|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
On October 13 2011 00:38 TeH_CaRnAg3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 13 2011 00:25 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: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. 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/allSo 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 Arguments based on logic are superseded by arguments based on evidence.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
This also proves that we need more Randoms in the GSL :D
|
you claim that Dual sight and Xel'naga fortress are terran favoured yet they only have a 53% edge vs zerg on dual sight and a 40% win rate on xel'naga TvZ
both Zerg and Terran have a winning ration vs protoss on both maps so those cancel each other out.
|
United Kingdom20332 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:04 Mormagil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 21:55 Nick_54 wrote:
And no, I think the terran players are just playing better than all the other races right now thanks to their broodwar background or training environment (Slayers/IM house) I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious where you would say the tipping point is. At what point do we finally cave in and say tarren is imba? When Ro8 is 100% tarren instead of merely 75%? When Nestea and DRG join MC down in code B and code S is pure TvT? For myself, I think the maps are certainly a contributing factor... but there is a more fundamental reason we see this imbalance.
I think that blizzard will never achknowledge an imbalance, even if code S is 100% terran.
In their adjusted stats page, they say that in order for a matchup to be considered inbalanced, it has to be more than three times the standard metagame shift in favor of one race (35/65) and that is counting the entirety of masters league.
Ladder doesnt reflect the problems GSL has, so blizzard refuses to achknowledge it or make sweeping changes to anything. I think they are waiting on HOTS to do some kind of rework, doubt they are happy with protoss representation at the highest level right now (even if they have 43% "adjusted winrate" in korean masters+)
|
I have to think part of the issue is that some of the maps(Dual Sight, Bel'shir, Crossfire) are relics from when zerg was doing poorly, and they haven't been removed/revised too much since.
|
On October 13 2011 01:00 Daralii wrote:
I have to think part of the issue is that some of the maps(Dual Sight, Bel'shir, Crossfire) are relics from when zerg was doing poorly, and they haven't been removed/revised too much since.
Those are some extremely anti-terran maps, and Zergs are certainly getting their fair share of wins on them.
|
It definitely makes a difference in PvZ. The likes of Dual Sight or Bel'shir Beach, or even Crossfire make it nearly impossible for the Protoss to ever take a third base. Plus, there are the recent "I take the gold instead of my natural and am safe against everything kthxbye" Zerg shenaningans on Antiga Shipyard. PvZ feels much better on TDA, Daybreak or the new Terminus. Whether it's balanced on those maps is hard to say, but it definitely makes a huge difference.
In PvT, on the other hand, I don't think so. I'm not even sure how a map that favors Protoss over Terran would look like. Free natural and easily defendable third? Jungle Basin is cited as a hugely Protoss favoured map in this thread, but I doubt it would really help in the current state of PvT.
|
On October 13 2011 01:10 Toadvine wrote:
It definitely makes a difference in PvZ. The likes of Dual Sight or Bel'shir Beach, or even Crossfire make it nearly impossible for the Protoss to ever take a third base. Plus, there are the recent "I take the gold instead of my natural and am safe against everything kthxbye" Zerg shenaningans on Antiga Shipyard. PvZ feels much better on TDA, Daybreak or the new Terminus. Whether it's balanced on those maps is hard to say, but it definitely makes a huge difference.
In PvT, on the other hand, I don't think so. I'm not even sure how a map that favors Protoss over Terran would look like. Free natural and easily defendable third? Jungle Basin is cited as a hugely Protoss favoured map in this thread, but I doubt it would really help in the current state of PvT.
I'm definitely citing PvZ more, due to the larger discrepancy according to September's winrate graphs(13% disparity).
|
Any map that you make that is good for PvT and PvZ is I think by default going to be even better for TvZ AND make for awful TvT games. Just by the nature of the game. In order for maps to be used for as significant of a balancing tool as in BW, the races need to have better defined and more distinct roles like they did in BW. Basically, the fact that toss plays like Terran vs zerg and terran; Terran plays like Zerg vs Toss and Terran vs the rest distorts the possibility of map balancing.
|
So the 72% who voted "No" think that either Terran is imba, either korean terrans are gosu. Also only 28% think that maps are part of matchup imbalance. Good stuff TL.
|
On October 13 2011 01:15 Al Bundy wrote:
So the 72% who voted "No" think that either Terran is imba, either korean terrans are gosu. Also only 28% think that maps are part of matchup imbalance. Good stuff TL.
Are you being sarcastic? The reason the percentages are so heavily favored in that fashion is probably because the map pool isn't *heavily* favored towards Terran, and yet we see mostly Terrans at the end of Code S.
That doesn't mean that maps can't favor a certain race, but they tend to balance decently well throughout the pool (or at least aren't the major factor when assessing why Terrans make it to the end and Protoss and Zerg don't).
Good stuff Al Bundy.
|
Its just that Koreans are best and Terran is favorite right now in the balance to Protoss so we see Terrans at the top level just owning protoss left and right.
|
In general, not really. There are certain maps that might offer very good strategies for terran, but I feel the same thing can be said for atleast zerg if not toss too.
