thats irrelevant.
Also i cant see why anyone can complain about this id admit toss is a bit low but if T drops down by 1% and toss is up by 1% then its pretty brilliant and 1.4 will probably achieve this
On September 06 2011 18:29 Tuk wrote: This is pretty much irrelevant to 99% of people on here i believe this stats are from tournys etc? so these figures literally prove nothing for how your game is playing even, on like the Gm ladder? For example i believe in my situatuon which is eu dia its like a 4:4:3 ratio for p/z/t and t has the lowest winrate and imo is the hardest to play that level, the top level of play says otherwise but for me thats irrelevant.
Also i cant see why anyone can complain about this id admit toss is a bit low but if T drops down by 1% and toss is up by 1% then its pretty brilliant and 1.4 will probably achieve this
Balance affects all levels, not just GSL code S or whatever arbitrary line you wish to draw.
And no, if P goes up by 1% and T down by 1% it won't be 'brilliant'. Last month's Korean statistics were 38.8% for P.
wow i really thought protoss would drop more, but doesn't look that bad actually. And i wish tvz would be so easy as the graph makes me wanna think it is x3. Well i think the patch should move those graphs x3
On September 05 2011 20:04 spacemonkeyy wrote: Yet according to Idra- protoss still OP. Fucking LOL.
Actually now his response is that Protoss players are all (to quote verbatim) "retarded". Evidently, none of the Protoss are playing the game correctly according to Idra.
My question for Idra is: if Protoss is so damn good why don't you play as Protoss? My guess would be because then he wouldn't have an excuse when he loses.
Statistics don't lie. And if we look at the top level of play: Code A TvT, Code S TvT, MLG Anaheim lots of Terran at the top with a Terran victory, MLG Raleigh another T victory. Korean ladder dominated by Korean Terran. Can't argue results.
Dustin Browder says Terran is the most complete race, which in a game this young means we are only starting to see the trend of what Terran is capable of. This statement from Mr. Browder insinuates that Protoss and Zerg are not complete, and thus relegated to less strategy.
I think every pro should play Terran, since TvT is such a fun matchup.
Then, after HotS comes out, they can all switch to Zerg, which will be the most "complete" race at that point.
And finally, after LotV, we can see some "complete" Protoss mirrors. Assuming anybody sticks around to watch or play this silly game afterwards.
If you're an aspiring progamer looking to choose your race, there's literally no reason not to pick Terran, all other things being equal. Whether this implies "imbalance", or whatever, is totally irrelevant in the end. What is relevant, is that eventually we're going to have 24+ Terrans in Code S, and some Protosses and Zerg hanging on by only practicing their vT. That is, and I don't use this phrase lightly, what could truly hurt SC2 as an e-sport. It's the fate of all the other "competitive" RTS games, with tournaments only being played with one race, and so forth.
On September 06 2011 22:28 Toadvine wrote: I think every pro should play Terran, since TvT is such a fun matchup.
Then, after HotS comes out, they can all switch to Zerg, which will be the most "complete" race at that point.
And finally, after LotV, we can see some "complete" Protoss mirrors. Assuming anybody sticks around to watch or play this silly game afterwards.
If you're an aspiring progamer looking to choose your race, there's literally no reason not to pick Terran, all other things being equal. Whether this implies "imbalance", or whatever, is totally irrelevant in the end. What is relevant, is that eventually we're going to have 24+ Terrans in Code S, and some Protosses and Zerg hanging on by only practicing their vT. That is, and I don't use this phrase lightly, what could truly hurt SC2 as an e-sport. It's the fate of all the other "competitive" RTS games, with tournaments only being played with one race, and so forth.
Actually if you're a foreigner, you're better off playing protoss. Top3 foreigners in prize money won are protoss, and a foreigner terran winning a major tournament hasn't happened since Thorzain won TSL.
But by all means, stop watching already if you find it so silly. We have enough protoss players playing victim as it is.
On September 06 2011 22:28 Toadvine wrote: I think every pro should play Terran, since TvT is such a fun matchup.
Then, after HotS comes out, they can all switch to Zerg, which will be the most "complete" race at that point.
And finally, after LotV, we can see some "complete" Protoss mirrors. Assuming anybody sticks around to watch or play this silly game afterwards.
If you're an aspiring progamer looking to choose your race, there's literally no reason not to pick Terran, all other things being equal. Whether this implies "imbalance", or whatever, is totally irrelevant in the end. What is relevant, is that eventually we're going to have 24+ Terrans in Code S, and some Protosses and Zerg hanging on by only practicing their vT. That is, and I don't use this phrase lightly, what could truly hurt SC2 as an e-sport. It's the fate of all the other "competitive" RTS games, with tournaments only being played with one race, and so forth.
Actually if you're a foreigner, you're better off playing protoss. Top3 foreigners in prize money won are protoss, and a foreigner terran winning a major tournament hasn't happened since Thorzain won TSL.
But by all means, stop watching already if you find it so silly. We have enough protoss players playing victim as it is.
I don't think this is such a good prospect, considering we now have Koreans in every major tournament. And foreigner Protosses really don't do that well against Koreans (except for HuK, but his "foreigner" status is a bit iffy). And in any case, choosing Protoss for this reason is essentially hoping your opponents play bad. If you have confidence in your mechanics, multitasking and micro, then Terran is still your best bet.
And how am I "playing victim"? I'm complaining about this as a viewer, as a player it obviously doesn't affect me at all. And yes, I find myself watching less and less SC2 (GSL in particular), because you can only watch so much TvT, or Terran 1 base all-ins against Protoss, until it becomes extremely tedious. Thank god for Zerg at least, TvZ and PvZ are both quite fun and interesting.
On September 05 2011 22:45 chestnutcc wrote: A v subjective and amateur viewpoint here; apologies beforehand. I used to play age of empires and age of mythology extensively a few years back, and could not help but notice some interesting distinctions between that series and starcraft 2 (I have no experience with broodwar).
In the age series, macro focused around four resources and the ease of collection of each varied according to its relative importance. For example, gold (or stone) would be randomly flung about the map in concentrated amounts, wood was abundant for the most part etc. Additionally, resource collection required only a low cost dumping structure (such as a granary)*. The effect of this multiplicity of resources was that harassment (or raiding as it is known in that community) was a v integral part of the game. Constant raiding was a feature of even the most macro oriented games (the age series had a interesting blend of hard macro and intensive harass). Since games did not usually end with a few decisive encounters, it was the ability of players to resupply and macro up constantly that won games, and this was what the continuous harass targeted.
iamke55 in an excellent thread** outlines the PvT metagame, which ends in the current state (forget the 1-1-1 for now) of terran taxing protoss multitasking with constant harass. Terran in particular are v suited to this style of play, all thanks (imo) to the mule. This is critical to their playstyle. Count the raiding avenues they have: Reapers, hellions, banshees and drops.
The shift in the zerg meta game may be attributed to the aggressive nestea-losira style (in tastosis terms, nestea being pure reactionary harass, while losira forcing his will on the opponent with constant harass). Zerg have speedlings, mutas and even baneling drops (nydus worms are less seen).
Toss have at best, blink stalkers and phoenix, the latter of which I think are neutralized by a few turrets. I am unsure of the efficacy of DTs, they seem to do better late game, when the opponents attention is stretched over multiple bases, early to mid game a single detector can neutralize them, and they are (taking the tech path into consideration) cost ineffective. Warp prisms are rarely seen, and early to midgame appear to be cost ineffective, due to the constraints the macro game places on toss army size (all ins aside). The interesting thing is that both terran and zerg can effectively pressure from the get go, toss is at a disadvantage here; this is sort of how the game is supposed to be. It would seem toss needs a raiding unit of some sort, to exert some counter pressure cost effectively***.
*This basically meant a single raid wasn't usually game ending, good macro could always resupply efficiently. It was only one part of a larger war of attrition, and effects multiplied the longer the game got. Also note that four resources provided more avenues for effective harass; in sc2 the concentration of two resources at one generally hard to access and defensible spot means the efficacy of harass, when it happens, is vastly increased i.e. a single good raid can end the game.The distinction between harassment and timing attacks is obvious. **http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=196385 ***The inability to do this imo, provides timing windows, which builds like the 1-1-1 exploit.
Good post. I would like to add to this that the reason Warp Prisms are rarely seen is due to a three fundamental problems it has:
#1 The unit has no other uses. Medivacs and Overlords are necessary pieces in nearly every T and every Z build even if they don't drop units, and thus drops become a cheap option for both races that they can deploy if they sense a weakness. If you build a Warp Prism and suddenly the window to drop closes, you've wasted 200 minerals.
#2 The Warp Prism takes away precious time from the Robo facility.
#3 Protoss doesn't have a really good worker kills that you would want to drop. 8 Marines with Stim can decimate workers, as can Zerglings/Hellions/Banelings. Zealots do decent damage but are too slow, Stalkers, Immortals and Sentries cost too much and do too little DPS.
DT's are HT's are the best options, but both are very high up the tech tree, and thus still open up timings like the 1-1-1. Furthermore, since DT's are cloaked, they often do no need the help of a Warp Prism to reach the opponents mineral line.
The proposed change to increase the shields of the Warp Prism is welcome, but doesn't solve the three fundamental problems with the unit.
It sounds like Blizzard knows this from what I've heard, and will include better harrassment options for Protoss.
I'd like to add that I loved the Age of mythology game for exactly that reason. Not only was playing norse cool to me, with their wolf head/fur wearing basic attack unit guys, but the gameplay style, as mentioned above seemed perfectly strategic. you could go for a head on attack, and you could easily harass and take away resources, but superior gameplay tended to win out ever time.
IN SC2, because Dustin Browder and Co tried to make it "e-sport friendly, where wild upsets and degrees of success lead to the winner and its more entertaining", suddenly the game is a lot more uncertain about win or loss based on skill, and sometimes you can simply nuke something important that ends the game before they even lose their army.
Warp prisms don't have more uses? Proxy pylon that can fly over cliffs seems like a damn good use?
ever try a warp prism following a colossus into a fight, and morphing it right at the start to reinforce on the spot? its deadly to zergs in a standup fight. I just don't see that argument holding water. If you said LIMITED, I might agree.
Or you could just proxy a pylon instead which would reinforce at virtually the same speed and give you +8 supply instead of -2, not take robo time away from other units, and lastly costs half as much.
