EPT[September] TLPD Race Winrate Graphs - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Kznn
Brazil9072 Posts
| ||
|
Ryndika
1489 Posts
On October 11 2011 20:38 doko100 wrote: It's funny that everyone thinks T is OP. In pro play they maybe are,but for casual players (everything below grandmaster) Terran is the weakest race, you can go to sc2ranks and look at the average points per player or wins/player and you will see that terran is far worse than zerg or protoss in the lower leagues. Nerfing terran much more would break the game for casual terran players even more, yes it would help pro players but blizzard also has to focus on the casuals. Terran has already gone from the most played race to the least played race, and it definitely isn't in blizzard's interest that terran players quit the game simply because their race is so bad at casual level. terran is only really imba if you have the macro and micro of a mvp. It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game... | ||
|
icarly
United States400 Posts
On October 11 2011 23:59 Ryndika wrote: It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game... They nerfed reapers and void rays because they literally made casual games unplayable... | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On October 12 2011 00:01 icarly wrote: They nerfed reapers and void rays because they apparently made casual games unplayable... Fixed that for you. I highly doubt they were UNPLAYABLE, just not as fun I suspect. But yes, sometimes Blizzard does have to think about casual players, but if they want it to become a really successful E-sport, they're going to have to make some sacrifices when it comes to casuals. | ||
|
Tommylew
Wales2717 Posts
See in a month ro two whether Protoss pick up with the lastest patch and any new builds!! | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On October 11 2011 20:55 ElBlanco wrote: This isn't true at all. In masters the 3 races are almost exactly even. In diamond and platinum they are slightly behind the other 2 but there are still plenty of terran. In gold they have the second most and there are far more terran in silver and bronze. So overall there are far more terran players than anyone else (as bronze and silver are by far the most populated brackets). The only bracket where your argument holds any ground is in diamond and platinum but they are pretty even overall anyway. This is worldwide by the way. Terrans will also generally have less wins on the ladder because their mirror matches are 2x as long as the other 2 races. | ||
|
tzenes
Canada64 Posts
Because if we're talking about a pvalue of > 95%, I think we can safely say: _something is wrong here_ | ||
|
SKYFISH_
Bulgaria990 Posts
-WhiteIdRA on SC2 balance (: On October 11 2011 23:59 Ryndika wrote: It's only your wall of text opinion, but why should blizz balance sc2 over casuals? You shuld be able to have fun even in imbalanced game... does 'should' mean that you are not a casual and therefore dont know if in reality casual players have fun in an imbalanced game? as for you actual (and quite silly) question - they should because its them casuals who buy the game and keep the sport alive | ||
|
Philip2110
Scotland798 Posts
On October 12 2011 00:10 Tommylew wrote: yeh well so Protoss are down in both Zerg and terran haha, nice to see how much the swing has gone from the matchup being Protoss dominated to Zerg dominated lol See in a month ro two whether Protoss pick up with the lastest patch and any new builds!! Zerg has had 50%+ winrate PvZ since March lol | ||
|
babysimba
10466 Posts
On October 09 2011 21:07 aebriol wrote: 2) Terran is just overall overpowered. Not really because of their units or composition, but because of their superior scouting mechanics, and superior scout-denying mechanics, and sick defenders advantage. I feel that's the main cause of terran doing better in tournys. I don't think it's really that fair when it's a race that dictates the matchup most of the time. Terrans can practise their build orders down to the minute detail at least til the mid game. And the main cause of that is mules. Terran that have 2 ocs but haven't expanded is almost 1.5 mining bases, and the other races have to continue producing workers and expanding to keep up with their economy. In the case if their prediction is wrong, terran's aggression will have a high chance dealing damage. This creates a sort of coin-flipping scenario. Just imagine if mining rate of 1 base is capped regardless of mules, terran will actually need to expand to get their economy advantage. Just by expansion timing, lots of build order information will be revealed. Lots of terran 'OP' early game can be solved, like the effectiveness of 1-1-1 or the threat of it will be reduced. | ||
|
Gevna
France2332 Posts
On October 12 2011 00:01 icarly wrote: They nerfed reapers and void rays because they literally made casual games unplayable... Reapers won IEM cologne, and VR was overused in early days of GSL. Casual games were probably an element for the nerf, but no, sc2 is balanced around pro players, and that's the way it has to be. | ||
