| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
KDot2
United States1213 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:02 Gamegene wrote: ROFL. NO. What a horrible idea. Too many zergs on NA ladder, blizzard should put rocks at the natural in all maps now. actually .... wasnt that how it was done in brood war ? why wouldnt it work for sc2 ? | ||
|
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
All balance and map issues aside right now I feel Terran has by far the largest chunk of the best skilled players using the race. | ||
|
TeH_CaRnAg3
United States239 Posts
On October 13 2011 00:07 meadbert wrote: I blame GSL and the Maps. Basically Blizzard must balance for all levels of play. GSL can be very different from other levels and might be left somewhat imbalanced. The fix is for GSL to pick maps that favor Toss and Zerg. Regarding "All the best players are terran." As a viewer I do not care. As a viewer I want to see a diverse set of games, not just TvT every game. I would say make Terran UP enough that these best players who all play Terran either switch races or start to lose. You can't make it balanced on all levels, strats and maps have to be designed with the highest level in mind, otherwise the pro level would be a joke if things were catered to everyone. The reason starcraft is amazing all around is that things are thought about on a pro level, a level of impeccable play, that is the only way to truly balance anything, otherwise david kim and others would go down a fucking rabbit hole because most of us online players aren't always losing cuz of imbalance, a lot of it is our own play and execution, but that isn't the case as much on a pro level. So how can you balance a strat or a map or a race correctly while your trying to keep all the random variables of online players game when a lot of it doesn't come down to maps it's just plain our execution. everything has to be balance on a pro level, strats, maps, everything. As players we obviously want to strive to be and play that good, so everything should be balanced around the highest level of play, not balanced for high level of play and trying to cater to the entire games population where as a lot of them aren't playing the game correctly, or are, but are improving execution. They balance pro level, we learn what we should be doing, and work on it = the game evolves | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5218 Posts
GSL January had this map pool: Blistering Sands Delta Quadrant Jungle Basin Lost Temple Metalopolis Scrap Station Shakuras Plateau Steppes of War Xel'Naga Caverns These were the ladder maps and they had not been modified, so close spawns and ramp blocking was possible. Thus with these maps the initial breakdown was 18 Protoss, 28 Terran, and 18 Zerg (Liquidpedia has it incorrectly listed as 15 Protoss, 24 Terran, and 17 Zerg which only adds up to 56). Now Terran has received a lot of nerfs, and the GSL map the maps completely different yet the breakdown in GSL October was this: 17 Protoss, 28 Terran, 19 Zerg. Essentially the same. Terran has never held less than 27 of the 64 spots in GSL and peaked in GSL August with 32 of the 64 spots. So this data might lead you to conclude that the number of Terran slots in the GSL has stayed the same despite nerfs, it must be changes in the map pool (introducing Terran favored maps) that is allowing the Terrans to effectively hold on to just under half the GSL spots. So this data basically argues that we should return to the above listed map pool, allowing close spawns and ramp blocking, that this would balance out the game. But why did the GSL change maps, and generally increase their size? Why did they not allow close spawns and ramp blocking? The reason was If anything, the GSL map pool has helped increase the power of Protoss and Zerg, yet despite this and individual unit nerfs, Terran continues to hold onto their GSL spots, leading us to believe something else is the cause (balance, player skill, ect.). | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
| ||
|
flodeskum
Iceland1267 Posts
Both the lead game designer and the game balance designer seem to share the opinion that terran is simply more complete. Saying that it is zerg and protoss that need to be fixed and not terran. Just looking at winrates you can see just how unstable p and z have been (the zvp graph is just silly) compared to terran, I'd say there is probably some truth to this. I don't think we'll see any real change until HotS, especially since blizzard seem to consider NA and EU stats to be just as relevant as Korean. Until then I'll keep enjoying the lack of pvp on ladder \e/ | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
On October 13 2011 00:10 Kazeyonoma wrote: Its ridiculous to me how much hate gom gets for the state of code s right now. Do terrans flood code a live report threads when it was mostly z and p with only gumiho to root for? Tvt is the most dynamic mirror and provides players with both macro and inventive aggression, something netizens say is fun to watch while timing based attacks and all ins are constantly whined against which is what pvp and zvz mostly ends up being. There's simply no satisfying the internets sometimes... News Flash: It's probably GOM that hates the current situation (TvTvTvT) more than anyone else. You would be surprised to learn how many people simply not tune in (and don't bother to post in the forums) when all scheduled matches are TvTs. It is GOM's own interest to have diverse match ups and I do give them credit for trying with those beautiful maps. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45182 Posts
