|
Switzerland2892 Posts
Thank you to Ctuchikn for providing those graphics
https://twitter.com/#!/SC2Statistics
SC2Statistics SC2stats October: imgur.com/JW38u . I have changed the trend lines to a moving average, feedback please! #SC2
color blind edition
+ Show Spoiler +
September winrate
SC2Statistics SC2stats i.imgur.com/bviP1.png Korea only/October. Y-axis is 20-80. Only 165 non-mirror games. Not included: 21 PvP's, 30 ZvZ's, 66 TvT's.
color blind version
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time
|
What does a moving average entail?
|
The Y-axis kind of makes the graphs misleading. :/ It makes the difference in win % look a lot bigger than it really is. It's good information, and I'm not saying it isn't true, just making the view from 40 to 60% makes a 5% difference look huge.
Hopefully protoss can pick it up this month.
|
|
Good times to play protoss Thanks for the data!
|
Terran seems to have had an easy ride for the whoooole duration of SC2. It only goes below the other races once or twice
|
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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated!
|
;_; Zergs tell me how you're beating protoss all the time!!!!
|
sick with the toss rate indeed, lets hope they bounce up next month :S
On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: And Terran players are just better.
:D
|
|
On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time
Because toss is good/balanced at lower levels (even imba at bronze/silver/gold where people don't have enough multitasking or timing skills to punish tosses). At tournament level though, people clearly know the toss weaknesses and also have the required skill to execute the appropriate counters consistently.
|
A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead.
|
Just keeps getting better t_t
|
On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time this is pro's. Not amateurs. Balance is much less noticeable at your level. My friend tells me he basically never loses to toss though.
|
On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated! Thank you for summing up the future.
protoss is consistent at least! consistently bad!
|
On November 07 2011 04:23 Complete wrote: What does a moving average entail?
If you look at the lines in the graphs, they don't follow the data points (shown by the bars) perfectly. They actually take into account the previous 2 months as well, averaged. This is done to smooth them out a bit and try to graph a trend.
I got a ton of feedback from the community and this was what was recommended. Not sure if I am completely happy with them, but they are much better than they were before.
|
On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead.
because loses to zerg come mostly from long macro games, while terran has so many cheeses at their disposal
|
On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL.
Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss.
I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals.
EDIT:
On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead.
For a few reasons:
1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together.
|
I think i'm the only terran that keeps losing T.T Gonna switch to toss T.T
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
That poor zealot just keeps getting sadder.
|
juicyjames
United States3815 Posts
On November 07 2011 04:23 TerlocSG wrote: The Y-axis kind of makes the graphs misleading. :/ It makes the difference in win % look a lot bigger than it really is. It's good information, and I'm not saying it isn't true, just making the view from 40 to 60% makes a 5% difference look huge. Finally someone else points this out! After learning about statistics I have begun to look at graphs and polls more carefully for this kind thing, and am very surprised at how misleading these can be due to the Y-axis alone.
|
This looks logical. After next patch they will "maybe" fix lategame PvT. However, they made ZvP from slightly favored for zerg -> favored now due to blink nerf and protoss not having a real answer to mutalisks. I'm really curious what is going to be the next patch to balance ZvP since the upgrade one obviously isn't going to do anything.
|
United Kingdom50293 Posts
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?
|
On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead.
Probably because Terran are also dominating their other matchup. It comforts Protoss to know that Zerg have troubles in at least a matchup.
|
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?
infestor broodlord
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 07 2011 04:29 Ctuchik wrote:If you look at the lines in the graphs, they don't follow the data points (shown by the bars) perfectly. They actually take into account the previous 2 months as well, averaged. This is done to smooth them out a bit and try to graph a trend. I got a ton of feedback from the community and this was what was recommended. Not sure if I am completely happy with them, but they are much better than they were before.
Hey man, love what you do, it's really great from you to do that every month.
|
On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time same here^^
|
Can we have an international chart and korean one?
|
out of curiosity what was introduced around april/may in PvZ to cause the big divergence? was it the infestor buff ?
|
The winrates were 50/50 in March for PvT before it diverged. It diverged coincides with patch 1.3.0. The winrates were 50/50 in April for PvZ before it diverged. It diverges coincides with patch 1.3.3. The winrates for TvZ has never been 50/50. Zerg's rise in March tho coincides with patch 1.3.0.
|
On November 07 2011 04:31 andis35 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? infestor broodlord
That and counter attack/basetrade based styles. Without an easy, safe 3rd, almost every GSL protoss I've seen just 2base all-ins to avoid having to attempt to take a 3rd.
|
Zergs still give me shit and cry all the time for playing toss. I always refer them to these graphs, but they are blind from rage ^^
|
These graphs are nice and all, but there are getting use for whining prupose way too much.
|
Protoss players are just bad.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Statistics don't tell you anything imo, I play zerg and I win almost 100% of my ZvTs on ladder where as I win like maybe 33% of my ZvPs. People play diffrent matchups at diffrent levels. I think blizzard should have a diffrent MMR for each match up instead of all 3 in one.
|
your Country52794 Posts
On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time I win as toss against terran -all the time-. The thing is that some people are specifically good against protoss and some aren't. However, according to the graph, many people have positive win-rates and few don't.
|
Btw, why are there so few games played in october relative to all earlier months? I tought october was STACKED, not enough time to watch all tourneys. :o
|
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?
well notice that Blink was nerfed significantly (may be people did not realize this fully during the whole outcry of infestor balance changes), and prior to this the warpgates. (This are both huge changes, and the reason why Mutas become popular again) It is funny that protoss gets everything removed/nerfed that has any good utility.
While things like 1-1-1 stay in almost untouched.
The Metagame for protoss right know is 7-8 gate all-ins vs. Zerg. because protoss has nothing solid left to fall back on in a macrogame (unless the zerg screws up big time)
PS: I thank every Zerg for trying to cheese me (and making it so much easier for me to win) Than playing to your races strenghts.
|
On November 07 2011 04:35 Noocta wrote: These graphs are nice and all, but there are getting use for whining prupose way too much.
Exactly. While this is really useful for balance at the pro level (where it really matters), to all of us n00bs it doesn't change much at all. Anywhere apart from high masters and GM is completely unaffected by this - so, while it's sad to watch the pro Protoss players lose games you think they shouldn't, bear in mind that this is most likely irrelevant to your own win/losses.
On November 07 2011 04:36 SwirlQ wrote: Statistics don't tell you anything imo, I play zerg and I win almost 100% of my ZvTs on ladder where as I win like maybe 33% of my ZvPs. People play diffrent matchups at diffrent levels. I think blizzard should have a diffrent MMR for each match up instead of all 3 in one.
This is for pro matches only, not ladder. If you want ladder stats go to Blizz directly, and good luck with that.
And saying statistics don't tell you anything is bollocks - it's like those preachers from the bible belt who come out with "science is just a theory". You just have to know how to interpret the statistics and understand what they mean.
|
On November 07 2011 04:33 GhostFall wrote: The winrates were 50/50 in March for PvT before it diverged. It diverged coincides with patch 1.3.0. The winrates were 50/50 in April for PvZ before it diverged. It diverges coincides with patch 1.3.3. The winrates for TvZ has never been 50/50. Zerg's rise in March tho coincides with patch 1.3.0.
Thank you, it actually makes much sense. Khaydarin Amulet to fight late game terran disappeared. Then any warpgate timing that Zerg may fear disappeared too, FFE became much easier to punish due to the pylon range nerf, and stargate play was negated by the spore buff (much justified for this one actually, I would admit).
The one single balance change that I can't forgive Blizzard for is the pylon range nerf and the unwarpable ramps. It makes playing Protoss with a decent speed so much harder. You always seem to look for a place to put buildings or warp units for like 5 seconds (even protoss pros on stream), doesn't really help our multitasking.
|
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.
|
I'm surprised protoss winrates vs Terran went down this month.
|
On November 07 2011 04:39 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:33 GhostFall wrote: The winrates were 50/50 in March for PvT before it diverged. It diverged coincides with patch 1.3.0. The winrates were 50/50 in April for PvZ before it diverged. It diverges coincides with patch 1.3.3. The winrates for TvZ has never been 50/50. Zerg's rise in March tho coincides with patch 1.3.0.
Thank you, it actually makes much sense. Khaydarin Amulet to fight late game terran disappeared. Then any warpgate timing that Zerg may fear disappeared too, FFE became easier to punish much due to the pylon range nerf, and stargate play was negated by the spore buff (much justified for this one actually, I would admit). The one single balance chance that I can't forgive Blizzard for is the pylon range change and the unwarpable ramps. It makes playing Protoss with a decent speed so much harder. You always seem to look for a place to put buildings or warp units for like 5 seconds (even protoss pros on stream), doesn't really help our multitasking.
It'd be nice to have pylon range back. The whole reasoning behind it was to fix 4gate, and the ramp vision change already fixed it. Now you can defend 4gate if you have a safe BO(3stalker rush for the most part).
|
I'd like to see the korean TLPD stats apart from international. I have a feeling Protoss fares a lot better on foreigner tournaments than on korean ones.
|
On November 07 2011 04:33 GhostFall wrote: The winrates were 50/50 in March for PvT before it diverged. It diverged coincides with patch 1.3.0. The winrates were 50/50 in April for PvZ before it diverged. It diverges coincides with patch 1.3.3. The winrates for TvZ has never been 50/50. Zerg's rise in March tho coincides with patch 1.3.0.
For reference: + Show Spoiler [1.3.0] +GENERAL -Players can no longer hide units by setting them in a close proximity patrol (ex: Viking flower). PROTOSS Mothership
-Units leaving the Mothership's Vortex are now un-targetable and immune to damage for 1.5 seconds.
High Templar
-Khaydarin Amulet upgrade (+25 starting energy) has been removed.
Zealot
-Charging Zealots will now hit fleeing targets at least once.
TERRAN Battlecruiser
-Movement speed increased from 1.406 to 1.875.
Bunker
-Build time increased from 35 to 40 seconds.
Ghost
-EMP now drains up to 100 energy instead of all available energy. The effect on Protoss shields remains unchanged.
Tech Lab
-Stimpack upgrade research time increased from 140 to 170 seconds.
ZERG Infestor
Fungal Growth -Stun duration decreased from 8 to 4 seconds. -Damage increased by +30% vs. armored units.
+ Show Spoiler [1.3.3] +PROTOSS Archon
-Now a Massive unit. -Range increased from 2 to 3.
Cybernetics Core
-Research Warp Gate time increased from 140 to 160.
Gateway
-Sentry train time decreased from 42 to 37.
Pylon
-Power radius has been decreased from 7.5 to 6.5.
TERRAN Bunker
-Salvage resource return reduced from 100% to 75%.
Ghost
-Cost changed from 150/150 to 200/100.
Thor
-Thor now has 200 max energy, and starts with 50 energy. -250mm Strike Cannons now cost 150 energy to use (cooldown removed).
ZERG Infestor
-Speed decreased from 2.5 to 2.25.
Spore Crawler
-Root time decreased from 12 to 6.
Fungal Buff, Ghost cost change, WG time +20, Archon buff, KA removed, stim time +30 are the major ones imho.
KA had to be removed though.
Another thing many tend to forget is that the win % reflects all types of games, cheese and macro etc.
|
This makes no sense. Protoss have been getting buff after buff while terran and zerg are getting more and more nerfs. Protoss have to be doing something wrong :/.
Im curious what will happen after 1.4.2, Where they once again get a big buff. But I feel it still won't change at all...
|
On November 07 2011 04:44 Poehalcho wrote: This makes no sense. Protoss have been getting buff after buff while terran and zerg are getting more and more nerfs. Protoss have to be doing something wrong :/.
Im curious what will happen after 1.4.2, Where they once again get a big buff. But I feel it still won't change at all...
those buffs and nerfs are minor, something way bigger is needed for balance
|
I'm surprised that Toss is still over 45% in PvT. Are there Korea-only stats somewhere too?
|
On November 07 2011 04:33 GhostFall wrote: The winrates were 50/50 in March for PvT before it diverged. It diverged coincides with patch 1.3.0. (Diverges after removal of KA) The winrates were 50/50 in April for PvZ before it diverged. It diverges coincides with patch 1.3.3. (Diverages after archon changes, WG/pylon nerf, infestors slowed, faster spore root time) The winrates for TvZ has never been 50/50. Zerg's rise in March tho coincides with patch 1.3.0. (Infestor buff)
Added major patch events
Looks like the PvZ divergence is due to lagging increasing infestor usage coupled with major changes to protoss early game (WG made 20 seconds longer, pylon range decreased) as well as spores being able to root in 6 seconds instead of 10.
Another sad zealot month. But we all knew that.
edit: now I'm a sad zealot and not a sad probe anymore!! Woohoo
|
On November 07 2011 04:44 Poehalcho wrote: This makes no sense. Protoss have been getting buff after buff while terran and zerg are getting more and more nerfs. Protoss have to be doing something wrong :/.
Please, dear friend. Go back 3 months and list all the buffs Protoss has had from then til now, and all the nerfs Z and T have recieved. Then post it here and keep complaining that P players are just bad.
|
Why is the number of games this statistic is made of getting less and less each month ? It used to be 3117 games in July, while in the last month its only 810 games.
|
I expect PvZ to drop even more soon. With zergs rediscovering the power of mutalisks all of the sudden the matchup has become a lot harder.
|
To keep things in perspective, the months where zerg was below the curve they were NOT using Infestors, like between rarely and not at all. Currently, toss is using everything in their arsenal, some are even trying to incorporate carriers (although with little success).
|
On November 07 2011 04:48 iLike413 wrote: To keep things in perspective, the months where zerg was below the curve they were NOT using Infestors, like between rarely and not at all.
Remember when Terran didn't use ghosts? /sniff
|
can you do proper graphs please? the graphs you are using are really misguiding. its really not that hard.
|
It's going down down down downnnnnn. Tbh honest I don't have any expectations from blizzard anymore regarding the PvT matchup. It has been in favor of the terran since the release of the game. Hopefully HotS will change that
|
The "Y axis only ranges from 40-60%, it's misleading!" argument only holds if you're implying that people looking at the chart are illiterate and can't read the numbers on it. Have some faith, please.
|
keep losing to toss :X
I should just go muta and hope for the best from there
|
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'.
|
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
|
I swear, if I hear one more idiot call protoss- imba, I will bla bla bla bla his bla bla to bla with a bla bla !!!
On the other hand, I want to thank the guy who makes these graphs. Really appreciated. I feel like terran needs some small nerf change of something *cough*marines*cough* that is core for the race, to sort out the problems with both XvsT match-ups, but don't don't flame me for saying that. I am no pro, so my 2 cents don't have much worth.
|
I like it how it was almost exactly 50-50-50 in october 2010 ^^
|
That top graph...why is the blue line always above the others?
|
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.
|
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?
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
|
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.
|
<deleted - it had already been said>
|
Poor Sad Zealot. He'll soon start cutting himself I just find it funny that Zerg has been favored constantly for a half a year now in PvZ and there are still zergs whining about how impossible the MU is. I get it on the ladder every day.
|
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.
Did anybody complain about the scale back when it was just a line graph and not a bar graph? I think that is what makes people feel like it is misleading because a lot of the height of the bar has been cut off even though they show the same points as the line graph.
He made one with the full scale for Korea last month would you really prefer this it just wastes a bunch of space from 0-40 and 60-100 with no information making the interesting part smaller and harder to read.
http://i.imgur.com/dNKqa.png
|
<3 for the colorblind edition.
|
On November 07 2011 05:21 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You don't get it.... In january it says T winrate 53,9% but the graph is actually way above 54 and in July T winrate is 53,9% and the graph is way below 54%...
|
On November 07 2011 05:18 doko100 wrote: explain this to me please?
The reason no one is explaining this to you, is because it literally on the graph, tells you how the trendlines are formed.
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
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
Seriously? Read the graph; ffs.
It says right on the graph that the trend lines are a moving average over three months. It's not supposed to line up with the top of the bar, which represents only results from that month.
|
On November 07 2011 05:21 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
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.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
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........
|
On November 07 2011 04:23 TerlocSG wrote: The Y-axis kind of makes the graphs misleading. :/ It makes the difference in win % look a lot bigger than it really is. It's good information, and I'm not saying it isn't true, just making the view from 40 to 60% makes a 5% difference look huge.
Hopefully protoss can pick it up this month.
A 5% difference IS huge. Not surprised by these numbers, T>Z>P has been the case for a while now, I'm interested to see the results of the korea only rates
|
United States12607 Posts
On November 07 2011 05:04 pPingu wrote:Show nested quote +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!
|
The graphics are not misleading as the axis is clearly labelled. the point of zooming in is to be able to see the detail.
Don't confuse peoples inability to interpret them with bad graphs
|
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..
|
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.
|
On November 07 2011 05:36 StatX wrote: 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.
that would be good, lol
tbh blizzard is REALLY looking for the community now, but it seems they LOVE polls, see about map change when they said they wouldnt change, we said we wanted 3 maps out and metalopolis and shattered without close, blizzard did it perfectly.
im pretty sure opinions are heard way better in polls, lets make a "what would balance the game" poll and see what happens, it seems to me theres more people understanding the game here than being rage kid after losing
|
On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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".
I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell.
Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill.
|
On November 07 2011 05:35 Akhee wrote:better updated, much less reliable, doens't matter You think that a database that results in having Stephano as the best player in the world (Sase 5th, Mana 6th, and Nerchio 10th) is much more reliable than a database that indicates that the top 9 players are koreans ?
|
It's funny how many people here don't understand how to read a graph... Thanks for the info and it makes me sad to be a toss but hey, protoss will rise in the fall as they always do (I heard Artosis say that and look, MC is back in code S and Huk even won dreamhack lol!).
|
On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
You forgot one. "And I play Terran."
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill.
It would be true if there was a variation nearly every month.
edit:On November 07 2011 05:46 Elean wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:35 Akhee wrote: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 You think that a database that results in having Stephano as the best player in the world is much more reliable than a database that indicates that the top 9 players are koreans ?
TL didn't create the elo rank, it was created for chess players.
|
On November 07 2011 05:40 VTPerfect wrote: 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.
niice analysis, thats really the truth, personally i tried to use hero style but it seems you cant be solid, seriously, you have to control the game sooo much and sometimes it seems i can't (not sure if every protoss feels like that...), and MC style you have a really difficult time holding third, but if you can do it without zerg having like 5 bases before you secure your third you will be almost even
|
On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill.
I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard error(though I guess 95% CIs would be better), which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid.
|
800 games last month?
that's 1/3 to 1/4 of the usual number, whats wrong.
|
On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. 56.3 vs 43.7 in ZvP is actually quite significant. This means that zergs are winning more than 11 games for every 9 a protoss wins, or 56.3/43.7 --> ~30% more wins for zerg in ZvP than protoss. Yes 1 month does not say much but look at the past 6 months. That's not just random.
|
On November 07 2011 05:47 Akhee wrote: 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.
Juts a comment on the Her0 play style; I think the most important part about most of his builds is that whatever form of harassment he uses, be it void ray or warp prism etc., he does it to delay the zerg while he takes his THIRD. This is where I see most Protoss struggling. IMO
|
On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill.
you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
On November 07 2011 05:49 iky43210 wrote: 800 games last month?
that's 1/3 to 1/4 of the usual number, whats wrong.
Yeah, that seems a bit odd. Maybe TLPD staff have been really busy and not updated everything, or they're being more selective when it comes to which events/cups make it in to the database?
|
On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid. The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance.
On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario
It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened.
|
On November 07 2011 05:52 LeakyBucket wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:47 Akhee wrote: 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. Juts a comment on the Her0 play style; I think the most important part about most of his builds is that whatever form of harassment he uses, be it void ray or warp prism etc., he does it to delay the zerg while he takes his THIRD. This is where I see most Protoss struggling. IMO So as Protoss, you have to outmacro the race that is designed and intended to outmacro everyone else in order to win is what you're saying? That looks like a huge balance/design flaw.
|
haha so funny the races that got nerfed actually got better winrates, while the race that got buffed looses. Poor toss, if the emp nerf goes live they will drop another 5% in winrate in pvt .
|
On November 07 2011 05:49 iky43210 wrote: 800 games last month?
that's 1/3 to 1/4 of the usual number, whats wrong.
tlpd is backed up I think
|
On November 07 2011 04:24 HaXXspetten wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time Try Muta/Ling, it's impossible T.T Anyway, I wonder just how long Blizz will have to keep nerfing Terran before they ever drop below 50% lol Looks just as stupid every month... ow well, BW took a long time before it became balanced as well, so... whatcha gonna do
Interestingly enough, with mutas (the best air unit in the game) being used in ZvZ now, muta ling is actually feasable in all 3 matchups. I find agregious that a player could concevably use 1 build, or at least one style, for all 3 MUs since the practise advantage would be so huge.
|
I can't wait for Korean edition. that will be fun!
|
On November 07 2011 05:55 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid. The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance. Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened.
Wonder why the korean s aren't playing protoss.....
|
How are the toss winrates actually going DOWN?
|
Everybody should notice that october has only 810 games (which is an all time low). This is a lot less games than the average (2200) of games.
|
On November 07 2011 05:55 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid. The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance. Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened.
Plenty of Koreans lost to NA and EU semi pros this month (DRG and TOP to Gatored), several other sets in the MLG open tourney. Again, as long as the the comparative skill level of the players playing the different races is balanced, the stats will be valid. It doesn't effect it unless, like in your example, all of the Koreans are zergs. They have been pretty evenly balanced in race from the tourneys I have seen.
|
On November 07 2011 05:59 Lore-Fighting wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:55 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid. The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance. On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened. Wonder why the korean s aren't playing protoss.....
they are,there are quite alot of them in code a and due to the new format there will be quite alot of them in code s in the future. people need to be more patient and realize that these graphs are pointless
On November 07 2011 06:01 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:55 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid. The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance. On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened. Plenty of Koreans lost to NA and EU semi pros this month (DRG and TOP to Gatored), several other sets in the MLG open tourney. Again, as long as the the comparative skill level of the players playing the different races is balanced, the stats will be valid. It doesn't effect it unless, like in your example, all of the Koreans are zergs. They have been pretty evenly balanced in race from the tourneys I have seen.
so you pick 2 games where koreans lost but ignore the more than 100 games that are recorded in this where koreans beat foreigners? are you serious?
|
sry double post mod pls delete
|
On November 07 2011 06:04 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:01 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:55 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid. The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance. On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened. Plenty of Koreans lost to NA and EU semi pros this month (DRG and TOP to Gatored), several other sets in the MLG open tourney. Again, as long as the the comparative skill level of the players playing the different races is balanced, the stats will be valid. It doesn't effect it unless, like in your example, all of the Koreans are zergs. They have been pretty evenly balanced in race from the tourneys I have seen. so you pick 2 games where koreans lost but ignore the more than 100 games that are recorded in this where koreans beat foreigners? are you serious?
You completely missed my point: it doesn't matter if the Koreans beat the foreigners, if the Koreans are balanced in their race. The situation would only be a problem if Koreans of only one race were coming over.
|
Those graphs are major bullshit, since they only go form 40-60%, which makes the differences seem much more harsh then they actually are. This is just motivation for stupid people to continue whining.
|
On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill.
I agree that the previous commentors analogy is incorrect. If you flip a coin 100 times, you may have 54-46 heads vs. tails. But if you flip that coin (assuming is evenly weighted) a thousand times, you will not get 540-460. If you do, the coin is imbalanced.
|
On November 07 2011 06:02 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:59 Lore-Fighting wrote:On November 07 2011 05:55 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid. The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance. On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened. Wonder why the korean s aren't playing protoss..... they are,there are quite alot of them in code a and due to the new format there will be quite alot of them in code s in the future. people need to be more patient and realize that these graphs are pointless Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:01 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:55 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid. The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance. On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened. Plenty of Koreans lost to NA and EU semi pros this month (DRG and TOP to Gatored), several other sets in the MLG open tourney. Again, as long as the the comparative skill level of the players playing the different races is balanced, the stats will be valid. It doesn't effect it unless, like in your example, all of the Koreans are zergs. They have been pretty evenly balanced in race from the tourneys I have seen. so you pick 2 games where koreans lost but ignore the more than 100 games that are recorded in this where koreans beat foreigners? are you serious?
omg doko, just stop, you re completely wrong. protoss in korea is doing bad too, believe me, even worse than foreigners, look that http://i.imgur.com/w8nXZ.png, you think its balance? and graphs REALLY say something, stop discussing it doesn't, omg...
|
On November 07 2011 06:05 Grapefruit wrote: Those graphs are major bullshit, since they only go form 40-60%, which makes the differences seem much more harsh then they actually are. This is just motivation for stupid people to continue whining.
I appreciate how you have read this thread so carefully. Everyone else is obviously too stupid to notice how the graph is displayed. What would we do without you?
All protoss players are obviously too stupid to practice hard or try to win also? I mean a 40% win ratio is something everyone should love and enjoy?
Go on. Do tell more.
|
On November 07 2011 06:05 Grapefruit wrote: Those graphs are major bullshit, since they only go form 40-60%, which makes the differences seem much more harsh then they actually are. This is just motivation for stupid people to continue whining.
The graphs are perfectly fine. They make it actually mean something when you look at it and actually read the sides, instead of derping around. Also if you didn't know, 40-60 is fine, because if one race is winning 60% against another, their win ratio is 1.5:1 which is already an absolutely massive difference.
|
On November 07 2011 06:02 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:59 Lore-Fighting wrote:On November 07 2011 05:55 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid. The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance. On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened. Wonder why the korean s aren't playing protoss..... they are,there are quite alot of them in code a and due to the new format there will be quite alot of them in code s in the future. people need to be more patient and realize that these graphs are pointless I'm sorry, your right. Statistics are pointless. Balance should be based on opinion. Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:01 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:55 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid. The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance. On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened. Plenty of Koreans lost to NA and EU semi pros this month (DRG and TOP to Gatored), several other sets in the MLG open tourney. Again, as long as the the comparative skill level of the players playing the different races is balanced, the stats will be valid. It doesn't effect it unless, like in your example, all of the Koreans are zergs. They have been pretty evenly balanced in race from the tourneys I have seen. so you pick 2 games where koreans lost but ignore the more than 100 games that are recorded in this where koreans beat foreigners? are you serious?
|
On November 07 2011 06:06 Lore-Fighting wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that the previous commentors analogy is incorrect. If you flip a coin 100 times, you may have 54-46 heads vs. tails. But if you flip that coin (assuming is evenly weighted) a thousand times, you will not get 540-460. If you do, the coin is imbalanced.
That's just not true. It's random and a terrible analogy. In theory you could get 1000-0 and it doesn't mean it's imbalanced.... it's just random. you have a 50:50 chance but in theory you could always get one side and it doesnt say anything about balance. sc2 is skill based, coin flipping really isn't.
P.S: and to the guy who said that all 3 korean races are evenly distributed in foreign tournaments, they are not there are alot more terrans coming over, thus giving terran automatically a high win rate in every tournament they participate in.
|
On November 07 2011 06:15 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:06 Lore-Fighting wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that the previous commentors analogy is incorrect. If you flip a coin 100 times, you may have 54-46 heads vs. tails. But if you flip that coin (assuming is evenly weighted) a thousand times, you will not get 540-460. If you do, the coin is imbalanced. That's just not true. It's random and a terrible analogy. In theory you could get 1000-0 and it doesn't mean it's imbalanced.... it's just random. you have a 50:50 chance but in theory you could always get one side and it doesnt say anything about balance. sc2 is skill based, coin flipping really isn't. P.S: and to the guy who said that all 3 korean races are evenly distributed in foreign tournaments, they are not there are alot more terrans coming over, thus giving terran automatically a high win rate in every tournament they participate in. Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap!
|
On November 07 2011 06:08 JonnyLaw wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:05 Grapefruit wrote: Those graphs are major bullshit, since they only go form 40-60%, which makes the differences seem much more harsh then they actually are. This is just motivation for stupid people to continue whining.
I appreciate how you have read this thread so carefully. Everyone else is obviously too stupid to notice how the graph is displayed. What would we do without you? All protoss players are obviously too stupid to practice hard or try to win also? I mean a 40% win ratio is something everyone should love and enjoy? Go on. Do tell more.
but remember last months' outcry about how terran is so much ahead of zerg, and now after updates of few hundred games winrates between T and Z for sept is actually extremely close?
They're basically arguing a few percentage differences that falls within the standard deviation. You will be surprised at how few people can perceive graphs and scales. Business do the same thing all the time to trick their consumers, and it works
also 5% higher is really nothing. Do you know in Chess white have a 55% winrates to black's 45%? I don't think many people would argue that game is imbalance
|
On November 07 2011 06:15 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:06 Lore-Fighting wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that the previous commentors analogy is incorrect. If you flip a coin 100 times, you may have 54-46 heads vs. tails. But if you flip that coin (assuming is evenly weighted) a thousand times, you will not get 540-460. If you do, the coin is imbalanced. That's just not true. It's random and a terrible analogy. In theory you could get 1000-0 and it doesn't mean it's imbalanced.... it's just random. you have a 50:50 chance but in theory you could always get one side and it doesnt say anything about balance. sc2 is skill based, coin flipping really isn't. P.S: and to the guy who said that all 3 korean races are evenly distributed in foreign tournaments, they are not there are alot more terrans coming over, thus giving terran automatically a high win rate in every tournament they participate in.
You just seem to try discredit every single statistical reference in this thread, as well as break up any reasonable discussion over the interpretation of statistics. Why are you in a thread that's meant to be for discussing about those numbers in the first place?
Protoss just keeps trending down, and that's with a long period of not rising above 50% in all matchups too. That is a huge cause of concern for anybody who actually cares about interpreting the numbers.
|
On November 07 2011 06:11 Lore-Fighting wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:02 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:59 Lore-Fighting wrote:On November 07 2011 05:55 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid. The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance. On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened. Wonder why the korean s aren't playing protoss..... they are,there are quite alot of them in code a and due to the new format there will be quite alot of them in code s in the future. people need to be more patient and realize that these graphs are pointless I'm sorry, your right. Statistics are pointless. Balance should be based on opinion. On November 07 2011 06:01 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:55 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid. The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance. On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID 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? 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". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened. Plenty of Koreans lost to NA and EU semi pros this month (DRG and TOP to Gatored), several other sets in the MLG open tourney. Again, as long as the the comparative skill level of the players playing the different races is balanced, the stats will be valid. It doesn't effect it unless, like in your example, all of the Koreans are zergs. They have been pretty evenly balanced in race from the tourneys I have seen. so you pick 2 games where koreans lost but ignore the more than 100 games that are recorded in this where koreans beat foreigners? are you serious? When 2 players of the same skill face each other guess who wins ? The one who plays the imbalanced race. So no, skill is not the answer to imbalance. The answer of imbalance is balance and only blizzard can take care of that, the players can just deal with it and try their hardest.
|
The y-axis scale REALLY exadurates everything. It's like the graph you would show on fox news to prove a point or something, while technicaly the information there isn't false, it's manipulated in a way that makes it seem very different from how it would actually look.
|
On November 07 2011 06:10 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:05 Grapefruit wrote: Those graphs are major bullshit, since they only go form 40-60%, which makes the differences seem much more harsh then they actually are. This is just motivation for stupid people to continue whining.
The graphs are perfectly fine. They make it actually mean something when you look at it and actually read the sides, instead of derping around. Also if you didn't know, 40-60 is fine, because if one race is winning 60% against another, their win ratio is 1.5:1 which is already an absolutely massive difference.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I didn't even talk about the win percentages, you derp.
The problem is that the graphs visually suggest that Terran and Zerg a winning about twice as often as Protoss, when the actual difference is only ~7-8%. This could easily be solved by showing graphs from 1-100% instead of 40-60%.
|
On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap!
I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" (here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" (here).
He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used.
On November 07 2011 06:20 iky43210 wrote: also 5% higher is really nothing. Do you know in Chess white have a 55% winrates to black's 45%? I don't think many people would argue that game is imbalance
I'd be very interested to know where you got that piece of information. Until there is a source, I call bollocks. How would you get every chess game, even in the last hundred years, to get a winrate from it?
|
I like how there's always someone who comes every month and says "no it's close and it's all randomized and not specific enough and player's skill (aka i think all terran players are inherently better) isn't considered" so this month's stats don't matter. Then next month's don't. Then next month's don't. And again and again and again. But no, it's not imbalance, it just managed to happen that for 7 straight months, Protoss is at the bottom.
Also, regarding the scale of the graph, it's not like he didn't label the y-axis or include every number. You can read the graph very specifically.
On October 26 2011 13:00 doko100 wrote: It's even statistically proven that outside of GSL protoss is the strongest race.
It is?
|
On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used.
Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners.
On October 26 2011 13:00 doko100 wrote: It's even statistically proven that outside of GSL protoss is the strongest race.
It is?
Yes it is, ladder statistics show that Protoss is the most successful race on the ladder. Not saying Protoss is the strongest race, but it always depends on how you look at things, these numbers here are extremely misleading because they ignore individual skill.
|
It's an impressively balanced game!
|
Chess is actually like 52% to white 48% to black.
Thats why they switch sides after every game.
|
I'm going to interject with a small fact about probabilities, since it seems people are getting quite angry due to ignorance of it.
