|
On October 14 2011 10:22 Daralii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 09:58 Zealot Lord wrote:
Back when Terran players only used nothing but MMM, yes templars with amulet looked too strong; but what about now though? Its quite clear to me that some of the things which used to be considered imbalanced are most likely no longer overpowered with pro players improving at such a fast rate, as they change the effectiveness of different units. I am 100% sure that had the game begun with players that could use snipe as well as they could with ghosts now, they would have never taken out khydarian amulet. Flux Vanes is another thing. It was removed because void ray all ins were too good in 2v2, but with the 6 second spore crawler burrow time and the incredible strength of fungal, I have to think Blizz could afford to bring it back.
VRs are already tough as shit for zerg to deal with and it derails zerg completely.
so its 6 second root time for spore.. SO??? 6 seconds its not firing at you, keep hitting it with your CHARGED VR, run away if you dont kill it and attack something else like a roach warren or a spawning pool, FORCING zerg to uproot again and try to root under you again.
this is called a JOKE by blizzard on players. Imagine if for terrans they only had tank for anti ground for 6 minutes of the game, and only can it fire in siege mode. you run up with stalkers or roaches, shoot at it as it tries to set up, run off and attack some other part of Terrans base laughing at the Terrans joke for a defense unit.
base defenses do NOT make up for having shitty/no AA thats massable and tier one. there's a reason hydras were 1 supply and cheap and tier one in brood war. just like marines, dragoons, stalkers, etc.
|
On October 14 2011 10:23 sopporku wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 10:22 Daralii wrote:On October 14 2011 09:58 Zealot Lord wrote:
Back when Terran players only used nothing but MMM, yes templars with amulet looked too strong; but what about now though? Its quite clear to me that some of the things which used to be considered imbalanced are most likely no longer overpowered with pro players improving at such a fast rate, as they change the effectiveness of different units. I am 100% sure that had the game begun with players that could use snipe as well as they could with ghosts now, they would have never taken out khydarian amulet. Flux Vanes is another thing. It was removed because void ray all ins were too good in 2v2, but with the 6 second spore crawler burrow time and the incredible strength of fungal, I have to think Blizz could afford to bring it back. VRs are already tough as shit for zerg to deal with and it derails zerg completely.
It's also the only reason anyone would build a fleet beacon, making it incredibly easy to scout once you get in their base.
|
On October 14 2011 10:23 sopporku wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 10:22 Daralii wrote:On October 14 2011 09:58 Zealot Lord wrote:
Back when Terran players only used nothing but MMM, yes templars with amulet looked too strong; but what about now though? Its quite clear to me that some of the things which used to be considered imbalanced are most likely no longer overpowered with pro players improving at such a fast rate, as they change the effectiveness of different units. I am 100% sure that had the game begun with players that could use snipe as well as they could with ghosts now, they would have never taken out khydarian amulet. Flux Vanes is another thing. It was removed because void ray all ins were too good in 2v2, but with the 6 second spore crawler burrow time and the incredible strength of fungal, I have to think Blizz could afford to bring it back. VRs are already tough as shit for zerg to deal with and it derails zerg completely.
where is your proof for this? It is much more widely accepted that FFE voidray openings vs Zerg are terrible nowadays.
|
Good to be part of the superior race!
|
Im ignoring the first couple of seasons (1-2) cuz nobody knew what they where doing.....
But its pretty interesting that the protoss winpercentage is changing so much in such a short amount of time.....both up and down....(about 15-18%/per season)
While the other races are getting a more stable winrate precentage over time....(4-6 %)
|
On October 14 2011 10:26 Fig wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 10:23 sopporku wrote:On October 14 2011 10:22 Daralii wrote:On October 14 2011 09:58 Zealot Lord wrote:
Back when Terran players only used nothing but MMM, yes templars with amulet looked too strong; but what about now though? Its quite clear to me that some of the things which used to be considered imbalanced are most likely no longer overpowered with pro players improving at such a fast rate, as they change the effectiveness of different units. I am 100% sure that had the game begun with players that could use snipe as well as they could with ghosts now, they would have never taken out khydarian amulet. Flux Vanes is another thing. It was removed because void ray all ins were too good in 2v2, but with the 6 second spore crawler burrow time and the incredible strength of fungal, I have to think Blizz could afford to bring it back. VRs are already tough as shit for zerg to deal with and it derails zerg completely. where is your proof for this? It is much more widely accepted that FFE voidray openings vs Zerg are terrible nowadays.
because an FFE opening brings it out too slow.
tell me, how's that kiting of spores working out? zerg must spend all his time microing spores around his base and then ultimately never doing any damage because the VRs just run off and laugh while attacking some drones or tech buildings? 7 range is bullshit for a unit that can "charge" to do 1000000 damage, even to unarmored. 1 VR kills 1 queen. It takes far more micro and multitasking for a zerg to defend VRs early game than it takes to lolchronospam VRs.
the person who wins is the person who forces the other to waste time not macroing. VRs do just that, because protoss gains map control, because protoss can insta-kill any tech buildings you try to put up until you mass quieens, derailing 150 minerals per queen from teching, because spores dont shoot immediately and require 6 seconds at which point a VR flies off and you have to uproot again and chase.