On October 13 2011 00:10 Kazeyonoma wrote: Wait so a largely zerg dominant ipl as well as a zerg champion for ipl iem code a and dreamhack means nothing? I mean if were going purely by tournament results everything except code s says balance is not as what all this whining is about. Its funny how people who want to complain can nitpick stats to make their arguments carry more weight. Its ridiculous to me how much hate gom gets for the state of code s right now. Do terrans flood code a live report threads when it was mostly z and p with only gumiho to root for? Tvt is the most dynamic mirror and provides players with both macro and inventive aggression, something netizens say is fun to watch while timing based attacks and all ins are constantly whined against which is what pvp and zvz mostly ends up being. There's simply no satisfying the internets sometimes... Wait, just to be clear, IPL3 wasn't largely dominated by Zerg lol. 4 Zergs in round of 8, 3 Terrans. Top 4 was 2 Terrans and 2 Zergs. Yes, finals was ZvZ. And we also need perspective on some things here: Lucky (Korean) helped roll over most of the Korean Terrans in IPL3. Other than that there weren't that many Korean Terrans. Stephano (the one guy that made this foreign tournament different than others at all) beat theSTC, sure. But that's really it. Code A is special because it's Zerg favored? Well then the Up and Down matches prove that Protoss is still in the fight because there's plenty of Protoss in there -.-' See how that argument is flawed? Also, when the versus percentages show that Terran is (and has been) keeping a higher winning percentage over the other two races, that says something. The statistics are useful. And Code S in the GSL (having a TvTvTvT semi-finals multiple times) is far more telling than Code A or a few foreigner tournaments. | ||
|
BadgerBadger8264
Netherlands409 Posts
What are you talking about? Terrans have been dominating sind the early beta. What did terran ever explore? Percentage wise? Yes. This is because they are and always have been the most played race. Looking at it this way is stupid at best. Actually dominating? They dominated until the new maps were in place (Tal'Darim/etc) and have started dominating again last GSL (a month and a half ago), races were pretty even before, after the new maps were introduced protoss and when MC won his GSLs protoss was dominating pretty hard, and after the infestor change zerg was doing really well. | ||
|
Trealador
United States207 Posts
| ||
|
CHOMPMannER
Canada175 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5218 Posts
Global (982,670 team players) Random 9.3% (91,091) Protoss 32.3% (316,958) Terran 33.2% (326,402) Zerg 25.3% (248,219) Source: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/region/all/1/all So according to your logic, since there are 64 spots in the GSL, they should be divided up like this, if indeed a higher number of players playing a certain race does mean higher representation in the GSL: 6 Random players 21 Terran players 21 Protoss players 16 Zerg players This is actually how those 64 players were divided up in GSL October: 0 Random players 28 Terran players 17 Protoss players 19 Zerg players Despite there being more overall Terran players than any other race, they are vastly over represented in GSL (43% in the GSL are Terran when only 33% are Terran on the ladder ladder). Furthermore, Protoss is only slightly behind Terran in terms of number players and has far more players than Zerg, yet Zerg has more players in the GSL. These two cases show that there appears to be no correlation between the number of people who play a certain race, and how well said race is represented in the GSL. And before you discount GSL October as an abberation, you'd find that Terran has never had less than 27 player in the GSL (beginning in GSL January), and the number of Terrans in the GSL peaked in August at 32 (or half the total players). So your argument has been proven false. And what did we learn? Arguments based on logic are superseded by arguments based on evidence. Though your argument made sense logically, it did not hold water when it was tested, leading us to believe there is something else causing the huge numbers of Terrans in the GSL (balance, player skill, ect). Hopefully we can put that argument to rest finally. | ||
|
TeH_CaRnAg3
United States239 Posts