Where warp prisms really shine is in the late game where you are able to warp in units (dts) at 2+ different bases on different sides of maps and maybe take out a key tech building. They are virtually useless for trying to maximize efficient army reinforcing, that's why you never see anyone do it.
warp in time for pylons = what, 25 seconds? Warp in time for morphing a WP into a mobile pylon = 2 seconds.
And Im talking about putting it right on the enemy creep, a place a pylon cant go. But whatever, you're free to think what you like, even if its wrong.
On September 06 2011 09:13 Bagi wrote: We've had literally one game where ghosts were used very effectively against zerg and people are already crying for nerfs?
Is this for real?
its less the point that ghost is Anti-caster and now appears to be Anti-ARMY. How does that make sense?
In Brood war, ghosts sucked vs Mech (or medium and large units) hard. Their main use was to provide EMP and nukes.
With the addition of SNIPE, they've literally become Anti-Zerg en masse. Because Zerg has no mech.
I don't see why everyone is complaining so hard. From what I see there is nothing over a 5% deviation, which is pretty good, i'm sorry your race isn't on the uprise
right because terran having over 60% win rate at times is less than 5% deviation...
On September 06 2011 13:32 Not_That wrote: I don't know how you can argue that. His argument boils down to 'Terran players are just better'. How does one go about proving such a thing? In a game with millions of players (and 114,000 players on the Korean server), can you really make the argument that the ones who chose Terran are simply better? Wouldn't it be more realistic to consider the possibility that the game is not balanced?
What I meant was that these win rates reflect balance at a pro-level. Korea obviously has a history with competitive gaming and with the release of a new game such as Starcraft II a lot of Koreans started to play knowing they were capable of playing at a competitive level, perhaps because they were already good at Brood War. It's not a stretch at all to say that there might be certain factors that could lead to a higher percentage of professional players picking Terran as their race, since they made their race choice with competitive play in mind.
1. Terran was strongest at release. 2. Terran was always the race with the best representation at higher levels. 3. Terran is the most successful race in Brood War. 4. Boxer and Nada were high-profile Terran players that switched to Starcraft II and might have inspired some youngsters to pick Terran. 5. Terran allows for multitasking and plays similar to Brood War's Terran. 6. If you ask a lot of pros what their advice would be to an aspiring pro, they'd say: pick Terran. This might be a joke, but I think it's still accepted in Korea Terran is the best race for competitive play. It might be a wrong impression by them, but it would still be influential in some way.
If this is true - it might be, I don't know - then just using the GSL in a discussion about balance is likely flawed as you would need broader data. It's also dangerous in that people can get bored of TvT, so I suppose Blizzard should keep an eye on stuff like this.
On September 06 2011 16:25 tomatriedes wrote: I wonder if the terran player/fans would be quite so sanguine about these win rates if it were the other races that were ahead. Methinks not.
Well - of course not. It has nothing to do with being Terran though. Whichever race is the strongest at a certain point in time will gladly complain when they are on the bottom of the food chain.
The only problem is that the vast majority of people turn into whiny 5th graders saying stuff like "LOL now it's my turn to whine.." etc. taking away from any meaningful discussion.
On September 06 2011 15:03 j0ker wrote: terran is the most popular race in korea. korean has more top pros playing terran. not only does this affect the numbers by itself, but builds and strategies grow exponentially faster because there are more heads working together. not saying terran isn't the strongest overall, but its certainly not dramatic. and i would love for a zerg to argue tvz is imbalanced.
more people playing one race or the other wont make a difference. because:
if both races have perfect balance, 50/50 W:L between T and P will still be observed. As All P's eventually lose because it has an equal chance of winning vs T, and there's more T's so eventually they lose, then it will be TvT, which are all thrown out when considering W:L since T can still only win 50% of the time.
Lets make an example
2P and 10T.
after 4 games, assuming P wins the first game, There is no more P, and only T left. TvT obviously won't increase the winrate of TvP. So even though there's a lot more Ts in the game it did nothing to affect the W:L between TvP.
This is of course assuming that there's equally skilled players playing both T and P, which is what does occur when Ts and Ps make it to the same tournament. they have demonstrated that level of skill.
On September 06 2011 15:03 j0ker wrote: terran is the most popular race in korea. korean has more top pros playing terran. not only does this affect the numbers by itself, but builds and strategies grow exponentially faster because there are more heads working together. not saying terran isn't the strongest overall, but its certainly not dramatic. and i would love for a zerg to argue tvz is imbalanced.
more people playing one race or the other wont make a difference. because:
if both races have perfect balance, 50/50 W:L between T and P will still be observed. As All P's eventually lose because it has an equal chance of winning vs T, and there's more T's so eventually they lose, then it will be TvT, which are all thrown out when considering W:L since T can still only win 50% of the time.
Lets make an example
2P and 10T.
after 4 games, assuming P wins the first game, There is no more P, and only T left. TvT obviously won't increase the winrate of TvP. So even though there's a lot more Ts in the game it did nothing to affect the W:L between TvP.
This is of course assuming that there's equally skilled players playing both T and P, which is what does occur when Ts and Ps make it to the same tournament. they have demonstrated that level of skill.
Not true! More T means more player thinking about T and a faster evolving metagame for T! If 100 Protoss try to figure out a solution to 1-1-1 it obviously going to take a longer time than if there were 1000 Protoss (lets asume equal skill, picking another race doesn't make you more skilled!)
On September 07 2011 00:36 Skydancer wrote: Will be fun to see T % drop to 45% for a years and see how much they wine. ^^
P and Z could sit down and just say : NOW IT'S YOUR TURN! :-D
Doesn't really matter to the average TL user anyway. It's the korean terrans with pristine mechanics/multitasking/micro that really make it shine, the standard diamond/masters terran on ladder hasn't been dominating all this time lol.
Same reasoning makes it silly that people complain so much, if you are losing it's almost guaranteed to be due to your own terrible mistakes rather than imbalance.
On September 06 2011 15:03 j0ker wrote: terran is the most popular race in korea. korean has more top pros playing terran. not only does this affect the numbers by itself, but builds and strategies grow exponentially faster because there are more heads working together. not saying terran isn't the strongest overall, but its certainly not dramatic. and i would love for a zerg to argue tvz is imbalanced.
more people playing one race or the other wont make a difference. because:
if both races have perfect balance, 50/50 W:L between T and P will still be observed. As All P's eventually lose because it has an equal chance of winning vs T, and there's more T's so eventually they lose, then it will be TvT, which are all thrown out when considering W:L since T can still only win 50% of the time.
Lets make an example
2P and 10T.
after 4 games, assuming P wins the first game, There is no more P, and only T left. TvT obviously won't increase the winrate of TvP. So even though there's a lot more Ts in the game it did nothing to affect the W:L between TvP.
This is of course assuming that there's equally skilled players playing both T and P, which is what does occur when Ts and Ps make it to the same tournament. they have demonstrated that level of skill.
Not true! More T means more player thinking about T and a faster evolving metagame for T! If 100 Protoss try to figure out a solution to 1-1-1 it obviously going to take a longer time than if there were 1000 Protoss (lets asume equal skill, picking another race doesn't make you more skilled!)
If only we could see the results of the Terran "evolving metagame" in anything but TvT. TvZ and TvP have mostly been the same thing over and over since release, just with improving execution. If what you're doing works, then why change it? Protoss and Zerg innovation was an effect of these races struggling in their matchups - and lo and behold, PvZ is by far the matchup that sees the most change in strategies and playstyles.
On September 06 2011 15:03 j0ker wrote: terran is the most popular race in korea. korean has more top pros playing terran. not only does this affect the numbers by itself, but builds and strategies grow exponentially faster because there are more heads working together. not saying terran isn't the strongest overall, but its certainly not dramatic. and i would love for a zerg to argue tvz is imbalanced.
more people playing one race or the other wont make a difference. because:
if both races have perfect balance, 50/50 W:L between T and P will still be observed. As All P's eventually lose because it has an equal chance of winning vs T, and there's more T's so eventually they lose, then it will be TvT, which are all thrown out when considering W:L since T can still only win 50% of the time.
Lets make an example
2P and 10T.
after 4 games, assuming P wins the first game, There is no more P, and only T left. TvT obviously won't increase the winrate of TvP. So even though there's a lot more Ts in the game it did nothing to affect the W:L between TvP.
This is of course assuming that there's equally skilled players playing both T and P, which is what does occur when Ts and Ps make it to the same tournament. they have demonstrated that level of skill.
Not true! More T means more player thinking about T and a faster evolving metagame for T! If 100 Protoss try to figure out a solution to 1-1-1 it obviously going to take a longer time than if there were 1000 Protoss (lets asume equal skill, picking another race doesn't make you more skilled!)
ever hear of "too many cooks in the kitchen"? There will be entropy with the supposed growth of Terran builds because of the fact that build X which beats Protoss build Y won't be necessary because Protoss build Y hasn't been invented yet due to lower numbers of Protoss. So saying that Terrans will build build X when it has no use is akin to saying that people will build a giant spaceship right now to flee Earth because its going to be destroyed in 10 million years when the sun finally explodes.
There's no way they're going to do that because its not a forseeable future that can be planned around.
The slower growing race sets the pace. So your reasoning is flawed.. If the Terrans do Build X to beat P build Y, which P hasn't even invented yet, then It will only help P as it will reveal what P CAN do.
On September 07 2011 00:36 Skydancer wrote: Will be fun to see T % drop to 45% for a years and see how much they wine. ^^
P and Z could sit down and just say : NOW IT'S YOUR TURN! :-D
Doesn't really matter to the average TL user anyway. It's the korean terrans with pristine mechanics/multitasking/micro that really make it shine, the standard diamond/masters terran on ladder hasn't been dominating all this time lol.
Same reasoning makes it silly that people complain so much, if you are losing it's almost guaranteed to be due to your own terrible mistakes rather than imbalance.
Not true at all. The average master ladder terran sees korean terran going for 1 base allin, copies it and wins easily. The thing is that you don't really need "pristine mechanics/multitasking/micro" to execute this 1 base builds which win you most of the TvP.
On September 07 2011 00:36 Skydancer wrote: Will be fun to see T % drop to 45% for a years and see how much they wine. ^^
P and Z could sit down and just say : NOW IT'S YOUR TURN! :-D
Doesn't really matter to the average TL user anyway. It's the korean terrans with pristine mechanics/multitasking/micro that really make it shine, the standard diamond/masters terran on ladder hasn't been dominating all this time lol.
Same reasoning makes it silly that people complain so much, if you are losing it's almost guaranteed to be due to your own terrible mistakes rather than imbalance.