I feel the problem is rather just how the terran race is built with so much micro dependance. Without micro, all terran units kind of suck(with few exceptions), with perfect micro they become insanely good. Also ofcourse the Boxer(and I suppose now Flash too) effect doesn't help, where I just simply think more Koreans play terran because of him(them).
|
Also, a lot of these GSL maps only get played deeper in a tournament, when only the very best Zerg and Protoss players are there to represent their race. IMNestea probably has an inordinate number of the Zerg wins on these maps, so simply looking at the race win percentages on these maps is hardly a good measure of whether it's balanced or not. Nestea versus Any Terran Except MVP is a Zerg-favored map.
|
Pretty sure it's because of the players. The Terran players are just better than everyone else.
|
I think it's an interesting point. I mean look at IPL which didn't have Xel Naga Caverns (Widely considered a Terran favored map) while containing fixed spawns Metalopolis which is proven to be zerg favored and the tournament finished as ZvZ final.
Interesting point worth considering I think 
|
On October 13 2011 01:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 01:15 Al Bundy wrote:
So the 72% who voted "No" think that either Terran is imba, either korean terrans are gosu. Also only 28% think that maps are part of matchup imbalance. Good stuff TL. Are you being sarcastic? The reason the percentages are so heavily favored in that fashion is probably because the map pool isn't *heavily* favored towards Terran, and yet we see mostly Terrans at the end of Code S. That doesn't mean that maps can't favor a certain race, but they tend to balance decently well throughout the pool (or at least aren't the major factor when assessing why Terrans make it to the end and Protoss and Zerg don't). Good stuff Al Bundy.
So that's it, Terran is OP? Or are korean Terran much better?
|
Dual sight and Crossfire definitely not favored Protoss. That map is ridiculously hard to take the nat with the huge wide open, also the third is far and open as well.
|
I think that Terran is just easier to abuse at the top top level
|
On October 12 2011 23:32 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 23:11 sitromit wrote:On October 12 2011 22:55 CatNzHat wrote:
The problem with the mass of terrans in the GSL is the fact that the players can't get knocked out, and the fact that the best players in the world are terrans.
If they made it so around two-thirds of the Code S players would go to up-and-down matches, there wouldn't be huge number of terran players left over from when terran was imba. That's a very interesting fact! LOL! All the best, most talented players happened to choose Terran, right? How can it be explained otherwise, it's so simple, I don't know why everyone doesn't see this fact!! Can you name a game that supports your point? Its easy to look at a statistic and say wow that shows imbalance but for example there were 5 protoss in code S this season, 1 advanced to Ro16, 1 stayed in code S, and 3 went to up/down. That sounds like a really bad statistic until you look at the games and realize that Puzzle had MKP beat on a 4 gate then supply blocked himself and fumbled the attack. You cant balance around that and no amount of changes are gonig to fix that. Same thing can be said about genius and Hungun was someone people expected to fall for quite awhile. The only thing about imbalance you can draw from those games is making big mistakes means you lose.
Thank god... This is what people really need to consider.
Although this is related to player skill in some regard, it simply sounds better then a blanket statement like "protoss players just aren't as good at the moment." However, it is more of a proof of such a statement. Incontrol is someone who, in my opinion, is hurting the developement of the metagame by talking about imbalance so soon since "the decline" of protoss players.
Statistics can mean a lot but in a case study of balance in a game with all these thousands of variables there really is no way to be sure that the problem is balance.
Remember 3-6 months ago when Protoss was considered imbalanced and Zerg was underpowered? Blizzard's patches where VERY minor but Zerg metagame completely changed to adapt to the problems with the ZvP matchup. Buffing the fungal growth then nerfing it back didn't change anything other then plant a seed that Infestors might be the answer to a lot of Zerg's problems. It turned out that Zerg's needed to use new strategies and unit compositions to cope, not that Zerg needed patches.
Incontrol, Naniwa, and a large portion of the community seem to believe that the statistics tell the whole story when really, as Adreme pointed out, you have to look at the individual games.
Even if you argue statistics are the end all of discussion like a lot of players seem to do, you should take in to account the SHORT amount of time that Protoss's numbers have been down. The strategies really haven't shifted much since then for Protoss players, and to me it just feels like the metagame is moving slower for the Protoss players because a lot of the top players relied on really good timings that got figured out.
Finally, just remember how long Zerg was in a recession comparatively before they finally "figured it out." Protoss players just need more innovators, and more pros that try the new builds that people come up with. There are a lot of lesser Protoss players who use builds that are crazy scary, but the players themselves just haven't had as much success for whatever mechanic or technical reason. Inka's (spelling?) recent PvZ builds make it look so easy, and not gimicky. If a tip top pro picked up some of these strategies I immagine the metagame could easily shift drastically.
I don't play terran and I think I would be biased to comment on Terran however so I won't touch that matchup :p
|
On October 13 2011 02:11 Al Bundy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 01:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 13 2011 01:15 Al Bundy wrote:
So the 72% who voted "No" think that either Terran is imba, either korean terrans are gosu. Also only 28% think that maps are part of matchup imbalance. Good stuff TL. Are you being sarcastic? The reason the percentages are so heavily favored in that fashion is probably because the map pool isn't *heavily* favored towards Terran, and yet we see mostly Terrans at the end of Code S. That doesn't mean that maps can't favor a certain race, but they tend to balance decently well throughout the pool (or at least aren't the major factor when assessing why Terrans make it to the end and Protoss and Zerg don't). Good stuff Al Bundy. So that's it, Terran is OP? Or are korean Terran much better?
At the highest level, Terran is clearly better. The win percentages have been showing that for a very long time >.>
It's not the map pool lol. Especially not when some of these "counterexamples" (like IPL3) are when the loser of a previous game gets to choose the map for the next game in a series -.-' That clearly disproves the theory that maps have anything to do with it; players aren't going to choose maps that they suck on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