|
beute
Germany197 Posts
On October 12 2011 01:21 Gevna wrote: Reapers won IEM cologne, and VR was overused in early days of GSL. Casual games were probably an element for the nerf, but no, sc2 is balanced around pro players, and that's the way it has to be. voidrays werent nearly as often used as you suggest. i dont remember any pro player complaining about them being OP... in fact many protoss players felt back then that they suck big time. The only complains you got were from casuals and team games. otherwise the removal of the speed upgrade wouldnt make much sense as no one ever used it in professional games.. | ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
On October 12 2011 01:21 Gevna wrote: Reapers won IEM cologne, and VR was overused in early days of GSL. Casual games were probably an element for the nerf, but no, sc2 is balanced around pro players, and that's the way it has to be. I actually think all the void ray nerfs should be removed, with the caveat of longer stargate build time perhaps. In PvZ, they were considered strong, but only before infestors were used. In PvT they were never considered strong, except when used as a rush. | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On October 12 2011 02:35 -_- wrote: I actually think all the void ray nerfs should be removed, with the caveat of longer stargate build time perhaps. In PvZ, they were considered strong, but only before infestors were used. In PvT they were never considered strong, except when used as a rush. I do think the Void Ray was overpowered with the greater range. It basically meant that Terran or Zerg could never build buildings anywhere near the edge of their base or they would get picked off. Plus 3gate Stargate, which already is pretty good in PvT, would crush any wall off easily. | ||
|
Fig
United States1324 Posts
On October 12 2011 02:45 SeaSwift wrote: I do think the Void Ray was overpowered with the greater range. It basically meant that Terran or Zerg could never build buildings anywhere near the edge of their base or they would get picked off. Plus 3gate Stargate, which already is pretty good in PvT, would crush any wall off easily. I agree that the range nerf was a good one, but they should really revert one of the others cost: back down from 250/150 to 200/150 (this is probably the one that would make the most sense) damage back to what it was before (probably won't happen since it would affect multiplayer too much for blizzard's liking) give back speed upgrade (protoss has by far the fewest ugrades for their units, and already had the fewest before void ray speed and the amulet were taken away.) Allow fazing again (this is the one that would add the most to the game, since it would encourage more micro to get the most out of your voidrays.) Unfortunately Blizzard made a unit that has low dps for the first 8 seconds of the battle, and high dps afterwards, which is very counter intuitive for a unit. That means the unit cannot be used in the army nearly as effectively as a unit like the banshee. So protoss players tried to use them for harass and backstab purposes at the back of bases, after charging on rocks or pylons and keeping the charge by quickly targeting other voidrays for a split second, and then using fazing to keep them alive versus marines. At this point void rays were the most micro intensive unit in the game BY FAR! And then they were nerfed into oblivion by blizzard. The worst nerf was that their damage while charged was significantly lowered. This is the most important point. Now there is almost no incentive to charge up void rays prebattle, since the change in damage is barely worth the apm requirements. Void rays used to reward apm, and were one of the coolest units in the game. In fact, before these nerfs, there was a long post on TL about how they were the bright spot in this comparatively mechanically-easier game of SC2. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 12 2011 01:21 Gevna wrote: Reapers won IEM cologne, and VR was overused in early days of GSL. Casual games were probably an element for the nerf, but no, sc2 is balanced around pro players, and that's the way it has to be. We all know why the reaper was nerfed. I think the voidray was likely nerft due to the scaling damage and it rewarded all-ining. I don't know why blizzard thought a unit that increased its DPS the longer it shot was a good idea. How do you balance a unit like that, when it has 2-3 seperate damage values. Personally, I wouldn't mind the voidray leaving the game and being replaced "robust" unit. Along with vikings and corruptors. Blizzard can give terran another unit to deal with the colossi, like an anti air tank. Shoots down broodlords too, and looks awesome when it sets up. And zerg, well I am sure they woud love to have a unit that is not the corruptor. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