It DOES matter to the average TL user. Not because it affects them when they play, but it definitely affects the highest level matches, which many TL users watch. If SC2 is not fun to watch for protoss and zerg players because terrans are too dominant, then a large portion of the fan base will stop watching MLG and the GSL and esports will take a big hit. Making sure one race does not dominate is imperative for the game to survive long enough to even reach the last expansion.
In Brood war, ghosts sucked vs Mech (or medium and large units) hard. Their main use was to provide EMP and nukes.
Uh? In BW ghosts didnt have EMP
you're right, it was lockdown, which targeted a mech unit and made it immobile + unable to attack. Oh the QQ if infestor Fungal did that.
Um yeah, I'm sure people would QQ if a single-target ability from Brood War was given a large AOE...Though I suppose neural parasite does the same thing, just for a much shorter period of time and lets you have control over the unit.
On September 05 2011 20:04 spacemonkeyy wrote: Yet according to Idra- protoss still OP. Fucking LOL.
Protoss do have some insanely OP abilities, but are nerfed overally to balance them out.
Sentry Force Field is such a hard ability, it should not even exist.
One fungal does the same thing as 6 forcefields, and it does damage... and it allow zergling/ultra melee units to attack trapped units... and it hits/traps air... and you can't burrow move under it or pick up units with dropships out of it.
On September 05 2011 20:04 spacemonkeyy wrote: Yet according to Idra- protoss still OP. Fucking LOL.
Protoss do have some insanely OP abilities, but are nerfed overally to balance them out.
Sentry Force Field is such a hard ability, it should not even exist.
One fungal does the same thing as 6 forcefields, and it does damage... and it allow zergling/ultra melee units to attack trapped units... and it hits/traps air... and you can't burrow move under it or pick up units with dropships out of it.
On September 05 2011 20:04 spacemonkeyy wrote: Yet according to Idra- protoss still OP. Fucking LOL.
Protoss do have some insanely OP abilities, but are nerfed overally to balance them out.
Sentry Force Field is such a hard ability, it should not even exist.
One fungal does the same thing as 6 forcefields, and it does damage... and it allow zergling/ultra melee units to attack trapped units... and it hits/traps air... and you can't burrow move under it or pick up units with dropships out of it.
But FF is OP?
Force Field lasts 3.5 times as long.
Zerg would trade all of fungals damage for that.
if you trade the great mobility, hence the map control, the cheapass units and the ability to pump out several workers at the same time, i would be in for the trade!
On September 05 2011 20:04 spacemonkeyy wrote: Yet according to Idra- protoss still OP. Fucking LOL.
Protoss do have some insanely OP abilities, but are nerfed overally to balance them out.
Sentry Force Field is such a hard ability, it should not even exist.
One fungal does the same thing as 6 forcefields, and it does damage... and it allow zergling/ultra melee units to attack trapped units... and it hits/traps air... and you can't burrow move under it or pick up units with dropships out of it.
But FF is OP?
Force Field lasts 3.5 times as long.
Zerg would trade all of fungals damage for that.
if you trade the great mobility, hence the map control, the cheapass units and the ability to pump out several workers at the same time, i would be in for the trade!
Why're you whining about balance? Learn to play ZvP if you have a problem with it, insted of crying about it.
On September 05 2011 20:04 spacemonkeyy wrote: Yet according to Idra- protoss still OP. Fucking LOL.
Protoss do have some insanely OP abilities, but are nerfed overally to balance them out.
Sentry Force Field is such a hard ability, it should not even exist.
One fungal does the same thing as 6 forcefields, and it does damage... and it allow zergling/ultra melee units to attack trapped units... and it hits/traps air... and you can't burrow move under it or pick up units with dropships out of it.
But FF is OP?
Force Field lasts 3.5 times as long.
Zerg would trade all of fungals damage for that.
if you trade the great mobility, hence the map control, the cheapass units and the ability to pump out several workers at the same time, i would be in for the trade!
These hyperbole arguments are always really stupid. If you both want to trade or want to banter like that why don't you switch races -_-
On September 05 2011 20:04 spacemonkeyy wrote: Yet according to Idra- protoss still OP. Fucking LOL.
Protoss do have some insanely OP abilities, but are nerfed overally to balance them out.
Sentry Force Field is such a hard ability, it should not even exist.
One fungal does the same thing as 6 forcefields, and it does damage... and it allow zergling/ultra melee units to attack trapped units... and it hits/traps air... and you can't burrow move under it or pick up units with dropships out of it.
But FF is OP?
Force Field lasts 3.5 times as long.
Zerg would trade all of fungals damage for that.
if you trade the great mobility, hence the map control, the cheapass units and the ability to pump out several workers at the same time, i would be in for the trade!
These hyperbole arguments are always really stupid. If you both want to trade or want to banter like that why don't you switch races -_-
Here's what I don't get.
people could generate some random maps that have balance, and then tweak units inside these maps, calling them "UNOFFICIAL patch 1.4.1 etc" and basically consist of people testing what works and what doesn't on their own.
Thus the community of SC2 themselves could figure out whats imbalanced and whats not, and all WITHOUT having to wait for blizzard to tell them what is good for the game.
But they'd all rather sit here and bitch instead of creating thier own answers via custom maps and discovering, hey, marine really does( or doesnt) work being tweaked a little, or hey, Force Field on cooldown might work and be less OP (if you think it is).
That is what I dont get about the supposed "community". They don't act like one to solve problems.
On September 05 2011 20:04 spacemonkeyy wrote: Yet according to Idra- protoss still OP. Fucking LOL.
Protoss do have some insanely OP abilities, but are nerfed overally to balance them out.
Sentry Force Field is such a hard ability, it should not even exist.
One fungal does the same thing as 6 forcefields, and it does damage... and it allow zergling/ultra melee units to attack trapped units... and it hits/traps air... and you can't burrow move under it or pick up units with dropships out of it.
But FF is OP?
Force Field lasts 3.5 times as long.
Zerg would trade all of fungals damage for that.
if you trade the great mobility, hence the map control, the cheapass units and the ability to pump out several workers at the same time, i would be in for the trade!
These hyperbole arguments are always really stupid. If you both want to trade or want to banter like that why don't you switch races -_-
Here's what I don't get.
people could generate some random maps that have balance, and then tweak units inside these maps, calling them "UNOFFICIAL patch 1.4.1 etc" and basically consist of people testing what works and what doesn't on their own.
Thus the community of SC2 themselves could figure out whats imbalanced and whats not, and all WITHOUT having to wait for blizzard to tell them what is good for the game.
But they'd all rather sit here and bitch instead of creating thier own answers via custom maps and discovering, hey, marine really does( or doesnt) work being tweaked a little, or hey, Force Field on cooldown might work and be less OP (if you think it is).
That is what I dont get about the supposed "community". They don't act like one to solve problems.
The only people who can reliably judge balance (which changes constantly any ways) are pros who don't even waste their time playing PTR, let alone an unofficial patch which will probably be ridiculous any ways.
On September 05 2011 20:04 spacemonkeyy wrote: Yet according to Idra- protoss still OP. Fucking LOL.
Protoss do have some insanely OP abilities, but are nerfed overally to balance them out.
Sentry Force Field is such a hard ability, it should not even exist.
One fungal does the same thing as 6 forcefields, and it does damage... and it allow zergling/ultra melee units to attack trapped units... and it hits/traps air... and you can't burrow move under it or pick up units with dropships out of it.
But FF is OP?
Force Field lasts 3.5 times as long.
Zerg would trade all of fungals damage for that.
lol are you sure you wanna trade =)) I wish FF could kill marines that fast or even do any damage lol.
On September 05 2011 20:04 spacemonkeyy wrote: Yet according to Idra- protoss still OP. Fucking LOL.
Protoss do have some insanely OP abilities, but are nerfed overally to balance them out.
Sentry Force Field is such a hard ability, it should not even exist.
One fungal does the same thing as 6 forcefields, and it does damage... and it allow zergling/ultra melee units to attack trapped units... and it hits/traps air... and you can't burrow move under it or pick up units with dropships out of it.
But FF is OP?
Force Field lasts 3.5 times as long.
Zerg would trade all of fungals damage for that.
if you trade the great mobility, hence the map control, the cheapass units and the ability to pump out several workers at the same time, i would be in for the trade!
These hyperbole arguments are always really stupid. If you both want to trade or want to banter like that why don't you switch races -_-
Here's what I don't get.
people could generate some random maps that have balance, and then tweak units inside these maps, calling them "UNOFFICIAL patch 1.4.1 etc" and basically consist of people testing what works and what doesn't on their own.
Thus the community of SC2 themselves could figure out whats imbalanced and whats not, and all WITHOUT having to wait for blizzard to tell them what is good for the game.
But they'd all rather sit here and bitch instead of creating thier own answers via custom maps and discovering, hey, marine really does( or doesnt) work being tweaked a little, or hey, Force Field on cooldown might work and be less OP (if you think it is).
That is what I dont get about the supposed "community". They don't act like one to solve problems.
We don't even agree on what is imbalanced in the game we currently play. How are a bunch of custom maps supposed to bring anything conclusive to the table?
On September 05 2011 20:33 Snowbear wrote: 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.
TvP lategame is impossible for Terran? Have you been away from the game since before the amulet removal or something? ATM Protoss is having huge trouble lategame against Terran - ghosts are wrecking face everywhere. Midgame timing attacks are the only thing ATM that Protoss are having a decent amount of success with.
Post a game where a terran wins lategame against COLLOSSUS, ZEALOT, ARCHON and SPREADED ht's. Marauders die against zealots, so you need marines. Marines melt against HT and collossus. There is no change to win when toss has 5 bases, like they can have on those big GSL maps.
Win a battle as terran? No problem, thats 2 warpins and maxed again. Lose a battle as terran? Warp 1 round, maxed again, attack terrans raxes, GG.
I'm talking about a 5+base protoss.
Are you implying that Terran tier one units occasionally die to well-microed Protoss tier three units?
I'm inclined to agree with you. In that case, most Koreans have discovered that throwing down a factory, starport, or ghost academy are good follow-ups.
Hopefully the Korea chart comes out soon, its pretty clear most people care about that one more nowadays (not surprisingly, since balance means the most at the highest level of play).
I remember Blizz' publishing official win rate statistics for the leagues of each server (last year they did this for sure). Are there any current statistics from Blizz' available? Would be happy if some of you have a link.