I don't see or understand why anyone can point to spores as the reason zerg should be fine against air early game. it costs drones/larvae/minerals, and then it doesn't even shoot unless the protoss is stupid enough to sit there and be shot by it. spores can be kited infinity times. queens can be focused down and killed, particularly by a VR player who precharges on other buildings to get charged damage on queens.
If protoss air openings are so bad, why am I seeing more and more protoss using them on ladder? 9 out of 10 will do it.
bad openings are bad, refined openings put the proof in the pudding of the shit that is VR. theres a reason flux vanes were removed.
|
On October 14 2011 08:36 Clog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 08:15 happyness wrote:On October 14 2011 06:26 Clog wrote:On October 14 2011 04:21 Shiladie wrote:On October 14 2011 04:16 ectonym wrote:
Between, say May and Jul, what does SUPER mean? Is June really that awesome? but srsly folks, what's SUPER mean in OP's charts the super tourny These graphs will now be mis-represented all over because people never know how to interpret stats... Yes terran is winning more, and protoss is winning less, this has been known, these stats also support that, but to make more inferences past that is a fallacy. The interesting things to note are the months MC MVP or Nestea won and the respective race win-rates in those months. Yeah that's the thing that bugs me most about things like this - where the winner of the tournament racks up a huge amount of wins that can nullify the quick losses of at least several other players of his race in earlier rounds. Example - Assume Terran is the weakest race by far. MKP, Ryung, Keen, NaDa, Virus, Supernova, and MMA all go 0-2 in their Groups. They just can't win a game because terran is so bad. However, MVP, being a complete boss goes undefeated through the entire bracket 14-0 + Show Spoiler +Ro32 2-0, Ro16 2-0, Ro8 3-0, Ro4 3-0, Finals 4-0 by being so much better than anyone else he plays. Total Terran W/L = 14/14, or 50%. I think the statistical term for something like this is Selection Bias (players losing provide fewer data points), but I'm not totally sure if that's completely right. And of course the example is exaggerated as well. So that's a complicated way to explain why we see zerg / protoss / terran peak a little when Nestea / MC / MVP won, respectively. I would love to see the data normalized to each player. In theory it should be a bit more representative on balance. + Show Spoiler +Normalized Terran Winrate for the above example = 100% * 1/8 + 0% * 7/8 = 12.5% which seems to illustrate how terran in general performed that season much better than taking raw wins and losses. Uh with that example, isn't that because most of those are TvT's? Well that was assuming they aren't playing mirror matchups. You obviously don't count those. A better example would be Open Season 1 with Zerg. For that season, Zerg has around a 50% win rate as shown on the OP's graph. But if you average out every zerg's win percentage from that season (I went through and did the calculations myself), ignoring mirror matchups, it came out to around 33%, which I feel is much more representative of the balance of zerg at that time. The little hypothetical scenario I made up was just to show how a skilled player that gets far into the tournament can overshadow a large number of players of the same race getting crushed in terms of the race's overall win - loss.
Yeah I thought that as well, but I guess it depends on just how high of a level you think the game should be balanced to. If, for example, MVP was the only Terran who could consistently win but all others were losing horribly, if they buffed Terran, he would be unbeatable by other races. Thus it's kind of alright for things to be skewed like that - in this example, it's up to other Terrans to play up to MVP's level. After all, everyone thought Terran was the worst race before BoxeR 
|
On October 14 2011 10:28 provrorsbarn wrote:
Im ignoring the first couple of seasons (1-2) cuz nobody knew what they where doing.....
But its pretty interesting that the protoss winpercentage is changing so much in such a short amount of time.....both up and down....(about 15-18%/per season)
While the other races are getting a more stable winrate precentage over time....(4-6 %)
More Terrans/Zergs -> less % change overall
|
sad protoss 
I don't think this represents balance just the preferences of the best players.
|
You can't really say that P needs buff, since new P players are doing well in recent GSTL.
Korean P always complain about EMP, first when it comes to PvT. Maybe increasing energy need for EMP or reducing EMP radius will significantly help current PvT issue.
|
On October 14 2011 10:31 ComaDose wrote:sad protoss I don't think this represents balance just the preferences of the best players.
Precisely!