Over large numbers, one does expect the numbers to converge to the probabilities. What I mean by this is that when flipping a coin, every single flip has an equal probability of being heads or tails. Similarly, a series of a hundred flips has an equal probability of being 100 tails or 50 tails followed by 50 heads. However, the probability of getting 50 total tails and 50 total heads will be very high due to the sheer number of orderings in which one can get 50 tails and 50 heads as compared to the exactly one ordering in which one can get 100 tails.
In fact, this trend grows extremely quickly. The difference between the chance of getting 49 tails and 51 heads vs 50 each (allowing any order) may not be so huge. However, the difference between 49000 and 51000 vs 50000 each is much more noticeable, even though it results in the same percentage.
People complaining that the graphs y axis scale is misrepresenting the data, or saying that 46% vs 54% is basically balanced are taking too naive of a view. As always, stats need to be taken with a grain of salt, and they don't conclusively prove imbalance, but the trend lines especially are very strong indicators that other players have been gradually adapting to deal with the possible threats protoss bring to the table.
edit: I'm a dragoon!
|
On November 07 2011 06:20 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:08 JonnyLaw wrote:On November 07 2011 06:05 Grapefruit wrote: Those graphs are major bullshit, since they only go form 40-60%, which makes the differences seem much more harsh then they actually are. This is just motivation for stupid people to continue whining.
I appreciate how you have read this thread so carefully. Everyone else is obviously too stupid to notice how the graph is displayed. What would we do without you? All protoss players are obviously too stupid to practice hard or try to win also? I mean a 40% win ratio is something everyone should love and enjoy? Go on. Do tell more. but remember last months' outcry about how terran is so much ahead of zerg, and now after updates of few hundred games winrates between T and Z for sept is actually extremely close? They're basically arguing a few percentage differences that falls within the standard deviation. You will be surprised at how few people can perceive graphs and scales. Business do the same thing all the time to trick their consumers, and it works also 5% higher is really nothing. Do you know in Chess white have a 55% winrates to black's 45%? I don't think many people would argue that game is imbalance
Chess is imbalanced. People theorize about a perfect game being a draw, but you'll always see people believing the white player holds the advantage in a game (due to the first move). You'll see whenever a player gets around to playing white in a series, he's expected to take the initiative and go for the win due to that advantage. In contrast, a draw as black is not considered too bad. Obviously the statistics backing it up brings also furthers the psychology involved in winning or losing as white.
|
This is looking harsh for the Protoss. I will not be saying anything about x is balanced or not balanced, thats for Blizzard to decide.
What I do find very noteworthy is that the matchups a constantly fluctuating. I dare say that this isnt all because of blance changing. It shows the meta game, it shows that what we consider good or to good at this point might not be the same in the future. To me it shows that there is still so much to figure out.
Although I never followed Broodwar, I will use it as " proof" that a game takes years to develop, and we are only getting started.
|
On November 07 2011 06:31 GhostFall wrote: Chess is actually like 52% to white 48% to black.
Thats why they switch sides after every game.
actually its "usually scoring between 52 and 56 percent"
52 is the low park. I'd say this game is actually extremely close to balance when mirror games like chess can't even achieve 50%. Trying to reach perfect balance of 50% is laughable and artificial, but can probably be done by tweaking just the maps alone
|
On November 07 2011 06:36 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:31 GhostFall wrote: Chess is actually like 52% to white 48% to black.
Thats why they switch sides after every game. actually its "usually scoring between 52 and 56 percent" 52 is the low park. I'd say this game is actually extremely close to balance when mirror games like chess can't even achieve 50%. Trying to reach perfect balance of 50% is laughable and artificial, but can probably be done by tweaking just the maps alone In chess you switch sides every game though. If you'd force half of the players to play white and half black I'm sure there'd be some complaints. This is also solely due to the fact that one player starts a turn first and SC is not turn-based so you can't really compare SC with chess in this regard.
|
On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time This is only from tournaments and think about P winning 4 games per 100 more vT or 6 vZ (in these tournaments) and it would be perfectly 50-50 graph. It's not really far from perfect balance.
edit: Oh it seems I didn't recognise all the pages.
|
On November 07 2011 06:36 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:31 GhostFall wrote: Chess is actually like 52% to white 48% to black.
Thats why they switch sides after every game. actually its "usually scoring between 52 and 56 percent" 52 is the low park. I'd say this game is actually extremely close to balance when mirror games like chess can't even achieve 50%. Trying to reach perfect balance of 50% is laughable and artificial, but can probably be done by tweaking just the maps alone The argument that chess isn't balanced so it's fine that Starcraft isn't balance (and badly balanced, especially in Korea) is completely irrelevant and absurd. I guess some people will go to any lengths in their desperation to try and make a point.
|
On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners.
Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race.
Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second.
|
Thing is, most people wouldn't mention 'imbalance' at all had these percentages switched around from month to month, going from every race fluctuating between 40-60% winrates in whatever matchups - it's the fact that the Protoss race has in fact been consistently the least winning race, and Terran has been consistently the most winning race, in all matchups, every month since the game was first released. You can't blame that on metagame shifts or random statistical fluctuations.
|
On November 07 2011 06:43 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:36 iky43210 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 GhostFall wrote: Chess is actually like 52% to white 48% to black.
Thats why they switch sides after every game. actually its "usually scoring between 52 and 56 percent" 52 is the low park. I'd say this game is actually extremely close to balance when mirror games like chess can't even achieve 50%. Trying to reach perfect balance of 50% is laughable and artificial, but can probably be done by tweaking just the maps alone The argument that chess isn't balanced so it's fine that Starcraft isn't balance (and badly balanced, especially in Korea) is completely irrelevant and absurd. I guess some people will go to any lengths in their desperation to try and make a point.
So even if Chess can't achieve balance without gimmicky moves such as switching side, what made you think Starcraft can? Switch race after every game?
It doesn't matter whether chess is balance or not, I'm arguing on at what point should we considered what is balance. It shows a point that even a mirror game cannot be balance by a simple thing such as "first move".
In that case, Starcraft is impossible to achieve perfect balance. It is just not going to happen with dynamic range of different units and player skills. Meta changes, playerskill varies, and all sort of factor will influence the winrates. You just can't address every little changes in winrates due to meta shifts (well, you could by constantly changing the terrain), but that would be silly.
|
On November 07 2011 06:45 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote: Thing is, most people wouldn't mention 'imbalance' at all had these percentages switched around from month to month, going from every race fluctuating between 40-60% winrates in whatever matchups - it's the fact that the Protoss race has in fact been consistently the least winning race, and Terran has been consistently the most winning race, in all matchups, every month since the game was first released. You can't blame that on metagame shifts or random statistical fluctuations.
Technically, Protoss has had winnings months against Terran and Zerg. Zerg has never had a winning month against Terran, so that match up would seem to be the worst. Currently, it is worse for Protoss, but let's not pretend that Zerg has had an easy time of it.
|
On November 07 2011 06:47 iky43210 wrote: It doesn't matter whether chess is balance or not, I'm arguing on at what point should we considered what is balance. I know Chess isn't the perfect analogy because of switching side, but it shows a point that even a mirror game cannot be balance by a simple of "first move".
In that case, starcraft is impossible to achieve perefect balance. It is just not going to happen with dynamic range of different units and player skills.
Chess is completely fucking irrelevant to Starcraft. The only reason chess is "imbalanced" with winrates is because one player has to go first. I know wikipedia isn't amazing but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess
Because there is no first turn move in Starcraft, the whole chess discussion is useless, and just the last effort for Terrans to try and disprove all the evidence laid in front of them: at the highest level of play, your race is pretty overpowered and has been for months.
|
On November 07 2011 06:52 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:47 iky43210 wrote: It doesn't matter whether chess is balance or not, I'm arguing on at what point should we considered what is balance. I know Chess isn't the perfect analogy because of switching side, but it shows a point that even a mirror game cannot be balance by a simple of "first move".
In that case, starcraft is impossible to achieve perefect balance. It is just not going to happen with dynamic range of different units and player skills.
Chess is completely fucking irrelevant to Starcraft. The only reason chess is "imbalanced" with winrates is because one player has to go first. I know wikipedia isn't amazing but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chessBecause there is no first turn move in Starcraft, the whole chess discussion is useless, and just the last effort for Terrans to try and disprove all the evidence laid in front of them: at the highest level of play, your race is pretty overpowered and has been for months.
you're missing the point. Chess is relevant to this discussion because Starcraft definitely has more variables and factors than a simple "first move".
|
TvP winrate increasing substantially; ZvP winrate stayed substantial for two months now.
Metagame/ natural variation, or something I can QQ about in the future as a Protoss player?
Everything's only a few percentage points away ^^
|
On November 07 2011 04:24 HaXXspetten wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time Try Muta/Ling, it's impossible T.T Anyway, I wonder just how long Blizz will have to keep nerfing Terran before they ever drop below 50% lol Looks just as stupid every month... ow well, BW took a long time before it became balanced as well, so... whatcha gonna do
Except, it doesn't look stupid:
TvZ 52% for T, TvP 54% for T. Sounds really fucking reasonable to me.
You people need to actually look at the numbers rather than how tall/short he stretched them out on the graphs.
|
On November 07 2011 06:20 iky43210 wrote:
also 5% higher is really nothing. Do you know in Chess white have a 55% winrates to black's 45%? I don't think many people would argue that game is imbalance
Umm, chess obviously is somewhat imbalanced in favour of white. White has the first move and has a positional advantage because of that (that's chess-specific, note; it's possible to have a combinatorical game where the second player to move would have the advantage). Chess is also an entirely deterministic game. If chess ever gets 'solved', then that percentage could instantly change to 100 (though more likely, it'll go to a draw).
The imbalance is not a problem in chess, because there aren't chess players who only play black, or who only play white, and serious tournaments usually have a series of matches with the players alternating colours
|
alot of people think that the only reason to complain about balance is because it affects you. No my winrate is trash in ZvP but i couldn't care less cause i know if i improve it will rise. However, i'm tired of my favorite protoss pros getting beat by players who, in my opinion, are not as good as them. I'm tired of seeing beautiful play from my favorite players and the zerg just macroing to victory
|
On November 07 2011 06:56 gillon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:24 HaXXspetten wrote:On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time Try Muta/Ling, it's impossible T.T Anyway, I wonder just how long Blizz will have to keep nerfing Terran before they ever drop below 50% lol Looks just as stupid every month... ow well, BW took a long time before it became balanced as well, so... whatcha gonna do Except, it doesn't look stupid: TvZ 52% for T, TvP 54% for T. Sounds really fucking reasonable to me. You people need to actually look at the numbers rather than how tall/short he stretched them out on the graphs.
first of all: wait for the Korean version.
Second of all, even if the difference is "only" 8 %, the fact that it has been 8 % one sided for so long would indicate that there is sth wrong
|
god... this is just frustrating as a protoss ^^ ye, it´s not a HUGE difference, but you cant deny the fact that protoss has been the worst race since 7 months now.
|
On November 07 2011 06:53 iky43210 wrote:
you're missing the point. Chess is relevant to this discussion because Starcraft definitely has more variables and factors than a simple "first move".
So because there are so many variables (which you assume are unsolvable/unpreventable), having Terran with >50% average winrate at the highest level of play over the course of the entire game in both TvP and TvZ is fine? This argument just doesn't hold with me.
|
I think ZvP suffers from easily cheese-able opening of protoss (FFE), beyond that the MU seems quite balanced.
It's like 4gate for zerg, you have these timings that are hard to scout unless you check his whole main and they can commit at any point in time to those units, which is lethal for you. The proper response is to build like 3 extra cannons, which is not something you commit to without enough information and when that information are roaches killing your natural it's usually too late.
|
On November 07 2011 06:52 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:47 iky43210 wrote: It doesn't matter whether chess is balance or not, I'm arguing on at what point should we considered what is balance. I know Chess isn't the perfect analogy because of switching side, but it shows a point that even a mirror game cannot be balance by a simple of "first move".
In that case, starcraft is impossible to achieve perefect balance. It is just not going to happen with dynamic range of different units and player skills.
Chess is completely fucking irrelevant to Starcraft. The only reason chess is "imbalanced" with winrates is because one player has to go first. I know wikipedia isn't amazing but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chessBecause there is no first turn move in Starcraft, the whole chess discussion is useless, and just the last effort for Terrans to try and disprove all the evidence laid in front of them: at the highest level of play, your race is pretty overpowered and has been for months. No need to tell him a second time. He's just trolling, or ignorant. One has to be absolutely desperate to try and form an argument if they are mentioning things completely irrelevant. Or he is just really ticked off about Terran being nerfed directly or indirectly. I mean, even Jinro as of late has been complaining how buffing Protoss is a stupid idea despite Protoss' bad showings (and is thus required), when back in February when he was more objective on the matters, he was condemning the straight-up removal of KA (which was a colossal nerf to Protoss and a big buff to TvP for Terran).
Still, how many pro level games in TvP, especially in Korea, are decided by Ghost EMP (iirc, it's not a huge number, unless I wasn't watching the games closely enough as I'm often doing hw in the meantime)? Additionally, this patch has no effect on PvZ, so expect Protoss to be continue being the underdog there.
I'm just looking forward to the Korean stats. While it is a bit saddening to see the state of Protoss there, it's a bit comical imo to see that Blizzard is trolling us. I mean, when there's such an obvious, glaring problem, shouldn't they figure out what's causing it? Instead, they say things like how the game is almost completely balanced.
|
On November 07 2011 05:01 freetgy wrote: 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.
HotS should definitely fix this problem, Terran --> barracks --> bunker --> ez defense Zerg ---> pool --> Spine --> ez defense Protoss --> gateway -->
but in HotS it will be Protoss ---> gateway --> Arc Shield
Similar to how spines can move around to different defensive positions, and bunkers can be salvaged and replaced in different positions, Arc shield should be able to be used in different defensive positions. I think since it is the most mobile of the three defenses, as in you can cast it on any building, its good that its only temporary.
|
On November 07 2011 06:00 Daralii wrote: How are the toss winrates actually going DOWN?
because terrans finally realized how strong ghosts are and they dont need to adapt at all for the moment since it works (when a ''good'' nerf will go on the ghosts or a good buff on toss will come, terran will simply start using ravens and will still have an insane win rate (all speculations however and im biased cuz im toss). However, ravens are so strong vs toss I dont understand why terrans are not using them at all...
vs zerg it is because protoss found a new way to win some games vs zerg with the cool fast mothership and mass archons. I believe it went down because people are trying to figure out the best ways to play this style and to win. However, since toss is trying to go this way, zerg are just going straight to muta ling (that has always been very strong vs toss (even op according to certain topic on this forum)) or they went straight to hydra to counter which is super strong if you dont have collossi that is so far away from the tech paths we try to use these days (twilight and stargate).
Also, on a side note, I strongly believe the protoss win rates would be a lot higher if our early game was not sooo weak. Because vs terran or zerg, with the 4 gate a side that everyone knows how to counter these days, we have no real way to put pressure on both terrans and zergs. Also we have no way to scout early pressure or all ins builds (aside of the first probe that gets killed so early).
People might say observers but they come too late and may get you killed by stealth units rush and hallucinations comes right when you get all ined by roach ling or 2rax/3rax pressure/all in. It is insanely strong and if toss is not prepared for it we simply die. No matter the micro. However, zerg and terrans always had chance to prepare for these days and are super strong vs toss since we cant put pressure. Therefore, toss needs to cut corners to win versus them but then they all in sometimes to win and we arent prepared.
Therefore, the winrates I believe would be higher if we had a better early game (just a minor buff on stalker dps or on sentries would do).
|
The sad toss goes on crying, ZvP is starting to look dumb.
Toss needs this patch and fast, and even that might not be enough.
|
On November 07 2011 07:07 iLike413 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:01 freetgy wrote: 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. HotS should definitely fix this problem, Terran --> barracks --> bunker --> ez defense Zerg ---> pool --> Spine --> ez defense Protoss --> gateway --> but in HotS it will be Protoss ---> gateway --> Arc Shield Similar to how spines can move around to different defensive positions, and bunkers can be salvaged and replaced in different positions, Arc shield should be able to be used in different defensive positions. I think since it is the most mobile of the three defenses, as in you can cast it on any building, its good that its only temporary. It's 20 seconds only, and does 5 damage to non-light, and it costs 50 energy iirc? Either way, it's a deterrence against ling assaults, assuming you're banking energy on Nexii early-mid game. They just pull back for a bit, until the Shield expires and you wasted a ton of Nexus energy. Sure, it gives you time to reorganize, but we'll see how it works out. It will certainly be useful mid-late game for ling runbys, however.
What I'm more excited about is the recall ability. Protoss is based upon keeping key units alive. Once the key units (particularly Colossi, Sentry, HTs) are neutralized, the Protoss army is completely laughable and extremely cost-inefficient in mid-late game, and it's an insta-win. Recalling the army, or the remains once the big dogs are down and out, will be a huge fix for Protoss' design flaw regarding this (terribad gateway units due to Warpgate tech but powerful Tier 3).
|
On November 07 2011 07:03 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:53 iky43210 wrote:
you're missing the point. Chess is relevant to this discussion because Starcraft definitely has more variables and factors than a simple "first move".
So because there are so many variables (which you assume are unsolvable/unpreventable), having Terran with >50% average winrate at the highest level of play over the course of the entire game in both TvP and TvZ is fine? This argument just doesn't hold with me.
you can show statistically significance, but it doesn't show importance.
top errors of interpreting statistics. Also TLDL is taken across all tourney level, high and low. Player skill is not equal and definitely varies across high end and low end of the spectrum
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 07 2011 07:20 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:03 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:53 iky43210 wrote:
you're missing the point. Chess is relevant to this discussion because Starcraft definitely has more variables and factors than a simple "first move".
So because there are so many variables (which you assume are unsolvable/unpreventable), having Terran with >50% average winrate at the highest level of play over the course of the entire game in both TvP and TvZ is fine? This argument just doesn't hold with me. you can show statistically significance, but it doesn't show importance. top errors of interpreting statistics. Also TLDL is taken across all tourney level, high and low. Player skill is not equal and definitely varies across high end and low end of the competition
If you want high level only, look code s results.
|
On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about.
|
On November 07 2011 07:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:07 iLike413 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:01 freetgy wrote: 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. HotS should definitely fix this problem, Terran --> barracks --> bunker --> ez defense Zerg ---> pool --> Spine --> ez defense Protoss --> gateway --> but in HotS it will be Protoss ---> gateway --> Arc Shield Similar to how spines can move around to different defensive positions, and bunkers can be salvaged and replaced in different positions, Arc shield should be able to be used in different defensive positions. I think since it is the most mobile of the three defenses, as in you can cast it on any building, its good that its only temporary. It's 20 seconds only, and does 5 damage to non-light, and it costs 50 energy iirc? Either way, it's a deterrence against ling assaults, assuming you're banking energy on Nexii early-mid game. They just pull back for a bit, until the Shield expires and you wasted a ton of Nexus energy. Sure, it gives you time to reorganize, but we'll see how it works out. It will certainly be useful mid-late game for ling runbys, however. What I'm more excited about is the recall ability. Protoss is based upon keeping key units alive. Once the key units (particularly Colossi, Sentry, HTs) are neutralized, the Protoss army is completely laughable and extremely cost-inefficient in mid-late game, and it's an insta-win. Recalling the army, or the remains once the big dogs are down and out, will be a huge fix for Protoss' design flaw regarding this (terribad gateway units due to Warpgate tech but powerful Tier 3).
Mass recall is actually an amazing defensive ability and also great for survivability, but lets be honest it will probably be nerfed to hell or completely removed, not even because it's OP but because of the whine that will ensue. Maybe if it wasn't mass recall but a smaller recall surface, but yeah Toss definitely needs it.
Also, arc should should be good against banshee and muta too right?
|
On November 07 2011 07:20 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:03 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:53 iky43210 wrote:
you're missing the point. Chess is relevant to this discussion because Starcraft definitely has more variables and factors than a simple "first move".
So because there are so many variables (which you assume are unsolvable/unpreventable), having Terran with >50% average winrate at the highest level of play over the course of the entire game in both TvP and TvZ is fine? This argument just doesn't hold with me. you can show statistically significance, but it doesn't show importance. top errors of interpreting statistics. Also TLDL is taken across all tourney level, high and low. Player skill is not equal and definitely varies across high end and low end of the spectrum
Well, I'm glad you stopped talking BS about chess, and started repeating the same tired old arguments from non-P players we've been getting for the last few months.
All your stuff about player skill not being taken into account has already been answered numerous times, and if you really cared about the truth, rather than just trying to make your race look better, you would have looked those responses up.
|
On November 07 2011 07:27 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:20 iky43210 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:03 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:53 iky43210 wrote:
you're missing the point. Chess is relevant to this discussion because Starcraft definitely has more variables and factors than a simple "first move".
So because there are so many variables (which you assume are unsolvable/unpreventable), having Terran with >50% average winrate at the highest level of play over the course of the entire game in both TvP and TvZ is fine? This argument just doesn't hold with me. you can show statistically significance, but it doesn't show importance. top errors of interpreting statistics. Also TLDL is taken across all tourney level, high and low. Player skill is not equal and definitely varies across high end and low end of the spectrum Well, I'm glad you stopped talking BS about chess, and started repeating the same tired old arguments from non-P players we've been getting for the last few months. All your stuff about player skill not being taken into account has already been answered numerous times, and if you really cared about the truth, rather than just trying to make your race look better, you would have looked those responses up.
If you can't debate with logic, please don't reply to me
|
On November 07 2011 07:27 iLike413 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On November 07 2011 07:07 iLike413 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:01 freetgy wrote: 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. HotS should definitely fix this problem, Terran --> barracks --> bunker --> ez defense Zerg ---> pool --> Spine --> ez defense Protoss --> gateway --> but in HotS it will be Protoss ---> gateway --> Arc Shield Similar to how spines can move around to different defensive positions, and bunkers can be salvaged and replaced in different positions, Arc shield should be able to be used in different defensive positions. I think since it is the most mobile of the three defenses, as in you can cast it on any building, its good that its only temporary. It's 20 seconds only, and does 5 damage to non-light, and it costs 50 energy iirc? Either way, it's a deterrence against ling assaults, assuming you're banking energy on Nexii early-mid game. They just pull back for a bit, until the Shield expires and you wasted a ton of Nexus energy. Sure, it gives you time to reorganize, but we'll see how it works out. It will certainly be useful mid-late game for ling runbys, however. What I'm more excited about is the recall ability. Protoss is based upon keeping key units alive. Once the key units (particularly Colossi, Sentry, HTs) are neutralized, the Protoss army is completely laughable and extremely cost-inefficient in mid-late game, and it's an insta-win. Recalling the army, or the remains once the big dogs are down and out, will be a huge fix for Protoss' design flaw regarding this (terribad gateway units due to Warpgate tech but powerful Tier 3). Mass recall is actually an amazing defensive ability and also great for survivability, but lets be honest it will probably be nerfed to hell or completely removed, not even because it's OP but because of the whine that will ensue. Maybe if it wasn't mass recall but a smaller recall surface, but yeah Toss definitely needs it. Also, arc should should be good against banshee and muta too right? Yeah, mutas and banshees too. However, if they (especially Zerg) are heavy on harass, you'll be running low on energy :/.
|
On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup.
|
Hey guys, lets all "hope" Protoss does better next month.
Meanwhile, we'll pray to god for a new Ferrari.
Later, we'll discuss why in both cases, our wishful thinking never came true.
Interesting data, the Y axis being 40-60 is kind of annoying but it helps show the difference easier.
|
On November 07 2011 07:08 pure_protoss wrote: [...] Also, on a side note, I strongly believe the protoss win rates would be a lot higher if our early game was not sooo weak. Because vs terran or zerg, with the 4 gate a side that everyone knows how to counter these days, we have no real way to put pressure on both terrans and zergs. Also we have no way to scout early pressure or all ins builds (aside of the first probe that gets killed so early).
Is this really true? People start doing Zealot pressures which do wonders in pressuring the third, either direct or indirect by using a lot of larva. Warp Prisms are also very underused at the moment vs Zerg. And the few times they are used they do a lot of damage. Even if every protoss here thinks zealots do absolutely nothing against drones. Today I saw an amazing phoenix into chargelot, archon game by (I think) MC which also seems to work. The problem with ZvP was for a long time that everybody did FFE into stargate. Everybody knows how to counter it and many Zerg blind countered stargate play. So it did no damage anymore against anybody. I think this will be fixed if not every protoss is so predictable.
For the statistics: In my opinion ZvP will fix itself with new metagame changes. Increasing harass from the protoss side will fix any non muta style. For muta styles I don't really know. I can't remember many games where mutas won the game. TvP probably needs the ghost nerf from the PTR. If this is enough I don't really know but we should wait and see. ZvT I don't know. Snipe just seems really, really good but this could be decieving.
On a slightly different note: The protoss QQ surpassed the zerg QQ for some month now. Not only is close to every thread infested with some form of QQ or ghost vs templar discussion, we also have to see a sad zealot on the frontpage again, implying that protoss is indeed saddest race in history. Oh and of course we have many people finding the "fundamental design issues" with protoss which they fix by increasing colossi range by 80, giving KA back with a 40 energy bonus and all different kind silly "fixes".And it starts to go on my nerve. Sadly this thread will not be an exception.
|
On November 07 2011 07:28 iky43210 wrote:
If you can't debate with logic, please don't reply to me
Care to point out where I was illogical and where you were right, or would you like to continue making snide remarks and posting either irrelevant "facts" and repetitions of posts the forum has seen for ages?
|
On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time That's because protoss do really well on the ladder, and balance at pro level in tournaments has nothing to do with ladder balance.
|
On November 07 2011 07:32 Frozne wrote: Hey guys, lets all "hope" Protoss does better next month.
Meanwhile, we'll pray to god for a new Ferrari.
Later, we'll discuss why in both cases, our wishful thinking never came true.
Interesting data, the Y axis being 40-60 is kind of annoying but it helps show the difference easier. lol protoss has been getting constant buffs for many months now, while terran has been getting constant nerfs. You can't really blame terran for doing the best when they are still getting continuesly nerfed, while protoss is getting buffs.
|
On November 07 2011 07:30 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:27 iLike413 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On November 07 2011 07:07 iLike413 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:01 freetgy wrote: 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. HotS should definitely fix this problem, Terran --> barracks --> bunker --> ez defense Zerg ---> pool --> Spine --> ez defense Protoss --> gateway --> but in HotS it will be Protoss ---> gateway --> Arc Shield Similar to how spines can move around to different defensive positions, and bunkers can be salvaged and replaced in different positions, Arc shield should be able to be used in different defensive positions. I think since it is the most mobile of the three defenses, as in you can cast it on any building, its good that its only temporary. It's 20 seconds only, and does 5 damage to non-light, and it costs 50 energy iirc? Either way, it's a deterrence against ling assaults, assuming you're banking energy on Nexii early-mid game. They just pull back for a bit, until the Shield expires and you wasted a ton of Nexus energy. Sure, it gives you time to reorganize, but we'll see how it works out. It will certainly be useful mid-late game for ling runbys, however. What I'm more excited about is the recall ability. Protoss is based upon keeping key units alive. Once the key units (particularly Colossi, Sentry, HTs) are neutralized, the Protoss army is completely laughable and extremely cost-inefficient in mid-late game, and it's an insta-win. Recalling the army, or the remains once the big dogs are down and out, will be a huge fix for Protoss' design flaw regarding this (terribad gateway units due to Warpgate tech but powerful Tier 3). Mass recall is actually an amazing defensive ability and also great for survivability, but lets be honest it will probably be nerfed to hell or completely removed, not even because it's OP but because of the whine that will ensue. Maybe if it wasn't mass recall but a smaller recall surface, but yeah Toss definitely needs it. Also, arc should should be good against banshee and muta too right? Yeah, mutas and banshees too. However, if they (especially Zerg) are heavy on harass, you'll be running low on energy :/. They only means to buy time for your army to reinforce, not completely ward off the enemy. No turrets or queens are enough to ward off heavy harass alone if there're no reinforcement.
|
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 that makes two of us.. i'm 23-35 this season as terran, and last season i had 10 more losses than wins for a long time too TT.(europe masters)
|
On November 07 2011 07:37 Assaulter wrote:Show nested quote +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 that makes two of us.. i'm 23-35 this season as terran, and last season i had 10 more losses than wins for a long time too TT.(europe masters)
I get the feeling from a few threads that Terran is considered harder below GM. It's a shame Blizzard hardly releases ladder results - while not relevant for balance at the highest level of play, it would still be interesting to see how it plays out in the lower leagues.
|
This 40-60 range has been around for a while now and the graphs have always been appreciated. The feeling of some community members now is "the difference is getting worse for protoss, better change the graph so it doesn't look as bad!" lol it's kinda silly. It is important to not exaggerate imbalance though. I think T inherently does have a momentum strength because they initially looked the best, so they got a lot of skilled players in that race. The EMP nerf should help a lot, hopefully not making the match up much harder for terrans on the ladder. ZvP imbalance concerns me, it's so extreme that I feel that blizzard should consider doing a change for this patch even, but what would be changed? Mutas do seem like they are the cause of a lot of the trouble. The 30 second timing change on blink was obviously going to help muta get a bigger timing window, but it seems worse than expected. My initial thoughts are a faster void ray or a faster archon as that would really help deflect muta damage. But I worry about helping sub masters protoss much more, it really isn't imbalanced at that level and it would be best not to buff 1A move armies more.
|
On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about.
IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout.
So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in
Anyone agree?
|
this are not ladder stats right? i have the feeling protoss does much better on the ladder in general. anyway stats are stats, they are all close to a 50% w/l exept for pvz. not bad for a 1y old sc2.
|
Every other race has to commit to their expansions as well by placing it by the minerals and not moving it.
Terran can be like "oops" I made my CC too early so I'll keep it here and double worker produce and double mule til I'm safe to expand against this pressure.
Basically terran just works out to being EXTREMELY safe in all of their economic openings. The other races take the gamble and often eat shit because of it. Terran will just float their CC back and reform or reposition until the time is right. I know it's always been like that since SC1 but it just seems to be another culprit in their early game survival of builds they really shouldn't be surviving or coming out even on. Terran can always just even it up with relatively minimal losses in situations where other races would outright lose the game.
It's a thought.
|
On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup.
Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning?
|
On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree?
No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful.
I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan
On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning?
because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol
|
On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan
Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat!
And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend.
I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach.
Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol
No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive.
|
On November 07 2011 06:31 phyren wrote: Over large numbers, one does expect the numbers to converge to the probabilities. What I mean by this is that when flipping a coin, every single flip has an equal probability of being heads or tails. Similarly, a series of a hundred flips has an equal probability of being 100 tails or 50 tails followed by 50 heads. However, the probability of getting 50 total tails and 50 total heads will be very high due to the sheer number of orderings in which one can get 50 tails and 50 heads as compared to the exactly one ordering in which one can get 100 tails.
In fact, this trend grows extremely quickly. The difference between the chance of getting 49 tails and 51 heads vs 50 each (allowing any order) may not be so huge. However, the difference between 49000 and 51000 vs 50000 each is much more noticeable, even though it results in the same percentage.
People complaining that the graphs y axis scale is misrepresenting the data, or saying that 46% vs 54% is basically balanced are taking too naive of a view. As always, stats need to be taken with a grain of salt, and they don't conclusively prove imbalance, but the trend lines especially are very strong indicators that other players have been gradually adapting to deal with the possible threats protoss bring to the table.
I'd say you didn't represent things as accurately as they could be even though what was said was correct.
The number of games is about 800-3000 per column set (month). The chances of being outside of 43.7% in 270 (1/3 of 810) games assuming equal win chances is just 3.3%. There could have been less than 1/3 of games played being PvZ though, which would result in a higher chance, but still rather small. So overall, the chances of a number like 44% is quite unlikely to happen by just chance.
|
The issue with hiding tech buildings as protoss on the exterior of your base to "force" an extra scan or two quickly begins to work against you when all your buildings get sniped for being on the edge of your base or in strange places.
|
On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol Ever heard of floating buildings for terran ? also, what's the point on hiding gateways anywhere on the map ? aside from losing them the instant the terran tries to drop you.
|
On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. What are you talking about? The roach expand build is very difficult to scout as terran, and it basically hard counters the hellion expand if you don't get a fast tank or get a bunker. If you are letting hellions into your base that roast your drones and scout your entire base, your just bad. Its not because hellions are OP.
It seems to me like you think you know everything. What a hypocrite.
So, replying to my statement with a post asking for a warning is constructive, right?
|
On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. Show nested quote +Hellion openings require fast factory tech, you mostly play this in conjunction with the 1/1/1 build or a banshee build. if you use early hellions you can't use 1rax fe or 2 rax fe and if the protoss goes nexus first... well you are in trouble, or even if he 1 gate expands and then goes for robo, I don't see much you can do then. And the risk of a drop is there, so you obviously can't have everything spread out.... but you can build the twilight council behind your mineral line or the templar archives, it makes it harder for the terran to scan and you can't really tell me that base layouts are optimized at this point in time, there are a lot of small things T and P players can improve on in that regard, even pro players. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive.