Why QQ about Forcefields? imagine protoss without forcefields, protoss gateway units would need a huge buff or Zerg or Terran can just roll over protoss early game T__T
On September 08 2011 00:04 DrunkenJedi wrote: I remember Blizz' publishing official win rate statistics for the leagues of each server (last year they did this for sure). Are there any current statistics from Blizz' available? Would be happy if some of you have a link.
i think they did something like that at last years blizzcon. was quite interesting indeed. the problem with raw-winrates on the servers is the matchmaking system which tends to generate 50 % winrates. therefore they adjust for MMR. you can find the video here: on youtube i really hope that they give us current statistics at this years blizzcon.
Well if they would only use games played by Korean grandmaster players you should get a pretty good picture where the ladder balance stands at the moment. Of course the sample size will be a lot smaller but they play a lot of games, so it shouldn't be too bad.
On September 07 2011 07:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Are you seriously balance whining as Terran?
LOL!
you speak as if terran is the most imbalanced race of all time and any idiot could win with it easily. but you are wrong good sir. ppl look always at these super grandmaster korean terrans and say "they have high winrate so this startegy is imba". but it just doesnt work like that in the lower leagues, because the players cant utalize everything that the terran race offers. and still ppl start QQing and want nerfing and buffing.
On September 07 2011 07:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Are you seriously balance whining as Terran?
LOL!
you speak as if terran is the most imbalanced race of all time and any idiot could win with it easily. but you are wrong good sir. ppl look always at these super grandmaster korean terrans and say "they have high winrate so this startegy is imba". but it just doesnt work like that in the lower leagues, because the players cant utalize everything that the terran race offers. and still ppl start QQing and want nerfing and buffing.
...what? I don't even understand what you're trying to say. It's ok to Terran whine because you're bad?
On September 07 2011 07:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Are you seriously balance whining as Terran?
LOL!
you speak as if terran is the most imbalanced race of all time and any idiot could win with it easily. but you are wrong good sir. ppl look always at these super grandmaster korean terrans and say "they have high winrate so this startegy is imba". but it just doesnt work like that in the lower leagues, because the players cant utalize everything that the terran race offers. and still ppl start QQing and want nerfing and buffing.
...what? I don't even understand what you're trying to say. It's ok to Terran whine because you're bad?
What he means is most (all) people whining aren't personally affected by imbalance. Because at their level skill is the only thing that matter. Well, that's not true, that affects their GSL viewing pleasure because there is too much TvT nowadays.
Seriously, people over-estimate PvT lategame woes. Yeah ghosts are really damn strong, but so are storms and colossi. Whenever a protoss player does lose to terran in the lategame, it actually feels like they got outplayed or outsmarted. The same cannot exactly be said for 1-1-1. If we removed 1-1-1 from the equation, I think the TvP winrates would be very close to 50%.
Lategame zerg seems to be much tougher for protoss to beat, there's no imba timing to mess with the statistics, yet the win rates are even worse. I guess its more acceptable to hate on every aspect of terran because code S is full of them.
On September 07 2011 07:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Are you seriously balance whining as Terran?
LOL!
you speak as if terran is the most imbalanced race of all time and any idiot could win with it easily. but you are wrong good sir. ppl look always at these super grandmaster korean terrans and say "they have high winrate so this startegy is imba". but it just doesnt work like that in the lower leagues, because the players cant utalize everything that the terran race offers. and still ppl start QQing and want nerfing and buffing.
...what? I don't even understand what you're trying to say. It's ok to Terran whine because you're bad?
What he means is most (all) people whining aren't personally affected by imbalance. Because at their level skill is the only thing that matter. Well, that's not true, that affects their GSL viewing pleasure because there is too much TvT nowadays.
This is really interesting. It's a lot easier to find good replays of terrans to copy than it is to find protoss or zerg. Good luck finding a bunch of PvZ replays. There is no way to tell, but I wonder if there is a trickle down effect, because more Terrans play at the top level in Korea, more terran strategies are readily available to watch, and thus on any level lower than pro Korean, people are able to learn/benefit a bit more from the Korean Terrans than from the other 2 races. (Which makes for more/better terrans, which in turn yields more pro terrans.)
Though a lot of it for sure can't transfer down that far, i.e. ghost vs ultra, need some decent apm for that.
Personally, I think people are too focused on PvT. Protoss is having a lot of troubles with terrans due to 1/1/1 and end game mass ghosts. But what people realize is the PvZ is more of a problem. The only reason why people haven't said anything is due to the dominance of terran overall.
People might think Im Bsing, but just look at the data.
PvZ for this GSL (code A and Code S): 28% 4 wins-10 losses PvT for this GSL (code A and Code S): 34% 15 wins 29 losses
People can interpet this data however they want but remember all the top zerg players (Losaira and Nestea) actually got knocked out by terrans very early in the tourny.
Remember this is not a balance whine. Im sure blizzard are looking into the 1/1/1 as its win rate is super high for an all in, but I think protoss players needs to focus on PvZ as it is the entirety of the matchup hard to focus on.
On September 08 2011 04:33 xbankx wrote: Personally, I think people are too focused on PvT. Protoss is having a lot of troubles with terrans due to 1/1/1 and end game mass ghosts. But what people realize is the PvZ is more of a problem. The only reason why people haven't said anything is due to the dominance of terran overall.
People might think Im Bsing, but just look at the data.
PvZ for this GSL (code A and Code S): 28% 4 wins-10 losses PvT for this GSL (code A and Code S): 34% 15 wins 29 losses
People can interpet this data however they want but remember all the top zerg players (Losaira and Nestea) actually got knocked out by terrans very early in the tourny.
Remember this is not a balance whine. Im sure blizzard are looking into the 1/1/1 as its win rate is super high for an all in, but I think protoss players needs to focus on PvZ as it is the entirety of the matchup hard to focus on.
Okay, let's look at those 10 Protoss losses.
4 of them were foreigners losing to Koreans. That was just bracket luck; if they had faced Terrans or Protoss they would have lost.
2 of them come from DRG owning Inca. Inca sucks.
1 of them is DRG beating JYP, but DRG lost that series.
The remainder of them all come from July, beating Hongun and Genius.
Look at those games, and tell me with a straight face and tell me they mean anything. Ever heard of a small sample size? Every single Z beat a P who he was massively superior to.
On September 08 2011 04:33 xbankx wrote: Personally, I think people are too focused on PvT. Protoss is having a lot of troubles with terrans due to 1/1/1 and end game mass ghosts. But what people realize is the PvZ is more of a problem. The only reason why people haven't said anything is due to the dominance of terran overall.
People might think Im Bsing, but just look at the data.
PvZ for this GSL (code A and Code S): 28% 4 wins-10 losses PvT for this GSL (code A and Code S): 34% 15 wins 29 losses
People can interpet this data however they want but remember all the top zerg players (Losaira and Nestea) actually got knocked out by terrans very early in the tourny.
Remember this is not a balance whine. Im sure blizzard are looking into the 1/1/1 as its win rate is super high for an all in, but I think protoss players needs to focus on PvZ as it is the entirety of the matchup hard to focus on.
Okay, let's look at those 10 Protoss losses.
4 of them were foreigners losing to Koreans. That was just bracket luck; if they had faced Terrans or Protoss they would have lost.
2 of them come from DRG owning Inca. Inca sucks.
1 of them is DRG beating JYP, but DRG lost that series.
The remainder of them all come from July, beating Hongun and Genius.
Look at those games, and tell me with a straight face and tell me they mean anything. Ever heard of a small sample size? Every single Z beat a P who he was massively superior to.
I'm all for looking at the matches, but you have to realize that people have been making this argument for months, when month after month Protoss have been getting smashed in GSL PvZ.
On September 08 2011 04:33 xbankx wrote: Personally, I think people are too focused on PvT. Protoss is having a lot of troubles with terrans due to 1/1/1 and end game mass ghosts. But what people realize is the PvZ is more of a problem. The only reason why people haven't said anything is due to the dominance of terran overall.
People might think Im Bsing, but just look at the data.
PvZ for this GSL (code A and Code S): 28% 4 wins-10 losses PvT for this GSL (code A and Code S): 34% 15 wins 29 losses
People can interpet this data however they want but remember all the top zerg players (Losaira and Nestea) actually got knocked out by terrans very early in the tourny.
Remember this is not a balance whine. Im sure blizzard are looking into the 1/1/1 as its win rate is super high for an all in, but I think protoss players needs to focus on PvZ as it is the entirety of the matchup hard to focus on.
Okay, let's look at those 10 Protoss losses.
4 of them were foreigners losing to Koreans. That was just bracket luck; if they had faced Terrans or Protoss they would have lost.
2 of them come from DRG owning Inca. Inca sucks.
1 of them is DRG beating JYP, but DRG lost that series.
The remainder of them all come from July, beating Hongun and Genius.
Look at those games, and tell me with a straight face and tell me they mean anything. Ever heard of a small sample size? Every single Z beat a P who he was massively superior to.
I'm all for looking at the matches, but you have to realize that people have been making this argument for months, when month after month Protoss have been getting smashed in GSL PvZ.
Smashed? The sample sizes are tiny. Last month the P losses mostly came from Nestea and Losira, whereas the best PvZ'ers got themselves eliminated by P and T. Code A was dead even. Before that was the Super Tournament, which was almost dead even (11-12). The stats that should be fueling this discussion show a very mild bias to Zerg, true--and that's why next patch has equally mild rebalances in favor of Protoss. I simply don't see a serious problem.
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.
On September 08 2011 04:18 Bagi wrote: Seriously, people over-estimate PvT lategame woes. Yeah ghosts are really damn strong, but so are storms and colossi. Whenever a protoss player does lose to terran in the lategame, it actually feels like they got outplayed or outsmarted. The same cannot exactly be said for 1-1-1. If we removed 1-1-1 from the equation, I think the TvP winrates would be very close to 50%.
Lategame zerg seems to be much tougher for protoss to beat, there's no imba timing to mess with the statistics, yet the win rates are even worse. I guess its more acceptable to hate on every aspect of terran because code S is full of them.
On September 08 2011 09:34 imareaver3 wrote: Smashed? The sample sizes are tiny. Last month the P losses mostly came from Nestea and Losira, whereas the best PvZ'ers got themselves eliminated by P and T. Code A was dead even. Before that was the Super Tournament, which was almost dead even (11-12). The stats that should be fueling this discussion show a very mild bias to Zerg, true--and that's why next patch has equally mild rebalances in favor of Protoss. I simply don't see a serious problem.