On October 13 2011 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote: Let's look at the statistics to see how your argument holds up: Global (982,670 team players) Random 9.3% (91,091) Protoss 32.3% (316,958) Terran 33.2% (326,402) Zerg 25.3% (248,219) Source: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/region/all/1/all So according to your logic, since there are 64 spots in the GSL, they should be divided up like this, if indeed a higher number of players playing a certain race does mean higher representation in the GSL: 6 Random players 21 Terran players 21 Protoss players 16 Zerg players This is actually how those 64 players were divided up in GSL October: 0 Random players 28 Terran players 17 Protoss players 19 Zerg players Despite there being more overall Terran players than any other race, they are vastly over represented in GSL (43% in the GSL are Terran when only 33% are Terran on the ladder ladder). Furthermore, Protoss is only slightly behind Terran in terms of number players and has far more players than Zerg, yet Zerg has more players in the GSL. These two cases show that there appears to be no correlation between the number of people who play a certain race, and how well said race is represented in the GSL. And before you discount GSL October as an abberation, you'd find that Terran has never had less than 27 player in the GSL (beginning in GSL January), and the number of Terrans in the GSL peaked in August at 32 (or half the total players). So your argument has been proven false. And what did we learn? Arguments based on logic are superseded by arguments based on evidence. Though your argument made sense logically, it did not hold water when it was tested, leading us to believe there is something else causing the huge numbers of Terrans in the GSL (balance, player skill, ect). Hopefully we can put that argument to rest finally. well said sir. I agree with that defence. Just because terran is the most played race has nothing to do with a crap ton of terrans in gsl. QUALITY POST BRO | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
As for the Terran ¨domination¨(TvZ is balanced at GSL, its just that there are more Terrans at the moment in Code S) I think the blame is mostly on the Up and down format, its BO1 and really Terran is a very sturdy race which I´d say doesn´t suffer as much as other races in a BO1. If you assume that both T and Z have 50% chances to advance(Not going to talk about P) its really makes sense that because there are more Terrans there are more chances that Terran will advance. And even then out of group stages 50% of T made it out 70% of Z made it out Which doesn´t mean anything about balance, its just that on those matches Zerg played better.And if we look at other tourneys Zerg are doing fine(P are doing slightly better than in GSL but not that much). And more importantly if you want to talk about Terran OP(which by itself doesn´t make much sense you have to talk about MUs) I must ask, did you watch the games? Seriosuly none of the TvZ looked one sided at all nor felt as if the Z had no chance to win. And seriously stop with the whinning, we just had a ZvZ final at IPL, P as 2nd place at IEM, Z with a 48% winrate at GSL (which was at 52% before the RO8 matches) this season. Its nto being a Terran apologist its watching the freaking games, TvZ is fine, PvT and PvZ may need some tweaking or new strategies but taking into account other tourneys, overall winrate at GSL and watching the freaking games Its stupid to just take GSL semifinals and say that T is OP overall. If anything it just talks about the format(which as I said I blame it on the Up and Down formats) | ||
|
brassmonkey1211
United States68 Posts
| ||
|
Hassybaby
United Kingdom10823 Posts
On October 12 2011 23:55 TeH_CaRnAg3 wrote: As a zerg player I agree with you bro. This is true, we can't just use the same army in zvt as we do in zvp or zvz most of the time. I do think what you've stated has something to do with terran dominance. As you can practice unit compositions that are more across the board sorta speak. Why i'm trying to get roaches in zvt down >.< Exactly. If I was Terran (I'm random) I'd be practicing my marine/tank, because I can use that in 2 of the matchups well, and to a point, the third. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
Maps affect balance pretty profoundly in Brood War, but just because this is likely also true in sc2, the fact that it is true doe not negate the possibility of imbalance not related to map design. | ||
|
flodeskum
Iceland1267 Posts
On October 13 2011 00:25 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: Percentage wise? Yes. This is because they are and always have been the most played race. Looking at it this way is stupid at best. Actually dominating? They dominated until the new maps were in place (Tal'Darim/etc) and have started dominating again last GSL, races were pretty even before, after the new maps were introduced protoss and when MC won his GSLs protoss was dominating pretty hard, and after the infestor change zerg was doing really well. Yes, overall, by a tiny margin over protoss, zerg being a few percentages behind. Also, it should be noted that there are significantly more protoss and terran players in bronze/silver than zerg. So most of those extra players p/t are gold and below. If we only look at masters and grandmasters the race distribution is extremely close. Protoss actually has the most masters league players with 32.18%, terran have 31.43% and zerg have 31.75%. GM has a bit more terrans but not anywhere near a significant margin. If you actually think that terrans are dominating because they just have more players then... well you don't actually think that though. It's just something people say to excuse a trend that has been going on for far too long to be a coincidence. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
OSC
IPSL
Dewalt vs Bonyth
OSC
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Patches Events
|
|
|
EPT
