|
On November 07 2011 04:30 Fusilero wrote:
Why is PvZ so bad for toss? I thought that with the NP nerf it'd be more even or perhaps in favour of toss perhaps someone more enlightened could explain this to me?
It is difficult for Protoss to defend a 3rd or 4th expansion. Which means Protoss depends on 2 or 3 base timings (ala MC), and overtime Zergs have gotten really good at defending those. Some Protoss, like HerO, have been trying to figure out ways to macro against Zergs and get that 4th base, or even 5th base, up so that they have an even game in the late game. The thing is, this form of playing is multitask intensive which makes it inherently difficult for the majority of players, and thus very few have been able to pull it off. That means most Protoss still rely on 2 or 3 base timings, or turtling to a 200 army which has also been mostly figured out by Zergs.
The other thing is that in PvT, this same thing occurs where it becomes difficult to defend a 4th or 5th base, only there are fewer innovators in macro play PvT compared to PvZ, and PvT 1 or 2 base timings are slightly more effective so cheese seems to work better there. At least, this is the impression I have gotten from watching GSLs, MGS, and other foreign tournaments the past 3 months.
|
On November 07 2011 04:30 Fusilero wrote:
Why is PvZ so bad for toss? I thought that with the NP nerf it'd be more even or perhaps in favour of toss perhaps someone more enlightened could explain this to me?
muta wrecks highlevel pvz
|
United States12607 Posts
On November 07 2011 04:55 Odoakar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:52 doko100 wrote:
can you do proper graphs please? the graphs you are using are really misguiding. its really not that hard. If the Y-axis was from 0% to 100% the differences would be barely noticable.
haha I think this is exactly doko100's point 
Thank you OP for making these graphs, always interesting.
|
Another bad graph month for protoss; wierd thing is im still hearing sooooooo many players say protoss op. or protoss imba still.
maybe their just bad =]
but i can see why ZvP graphs are going like that. more and more zergs are going muta; Muta base trade too OP imba
|
On November 07 2011 04:57 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:55 Odoakar wrote:On November 07 2011 04:52 doko100 wrote:
can you do proper graphs please? the graphs you are using are really misguiding. its really not that hard. If the Y-axis was from 0% to 100% the differences would be barely noticable. haha I think this is exactly doko100's point Thank you OP for making these graphs, always interesting.
That may be his point, but it isn't relevant to balance. A difference of 10% is very significant in balance. You do not need a race to have a 25% advantage for the game to be imbalanced, thus you do not need to have a graph from 0 to 100. If one race is at 45 and another is at 55, that is fairly significant. It may or may not be imbalanced yet, but it is basically on the edge and should be looked into.
|
On November 07 2011 04:55 Odoakar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:52 doko100 wrote:
can you do proper graphs please? the graphs you are using are really misguiding. its really not that hard. These are the proper graphs. If the Y-axis was from 0% to 100% the differences would be barely noticable. You just need to make some mental effort to actually observe the numbers and not just go 'oh this bar is really taller that his other bar derp derp'.
well the difference SHOULD be barely noticeable because it is minor, these graphs make it look like there are major imbalances when everything except PvZ is in the 45-55% range.
there is no need to make it look worse than it is, it just gives all the balance whiners another irrational reason to do so.
Also a 47% to 53% difference is absolutely nothing, in a sample size of a few hundred games that can easily be explained by individuall skills. I had a look at the games in TLPD last month and there were tournaments where we had SEA players play against top NA/EU or even korean players, the sea players obviously lost 90% of their games but that doesn't prove anything.
These statistics are random and always will be random because they record games of players with completely different skill levels. Also, people need to consider that most koreans who come to foreign tournaments are terran, DRG and MC are the only 2 good koreans who regularly attend foreign tournaments that arent terran. Think of players like MKP, MVP, MMA, they win 90% of their matches simply because they are better than the foreigners, doesn't prove anything either.
What I'm trying to say is that the sample size is too small and that the individual skill isn't take into account either.
|
On November 07 2011 04:55 Odoakar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:52 doko100 wrote:
can you do proper graphs please? the graphs you are using are really misguiding. its really not that hard. These are the proper graphs. If the Y-axis was from 0% to 100% the differences would be barely noticable. You just need to make some mental effort to actually observe the numbers and not just go 'oh this bar is really taller that his other bar derp derp'.