Strange. In the opening months of SC2 when Zergs were bashing Toss with spurious arguments on how imbalanced ZvP was, Terran was on the Zerg bandwagon beating their drum. Now there's clear evidence showing a skewed win ratio for Terrans v P, especially in Korea, somehow the 'real' problem is actually with Zergs v P. Interesting indeed.
I guess when Terran fanboys become tired of GomTvT then we can have an honest discussion on the matter of balance.
On September 08 2011 04:18 Bagi wrote: Seriously, people over-estimate PvT lategame woes. Yeah ghosts are really damn strong, but so are storms and colossi. Whenever a protoss player does lose to terran in the lategame, it actually feels like they got outplayed or outsmarted. The same cannot exactly be said for 1-1-1. If we removed 1-1-1 from the equation, I think the TvP winrates would be very close to 50%.
Lategame zerg seems to be much tougher for protoss to beat, there's no imba timing to mess with the statistics, yet the win rates are even worse. I guess its more acceptable to hate on every aspect of terran because code S is full of them.
On September 08 2011 09:34 imareaver3 wrote: Smashed? The sample sizes are tiny. Last month the P losses mostly came from Nestea and Losira, whereas the best PvZ'ers got themselves eliminated by P and T. Code A was dead even. Before that was the Super Tournament, which was almost dead even (11-12). The stats that should be fueling this discussion show a very mild bias to Zerg, true--and that's why next patch has equally mild rebalances in favor of Protoss. I simply don't see a serious problem.
Strange. In the opening months of SC2 when Zergs were bashing Toss with spurious arguments on how imbalanced ZvP was, Terran was on the Zerg bandwagon beating their drum. Now there's clear evidence showing a skewed win ratio for Terrans v P, especially in Korea, somehow the 'real' problem is actually with Zergs v P. Interesting indeed.
I guess when Terran fanboys become tired of GomTvT then we can have an honest discussion on the matter of balance.
GomTvT is the smartest thing said in this thread. The rest is all gibberish from people who wish they understood how math works.
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 imbalance arguments 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.
On September 08 2011 04:33 xbankx wrote: Personally, I think people are too focused on PvT. Protoss is having a lot of troubles with terrans due to 1/1/1 and end game mass ghosts. But what people realize is the PvZ is more of a problem. The only reason why people haven't said anything is due to the dominance of terran overall.
People might think Im Bsing, but just look at the data.
PvZ for this GSL (code A and Code S): 28% 4 wins-10 losses PvT for this GSL (code A and Code S): 34% 15 wins 29 losses
People can interpet this data however they want but remember all the top zerg players (Losaira and Nestea) actually got knocked out by terrans very early in the tourny.
Remember this is not a balance whine. Im sure blizzard are looking into the 1/1/1 as its win rate is super high for an all in, but I think protoss players needs to focus on PvZ as it is the entirety of the matchup hard to focus on.
Okay, let's look at those 10 Protoss losses.
4 of them were foreigners losing to Koreans. That was just bracket luck; if they had faced Terrans or Protoss they would have lost.
2 of them come from DRG owning Inca. Inca sucks.
1 of them is DRG beating JYP, but DRG lost that series.
The remainder of them all come from July, beating Hongun and Genius.
Look at those games, and tell me with a straight face and tell me they mean anything. Ever heard of a small sample size? Every single Z beat a P who he was massively superior to.
JYP PvZ is MUCH stronger than DRG ZvP, still he dropped a game and july didnt to both hongun and genius PvZ is a problem blizzard is not seeing
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.
JYP PvZ is MUCH stronger than DRG ZvP, still he dropped a game and july didnt to both hongun and genius PvZ is a problem blizzard is not seeing
Firstly, don't know why you're calling DRG's ZvP bad. He has only 14 ZvP's played, and he won 10 of them. Not enough data....
Also, have you read the 1.4 patchnotes? They seem to quite clearly address any ZvP imbalances.
That blizzard should almost never ask or take feedback or balance suggestions or any balance related thing from the foreign community.
Naniwa winning MLG dallas at the height of "protoss imbalance" happened at the beginning of April. Protoss win rate was at 50% for March, and later 30% for April on the Korea side. NO PATCH WAS RELEASED BETWEEN MARCH AND APRIL. Meaning all that whining about the deathball and Protoss was still only at 50% win rate. In Korea winrates for protoss going into April was abysmal, and soon NA caught up, but all the whining that Blizzard listened too already took place and Protoss got a patch in May despite having a 30% win rate in Korea.
Another interesting thing to do. Take the jing jing meter, (the korean QQ poll), and overlay it over this graph. It's like players whine against reality.
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.
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.
JYP PvZ is MUCH stronger than DRG ZvP, still he dropped a game and july didnt to both hongun and genius PvZ is a problem blizzard is not seeing
Firstly, don't know why you're calling DRG's ZvP bad. He has only 14 ZvP's played, and he won 10 of them. Not enough data....
Also, have you read the 1.4 patchnotes? They seem to quite clearly address any ZvP imbalances.
well, tbh 10 wins in 14 games is not that good for a guy like DRG, don't get me wrong, im saying his ZvP is bad as much as Nestea ZvT is bad, it's not bad, it's just not the best in the world.
he lost to hero and JYP (the second not sure) and couldnt get to code A a lot of time cause of that
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
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 20:29 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 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.
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?
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.
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 06:24 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.
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 06:18 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 06:24 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.
On September 22 2011 07:16 crms wrote: 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.
People argue because they have different experiences. I'm probably better than 90% of the people posting in this thread and I play all 3 races--- but of course that doesn't make me right about arguments about balance. Nor does MVP saying "xxx is imbalanced" mean it is. We all struggle in certain match ups for whatever reason, like I dislike TvP and PvZ, while some individuals might find those as easy match ups.
You say things about Terran, and yet I feel like the only race that needs to be nerfed/QQ'd about is Zerg, but again, that is my opinion that Zerg is the best race. Having tons of options as Terran doesn't mean it's easier to win. Coincidentally, ZvT and TvZ are my two best match ups and I feel like they are somewhat close to balance, with Zerg slightly favored. The only issue I saw in this match up was a certain 2-rax (such as 12/12) being to effective and possibly game ending (though some Zerg's refuse to try early pooling first, such as myself in ZvT).
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.
wut?
terran has been nerfed the most BY FAR, zerg has been buffed pretty much every patch and protoss had about the same amount of buffs compared to nerfs overall.
There wasn't a single buff for terran that actually made the game easier for us, we had our best units nerfed (rightfully so in most cases) and all the buffs we got were battlecruiser speed buff (as if that really ever matters) and HSM speed buff (pretty pointless buff aswell because it's still a bad spell).
Every single patch terran has been nerfed and the other races got more buffs than nerfs. So seriously, what gave you the idea that terran had to deal with no nerfs at all? It's consistently been nerfed and it weren't even small nerfs, some of the nerfs were huge, so that entire strategies and matchups were changed.
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- tanks lost 25 damage vs light, 10 vs armored (previous: 60 damage vs everything)
- emp only kills 100 energy (previous: all energy)
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
- the thor is feedbackable + strike cannon change (they made it an upgrade, 150 energy for cannon) (+ damage nerfs)
- medviacs are slower + heal slower then before
- battlecruisers got nerfed (damage)
- bunker nerfs
- hellion nerf
- reaper nerf
So basicly the units that are not nerfed: - banshee - raven - marauder - marine - viking
What many Terran fans aren't getting is there's a growing concern at the top most level of the game going beyond the players and affecting even the hosts of this E-Sport. When the main casters of GOMTV asks GSL winner Polt 'Why are there so many Terrans?' you know something is wrong. And no, his answer wasn't "It's a cultural thing", "Terran players are just better" or “L2Play Goldie”. Watch the video. See what he says.
This has been going on since April in Korea. Top Terran players are calling it out. GSL hosts are calling it out. Blizzard's SC2 developers admits it. And yet you have so many Terran fans who refuse to acknowledge anything's wrong. Just peruse forums like this one, BNet or Reddit or listen to casters like CatsPajamas or PainUser and witness the denial with insults abound. Of course, then there's those who knows what's up. But instead of being honest, they attack through proxy by playing up Zerg griefs against Toss or vice versa.
Why is this allowed to go on I can only guess. It really may be a deliberate strategy by Activision/Blizzard. Any perceived imbalances is easily deniable. This may lead to grief and polarization, but the controversy it breeds maintains interest in the end. Just watch pro-sports or even “pro” wrestling. Polarized fans and their passion is a big part of the scene. It doesn't matter if your side was unfair, you just want them to crush any and all opposition. It all goes back to the good old Gladiator days and Activision knows it.
But for me, as a spectator, I'd rather the maximum attainable balance to exist at the top level where the best player wins in the end. I'll admit I'm a Protoss fan, but I can definitely appreciate awesome Terran and Zerg plays and players too. I enjoy feints, I love ambushes, I'm impressed by perfectly measured responses and dizzying multitasking, but I need the race diversity to keep things fresh. And that's the beauty of Brood War. You have three very different factions with different philosophies and play styles yet balanced somehow. It didn't evolve into a mirror match up fest of one race spamming series after series. But sadly it seems, that's where SC2 is heading and may not survive in Korea as a result. It just may be SC2 will be the game for foreigners while Brood War remains the mainstay for Koreans.
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.
wut?
terran has been nerfed the most BY FAR, zerg has been buffed pretty much every patch and protoss had about the same amount of buffs compared to nerfs overall.
There wasn't a single buff for terran that actually made the game easier for us, we had our best units nerfed (rightfully so in most cases) and all the buffs we got were battlecruiser speed buff (as if that really ever matters) and HSM speed buff (pretty pointless buff aswell because it's still a bad spell).
Every single patch terran has been nerfed and the other races got more buffs than nerfs. So seriously, what gave you the idea that terran had to deal with no nerfs at all? It's consistently been nerfed and it weren't even small nerfs, some of the nerfs were huge, so that entire strategies and matchups were changed.
Really? Terran is only most nerfed if you have a selected memory and the only change you can remember from beta are of reaper and siege tank. Zerg had almost all of their units nerfed (queen, roach, hydra, infestor, broodlord; lurker was removed right before close beta invites were sent out), while Terran's gotten shorter build time on all of their production structure (one of which is reverted in patch 1.4); banshee was buffed; turret was buffed; thor was somewhat buffed. Protoss has just recently caught up with Zerg with the warpgate nerf a while ago.
On September 22 2011 06:17 tntrieu wrote: Here is the Korean August Graph that was just released a couple of days ago.