It's not so much P is UP... just that the best players based on raw skill choose the other two races because they fit their playstyle. I can't think of many people who enjoy sitting around making a big army THEN securing the map. Koreans like to be in the know the whole game, which is why they play Z and T.
|
On October 14 2011 10:29 sopporku wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 10:26 Fig wrote:On October 14 2011 10:23 sopporku wrote:On October 14 2011 10:22 Daralii wrote:On October 14 2011 09:58 Zealot Lord wrote:
Back when Terran players only used nothing but MMM, yes templars with amulet looked too strong; but what about now though? Its quite clear to me that some of the things which used to be considered imbalanced are most likely no longer overpowered with pro players improving at such a fast rate, as they change the effectiveness of different units. I am 100% sure that had the game begun with players that could use snipe as well as they could with ghosts now, they would have never taken out khydarian amulet. Flux Vanes is another thing. It was removed because void ray all ins were too good in 2v2, but with the 6 second spore crawler burrow time and the incredible strength of fungal, I have to think Blizz could afford to bring it back. VRs are already tough as shit for zerg to deal with and it derails zerg completely. where is your proof for this? It is much more widely accepted that FFE voidray openings vs Zerg are terrible nowadays. because an FFE opening brings it out too slow. tell me, how's that kiting of spores working out? zerg must spend all his time microing spores around his base and then ultimately never doing any damage because the VRs just run off and laugh while attacking some drones or tech buildings? 7 range is bullshit for a unit that can "charge" to do 1000000 damage, even to unarmored. 1 VR kills 1 queen. It takes far more micro and multitasking for a zerg to defend VRs early game than it takes to lolchronospam VRs. the person who wins is the person who forces the other to waste time not macroing. VRs do just that, because protoss gains map control, because protoss can insta-kill any tech buildings you try to put up until you mass quieens, derailing 150 minerals per queen from teching, because spores dont shoot immediately and require 6 seconds at which point a VR flies off and you have to uproot again and chase. I don't see or understand why anyone can point to spores as the reason zerg should be fine against air early game. it costs drones/larvae/minerals, and then it doesn't even shoot unless the protoss is stupid enough to sit there and be shot by it. spores can be kited infinity times. queens can be focused down and killed, particularly by a VR player who precharges on other buildings to get charged damage on queens.
You are ridiculous. Where did you come from? You must be watching people play SC2 in an alternate dimension. Or maybe you are watching from back in beta when void rays actually had high charged DPS. You obviously have never played toss, or you would know that void rays cost 250/150, and as such should be able to take out a 150 mineral queen, which they just barely do. Putting two queens up against a void ray is closer in value (still far in zerg's favor), and they win that battle easily. And as the GSL has shown, even just massing queens works against voidrays.
Also, everything zerg has (minus queens) costs drones/larvae/minerals, that's how the race works. If you are complaining about that, switch to a race that doesn't have drones or larvae.
|
I feel like once P and Z are able to enter the mid-game with T on even footing the game become quite balanced. It's the first 10 minutes or so that Terrans carry the initiative and either 2) cripple the P/Z with rush/harras, or 2) dupe them with a threat of aggression and get ahead economically.
I have no specifics of solution but at least the trends I see in TvX games. In late game, I feel all the races have equal chance with the sole exception of Ghost. Ghost - Templar relationship is favored toward the Ghost by a long shot in today's games. (Warp Prism play does look promising, though, to be fair) And the Ghosts counter both BL/Ultra with range 10 snipes, which is kind of ridiculous.
Why do Terran have the range advantage on just about everything? Even freaking buildings?
|
On October 14 2011 10:39 Fig wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 10:29 sopporku wrote:On October 14 2011 10:26 Fig wrote:On October 14 2011 10:23 sopporku wrote:On October 14 2011 10:22 Daralii wrote:On October 14 2011 09:58 Zealot Lord wrote:
Back when Terran players only used nothing but MMM, yes templars with amulet looked too strong; but what about now though? Its quite clear to me that some of the things which used to be considered imbalanced are most likely no longer overpowered with pro players improving at such a fast rate, as they change the effectiveness of different units. I am 100% sure that had the game begun with players that could use snipe as well as they could with ghosts now, they would have never taken out khydarian amulet. Flux Vanes is another thing. It was removed because void ray all ins were too good in 2v2, but with the 6 second spore crawler burrow time and the incredible strength of fungal, I have to think Blizz could afford to bring it back. VRs are already tough as shit for zerg to deal with and it derails zerg completely. where is your proof for this? It is much more widely accepted that FFE voidray openings vs Zerg are terrible nowadays. because an FFE opening brings it out too slow. tell me, how's that kiting of spores working out? zerg must spend all his time microing spores around his base and then ultimately never doing any damage because the VRs just run off and laugh while attacking some drones or tech buildings? 7 range is bullshit for a unit that can "charge" to do 1000000 damage, even to unarmored. 1 VR kills 1 queen. It takes far more micro and multitasking for a zerg to defend VRs early game than it takes to lolchronospam VRs. the person who wins is the person who forces the other to waste time not macroing. VRs do just that, because protoss gains map control, because protoss can insta-kill any tech buildings you try to put up until you mass quieens, derailing 150 minerals per queen from teching, because spores dont shoot immediately and require 6 seconds at which point a VR flies off and you have to uproot again and chase. I don't see or understand why anyone can point to spores as the reason zerg should be fine against air early game. it costs drones/larvae/minerals, and then it doesn't even shoot unless the protoss is stupid enough to sit there and be shot by it. spores can be kited infinity times. queens can be focused down and killed, particularly by a VR player who precharges on other buildings to get charged damage on queens. You are ridiculous. Where did you come from? You must be watching people play SC2 in an alternate dimension. Or maybe you are watching from back in beta when void rays actually had high charged DPS. You obviously have never played toss, or you would know that void rays cost 250/150, and as such should be able to take out a 150 mineral queen, which they just barely do. Putting two queens up against a void ray is closer in value (still far in zerg's favor), and they win that battle easily. And as the GSL has shown, even just massing queens works against voidrays. Also, everything zerg has (minus queens) costs drones/larvae/minerals, that's how the race works. If you are complaining about that, switch to a race that doesn't have drones or larvae.