I think win rates might change soon, but not significantly. | ||
|
Velvet_Llama
United States25 Posts
I also don't get the point of fitting a cubic curve to the data. Unless you have some substantive reason to expect the rate of change in the winrates to change three times, it's just totally arbitrary to choose a 3rd order polynomial. The thing is, every time you increase the degree of the fit by one, it will always fit the data better because you're allowing the line to "bend" at one more location. You can arbitrarily increase the degree of the fitted curve till it literally hits every data point, but what is the actual value of explaining a 238th degree polynomial? I don't mean to be too harsh because I like what they're doing. But those two issues just jumped right out at me. I'd rescale the y axis and if you want some sort of trend line, use a moving average like someone else expected. If you want to get a little more sophisticated, use a spline or a lowess smoother. I also think it might be good, especially with the specific matchup graphs, to just the magnitude of the difference in winrate between the two races being plotted. I think that would be a nice way to emphasize the relationship of interest you're trying to display in the graph. As to the sample issues that people brought up, having only half of the games in the TLPD is really not a problem in terms of sheer numbers, because you have a sufficiently high number of matches. However, this is assuming that the TLPD "misses" games randomly. If there is some sort of systematic reason that some games are not in the database, and especially if that systematic reason is related to what we're interested in here- winrates, then you have a huge problem that severely compromises how much we should "believe" our data. For example, if the database tends to not have many matches from lower level or lesser known pro gamers, we might have to question whether the sample is really representative. I'm not saying this is the case- I'm just giving an example of the kind of thing that would be a problem. Anyways, keep up the good work  | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On October 09 2011 19:41 GhostFall wrote: No Amulet removal was completely stupid. KA was removed in march. Look at the winrates up to that point. Protoss never went above 51.7%. It gave Protoss a defender's advantage, something they desperately needed at later stages of the game as Forcefielding ramps no longer becomes an option at 3+bases. You can argue that it would've been imbalanced once players played more, and I will argue there was NOWHERE near enough data to make a change as huge as removing KA. I honestly believe blizzard did not think through the KA removal change very well. Their reasoning for its removal was they believed that Protoss late game AOE was too strong. They didn't mention specifically how it affected matchups, or how it affected compositions. they simply believed Protoss had too many late game AOE. It wasn't a balance change, it was a design decision. And they did not think very thoroughly at all of the implications it would have on balance. Regardless of balance or not, Blizzard made a huge mistake in removing KA just based on the data (specifically, the lack of data) they had at the time. Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. | ||
|
freetgy
1720 Posts
On October 12 2011 04:01 Erasme wrote: Didn't want to post at first, but really ? KA gave you only a defender advantage ? Don't be silly. And to the poster above, really ? Buffing the zealot would be the worst thing ever. yes it did, after you lose an engagement as protoss there is nothing that makes a terran or zerg think twice about a-moving your base, and there is nothing as protoss that you can do to stop them either. With warp-in storms that was different. On the opposite, Zerg and Terran always have defensive structures they can pull back to and rely on heavily. That's why Zerg and Terran can expand on everymap first, while Protoss only will be able to if they use Forge First and the map "allowes" to safely wall off. Maybe if Photon Canons where upgradedable to give Protoss at least some sort of additional defensive options midgame, things would be different. Protoss can't afford to lose Units without trading them against other units. (early and midgame) I have tried so many freestyle strategies, long before they got buffed. They are good as long as they opponent doesn't all-in you on reaction. (if you play any kind of 2 base style with the exception of Shakuras, which allows still to defend with forcefields at your natural, no other map has this luxury) And if you stay 1 base longer then 5-7min vs. Zerg/Terran your on the losing end anyway. Stargate is considered cheese Twilight/DT is considered cheese / all-in the only opening that is left is either mass gateways, or robotics. Robotics makes you slow forcing you in a deathball style, while gateways lose effectiveness rapidly in midgame unless you chrono double forge. | ||
| ||