Zerg finally is ahead of terran, nice (i am a terran player). If you remove all 1-1-1's the tvp graph would look much better.
Think of it this way: in Code S at least a third of the Terrans don't deserve to be there and yet Zergs barely have a 55% win ratio against them, while Terran has a a overwhelming 65% winrate against Protoss... + Show Spoiler +
On September 22 2011 14:01 Fwiffo wrote: What many Terran fans aren't getting is there's a growing concern at the top most level of the game going beyond the players and affecting even the hosts of this E-Sport. When the main casters of GOMTV asks GSL winner Polt 'Why are there so many Terrans?' you know something is wrong. And no, his answer wasn't "It's a cultural thing", "Terran players are just better" or “L2Play Goldie”. Watch the video. See what he says.
This has been going on since April in Korea. Top Terran players are calling it out. GSL hosts are calling it out. Blizzard's SC2 developers admits it. And yet you have so many Terran fans who refuse to acknowledge anything's wrong. Just peruse forums like this one, BNet or Reddit or listen to casters like CatsPajamas or PainUser and witness the denial with insults abound. Of course, then there's those who knows what's up. But instead of being honest, they attack through proxy by playing up Zerg griefs against Toss or vice versa.
Why is this allowed to go on I can only guess. It really may be a deliberate strategy by Activision/Blizzard. Any perceived imbalances is easily deniable. This may lead to grief and polarization, but the controversy it breeds maintains interest in the end. Just watch pro-sports or even “pro” wrestling. Polarized fans and their passion is a big part of the scene. It doesn't matter if your side was unfair, you just want them to crush any and all opposition. It all goes back to the good old Gladiator days and Activision knows it.
But for me, as a spectator, I'd rather the maximum attainable balance to exist at the top level where the best player wins in the end. I'll admit I'm a Protoss fan, but I can definitely appreciate awesome Terran and Zerg plays and players too. I enjoy feints, I love ambushes, I'm impressed by perfectly measured responses and dizzying multitasking, but I need the race diversity to keep things fresh. And that's the beauty of Brood War. You have three very different factions with different philosophies and play styles yet balanced somehow. It didn't evolve into a mirror match up fest of one race spamming series after series. But sadly it seems, that's where SC2 is heading and may not survive in Korea as a result. It just may be SC2 will be the game for foreigners while Brood War remains the mainstay for Koreans.
TL;DR Just watch the video!
This. I play Protoss on a Platinum level and I don't get affected at all with this balance issues everyone is saying. However when I watch tournaments and high level plays like GSL I get sad seeing good players get knocked out. Take for example the first game between Huk and Virus in the GSL yesterday + Show Spoiler +
HuK gets an all-in from Virus and defends it. Later on Virus goes fro another all-in. Even Artosis said "what can you do?"
Even MC and Puma's games were depressing to watch. I know MC is in a slump lately but he is still not that bad compared to others. Oh well I'll stop ranting and just play because I still enjoy it whatever other people say.
The ZvP graph is really bipolar. Max two months of any one side being dominant, and the swings are usually ridiculous. I guess the metagame is still very unpredictable and volatile.
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.
wut?
terran has been nerfed the most BY FAR, zerg has been buffed pretty much every patch and protoss had about the same amount of buffs compared to nerfs overall.
There wasn't a single buff for terran that actually made the game easier for us, we had our best units nerfed (rightfully so in most cases) and all the buffs we got were battlecruiser speed buff (as if that really ever matters) and HSM speed buff (pretty pointless buff aswell because it's still a bad spell).
Every single patch terran has been nerfed and the other races got more buffs than nerfs. So seriously, what gave you the idea that terran had to deal with no nerfs at all? It's consistently been nerfed and it weren't even small nerfs, some of the nerfs were huge, so that entire strategies and matchups were changed.
Really? Terran is only most nerfed if you have a selected memory and the only change you can remember from beta are of reaper and siege tank. Zerg had almost all of their units nerfed (queen, roach, hydra, infestor, broodlord; lurker was removed right before close beta invites were sent out), while Terran's gotten shorter build time on all of their production structure (one of which is reverted in patch 1.4); banshee was buffed; turret was buffed; thor was somewhat buffed. Protoss has just recently caught up with Zerg with the warpgate nerf a while ago.
hurr durr, beta means the game isn't ready for official play (let alone competitive play) yet...why should it count?
has protoss been the most nerfed race since their mothership lost the time bomb and black hole ability? oh, not forgetting they lost the silver surfer units as well.
if some things were tremendously imbalanced during the beta stage and weeded out, then the beta has served one of its primary purposes.
ZvP from the statistics looks much more broken than PvT with Zerg winning 59% while Terran 'only' wins 53%. Those 53% are within the variation of winning percentages that Blizzard accepts so for them there's no nerf needed.
Actually I don't know where or when, but I think Blizzard made a statement that as long as a match up is within 50-54 or 55% winrate they won't change it as it is totally possible and reasonable that the match up is not 50/50.
I agree that some adjustments have to be made (I don't know if the immortal change will be 'enough' to beat 1-1-1) but you have to be careful about it. TvZ looks very good right now and I think the game is on the right way. We still have to keep in mind that the games changes monthly or weekly with builds and strategies, but as long as a 1-1-1 allin is as powerful it might develop slower since there's no need to try out other builds.
On September 22 2011 15:09 sup3rchan wrote: The ZvP graph is really bipolar. Max two months of any one side being dominant, and the swings are usually ridiculous. I guess the metagame is still very unpredictable and volatile.
Yeah, though when Protoss dominates, it's only 55%. x_x When Zergs win, it's literally off the charts! Haha.
I guess when there is only TvT making a graph like that can be kinda missleading. The sample size for everything but TvT (wich cant be represented in the graphs) is far far too low. If out of 32 players there are 7 zergs and 5 protoss there is not much to make a graph of....Terran pisses me off.
But i guess the little data these pics have explain the protoss situation pretty well atm.
what i hate about these graphs is, that so many bronze to diamond scrubs stick to this and call every terran a newb just because he plays this race.... they dont see that at the lower leagues way more factors can win a game than just palying that one " imbalanced " race.
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- tanks lost 25 damage vs light, 10 vs armored (previous: 60 damage vs everything)
- emp only kills 100 energy (previous: all energy)
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
- the thor is feedbackable + strike cannon change (they made it an upgrade, 150 energy for cannon) (+ damage nerfs)
- medviacs are slower + heal slower then before
- battlecruisers got nerfed (damage)
- bunker nerfs
- hellion nerf
- reaper nerf
So basicly the units that are not nerfed: - banshee - raven - marauder - marine - viking
Actually, maraders were nerfed in beta before by having shells as a seperate rsearched ability. Vikings Ground to ground attack is nerfed during beta as well.... Raven got nerfed in beta by nerfing hunter seeker missle.
On September 22 2011 14:01 Fwiffo wrote: What many Terran fans aren't getting is there's a growing concern at the top most level of the game going beyond the players and affecting even the hosts of this E-Sport. When the main casters of GOMTV asks GSL winner Polt 'Why are there so many Terrans?' you know something is wrong. And no, his answer wasn't "It's a cultural thing", "Terran players are just better" or “L2Play Goldie”. Watch the video. See what he says.
This has been going on since April in Korea. Top Terran players are calling it out. GSL hosts are calling it out. Blizzard's SC2 developers admits it. And yet you have so many Terran fans who refuse to acknowledge anything's wrong. Just peruse forums like this one, BNet or Reddit or listen to casters like CatsPajamas or PainUser and witness the denial with insults abound. Of course, then there's those who knows what's up. But instead of being honest, they attack through proxy by playing up Zerg griefs against Toss or vice versa.
Why is this allowed to go on I can only guess. It really may be a deliberate strategy by Activision/Blizzard. Any perceived imbalances is easily deniable. This may lead to grief and polarization, but the controversy it breeds maintains interest in the end. Just watch pro-sports or even “pro” wrestling. Polarized fans and their passion is a big part of the scene. It doesn't matter if your side was unfair, you just want them to crush any and all opposition. It all goes back to the good old Gladiator days and Activision knows it.
But for me, as a spectator, I'd rather the maximum attainable balance to exist at the top level where the best player wins in the end. I'll admit I'm a Protoss fan, but I can definitely appreciate awesome Terran and Zerg plays and players too. I enjoy feints, I love ambushes, I'm impressed by perfectly measured responses and dizzying multitasking, but I need the race diversity to keep things fresh. And that's the beauty of Brood War. You have three very different factions with different philosophies and play styles yet balanced somehow. It didn't evolve into a mirror match up fest of one race spamming series after series. But sadly it seems, that's where SC2 is heading and may not survive in Korea as a result. It just may be SC2 will be the game for foreigners while Brood War remains the mainstay for Koreans.
TL;DR Just watch the video!
This. I play Protoss on a Platinum level and I don't get affected at all with this balance issues everyone is saying. However when I watch tournaments and high level plays like GSL I get sad seeing good players get knocked out. Take for example the first game between Huk and Virus in the GSL yesterday + Show Spoiler +
HuK gets an all-in from Virus and defends it. Later on Virus goes fro another all-in. Even Artosis said "what can you do?"
Even MC and Puma's games were depressing to watch. I know MC is in a slump lately but he is still not that bad compared to others. Oh well I'll stop ranting and just play because I still enjoy it whatever other people say.
Just a tip, don't take Artosis words too seriously, he's incredibly biased towards the players he like.
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
what???? Since when is minerals a problem for Terran? thats the dumbest thing i heard today.
Why doesn't blizzard simply ask to like 15 korean players (5z/5t/5p obviously) what they think is imbalanced, then they check it and if they come to the conclusion that is is imba they patch it instead of doing what they think is imba?
I think if anyone knows what the problem in the game is it's korean progamers.
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
what???? Since when is minerals a problem for Terran? thats the dumbest thing i heard today.
Lol exactly! Last time i checked Terran has this thing called MULE that collects minerals?
Anyways, I think that once HotS comes out, all these statistics wont mean much, because the new units and units removed will change everything, and who knows maybe some other race might take over as the top dog.
On September 28 2011 05:11 pPingu wrote: Why doesn't blizzard simply ask to like 15 korean players (5z/5t/5p obviously) what they think is imbalanced, then they check it and if they come to the conclusion that is is imba they patch it instead of doing what they think is imba?
I think if anyone knows what the problem in the game is it's korean progamers.
Even if someone is rly good, doesn't mean he is not biased.