There's also the strength of a hydra all in as a counter. Tears through the voids and what few gateway units you'll have.
|
On October 14 2011 10:11 Reborn8u wrote:
Wait a second, isn't the GSL full of terrans because they knocked out the protoss players over time? It's not a random sample group we're talking about. And GM in Korea is pretty evenly spread between races, last time I checked. It's just that the top it is full of Terran. "The stats are useless because they are bias" no actually your post is useless because it is bias.
The fact that every stat and graph I've ever seen shows Terran dominance since release is statistically significant. Any graph I've ever seen shows terran having higher peaks and less severe valleys. This whole "better players pick terran" is moronic and I've seen 0 proof of that. Plenty of former BW pro's didn't pick terran but get smashed no name terrans.
This whole "balance doesn't affect lower levels" is crap too. If it is imbalanced at the very top, that imbalance would ripple through most mid-high level play. Meaning that a player picking the overpowered race will do better than he would as the other races. Especially when most of those less skilled players are watching the top players and copying there strategies and play styles. In starcraft 2 the dissemination of ideas is very fast.
You're misunderstanding my point in what make statistics reliable or not. I agree with you that Terran are Imba. I play Protoss, i'm just trying to take an objective standpoint.
I'm saying there are more than just win rates that should be looked it. They are far too unreliable, and misleading for points that previous posters have mentioned. E.g Protoss overall win rate is 46% at one point. Someone might say balance. Take the next step and win rate va Terran is 28% and vs Zerg is 65% or whatever. This is just one of the many inefficiencies of the data.
You CANNOT balance the game across all levels. Why? Because this game is based on skill. And when you have three completely different races functioning in completely different ways, there will be different levels of skill required at different points in the game.
Your assumption is that if two players of the exact same skill of different races vs eachother the game should be a tie. In theory, yes, but because this game is played at a professional level, balancing the game at a lower level (e.g nerfing mules for example) would cause an imbalance to higher level players. You can't balance the game based on the failures of lower skilled players. It ruins it for the higher level players.
|
On October 14 2011 01:38 Tsubbi wrote:
every day new terran domination data pops up, every non terran know, every terran knows, nothing happens. have high doubt that anything will change before the addon :/
as torch once said, terran isn't imba, its just better
or yellows first reaction to terran: a dropship that can heal? what kind of imba unit is this?
The data indicates Zerg is winning basically just as much as Terran...
If there's a problem with balance it's Protoss being too weak, not Terran being too strong.
|
It all went downhill for Protoss ever since the amulet nerf and the VR nerf.
Amulet especially. The only spell caster to get hammered by removal of a core ability. It made protoss playstyle very one dimensional, ie. Colossus lategame.
|
Interesting to see the changes as the metagame evolved.
P is not 1-dimensional. P has/had the most options for all-ins. People learned to defend them. Code S Ps have not changed their game very much since early SC2 while T/Z have evolved tremendously. It'll be fine once the bad Ps are kicked out of Code S and the good ones make it in.
|
On October 14 2011 11:33 oxxo wrote:
P has/had the most options for all-ins.
protoss? you think so?
are you kidding me?
|
On October 14 2011 11:39 Codeskye wrote:protoss? you think so? are you kidding me?
Unless a terran lifts his orbital with his army, it doesn't count as an all-in so yes, protoss has the most allins  .
I do not think past trouble dealing with allin's is a valid argument. I don't think any current protoss allins are unstoppable. They seemed overpowered at the time, however they have since been figured out. Arguably, every race needs to have 1-2 powerful allins off of 1/2 bases or else they will simply get abused out of predictability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