Well, I'm sorry, but there is so much protoss whine, even you are whining to some extent, you think protoss is the weakest race, fine no problem. but you base this on stats based on the highest level of play and make it sound like it affects your level of play aswell and so do most protoss players, they blame imbalance, flame T and Z players on the ladder and are getting really annoying recently, I didn't make the experience that it's only a handful of protoss player. I get flamed pretty much every second game against P or they just dont GG anymore, hardly ever do I get a protoss player that GGs or doesn't flame me and some other Z and Ts I've been talking to made the same experience, it's pathetic to think that protoss is weak on the ladder, they are the most succesful ladder race for quite some time now, with the most players in GM and M and most average points, there is NO NEED for non pro toss players to complain, it's irrational.
On November 07 2011 08:12 Yaki wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol Ever heard of floating buildings for terran ? also, what's the point on hiding gateways anywhere on the map ? aside from losing them the instant the terran tries to drop you.
Floating buildings? What are you talking about?
|
On November 07 2011 08:13 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. What are you talking about? The roach expand build is very difficult to scout as terran, and it basically hard counters the hellion expand if you don't get a fast tank or get a bunker. If you are letting hellions into your base that roast your drones and scout your entire base, your just bad. Its not because hellions are OP. It seems to me like you think you know everything. What a hypocrite. So, replying to my statement with a post asking for a warning is constructive, right?
Plenty of very talented zergs lose drones to Hellions. And building a bunker as part of a hellion expand is just playing safe (See MVP vs AnNyeong in the WCG). I also never said hellions are OP. If you read what I wrote (critical reading is hard I know), then you would see that I responded that Terran can scout what the Zerg is doing relatively easily compared with Protoss due to their fast Hellions. It doesn't make the hellions OP. Quite the contrary. It makes the Terran race very stable, something which the Protoss race lacks.
The only similar unit to the Hellion is the Phoenix, but a Phoenix is a much bigger investment than a Hellion. It is not quite comparable.
And replying to your statement which is "the entire Protoss race is whiners" asking for a warning is constructive, yes. See, you are not contributing to the discussion, so therefore it would be constructive to get you to contribute with actual content rather than flame baiting.
And no, I do not think I know everything. If you read my post history in the KA amulet thread, I actually ask a lot of questions and post what I "think" is the case. I then try to argue using logic and examples. I also welcome to be proven wrong, but so far doko here has only been posting about how much Protoss suck and how he knows better. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. Please point out specific examples of where I am a hypocrite, and I would gladly concede. I hate making mistakes so I will do my best to not be a hypocrite.
|
On November 07 2011 08:15 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. Hellion openings require fast factory tech, you mostly play this in conjunction with the 1/1/1 build or a banshee build. if you use early hellions you can't use 1rax fe or 2 rax fe and if the protoss goes nexus first... well you are in trouble, or even if he 1 gate expands and then goes for robo, I don't see much you can do then. And the risk of a drop is there, so you obviously can't have everything spread out.... but you can build the twilight council behind your mineral line or the templar archives, it makes it harder for the terran to scan and you can't really tell me that base layouts are optimized at this point in time, there are a lot of small things T and P players can improve on in that regard, even pro players. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. Well, I'm sorry, but there is so much protoss whine, even you are whining to some extent, you think protoss is the weakest race, fine no problem. but you base this on stats based on the highest level of play and make it sound like it affects your level of play aswell and so do most protoss players, they blame imbalance, flame T and Z players on the ladder and are getting really annoying recently, I didn't make the experience that it's only a handful of protoss player. I get flamed pretty much every second game against P or they just dont GG anymore, hardly ever do I get a protoss player that GGs or doesn't flame me and some other Z and Ts I've been talking to made the same experience, it's pathetic to think that protoss is weak on the ladder, they are the most succesful ladder race for quite some time now, with the most players in GM and M and most average points, there is NO NEED for non pro toss players to complain, it's irrational.
I never said Protoss is the weakest race. Protoss has some of the strongest all ins in the games, some of the best timings, and some of the best cheeses. I think that is the reason that these winrates are not worse. I think Protoss is the weakest macro race, definitely, which is my problem with the way it is currently balanced.
I also want to watch great games from equally skilled players where both players go macro games. You are right, it doesn't affect me and I never said it did in my play. But it does affect my viewing experience of the game since I watch the pros play. I want more Protoss macro games, and it is difficult to see because of the way the race is designed.
|
On November 07 2011 08:24 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:15 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. Hellion openings require fast factory tech, you mostly play this in conjunction with the 1/1/1 build or a banshee build. if you use early hellions you can't use 1rax fe or 2 rax fe and if the protoss goes nexus first... well you are in trouble, or even if he 1 gate expands and then goes for robo, I don't see much you can do then. And the risk of a drop is there, so you obviously can't have everything spread out.... but you can build the twilight council behind your mineral line or the templar archives, it makes it harder for the terran to scan and you can't really tell me that base layouts are optimized at this point in time, there are a lot of small things T and P players can improve on in that regard, even pro players. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. Well, I'm sorry, but there is so much protoss whine, even you are whining to some extent, you think protoss is the weakest race, fine no problem. but you base this on stats based on the highest level of play and make it sound like it affects your level of play aswell and so do most protoss players, they blame imbalance, flame T and Z players on the ladder and are getting really annoying recently, I didn't make the experience that it's only a handful of protoss player. I get flamed pretty much every second game against P or they just dont GG anymore, hardly ever do I get a protoss player that GGs or doesn't flame me and some other Z and Ts I've been talking to made the same experience, it's pathetic to think that protoss is weak on the ladder, they are the most succesful ladder race for quite some time now, with the most players in GM and M and most average points, there is NO NEED for non pro toss players to complain, it's irrational. I never said Protoss is the weakest race. Protoss has some of the strongest all ins in the games, some of the best timings, and some of the best cheeses. I think that is the reason that these winrates are not worse. I think Protoss is the weakest macro race, definitely, which is my problem with the way it is currently balanced. I also want to watch great games from equally skilled players where both players go macro games. You are right, it doesn't affect me and I never said it did in my play. But it does affect my viewing experience of the game since I watch the pros play. I want more Protoss macro games, and it is difficult to see because of the way the race is designed.
Yes but this is the essential problem and you are 100% right. It's race design. Protoss is the best ladder race, to a point where some master terran (myself included) hate the matchup really, this is reflected by statistics. But it's possibly also the worst race in pro play. And yes you should balance the game around pro play, I agree, BUT you also need to keep an eye on casual play (everything below GM), in a well designed game, all races would be equally strong at all levels of play, but that is simply not the case. So if protoss gets buffed alot more yes it might help or will help pro-play, but at the same time you have to consider that protoss already is the strongest ladder race even in GM and M, so if they buff protoss even more they run risk that more and more zerg and especially terran players quite the game or simply switch to toss and that is not in the interest of blizzard.
terran is already the least played race in GM and M by miles, it's not even close, and yes the game should be balanced around the very top level, but I dont think it's that easy blizzard wants equal race distribution but that already isn't the case with protoss dominating the ladder, so what can they do? I'm not sure.
|
On November 07 2011 08:20 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:13 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. What are you talking about? The roach expand build is very difficult to scout as terran, and it basically hard counters the hellion expand if you don't get a fast tank or get a bunker. If you are letting hellions into your base that roast your drones and scout your entire base, your just bad. Its not because hellions are OP. It seems to me like you think you know everything. What a hypocrite. So, replying to my statement with a post asking for a warning is constructive, right? Plenty of very talented zergs lose drones to Hellions. And building a bunker as part of a hellion expand is just playing safe (See MVP vs AnNyeong in the WCG). I also never said hellions are OP. If you read what I wrote (critical reading is hard I know), then you would see that I responded that Terran can scout what the Zerg is doing relatively easily compared with Protoss due to their fast Hellions. It doesn't make the hellions OP. Quite the contrary. It makes the Terran race very stable, something which the Protoss race lacks. The only similar unit to the Hellion is the Phoenix, but a Phoenix is a much bigger investment than a Hellion. It is not quite comparable. And replying to your statement which is "the entire Protoss race is whiners" asking for a warning is constructive, yes. See, you are not contributing to the discussion, so therefore it would be constructive to get you to contribute with actual content rather than flame baiting. And no, I do not think I know everything. If you read my post history in the KA amulet thread, I actually ask a lot of questions and post what I "think" is the case. I then try to argue using logic and examples. I also welcome to be proven wrong, but so far doko here has only been posting about how much Protoss suck and how he knows better. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. Please point out specific examples of where I am a hypocrite, and I would gladly concede. I hate making mistakes so I will do my best to not be a hypocrite. If terran has to blindly make a bunker every time they are going hellion expand, then that means hellions can't scout easily scout whatever zerg is doing.
If I deserve a warning, then you deserve a warning to. Your post wasn't any more constructive than mine.
Saying "I think" before your statements doesn't mean that you don't think your right.
|
On November 07 2011 08:32 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:20 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 08:13 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:[quote] I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. What are you talking about? The roach expand build is very difficult to scout as terran, and it basically hard counters the hellion expand if you don't get a fast tank or get a bunker. If you are letting hellions into your base that roast your drones and scout your entire base, your just bad. Its not because hellions are OP. It seems to me like you think you know everything. What a hypocrite. So, replying to my statement with a post asking for a warning is constructive, right? Plenty of very talented zergs lose drones to Hellions. And building a bunker as part of a hellion expand is just playing safe (See MVP vs AnNyeong in the WCG). I also never said hellions are OP. If you read what I wrote (critical reading is hard I know), then you would see that I responded that Terran can scout what the Zerg is doing relatively easily compared with Protoss due to their fast Hellions. It doesn't make the hellions OP. Quite the contrary. It makes the Terran race very stable, something which the Protoss race lacks. The only similar unit to the Hellion is the Phoenix, but a Phoenix is a much bigger investment than a Hellion. It is not quite comparable. And replying to your statement which is "the entire Protoss race is whiners" asking for a warning is constructive, yes. See, you are not contributing to the discussion, so therefore it would be constructive to get you to contribute with actual content rather than flame baiting. And no, I do not think I know everything. If you read my post history in the KA amulet thread, I actually ask a lot of questions and post what I "think" is the case. I then try to argue using logic and examples. I also welcome to be proven wrong, but so far doko here has only been posting about how much Protoss suck and how he knows better. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. Please point out specific examples of where I am a hypocrite, and I would gladly concede. I hate making mistakes so I will do my best to not be a hypocrite. If terran has to blindly make a bunker every time they are going hellion expand, then that means hellions can't scout easily scout whatever zerg is doing. If I deserve a warning, then you deserve a warning to. Your post wasn't any more constructive than mine. Saying "I think" before your statements doesn't mean that you don't think your right.
Well I wouldn't say if it I didn't think it was correct....
Also a bunker isn't a huge investment. You can sell it back for 75% of its cost, and it keeps you safe. How does that deter the Hellions from scouting anyway? I don't understand that. You are not blindly building a bunker. You are building a bunker because if the Zerg builds quick roaches, your Hellions will be weak to it, and so you need to keep your Marines alive long enough until you get a tank out or a banshee (depending on tech route). That is called thinking ahead, not playing blindly.
|
ZvT winrate steadily climbing, must be all these roach openings. Protoss still being protoss, we're waiting for you Bisu.
|
On November 07 2011 08:15 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. Hellion openings require fast factory tech, you mostly play this in conjunction with the 1/1/1 build or a banshee build. if you use early hellions you can't use 1rax fe or 2 rax fe and if the protoss goes nexus first... well you are in trouble, or even if he 1 gate expands and then goes for robo, I don't see much you can do then. And the risk of a drop is there, so you obviously can't have everything spread out.... but you can build the twilight council behind your mineral line or the templar archives, it makes it harder for the terran to scan and you can't really tell me that base layouts are optimized at this point in time, there are a lot of small things T and P players can improve on in that regard, even pro players. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 06:19 Logros wrote: Ah so this is why Terran has been 5% higher in winrate on average the last 12 months. You solved the problem I would message Blizzard asap! I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. Well, I'm sorry, but there is so much protoss whine, even you are whining to some extent, you think protoss is the weakest race, fine no problem. but you base this on stats based on the highest level of play and make it sound like it affects your level of play aswell and so do most protoss players, they blame imbalance, flame T and Z players on the ladder and are getting really annoying recently, I didn't make the experience that it's only a handful of protoss player. I get flamed pretty much every second game against P or they just dont GG anymore, hardly ever do I get a protoss player that GGs or doesn't flame me and some other Z and Ts I've been talking to made the same experience, it's pathetic to think that protoss is weak on the ladder, they are the most succesful ladder race for quite some time now, with the most players in GM and M and most average points, there is NO NEED for non pro toss players to complain, it's irrational.
Yup, definitely agree with this. Kinda really getting tired of whining Protoss around these forums. Losing as Protoss on ladder does not mean anything. In fact, I think Protoss is the strongest race on ladder (except probably the pros who ladder) because they can't abuse the potential of the other two races. (Terran micro, multitasking and Zerg's macro) It's the easiest to replicate what the pros do out of all the races.
However, that being said, I still get very ticked off from all the "lol, Protoss players are so bad/retarded" comments. They're progamers ffs and they know the game better than the people who are flaming them. Protoss is struggling right now and with the current strategies they have, they are gonna look like they make mistakes. And ffs losing on ladder to Protoss doesn't mean anything. If anything, it means you are terrible because you can't beat low tier Protoss when all the high tier Protoss are struggling.
|
On November 07 2011 08:31 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:24 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 08:15 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. Hellion openings require fast factory tech, you mostly play this in conjunction with the 1/1/1 build or a banshee build. if you use early hellions you can't use 1rax fe or 2 rax fe and if the protoss goes nexus first... well you are in trouble, or even if he 1 gate expands and then goes for robo, I don't see much you can do then. And the risk of a drop is there, so you obviously can't have everything spread out.... but you can build the twilight council behind your mineral line or the templar archives, it makes it harder for the terran to scan and you can't really tell me that base layouts are optimized at this point in time, there are a lot of small things T and P players can improve on in that regard, even pro players. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 06:25 SeaSwift wrote:[quote] I wouldn't bother replying to him. His post history says everything you need to know, ranging from "protoss players are just being retards as usual" ( here) to "protoss players...... /facepalm" ( here). He clearly either wants attention or is just heavily biased and doesn't want his race to look biased. Not to mention that what he wrote most recently is just plain wrong - if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on it's head 1000/1000 of those times, there is a (1/2)^1000 chance of that happening. Sure, it is chance, but they possibility is so small it is far more likely to be weighted. This is why statistics are used. Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners. Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. Well, I'm sorry, but there is so much protoss whine, even you are whining to some extent, you think protoss is the weakest race, fine no problem. but you base this on stats based on the highest level of play and make it sound like it affects your level of play aswell and so do most protoss players, they blame imbalance, flame T and Z players on the ladder and are getting really annoying recently, I didn't make the experience that it's only a handful of protoss player. I get flamed pretty much every second game against P or they just dont GG anymore, hardly ever do I get a protoss player that GGs or doesn't flame me and some other Z and Ts I've been talking to made the same experience, it's pathetic to think that protoss is weak on the ladder, they are the most succesful ladder race for quite some time now, with the most players in GM and M and most average points, there is NO NEED for non pro toss players to complain, it's irrational. I never said Protoss is the weakest race. Protoss has some of the strongest all ins in the games, some of the best timings, and some of the best cheeses. I think that is the reason that these winrates are not worse. I think Protoss is the weakest macro race, definitely, which is my problem with the way it is currently balanced. I also want to watch great games from equally skilled players where both players go macro games. You are right, it doesn't affect me and I never said it did in my play. But it does affect my viewing experience of the game since I watch the pros play. I want more Protoss macro games, and it is difficult to see because of the way the race is designed. Yes but this is the essential problem and you are 100% right. It's race design. Protoss is the best ladder race, to a point where some master terran (myself included) hate the matchup really, this is reflected by statistics. But it's possibly also the worst race in pro play. And yes you should balance the game around pro play, I agree, BUT you also need to keep an eye on casual play (everything below GM), in a well designed game, all races would be equally strong at all levels of play, but that is simply not the case. So if protoss gets buffed alot more yes it might help or will help pro-play, but at the same time you have to consider that protoss already is the strongest ladder race even in GM and M, so if they buff protoss even more they run risk that more and more zerg and especially terran players quite the game or simply switch to toss and that is not in the interest of blizzard. terran is already the least played race in GM and M by miles, it's not even close, and yes the game should be balanced around the very top level, but I dont think it's that easy blizzard wants equal race distribution but that already isn't the case with protoss dominating the ladder, so what can they do? I'm not sure.
This is kind of why we are having these discussions, to put out ideas. I don't think Blizzard is experimenting as much as they should be. Protoss needs better defense which is why I am in favor of KA since it adds better defense to 4th and 5th bases, but so does Zerg (need better defense) against some Protoss/Terran all ins. I, for one, am in favor of the spine crawler having a shorter burrow time, such as 8 or 9 seconds instead of 12, since I think it will help Zergs defend some of the earlier pushes better. But I don't actually know how that will affect the matchup so maybe that isn't a good solution, and maybe KA will wreck the lower leagues like you said.
The thing is, a lot of the changes made over the last year have shifted the game to such a point that bringing something back is not necessarily going to wreck the game. KA might be just as bad now as it was before it was removed. But maybe with the longer warpgate research and shorter pylon radius, it won't be as bad. It's impossible to know until pros play it, and until the lower leagues play it. So since according to Blizzard the game is mostly balanced, why not test out some of the things they removed in the PTR to see how the PTR players deal with them, and see if they ruin match ups or they add more choices. I don't see why I should be satisfied with the way the game currently is when these things can be tested out. Just because it goes on the PTR does not mean it has to be reintroduced to the ladder. The PTR should be for testing, regardless of whether it goes back into the game for real.
|
On November 07 2011 04:23 TerlocSG wrote: The Y-axis kind of makes the graphs misleading. :/ It makes the difference in win % look a lot bigger than it really is. It's good information, and I'm not saying it isn't true, just making the view from 40 to 60% makes a 5% difference look huge.
Hopefully protoss can pick it up this month.
That is the idea, actually. Amplifies the differences, like the graph should. (Given that the point of it is to graph the differences) I mean, if he hadn't broke the graph at 40% and given it the range it does, it would really look stupid lol
|
Can't believe the win rates of protoss still so low. They have been doing well in tournaments, but maybe the most recent ones aren't factored in so much.
My ZvP winrate is much lower than the averages. >_>;;
|
So wait, PvZ is 43.7/56.3 and meanwhile people whine on TvZ which is 52/48?
Dammit people, 52/48 is pretty damn well balanced and I dont really see how you could expect it to be better... Arguing that Terran has been dominant since release is meaningless, this isn't WoW, it's not "oh ok now it's your turn to be imba for a few months", the goal is actual balance. I dont really see how you can expect to get exactly 50/50 every single month...
TvP still looks a bit T favored at tournament level, but 1.4.2 should push it in the right direction.
PvZ is more worrying, but I dont play Z or P so I wont comment on it.
|
It's obvious.
Patch 1.3
High Templar Khaydarin Amulet upgrade (+25 starting energy) has been removed.
Thats when protoss started losing every matchup.
|
On November 07 2011 08:48 Blade Fox wrote: It's obvious.
Patch 1.3
High Templar Khaydarin Amulet upgrade (+25 starting energy) has been removed.
Thats when protoss started losing every matchup.
No, it really wasn't, that needed to be removed because of how strong it was, it's stupid to blame the recent down slope of P win % on that alone.
|
On November 07 2011 08:42 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 08:24 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 08:15 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. Hellion openings require fast factory tech, you mostly play this in conjunction with the 1/1/1 build or a banshee build. if you use early hellions you can't use 1rax fe or 2 rax fe and if the protoss goes nexus first... well you are in trouble, or even if he 1 gate expands and then goes for robo, I don't see much you can do then. And the risk of a drop is there, so you obviously can't have everything spread out.... but you can build the twilight council behind your mineral line or the templar archives, it makes it harder for the terran to scan and you can't really tell me that base layouts are optimized at this point in time, there are a lot of small things T and P players can improve on in that regard, even pro players. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote: [quote]
Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners.
Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. Well, I'm sorry, but there is so much protoss whine, even you are whining to some extent, you think protoss is the weakest race, fine no problem. but you base this on stats based on the highest level of play and make it sound like it affects your level of play aswell and so do most protoss players, they blame imbalance, flame T and Z players on the ladder and are getting really annoying recently, I didn't make the experience that it's only a handful of protoss player. I get flamed pretty much every second game against P or they just dont GG anymore, hardly ever do I get a protoss player that GGs or doesn't flame me and some other Z and Ts I've been talking to made the same experience, it's pathetic to think that protoss is weak on the ladder, they are the most succesful ladder race for quite some time now, with the most players in GM and M and most average points, there is NO NEED for non pro toss players to complain, it's irrational. I never said Protoss is the weakest race. Protoss has some of the strongest all ins in the games, some of the best timings, and some of the best cheeses. I think that is the reason that these winrates are not worse. I think Protoss is the weakest macro race, definitely, which is my problem with the way it is currently balanced. I also want to watch great games from equally skilled players where both players go macro games. You are right, it doesn't affect me and I never said it did in my play. But it does affect my viewing experience of the game since I watch the pros play. I want more Protoss macro games, and it is difficult to see because of the way the race is designed. Yes but this is the essential problem and you are 100% right. It's race design. Protoss is the best ladder race, to a point where some master terran (myself included) hate the matchup really, this is reflected by statistics. But it's possibly also the worst race in pro play. And yes you should balance the game around pro play, I agree, BUT you also need to keep an eye on casual play (everything below GM), in a well designed game, all races would be equally strong at all levels of play, but that is simply not the case. So if protoss gets buffed alot more yes it might help or will help pro-play, but at the same time you have to consider that protoss already is the strongest ladder race even in GM and M, so if they buff protoss even more they run risk that more and more zerg and especially terran players quite the game or simply switch to toss and that is not in the interest of blizzard. terran is already the least played race in GM and M by miles, it's not even close, and yes the game should be balanced around the very top level, but I dont think it's that easy blizzard wants equal race distribution but that already isn't the case with protoss dominating the ladder, so what can they do? I'm not sure. This is kind of why we are having these discussions, to put out ideas. I don't think Blizzard is experimenting as much as they should be. Protoss needs better defense which is why I am in favor of KA since it adds better defense to 4th and 5th bases, but so does Zerg (need better defense) against some Protoss/Terran all ins. I, for one, am in favor of the spine crawler having a shorter burrow time, such as 8 or 9 seconds instead of 12, since I think it will help Zergs defend some of the earlier pushes better. But I don't actually know how that will affect the matchup so maybe that isn't a good solution, and maybe KA will wreck the lower leagues like you said. The thing is, a lot of the changes made over the last year have shifted the game to such a point that bringing something back is not necessarily going to wreck the game. KA might be just as bad now as it was before it was removed. But maybe with the longer warpgate research and shorter pylon radius, it won't be as bad. It's impossible to know until pros play it, and until the lower leagues play it. So since according to Blizzard the game is mostly balanced, why not test out some of the things they removed in the PTR to see how the PTR players deal with them, and see if they ruin match ups or they add more choices. I don't see why I should be satisfied with the way the game currently is when these things can be tested out. Just because it goes on the PTR does not mean it has to be reintroduced to the ladder. The PTR should be for testing, regardless of whether it goes back into the game for real.
But here's another problem, you would give protoss and zerg a bonus, but terran gets nothing. Yes this would really help pro players, but the core problem for blizzard and all of us non pro-players is the race distribution on the ladder. It will just make things worse in the regard, Blizzard doesn't want that, they want to have all races equally distributed on the ladder, if you now give the already underrepresented and statistically worst ladder race (terran) nothing and the two stronger ladder races even more tools to work with. This doesn't solve the problem, it makes it even worse, the numbers are already very significant, I think there are only around 9000 terran players in GM and M worldwide but 14000 protoss and 14000 zerg players. Significant really. Terran also has least average points in their leagues. Terran really struggle on the ladder and now think for a second about how we terrans feel. we see the best of the best winning and winning but we don't have the micro and multitasking to do what they do so we lose and then there is protoss who require less micro and multitasking and are alot stronger on the ladder, yet our race is getting nerfed.... are you really surprised that more and more terrans are quiting the game? yes it is a skill problem, but what's our motivation to get better when our race always gets nerfed and we lose to players that we feel like aren't any better than we are, just picked the 'easier' ladder race?
You have to understand both sides. I can understand the protoss side, but it is so annoying to get flamed by someone on the ladder who is playing a race that is much more succesful than my own race (on the ladder) it's just irrational.
edit: I have to apologize, i just checked the numbers and they werent that significant I must have mixed it up with diamond league or something, but the numbers are still pretty significant 7400 protoss , 7300 zerg and 6200 terran, in diamond13,5k P, 11k T, 15k Z) it's even worse but that's not my point, just saying that on the ladder in general terran seems really dead
|
I thought tvz was quite balanced, and I think I'm right here. If you look at the matches, not just percentages, tvz is 4780-4412. If you account for the fact that close pos shattered was still in the map pool until 6 days before ladder lock, and attribute an arbitrary number of imbalanced wins to terran (which everyone agrees on for those positions) to like 150 or something(1.5% of total games seems fair to me, take into account that zerg doesn't lose ALL games in that position) and remove those from the set, then the actual win rate would be something like 4680-4412, or a 51.4% vs 48.5%. Seems like it would be more accurate that way, maybe I'm using bad inferences?
Another point, October is the first full month of school (for me at least) I played probably about 230-250 games during September, and 2 for October. Considering the likely age demographic for sc2 players, I'm expecting to see similar results for the November report, and slightly higher numbers for the December report.
And finally on a personal whine note, I wish people were a little more patient with data results. Yes this game has been out for a year+a month or 2, and yes Terran has been on top overall for every month, but things take time to sort themselves out. I think close to 24200 games is enough to conclude something is a little off with Terran, but the game is more balanced now than 5 months ago (in terms of vt matchups, the big difference in zvp is really bogging down Protoss this month). Huge changes like nitro packs, first ghost change, fungel buff, and smaller changes like making archons massive, nerfing blue flame, are all things that directly nerf Terran specifically (I'd argue the recent fungel nerf was in favor of pvz, not tvz). I'm not saying Terran is balanced, but I think blizzard is being careful with how they balance the game. They haven't made any big terran buffs have they? If blizzard didn't care they wouldn't have made any big changes. My plea is to give them their time. For 90% or more of the people responding to this post, balance doesn't affect their gameplay anyway.
I also think Terran players have made exploits of their units better than the other 2 races. Warp prisms are finally getting more usage, and zergs are still somewhat slacking on nydus worm usage (I do understand it takes gas and enough workers kill it in time T_T, but they can still be good)
|
On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated!
Are you attempting to troll, good sir?
"Terran players are just better."
Aren't results a result of the gameplay? I can't tell if you're joking or not, but if you aren't could you explain a bit more fully. It is rather unfortunate that the Y-Axis is cut off though... I agree.
|
hey,
When you look at September winrates for PvT in this graph it shows almost 50:50. That doesnt seem right. Therefore I looked up the september thread and there its something like 43:57. Am i missing something? reading it wrong? im confused...someone with more mathskills than me plz enlighten me.
|
On November 07 2011 08:51 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:42 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 08:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 08:24 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 08:15 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote: [quote]
Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL.
Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss.
I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals.
EDIT:
[quote]
For a few reasons:
1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. Hellion openings require fast factory tech, you mostly play this in conjunction with the 1/1/1 build or a banshee build. if you use early hellions you can't use 1rax fe or 2 rax fe and if the protoss goes nexus first... well you are in trouble, or even if he 1 gate expands and then goes for robo, I don't see much you can do then. And the risk of a drop is there, so you obviously can't have everything spread out.... but you can build the twilight council behind your mineral line or the templar archives, it makes it harder for the terran to scan and you can't really tell me that base layouts are optimized at this point in time, there are a lot of small things T and P players can improve on in that regard, even pro players. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote: [quote]
Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race.
Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. Well, I'm sorry, but there is so much protoss whine, even you are whining to some extent, you think protoss is the weakest race, fine no problem. but you base this on stats based on the highest level of play and make it sound like it affects your level of play aswell and so do most protoss players, they blame imbalance, flame T and Z players on the ladder and are getting really annoying recently, I didn't make the experience that it's only a handful of protoss player. I get flamed pretty much every second game against P or they just dont GG anymore, hardly ever do I get a protoss player that GGs or doesn't flame me and some other Z and Ts I've been talking to made the same experience, it's pathetic to think that protoss is weak on the ladder, they are the most succesful ladder race for quite some time now, with the most players in GM and M and most average points, there is NO NEED for non pro toss players to complain, it's irrational. I never said Protoss is the weakest race. Protoss has some of the strongest all ins in the games, some of the best timings, and some of the best cheeses. I think that is the reason that these winrates are not worse. I think Protoss is the weakest macro race, definitely, which is my problem with the way it is currently balanced. I also want to watch great games from equally skilled players where both players go macro games. You are right, it doesn't affect me and I never said it did in my play. But it does affect my viewing experience of the game since I watch the pros play. I want more Protoss macro games, and it is difficult to see because of the way the race is designed. Yes but this is the essential problem and you are 100% right. It's race design. Protoss is the best ladder race, to a point where some master terran (myself included) hate the matchup really, this is reflected by statistics. But it's possibly also the worst race in pro play. And yes you should balance the game around pro play, I agree, BUT you also need to keep an eye on casual play (everything below GM), in a well designed game, all races would be equally strong at all levels of play, but that is simply not the case. So if protoss gets buffed alot more yes it might help or will help pro-play, but at the same time you have to consider that protoss already is the strongest ladder race even in GM and M, so if they buff protoss even more they run risk that more and more zerg and especially terran players quite the game or simply switch to toss and that is not in the interest of blizzard. terran is already the least played race in GM and M by miles, it's not even close, and yes the game should be balanced around the very top level, but I dont think it's that easy blizzard wants equal race distribution but that already isn't the case with protoss dominating the ladder, so what can they do? I'm not sure. This is kind of why we are having these discussions, to put out ideas. I don't think Blizzard is experimenting as much as they should be. Protoss needs better defense which is why I am in favor of KA since it adds better defense to 4th and 5th bases, but so does Zerg (need better defense) against some Protoss/Terran all ins. I, for one, am in favor of the spine crawler having a shorter burrow time, such as 8 or 9 seconds instead of 12, since I think it will help Zergs defend some of the earlier pushes better. But I don't actually know how that will affect the matchup so maybe that isn't a good solution, and maybe KA will wreck the lower leagues like you said. The thing is, a lot of the changes made over the last year have shifted the game to such a point that bringing something back is not necessarily going to wreck the game. KA might be just as bad now as it was before it was removed. But maybe with the longer warpgate research and shorter pylon radius, it won't be as bad. It's impossible to know until pros play it, and until the lower leagues play it. So since according to Blizzard the game is mostly balanced, why not test out some of the things they removed in the PTR to see how the PTR players deal with them, and see if they ruin match ups or they add more choices. I don't see why I should be satisfied with the way the game currently is when these things can be tested out. Just because it goes on the PTR does not mean it has to be reintroduced to the ladder. The PTR should be for testing, regardless of whether it goes back into the game for real. But here's another problem, you would give protoss and zerg a bonus, but terran gets nothing. Yes this would really help pro players, but the core problem for blizzard and all of us non pro-players is the race distribution on the ladder. It will just make things worse in the regard, Blizzard doesn't want that, they want to have all races equally distributed on the ladder, if you now give the already underrepresented and statistically worst ladder race (terran) nothing and the two stronger ladder races even more tools to work with. This doesn't solve the problem, it makes it even worse, the numbers are already very significant, I think there are only around 9000 terran players in GM and M worldwide but 14000 protoss and 14000 zerg players. Significant really. Terran also has least average points in their leagues. Terran really struggle on the ladder and now think for a second about how we terrans feel. we see the best of the best winning and winning but we don't have the micro and multitasking to do what they do so we lose and then there is protoss who require less micro and multitasking and are alot stronger on the ladder, yet our race is getting nerfed.... are you really surprised that more and more terrans are quiting the game? yes it is a skill problem, but what's our motivation to get better when our race always gets nerfed and we lose to players that we feel like aren't any better than we are, just picked the 'easier' ladder race? You have to understand both sides. I can understand the protoss side, but it is so annoying to get flamed by someone on the ladder who is playing a race that is much more succesful than my own race (on the ladder) it's just irrational.
I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't see a solution. You can't balance for everyone, and Terran in the mid leagues depends very much on micro and multitasking. That is kind of the design of the race, and there doesn't seem to be a way to fix that. It's never going to make everyone happy.
And I know it sucks getting flamed. It's the worst, but what can you do if the other person is a jerk? I was just trying to point out that the jerks on the ladder do not represent the Protoss on TL. Some of us try to whine with some class.
|
Someday Terran win rate will drop below the other two races.
And on that day angels will sing from the heavens, and all will be well in the world.
|
I feel like the author and maker of the graph have made a misleading y-axis on the graph on purpose. I was amazed at the beginning but I have a niggling feeling that the graph was left to look like this to make protoss look extra weak and I wonder why.
I know this have been said before but its worth saying again: Zerg was in a terrible position at the first quarter of this year but the players adapted and changed up their play, I dont think the balance patches made that big of a difference. Now on the other hand, I've been watching competative protoss players play the same way for months without much change in strategy or game play. A lot of 2 base and failed timing attacks... and it basically demonstrates what the graph is saying, it works 4/10 times.... I really think protoss needs some new blood to help them get out of the slump, I dont feel like there is a need for any balance changes atm (with the exception of mule cd)
|
On November 07 2011 09:00 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:51 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 08:42 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 08:31 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 08:24 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 08:15 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote: [quote] Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about.
IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. Hellion openings require fast factory tech, you mostly play this in conjunction with the 1/1/1 build or a banshee build. if you use early hellions you can't use 1rax fe or 2 rax fe and if the protoss goes nexus first... well you are in trouble, or even if he 1 gate expands and then goes for robo, I don't see much you can do then. And the risk of a drop is there, so you obviously can't have everything spread out.... but you can build the twilight council behind your mineral line or the templar archives, it makes it harder for the terran to scan and you can't really tell me that base layouts are optimized at this point in time, there are a lot of small things T and P players can improve on in that regard, even pro players. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote: [quote] There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. Well, I'm sorry, but there is so much protoss whine, even you are whining to some extent, you think protoss is the weakest race, fine no problem. but you base this on stats based on the highest level of play and make it sound like it affects your level of play aswell and so do most protoss players, they blame imbalance, flame T and Z players on the ladder and are getting really annoying recently, I didn't make the experience that it's only a handful of protoss player. I get flamed pretty much every second game against P or they just dont GG anymore, hardly ever do I get a protoss player that GGs or doesn't flame me and some other Z and Ts I've been talking to made the same experience, it's pathetic to think that protoss is weak on the ladder, they are the most succesful ladder race for quite some time now, with the most players in GM and M and most average points, there is NO NEED for non pro toss players to complain, it's irrational. I never said Protoss is the weakest race. Protoss has some of the strongest all ins in the games, some of the best timings, and some of the best cheeses. I think that is the reason that these winrates are not worse. I think Protoss is the weakest macro race, definitely, which is my problem with the way it is currently balanced. I also want to watch great games from equally skilled players where both players go macro games. You are right, it doesn't affect me and I never said it did in my play. But it does affect my viewing experience of the game since I watch the pros play. I want more Protoss macro games, and it is difficult to see because of the way the race is designed. Yes but this is the essential problem and you are 100% right. It's race design. Protoss is the best ladder race, to a point where some master terran (myself included) hate the matchup really, this is reflected by statistics. But it's possibly also the worst race in pro play. And yes you should balance the game around pro play, I agree, BUT you also need to keep an eye on casual play (everything below GM), in a well designed game, all races would be equally strong at all levels of play, but that is simply not the case. So if protoss gets buffed alot more yes it might help or will help pro-play, but at the same time you have to consider that protoss already is the strongest ladder race even in GM and M, so if they buff protoss even more they run risk that more and more zerg and especially terran players quite the game or simply switch to toss and that is not in the interest of blizzard. terran is already the least played race in GM and M by miles, it's not even close, and yes the game should be balanced around the very top level, but I dont think it's that easy blizzard wants equal race distribution but that already isn't the case with protoss dominating the ladder, so what can they do? I'm not sure. This is kind of why we are having these discussions, to put out ideas. I don't think Blizzard is experimenting as much as they should be. Protoss needs better defense which is why I am in favor of KA since it adds better defense to 4th and 5th bases, but so does Zerg (need better defense) against some Protoss/Terran all ins. I, for one, am in favor of the spine crawler having a shorter burrow time, such as 8 or 9 seconds instead of 12, since I think it will help Zergs defend some of the earlier pushes better. But I don't actually know how that will affect the matchup so maybe that isn't a good solution, and maybe KA will wreck the lower leagues like you said. The thing is, a lot of the changes made over the last year have shifted the game to such a point that bringing something back is not necessarily going to wreck the game. KA might be just as bad now as it was before it was removed. But maybe with the longer warpgate research and shorter pylon radius, it won't be as bad. It's impossible to know until pros play it, and until the lower leagues play it. So since according to Blizzard the game is mostly balanced, why not test out some of the things they removed in the PTR to see how the PTR players deal with them, and see if they ruin match ups or they add more choices. I don't see why I should be satisfied with the way the game currently is when these things can be tested out. Just because it goes on the PTR does not mean it has to be reintroduced to the ladder. The PTR should be for testing, regardless of whether it goes back into the game for real. But here's another problem, you would give protoss and zerg a bonus, but terran gets nothing. Yes this would really help pro players, but the core problem for blizzard and all of us non pro-players is the race distribution on the ladder. It will just make things worse in the regard, Blizzard doesn't want that, they want to have all races equally distributed on the ladder, if you now give the already underrepresented and statistically worst ladder race (terran) nothing and the two stronger ladder races even more tools to work with. This doesn't solve the problem, it makes it even worse, the numbers are already very significant, I think there are only around 9000 terran players in GM and M worldwide but 14000 protoss and 14000 zerg players. Significant really. Terran also has least average points in their leagues. Terran really struggle on the ladder and now think for a second about how we terrans feel. we see the best of the best winning and winning but we don't have the micro and multitasking to do what they do so we lose and then there is protoss who require less micro and multitasking and are alot stronger on the ladder, yet our race is getting nerfed.... are you really surprised that more and more terrans are quiting the game? yes it is a skill problem, but what's our motivation to get better when our race always gets nerfed and we lose to players that we feel like aren't any better than we are, just picked the 'easier' ladder race? You have to understand both sides. I can understand the protoss side, but it is so annoying to get flamed by someone on the ladder who is playing a race that is much more succesful than my own race (on the ladder) it's just irrational. I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't see a solution. You can't balance for everyone, and Terran in the mid leagues depends very much on micro and multitasking. That is kind of the design of the race, and there doesn't seem to be a way to fix that. It's never going to make everyone happy. And I know it sucks getting flamed. It's the worst, but what can you do if the other person is a jerk? I was just trying to point out that the jerks on the ladder do not represent the Protoss on TL. Some of us try to whine with some class. Yeah I have high hopes in HotS, I just hope they balance it out a little for all levels of play, so that all races can be equally strong for everyone, because right now it seems like nobody wants to play terran at casual level and nobody wants to play protoss at pro level, which is quite catastrophic for an RTS game like SC2, it means less variety in matchups (I heard some people on the ladder complain that terran seems almost extinct atm), less new talent or at least not enough new talent from specific races, etc... we also need to think of the future.
I can really understand that Blizzard don't want to nerf terran anymore, the ladder stats make it kind of though for them to do so, I cant imagine them wanting to lose even more terrans.
|
On November 07 2011 09:04 Pipeline wrote: I feel like the author and maker of the graph have made a misleading y-axis on the graph on purpose. I was amazed at the beginning but I have a niggling feeling that the graph was left to look like this to make protoss look extra weak and I wonder why.
I know this have been said before but its worth saying again: Zerg was in a terrible position at the first quarter of this year but the players adapted and changed up their play, I dont think the balance patches made that big of a difference. Now on the other hand, I've been watching competative protoss players play the same way for months without much change in strategy or game play. A lot of 2 base and failed timing attacks... and it basically demonstrates what the graph is saying, it works 4/10 times.... I really think protoss needs some new blood to help them get out of the slump, I dont feel like there is a need for any balance changes atm (with the exception of mule cd)
So the fungal growth change didn't make a huge difference? And the spore crawler change didn't help to stop banshee and void ray harass? Sure, there was definitely innovative Zerg play (hello baneling drops), but let's not forget that there were some key patches.
And I definitely agree that innovative Protoss play is needed, but I imagine it will come after Protoss has also had some nice patches in their favor. Which one has more effect is as difficult to figure out as with Zergs.
|
On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated! this man deserves a medal!
|
France12463 Posts
I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/
|
On November 07 2011 08:50 Firesilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:48 Blade Fox wrote: It's obvious.
Patch 1.3
High Templar Khaydarin Amulet upgrade (+25 starting energy) has been removed.
Thats when protoss started losing every matchup. No, it really wasn't, that needed to be removed because of how strong it was, it's stupid to blame the recent down slope of P win % on that alone.
"For several months" is not "recent", considering that the game is 1 year old. The second Protoss achieved a winrate above 50% against Terran, massive nerfs were made to fix that, and Protoss never came back. It's definitely not "recent". Every month, everyone is like "Lol guys, calm down, Protoss players will figure out something ^_^", and despite more and more buffs, Protoss is getting more and more behind. Design problem? Most likely.
And for those who complain about Protoss in their own ladder experience, you probably get cheesed/all inned a lot (that's ladder remember), and Protoss is able to pull out some nasty all ins indeed. Now try like me to play macro every single game on ladder, and I'm not talking ultra fast greedy expands and shit, just standard builds, upgrades, third, slight harass and all. Protoss is hard to play this way. Zerg will always try to roach all in you, terran will do rax all ins, with or without SCVs, 111 and such. The second I get pissed and try to 6 gate off of a 1 gate FE, the opponents just cannot stop it, and it's a free win. So yeah, easy Protoss builds exist, and I can understand why ladder Protosses would just chain those builds. At a very high level though, those builds have more chance to be stopped (as they should), and have been nerfed by Blizzard anyway, so Protoss loses his threatening all innish aspect.
|
On November 07 2011 04:29 juicyjames wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:23 TerlocSG wrote: The Y-axis kind of makes the graphs misleading. :/ It makes the difference in win % look a lot bigger than it really is. It's good information, and I'm not saying it isn't true, just making the view from 40 to 60% makes a 5% difference look huge. Finally someone else points this out! After learning about statistics I have begun to look at graphs and polls more carefully for this kind thing, and am very surprised at how misleading these can be due to the Y-axis alone. for someone who studies statistics you should realize that the scaling doesn't fucking matter because it's still a downward trend.
tell me everyone, if this were 3 different stocks, which would you invest in?
|
On November 07 2011 09:07 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:04 Pipeline wrote: I feel like the author and maker of the graph have made a misleading y-axis on the graph on purpose. I was amazed at the beginning but I have a niggling feeling that the graph was left to look like this to make protoss look extra weak and I wonder why.
I know this have been said before but its worth saying again: Zerg was in a terrible position at the first quarter of this year but the players adapted and changed up their play, I dont think the balance patches made that big of a difference. Now on the other hand, I've been watching competative protoss players play the same way for months without much change in strategy or game play. A lot of 2 base and failed timing attacks... and it basically demonstrates what the graph is saying, it works 4/10 times.... I really think protoss needs some new blood to help them get out of the slump, I dont feel like there is a need for any balance changes atm (with the exception of mule cd) So the fungal growth change didn't make a huge difference? And the spore crawler change didn't help to stop banshee and void ray harass? Sure, there was definitely innovative Zerg play (hello baneling drops), but let's not forget that there were some key patches. And I definitely agree that innovative Protoss play is needed, but I imagine it will come after Protoss has also had some nice patches in their favor. Which one has more effect is as difficult to figure out as with Zergs.
I think the main reason they have been winning is that early 3rd base and then drone drone drone and make units when you see them coming. Before this, I have never seen a Zerg max at 13 mins.
|
On November 07 2011 09:10 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:50 Firesilver wrote:On November 07 2011 08:48 Blade Fox wrote: It's obvious.
Patch 1.3
High Templar Khaydarin Amulet upgrade (+25 starting energy) has been removed.
Thats when protoss started losing every matchup. No, it really wasn't, that needed to be removed because of how strong it was, it's stupid to blame the recent down slope of P win % on that alone. "For several months" is not "recent", considering that the game is 1 year old. The second Protoss achieved a winrate above 50% against Terran, massive nerfs were made to fix that, and Protoss never came back. It's definitely not "recent". Every month, everyone is like "Lol guys, calm down, Protoss players will figure out something ^_^", and despite more and more buffs, Protoss is getting more and more behind. Design problem? Most likely. And for those who complain about Protoss in their own ladder experience, you probably get cheesed/all inned a lot (that's ladder remember), and Protoss is able to pull out some nasty all ins indeed. Now try like me to play macro every single game on ladder, and I'm not talking ultra fast greedy expands and shit, just standard builds, upgrades, third, slight harass and all. Protoss is hard to play this way. Zerg will always try to roach all in you, terran will do rax all ins, with or without SCVs, 111 and such. The second I get pissed and try to 6 gate off of a 1 gate FE, the opponents just cannot stop it, and it's a free win. So yeah, easy Protoss builds exist, and I can understand why ladder Protosses would just chain those builds. At a very high level though, those builds have more chance to be stopped (as they should), and have been nerfed by Blizzard anyway, so Protoss loses his threatening all innish aspect.
Nobody doubts that protoss is weak at pro level, but like you said protoss is such an effective ladder race it's frustrating to play against them for non pro players. this also reflects in the player numbers so please let's just not go through this "its only your personal experience" stuff again, pretty much everyone in M struggles against toss even diamond seems heavily P (and also Z) favored, it's not just the few of us.
|
why does the y axis start at 40%.. it defeats the whole purpose of having a bar graph
|
On November 07 2011 09:07 Poopi wrote: I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/ Yeah your individual experience sure is evidence! Maybe you have a weak matchup? Here, I'll counter: I once lost a PvP to a mid-master player, swapped to T, and beat him with my offrace. Clearly P sucks and T ownz!
|
On November 07 2011 08:35 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:32 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 08:20 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 08:13 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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. Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL. Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss. I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals. EDIT: On November 07 2011 04:27 DTK920 wrote: A lot of protoss players have been complaining about losing to terran lately, but this graph clearly shows that ZvP is even worse. Don't know why all the hate is focused on terrans when zergs are clearly ahead. For a few reasons: 1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 06:31 doko100 wrote: [quote]
Well I'm sorry, but recently every protoss player is just whining. In every single thread no matter if it's LR or whatever protoss players cry, it's even worse than Zerg in '10. Yes I'm getting quite annoyed by protoss players recently and so do a lot of other people in this community, you spread so much hate, you flame us on the ladder and complain all the time about everything. Sometimes I wish blizzard would just remove protoss from the game so that we can get rid of you balance whiners.
Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race. Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. What are you talking about? The roach expand build is very difficult to scout as terran, and it basically hard counters the hellion expand if you don't get a fast tank or get a bunker. If you are letting hellions into your base that roast your drones and scout your entire base, your just bad. Its not because hellions are OP. It seems to me like you think you know everything. What a hypocrite. So, replying to my statement with a post asking for a warning is constructive, right? Plenty of very talented zergs lose drones to Hellions. And building a bunker as part of a hellion expand is just playing safe (See MVP vs AnNyeong in the WCG). I also never said hellions are OP. If you read what I wrote (critical reading is hard I know), then you would see that I responded that Terran can scout what the Zerg is doing relatively easily compared with Protoss due to their fast Hellions. It doesn't make the hellions OP. Quite the contrary. It makes the Terran race very stable, something which the Protoss race lacks. The only similar unit to the Hellion is the Phoenix, but a Phoenix is a much bigger investment than a Hellion. It is not quite comparable. And replying to your statement which is "the entire Protoss race is whiners" asking for a warning is constructive, yes. See, you are not contributing to the discussion, so therefore it would be constructive to get you to contribute with actual content rather than flame baiting. And no, I do not think I know everything. If you read my post history in the KA amulet thread, I actually ask a lot of questions and post what I "think" is the case. I then try to argue using logic and examples. I also welcome to be proven wrong, but so far doko here has only been posting about how much Protoss suck and how he knows better. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. Please point out specific examples of where I am a hypocrite, and I would gladly concede. I hate making mistakes so I will do my best to not be a hypocrite. If terran has to blindly make a bunker every time they are going hellion expand, then that means hellions can't scout easily scout whatever zerg is doing. If I deserve a warning, then you deserve a warning to. Your post wasn't any more constructive than mine. Saying "I think" before your statements doesn't mean that you don't think your right. Well I wouldn't say if it I didn't think it was correct.... Also a bunker isn't a huge investment. You can sell it back for 75% of its cost, and it keeps you safe. How does that deter the Hellions from scouting anyway? I don't understand that. You are not blindly building a bunker. You are building a bunker because if the Zerg builds quick roaches, your Hellions will be weak to it, and so you need to keep your Marines alive long enough until you get a tank out or a banshee (depending on tech route). That is called thinking ahead, not playing blindly. A bunker is quite an investment. It slows down your build a lot, and 75 minerals later on doesn't cover the cost well at all.
If you allow a terran to see a roach warren building without him using a scan, you are just plain bad. There is NO way a terran should be able to scout anything in the zerg's main, unless you have no simicity, no spines, and no zerglings. Because there is no way to scout the roach warren, the bunker needs to be built blind. Its not called "thinking ahead", its playing blind. Anyways, how would you know about TvZ if your protoss? Plz, stay away from topics you don't understand.
|
On November 07 2011 09:04 Pipeline wrote: I feel like the author and maker of the graph have made a misleading y-axis on the graph on purpose. I was amazed at the beginning but I have a niggling feeling that the graph was left to look like this to make protoss look extra weak and I wonder why.
I know this have been said before but its worth saying again: Zerg was in a terrible position at the first quarter of this year but the players adapted and changed up their play, I dont think the balance patches made that big of a difference. Now on the other hand, I've been watching competative protoss players play the same way for months without much change in strategy or game play. A lot of 2 base and failed timing attacks... and it basically demonstrates what the graph is saying, it works 4/10 times.... I really think protoss needs some new blood to help them get out of the slump, I dont feel like there is a need for any balance changes atm (with the exception of mule cd) So in that case you wouldn't mind removing the fungal buff, increasing spore crawler burrow time, restoring warp gate research time and adding amulet, etc. since the balance changes "didn't make a big difference" and it was zerg players sheer genius and adaption that helped.
|
On November 07 2011 09:07 Poopi wrote: I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/ Make ghosts.
|
On November 07 2011 09:16 kazie wrote: why does the y axis start at 40%.. it defeats the whole purpose of having a bar graph
It's for people who can look past the graph portion and see numbers. The graph is a visual aid, if it went from 0-100, You'd have 40% of the graph as white space, the trend line would be nearly straight, and visually doesn't help people understand. The whole point of cutting that out is for clarity. You don't need to know that ZvT has been above 30% for the entirity of the game, you don't need to know that Terran has won less than 70% in all matchups throughout the history of the game. It cuts down clutter, showcases what's important.
|
ZvT doesn't feel Terran imbalanced. I mean Idra almost makes any Terran look easy.
|
On November 07 2011 09:04 Pipeline wrote: I feel like the author and maker of the graph have made a misleading y-axis on the graph on purpose. I was amazed at the beginning but I have a niggling feeling that the graph was left to look like this to make protoss look extra weak and I wonder why.
I know this have been said before but its worth saying again: Zerg was in a terrible position at the first quarter of this year but the players adapted and changed up their play, I dont think the balance patches made that big of a difference. Now on the other hand, I've been watching competative protoss players play the same way for months without much change in strategy or game play. A lot of 2 base and failed timing attacks... and it basically demonstrates what the graph is saying, it works 4/10 times.... I really think protoss needs some new blood to help them get out of the slump, I dont feel like there is a need for any balance changes atm (with the exception of mule cd) Protoss has been innovating the most of any race. Look how the PvT macro game has evolved from fast colossus builds to forges and gateways, then to templar builds, then to chargelot archon, and recently to double forge builds. Meanwhile Terrans have been using the same TvP strategy since release and it's still viable: 1 rax FE into 3 rax, tech to reactor medivacs and +1, add 4th and 5th barracks while taking a third, armory and 2nd ebay, tech ghosts and add more barracks on 3 bases. Occasionally they get ghosts before medivacs. MC literally does a new opening in every PvZ played in a Korean tournament while Zergs are doing the same old fast 3rd base into mass roach 1a.
|
On November 07 2011 09:16 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:07 Poopi wrote: I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/ Yeah your individual experience sure is evidence! Maybe you have a weak matchup? Here, I'll counter: I once lost a PvP to a mid-master player, swapped to T, and beat him with my offrace. Clearly P sucks and T ownz!
He's right though. It's not just personal experience, it's backed up by statistics aswell.
|
On November 07 2011 09:16 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:07 Poopi wrote: I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/ Yeah your individual experience sure is evidence! Maybe you have a weak matchup? Here, I'll counter: I once lost a PvP to a mid-master player, swapped to T, and beat him with my offrace. Clearly P sucks and T ownz! Except there are a lot of Terran players who have a very hard time with Protoss. If you look around on TL a bit, you'll see this is a common sentiment. Of course, you probably don't care about this point since it goes against your bias. Either way though, TvP has never really been the bane of Protoss anyways. PvZ looks a lot more one sided, but all we hear is T should be nerfed...
|
On November 07 2011 09:22 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:16 Dfgj wrote:On November 07 2011 09:07 Poopi wrote: I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/ Yeah your individual experience sure is evidence! Maybe you have a weak matchup? Here, I'll counter: I once lost a PvP to a mid-master player, swapped to T, and beat him with my offrace. Clearly P sucks and T ownz! Except there are a lot of Terran players who have a very hard time with Protoss. If you look around on TL a bit, you'll see this is a common sentiment. Of course, you probably don't care about this point since it goes against your bias. Either way though, TvP has never really been the bane of Protoss anyways. PvZ looks a lot more one sided, but all we hear is T should be nerfed...
It's probably because we are used to getting nerfed and we never really complain lol.
|
On November 07 2011 09:21 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:04 Pipeline wrote: I feel like the author and maker of the graph have made a misleading y-axis on the graph on purpose. I was amazed at the beginning but I have a niggling feeling that the graph was left to look like this to make protoss look extra weak and I wonder why.
I know this have been said before but its worth saying again: Zerg was in a terrible position at the first quarter of this year but the players adapted and changed up their play, I dont think the balance patches made that big of a difference. Now on the other hand, I've been watching competative protoss players play the same way for months without much change in strategy or game play. A lot of 2 base and failed timing attacks... and it basically demonstrates what the graph is saying, it works 4/10 times.... I really think protoss needs some new blood to help them get out of the slump, I dont feel like there is a need for any balance changes atm (with the exception of mule cd) Protoss has been innovating the most of any race. Look how the PvT macro game has evolved from fast colossus builds to forges and gateways, then to templar builds, then to chargelot archon, and recently to double forge builds. Meanwhile Terrans have been using the same TvP strategy since release and it's still viable: 1 rax FE into 3 rax, tech to reactor medivacs and +1, add 4th and 5th barracks while taking a third, armory and 2nd ebay, tech ghosts and add more barracks on 3 bases. Occasionally they get ghosts before medivacs. MC literally does a new opening in every PvZ played in a Korean tournament while Zergs are doing the same old fast 3rd base into mass roach 1a. Thank you. It's so irritating when people say protoss players haven't innovated. I mean seriously, do you know how many different builds MC uses/created? He's arguably the most innovative player in sc2 so far and he's Protoss, and like you said PvT has evolved constantly.
|
On November 07 2011 09:22 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:16 Dfgj wrote:On November 07 2011 09:07 Poopi wrote: I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/ Yeah your individual experience sure is evidence! Maybe you have a weak matchup? Here, I'll counter: I once lost a PvP to a mid-master player, swapped to T, and beat him with my offrace. Clearly P sucks and T ownz! Except there are a lot of Terran players who have a very hard time with Protoss. If you look around on TL a bit, you'll see this is a common sentiment. Of course, you probably don't care about this point since it goes against your bias. Either way though, TvP has never really been the bane of Protoss anyways. PvZ looks a lot more one sided, but all we hear is T should be nerfed... I'm sure the silver and platinum terrans that have a hard time against a given race is good indicator of what imbalances are when comparing to professional players who do this for their job.
|
All that these graphs do is make me depressed because I cant beat protoss to save my life :S
|
On November 07 2011 09:24 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:22 aksfjh wrote:On November 07 2011 09:16 Dfgj wrote:On November 07 2011 09:07 Poopi wrote: I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/ Yeah your individual experience sure is evidence! Maybe you have a weak matchup? Here, I'll counter: I once lost a PvP to a mid-master player, swapped to T, and beat him with my offrace. Clearly P sucks and T ownz! Except there are a lot of Terran players who have a very hard time with Protoss. If you look around on TL a bit, you'll see this is a common sentiment. Of course, you probably don't care about this point since it goes against your bias. Either way though, TvP has never really been the bane of Protoss anyways. PvZ looks a lot more one sided, but all we hear is T should be nerfed... I'm sure the silver and platinum terrans that have a hard time against a given race is good indicator of what imbalances are when comparing to professional players who do this for their job.
It's in Masters aswell, stop being so ignorant and read the rest of the thread. Terrans never complain, but if one of them ever does he gets flamed, fantastic.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 07 2011 09:21 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:04 Pipeline wrote: I feel like the author and maker of the graph have made a misleading y-axis on the graph on purpose. I was amazed at the beginning but I have a niggling feeling that the graph was left to look like this to make protoss look extra weak and I wonder why.
I know this have been said before but its worth saying again: Zerg was in a terrible position at the first quarter of this year but the players adapted and changed up their play, I dont think the balance patches made that big of a difference. Now on the other hand, I've been watching competative protoss players play the same way for months without much change in strategy or game play. A lot of 2 base and failed timing attacks... and it basically demonstrates what the graph is saying, it works 4/10 times.... I really think protoss needs some new blood to help them get out of the slump, I dont feel like there is a need for any balance changes atm (with the exception of mule cd) Protoss has been innovating the most of any race. Look how the PvT macro game has evolved from fast colossus builds to forges and gateways, then to templar builds, then to chargelot archon, and recently to double forge builds. Meanwhile Terrans have been using the same TvP strategy since release and it's still viable: 1 rax FE into 3 rax, tech to reactor medivacs and +1, add 4th and 5th barracks while taking a third, armory and 2nd ebay, tech ghosts and add more barracks on 3 bases. Occasionally they get ghosts before medivacs. MC literally does a new opening in every PvZ played in a Korean tournament while Zergs are doing the same old fast 3rd base into mass roach 1a.
You summarized exactly what I think in one paragraph, well done.
|
On November 07 2011 09:25 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:24 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:22 aksfjh wrote:On November 07 2011 09:16 Dfgj wrote:On November 07 2011 09:07 Poopi wrote: I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/ Yeah your individual experience sure is evidence! Maybe you have a weak matchup? Here, I'll counter: I once lost a PvP to a mid-master player, swapped to T, and beat him with my offrace. Clearly P sucks and T ownz! Except there are a lot of Terran players who have a very hard time with Protoss. If you look around on TL a bit, you'll see this is a common sentiment. Of course, you probably don't care about this point since it goes against your bias. Either way though, TvP has never really been the bane of Protoss anyways. PvZ looks a lot more one sided, but all we hear is T should be nerfed... I'm sure the silver and platinum terrans that have a hard time against a given race is good indicator of what imbalances are when comparing to professional players who do this for their job. It's in Masters aswell, stop being so ignorant and read the rest of the thread. Terrans never complain, but if one of them ever does he gets flamed, fantastic. You tell me to stop being so ignorant and then say terrans never complain. Maybe why pretty much every single pro terran never complains is that if you look at the fucking graph you can see that they have no reason to complain?
|
TvP was not only apparently balanced, but also a lot more interesting and fun with Khaydarin Amulet. The EMP vs Storm battles were just awesome. That's the stuff people want to see in pro games, micro based battles, crazy multitasking and big explosions. Nowadays P has to pretty much outmicro T to get even a couple of good storms off while almost every big battle is an EMP shower. I can't even remember any recent pro games where P managed to not get blanket EMP'd by T in the late game when there were lots of ghosts out.
I don't know how they're going to make it, but the ratio of successful EMPs to successful Storms cannot be 10:1. It has to be a lot closer to 1:1 for the game to look interesting.
|
On November 07 2011 09:29 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:25 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:24 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:22 aksfjh wrote:On November 07 2011 09:16 Dfgj wrote:On November 07 2011 09:07 Poopi wrote: I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/ Yeah your individual experience sure is evidence! Maybe you have a weak matchup? Here, I'll counter: I once lost a PvP to a mid-master player, swapped to T, and beat him with my offrace. Clearly P sucks and T ownz! Except there are a lot of Terran players who have a very hard time with Protoss. If you look around on TL a bit, you'll see this is a common sentiment. Of course, you probably don't care about this point since it goes against your bias. Either way though, TvP has never really been the bane of Protoss anyways. PvZ looks a lot more one sided, but all we hear is T should be nerfed... I'm sure the silver and platinum terrans that have a hard time against a given race is good indicator of what imbalances are when comparing to professional players who do this for their job. It's in Masters aswell, stop being so ignorant and read the rest of the thread. Terrans never complain, but if one of them ever does he gets flamed, fantastic. You tell me to stop being so ignorant and then say terrans never complain. Maybe why pretty much every single pro terran never complains is that if you look at the fucking graph you can see that they have no reason to complain?
And when you look at the ladder stats you'll see that protoss is actually dominating and you have no reason to complain either? Terran is actually the weakest race on the ladder. You would only have a right to complain about toss if you were a pro player. Are you a pro player? No? Then what is your problem? Being the dominant race on the ladder isn't good enough for you? Tell me. What do you want?
|
On November 07 2011 09:18 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:35 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 08:32 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 08:20 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 08:13 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote: [quote]
Hahaha, I love the dry wit here on TL.
Now that's all the Terran players' arguments out the way (y'know, the ones that have been raised every statistics thread since about March), now we can have a good moan about Protoss.
I think that it's fairly obvious here that ZvT is Terran favoured, and the only reason why Zerg is looking okay is because ZvP is Zerg favoured, Protoss being the bottom of the heap as expected. I just hope these statistics quell any notions about balance raised by the MLG Orlando PvP finals.
EDIT:
[quote]
For a few reasons:
1) PvT has been Terran favoured since release, which indicates it is not a problem with innovation. 2) There is a new wave of PvZ coming in, led by HerO, JYP et al, which could solve the problem, whereas PvT looks pretty stagnant 3) There are few successful Zergs in GSL etc either, so although ZvP looks more imbalanced that might be because there are now Terrans in Code S who don't deserve to be there making the winrate look more even 4) ZvT looks imbalanced in favour of Terran as well, so Z and P can rally against T together. Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about. IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 06:44 flowSthead wrote: [quote]
Dude, that goes both ways. Maybe Protoss payers are sick and tired of being told they are just worse than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. I'm not in favor of balance whining either, but you do not just reply to balance whining. You are also replying poorly to legitimate balance ideas/complaints. It's one thing to decry the flamers and trolls, and another thing to decry the entire Protoss race.
Just look at what you wrote and think about your own bias for a second. There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. What are you talking about? The roach expand build is very difficult to scout as terran, and it basically hard counters the hellion expand if you don't get a fast tank or get a bunker. If you are letting hellions into your base that roast your drones and scout your entire base, your just bad. Its not because hellions are OP. It seems to me like you think you know everything. What a hypocrite. So, replying to my statement with a post asking for a warning is constructive, right? Plenty of very talented zergs lose drones to Hellions. And building a bunker as part of a hellion expand is just playing safe (See MVP vs AnNyeong in the WCG). I also never said hellions are OP. If you read what I wrote (critical reading is hard I know), then you would see that I responded that Terran can scout what the Zerg is doing relatively easily compared with Protoss due to their fast Hellions. It doesn't make the hellions OP. Quite the contrary. It makes the Terran race very stable, something which the Protoss race lacks. The only similar unit to the Hellion is the Phoenix, but a Phoenix is a much bigger investment than a Hellion. It is not quite comparable. And replying to your statement which is "the entire Protoss race is whiners" asking for a warning is constructive, yes. See, you are not contributing to the discussion, so therefore it would be constructive to get you to contribute with actual content rather than flame baiting. And no, I do not think I know everything. If you read my post history in the KA amulet thread, I actually ask a lot of questions and post what I "think" is the case. I then try to argue using logic and examples. I also welcome to be proven wrong, but so far doko here has only been posting about how much Protoss suck and how he knows better. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. Please point out specific examples of where I am a hypocrite, and I would gladly concede. I hate making mistakes so I will do my best to not be a hypocrite. If terran has to blindly make a bunker every time they are going hellion expand, then that means hellions can't scout easily scout whatever zerg is doing. If I deserve a warning, then you deserve a warning to. Your post wasn't any more constructive than mine. Saying "I think" before your statements doesn't mean that you don't think your right. Well I wouldn't say if it I didn't think it was correct.... Also a bunker isn't a huge investment. You can sell it back for 75% of its cost, and it keeps you safe. How does that deter the Hellions from scouting anyway? I don't understand that. You are not blindly building a bunker. You are building a bunker because if the Zerg builds quick roaches, your Hellions will be weak to it, and so you need to keep your Marines alive long enough until you get a tank out or a banshee (depending on tech route). That is called thinking ahead, not playing blindly. A bunker is quite an investment. It slows down your build a lot, and 75 minerals later on doesn't cover the cost well at all. If you allow a terran to see a roach warren building without him using a scan, you are just plain bad. There is NO way a terran should be able to scout anything in the zerg's main, unless you have no simicity, no spines, and no zerglings. Because there is no way to scout the roach warren, the bunker needs to be built blind. Its not called "thinking ahead", its playing blind. Anyways, how would you know about TvZ if your protoss? Plz, stay away from topics you don't understand.
