|
On November 07 2011 05:25 Mentymion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:17 Vehemus wrote:
These don't mean anything at all.
You could have looked at the state of PvZ in February and decided that Protoss was overpowered and Zerg can't win without a major change to the matchup. Since those February winrates, what's happened?
Protoss:
+Charge Zealot buff
+Archons became massive
+Archon range buff
+Immortal range buff
+Mothership acceleration buff
+Sentry build time buff
+Warp prism buff
-Blink research +30 seconds
-Pylon power radius decreased by .5
-Warpgate research +20 seconds
-Archon Toilet nerfed
-Amulet removed
Zerg:
+Spore crawlers root time decreased by 6
+Overseer cost change
+Ultralisk build time
=Infestor fungal changed, buffed, then nerfed
-Neural Parasite range nerf
-Contaminate energy nerf
-Infestor speed nerf
If anything, Protoss has received far more favorable changes in the last eight months, outside of the Amulet removal. Yet their winrate in PvZ has dropped to the lowest in SC2 history the last two months.
The game changes. Strategies change. Look at Brood War race winrates even when no patches were implemented for years. It's getting to the point where Terran has been on top for so long that it's fair to consider something may have to change, but even that isn't a sure thing. - Warpgate research +20 seconds - Amulet removed - Fungal buff through that time.... Don't know what you are pointing at, but these changes fucked Protoss so hard you hardly believe it.
Really? Protoss is more fucked as a race now than they were when Archons had two range, weren't massive units, Immortals were five range, charge zealots couldn't even hit kiting units, warp prisms had no shields and sentries took five seconds longer to build?
I'm going to have to disagree with you here.
|
No wonder Protoss is still the weakest race. Until Blizzard decide to nerf the Marauder for Terran, buff the zealot for protoss and reduce the effect of all the macro mechanics maybe we'll see it become more balanced.
|
On November 07 2011 05:17 Vehemus wrote:
These don't mean anything at all.
You could have looked at the state of PvZ in February and decided that Protoss was overpowered and Zerg can't win without a major change to the matchup. Since those February winrates, what's happened?
Protoss:
+Charge Zealot buff
Only relevant in PvT due to concussive shell.
+Archons became massive
+Archon range buff
This was beneficial in PvZ since Archons are now better against zerglings, but they are still very expensive to get and are worse than storm against zerglings. It is not insignificant, and definitely pro Protoss in PvZ.
+Immortal range buff
This literally just happened, so the change probably isn't yet reflective in strategies and the matchup winrates.
+Mothership acceleration buff
Kind of pointless.
+Sentry build time buff
Helpful to defend timings on maps with ramps before warpgate research is done. Pointless after warpgate research and on maps like Taldarim.
+Warp prism buff
Fairly important, but the extent of it has yet to be fully realized similar to immortal. Also fairly recent.
-Blink research +30 seconds
Killed some Protoss timings against Zerg (which I think is actually a good thing) but it is definitely bigger than lot of the Protoss buffs.
-Pylon power radius decreased by .5
-Warpgate research +20 seconds
Not super significant, only slight nerfs. I mean later warpgate means later 4 gate or 6 gate, but Zergs were figuring these out anyway.
-Archon Toilet nerfed
-Amulet removed
Super significant. Archon Toilet was a huge end game strategy and definitely overpowered. I am not sure KA was overpowered, and of course this means Zerg run bys are more powerful with Storm being something you wait for.
Zerg:
+Spore crawlers root time decreased by 6
This made defending Void Rays way way easier. This was an awesome change, but let's not deny that it killed Protoss timings.
+Overseer cost change
+Ultralisk build time
Fairly insignificant, but of course Overseer cost means Dark Templar is slightly less effective.
=Infestor fungal changed, buffed, then nerfed
Huge buff, slight nerf. The damage nerf is not as huge as the previous buff. Fungal Growth is still sick good against the deathball and blink stalkers.
-Neural Parasite range nerf
-Contaminate energy nerf
-Infestor speed nerf
Fairly insignificant. Neural Parasite nerf means that infestors are weaker against Collosus now, but neural was rarer to see than fungal and corrupters anyway, so it is not as large as it seemed. It is still a nerf, but the significance has been overstated.