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
what???? Since when is minerals a problem for Terran? thats the dumbest thing i heard today.
Lol exactly! Last time i checked Terran has this thing called MULE that collects minerals?
Anyways, I think that once HotS comes out, all these statistics wont mean much, because the new units and units removed will change everything, and who knows maybe some other race might take over as the top dog.
I don't like that Blizzard is probably going to surpass their 18 month goal (which was already long) for releasing the expansion. It's almost October, and still no news for a planned late January release for HotS .
Hopefully, they release a TON of information at Blizzcon, so I'll be waiting .
Even if someone is rly good, doesn't mean he is not biased.
Seeing as even Terran players like MVP say that TvP is T biased and 1/1/1 is epic win, I don't think it would be every man defending his faction.
Also, Blizzard knows that the game is designed subpar. They've said this several times in interviews, and the fact that they're adding/removing units in HOTS shows that they acknowledge this.
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
what???? Since when is minerals a problem for Terran? thats the dumbest thing i heard today.
Lol exactly! Last time i checked Terran has this thing called MULE that collects minerals?
Anyways, I think that once HotS comes out, all these statistics wont mean much, because the new units and units removed will change everything, and who knows maybe some other race might take over as the top dog.
Watch a Professional Terran player in a macro game vs Protoss. Skip to the 20 minute mark. Notice the 50 minerals and 1500 gas. Marauders cost 25, medivacs cost 100, vikings cost 75. Terrans get mineral starved even though they drop dem mules. They float gas, just like a Zerg, who doesn't want to make lings or spines, floats minerals. Ghost 'buff' was a big nerf. They are more accessible early game but for their main use, every Terran player would prefer to have them at 150 gas.
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
what???? Since when is minerals a problem for Terran? thats the dumbest thing i heard today.
Lol exactly! Last time i checked Terran has this thing called MULE that collects minerals?
Anyways, I think that once HotS comes out, all these statistics wont mean much, because the new units and units removed will change everything, and who knows maybe some other race might take over as the top dog.
Of course minerals are a problem for Terran. They have to mass marines AND build hellions to kill all of your workers. With all of those strong units costing minerals only that barely leaves any for poor Terran players to build ghosts...
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.
Bullshit. The only thing we "clearly" can see is that Terrans are winning more.
Whether that's because they got the best players, are imbalanced, more complete is anyones guess. Yours is as crap as anyone elses.
As far as recommending someone who want to become pro which race he should play? Are you for real? There are enough protoss and zerg champions all over the place to make that an impossible choice.
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
what???? Since when is minerals a problem for Terran? thats the dumbest thing i heard today.
Lol exactly! Last time i checked Terran has this thing called MULE that collects minerals?
Anyways, I think that once HotS comes out, all these statistics wont mean much, because the new units and units removed will change everything, and who knows maybe some other race might take over as the top dog.
Watch a Professional Terran player in a macro game vs Protoss. Skip to the 20 minute mark. Notice the 50 minerals and 1500 gas. Marauders cost 25, medivacs cost 100, vikings cost 75. Terrans get mineral starved even though they drop dem mules. They float gas, just like a Zerg, who doesn't want to make lings or spines, floats minerals. Ghost 'buff' was a big nerf. They are more accessible early game but for their main use, every Terran player would prefer to have them at 150 gas.
Terran players shouldn't float gas. If a Terran player has too much, then they're mismanaging their resources. They shouldn't be building so many geysers, or wasting so many SCVs mining gas.
The only time any race should float gas is if they're going to need it later. For example, if they want to throw down 8 templar and get four archons fast. If MMMG ghosts as little gas as you say, and Terrans are floating as much gas as you say, then there's a big opportunity to optimize Terran play in the PVT matchup.
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
what???? Since when is minerals a problem for Terran? thats the dumbest thing i heard today.
Lol exactly! Last time i checked Terran has this thing called MULE that collects minerals?
Anyways, I think that once HotS comes out, all these statistics wont mean much, because the new units and units removed will change everything, and who knows maybe some other race might take over as the top dog.
Of course minerals are a problem for Terran. They have to mass marines AND build hellions to kill all of your workers. With all of those strong units costing minerals only that barely leaves any for poor Terran players to build ghosts...
/sarcasm
I KNOW! Poor babies, they have to make so many T1 units in TvP and the only thing that they're allowed to spend gas on are medivacs.
Well, I know what the solution is. Marines cost 50 gas instead of 50 minerals. That way he can make more ghosts!
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
what???? Since when is minerals a problem for Terran? thats the dumbest thing i heard today.
Lol exactly! Last time i checked Terran has this thing called MULE that collects minerals?
Anyways, I think that once HotS comes out, all these statistics wont mean much, because the new units and units removed will change everything, and who knows maybe some other race might take over as the top dog.
Watch a Professional Terran player in a macro game vs Protoss. Skip to the 20 minute mark. Notice the 50 minerals and 1500 gas. Marauders cost 25, medivacs cost 100, vikings cost 75. Terrans get mineral starved even though they drop dem mules. They float gas, just like a Zerg, who doesn't want to make lings or spines, floats minerals. Ghost 'buff' was a big nerf. They are more accessible early game but for their main use, every Terran player would prefer to have them at 150 gas.
Terran players shouldn't float gas. If a Terran player has too much, then they're mismanaging their resources. They shouldn't be building so many geysers, or wasting so many SCVs mining gas.
The only time any race should float gas is if they're going to need it later. For example, if they want to throw down 8 templar and get four archons fast. If MMMG ghosts as little gas as you say, and Terrans are floating as much gas as you say, then there's a big opportunity to optimize Terran play in the PVT matchup.
Pretty scary thought for Toss players-_-.
That's more true than most Terrans would like to think.
If a Terran is dragging 1500 gas, he SHOULD have mined 2k+ more minerals instead with the same amount of investment/time.
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
what???? Since when is minerals a problem for Terran? thats the dumbest thing i heard today.
Lol exactly! Last time i checked Terran has this thing called MULE that collects minerals?
Anyways, I think that once HotS comes out, all these statistics wont mean much, because the new units and units removed will change everything, and who knows maybe some other race might take over as the top dog.
Watch a Professional Terran player in a macro game vs Protoss. Skip to the 20 minute mark. Notice the 50 minerals and 1500 gas. Marauders cost 25, medivacs cost 100, vikings cost 75. Terrans get mineral starved even though they drop dem mules. They float gas, just like a Zerg, who doesn't want to make lings or spines, floats minerals. Ghost 'buff' was a big nerf. They are more accessible early game but for their main use, every Terran player would prefer to have them at 150 gas.
Terran players shouldn't float gas. If a Terran player has too much, then they're mismanaging their resources. They shouldn't be building so many geysers, or wasting so many SCVs mining gas.
The only time any race should float gas is if they're going to need it later. For example, if they want to throw down 8 templar and get four archons fast. If MMMG ghosts as little gas as you say, and Terrans are floating as much gas as you say, then there's a big opportunity to optimize Terran play in the PVT matchup.
Pretty scary thought for Toss players-_-.
That's more true than most Terrans would like to think.
If a Terran is dragging 1500 gas, he SHOULD have mined 2k+ more minerals instead with the same amount of investment/time.
Code S terrans aren't dragging 1500 gas tho. It's normally the diamond level terran who puts 18 workers in gas while he's spamming marauders.
Zerg = most balanced race?? But seriously, terran has never been below 50% overall... also for all those people whining about recent polls, look at zerg in January... *SHIVER* Zerg strategy has come a long way and looking at the graph now I would hold my breath on any changes for zerg an toss until this winter cus the downward toss trend has not really been longer than the zerg trend.
But Terran winrate is a little frustrating... maybe its the most balanced race between skill and noobiness?
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
what???? Since when is minerals a problem for Terran? thats the dumbest thing i heard today.
Lol exactly! Last time i checked Terran has this thing called MULE that collects minerals?
Anyways, I think that once HotS comes out, all these statistics wont mean much, because the new units and units removed will change everything, and who knows maybe some other race might take over as the top dog.
Watch a Professional Terran player in a macro game vs Protoss. Skip to the 20 minute mark. Notice the 50 minerals and 1500 gas. Marauders cost 25, medivacs cost 100, vikings cost 75. Terrans get mineral starved even though they drop dem mules. They float gas, just like a Zerg, who doesn't want to make lings or spines, floats minerals. Ghost 'buff' was a big nerf. They are more accessible early game but for their main use, every Terran player would prefer to have them at 150 gas.
yeah i kinda agree, at least in the endgame. if blizzard hadnt nerfed the thor with the energy though, i think it wouldve been a buff, cause it wouldve made mech vs toss more viable. that wouldve been really nice.
@ppl saying "manage your economy better herp derp" what are you gonna do if you are fully saturated everywhere? you put scvs out of into geysers, so you can maybe use the mins later on.
On September 28 2011 05:11 pPingu wrote: Why doesn't blizzard simply ask to like 15 korean players (5z/5t/5p obviously) what they think is imbalanced, then they check it and if they come to the conclusion that is is imba they patch it instead of doing what they think is imba?
I think if anyone knows what the problem in the game is it's korean progamers.
Even if someone is rly good, doesn't mean he is not biased.
True, but I'd still take that over the current balance "team" (The entire team is David Kim reporting to Dustin Browder).
Nothing personal against David Kim, but seriously, you can't entrust balance to 1 guy without having a distorted outcome.
Why couldn't there be a panel for determining balance?
On September 28 2011 05:11 pPingu wrote: Why doesn't blizzard simply ask to like 15 korean players (5z/5t/5p obviously) what they think is imbalanced, then they check it and if they come to the conclusion that is is imba they patch it instead of doing what they think is imba?
I think if anyone knows what the problem in the game is it's korean progamers.
Even if someone is rly good, doesn't mean he is not biased.
True, but I'd still take that over the current balance "team" (The entire team is David Kim reporting to Dustin Browder).
Nothing personal against David Kim, but seriously, you can't entrust balance to 1 guy without having a distorted outcome.
Why couldn't there be a panel for determining balance?
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
what???? Since when is minerals a problem for Terran? thats the dumbest thing i heard today.
Lol exactly! Last time i checked Terran has this thing called MULE that collects minerals?
Anyways, I think that once HotS comes out, all these statistics wont mean much, because the new units and units removed will change everything, and who knows maybe some other race might take over as the top dog.