Well a spine crawler is as much of an investment as a bunker, and then the Zerg also has to build queens. The zerglings and queens cancel out the hellions and few marines back home, so why would this put the Terran behind? I'm serious, watch MVP in his latest WCG match. A bunker does not put you behind. And the reason I am fairly confident (not entirely confident) is because I watch a lot of pro players? And just because I am a Brotoss at heart doesn't mean watching Protoss is my favorite thing to do. I prefer to watch Terrans.
|
Oh dear protoss...
we need to pick up our game, boys!! or... just give us a buff.. :3
|
On November 07 2011 09:29 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:25 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:24 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:22 aksfjh wrote:On November 07 2011 09:16 Dfgj wrote:On November 07 2011 09:07 Poopi wrote: I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/ Yeah your individual experience sure is evidence! Maybe you have a weak matchup? Here, I'll counter: I once lost a PvP to a mid-master player, swapped to T, and beat him with my offrace. Clearly P sucks and T ownz! Except there are a lot of Terran players who have a very hard time with Protoss. If you look around on TL a bit, you'll see this is a common sentiment. Of course, you probably don't care about this point since it goes against your bias. Either way though, TvP has never really been the bane of Protoss anyways. PvZ looks a lot more one sided, but all we hear is T should be nerfed... I'm sure the silver and platinum terrans that have a hard time against a given race is good indicator of what imbalances are when comparing to professional players who do this for their job. It's in Masters aswell, stop being so ignorant and read the rest of the thread. Terrans never complain, but if one of them ever does he gets flamed, fantastic. You tell me to stop being so ignorant and then say terrans never complain. Maybe why pretty much every single pro terran never complains is that if you look at the fucking graph you can see that they have no reason to complain? Why are you even complaining about terran? Why don't you go cry about PvZ, just look at the graph, its a lot more imbalanced.
|
doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those?
|
To be honest, despite recent protoss buffs, it was pretty clear to me the win rates of the race would continue to fall, and most likely get even worse (especially in PvZ imo) as players get better. The potential ceiling of protoss is just the lowest, I am quite sure any objective pro-gamer would agree to that. All these recent changes, while nice, none of them really helps their fundamental problems - I'd say the only one that truly has a strategical impact was the warp prism buff.
Its very unfortunate that this is the case because I can understand why ladder players of other races would be discontent of the constant buff/nerfs that are not in their favor. As most ladder players are so far from the ceiling, the game to them certainly doesn't seem as imbalanced as it is at the highest levels. That said, balancing should still always be from the top down, because it will eventually trickle down, ladder players a year from now are going to be so much better than they are right now. For instance master league terran/zerg players who struggle with protoss at the moment might not have any problem at all later on as overall skill level of competitive ladder players increase.
Anyways, one thing I'd really like Blizzard to test on PTR is to have sentries cost 75 gas instead of 100 - I'm just theorycrafting a bit here, but I personally believe it could bring a fundamental balance change that would really help the race which has clearly been struggling for a bit too long now at the pro levels.
|
|
On November 07 2011 09:31 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:18 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 08:35 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 08:32 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 08:20 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 08:13 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 08:06 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 07:43 Elthreann wrote:On November 07 2011 07:27 kofman wrote: [quote] Lol, ZvT is the most balanced MU in the game! It's funny how zergs just have to find something to whine about.
IMO the Terran imbalance mostly comes from: a) the variety of strats Terran can do while hiding it, because they can deny scouting, building an all-in or expanding. I still find Terran all-ins are the hardest to deal with because you hardly know they are coming b) Terran can easily scout for all-ins and have the best "generic opening" IMO. I find the 1 rax FE is not only very good economic opening, but can defend against anything with help of the scan as scout. So IMO Terran just have the advantage of in-base expand therefore hiding their strat, and always are able to scout, therefore can defend the incoming all in Anyone agree? No terran really uses scans early game. It doesn't help you in scouting all-ins really, if the P or Z simply hide units or proxy their buildings congratulations you just wasted 240 minerals on nothing. not even pro terrans scan early game, first scans are mainly early midgame or late-earlgame, because it's so hard to scout proxy gates and zerg all in is very hard to scout aswell because they can mass units so quickly, if a zerg decides to 2 base all-in there is very little you can do to scout that, in fact I think it's definitely easier to scout for protoss vs midgame zerg than it is for T, T has to hope for a "money" scan, you have to be very lucky with scans, you don't know where your opponent builds his stuff so once you have scanned you are completely in the dark again, unlike protoss who can use observers to constantly scout the opponent, altough they have to be very careful. I still think that more protoss players should proxy gateways anywhere on the map, like on taldarim in some corner on the outside bases, it makes it pretty much impossible for the terran to scout and gives him no information when he scans, theres no reason not to, the chances to lose them are less than 0,1% and the benefit is denying information which is crucial in sc2., also protoss players should start to build their tech buildings at different spots in their base, most P players have a base layout so that you can scan everything with 1 scan, you can maximize this to at least 2 scans on some maps even 3. but right now P players dont really think about this too much, they make it kind of easy for the terrans to scout their tech with just 1 scan Or Terrans can use their super fast hellions to scout like they have been doing the past few months. I haven't seen many Terrans surprised by an all-in since hellions became more popular. You get to scout and do damage! Neat! And the reason most Protoss players have a base layout close to their Nexus is because Terran drops are so harsh to Protoss buildings and because Protoss is the only race that can have its buildings unpowered. Too many times important tech has been lost or an important upgrade to a drop, so Protoss players have adapted by making it easier to defend. I find it hilarious how you think you know more than Protoss pros and they need you to tell them to space out their buildings because it takes more scans. As if they hadn't thought of it and perhaps had better reasons for not doing it. Great job. You should be a coach. On November 07 2011 07:55 flowSthead wrote:On November 07 2011 07:31 kofman wrote: [quote] There is no way to decry just the flamers and balance whiners, without also decrying the entire Protoss race, because all protosses on TL are whiners. Just look at the graphic thats on the front of every GSL featured writeup. Seriously? How does this not get at least a warning? because it's true, what are you on about? this isn't nazi germany lol No, it isn't true. Not all Protoss are going around complaining, it is a vocal minority, or at most a vocal plurality. At the very least, it isn't "the entire Protoss race", that is just a hasty generalization and poor logic. That is also why I asked for a warning because it is not helping the discussion by having people like you going around saying the entire Protoss race is whining. It's not constructive. What are you talking about? The roach expand build is very difficult to scout as terran, and it basically hard counters the hellion expand if you don't get a fast tank or get a bunker. If you are letting hellions into your base that roast your drones and scout your entire base, your just bad. Its not because hellions are OP. It seems to me like you think you know everything. What a hypocrite. So, replying to my statement with a post asking for a warning is constructive, right? Plenty of very talented zergs lose drones to Hellions. And building a bunker as part of a hellion expand is just playing safe (See MVP vs AnNyeong in the WCG). I also never said hellions are OP. If you read what I wrote (critical reading is hard I know), then you would see that I responded that Terran can scout what the Zerg is doing relatively easily compared with Protoss due to their fast Hellions. It doesn't make the hellions OP. Quite the contrary. It makes the Terran race very stable, something which the Protoss race lacks. The only similar unit to the Hellion is the Phoenix, but a Phoenix is a much bigger investment than a Hellion. It is not quite comparable. And replying to your statement which is "the entire Protoss race is whiners" asking for a warning is constructive, yes. See, you are not contributing to the discussion, so therefore it would be constructive to get you to contribute with actual content rather than flame baiting. And no, I do not think I know everything. If you read my post history in the KA amulet thread, I actually ask a lot of questions and post what I "think" is the case. I then try to argue using logic and examples. I also welcome to be proven wrong, but so far doko here has only been posting about how much Protoss suck and how he knows better. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. Please point out specific examples of where I am a hypocrite, and I would gladly concede. I hate making mistakes so I will do my best to not be a hypocrite. If terran has to blindly make a bunker every time they are going hellion expand, then that means hellions can't scout easily scout whatever zerg is doing. If I deserve a warning, then you deserve a warning to. Your post wasn't any more constructive than mine. Saying "I think" before your statements doesn't mean that you don't think your right. Well I wouldn't say if it I didn't think it was correct.... Also a bunker isn't a huge investment. You can sell it back for 75% of its cost, and it keeps you safe. How does that deter the Hellions from scouting anyway? I don't understand that. You are not blindly building a bunker. You are building a bunker because if the Zerg builds quick roaches, your Hellions will be weak to it, and so you need to keep your Marines alive long enough until you get a tank out or a banshee (depending on tech route). That is called thinking ahead, not playing blindly. A bunker is quite an investment. It slows down your build a lot, and 75 minerals later on doesn't cover the cost well at all. If you allow a terran to see a roach warren building without him using a scan, you are just plain bad. There is NO way a terran should be able to scout anything in the zerg's main, unless you have no simicity, no spines, and no zerglings. Because there is no way to scout the roach warren, the bunker needs to be built blind. Its not called "thinking ahead", its playing blind. Anyways, how would you know about TvZ if your protoss? Plz, stay away from topics you don't understand. Well a spine crawler is as much of an investment as a bunker, and then the Zerg also has to build queens. The zerglings and queens cancel out the hellions and few marines back home, so why would this put the Terran behind? I'm serious, watch MVP in his latest WCG match. A bunker does not put you behind. And the reason I am fairly confident (not entirely confident) is because I watch a lot of pro players? And just because I am a Brotoss at heart doesn't mean watching Protoss is my favorite thing to do. I prefer to watch Terrans. Yes, spine crawlers and lings always need to built blind in ZvT. However, you were saying that hellions are able to scout a zerg going fast roaches, which isn't true. Even if you see the roaches as they are leaving the zerg's base, you still won't be able to build a bunker in time cause they take so damn long. So, the bunker that you have to make when going reactored hellion expand has to be built blind, or else the roaches will kill so many scv's its basically game. Yes, building a bunker isn't that much of an investment, but it slows you down nevertheless.
|
On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those?
sc2ranks
Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational.
|
On November 07 2011 09:32 Greyhawk wrote:Oh dear protoss... we need to pick up our game, boys!! or... just give us a buff.. :3 I'd suggest proxy 2-gating/cannon rushing every game, but then I think Blizz would just nerf cannon/gate build time again.
|
France12463 Posts
On November 07 2011 09:16 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:07 Poopi wrote: I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/ Yeah your individual experience sure is evidence! Maybe you have a weak matchup? Here, I'll counter: I once lost a PvP to a mid-master player, swapped to T, and beat him with my offrace. Clearly P sucks and T ownz! I don't talk about me but about every terran streamer, koreans and europeans as well as eu cups
|
Pretty cool that the game is so close to balance. Aside from PvZ, it looks like the game is headed toward the right direction. The Terran nerfs and Protoss buffs next patch should help even out PvT even more.
|
Its really odd how sc2ranks.com shows that terran is by far the least played race, while terrans are still succeeding the most in tournaments. Maybe because terran is the hardest race to play, but with the highest skill cap?
|
On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius.
|
On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. While I agree with you and your stats, I do think these pro level stats outweigh our own ladder experiences. Like I said earlier though, PvZ has been one of the most unstable matchups for a long time. The fact that Terran gets hated on so much is beyond my understanding. Terran hasn't seen undeniable domination in any matchup since May. The ONLY sign of Terran dominance since then has been GSL Code S, which is probably more of a sign of tournament design flaw than anything else. We'll know more about that in 1-2 months when this new system takes full force.
|
On November 07 2011 09:28 pPingu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:21 iamke55 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:04 Pipeline wrote: I feel like the author and maker of the graph have made a misleading y-axis on the graph on purpose. I was amazed at the beginning but I have a niggling feeling that the graph was left to look like this to make protoss look extra weak and I wonder why.
I know this have been said before but its worth saying again: Zerg was in a terrible position at the first quarter of this year but the players adapted and changed up their play, I dont think the balance patches made that big of a difference. Now on the other hand, I've been watching competative protoss players play the same way for months without much change in strategy or game play. A lot of 2 base and failed timing attacks... and it basically demonstrates what the graph is saying, it works 4/10 times.... I really think protoss needs some new blood to help them get out of the slump, I dont feel like there is a need for any balance changes atm (with the exception of mule cd) Protoss has been innovating the most of any race. Look how the PvT macro game has evolved from fast colossus builds to forges and gateways, then to templar builds, then to chargelot archon, and recently to double forge builds. Meanwhile Terrans have been using the same TvP strategy since release and it's still viable: 1 rax FE into 3 rax, tech to reactor medivacs and +1, add 4th and 5th barracks while taking a third, armory and 2nd ebay, tech ghosts and add more barracks on 3 bases. Occasionally they get ghosts before medivacs. MC literally does a new opening in every PvZ played in a Korean tournament while Zergs are doing the same old fast 3rd base into mass roach 1a. You summarized exactly what I think in one paragraph, well done.
What is being said about the builds are true. Yes terran hasn't changed much in game play at all, and yes, zergs generally go for a fast 3d. My point is, as a terran or zerg player you don't change a winning concept. Its up to the races (in this case protoss) to try and figure out a style that works well. I don't like referring to other peoples claims but I have to echo that statistics never tell the full story and that the sample size is still VERY small (800-900 games for oct 2011).
As always its very hard to look at balance with cold hearted logic. I've had my share of bans because my previous balance concerns about my own race (zerg), and personally I think its impossible to look at balance without being partial. I will say though that I do agree that the Ghost currently is a problematic unit both for zerg (snipe) and for protoss (EMP)
|
On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius.
They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose.
the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical.
|
On November 07 2011 09:25 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:24 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:22 aksfjh wrote:On November 07 2011 09:16 Dfgj wrote:On November 07 2011 09:07 Poopi wrote: I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/ Yeah your individual experience sure is evidence! Maybe you have a weak matchup? Here, I'll counter: I once lost a PvP to a mid-master player, swapped to T, and beat him with my offrace. Clearly P sucks and T ownz! Except there are a lot of Terran players who have a very hard time with Protoss. If you look around on TL a bit, you'll see this is a common sentiment. Of course, you probably don't care about this point since it goes against your bias. Either way though, TvP has never really been the bane of Protoss anyways. PvZ looks a lot more one sided, but all we hear is T should be nerfed... I'm sure the silver and platinum terrans that have a hard time against a given race is good indicator of what imbalances are when comparing to professional players who do this for their job. It's in Masters aswell, stop being so ignorant and read the rest of the thread. Terrans never complain, but if one of them ever does he gets flamed, fantastic.
Terran don't complain because if they lose, they know that they just suck. Protoss on the other hand: when I lose, who do I look up to for strategies? Every protoss is getting trashed in PvZ and PvT, and the rare wins are void ray busts, DTs and MC and HuK being complete badasses.
|
On November 07 2011 09:31 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:29 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:25 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:24 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:22 aksfjh wrote:On November 07 2011 09:16 Dfgj wrote:On November 07 2011 09:07 Poopi wrote: I don' understand the PvT winrates. TvP is almost unwinnable on ladder :/ Yeah your individual experience sure is evidence! Maybe you have a weak matchup? Here, I'll counter: I once lost a PvP to a mid-master player, swapped to T, and beat him with my offrace. Clearly P sucks and T ownz! Except there are a lot of Terran players who have a very hard time with Protoss. If you look around on TL a bit, you'll see this is a common sentiment. Of course, you probably don't care about this point since it goes against your bias. Either way though, TvP has never really been the bane of Protoss anyways. PvZ looks a lot more one sided, but all we hear is T should be nerfed... I'm sure the silver and platinum terrans that have a hard time against a given race is good indicator of what imbalances are when comparing to professional players who do this for their job. It's in Masters aswell, stop being so ignorant and read the rest of the thread. Terrans never complain, but if one of them ever does he gets flamed, fantastic. You tell me to stop being so ignorant and then say terrans never complain. Maybe why pretty much every single pro terran never complains is that if you look at the fucking graph you can see that they have no reason to complain? And when you look at the ladder stats you'll see that protoss is actually dominating and you have no reason to complain either? Terran is actually the weakest race on the ladder. You would only have a right to complain about toss if you were a pro player. Are you a pro player? No? Then what is your problem? Being the dominant race on the ladder isn't good enough for you? Tell me. What do you want?
People complain about Pro level play cause they watch pro's play probably more than they play themselves. And that's absolutely normal, it actually happens in every sport.
Why would anyone care about how strong a race is on the ladder though? There is this thing called the matchmaking system where the game makes sure you have 50% win rate no matter how good or bad you are, no matter how strong or weak your race is. Your playing experience is going to be the same. If you think you are losing more than 50% for whatever reason you are just wrong. If you are losing more than 50% against a specific race then that means you are just bad at that matchup, since your average win rate is 50%.
Also the balance changes that are needed at the pro level will have an almost non existent impact on lower level play. Pro's will take the slightest imbalance and exploit the shit out of it. Lower level matches though are decided 99+% of the times on who forgets to macro less, who does the least suicidal decisions during the game and who's unit composition happens to blind counter what their opponent is doing since no one is really scouting effectively.
|
On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical. you have to be one of the most delusional people i've ever met. firstly, everyone knows that the NA GM got fucked up this season and have people who lost the placement match get put into GM because it was pretty much a first come first serve for getting into GM. the season like just started 2 or 3 weeks ago. the reason why many terrans lose on the ladder is because they don't make ghosts. terrans also have the least volatile mirror matchup thats not a coin flip...
i'm sorry but for some of the terrans on the ladder who lose, you're probably losing to actually better players because you are playing a race that inherently has a better chance to be the winner just by choosing that race. if you play terran you are playing with the odds, and if you pick protoss you are playing against the odds.
|
On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. Just checked SC2ranks. Pretty much everything you just said is wrong.
|
On November 07 2011 09:50 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical. you have to be one of the most delusional people i've ever met. firstly, everyone knows that the NA GM got fucked up this season and have people who lost the placement match get put into GM because it was pretty much a first come first serve for getting into GM. the season like just started 2 or 3 weeks ago. the reason why many terrans lose on the ladder is because they don't make ghosts. terrans also have the least volatile mirror matchup thats not a coin flip... i'm sorry but for some of the terrans on the ladder who lose, you're probably losing to actually better players because you are playing a race that inherently has a better chance to be the winner just by choosing that race. if you play terran you are playing with the odds, and if you pick protoss you are playing against the odds.
That is such an inredibly bias post and completely ignoring the ladder statistics I was referring to, this isn't actually an argument, this is just you trying to force your opinion onto others, even though stats prove you wrong and they are conclusive. This is a waste of time, have a good night.
On November 07 2011 09:52 Musketeer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. Just checked SC2ranks. Pretty much everything you just said is wrong.
Everything I said is 100% correct. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all
Get your facts straight.
|
On November 07 2011 09:52 Musketeer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. Just checked SC2ranks. Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. From today:
From July 17:
Terran population is slowly declining. Not sure which SC2ranks site you're looking at, but if you think he's wrong, it's not the right one.
|
Australia1001 Posts
On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical. FYI, even on Ladder Terran is favoured at Masters and above . It's a pretty slight advantage (except in Korean TvP where there's a pretty big discrepancy).
|
On November 07 2011 09:57 althaz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical. FYI, even on Ladder Terran is favoured at Masters and above . It's a pretty slight advantage (except in Korean TvP where there's a pretty big discrepancy).
That makes sense, since they have the lowest win ratio they must obviously be favored. Where do you people get your informations from? I get the feeling you are all making this up.
|
On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical.
No offense, but I fail to see how balancing the game around bad players works. They are at that level because they can multitask, macro, micro etc etc. For example, if a diamond lose all his marines to mass blings, blings must be OP to that diamond player. If blizzard address this and nerfs them, then MVP, Bomber, MKP and all those pro players would never lose his marines to blings and would so imbalanced at the pro level.
You can't and shouldn't balance at the lower levels. There's a reason why they're there and they should hope to get better, not complain about this is imbalanced because I suck.
|
On November 07 2011 09:54 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:50 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical. you have to be one of the most delusional people i've ever met. firstly, everyone knows that the NA GM got fucked up this season and have people who lost the placement match get put into GM because it was pretty much a first come first serve for getting into GM. the season like just started 2 or 3 weeks ago. the reason why many terrans lose on the ladder is because they don't make ghosts. terrans also have the least volatile mirror matchup thats not a coin flip... i'm sorry but for some of the terrans on the ladder who lose, you're probably losing to actually better players because you are playing a race that inherently has a better chance to be the winner just by choosing that race. if you play terran you are playing with the odds, and if you pick protoss you are playing against the odds. That is such an inredibly bias post and completely ignoring the ladder statistics I was referring to, this isn't actually an argument, this is just you trying to force your opinion onto others, even though stats prove you wrong and they are conclusive. This is a waste of time, have a good night. Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:52 Musketeer wrote:On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. Just checked SC2ranks. Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. Everything I said is 100% correct. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/allGet your facts straight.
Your stats are quite correct indeed. But why the fuck would we care if Terran is less played by like 5% compared to Protoss? It has *always* been like that. People thought protoss would be cool to play at the beginning of SC2, that's about it.
I'll give you one thing though: Protoss is ahead of Terran in win ratio in Masters, 50.8% to 50.7%. You're right, Protoss is definitely the strongest ladder race. Oh wait, Zerg has more players in Master and a better winrate? Darn it. What? MMR? The system is made to yield 50% winrates? Gosh, I guess those stats are pretty useless after all...
|
On November 07 2011 10:01 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical. No offense, but I fail to see how balancing the game around bad players works. They are at that level because they can multitask, macro, micro etc etc. For example, if a diamond lose all his marines to mass blings, blings must be OP to that diamond player. If blizzard address this and nerfs them, then MVP, Bomber, MKP and all those pro players would never lose his marines to blings and would so imbalanced at the pro level. You can't and shouldn't balance at the lower levels. There's a reason why they're there and they should hope to get better, not complain about this is imbalanced because I suck.
You are right. You are right 100%. And I even said this myself in the thread earlier. They can't and shouldn't balance for all levels of play. My point is that Master- protoss players should finally stop complaining about balance when their race is evidently the strongest at their level of play. You can hate on pro terrans all you want, but this hate towards master- terrans has to stop, it's irrational since terran already is underrepresented in Masters League (and in the lower leagues down to silver) and have the least average points. protoss player or even zerg players at that level of play have absolutely no right to complain about terran. pro imbalance doesn't affect them at all. We are the one's struggling at master, they are not.
That is my point. We terrans hardly ever complain even though we are the one's struggling on the ladder, all you ever hear is protoss (and some zergs) bitching and moaning about balance all over the place and like I said, it is irrational.
And Zenith you keep ignoring the avg. points that says alot more than even win rate, because avg points are partially influenced by opponent skill, so if terran have the least points even though they have a similar (altough slightly worse) win ratio it means that the system matches them with worse players to maintain this 50% win ratio. Blizzard admitted that the system works like this, so whilst protoss and zerg get to beat better players, terran is struggling with supposedly worse players so that the system can mantain a 50% win ratio. Average points prove that.
|
On November 07 2011 10:01 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical. No offense, but I fail to see how balancing the game around bad players works. They are at that level because they can multitask, macro, micro etc etc. For example, if a diamond lose all his marines to mass blings, blings must be OP to that diamond player. If blizzard address this and nerfs them, then MVP, Bomber, MKP and all those pro players would never lose his marines to blings and would so imbalanced at the pro level. You can't and shouldn't balance at the lower levels. There's a reason why they're there and they should hope to get better, not complain about this is imbalanced because I suck. It's not that we should balance around those numbers, but that we should pay attention to them in such an ambitious and young game. It doesn't help the scene if 90% of your players are cheering against 1/3 of your pros. There is also possibility that those lower level games highlight fundamental problems with races that require larger tweaks to balance overall.
For example, let's say that race A is having trouble beating race B at the pro level. However, race B has a ton of trouble against race A at every other level of play. In this situation, if Blizzard was to tweak race A, they should be inclined to pick a change that would ONLY matter at the highest level. Likewise, if B suddenly had trouble at ALL levels, something fundamental could be changed about either of the races to bring overall balance in line.
|
On November 07 2011 09:59 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:57 althaz wrote:On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical. FYI, even on Ladder Terran is favoured at Masters and above . It's a pretty slight advantage (except in Korean TvP where there's a pretty big discrepancy). That makes sense, since they have the lowest win ratio they must obviously be favored. Where do you people get your informations from? I get the feeling you are all making this up. They actually have the highest win % in GM. trolol?
|
On November 07 2011 10:14 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:57 althaz wrote:On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical. FYI, even on Ladder Terran is favoured at Masters and above . It's a pretty slight advantage (except in Korean TvP where there's a pretty big discrepancy). That makes sense, since they have the lowest win ratio they must obviously be favored. Where do you people get your informations from? I get the feeling you are all making this up. They actually have the highest win % in GM. trolol?
Yet again, I never said that terran are weak at the highest level of play. That is not my argument. The point is that masters and below protoss has no right to complain, terran should be complaining but gladly we barely ever do (and it would be pointless because it all comes down to skill in the end), but the point still is that it is nonsensical for all the lower league (and im including masters) protoss players to complain so much when they seem to be doing more than fine on the ladder. It is irrational.
|
On November 07 2011 10:17 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 10:14 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:57 althaz wrote:On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical. FYI, even on Ladder Terran is favoured at Masters and above . It's a pretty slight advantage (except in Korean TvP where there's a pretty big discrepancy). That makes sense, since they have the lowest win ratio they must obviously be favored. Where do you people get your informations from? I get the feeling you are all making this up. They actually have the highest win % in GM. trolol? Yet again, I never said that terran are weak at the highest level of play. That is not my argument. The point is that masters and below protoss has no right to complain, terran should be complaining but gladly we barely ever do (and it would be pointless because it all comes down to skill in the end), but the point still is that it is nonsensical for all the lower league (and im including masters) protoss players to complain so much when they seem to be doing more than fine on the ladder. It is irrational.
I'm sorry, I still don't understand. Why would master terrans complain? Because they are 3% less than Protoss? You want to play more TvT, is that it? At least state your opinion clearly. You sound like you think Protoss is overpowered or something. You certainly have the right to say so... And us to laugh about it.
|
On November 07 2011 10:21 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 10:17 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 10:14 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:57 althaz wrote:On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical. FYI, even on Ladder Terran is favoured at Masters and above . It's a pretty slight advantage (except in Korean TvP where there's a pretty big discrepancy). That makes sense, since they have the lowest win ratio they must obviously be favored. Where do you people get your informations from? I get the feeling you are all making this up. They actually have the highest win % in GM. trolol? Yet again, I never said that terran are weak at the highest level of play. That is not my argument. The point is that masters and below protoss has no right to complain, terran should be complaining but gladly we barely ever do (and it would be pointless because it all comes down to skill in the end), but the point still is that it is nonsensical for all the lower league (and im including masters) protoss players to complain so much when they seem to be doing more than fine on the ladder. It is irrational. I'm sorry, I still don't understand. Why would master terrans complain? Because they are 3% less than Protoss? You want to play more TvT, is that it? At least state your opinion clearly. You sound like you think Protoss is overpowered or something. You certainly have the right to say so... And us to laugh about it.
I don't know if you are just ignorant or if you don't want to understand what I'm saying. I never said Protoss is overpowered, I only ever said that Protoss is doing more than fine on the ladder, win rates and avg. points prove that, so there is no reason for protoss players to complain. You can keep being ignorant but my argument in no way is that protoss is overpowered and I explicitly even said that.
edit: And I don't mean this in an offensive way now so don't get me wrong, but do you not understand my post due to a language barrier with you being french and all or does it seem absurd from a logical point of view? Because there is nothing I can do about a language barrier but I could try to explain my point to you (again) if you want.
|
Clearly we must revert to Oct 2010! Unpatch all the things Blizzard!
|
On November 07 2011 10:08 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 10:01 K3Nyy wrote:On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical. No offense, but I fail to see how balancing the game around bad players works. They are at that level because they can multitask, macro, micro etc etc. For example, if a diamond lose all his marines to mass blings, blings must be OP to that diamond player. If blizzard address this and nerfs them, then MVP, Bomber, MKP and all those pro players would never lose his marines to blings and would so imbalanced at the pro level. You can't and shouldn't balance at the lower levels. There's a reason why they're there and they should hope to get better, not complain about this is imbalanced because I suck. You are right. You are right 100%. And I even said this myself in the thread earlier. They can't and shouldn't balance for all levels of play. My point is that Master- protoss players should finally stop complaining about balance when their race is evidently the strongest at their level of play. You can hate on pro terrans all you want, but this hate towards master- terrans has to stop, it's irrational since terran already is underrepresented in Masters League (and in the lower leagues down to silver) and have the least average points. protoss player or even zerg players at that level of play have absolutely no right to complain about terran. pro imbalance doesn't affect them at all. We are the one's struggling at master, they are not. That is my point. We terrans hardly ever complain even though we are the one's struggling on the ladder, all you ever hear is protoss (and some zergs) bitching and moaning about balance all over the place and like I said, it is irrational. And Zenith you keep ignoring the avg. points that says alot more than even win rate, because avg points are partially influenced by opponent skill, so if terran have the least points even though they have a similar (altough slightly worse) win ratio it means that the system matches them with worse players to maintain this 50% win ratio. Blizzard admitted that the system works like this, so whilst protoss and zerg get to beat better players, terran is struggling with supposedly worse players so that the system can mantain a 50% win ratio. Average points prove that.
This. It's pretty apparent that pro terrans are doing quite well, but in the high diamond/master level it feels like terran is having a much harder time. The game could be balanced at a pro level, but still be imbalanced at master level and that would be a problem. If you have to have marine king micro in order to win TvZ against a 1a opponent in masters that would be a problem. My personal experience on the ladder has been that terran is punished much more heavily for micro mistakes than the other races. I feel like all the cheesy terrans is all that's keeping our win rate up. Late game terran I find myself trading armies, usually with a small portion left over, but then protoss insta warps 30 zealots into my production line and I lose.
|
On November 07 2011 10:23 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 10:21 ZenithM wrote:On November 07 2011 10:17 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 10:14 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:59 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:57 althaz wrote:On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. the fact is that terran is simply harder to play at master/diamond level, because people are not quite good enough to abuse the micro and multitasking, it's even worse in gold and platinum, you can see the numbers declining. but yes, you are right quite comical. FYI, even on Ladder Terran is favoured at Masters and above . It's a pretty slight advantage (except in Korean TvP where there's a pretty big discrepancy). That makes sense, since they have the lowest win ratio they must obviously be favored. Where do you people get your informations from? I get the feeling you are all making this up. They actually have the highest win % in GM. trolol? Yet again, I never said that terran are weak at the highest level of play. That is not my argument. The point is that masters and below protoss has no right to complain, terran should be complaining but gladly we barely ever do (and it would be pointless because it all comes down to skill in the end), but the point still is that it is nonsensical for all the lower league (and im including masters) protoss players to complain so much when they seem to be doing more than fine on the ladder. It is irrational. I'm sorry, I still don't understand. Why would master terrans complain? Because they are 3% less than Protoss? You want to play more TvT, is that it? At least state your opinion clearly. You sound like you think Protoss is overpowered or something. You certainly have the right to say so... And us to laugh about it. I don't know if you are just ignorant or if you don't want to understand what I'm saying. I never said Protoss is overpowered, I only ever said that Protoss is doing more than fine on the ladder, win rates and avg. points prove that, so there is no reason for protoss players to complain. You can keep being ignorant but my argument in no way is that protoss is overpowered and I explicitly even said that.
I still fail to see where your "more than fine" comes from. All I see is this:
Type Random Protoss Terran Zerg Distribution 4.2% (896) 32.8% (6,939) 29.5% (6,227) 33.4% (7,066) Average wins 49.0% (30,137) 50.8% (336,686) 50.7% (245,145) 51.0% (331,403) Average points 124 210 192 208
As expected, 50% winrates all across the board, and 3% less Terrans (it's huge, I know, right?). It's Blizzard ladder system, it's just normal. Your winrate is 50%, mine is 50% too, regardless of our actual level, race, whatever. Onto the points now. I don't think it holds any meaning. Just look at random players, they have way less points, duh. Still 50% winrate though. And you'll notice than Terran players play way less games on average than Zerg and especially Protoss. Why is that? Terran matchups are typically longer. Add to that bonus pool, it's quite possible that Protoss are able to empty their bonus pool faster than terran players. Can you decently draw any conclusion that Protoss is doing better than Terran in Masters with these stats?
I don't know what else I could say. You're looking at public ladder stats, and this ladder system is designed to have everyone at 50% win ratio at all time. What do you expect more?
|
It doesn't help the scene if 90% of your players are cheering against 1/3 of your pros
Why not they can be the evil overpowered race fans like cheering for their favourites to conquer! It'll be fun.
Besides wasn't protoss strong in low level broodwar play did 90% hate bw protoss players and was this a big problem for making broodwar esports popular?
|
On November 07 2011 05:23 coolcor wrote:Show nested quote +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. Did anybody complain about the scale back when it was just a line graph and not a bar graph? I think that is what makes people feel like it is misleading because a lot of the height of the bar has been cut off even though they show the same points as the line graph. He made one with the full scale for Korea last month would you really prefer this it just wastes a bunch of space from 0-40 and 60-100 with no information making the interesting part smaller and harder to read. http://i.imgur.com/dNKqa.png Looks fine to me.
|
On November 07 2011 10:35 coolcor wrote:Show nested quote +It doesn't help the scene if 90% of your players are cheering against 1/3 of your pros Why not they can be the evil overpowered race fans like cheering for their favourites to conquer! I'll be fun. Besides wasn't protoss strong in low level broodwar play did 90% hate bw protoss players and was this a big problem for making broodwar esports popular?
yes, I haven't played a lot of bw, just played casually, but I know for a fact that TvP was hard as hell to play.
|
Ladder stats are unreliable at best because blizzard's MMR matches you with an opponent around the same win/loss ratio as you. The only way to be sure about racial balance is to look at the top of the chain where they all have the mechanics, builds, micro and macro to support the race to its full potential.
|
On November 07 2011 09:57 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:52 Musketeer wrote:On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. Just checked SC2ranks. Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. From today: From July 17: Terran population is slowly declining. Not sure which SC2ranks site you're looking at, but if you think he's wrong, it's not the right one.