If anything, Protoss has received far more favorable changes in the last eight months, outside of the Amulet removal. Yet their winrate in PvZ has dropped to the lowest in SC2 history the last two months.
The game changes. Strategies change. Look at Brood War race winrates even when no patches were implemented for years. It's getting to the point where Terran has been on top for so long that it's fair to consider something may have to change, but even that isn't a sure thing.
Basically, tons and tons of Protoss timings were killed with these buffs and nerfs. Protoss is the race that most depended on timings, so of course this will kill the matchup and favor the other races. Protoss has greater difficulty macroing in a safe manner, so they have depended on timings for the majority of the time, and now that most of the timings are weaker, they are doing worse. Go figure.
|
On November 07 2011 05:12 yzzdups wrote: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.
you are really a zerg, right? its not 7% winrate difference, its 43->56, 13%
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 07 2011 05:27 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:04 pPingu wrote:On November 07 2011 04:57 JWD wrote: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 Why don't you credit him in the OP!
Huh... my bad
|
Since the 1.4 patch, protoss is 50.79% against terran according to http://www.sc2charts.net which is better updated than TLPD. Just saying...
|
On November 07 2011 05:17 Vehemus wrote:
These don't mean anything at all.
You could have looked at the state of PvZ in February and decided that Protoss was overpowered and Zerg can't win without a major change to the matchup. Since those February winrates, what's happened?
Protoss:
+Charge Zealot buff
+Archons became massive
+Archon range buff
+Immortal range buff
+Mothership acceleration buff
+Sentry build time buff
+Warp prism buff
-Blink research +30 seconds
-Pylon power radius decreased by .5
-Warpgate research +20 seconds
-Archon Toilet nerfed
-Amulet removed
Zerg:
+Spore crawlers root time decreased by 6
+Overseer cost change
+Ultralisk build time
=Infestor fungal changed, buffed, then nerfed
-Neural Parasite range nerf
-Contaminate energy nerf
-Infestor speed nerf
If anything, Protoss has received far more favorable changes in the last eight months, outside of the Amulet removal. Yet their winrate in PvZ has dropped to the lowest in SC2 history the last two months.
The game changes. Strategies change. Look at Brood War race winrates even when no patches were implemented for years. It's getting to the point where Terran has been on top for so long that it's fair to consider something may have to change, but even that isn't a sure thing.
You can't just count the amount of positive changes vs the negative ones and say "See, Protoss got buffed so hard!!"
Of the buffs, only immortal range is important for PvZ. Archons are used mostly against melee units anyway and being massive make them break forcefields and screw Protoss if anything. Warp prism buff is nice, but not game breaking. Charge change is more of a bug fix, and mothership, lol.
Now for the nerfs: nah I don't want to talk about it, it's too sad :'(
|
On November 07 2011 05:24 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:21 nam nam wrote:On November 07 2011 05:18 doko100 wrote:
Look at the overall win rate.
In january terran has a 53,9% win rate but the curve is somewhere at around 55% and in july terran has a 53.8% win rate but the curve is at 52%. It makes this graph useless because when you have a first look just the line that is drawn makes it look alot more imbalanced than it is..
explain this to me please? Uhm what? The way the curves are made makes it seem less imbalanced if anything thanks to it working to lessen the fluctuations. but the main problem here is the y axis, the line even shows T as favored over Z when Z had a higher win rate. if you use a 0-100 y axis the problem is non existent. this is just outragous because it makes things look a lot worse than they are and our community already has enough balance whine everywhere. thread should be deleted imo or graphs remade so they are less misleading
http://i.imgur.com/dNKqa.png
Nope he already did that the problem still looks existent it is just between a lot of wasted space on the graph.
Nobody complained about the axis back when it was a line graph with the exact same data. Look at the August thread.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=262678
|
I get the feeling a lot of people just look at the exaggerated pictures and not the numbers. lol
ZvP more imba than any T matchup numerically.
TvZ about as balanced as you can expect any matchup numbers wise, and I think that lines up with general feelings of a quite good matchup.