Watch a Professional Terran player in a macro game vs Protoss. Skip to the 20 minute mark. Notice the 50 minerals and 1500 gas. Marauders cost 25, medivacs cost 100, vikings cost 75. Terrans get mineral starved even though they drop dem mules. They float gas, just like a Zerg, who doesn't want to make lings or spines, floats minerals. Ghost 'buff' was a big nerf. They are more accessible early game but for their main use, every Terran player would prefer to have them at 150 gas.
Terran players shouldn't float gas. If a Terran player has too much, then they're mismanaging their resources. They shouldn't be building so many geysers, or wasting so many SCVs mining gas.
The only time any race should float gas is if they're going to need it later. For example, if they want to throw down 8 templar and get four archons fast. If MMMG ghosts as little gas as you say, and Terrans are floating as much gas as you say, then there's a big opportunity to optimize Terran play in the PVT matchup.
Pretty scary thought for Toss players-_-.
That's more true than most Terrans would like to think.
If a Terran is dragging 1500 gas, he SHOULD have mined 2k+ more minerals instead with the same amount of investment/time.
Seing as marines don't cost any gas, and there is only one unit that costs more gas than minerals, it is easy to see how terrans can float a lot of gas.
On September 28 2011 05:11 pPingu wrote: Why doesn't blizzard simply ask to like 15 korean players (5z/5t/5p obviously) what they think is imbalanced, then they check it and if they come to the conclusion that is is imba they patch it instead of doing what they think is imba?
I think if anyone knows what the problem in the game is it's korean progamers.
Even if someone is rly good, doesn't mean he is not biased.
True, but I'd still take that over the current balance "team" (The entire team is David Kim reporting to Dustin Browder).
Nothing personal against David Kim, but seriously, you can't entrust balance to 1 guy without having a distorted outcome.
Why couldn't there be a panel for determining balance?
It's not just one person.
......
Believe it or not... It actually is!
Dustin Browder said it himself in an interview.
edit: Nominally, it's also got Matt Cooper, but the interview I watched (I can't pinpoint it, it's a needle in a haystack) stated that it was just David Kim, reporting to Dustin Browder.
edit #2: Don't quote me on this, but as far as I can tell, David Kim is the only one above diamond.
On September 28 2011 05:11 pPingu wrote: Why doesn't blizzard simply ask to like 15 korean players (5z/5t/5p obviously) what they think is imbalanced, then they check it and if they come to the conclusion that is is imba they patch it instead of doing what they think is imba?
I think if anyone knows what the problem in the game is it's korean progamers.
Even if someone is rly good, doesn't mean he is not biased.
True, but I'd still take that over the current balance "team" (The entire team is David Kim reporting to Dustin Browder).
Nothing personal against David Kim, but seriously, you can't entrust balance to 1 guy without having a distorted outcome.
Why couldn't there be a panel for determining balance?
It's not just one person.
Believe it or not... It actually is!
Dustin Browder said it himself in an interview.
edit: Nominally, it's also got Matt Cooper, but the interview I watched (I can't pinpoint it, it's a needle in a haystack) stated that it was just David Kim, reporting to Dustin Browder.
edit #2: Don't quote me on this, but as far as I can tell, David Kim is the only one above diamond.
......
This sounds too silly to be true. You have a source?
The amount of games being used in this survey is a very small sample size. I understand why, but it is a small sample size. Whether that means one race is more or less OP or more or less OP is unknown, but 200 games isn't much of a sample for an entire month.
On September 28 2011 05:11 pPingu wrote: Why doesn't blizzard simply ask to like 15 korean players (5z/5t/5p obviously) what they think is imbalanced, then they check it and if they come to the conclusion that is is imba they patch it instead of doing what they think is imba?
I think if anyone knows what the problem in the game is it's korean progamers.
Even if someone is rly good, doesn't mean he is not biased.
True, but I'd still take that over the current balance "team" (The entire team is David Kim reporting to Dustin Browder).
Nothing personal against David Kim, but seriously, you can't entrust balance to 1 guy without having a distorted outcome.
Why couldn't there be a panel for determining balance?
It's not just one person.
Believe it or not... It actually is!
Dustin Browder said it himself in an interview.
edit: Nominally, it's also got Matt Cooper, but the interview I watched (I can't pinpoint it, it's a needle in a haystack) stated that it was just David Kim, reporting to Dustin Browder.
edit #2: Don't quote me on this, but as far as I can tell, David Kim is the only one above diamond.
......
This sounds too silly to be true. You have a source?
There's not one authoritative source which spells it out, but it's definitely been said in interviews. I can't seem to find a source though, sorry.
I'll continue looking, and let you know if I find one.
On September 28 2011 05:11 pPingu wrote: Why doesn't blizzard simply ask to like 15 korean players (5z/5t/5p obviously) what they think is imbalanced, then they check it and if they come to the conclusion that is is imba they patch it instead of doing what they think is imba?
I think if anyone knows what the problem in the game is it's korean progamers.
Even if someone is rly good, doesn't mean he is not biased.
True, but I'd still take that over the current balance "team" (The entire team is David Kim reporting to Dustin Browder).
Nothing personal against David Kim, but seriously, you can't entrust balance to 1 guy without having a distorted outcome.
Why couldn't there be a panel for determining balance?
It's not just one person.
Believe it or not... It actually is!
Dustin Browder said it himself in an interview.
edit: Nominally, it's also got Matt Cooper, but the interview I watched (I can't pinpoint it, it's a needle in a haystack) stated that it was just David Kim, reporting to Dustin Browder.
edit #2: Don't quote me on this, but as far as I can tell, David Kim is the only one above diamond.
......
This sounds too silly to be true. You have a source?
There's not one authoritative source which spells it out, but it's definitely been said in interviews. I can't seem to find a source though, sorry.
I'll continue looking, and let you know if I find one.
well there are probably multiple guys working on it, because there's a tone of feedback and i guess someone needs to go trough those too, even if they completly ignore 99% of it. But yes, David Kim is the only one who is any good at this game, that's 100% sure, and there s a good chance that he s the one making almost all the decisions (together with Dustin probably)
On September 22 2011 06:12 arsenic wrote: 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.
- the ghost cost changed to 200/100 (this is a nerf, because gas is no problem for terran, minerals are)
what???? Since when is minerals a problem for Terran? thats the dumbest thing i heard today.
Lol exactly! Last time i checked Terran has this thing called MULE that collects minerals?
Anyways, I think that once HotS comes out, all these statistics wont mean much, because the new units and units removed will change everything, and who knows maybe some other race might take over as the top dog.
Of course minerals are a problem for Terran. They have to mass marines AND build hellions to kill all of your workers. With all of those strong units costing minerals only that barely leaves any for poor Terran players to build ghosts...
/sarcasm
I KNOW! Poor babies, they have to make so many T1 units in TvP and the only thing that they're allowed to spend gas on are medivacs.
Well, I know what the solution is. Marines cost 50 gas instead of 50 minerals. That way he can make more ghosts!
Yes exactly.
Marine/Marauder/Medivac/Viking/Ghost is all Tier 1. You are so right -_-
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.
This, the end.
On September 22 2011 06:37 freetgy wrote:
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.
Bullshit. The only thing we "clearly" can see is that Terrans are winning more.
Whether that's because they got the best players, are imbalanced, more complete is anyones guess. Yours is as crap as anyone elses.
As far as recommending someone who want to become pro which race he should play? Are you for real? There are enough protoss and zerg champions all over the place to make that an impossible choice.
On September 22 2011 06:37 freetgy wrote: Using this argument is nonsense, but what we clearly see is that Terran has "complete" design while Zerg and Protoss do not.
On September 28 2011 05:54 Dalavita wrote: Bullshit. The only thing we "clearly" can see is that Terrans are winning more.
Whether that's because they got the best players, are imbalanced, more complete is anyones guess. Yours is as crap as anyone elses.
Dalavita... You might want to tell Dustin Browder (Design Lead for SC2) that.
"DB: ...Not all races will be given equal treatment; the Terrans are really, really good and it's really hard to do more with them. While the other races currently have an equal opportunity to beat them (except for Korean Grandmasters), Terrans are still more flexible and we don't want to add that." http://www.gamespot.com/news/6325853/starcraft-ii-heart-of-the-swarm-qanda-with-dustin-browder
On September 22 2011 06:37 freetgy wrote: 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 28 2011 05:54 Dalavita wrote: As far as recommending someone who want to become pro which race he should play? Are you for real? There are enough protoss and zerg champions all over the place to make that an impossible choice.
Dalavita... You might want to tell Polt (GSL Winner & Terran) that.
The level of denial we're witnessing here is really a case study in Human honesty and integrity. So what are Terran fanboys going to say now? That Game Spot held a fake interview and the GSL translator is anti-Terran and mis-quoted Polt? Or something more subtle like "The imbalances aren't really that bad..."! I just hope the tables are turned one day, we'll see what you say then.
On September 08 2011 04:33 xbankx wrote: Personally, I think people are too focused on PvT. Protoss is having a lot of troubles with terrans due to 1/1/1 and end game mass ghosts. But what people realize is the PvZ is more of a problem. The only reason why people haven't said anything is due to the dominance of terran overall.
People might think Im Bsing, but just look at the data.
PvZ for this GSL (code A and Code S): 28% 4 wins-10 losses PvT for this GSL (code A and Code S): 34% 15 wins 29 losses
People can interpet this data however they want but remember all the top zerg players (Losaira and Nestea) actually got knocked out by terrans very early in the tourny.
Remember this is not a balance whine. Im sure blizzard are looking into the 1/1/1 as its win rate is super high for an all in, but I think protoss players needs to focus on PvZ as it is the entirety of the matchup hard to focus on.
Okay, let's look at those 10 Protoss losses.
4 of them were foreigners losing to Koreans. That was just bracket luck; if they had faced Terrans or Protoss they would have lost.
2 of them come from DRG owning Inca. Inca sucks.
1 of them is DRG beating JYP, but DRG lost that series.
The remainder of them all come from July, beating Hongun and Genius.
Look at those games, and tell me with a straight face and tell me they mean anything. Ever heard of a small sample size? Every single Z beat a P who he was massively superior to.
And Blizzard do asks pro player what they think about the game balance if I recall correctly (wtf am I doing answering to guys that posted nearly 2 months ago)
EPT
July Thread![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Jvlvy.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HvaeL.png)
Several of the best ones knocked each other out too, Hack, Sculp, Rainbow, theStC, all out to TvTs.
P, clearly the maps are a problem in sc2. Why are maps such as xelnaga in the map pool? Imbalanced maps deserve to go. 