None of that should have much effect on the stats. The graphs posted by the OP are for win-rates, so fewer players only means fewer games of that specific match up. That would have a limited/no effect of the win-rates, since the sample size is so large(over 25K games). Even if the were 10% less terrans that the other two races, that's still THOUSANDS of games. And none of those graphs show a difference of anything lose to that.
Also, random is included in those stats. 1/3 of those games are terran games.
Why do Terrans bring this up every month:
"Look, I know the stats say we are winning every match up. That looks like an issue, but its a lie. We are doing the worst on the ladder because we have fewer players. I know that does sound logical, but think about it. We are beating fewer protoss and zergs that we did last month. That means our number of total wins are declining, so we ARE doing worse. So just ignore those stats, they don't show the true story. They are only numbers."
|
From a statistical standpoint there are a few issues as to why these graphs don't provide a good picture of balance IMO:
Fluctuating player numbers (e.g. September had 1307 games, October had 810) Fluctuating race ratios across months (Can't guarantee the same number of each race each month)
|
Guys its cuz terran players are just better.
|
I like the jump from october 2010 to november 2010 for PvT, was that when the 1/1/1 got big or what happened there?
|
On November 07 2011 11:01 Peanutbutter717 wrote: I like the jump from october 2010 to november 2010 for PvT, was that when the 1/1/1 got big or what happened there?
Think KA removal?
|
On November 07 2011 10:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 09:57 aksfjh wrote:On November 07 2011 09:52 Musketeer wrote:On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. Just checked SC2ranks. Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. From today: From July 17: Terran population is slowly declining. Not sure which SC2ranks site you're looking at, but if you think he's wrong, it's not the right one. None of that should have much effect on the stats. The graphs posted by the OP are for win-rates, so fewer players only means fewer games of that specific match up. That would have a limited/no effect of the win-rates, since the sample size is so large(over 25K games). Even if the were 10% less terrans that the other two races, that's still THOUSANDS of games. And none of those graphs show a difference of anything lose to that. Also, random is included in those stats. 1/3 of those games are terran games. Why do Terrans bring this up every month: "Look, I know the stats say we are winning every match up. That looks like an issue, but its a lie. We are doing the worst on the ladder because we have fewer players. I know that does sound logical, but think about it. We are beating fewer protoss and zergs that we did last month. That means our number of total wins are declining, so we ARE doing worse. So just ignore those stats, they don't show the true story. They are only numbers." We're not talking about Terran ladder numbers affecting number of games played or winrates at pro level. We talk about ladder populations as an indicator of possible imbalance beyond the pro level. When you take into account a dwindling Terran population and lack of success outside of Korea, it paints a very different picture than the one most people portray on various SC2 communities. What's more, the complaints registered against Terrans generally come from non-pro players, in the plat-masters range anyways. Thus, detailed discussions often end up being tailored towards complaining about Terran strengths and possible nerfs at lower levels of play, that would affect already dwindling populations. It's not often that level-headed people enter a discussion about the TvX matchup suggesting a 5s rax buildtime nerf. Instead, it's usually along the lines of, "Marines should only have 4 range!" "MULEs should have a long cooldown!" "EMP should be a single target ability!"
All these stats about lower level play are just trying to bring perspective to the numbers. That perspective is, "Outside the EXTREME top of the playerbase, Terrans have a hard time." It's more of a call to rational discussion than anything else.
|
On November 07 2011 11:05 Bro_Stone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 11:01 Peanutbutter717 wrote: I like the jump from october 2010 to november 2010 for PvT, was that when the 1/1/1 got big or what happened there? Think KA removal? KA removal was in March 2011. That jump was mostly the metagame first developing, with stim+SCV all-ins on tiny maps.
|
On November 07 2011 04:31 andis35 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? infestor broodlord Yeah pretty much neural parasite wasnt used so it aint much of a nerf
Toss does need a little something extra, im hopin those cheaper upgrades will make toss better
|
On November 07 2011 11:44 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:31 andis35 wrote: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? infestor broodlord Yeah pretty much neural parasite wasnt used so it aint much of a nerf Toss does need a little something extra, im hopin those cheaper upgrades will make toss better
It's also cause after everyone watches Nestea, they learn how to make drones.
|
On November 07 2011 09:25 thane wrote: All that these graphs do is make me depressed because I cant beat protoss to save my life :S
its ok, pro play is drastically different from ladder play. Some units just don't cut it without the proper APM to execute them
I can't beat protoss to save my life either.
|
On November 07 2011 11:07 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 10:46 Plansix wrote:On November 07 2011 09:57 aksfjh wrote:On November 07 2011 09:52 Musketeer wrote:On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. Just checked SC2ranks. Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. From today: From July 17: Terran population is slowly declining. Not sure which SC2ranks site you're looking at, but if you think he's wrong, it's not the right one. None of that should have much effect on the stats. The graphs posted by the OP are for win-rates, so fewer players only means fewer games of that specific match up. That would have a limited/no effect of the win-rates, since the sample size is so large(over 25K games). Even if the were 10% less terrans that the other two races, that's still THOUSANDS of games. And none of those graphs show a difference of anything lose to that. Also, random is included in those stats. 1/3 of those games are terran games. Why do Terrans bring this up every month: "Look, I know the stats say we are winning every match up. That looks like an issue, but its a lie. We are doing the worst on the ladder because we have fewer players. I know that does sound logical, but think about it. We are beating fewer protoss and zergs that we did last month. That means our number of total wins are declining, so we ARE doing worse. So just ignore those stats, they don't show the true story. They are only numbers." We're not talking about Terran ladder numbers affecting number of games played or winrates at pro level. We talk about ladder populations as an indicator of possible imbalance beyond the pro level. When you take into account a dwindling Terran population and lack of success outside of Korea, it paints a very different picture than the one most people portray on various SC2 communities. What's more, the complaints registered against Terrans generally come from non-pro players, in the plat-masters range anyways. Thus, detailed discussions often end up being tailored towards complaining about Terran strengths and possible nerfs at lower levels of play, that would affect already dwindling populations. It's not often that level-headed people enter a discussion about the TvX matchup suggesting a 5s rax buildtime nerf. Instead, it's usually along the lines of, "Marines should only have 4 range!" "MULEs should have a long cooldown!" "EMP should be a single target ability!" All these stats about lower level play are just trying to bring perspective to the numbers. That perspective is, "Outside the EXTREME top of the playerbase, Terrans have a hard time." It's more of a call to rational discussion than anything else.
I am very confused by your points. The data you are referencing in the "dwindling Terran population" show that terran is either A: is greater than the other two races, B: has close to equal numbers, being only off by 2-4%. Even at the highest level, GM, the numbers are close when there is only 200 of them per server. There is no dwindling population, the numbers are just not 33% terran, 33% protoss, 33% zerg, 1% random. Even at GM the numbers wouldn't be like that because it is only referencing 200 people, which is a small sample size. I have NEVER seen any evidence that terrans are having a rough time on the ladder.
I understand the frustration of playing a race and having everyone say it is overpowered. Its not like it is not a challenge to play SC2. It diminishes your wins, which you felt were hard to come by. If you are having problems with a match up, it doesn't help to hear that everyone else is winning it. There was a time earlier this year when everyone thought Protoss was unstoppable and then they got nerf and stuff got buffed. Personally, I never felt any of the unstoppable in my play, but I dealt with it and moved on. But I did get tired of seeing the posts about removing force-field from the game.
|
On November 07 2011 10:08 doko100 wrote: You can hate on pro terrans all you want, but this hate towards master- terrans has to stop, it's irrational since terran already is underrepresented in Masters League (and in the lower leagues down to silver) and have the least average points. protoss player or even zerg players at that level of play have absolutely no right to complain about terran. pro imbalance doesn't affect them at all. We are the one's struggling at master, they are not.
Show me some hate that isn't irrational. The use of reason to justify hate leads to some pretty disgusting situations. Hitler did a great job rationalizing hate; European colonial powers rationalized dehumanization of indigenous populations--I'd argue that is hate as well.
My point: you're barking up the wrong tree in telling someone else that their feelings on balance aren't justified. As an earlier poster suggested, while we have statistics/facts, we are biased by the races we play. And many people in this thread are being selective about which stats they are highlighting. Still others are inventing things or reading into facts in exaggerated ways. Welcome to argumentation about something we care about. Only your rhetoric textbooks can expertly separate logos from pathos.
Now I'm all for mitigating general rage in SCII as a gesture toward better community. But toss aren't inventing rage and hate toward Terrans. A lot of toss feel legitimately ripped off by this game right now. You are welcome to throw facts at us and tell us our hate is not rational. From that privileged position, you can dismiss about the 99% of the material that passes for argument on TeamLiquid or on the Internet for that matter.
tl;dr Please refrain from telling people they have no right to complain. While I don't want "hate" either (I have never professed a hate of Terrans), I read you as asking toss players to drop their frustrations about their struggles because Terran struggle more. Why? Why is this a conversation about who deserves the right to feel frustrated? Obviously, a lot of us, across races, are frustrated with this game right now.
|
I definitely had noticed a decline in running into Terrans on the ladder.
|
Seems about right, all i run into in my masters ladder is Zerg, but thankfully my PvZ is great. Despite what the graph might lead you to believe, i almost never run into terrans.
|
I hope people realize that their ladder experiences don't reflect the balance of the game as a whole. The only place that it really matters is at the top, which right now is the GSL.
|
On November 07 2011 12:50 Kuja wrote: Seems about right, all i run into in my masters ladder is Zerg, but thankfully my PvZ is great. Despite what the graph might lead you to believe, i almost never run into terrans.
Masters is the top 2% of players. It is possible that there are few terrans near your MMR since the player size is so small. There could, and likely are, the same number of terrans but none of them are at the exact point in the skill set you are.
|
What's up with the low sample size for this month compared to past months?
|
On November 07 2011 12:45 skatbone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 10:08 doko100 wrote: You can hate on pro terrans all you want, but this hate towards master- terrans has to stop, it's irrational since terran already is underrepresented in Masters League (and in the lower leagues down to silver) and have the least average points. protoss player or even zerg players at that level of play have absolutely no right to complain about terran. pro imbalance doesn't affect them at all. We are the one's struggling at master, they are not. Show me some hate that isn't irrational. The use of reason to justify hate leads to some pretty disgusting situations. Hitler did a great job rationalizing hate; European colonial powers rationalized dehumanization of indigenous populations--I'd argue that is hate as well. My point: you're barking up the wrong tree in telling someone else that their feelings on balance aren't justified. As an earlier poster suggested, while we have statistics/facts, we are biased by the races we play. And many people in this thread are being selective about which stats they are highlighting. Still others are inventing things or reading into facts in exaggerated ways. Welcome to argumentation about something we care about. Only your rhetoric textbooks can expertly separate logos from pathos. Now I'm all for mitigating general rage in SCII as a gesture toward better community. But toss aren't inventing rage and hate toward Terrans. A lot of toss feel legitimately ripped off by this game right now. You are welcome to throw facts at us and tell us our hate is not rational. From that privileged position, you can dismiss about the 99% of the material that passes for argument on TeamLiquid or on the Internet for that matter. tl;dr Please refrain from telling people they have no right to complain. While I don't want "hate" either (I have never professed a hate of Terrans), I read you as asking toss players to drop their frustrations about their struggles because Terran struggle more. Why? Why is this a conversation about who deserves the right to feel frustrated? Obviously, a lot of us, across races, are frustrated with this game right now. Yes, everyone has the right to be fustrated about game balance. However, what is really annoying is how everybody delegitimizes your wins just because you play terran. When we win, its not cause we outplayed our opponents, its because Terran is OP. Its not our fault that we play the race that people percieve as being OP. So please, stop hating on Terran players just because they play Terran.
|
On November 07 2011 12:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 11:07 aksfjh wrote:On November 07 2011 10:46 Plansix wrote:On November 07 2011 09:57 aksfjh wrote:On November 07 2011 09:52 Musketeer wrote:On November 07 2011 09:45 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:42 Silidons wrote:On November 07 2011 09:36 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 09:33 Maxhster wrote: doko which ladder stats are you refferring to? do you have a link to those? sc2ranks Terran has by far the least players in masters (and diamond... and platinum.... and gold... and also grandmaster), least average points and protoss on the other hand is the complete opposite. If you want to complain about protoss, then look at the stats at your level of play. I'm fairly confident that none of you are pro players and terrans are actually the ones struggling on the ladder, so the question is... who should be complaining? We terrans are not really, but should the protoss players be complaining unless they are pros? No, it's irrational. HAHAHAH so you're not comparing stats like win rates but only how many players are in what league. that is comical my friend, comical. please do continue as you seem to be a genius. They are the most underrepresented race in the higher league with the least average points..really comical isn't it? Obviously their win rates have to be worse for there to be less terrans in the higher leagues compared to P and Z players when they are the most played race in the lower leagues, only logical explanation, or terrans are just worse and can't get out of silver league or they lose games on purpose. Just checked SC2ranks. Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. From today: From July 17: Terran population is slowly declining. Not sure which SC2ranks site you're looking at, but if you think he's wrong, it's not the right one. None of that should have much effect on the stats. The graphs posted by the OP are for win-rates, so fewer players only means fewer games of that specific match up. That would have a limited/no effect of the win-rates, since the sample size is so large(over 25K games). Even if the were 10% less terrans that the other two races, that's still THOUSANDS of games. And none of those graphs show a difference of anything lose to that. Also, random is included in those stats. 1/3 of those games are terran games. Why do Terrans bring this up every month: "Look, I know the stats say we are winning every match up. That looks like an issue, but its a lie. We are doing the worst on the ladder because we have fewer players. I know that does sound logical, but think about it. We are beating fewer protoss and zergs that we did last month. That means our number of total wins are declining, so we ARE doing worse. So just ignore those stats, they don't show the true story. They are only numbers." We're not talking about Terran ladder numbers affecting number of games played or winrates at pro level. We talk about ladder populations as an indicator of possible imbalance beyond the pro level. When you take into account a dwindling Terran population and lack of success outside of Korea, it paints a very different picture than the one most people portray on various SC2 communities. What's more, the complaints registered against Terrans generally come from non-pro players, in the plat-masters range anyways. Thus, detailed discussions often end up being tailored towards complaining about Terran strengths and possible nerfs at lower levels of play, that would affect already dwindling populations. It's not often that level-headed people enter a discussion about the TvX matchup suggesting a 5s rax buildtime nerf. Instead, it's usually along the lines of, "Marines should only have 4 range!" "MULEs should have a long cooldown!" "EMP should be a single target ability!" All these stats about lower level play are just trying to bring perspective to the numbers. That perspective is, "Outside the EXTREME top of the playerbase, Terrans have a hard time." It's more of a call to rational discussion than anything else. I am very confused by your points. The data you are referencing in the "dwindling Terran population" show that terran is either A: is greater than the other two races, B: has close to equal numbers, being only off by 2-4%. Even at the highest level, GM, the numbers are close when there is only 200 of them per server. There is no dwindling population, the numbers are just not 33% terran, 33% protoss, 33% zerg, 1% random. Even at GM the numbers wouldn't be like that because it is only referencing 200 people, which is a small sample size. I have NEVER seen any evidence that terrans are having a rough time on the ladder. I understand the frustration of playing a race and having everyone say it is overpowered. Its not like it is not a challenge to play SC2. It diminishes your wins, which you felt were hard to come by. If you are having problems with a match up, it doesn't help to hear that everyone else is winning it. There was a time earlier this year when everyone thought Protoss was unstoppable and then they got nerf and stuff got buffed. Personally, I never felt any of the unstoppable in my play, but I dealt with it and moved on. But I did get tired of seeing the posts about removing force-field from the game. Take a moment to cycle through the stats page on SC2 ranks, going through each of the patches. We've seen a huge growth in Zerg throughout most of the leagues, at the almost pure expense of Terran. You may not think that 2-4% is much in race distribution, but it shows that there are 15-30% fewer Terrans compared to the other races individually. Then compare that with 3, 6, 9, etc. months ago and we get a picture where Terrans are slipping in population.
During the same span of time, we saw Terran do relatively well in the pro scene. There was a lot of talk about Terran being really strong, which would lead one to believe that people would be switching to Terran. However, with such a population shift in the other direction, there has to be some other reason which dissuades people from Terran which is enough to ignore top level results. If community consensus was really that adamant in thinking Terran is strong or OP, there would HAVE to be more people flocking to the race. Instead, people are fleeing.
On November 07 2011 12:59 thedirtyleg wrote: What's up with the low sample size for this month compared to past months? Probably the relative pause that occurred around Blizzcon. Blizzcon was relatively game-light and a lot of events didn't want to compete with the event.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
On November 07 2011 13:19 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 12:45 skatbone wrote:On November 07 2011 10:08 doko100 wrote: You can hate on pro terrans all you want, but this hate towards master- terrans has to stop, it's irrational since terran already is underrepresented in Masters League (and in the lower leagues down to silver) and have the least average points. protoss player or even zerg players at that level of play have absolutely no right to complain about terran. pro imbalance doesn't affect them at all. We are the one's struggling at master, they are not. Show me some hate that isn't irrational. The use of reason to justify hate leads to some pretty disgusting situations. Hitler did a great job rationalizing hate; European colonial powers rationalized dehumanization of indigenous populations--I'd argue that is hate as well. My point: you're barking up the wrong tree in telling someone else that their feelings on balance aren't justified. As an earlier poster suggested, while we have statistics/facts, we are biased by the races we play. And many people in this thread are being selective about which stats they are highlighting. Still others are inventing things or reading into facts in exaggerated ways. Welcome to argumentation about something we care about. Only your rhetoric textbooks can expertly separate logos from pathos. Now I'm all for mitigating general rage in SCII as a gesture toward better community. But toss aren't inventing rage and hate toward Terrans. A lot of toss feel legitimately ripped off by this game right now. You are welcome to throw facts at us and tell us our hate is not rational. From that privileged position, you can dismiss about the 99% of the material that passes for argument on TeamLiquid or on the Internet for that matter. tl;dr Please refrain from telling people they have no right to complain. While I don't want "hate" either (I have never professed a hate of Terrans), I read you as asking toss players to drop their frustrations about their struggles because Terran struggle more. Why? Why is this a conversation about who deserves the right to feel frustrated? Obviously, a lot of us, across races, are frustrated with this game right now. Yes, everyone has the right to be fustrated about game balance. However, what is really annoying is how everybody delegitimizes your wins just because you play terran. When we win, its not cause we outplayed our opponents, its because Terran is OP. Its not our fault that we play the race that people percieve as being OP. So please, stop hating on Terran players just because they play Terran.
People who say this are too afraid to admit their own losses.
I get frustrated with terran often, but only because at my MMR, approx 80% of PvT games are a one-base all in from the terran side.
Terran is the only race that can get away with this, and is definatly the most dangerous at 1 base all ins. There is so much stuff they can do... I doubt any good player could tell you that 4gate 3gate/star or 1 base roach ling would be very hard to hold if they knew it was coming, but if you know terran is doing a 1 base all in, it is another story
|
On November 07 2011 13:34 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 13:19 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 12:45 skatbone wrote:On November 07 2011 10:08 doko100 wrote: You can hate on pro terrans all you want, but this hate towards master- terrans has to stop, it's irrational since terran already is underrepresented in Masters League (and in the lower leagues down to silver) and have the least average points. protoss player or even zerg players at that level of play have absolutely no right to complain about terran. pro imbalance doesn't affect them at all. We are the one's struggling at master, they are not. Show me some hate that isn't irrational. The use of reason to justify hate leads to some pretty disgusting situations. Hitler did a great job rationalizing hate; European colonial powers rationalized dehumanization of indigenous populations--I'd argue that is hate as well. My point: you're barking up the wrong tree in telling someone else that their feelings on balance aren't justified. As an earlier poster suggested, while we have statistics/facts, we are biased by the races we play. And many people in this thread are being selective about which stats they are highlighting. Still others are inventing things or reading into facts in exaggerated ways. Welcome to argumentation about something we care about. Only your rhetoric textbooks can expertly separate logos from pathos. Now I'm all for mitigating general rage in SCII as a gesture toward better community. But toss aren't inventing rage and hate toward Terrans. A lot of toss feel legitimately ripped off by this game right now. You are welcome to throw facts at us and tell us our hate is not rational. From that privileged position, you can dismiss about the 99% of the material that passes for argument on TeamLiquid or on the Internet for that matter. tl;dr Please refrain from telling people they have no right to complain. While I don't want "hate" either (I have never professed a hate of Terrans), I read you as asking toss players to drop their frustrations about their struggles because Terran struggle more. Why? Why is this a conversation about who deserves the right to feel frustrated? Obviously, a lot of us, across races, are frustrated with this game right now. Yes, everyone has the right to be fustrated about game balance. However, what is really annoying is how everybody delegitimizes your wins just because you play terran. When we win, its not cause we outplayed our opponents, its because Terran is OP. Its not our fault that we play the race that people percieve as being OP. So please, stop hating on Terran players just because they play Terran. People who say this are too afraid to admit their own losses. I get frustrated with terran often, but only because at my MMR, approx 80% of PvT games are a one-base all in from the terran side. Terran is the only race that can get away with this, and is definatly the most dangerous at 1 base all ins. There is so much stuff they can do... I doubt any good player could tell you that 4gate 3gate/star or 1 base roach ling would be very hard to hold if they knew it was coming, but if you know terran is doing a 1 base all in, it is another story Doesn't exactly help that they can all-in repeatedly, either.
|
On November 07 2011 13:35 Daralii wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 13:34 Cyro wrote:On November 07 2011 13:19 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 12:45 skatbone wrote:On November 07 2011 10:08 doko100 wrote: You can hate on pro terrans all you want, but this hate towards master- terrans has to stop, it's irrational since terran already is underrepresented in Masters League (and in the lower leagues down to silver) and have the least average points. protoss player or even zerg players at that level of play have absolutely no right to complain about terran. pro imbalance doesn't affect them at all. We are the one's struggling at master, they are not. Show me some hate that isn't irrational. The use of reason to justify hate leads to some pretty disgusting situations. Hitler did a great job rationalizing hate; European colonial powers rationalized dehumanization of indigenous populations--I'd argue that is hate as well. My point: you're barking up the wrong tree in telling someone else that their feelings on balance aren't justified. As an earlier poster suggested, while we have statistics/facts, we are biased by the races we play. And many people in this thread are being selective about which stats they are highlighting. Still others are inventing things or reading into facts in exaggerated ways. Welcome to argumentation about something we care about. Only your rhetoric textbooks can expertly separate logos from pathos. Now I'm all for mitigating general rage in SCII as a gesture toward better community. But toss aren't inventing rage and hate toward Terrans. A lot of toss feel legitimately ripped off by this game right now. You are welcome to throw facts at us and tell us our hate is not rational. From that privileged position, you can dismiss about the 99% of the material that passes for argument on TeamLiquid or on the Internet for that matter. tl;dr Please refrain from telling people they have no right to complain. While I don't want "hate" either (I have never professed a hate of Terrans), I read you as asking toss players to drop their frustrations about their struggles because Terran struggle more. Why? Why is this a conversation about who deserves the right to feel frustrated? Obviously, a lot of us, across races, are frustrated with this game right now. Yes, everyone has the right to be fustrated about game balance. However, what is really annoying is how everybody delegitimizes your wins just because you play terran. When we win, its not cause we outplayed our opponents, its because Terran is OP. Its not our fault that we play the race that people percieve as being OP. So please, stop hating on Terran players just because they play Terran. People who say this are too afraid to admit their own losses. I get frustrated with terran often, but only because at my MMR, approx 80% of PvT games are a one-base all in from the terran side. Terran is the only race that can get away with this, and is definatly the most dangerous at 1 base all ins. There is so much stuff they can do... I doubt any good player could tell you that 4gate 3gate/star or 1 base roach ling would be very hard to hold if they knew it was coming, but if you know terran is doing a 1 base all in, it is another story Doesn't exactly help that they can all-in repeatedly, either.
I just watched it happen on JYPs stream, it was freaking depressing. He held off the first push with style, but then got picked at by cloaked banshees until......the second all in arrived with about 20 marines and more SCVs. Why worry about the pesky need to expand and macroing. Just get a bunch of marines, tanks and some flying deathcannons and win games.
|
On November 07 2011 10:57 Lewan72 wrote: Guys its cuz terran players are just better.
one of the few true posts here.... didnt david kim said in an interview that the problem isnt really the balance, it is that so many really skilled players play terran, and not p or z?
|
On November 07 2011 13:43 MyLastSerenade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 10:57 Lewan72 wrote: Guys its cuz terran players are just better. one of the few true posts here.... didnt david kim said in an interview that the problem isnt really the balance, it is that so many really skilled players play terran, and not p or z?
Sarcastic I assume? It is hard to tell on the internet. But I am sure that is the problem, that all the best players in the world just went to terran because they were on the box. The other races got lack luster players and will only reach their true potential when terran players get tired of winning and switch races.
I am sure that is it.
|
wanna know why protoss lose to zerg, muta are hard as hell to kills in PVZ
|
Want to see the korean one, not that international play isn't a decent measure, its just that KR is on another level.
|
People shouldnt apply this to there ladder games. The ladder winrates are obviously much different (obviously puts you against similar players).
|
On November 07 2011 14:03 Hipsv wrote: Want to see the korean one, not that international play isn't a decent measure, its just that KR is on another level. Except that the Korean graph is heavily influenced by the results of 1 or 2 players. At the very least, international play showcases hundreds of games over 1 weekend. Korean stats are comprised over only a couple of dozen of games a week.
|
On November 07 2011 13:34 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 13:19 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 12:45 skatbone wrote:On November 07 2011 10:08 doko100 wrote: You can hate on pro terrans all you want, but this hate towards master- terrans has to stop, it's irrational since terran already is underrepresented in Masters League (and in the lower leagues down to silver) and have the least average points. protoss player or even zerg players at that level of play have absolutely no right to complain about terran. pro imbalance doesn't affect them at all. We are the one's struggling at master, they are not. Show me some hate that isn't irrational. The use of reason to justify hate leads to some pretty disgusting situations. Hitler did a great job rationalizing hate; European colonial powers rationalized dehumanization of indigenous populations--I'd argue that is hate as well. My point: you're barking up the wrong tree in telling someone else that their feelings on balance aren't justified. As an earlier poster suggested, while we have statistics/facts, we are biased by the races we play. And many people in this thread are being selective about which stats they are highlighting. Still others are inventing things or reading into facts in exaggerated ways. Welcome to argumentation about something we care about. Only your rhetoric textbooks can expertly separate logos from pathos. Now I'm all for mitigating general rage in SCII as a gesture toward better community. But toss aren't inventing rage and hate toward Terrans. A lot of toss feel legitimately ripped off by this game right now. You are welcome to throw facts at us and tell us our hate is not rational. From that privileged position, you can dismiss about the 99% of the material that passes for argument on TeamLiquid or on the Internet for that matter. tl;dr Please refrain from telling people they have no right to complain. While I don't want "hate" either (I have never professed a hate of Terrans), I read you as asking toss players to drop their frustrations about their struggles because Terran struggle more. Why? Why is this a conversation about who deserves the right to feel frustrated? Obviously, a lot of us, across races, are frustrated with this game right now. Yes, everyone has the right to be fustrated about game balance. However, what is really annoying is how everybody delegitimizes your wins just because you play terran. When we win, its not cause we outplayed our opponents, its because Terran is OP. Its not our fault that we play the race that people percieve as being OP. So please, stop hating on Terran players just because they play Terran. People who say this are too afraid to admit their own losses. I get frustrated with terran often, but only because at my MMR, approx 80% of PvT games are a one-base all in from the terran side. Terran is the only race that can get away with this, and is definatly the most dangerous at 1 base all ins. There is so much stuff they can do... I doubt any good player could tell you that 4gate 3gate/star or 1 base roach ling would be very hard to hold if they knew it was coming, but if you know terran is doing a 1 base all in, it is another story Are you saying that Terran players deserve to get flamed? Also, on the point of how hard 1-base terran all-ins are to hold, Protoss 1 base all-ins are no joke, either. The void ray all-in is sooo hard to hold, especially if the stargate is proxied somewhere.
|
I'm surprise with all of those number :O i thought toss was getting better o.O
|
Poor Protoss
To the idiots complaining about the scale of the axis, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.
1. The purpose of zooming in is to show the trends of the matchups, on a relative level and not an absolute one. 2. All the matchups use the exact same scale so you can compare the trends across.
|
Why is the word ladder even brought up in this thread. I don't understand.
And the scale of the axis isn't some evil conspiracy. It's the correct way to do it.
|
|
I am sorry even if 45-50 isn't a big deal, if every month it's 45-50 in favor of one race without variation that shows a clear imbalance.
|
As far as I know Protoss already dominates the ladder, right? And most Zergs I know have a lot of problems in ZvP. The MU seems unwinnable at times.
I think the problem with Protoss maybe the skill ceiling. They feel overwhelmingly powerful at my level, but maybe they lack the flexibility of the other races for the pros. Their timings feel much more powerful than what any other races can do, but when people learn to deal with them it seems there is nothing else.
Now, the question needs to be asked, is it really that there is no solid way to play Protoss without relying on these pushes, or is it that the players were so used to get free wins with 4G/6G/deathball that they don't know another way to play?
|
On November 07 2011 12:59 thedirtyleg wrote: What's up with the low sample size for this month compared to past months?
Who knows, but we can clearly conclude that it makes this month's % inaccurate.
If there was a larger sample size, I'm sure we can all agree that PvT would be 50/50, maybe Protoss even being a bit OP.
|
The worst liars are statisticians.
That's about all I have to say about this. As for my own experience, I win 80% of my ZvTs, 60% of my ZvZs and 30% of my ZvPs. If I wanted the game to be balanced to a 50/50 win rate at my level, things would turn out really, really weird.
|
On November 07 2011 15:24 MilesTeg wrote: As far as I know Protoss already dominates the ladder, right? And most Zergs I know have a lot of problems in ZvP. The MU seems unwinnable at times.
I think the problem with Protoss maybe the skill ceiling. They feel overwhelmingly powerful at my level, but maybe they lack the flexibility of the other races for the pros. Their timings feel much more powerful than what any other races can do, but when people learn to deal with them it seems there is nothing else.
Now, the question needs to be asked, is it really that there is no solid way to play Protoss without relying on these pushes, or is it that the players were so used to get free wins with 4G/6G/deathball that they don't know another way to play? I think that they're not experimenting enough yet.
For example, one problem with HT is that they can easily be sniped off by cloaked ghosts. You can detect cloaked ghost by observers, but they can be killed off easily by a scan. The solution? Proxy pylon cannon. I saw some protoss putting cannon in the middle of the road, battlefields. It can detect ghosts, ghosts can't snipe it, and if the terran tries to kill it off with stim marauders, a stationed HT, which can't be killed by ghosts, can just storm them away like when the old time when terrran drop vs KAed HT. That's a style I want to see protoss to do more.
|
On November 07 2011 04:27 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time Because toss is good/balanced at lower levels (even imba at bronze/silver/gold where people don't have enough multitasking or timing skills to punish tosses). At tournament level though, people clearly know the toss weaknesses and also have the required skill to execute the appropriate counters consistently. But that excuse is incorrect....it doesn't even make sense. Toss do well in "EVERY" tournament other then GSL Code S. The reason there's lots of Terran is because it was almost impossible to drop out of Code S and sadly toss players have been victims only because to begin with not many made it in Code S and it's extremely hard to get into Code S.
Overall Terran isn't imba, toss is a good race, zerg is a good race. Game is pretty balance and I think once the ghost nerf comes it will be pretty solid for all races. Look at Zerg, they have been winning everything other then MLG. Nestea was owning Code S recently and now Terrans are dropping out with the new format. Soon everyone will realise that the game is pretty even at the top level. SeleCT almost lost to Elfi at the ASUS Invitational and he was on like 6 base to 2-3 the whole game. Protoss is pretty strong late game and I think that's been shown lately.
Also another argument would be that Terrans don't win tournaments other then Code S. MLG doesn't really count since recently the best 3 Korean Terrans won it...and HuK just won so I'm starting to think Protoss is finally adapted in a way to take advantage of there late game strength and that's why there winning. But overall Terrans ghosts are a slight problem which is getting nerfed so we will see when the time comes if it helps tons with the Toss QQ'ers.
There's probably tons of stuff I left out that I forgot to type but keep fighting brohans!!!!
|
On November 07 2011 15:48 zanmat0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 12:59 thedirtyleg wrote: What's up with the low sample size for this month compared to past months? Who knows, but we can clearly conclude that it makes this month's % inaccurate. If there was a larger sample size, I'm sure we can all agree that PvT would be 50/50, maybe Protoss even being a bit OP.
I would agree with the first statement that this months statistics are potentially inaccurate due to insufficient sample size.