TvP, Actually more balanced numerically then most people feel it is. (me too)
Also as a random aside to a post I read early in the thread. (Where poster said that the reason Toss complain more about T than Z was because T cheese them and Z games go to macro.) I personally find it MUCH more infuriating to lose to muta ling baseraces than anything else. And now that 111 is sort of out of style almost all TvP go to a macro game.
|
On November 07 2011 05:31 Elean wrote:Since the 1.4 patch, protoss is 50.79% against terran according to http://www.sc2charts.net which is better updated than TLPD. Just saying...
better updated, much less reliable, doens't matter
|
Italy12246 Posts
Sad Zealot is sad  tbh i hope protoss receives a radical redesign, warpgate creates way too many problems combined with ff's.
|
On November 07 2011 05:31 Elean wrote:Since the 1.4 patch, protoss is 50.79% against terran according to http://www.sc2charts.net which is better updated than TLPD. Just saying...
And ZvP is 55% to 44%, in other words the biggest imbalance is still the biggest imbalance. Way to selectively read.
|
Glad to see that Protoss is even worse off than before. /sarcasm
David Kim needs to start watching the GSL, and every match, and get some translator to consult Korean players, rather than basing his decisions on low-tier NA matches and consulting low-mid tier NA players.
It's funny because these are the global stats. Things are even worse just in Korea.
Glad to see some people still propagate the conspiracy theory of this grand conspiracy in which better players naturally choose Terran. /again, sarcasm
I wanna see the Korean stats just so I can see how bad Toss is doing in Korea. At least it's Blizzard implicitly admitting they're trolling.
|
I wish they would revert pylons as it was since you cant warp on a ramp and ramp vision has been reduced.
That change really randomly screwed up protosses.
|
On November 07 2011 05:28 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:26 Telcontar wrote:
It's sad that Blizzard won't give a hick about these stats let alone see it. They're just happy with their 'adjusted' ladder numbers. Sigh........ for god's sake why would they? the numbers are perfectly fine, maybe ZvP is slightly off but that could change and the sample size is really small aswell, stop being so ignorant. a 47-53% difference is almost nothing, its impossible to have 50-50% in a games that is based on individual skill..
Maybe it's not 50/50, but the trends are pretty ridiculous. The graphs are not switching balance, which can really give indication of imbalance.
In the past 6 months, ZvP has never been P favored. In the 12 months graphed for ZvP, protoss has been ahead in 33% and behind in 66%, ignoring the degree of despairity (which shows that when zerg is favored, they are more favored than protoss were). In the past 6 months, generally the balance is continuing to diverge.
In TvZ, terran has never fallen below 50%. The absolute lowest was 51.1%. 12 months of terran favored in TvZ.
In TvP, protoss was ahead for one month, october 2010. They have never been above 50% for the past 11 months.
In the overall winrates, one month out of twelve saw terran in second place. They were behind zerg by 0.1%.
Just the trends are revealing enough, let alone the actual numbers. You may not think that a 43-57% difference is much, but when this has been present across 6-12 months of data, its hard to call it "individual skill"
|
On November 07 2011 05:32 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:17 Vehemus wrote:
These don't mean anything at all.
You could have looked at the state of PvZ in February and decided that Protoss was overpowered and Zerg can't win without a major change to the matchup. Since those February winrates, what's happened?
Protoss:
+Charge Zealot buff
+Archons became massive
+Archon range buff
+Immortal range buff
+Mothership acceleration buff
+Sentry build time buff
+Warp prism buff
-Blink research +30 seconds
-Pylon power radius decreased by .5
-Warpgate research +20 seconds
-Archon Toilet nerfed
-Amulet removed
Zerg:
+Spore crawlers root time decreased by 6
+Overseer cost change
+Ultralisk build time
=Infestor fungal changed, buffed, then nerfed
-Neural Parasite range nerf
-Contaminate energy nerf
-Infestor speed nerf
If anything, Protoss has received far more favorable changes in the last eight months, outside of the Amulet removal. Yet their winrate in PvZ has dropped to the lowest in SC2 history the last two months.