I agree. Its pretty typical to scale graphs like the OP did.
|
the graph format is fine.
Seems like the last stroke non-protoss cling onto to disagree with Protoss having very hard times since months.
There is no hope anyway for protoss unless they get someway of defenders advantage that does not set back their whole Army/Tech.
Meaning in WOL playing P will always be line playing on razors edge.
Lets hope that in HotS Protoss will be in a better position to play straight up macrogames.
|
On November 07 2011 04:40 Darclite wrote:
I like how many people respond with "well this is expected" as if this is okay lol. This fucking sucks.
Thanks to the dude who does this every month, I really appreciate your work.
Hope that patch goes through. Mainly the EMP nerf though. Spending 50 less gas on a shield upgrade changes virtually nothing. Also, hope it goes through about 10 days before Providence so everyone can figure out the changes and it's more balanced for the tourney.
What league are you that you worry about the EMP nerf. I'm Gold/Plat level and my problem is still mass marauder/viking ^^
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 07 2011 04:57 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:55 Odoakar wrote:On November 07 2011 04:52 doko100 wrote:
can you do proper graphs please? the graphs you are using are really misguiding. its really not that hard. If the Y-axis was from 0% to 100% the differences would be barely noticable. haha I think this is exactly doko100's point Thank you OP for making these graphs, always interesting.
I don't make them, Ctuchik does
|
On November 07 2011 05:00 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:55 Odoakar wrote:On November 07 2011 04:52 doko100 wrote:
can you do proper graphs please? the graphs you are using are really misguiding. its really not that hard. These are the proper graphs. If the Y-axis was from 0% to 100% the differences would be barely noticable. You just need to make some mental effort to actually observe the numbers and not just go 'oh this bar is really taller that his other bar derp derp'. well the difference SHOULD be barely noticeable because it is minor, these graphs make it look like there are major imbalances when everything except PvZ is in the 45-55% range. there is no need to make it look worse than it is, it just gives all the balance whiners another irrational reason to do so.
Exactly, but even PvZ would be hard to spot with 0-100% graph. A balanced game should aim for no more then a 6-8% "imbalance" in each matchup. The graph is correctly formatted. This is a very standard way to show small differences like this.
|
Personally, I think a rolling average between 45-55% is a very good indication of balance, if winrates were flipping leaders back and forth.
Look at the old Starcraft 1 graph. Metagame shift after metgameshift. It shows a non stagnant game, with many new strategies being explored. The rolling average was between 45-55%, but on a month to month basis you'll see winrates go from 60/40 then to 40/60. That is a sign of a good balanced game imo. A new strategy is found, in response a counter strategy, and in response a counter, counter strategy.
When the graph shows 1 race being on Top for the entire lifespan of a game, I do not believe the 45-55% is a good indication of balance. It shows stagnant gameplay, and it shows that despite all the innovation and metagame shifting, the other 2 races could not overtake the current top race's current strategies.
The idea behind this thinking is that need inspires innovation.
|
On November 07 2011 04:55 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:30 Fusilero wrote:
Why is PvZ so bad for toss? I thought that with the NP nerf it'd be more even or perhaps in favour of toss perhaps someone more enlightened could explain this to me? It is difficult for Protoss to defend a 3rd or 4th expansion. Which means Protoss depends on 2 or 3 base timings (ala MC), and overtime Zergs have gotten really good at defending those. Some Protoss, like HerO, have been trying to figure out ways to macro against Zergs and get that 4th base, or even 5th base, up so that they have an even game in the late game. The thing is, this form of playing is multitask intensive which makes it inherently difficult for the majority of players, and thus very few have been able to pull it off. That means most Protoss still rely on 2 or 3 base timings, or turtling to a 200 army which has also been mostly figured out by Zergs. The other thing is that in PvT, this same thing occurs where it becomes difficult to defend a 4th or 5th base, only there are fewer innovators in macro play PvT compared to PvZ, and PvT 1 or 2 base timings are slightly more effective so cheese seems to work better there. At least, this is the impression I have gotten from watching GSLs, MGS, and other foreign tournaments the past 3 months.