How you get that the first statement makes the second a fact doesn't make sense to me. That's a possibility, but it could just as easily be 40-60 in favour of terran.
|
On November 07 2011 14:40 Highways wrote:Poor Protoss To the idiots complaining about the scale of the axis, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. 1. The purpose of zooming in is to show the trends of the matchups, on a relative level and not an absolute one. 2. All the matchups use the exact same scale so you can compare the trends across. Axes of Evil
|
so depressing to look at lol.
chin up slugga's, our time will come
|
On November 07 2011 16:09 Champi wrote: so depressing to look at lol.
chin up slugga's, our time will come Pretty sure its more depressing for Terrans and Zergs. Protosses are probably like "Fuck yea! Were doing bad in Code S again so maybe well get buffed".
|
where are these stats from? and what level? alot of people go ahead and decide that terran is imba just based off this... at different levels different races do better/worse than others... just the way it goes
|
damn poor protoss. I will tear in joy one day Terran is below 50% lol
|
On November 07 2011 16:17 Sayer wrote: damn poor protoss. I will tear in joy one day Terran is below 50% lol
T was slightly under 50% in TvP last month for September.
It's Z that is ruining PvX currently.
|
On November 07 2011 13:43 MyLastSerenade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 10:57 Lewan72 wrote: Guys its cuz terran players are just better. one of the few true posts here.... didnt david kim said in an interview that the problem isnt really the balance, it is that so many really skilled players play terran, and not p or z?
wow... if he really said this, then that makes me rage...
|
Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release.
|
lol PvT was toss favored last month and now it's Terran favored this month without a major patch hit since September..it's like meta game shifts actually happen!!!
|
i actually thought that protoss is improving o.o turns out the opposite.
|
On November 07 2011 16:35 Trsjnica wrote: Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release. Yea its crazy, especially since terran has been nerfed the most out of all the races. The idea that terran players are just better might have some truth to it.
|
On November 07 2011 16:34 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 13:43 MyLastSerenade wrote:On November 07 2011 10:57 Lewan72 wrote: Guys its cuz terran players are just better. one of the few true posts here.... didnt david kim said in an interview that the problem isnt really the balance, it is that so many really skilled players play terran, and not p or z? wow... if he really said this, then that makes me rage...
Name the BW pros that switched over as P. Name the ones that are playing Z. Name the ones that are playing T.
You'll see a much larger difference in numbers, as well as which race has the most successful players to switch over (in BW).
So it's kind of true in a way.
|
On November 07 2011 16:41 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:35 Trsjnica wrote: Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release. Yea its crazy, especially since terran has been nerfed the most out of all the races. The idea that terran players are just better might have some truth to it.
or these units called marines that when split correctly can kill anything in the game when fully upgraded O_O could be that too...... :D
|
On November 07 2011 15:58 VPVash wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:27 Piledriver wrote:On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time Because toss is good/balanced at lower levels (even imba at bronze/silver/gold where people don't have enough multitasking or timing skills to punish tosses). At tournament level though, people clearly know the toss weaknesses and also have the required skill to execute the appropriate counters consistently. But that excuse is incorrect....it doesn't even make sense. Toss do well in "EVERY" tournament other then GSL Code S
I'm sorry but that's just complete nonsense. The OP uses data from every major tournament worldwide, so it obviously isn't true that toss do well in EVERY other tournament than code S. A few more recent examples- no protoss made it to the quarterfinals of WCG Korea (it was 6 terrans and 2 zergs) and only one toss made it to the quarterfinals of the latest AOL.
|
On November 07 2011 16:41 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:35 Trsjnica wrote: Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release. Yea its crazy, especially since terran has been nerfed the most out of all the races. The idea that terran players are just better might have some truth to it.
this is straight up nonsense. the people with the best sense of game balance AND the most accurate statistics, (blizzard) CONTINUE to feel terran is overpowered. one day they'll fire David Kim ( who plays T ) and hire an unbiased lead balance architect...
|
On November 07 2011 16:50 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 15:58 VPVash wrote:On November 07 2011 04:27 Piledriver wrote:On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time Because toss is good/balanced at lower levels (even imba at bronze/silver/gold where people don't have enough multitasking or timing skills to punish tosses). At tournament level though, people clearly know the toss weaknesses and also have the required skill to execute the appropriate counters consistently. But that excuse is incorrect....it doesn't even make sense. Toss do well in "EVERY" tournament other then GSL Code S I'm sorry but that's just complete nonsense. The OP uses data from every major tournament worldwide, so it obviously isn't true that toss do well in EVERY other tournament than code S. A few more examples- no protoss made it to the quarterfinals of WCG Korea (it was 6 terrans and 2 zergs) and only one toss made it to the quarterfinals of the latest AOL.
you're completely correct, and it's worth pointing out that in WCG, those 2 zergs lost 0-2 to Terrans. The game isn't balanced yet, people. this should come as a surprise to NO ONE.
|
On November 07 2011 16:50 karlkarlson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:41 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:35 Trsjnica wrote: Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release. Yea its crazy, especially since terran has been nerfed the most out of all the races. The idea that terran players are just better might have some truth to it. this is straight up nonsense. the people with the best sense of game balance AND the most accurate statistics, (blizzard) CONTINUE to feel terran is overpowered. one day they'll fire David Kim ( who plays T ) and hire an unbiased lead balance architect...
Doesn't dayvie play random?
|
On November 07 2011 16:50 karlkarlson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:41 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:35 Trsjnica wrote: Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release. Yea its crazy, especially since terran has been nerfed the most out of all the races. The idea that terran players are just better might have some truth to it. this is straight up nonsense. the people with the best sense of game balance AND the most accurate statistics, (blizzard) CONTINUE to feel terran is overpowered. one day they'll fire David Kim ( who plays T ) and hire an unbiased lead balance architect... LOL, David Kim plays random fyi, and terran has been constantly nerfed every patch. Even with the nerfs, terrans are still the strongest race. The only reason I can see why terrans are still dominating is that terrans are simply better.
|
On November 07 2011 16:51 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:50 karlkarlson wrote:On November 07 2011 16:41 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:35 Trsjnica wrote: Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release. Yea its crazy, especially since terran has been nerfed the most out of all the races. The idea that terran players are just better might have some truth to it. this is straight up nonsense. the people with the best sense of game balance AND the most accurate statistics, (blizzard) CONTINUE to feel terran is overpowered. one day they'll fire David Kim ( who plays T ) and hire an unbiased lead balance architect... Doesn't dayvie play random? Yes he does, ppl just like to make up nonsense that he plays terran so they can bash blizzard
|
On November 07 2011 16:13 Techno wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:09 Champi wrote: so depressing to look at lol.
chin up slugga's, our time will come Pretty sure its more depressing for Terrans and Zergs. Protosses are probably like "Fuck yea! Were doing bad in Code S again so maybe well get buffed".
Don't try and act like it's just code S bro, or even just Korea- these stats are for worldwide tournaments.
|
On November 07 2011 16:51 karlkarlson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:50 tomatriedes wrote:On November 07 2011 15:58 VPVash wrote:On November 07 2011 04:27 Piledriver wrote:On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time Because toss is good/balanced at lower levels (even imba at bronze/silver/gold where people don't have enough multitasking or timing skills to punish tosses). At tournament level though, people clearly know the toss weaknesses and also have the required skill to execute the appropriate counters consistently. But that excuse is incorrect....it doesn't even make sense. Toss do well in "EVERY" tournament other then GSL Code S I'm sorry but that's just complete nonsense. The OP uses data from every major tournament worldwide, so it obviously isn't true that toss do well in EVERY other tournament than code S. A few more examples- no protoss made it to the quarterfinals of WCG Korea (it was 6 terrans and 2 zergs) and only one toss made it to the quarterfinals of the latest AOL. you're completely correct, and it's worth pointing out that in WCG, those 2 zergs lost 0-2 to Terrans. The game isn't balanced yet, people. this should come as a surprise to NO ONE. The IPL 3 finals was a ZvZ. A zerg won the ASUS ROG Stars Invite. Nestea has won 3 titles playing Zerg. Therefore, zerg is OP.
See how stupid your argument is?
|
On November 07 2011 16:04 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 15:48 zanmat0 wrote:On November 07 2011 12:59 thedirtyleg wrote: What's up with the low sample size for this month compared to past months? Who knows, but we can clearly conclude that it makes this month's % inaccurate. If there was a larger sample size, I'm sure we can all agree that PvT would be 50/50, maybe Protoss even being a bit OP. I would agree with the first statement that this months statistics are potentially inaccurate due to insufficient sample size. How you get that the first statement makes the second a fact doesn't make sense to me. That's a possibility, but it could just as easily be 40-60 in favour of terran.
Heh, I guess I was too subtle.
|
On November 07 2011 16:42 SniXSniPe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:34 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote:On November 07 2011 13:43 MyLastSerenade wrote:On November 07 2011 10:57 Lewan72 wrote: Guys its cuz terran players are just better. one of the few true posts here.... didnt david kim said in an interview that the problem isnt really the balance, it is that so many really skilled players play terran, and not p or z? wow... if he really said this, then that makes me rage... Name the BW pros that switched over as P. Name the ones that are playing Z. Name the ones that are playing T. You'll see a much larger difference in numbers, as well as which race has the most successful players to switch over (in BW). So it's kind of true in a way.
Lol yeah it isn't even close
Terran: MVP, Puma, Supernova, Ganzi, Nada, Boxer, MMA, Bomber, theSTC, Rainbow, fOrGG Zerg: Nestea, July, Fruitdealer, TheWind, Junwi Protoss: MC, Sangho, Puzzle, Tester
Terran outclasses Zerg and Protoss in both quality and quantity.
|
On November 07 2011 16:58 zanmat0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:04 Amui wrote:On November 07 2011 15:48 zanmat0 wrote:On November 07 2011 12:59 thedirtyleg wrote: What's up with the low sample size for this month compared to past months? Who knows, but we can clearly conclude that it makes this month's % inaccurate. If there was a larger sample size, I'm sure we can all agree that PvT would be 50/50, maybe Protoss even being a bit OP. I would agree with the first statement that this months statistics are potentially inaccurate due to insufficient sample size. How you get that the first statement makes the second a fact doesn't make sense to me. That's a possibility, but it could just as easily be 40-60 in favour of terran. Heh, I guess I was too subtle.
No, it's just that your troll backfired. Now what did you learn?
|
I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon
|
On November 07 2011 16:42 BloodThirsty wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:41 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:35 Trsjnica wrote: Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release. Yea its crazy, especially since terran has been nerfed the most out of all the races. The idea that terran players are just better might have some truth to it. or these units called marines that when split correctly can kill anything in the game when fully upgraded O_O could be that too...... :D This is what I mean when I say that Terran players are just stronger. Terran has marines, which when you have amazing control, are really good. That means that all of the good players naturally sway towards Terran, since they have marines, which have such a high skill cap.
|
On November 07 2011 16:55 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:50 karlkarlson wrote:On November 07 2011 16:41 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:35 Trsjnica wrote: Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release. Yea its crazy, especially since terran has been nerfed the most out of all the races. The idea that terran players are just better might have some truth to it. this is straight up nonsense. the people with the best sense of game balance AND the most accurate statistics, (blizzard) CONTINUE to feel terran is overpowered. one day they'll fire David Kim ( who plays T ) and hire an unbiased lead balance architect... Even with the nerfs, terrans are still the strongest race. The only reason I can see why terrans are still dominating is that terrans are simply better.
sorry, wrong. the make-up of nearly every high level SC2 tournament right now is 50%+ terran. your race , at the highest level, is simply easier. that is why blizzard keeps nerfing ( and will continue to nerf ).
|
On November 07 2011 17:01 karlkarlson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:55 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:50 karlkarlson wrote:On November 07 2011 16:41 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:35 Trsjnica wrote: Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release. Yea its crazy, especially since terran has been nerfed the most out of all the races. The idea that terran players are just better might have some truth to it. this is straight up nonsense. the people with the best sense of game balance AND the most accurate statistics, (blizzard) CONTINUE to feel terran is overpowered. one day they'll fire David Kim ( who plays T ) and hire an unbiased lead balance architect... Even with the nerfs, terrans are still the strongest race. The only reason I can see why terrans are still dominating is that terrans are simply better. sorry, wrong. the make-up of nearly every high level SC2 tournament right now is 50%+ terran. your race , at the highest level, is simply easier. that is why blizzard keeps nerfing ( and will continue to nerf ). The only high level sc2 tournament with more than 50% terran is GSL.
The statement that Terran is the easiest race at the highest level is complete bullshit. Terran is definetly the hardest race to play, but also the most rewarding in that its skill cap is the highest. Thats why in Korea, where the players are the best, Terran is doing the best, since Koreans are good enough to abuse Terran. Elsewhere, the races are balanced, because the Terran players can't take advantage of the higher skill cap.
Yes, blizzard keeps on nerfing and continues to nerf Terran. However, Terran remains the strongest race. The only real reason I can see for this is that Terran players are just superiour than the other races.
|
On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon
re #1: this thread is a compilation of FACTs my man. FACTS. if you don't like those facts, you should turn off firefox, and go back to one base all-ining
re: #2: it has EVERYTHING to do with the current state of the game. fans are getting turned off from the SC2 pro scene because they don't feel it's fair. right now, EVERY Korean tourney WCG, CODE S, past GSLS is 50%+ terran ( WCG is 100% terran semis ). This is not entertaining. it actually does the game and scene no favors.
re #3: HOTS won't be here for a year, we'll have infinity patches by then
|
On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon
1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself.
2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable.
3. Soom(tm)
edit: lol
|
it's important to see if the top players from each race remain competitive with the top players from other races. this leads me to believe that protoss needs some help as a whole, while T and Z should probably stay as-is. nestea and drg still continue to look formidable in ZvT (although by all accounts it is nestea's weakest matchup) with a close series vs mvp and so on.
|
On November 07 2011 17:05 karlkarlson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon re #1: this thread is a compilation of FACTs my man. FACTS. if you don't like those facts, you should turn off firefox, and go back to one base all-ining re: #2: it has EVERYTHING to do with the current state of the game. fans are getting turned off from the SC2 pro scene because they don't feel it's fair. right now, EVERY Korean tourney WCG, CODE S, past GSLS is 50%+ terran ( WCG is 100% terran semis ). This is not entertaining. it actually does the game and scene no favors. re #3: HOTS won't be here for a year, we'll have infinity patches by then
#1: Balance whining is not facts. It is just whining that your race is UP, instead of taking losses like a man. Just because some people actually accept the fact that they lost because of their mistakes, not because of imbalance, doesn't mean that they are cheeses. In fact, its the complete opposite; they actually improve because they don't blame the game.
#2: You aren't pro. In fact, I'd be surprised if you were even masters. So, it doesn't affect you. The fact that you think EVERY Korean tournament to have 100% Terran just shows how biased you are.
|
On November 07 2011 17:04 kofman wrote:
The statement that Terran is the easiest race at the highest level is complete bullshit. Terran is definetly the hardest race to play, but also the most rewarding in that its skill cap is the highest. Thats why in Korea, where the players are the best, Terran is doing the best, since Koreans are good enough to abuse Terran. Elsewhere, the races are balanced, because the Terran players can't take advantage of the higher skill cap.
Yes, blizzard keeps on nerfing and continues to nerf Terran. However, Terran remains the strongest race. The only real reason I can see for this is that Terran players are just superiour than the other races.
sorry, wrong again.
HAAHAHAHAH. argue with these pros please:
( and by the way, the only high level tournaments are korean ones WCG and CODE S BOTH of which are 50% + Terran. )
IMMVP 'I think the 1-1-1 should make you be disqualified from GSL.' Basically he's saying that terrans are OP but what part of the 1-1-1 that is OP is left to the imagination.
PoltPrime 'Many of these terrans are in Code S because the race is OP so I will knock them out.' So here Polt Prime is saying that terran is easier to win with basically. You have an easier time beating protoss or zerg players as terran.
EGDeMuslim 'I can't believe that Blizzard isn't looking at the ghost. I mean they nerfed rax build time by 5 seconds but they didn't look at the ghost. Greg (IdrA) keeps telling me to use ghosts more, and I have. Now I know why he thinks they need to be changed.' So EGDeMuslim is kinda hinting at the fact that ghosts should be looked at by Blizzard. This was in SotG episode 50 or 51.
WhiteRa 'I think the ghost have too many good spells. I think they do too good with everything protoss make and I think they need to be looked at by Blizzard. Too many good spells.' So WhiteRa the guy that popularized the statement More GG More Skill is saying that he thinks ghosts are a bit too good at the moment.
Huk 'I wish I played Terran.' This was also in a SotG episode where HuK says that playing terran seems to be a bigger benefit than playing protoss. His reasonings for why terran is a better choice for pro players isn't given but he feels being terran would help him.
IMNesTea 'Everyone knows that terran is much easier than zerg. If he didn't play terran he wouldn't have won so many championships. If I played terran I'd have won a lot more, if he played zerg I don't think he'd win.' This is NesTea talking about his teammate who after the match, looked depressed about winning.
FruitDealer 'You can't beat terran with this s*@$ race! This game is broken!' I hope you can figure out what he said. And maybe figure out why he said this.
oGsMC, 'Protoss is weak right now against terran.' Typically when one race is weaker than other we call that imbalanced. Maybe not though, maybe you can spin this.
Bisu 'Who would ever play that game? I hear it's terran favored. If protoss is so weak why even have them in the game? Just get rid of them. If I had to play it though, I would still pick protoss though.'
LiquidTLO 'Look how easy this race is. You build some rax and make marines. Don't stop making marines and keep pushing. It's not very hard. I stayed with terran because it's much easier.' I think he's saying it's easier to win with terran than zerg or protoss. Just a guess. He stated this on his stream one time.
IdrA and iNcontrol have said lots of things on terran being OP but you can disregard everything they said. IrdA is actually pretty smart and doesn't want to see things broken in this game. I think he needs to change his style a bit and that's why he loses, not his mechanics.
So I think you should tell all those pros, some of those quoted are also GSL champions, others have done well in MLG or other foregin tournaments.
|
I'd urge the mods to lock this thread. It goes no where and is becoming a monthly ritualistic exercise in bloodletting. I do think these stats serve a purpose but they are seen far too often to have any substantive positive impact in terms of discussion. In fact, I'd urge the OP to release these stats every 3 - 6 months as that will likely be more indicative of the win percentages of the races with respect to each other at the highest level; and also spare everyone on TL the sort of circular nonsense these repetitive threads tend to generate. I really can't see anything good coming from this monthly exercise.
|
On November 07 2011 17:09 kofman wrote: #1: Balance whining is not facts. It is just whining that your race is UP, instead of taking losses like a man. Just because some people actually accept the fact that they lost because of their mistakes, not because of imbalance, doesn't mean that they are cheeses. In fact, its the complete opposite; they actually improve because they don't blame the game.
#2: You aren't pro. In fact, I'd be surprised if you were even masters. So, it doesn't affect you. The fact that you think EVERY Korean tournament to have 100% Terran just shows how biased you are.
#1) printing win race statistics ( WHICH ARE TRUE ) is not "balance whining", anymore than pointing out that the sky is blue is "colour whining". Again, silly goose. OP is just printing win rates IN TOURNAMENT GAMES by race. You are uncomfortable and defensive because you (like ANY CHILD) can see that RIGHT NOW, ( and since the launch of the game) one race has had a statistically easier time winning than the others.
#2) hahaha! you silly, silly goose. you see, when GOM, and blizzard decide on how to change maps , and offer patches, they are doing it because they recognize that the vast majority of people that watch SC2 are, like me NOT PRO. and, they recognize that regardless of one's skill level, one wants to compete on a balanced playing field. That is why, the wise ( wiser than you, anyway) folks at Blizzard have consistently nerfed terran every single patch. because they recognize that the race has too many abilities and options. and right now SC2 is not a balanced playing field.
|
On November 07 2011 16:55 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:50 karlkarlson wrote:On November 07 2011 16:41 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:35 Trsjnica wrote: Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release. Yea its crazy, especially since terran has been nerfed the most out of all the races. The idea that terran players are just better might have some truth to it. this is straight up nonsense. the people with the best sense of game balance AND the most accurate statistics, (blizzard) CONTINUE to feel terran is overpowered. one day they'll fire David Kim ( who plays T ) and hire an unbiased lead balance architect... LOL, David Kim plays random fyi, and terran has been constantly nerfed every patch. Even with the nerfs, terrans are still the strongest race. The only reason I can see why terrans are still dominating is that terrans are simply better.
Terrans simply better, just took them a year and a half to start using blue flame hellions which had been unchanged, and ghosts, which some people even said received a nerf from the original cost since "terran is so mineral intensive". Lol. They'll continue to be nerfed as well if the statistics don't even out.
|
On November 07 2011 16:59 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:42 SniXSniPe wrote:On November 07 2011 16:34 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote:On November 07 2011 13:43 MyLastSerenade wrote:On November 07 2011 10:57 Lewan72 wrote: Guys its cuz terran players are just better. one of the few true posts here.... didnt david kim said in an interview that the problem isnt really the balance, it is that so many really skilled players play terran, and not p or z? wow... if he really said this, then that makes me rage... Name the BW pros that switched over as P. Name the ones that are playing Z. Name the ones that are playing T. You'll see a much larger difference in numbers, as well as which race has the most successful players to switch over (in BW). So it's kind of true in a way. Lol yeah it isn't even close Terran: MVP, Puma, Supernova, Ganzi, Nada, Boxer, MMA, Bomber, theSTC, Rainbow, fOrGG Zerg: Nestea, July, Fruitdealer, TheWind, Junwi Protoss: MC, Sangho, Puzzle, Tester Terran outclasses Zerg and Protoss in both quality and quantity. u just named the ones off of ur head. rainbow played protoss in bw also
|
On November 07 2011 16:42 SniXSniPe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:34 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote:On November 07 2011 13:43 MyLastSerenade wrote:On November 07 2011 10:57 Lewan72 wrote: Guys its cuz terran players are just better. one of the few true posts here.... didnt david kim said in an interview that the problem isnt really the balance, it is that so many really skilled players play terran, and not p or z? wow... if he really said this, then that makes me rage... Name the BW pros that switched over as P. Name the ones that are playing Z. Name the ones that are playing T. You'll see a much larger difference in numbers, as well as which race has the most successful players to switch over (in BW). So it's kind of true in a way.
No, the problem is for blizzard that terran is the strongest... but only in korea. Everywhere else terrans are weaker/even, in fact could you name foreign pros who are one of best and play terran? We could name some like jinro, thorzain, kas, strelok, demuslim, sjow etc. but the ones who won recent tournaments are two zergs and protoss (idra, stephano and huk). Back to Korea, I don't think you could name even one protoss and say he's top5 sc2 korean player, toss can barely get into code s so you don't really know how to aproach this situation at all, it is more of this that better and talented players play terran in korea or just terran is imba and if so why we don't see this trend go everywhere else around the globe. Blizzard also said that they have to balance game from top to bottom, they can't just look at code s and nerf terran based on that, they must also see this on other levels of play, especially at gm/master level in europe or na. What would they said to all these people when they would balance the game based on result of code s? STOP COMPLAINING AND LEARN TO PLAY? ;D
|
On November 07 2011 17:20 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:55 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:50 karlkarlson wrote:On November 07 2011 16:41 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:35 Trsjnica wrote: Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release. Yea its crazy, especially since terran has been nerfed the most out of all the races. The idea that terran players are just better might have some truth to it. this is straight up nonsense. the people with the best sense of game balance AND the most accurate statistics, (blizzard) CONTINUE to feel terran is overpowered. one day they'll fire David Kim ( who plays T ) and hire an unbiased lead balance architect... LOL, David Kim plays random fyi, and terran has been constantly nerfed every patch. Even with the nerfs, terrans are still the strongest race. The only reason I can see why terrans are still dominating is that terrans are simply better. Terrans simply better, just took them a year and a half to start using blue flame hellions which had been unchanged, and ghosts, which some people even said received a nerf from the original cost since "terran is so mineral intensive". Lol. They'll continue to be nerfed as well if the statistics don't even out. It is true that at the very top, Terran does have more players that are considered good than the other two races, but you are looking at something like 5-10~ people. That is barely enough to influence graphs like these by very much.
Not to mention even though Terran have been nerfed, nothing they have received is even on the same magnitude as the nerfs the other races have gotten i.e complete removal of Flux Vanes/K.Amulet
|
Man PVZ is worse than PVT now, i knew both where bad but this new resurgence of muta ling is pretty hard to deal with, i think that has something to do with it.
I was only around diamond when i played protoss (play zerg now in plat) but i always found muta ling incredibly hard to stop and wondered why more zergs didnt use it (this was months ago) honestly when a zerg goes mass spine at the begining to stop 6 gate into muta ling there is almoost nothing you can do once they get enough mutas out, they just mass expand for the win. Im glad i play zerg mostly now :D
|
On November 07 2011 17:26 dashmode wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:42 SniXSniPe wrote:On November 07 2011 16:34 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote:On November 07 2011 13:43 MyLastSerenade wrote:On November 07 2011 10:57 Lewan72 wrote: Guys its cuz terran players are just better. one of the few true posts here.... didnt david kim said in an interview that the problem isnt really the balance, it is that so many really skilled players play terran, and not p or z? wow... if he really said this, then that makes me rage... Name the BW pros that switched over as P. Name the ones that are playing Z. Name the ones that are playing T. You'll see a much larger difference in numbers, as well as which race has the most successful players to switch over (in BW). So it's kind of true in a way. No, the problem is for blizzard that terran is the strongest... but only in korea. Everywhere else terrans are weaker/even, in fact could you name foreign pros who are one of best and play terran? We could name some like jinro, thorzain, kas, strelok, demuslim, sjow etc. but the ones who won recent tournaments are two zergs and protoss (idra, stephano and huk). Back to Korea, I don't think you could name even one protoss and say he's top5 sc2 korean player, toss can barely get into code s so you don't really know how to aproach this situation at all, it is more of this that better and talented players play terran in korea or just terran is imba and if so why we don't see this trend go everywhere else around the globe. Blizzard also said that they have to balance game from top to bottom, they can't just look at code s and nerf terran based on that, they must also see this on other levels of play, especially at gm/master level in europe or na. What would they said to all these people when they would balance the game based on result of code s? STOP COMPLAINING AND LEARN TO PLAY? ;D Considering that these graphs include both korean and international data, and the amount of games played in korea is siginifcantly less on a monthly basis (so much so that the author of these graphs stopped seperating korea as their were so little games that 1 player winning the GSL could influence the korea only graphs siginificantly) i doubt korean winrates effect this graph in a very meaningful way to be honest.
|
On November 07 2011 17:20 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:55 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:50 karlkarlson wrote:On November 07 2011 16:41 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:35 Trsjnica wrote: Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release. Yea its crazy, especially since terran has been nerfed the most out of all the races. The idea that terran players are just better might have some truth to it. this is straight up nonsense. the people with the best sense of game balance AND the most accurate statistics, (blizzard) CONTINUE to feel terran is overpowered. one day they'll fire David Kim ( who plays T ) and hire an unbiased lead balance architect... LOL, David Kim plays random fyi, and terran has been constantly nerfed every patch. Even with the nerfs, terrans are still the strongest race. The only reason I can see why terrans are still dominating is that terrans are simply better. Terrans simply better, just took them a year and a half to start using blue flame hellions which had been unchanged, and ghosts, which some people even said received a nerf from the original cost since "terran is so mineral intensive". Lol. They'll continue to be nerfed as well if the statistics don't even out.
He's saying that statistics can only show much. If this game is indeed about skill, rather than race, it's statistically more probable that one or two races are going to have more top players. Right now it's pretty apparent there are more korean terrans and zergs at the top because they are better than korean protosses. Likewise, there are a lot more top foreigner zergs and protosses because foreign terrans are pretty lacking in skill except for a few. There comes a point when you have to stop nerfing and tell the players losing to step it up. Otherwise it's just helping bad players because they play a different race.
|
On November 07 2011 17:06 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon 1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself. 2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable. 3. Soom(tm) edit: lol
I am not whining , the game is balanced
|
looks balanced to me! 43% win rate for pvz has a nice ring to it
|
On November 07 2011 04:42 mordk wrote: I'd like to see the korean TLPD stats apart from international. I have a feeling Protoss fares a lot better on foreigner tournaments than on korean ones. I really dont think the korean winrates effect the graph very much, considering that the reason he merged the 2 graphs a few months ago was because their was too little data for the information to be meaningful. Like i said above one person winning the GSL could significantly effect winrates of the korean graph. I beleive it was only 200 or so games played every month before. Now with the korean weekly though i could imagine it being double that or so.
|
On November 07 2011 17:23 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:59 red4ce wrote:On November 07 2011 16:42 SniXSniPe wrote:On November 07 2011 16:34 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote:On November 07 2011 13:43 MyLastSerenade wrote:On November 07 2011 10:57 Lewan72 wrote: Guys its cuz terran players are just better. one of the few true posts here.... didnt david kim said in an interview that the problem isnt really the balance, it is that so many really skilled players play terran, and not p or z? wow... if he really said this, then that makes me rage... Name the BW pros that switched over as P. Name the ones that are playing Z. Name the ones that are playing T. You'll see a much larger difference in numbers, as well as which race has the most successful players to switch over (in BW). So it's kind of true in a way. Lol yeah it isn't even close Terran: MVP, Puma, Supernova, Ganzi, Nada, Boxer, MMA, Bomber, theSTC, Rainbow, fOrGG Zerg: Nestea, July, Fruitdealer, TheWind, Junwi Protoss: MC, Sangho, Puzzle, Tester Terran outclasses Zerg and Protoss in both quality and quantity. u just named the ones off of ur head. rainbow played protoss in bw also Off the top of my head, you're missing Genius for protoss, Ace for protoss, squirtle for protoss. MKP for Terran. Inca for protoss. DRG for zerg. Losira for zerg. I think all of TSL were former BW pros. I'm not 100 percent sure of this, but I think the majority of professional Starcraft 2 players on a Korean team right now were also on a BW professional team and switched over. In fact, if we're talking about one of the older teams, IM, TSL, OGS, Prime, I am actually pretty confident we have a lot of players of all races switching over from BW
|
On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 17:06 Gheed wrote:On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon 1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself. 2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable. 3. Soom(tm) edit: lol I am not whining , the game is balanced
Oh good grief, no it's actually not. No one that knows anything is claiming that it's balanced
Again, please try to make your silly reasonless case to these pros:
IMMVP 'I think the 1-1-1 should make you be disqualified from GSL.' Basically he's saying that terrans are OP but what part of the 1-1-1 that is OP is left to the imagination.
PoltPrime 'Many of these terrans are in Code S because the race is OP so I will knock them out.' So here Polt Prime is saying that terran is easier to win with basically. You have an easier time beating protoss or zerg players as terran.
EGDeMuslim 'I can't believe that Blizzard isn't looking at the ghost. I mean they nerfed rax build time by 5 seconds but they didn't look at the ghost. Greg (IdrA) keeps telling me to use ghosts more, and I have. Now I know why he thinks they need to be changed.' So EGDeMuslim is kinda hinting at the fact that ghosts should be looked at by Blizzard. This was in SotG episode 50 or 51.
WhiteRa 'I think the ghost have too many good spells. I think they do too good with everything protoss make and I think they need to be looked at by Blizzard. Too many good spells.' So WhiteRa the guy that popularized the statement More GG More Skill is saying that he thinks ghosts are a bit too good at the moment.
Huk 'I wish I played Terran.' This was also in a SotG episode where HuK says that playing terran seems to be a bigger benefit than playing protoss. His reasonings for why terran is a better choice for pro players isn't given but he feels being terran would help him.
IMNesTea 'Everyone knows that terran is much easier than zerg. If he didn't play terran he wouldn't have won so many championships. If I played terran I'd have won a lot more, if he played zerg I don't think he'd win.' This is NesTea talking about his teammate who after the match, looked depressed about winning.
FruitDealer 'You can't beat terran with this s*@$ race! This game is broken!' I hope you can figure out what he said. And maybe figure out why he said this.
oGsMC, 'Protoss is weak right now against terran.' Typically when one race is weaker than other we call that imbalanced. Maybe not though, maybe you can spin this.
Bisu 'Who would ever play that game? I hear it's terran favored. If protoss is so weak why even have them in the game? Just get rid of them. If I had to play it though, I would still pick protoss though.'
LiquidTLO 'Look how easy this race is. You build some rax and make marines. Don't stop making marines and keep pushing. It's not very hard. I stayed with terran because it's much easier.' I think he's saying it's easier to win with terran than zerg or protoss. Just a guess. He stated this on his stream one time.
IdrA and iNcontrol have said lots of things on terran being OP but you can disregard everything they said. IrdA is actually pretty smart and doesn't want to see things broken in this game. I think he needs to change his style a bit and that's why he loses, not his mechanics.
So I think you should tell all those pros, some of those quoted are also GSL champions, others have done well in MLG or other foregin tournaments.