The game changes. Strategies change. Look at Brood War race winrates even when no patches were implemented for years. It's getting to the point where Terran has been on top for so long that it's fair to consider something may have to change, but even that isn't a sure thing. You can't just count the amount of positive changes vs the negative ones and say "See, Protoss got buffed so hard!!" Of the buffs, only immortal range is important for PvZ. Archons are used mostly against melee units anyway and being massive make them break forcefields and screw Protoss if anything. Warp prism buff is nice, but not game breaking. Charge change is more of a bug fix, and mothership, lol. Now for the nerfs: nah I don't want to talk about it, it's too sad :'(
archons wont ever be good pvz, zergs just understood they dont have to rush mutalisk, open with roach, be safe against timing push then go mutalisk, very very easy, as you get roaches archons are just NOTHING, it doesn't has anything to buff/nerfs, its the way archons are and wont change
|
On November 07 2011 05:35 Akhee wrote:better updated, much less reliable, doens't matter
much less reliable? tlpd is the most unreliable thing in the world when it comes down to balance. who cares if SEA players lose to koreans? but these graphs consist of games where koreans beat much worse foreigners. and the koreans are mainly terran players. have a look yourself.
|
On November 07 2011 05:18 doko100 wrote:Look at the overall win rate. In january terran has a 53,9% win rate but the curve is somewhere at around 55% and in july terran has a 53.8% win rate but the curve is at 52%. It makes this graph useless because when you have a first look just the line that is drawn makes it look alot more imbalanced than it is.. explain this to me please? Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:16 Hetz wrote:
That top graph...why is the blue line always above the others? yeah it's bullshit, when zerg had a higher overall win rate than terran in june the line still showed an almost 3% advantage for terran. like I said soooo misleading
The graph explains exactly what the trend line represents(moving average), and provides its scale precisely. The creator cannot help if you do not understand the information it provides. It is not misleading in any way. The scale is pretty normal(slightly larger then the biggest deviation from 50%), and provides its numbers. The 3 month moving average smooths out the random fluctuations to give you a better idea of the trend, hence the "trend line". It is drawn correctly, you can even plug in the values it is averaging(56, 54.7, 53.9, and arrive at 54.9%, which it shows).
|
thanks for the information... but I think you should add to the OP that this in no way reflects the current state of balance in the game as a whole... too many people are taking this as "SEE LOOK PROTOSS 48% WINRATE... OMFG SUCH BS UP RACE F MY LIFE"
simply adding a disclaimer would go quite a distance for an OP like this. this shouldn't be a race balance whine fest, it should be just an interesting view of the metagame shifts over time (not balance shifts)
|
PvZ: Zergs have really explored this MU (especially on kor server). All the allins are well known and perfect responses known almost as well. Additionally, Zergs have developed or improved many of their own all ins which arent quite as known yet and therefore more difficult to stop on the protoss side. Currently the only thing that can be looked at as possibly OP is BL/Infestor.
MC style - play safe and respond to everything with a blink stalker heavy into colossus army.
Weakness - 130 Protoss Supply vs 200 Zerg supply when Protoss tries to secure a third
Weakness - Have to hit a timing before BL/Infestor
Hero style - Non commital aggression. Always attacking at awkward timings to find those that are cost efficient and then using them in the future while working on finding more. Uses Warp Prism play to secure faster third behind rocks while simultaneously putting on army pressure while simultaneously dropping/warping zealots to either snipe an important tech structure, hatch or clear drones.
Weakness - Very risky, if zerg spots your timing all your units will die for little damage done
Weakness - More susceptible to Zerg All ins because the stargate and sentry production is often held off in order to produce more combat units to stay more even with zerg with these awkward timings.
Weakness - Needs high level of multitasking, if you don't have enough you won't succeed.
Weakness - Still no answer for BL/Infestor
Perfect's Opinion - I think Hero PvZ is the future and requires alot of skill and enormous amount of game knowledge to pull off. Not even Hero has reached the zenith of this kind of play but hes definitely on to something. Only real justifiable change atm i feel is buffing some sort of unit that can be used against the BL. My suggestion is reintoruction of Flux Vanes on Void Rays or an Increase on the range of the void ray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JW38u.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JNPY6.png)