It's also partly because the maps a horrendous. Zergs can take third with basically no threat of dying, and on maps like Bel'shir and Dual sight, a third for Protoss is unlikely. Even if a Protoss player gets up his third, it's extremely difficult to put any pressure and you just get outmacroed.
|
On November 07 2011 04:29 IGotPlayguuu wrote:
I think i'm the only terran that keeps losing T.T Gonna switch to toss T.T
Actually only at the very low and very high levels does terran really crush toss, in between playing vs toss as T is hellish, your definitely not alone.... That being said the winrate for TVP is 53% T 47% P? Thats far from imbalanced... At least Dkim realizes this.
|
On November 07 2011 05:01 Mondieu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:40 Darclite wrote:
I like how many people respond with "well this is expected" as if this is okay lol. This fucking sucks.
Thanks to the dude who does this every month, I really appreciate your work.
Hope that patch goes through. Mainly the EMP nerf though. Spending 50 less gas on a shield upgrade changes virtually nothing. Also, hope it goes through about 10 days before Providence so everyone can figure out the changes and it's more balanced for the tourney. What league are you that you worry about the EMP nerf. I'm Gold/Plat level and my problem is still mass marauder/viking ^^
Was high plat but I stopped laddering a while ago, I don't enjoy it, now I just play with my friends who are high and low diamond. I really just care about the tournaments and I want it to be balanced for the pros, because that's my source of entertainment for sc2. It would be like watching a sport where one team had better equipment than the other, it's just frustrating. I'm not really concerned about these graphs regarding my own play, as they are reflections of high-level balance, not my level.
|
How come the september graphs on this one is way different from the ones released last month? (For example in TvP P is favored according to this one, according to last one T greatly favored.)
|
Can you explain to me why they curve for PvZ in April is over 52% when the numbers clearly state it's 50,x%?
This graph is so confusing and misleading -_-
Also why is the graph for P higher in April when the win rate is lower than in March, what is this???? That just defies logic and cannot be explained in any way.
|
On November 07 2011 05:00 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:55 Odoakar wrote:On November 07 2011 04:52 doko100 wrote:
can you do proper graphs please? the graphs you are using are really misguiding. its really not that hard. These are the proper graphs. If the Y-axis was from 0% to 100% the differences would be barely noticable. You just need to make some mental effort to actually observe the numbers and not just go 'oh this bar is really taller that his other bar derp derp'. well the difference SHOULD be barely noticeable because it is minor, these graphs make it look like there are major imbalances when everything except PvZ is in the 45-55% range. there is no need to make it look worse than it is, it just gives all the balance whiners another irrational reason to do so. Also a 47% to 53% difference is absolutely nothing, in a sample size of a few hundred games that can easily be explained by individuall skills. I had a look at the games in TLPD last month and there were tournaments where we had SEA players play against top NA/EU or even korean players, the sea players obviously lost 90% of their games but that doesn't prove anything. These statistics are random and always will be random because they record games of players with completely different skill levels. Also, people need to consider that most koreans who come to foreign tournaments are terran, DRG and MC are the only 2 good koreans who regularly attend foreign tournaments that arent terran. Think of players like MKP, MVP, MMA, they win 90% of their matches simply because they are better than the foreigners, doesn't prove anything either. What I'm trying to say is that the sample size is too small and that the individual skill isn't take into account either.
Wow you managed to use arguments 1, 2, 3 and 5 from the list by ZenithM. Maybe you should edit your post and throw in a sentence or two on argument 4, just to keep it comprehensive, you know.
Looking balanced to me.
And even if it was not, there is not enough data to conclude anything.
And stats don't mean anything.
And you have to actually look at the gameplay and not the results to form an opinion on balance.
And Terran players are just better.
|
I kind of feel like this bar graph almost exaggerates the discrepancy in the win rate. Example, there is a 7% win rate difference between protoss and zerg, but the bar representing the statistics is less than half as tall for the protoss, as it is for the zerg or terran. I feel this is because the graph begins at 40% mark, rather 0 or 1.
EDIT: I just want to add that I'm not stating the game is balanced or not, I just feel like the graph appears a bit more extreme than it should.
|
Not much data this month 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JW38u.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JNPY6.png)