I know, oGsMC, IMMVP, Polt, TLO, Idra, Huk, et .al should just "suck it up, and L2P", right? What a joke your argument is. pathetic.
|
On November 07 2011 17:38 SolidMoose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 17:20 Heavenly wrote:On November 07 2011 16:55 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:50 karlkarlson wrote:On November 07 2011 16:41 kofman wrote:On November 07 2011 16:35 Trsjnica wrote: Pretty insane that ZvT has *always* been Terran-favored, every single month since the game's release. Yea its crazy, especially since terran has been nerfed the most out of all the races. The idea that terran players are just better might have some truth to it. this is straight up nonsense. the people with the best sense of game balance AND the most accurate statistics, (blizzard) CONTINUE to feel terran is overpowered. one day they'll fire David Kim ( who plays T ) and hire an unbiased lead balance architect... LOL, David Kim plays random fyi, and terran has been constantly nerfed every patch. Even with the nerfs, terrans are still the strongest race. The only reason I can see why terrans are still dominating is that terrans are simply better. Terrans simply better, just took them a year and a half to start using blue flame hellions which had been unchanged, and ghosts, which some people even said received a nerf from the original cost since "terran is so mineral intensive". Lol. They'll continue to be nerfed as well if the statistics don't even out. He's saying that statistics can only show much. If this game is indeed about skill, rather than race, it's statistically more probable that one or two races are going to have more top players. Right now it's pretty apparent there are more korean terrans and zergs at the top because they are better than korean protosses. Likewise, there are a lot more top foreigner zergs and protosses because foreign terrans are pretty lacking in skill except for a few. There comes a point when you have to stop nerfing and tell the players losing to step it up. Otherwise it's just helping bad players because they play a different race. there are more protoss than terrans in korean GM though...
|
On November 07 2011 17:26 dashmode wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:42 SniXSniPe wrote:On November 07 2011 16:34 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote:On November 07 2011 13:43 MyLastSerenade wrote:On November 07 2011 10:57 Lewan72 wrote: Guys its cuz terran players are just better. one of the few true posts here.... didnt david kim said in an interview that the problem isnt really the balance, it is that so many really skilled players play terran, and not p or z? wow... if he really said this, then that makes me rage... Name the BW pros that switched over as P. Name the ones that are playing Z. Name the ones that are playing T. You'll see a much larger difference in numbers, as well as which race has the most successful players to switch over (in BW). So it's kind of true in a way. No, the problem is for blizzard that terran is the strongest... but only in korea.
Please read the OP. These stats are for tournaments worldwide- it's not just code S and it's not just Korea.
|
PvZ hurts my fucking soul. Muta ling is so stupidly hard to beat. Seems like I'm not alone just browsing through TL as of late. Oh well we just had 3 months of the ridiculous build that is 1-1-1, it's only fair that protoss starts to beat that and Zerg start fucking us in the ass. Back to the drawing board then eh? And I was just starting to feel I was getting a decent (ish) grasp on PvZ T_T
|
On November 07 2011 18:27 Tingles wrote: PvZ hurts my fucking soul. Muta ling is so stupidly hard to beat. Seems like I'm not alone just browsing through TL as of late. Oh well we just had 3 months of the ridiculous build that is 1-1-1, it's only fair that protoss starts to beat that and Zerg start fucking us in the ass. Back to the drawing board then eh? And I was just starting to feel I was getting a decent (ish) grasp on PvZ T_T
It's more map abuse than anything. Hopefully thirds become easier to secure and defend for toss in the future.
|
On November 07 2011 18:31 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 18:27 Tingles wrote: PvZ hurts my fucking soul. Muta ling is so stupidly hard to beat. Seems like I'm not alone just browsing through TL as of late. Oh well we just had 3 months of the ridiculous build that is 1-1-1, it's only fair that protoss starts to beat that and Zerg start fucking us in the ass. Back to the drawing board then eh? And I was just starting to feel I was getting a decent (ish) grasp on PvZ T_T It's more map abuse than anything. Hopefully thirds become easier to secure and defend for toss in the future.
Totally agree with that. It's also a lack of mobility that Protoss seems to inherently have. It's seemingly impossible if they keep adding to the muta ball which snowballs, and trying to secure a 3rd. They just bounce back and forth between your 3rd ( denying it ) main and nat. And all the while your loosing probes and stalkers every time. Needless to say it's extremely stressful to deal with, and the times that i have dealt with, I've basically completely outplayed my opponent, and they've had lacklustre execution. More of a vent than anything to do with balance ... has to be one of the most frustrating things I've ever dealt with in SC2.
|
For me it is very simple. I look at the tournaments page (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues ) and I look at the grandmaster stats:
EU Grandmaster: - Protoss 32.5% (64) - Terran 24.4% (48) - Zerg 43.1% (85)
Korea: Grandmaster: - Protoss: 39.5% (75) - Terran: 35.8% (68) - Zerg: 24.2% (46)
America: Grandmaster: - Protoss: 36.1% (65) - Terran: 27.8% (50) - Zerg: 33.3% (60)
Terran is definately imbalanced ;d
|
On November 07 2011 18:09 karlkarlson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote:On November 07 2011 17:06 Gheed wrote:On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon 1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself. 2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable. 3. Soom(tm) edit: lol I am not whining , the game is balanced Oh good grief, no it's actually not. No one that knows anything is claiming that it's balancedAgain, please try to make your silly reasonless case to these pros: Show nested quote + IMMVP 'I think the 1-1-1 should make you be disqualified from GSL.' Basically he's saying that terrans are OP but what part of the 1-1-1 that is OP is left to the imagination.
PoltPrime 'Many of these terrans are in Code S because the race is OP so I will knock them out.' So here Polt Prime is saying that terran is easier to win with basically. You have an easier time beating protoss or zerg players as terran.
EGDeMuslim 'I can't believe that Blizzard isn't looking at the ghost. I mean they nerfed rax build time by 5 seconds but they didn't look at the ghost. Greg (IdrA) keeps telling me to use ghosts more, and I have. Now I know why he thinks they need to be changed.' So EGDeMuslim is kinda hinting at the fact that ghosts should be looked at by Blizzard. This was in SotG episode 50 or 51.
WhiteRa 'I think the ghost have too many good spells. I think they do too good with everything protoss make and I think they need to be looked at by Blizzard. Too many good spells.' So WhiteRa the guy that popularized the statement More GG More Skill is saying that he thinks ghosts are a bit too good at the moment.
Huk 'I wish I played Terran.' This was also in a SotG episode where HuK says that playing terran seems to be a bigger benefit than playing protoss. His reasonings for why terran is a better choice for pro players isn't given but he feels being terran would help him.
IMNesTea 'Everyone knows that terran is much easier than zerg. If he didn't play terran he wouldn't have won so many championships. If I played terran I'd have won a lot more, if he played zerg I don't think he'd win.' This is NesTea talking about his teammate who after the match, looked depressed about winning.
FruitDealer 'You can't beat terran with this s*@$ race! This game is broken!' I hope you can figure out what he said. And maybe figure out why he said this.
oGsMC, 'Protoss is weak right now against terran.' Typically when one race is weaker than other we call that imbalanced. Maybe not though, maybe you can spin this.
Bisu 'Who would ever play that game? I hear it's terran favored. If protoss is so weak why even have them in the game? Just get rid of them. If I had to play it though, I would still pick protoss though.'
LiquidTLO 'Look how easy this race is. You build some rax and make marines. Don't stop making marines and keep pushing. It's not very hard. I stayed with terran because it's much easier.' I think he's saying it's easier to win with terran than zerg or protoss. Just a guess. He stated this on his stream one time.
IdrA and iNcontrol have said lots of things on terran being OP but you can disregard everything they said. IrdA is actually pretty smart and doesn't want to see things broken in this game. I think he needs to change his style a bit and that's why he loses, not his mechanics.
So I think you should tell all those pros, some of those quoted are also GSL champions, others have done well in MLG or other foregin tournaments.
I know, oGsMC, IMMVP, Polt, TLO, Idra, Huk, et .al should just "suck it up, and L2P", right? What a joke your argument is. pathetic.
There are some very interesting quotes here. Bisus quote feels weird to include, even though he is a bw pro, he is nothing more then a casual /spectator for sc2.
If you ask me, the game can only be balanced around PRO PLAY. And by the looks of it, most pros seem to agree that there is a problem with terran being op in one way or the other
|
October has by far a smaller sample size... I'd wait a bit more before crying imbalance in any of the matchups... But Protoss is getting some nice buffs in the next patch.
|
Interesting to see these results. I hope protoss learn some new tricks soon, because their current win rate is kind of sad.
|
|
On November 07 2011 20:17 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote:On November 07 2011 17:06 Gheed wrote:On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon 1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself. 2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable. 3. Soom(tm) edit: lol I am not whining , the game is balanced Clearly not. Look at the graphs. The game should be balanced for the highest level of play, not scrubs like me.
You wouldn't say that if it were the other way around (Protoss hard to play on ladder but doing great in code S). At some point, they also have to think about the 99,99% of people who play this game.
If they buff Protoss further a lot of people, including myself, will start to get really angry.
|
So if you guys take this graph for what it means I guess zergs don't little to complain about T OP if they're winning an egregious percentage of ZvPs, as in, much more than TvPs and TvZs. In fact, that has been going on for two months now unchecked, it seems. We'll see what happens as the new patch kicks in. TvZ in numbers looks even enough.
Next patch is going to nerf TvP but I don't know how much it'll hurt TvZ as well, if TvZ is so close to 50% with the current emp radius vs infestors I don't know how the nerf's gonna hit TvZ. TvP it'll indeed do nothing but good in the pro tiers but for people on the ladder, this could mean TvP will be [some degree between a little to a lot] harder for the average player.
|
On November 07 2011 19:04 Snowbear wrote: For me it is very simple. I look at the tournaments page (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues ) and I look at the grandmaster stats:
EU Grandmaster: - Protoss 32.5% (64) - Terran 24.4% (48) - Zerg 43.1% (85)
Korea: Grandmaster: - Protoss: 39.5% (75) - Terran: 35.8% (68) - Zerg: 24.2% (46)
America: Grandmaster: - Protoss: 36.1% (65) - Terran: 27.8% (50) - Zerg: 33.3% (60)
Terran is definately imbalanced ;d
You really think ladder is more important than tournaments for determining balance?
|
On November 07 2011 20:48 Ktk wrote: So if you guys take this graph for what it means I guess zergs don't little to complain about T OP if they're winning an egregious percentage of ZvPs, as in, much more than TvPs and TvZs. In fact, that has been going on for two months now unchecked, it seems. We'll see what happens as the new patch kicks in. TvZ in numbers looks even enough.
Next patch is going to nerf TvP but I don't know how much it'll hurt TvZ as well, if TvZ is so close to 50% with the current emp radius vs infestors I don't know how the nerf's gonna hit TvZ. TvP it'll indeed do nothing but good in the pro tiers but for people on the ladder, this could mean TvP will be [some degree between a little to a lot] harder for the average player.
Well if the next patch is identical to whats on PTR, you can expect more devastating 1/2 timing pushes from Protoss.
The ghost nerf i am not sure about, i still think Blizz should have left it at 150 gas.
Protoss at the moment seen to be stuck on the Fast Expand mentality and its becoming predictable, although from what i have seen recently the meta game is changing to a more aggressive stance.
|
If the numbers are a fair representation of pro play then it doesn't look unfixable. 0-5 % is small enough for a meta game shift or balance change by blizzard to have a pretty good relative effect. ZvP looks a bit worriesome though.
|
810 matches for 6 different matchups. That results in 135 games per matchup. Not that many games in my opinion. Furthermore I didn't consider that races are probably not absolutely equally distributed. This will lead to an even smaller database.
|
On November 07 2011 20:41 MilesTeg wrote: You wouldn't say that if it were the other way around (Protoss hard to play on ladder but doing great in code S).
Nice baseless assertion/ad hominem attack there, meant to discredit an argument without tackling it directly.
On November 07 2011 20:41 MilesTeg wrote: At some point, they also have to think about the 99,99% of people who play this game.
At the level you play at, balance doesn't mean shit. You can solve the balance problem by just playing more and getting better. I can guarantee that any problems you have in any match-up can be solved by something simple - if you were good enough that you didn't make stupid mistakes, you would be in GM/Code S too.
On November 07 2011 20:41 MilesTeg wrote: If they buff Protoss further a lot of people, including myself, will start to get really angry.
Oh no - we wouldn't want you to get offended, now? And I find it ignorant/heavily biased that you call it "further". Blizzard has been ridiculously inconsistent since release in buffing, say, Zerg, and nerfing, say, Protoss. Terran's nerfs have been minimal, while Protoss has had tons of important ones, crippling the race when there was no need to: David Kim was having an off day, it seems, and decided he didn't like playing vs Protoss.
|
differences between ladders stats and tournaments stats, must obey to different pool map.
|
wonder why the sample size keeps plummeting, ah right, tvt...
|
So have we finally come down to arguing that balance shouldn't be done at the highest level now? Is this the last line of Terran defence?
|
The ZvP winrates are kinda interesting. I think that this is mostly due to what has so far been a very stale metagame that Zergs have recently shaken up with increasing muta play.
The problem is that most ZvP's boil down to a FFE into double stargate, 6-8 gate, stargate into 6-8gate, or stargate into 2-base robo. These openings have been used for months now and most zerg players know the timings and exactly how to counter these plays.
On top of that Zerg players have discovered that Protoss players haven't figured out how to deal with mutas yet. I don't think that protoss lacks any ability to counter mutas, in fact they have some of the best counters to mutas in the game. The problem is that they don't quite know how to effectively split their army, when to start putting down cannons, how many cannons they need, and that colossi are not good against mutas. Once protoss players start to get a feel for the timings and the required responses to mutas I have a feeling that muta play in ZvP will largely disappear.
|
On November 07 2011 21:38 Klystron wrote: On top of that Zerg players have discovered that Protoss players haven't figured out how to deal with mutas yet. I don't think that protoss lacks any ability to counter mutas, in fact they have some of the best counters to mutas in the game. The problem is that they don't quite know how to effectively split their army, when to start putting down cannons, how many cannons they need, and that colossi are not good against mutas. Once protoss players start to get a feel for the timings and the required responses to mutas I have a feeling that muta play in ZvP will largely disappear.
Having just watched HerO vs Crazymoving, I can safely say that you are wrong about everything here except the first sentence - and the reason for that is there isn't a way to "deal with" mutas unless your opponent makes a massive mistake.
|
|
On November 07 2011 21:08 Sellerie wrote: 810 matches for 6 different matchups. That results in 135 games per matchup. Not that many games in my opinion. Furthermore I didn't consider that races are probably not absolutely equally distributed. This will lead to an even smaller database.
It's not just one month, the win rates have been trending this way for months and with bigger sample sizes in previous months.
|
|
On November 07 2011 20:52 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 19:04 Snowbear wrote: For me it is very simple. I look at the tournaments page (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues ) and I look at the grandmaster stats:
EU Grandmaster: - Protoss 32.5% (64) - Terran 24.4% (48) - Zerg 43.1% (85)
Korea: Grandmaster: - Protoss: 39.5% (75) - Terran: 35.8% (68) - Zerg: 24.2% (46)
America: Grandmaster: - Protoss: 36.1% (65) - Terran: 27.8% (50) - Zerg: 33.3% (60)
Terran is definately imbalanced ;d You really think ladder is more important than tournaments for determining balance? No, that's exactly why I also linked the tournament page
|
Its strange because the recent patches nerf terran and zerg and buff protoss yet the graphs showing worse for protoss.
I honestly think we should see graphs wat "phase" of the game the win rates are for each matchup. Like for example, first 12 minutes of game = PvZ 60% win rate while 13-24 minutes of game = PvZ 40% win rate.
I think that can show us if its early game timing attacks/all ins that is the source of problem of the winning and losing or the late game.
|
ZvP is significantly favoring Zerg. IMO main reason is no viable counter to muta-ling, and more specifically - mutas.
|
On November 07 2011 22:12 OpTiKDream wrote: Its strange because the recent patches nerf terran and zerg and buff protoss yet the graphs showing worse for protoss.
I honestly think we should see graphs wat "phase" of the game the win rates are for each matchup. Like for example, first 12 minutes of game = PvZ 60% win rate while 13-24 minutes of game = PvZ 40% win rate.
I think that can show us if its early game timing attacks/all ins that is the source of problem of the winning and losing or the late game.
that's a really good idea.
All that would be needed to do is to add a time field into TLPD, so that when a win is recorded, a time can also be recorded.
Then people can pull that info and split everything correctly.
|
these graphs are not worth looking at and stating anything about balance. Needs more games, and not just tourney results where metagame shifts are everything
|
On November 07 2011 22:49 radiantshadow92 wrote: these graphs are not worth looking at and stating anything about balance. Needs more games, and not just tourney results where metagame shifts are everything
Hahahahahaha! Look at the first page:
On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated!
I think you should probably read some of the thread before posting in it. Or maybe you are just oblivious to sarcasm, have never seen one of these statistics threads again and happen to be 12 years old.
TBH I think this post by ZenithM should be put in the OP of every one of these monthly graphs, just to stop all the original [/sarcasm] posting like radiantshadow92's.
|
Ignore the bars and see the numbers,there's a 13% dissiparity in ZvP,that is not balanced.I'm a zerg player btw.
|
On November 07 2011 17:00 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 16:58 zanmat0 wrote:On November 07 2011 16:04 Amui wrote:On November 07 2011 15:48 zanmat0 wrote:On November 07 2011 12:59 thedirtyleg wrote: What's up with the low sample size for this month compared to past months? Who knows, but we can clearly conclude that it makes this month's % inaccurate. If there was a larger sample size, I'm sure we can all agree that PvT would be 50/50, maybe Protoss even being a bit OP. I would agree with the first statement that this months statistics are potentially inaccurate due to insufficient sample size. How you get that the first statement makes the second a fact doesn't make sense to me. That's a possibility, but it could just as easily be 40-60 in favour of terran. Heh, I guess I was too subtle. No, it's just that your troll backfired. Now what did you learn?
I leared that you don't know what trolling is, because I was being sarcastic, and that you should look up the proper definition of each term.
Try googling "dictionary" or "urban dictionary." I think that will help.
|
But whart do you do with a game that is clearly won with the push at the 10th minut but the finishing blow is only at the 15 min mark. That happens quite often, especcialy with Zergs, who get crippled enormously, scramble to get back and get murdered...
|
On November 07 2011 22:56 mrafaeldie12 wrote: Ignore the bars and see the numbers,there's a 13% dissiparity in ZvP,that is not balanced.I'm a zerg player btw.
The goal of the matchup is 50% winrate. Blizzard has stated that they operate with a 5% statistical margin (like many statistics studies does). The real "imbalance" thus happens when the winrate goes above 5%. In this way, we can say that with the error margin, the winrate goes about 1-2% in favor of the Zerg... Seems fine to me with all the metagame shifts recently.
|
On November 07 2011 23:56 Stiluz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 22:56 mrafaeldie12 wrote: Ignore the bars and see the numbers,there's a 13% dissiparity in ZvP,that is not balanced.I'm a zerg player btw. The goal of the matchup is 50% winrate. Blizzard has stated that they operate with a 5% statistical margin (like many statistics studies does). The real "imbalance" thus happens when the winrate goes above 5%. In this way, we can say that with the error margin, the winrate goes about 1-2% in favor of the Zerg... Seems fine to me with all the metagame shifts recently. Zerg is winning 29% more than Protoss in ZvP. Does that really look fine?
|
I think it's actually balanced right now. I'm a protoss player btw.
|
On November 07 2011 04:29 juicyjames wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:23 TerlocSG wrote: The Y-axis kind of makes the graphs misleading. :/ It makes the difference in win % look a lot bigger than it really is. It's good information, and I'm not saying it isn't true, just making the view from 40 to 60% makes a 5% difference look huge. Finally someone else points this out! After learning about statistics I have begun to look at graphs and polls more carefully for this kind thing, and am very surprised at how misleading these can be due to the Y-axis alone.
In this case 5% is actually HUGE.
|
Interesting graphs, but what whould be more interesting is some data about whining. Why do people whine?
I mean this is top level play, at bronze-masters (in Eu and NA) where 99 % of TL community are at, protoss got more win % than T for example. In masters + GM Z got 40 % win against T and P... I guess if you play in GM on korean server as P you can whine?
|
On November 07 2011 21:45 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 21:08 Sellerie wrote: 810 matches for 6 different matchups. That results in 135 games per matchup. Not that many games in my opinion. Furthermore I didn't consider that races are probably not absolutely equally distributed. This will lead to an even smaller database. It's not just one month, the win rates have been trending this way for months and with bigger sample sizes in previous months.
Also, mirrors are not included in those numbers, so it's only 3 matchups. Total for October is around 1200 games.
|
On November 08 2011 00:11 Pippi wrote: Interesting graphs, but what whould be more interesting is some data about whining. Why do people whine?
I mean this is top level play, at bronze-masters (in Eu and NA) where 99 % of TL community are at, protoss got more win % than T for example. In masters + GM Z got 40 % win against T and P... I guess if you play in GM on korean server as P you can whine?
Sure, you can't whine about the play at your level, but you sure can whine about how bad your favourite player/s is/are doing, and/or how few PvX matchups you get because there are so few successful P players, and/or how there are few interesting games in PvX because a strategy is broken.
Just some examples. There are always reasons to whine, Pippi.
|
5% difference in win rate is a huge difference in a game like SCII. That is because a huge percent of the games are decided either by an overwhelming difference in skill/performance, or by an important mistake by one of the players. So a 55%-45% can be seen as a 15%-5% win rate on games by evenly matched players where no-one fucks up, while the other 40%-40% is games that are decided by factors not related to balance.
Also historically in BW a >5% imbalance in winrates usually meant that the match up was clearly favouring one of the two sides.
|
On November 08 2011 00:11 Pippi wrote: Interesting graphs, but what whould be more interesting is some data about whining. Why do people whine?
I mean this is top level play, at bronze-masters (in Eu and NA) where 99 % of TL community are at, protoss got more win % than T for example. In masters + GM Z got 40 % win against T and P... I guess if you play in GM on korean server as P you can whine?
No you can't.
Korea grandmaster: - Protoss: 39.5% (75) - Terran: 35.8% (68) - Zerg: 24.2% (46)
|
On November 07 2011 18:09 karlkarlson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote:On November 07 2011 17:06 Gheed wrote:On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon 1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself. 2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable. 3. Soom(tm) edit: lol I am not whining , the game is balanced Oh good grief, no it's actually not. No one that knows anything is claiming that it's balancedAgain, please try to make your silly reasonless case to these pros: Show nested quote + IMMVP 'I think the 1-1-1 should make you be disqualified from GSL.' Basically he's saying that terrans are OP but what part of the 1-1-1 that is OP is left to the imagination.
PoltPrime 'Many of these terrans are in Code S because the race is OP so I will knock them out.' So here Polt Prime is saying that terran is easier to win with basically. You have an easier time beating protoss or zerg players as terran.
EGDeMuslim 'I can't believe that Blizzard isn't looking at the ghost. I mean they nerfed rax build time by 5 seconds but they didn't look at the ghost. Greg (IdrA) keeps telling me to use ghosts more, and I have. Now I know why he thinks they need to be changed.' So EGDeMuslim is kinda hinting at the fact that ghosts should be looked at by Blizzard. This was in SotG episode 50 or 51.
WhiteRa 'I think the ghost have too many good spells. I think they do too good with everything protoss make and I think they need to be looked at by Blizzard. Too many good spells.' So WhiteRa the guy that popularized the statement More GG More Skill is saying that he thinks ghosts are a bit too good at the moment.
Huk 'I wish I played Terran.' This was also in a SotG episode where HuK says that playing terran seems to be a bigger benefit than playing protoss. His reasonings for why terran is a better choice for pro players isn't given but he feels being terran would help him.
IMNesTea 'Everyone knows that terran is much easier than zerg. If he didn't play terran he wouldn't have won so many championships. If I played terran I'd have won a lot more, if he played zerg I don't think he'd win.' This is NesTea talking about his teammate who after the match, looked depressed about winning.
FruitDealer 'You can't beat terran with this s*@$ race! This game is broken!' I hope you can figure out what he said. And maybe figure out why he said this.
oGsMC, 'Protoss is weak right now against terran.' Typically when one race is weaker than other we call that imbalanced. Maybe not though, maybe you can spin this.
Bisu 'Who would ever play that game? I hear it's terran favored. If protoss is so weak why even have them in the game? Just get rid of them. If I had to play it though, I would still pick protoss though.'
LiquidTLO 'Look how easy this race is. You build some rax and make marines. Don't stop making marines and keep pushing. It's not very hard. I stayed with terran because it's much easier.' I think he's saying it's easier to win with terran than zerg or protoss. Just a guess. He stated this on his stream one time.
IdrA and iNcontrol have said lots of things on terran being OP but you can disregard everything they said. IrdA is actually pretty smart and doesn't want to see things broken in this game. I think he needs to change his style a bit and that's why he loses, not his mechanics.
So I think you should tell all those pros, some of those quoted are also GSL champions, others have done well in MLG or other foregin tournaments.
I know, oGsMC, IMMVP, Polt, TLO, Idra, Huk, et .al should just "suck it up, and L2P", right? What a joke your argument is. pathetic. Lol, a lot of these quotes don't even say that Terran is imba. Your just interpreting it like that. Their balance has nothing to do with your balanced. At your bronze level, the game is balanced. So please, stop spreading this bullshit that somehow, game imbalance effects you.
|
On November 08 2011 00:11 Pippi wrote: Interesting graphs, but what whould be more interesting is some data about whining. Why do people whine?
I mean this is top level play, at bronze-masters (in Eu and NA) where 99 % of TL community are at, protoss got more win % than T for example. In masters + GM Z got 40 % win against T and P... I guess if you play in GM on korean server as P you can whine? ... If you play Protoss in general you are given your rights to whine
|
On November 07 2011 20:17 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote:On November 07 2011 17:06 Gheed wrote:On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon 1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself. 2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable. 3. Soom(tm) edit: lol I am not whining , the game is balanced Clearly not. Look at the graphs. The game should be balanced for the highest level of play, not scrubs like me.
You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk.
The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking.
|
On November 08 2011 00:16 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:11 Pippi wrote: Interesting graphs, but what whould be more interesting is some data about whining. Why do people whine?
I mean this is top level play, at bronze-masters (in Eu and NA) where 99 % of TL community are at, protoss got more win % than T for example. In masters + GM Z got 40 % win against T and P... I guess if you play in GM on korean server as P you can whine? Sure, you can't whine about the play at your level, but you sure can whine about how bad your favourite player/s is/are doing, and/or how few PvX matchups you get because there are so few successful P players, and/or how there are few interesting games in PvX because a strategy is broken. Just some examples. There are always reasons to whine, Pippi.
Nice, now make a graph out of it please :D
|
When the game is finally balanced professional protoss players are going to be so dominant, having played SC2 with one hand tied behind their backs for so long. Today's imbalanced gameplay is just the crucible that refines and perfects tomorrow's bonjwa.
|
|
On November 07 2011 21:18 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 20:41 MilesTeg wrote: You wouldn't say that if it were the other way around (Protoss hard to play on ladder but doing great in code S). Nice baseless assertion/ad hominem attack there, meant to discredit an argument without tackling it directly. Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 20:41 MilesTeg wrote: At some point, they also have to think about the 99,99% of people who play this game. At the level you play at, balance doesn't mean shit. You can solve the balance problem by just playing more and getting better. I can guarantee that any problems you have in any match-up can be solved by something simple - if you were good enough that you didn't make stupid mistakes, you would be in GM/Code S too. Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 20:41 MilesTeg wrote: If they buff Protoss further a lot of people, including myself, will start to get really angry. Oh no - we wouldn't want you to get offended, now? And I find it ignorant/heavily biased that you call it "further". Blizzard has been ridiculously inconsistent since release in buffing, say, Zerg, and nerfing, say, Protoss. Terran's nerfs have been minimal, while Protoss has had tons of important ones, crippling the race when there was no need to: David Kim was having an off day, it seems, and decided he didn't like playing vs Protoss.
What a ridiculous post.
-It's ignorant and biased to call the last patches buffs to Protoss? Ok, sorry, didn't realise...
-Balance doesn't mean shit at my level? How about the level of 99% of the people who play, from bronze to grand master? How about your level? Would it be fair that you can be in Master as Protoss with the same skill as a gold Zerg? Wouldn't that be the definition of a balance problem? EVERYONE makes mistakes, by your standard every pro Protoss should stop whining because if they play better they'll never lose. 1/1/1 should never win if the Protoss doesn't screw up, does it mean it was balanced?
-Don't say an assertion is baseless just because you didn't understand it correctly. Also you really shouldn't use words like ad hominem if you don't know what they mean.
-Maybe, just maybe, Protoss has been nerfed because they were way too powerful? That shit Protoss players were winning against good Zergs? Quite hilarious that you call me biased and then write this garbage on David Kim...
Rage less, think more before posting, thanks.
|
On November 08 2011 00:26 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 18:09 karlkarlson wrote:On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote:On November 07 2011 17:06 Gheed wrote:On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon 1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself. 2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable. 3. Soom(tm) edit: lol I am not whining , the game is balanced Oh good grief, no it's actually not. No one that knows anything is claiming that it's balancedAgain, please try to make your silly reasonless case to these pros: IMMVP 'I think the 1-1-1 should make you be disqualified from GSL.' Basically he's saying that terrans are OP but what part of the 1-1-1 that is OP is left to the imagination.
PoltPrime 'Many of these terrans are in Code S because the race is OP so I will knock them out.' So here Polt Prime is saying that terran is easier to win with basically. You have an easier time beating protoss or zerg players as terran.
EGDeMuslim 'I can't believe that Blizzard isn't looking at the ghost. I mean they nerfed rax build time by 5 seconds but they didn't look at the ghost. Greg (IdrA) keeps telling me to use ghosts more, and I have. Now I know why he thinks they need to be changed.' So EGDeMuslim is kinda hinting at the fact that ghosts should be looked at by Blizzard. This was in SotG episode 50 or 51.
WhiteRa 'I think the ghost have too many good spells. I think they do too good with everything protoss make and I think they need to be looked at by Blizzard. Too many good spells.' So WhiteRa the guy that popularized the statement More GG More Skill is saying that he thinks ghosts are a bit too good at the moment.
Huk 'I wish I played Terran.' This was also in a SotG episode where HuK says that playing terran seems to be a bigger benefit than playing protoss. His reasonings for why terran is a better choice for pro players isn't given but he feels being terran would help him.
IMNesTea 'Everyone knows that terran is much easier than zerg. If he didn't play terran he wouldn't have won so many championships. If I played terran I'd have won a lot more, if he played zerg I don't think he'd win.' This is NesTea talking about his teammate who after the match, looked depressed about winning.
FruitDealer 'You can't beat terran with this s*@$ race! This game is broken!' I hope you can figure out what he said. And maybe figure out why he said this.
oGsMC, 'Protoss is weak right now against terran.' Typically when one race is weaker than other we call that imbalanced. Maybe not though, maybe you can spin this.
Bisu 'Who would ever play that game? I hear it's terran favored. If protoss is so weak why even have them in the game? Just get rid of them. If I had to play it though, I would still pick protoss though.'
LiquidTLO 'Look how easy this race is. You build some rax and make marines. Don't stop making marines and keep pushing. It's not very hard. I stayed with terran because it's much easier.' I think he's saying it's easier to win with terran than zerg or protoss. Just a guess. He stated this on his stream one time.
IdrA and iNcontrol have said lots of things on terran being OP but you can disregard everything they said. IrdA is actually pretty smart and doesn't want to see things broken in this game. I think he needs to change his style a bit and that's why he loses, not his mechanics.
So I think you should tell all those pros, some of those quoted are also GSL champions, others have done well in MLG or other foregin tournaments.
I know, oGsMC, IMMVP, Polt, TLO, Idra, Huk, et .al should just "suck it up, and L2P", right? What a joke your argument is. pathetic. Lol, a lot of these quotes don't even say that Terran is imba. Your just interpreting it like that. Their balance has nothing to do with your balanced. At your bronze level, the game is balanced. So please, stop spreading this bullshit that somehow, game imbalance effects you.
Of course pro level imbalance affects us, because we are following the pro scene. SCII is a sport and we care about what our favourite athletes are doing, like in any other sport. If you don't care about the pro scene I don't understand why post or even bother to read a topic about win percentages in professional tournaments. You should instead go post in a topic about the strengths and weaknesses of one base play with no workers along with other bronze level players and leave the people that actually follow pro tournaments have opinions about the balance at these levels.
|
I don't even know where to start with this guy:
On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core.
...Whereas for lower league players, metagame counts for nothing and "true", hypothetical balance means nothing? Balance means nothing for lower leagues: if you get better, the balance issues you are experiencing become nothing and different ones emerge. Blizzard should clearly try to balance for the highest level of balance.
On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff?
Then they would previously have had a higher than 50% winrate and it would be slowly averaging to 50%, dumbass. The only reason for it going lower than 50% would be that other races' players are somehow "better" on average - which there is no evidence AT ALL for, so stop talking bollocks. Also, nice "subtle" homophobia here.
On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk.
Baseless assertion, bullshit, yaddayaddayadda. None of this is supported by evidence, it's just some words you managed to spew while looking at statistics you clearly don't understand or else are heavily biased against.
On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us.
Zerg has had an over 50% winrate in PvZ since April. I'm sure that counts as "starts to win" to you. And what evidence have you shown there for Zerg having to explore every aspect while other races haven't? That's right, nada. Zilch.
On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried?
You really want to ask that? OK, how about mass Queen/Baneling vs Protoss with Ultra drops for harassment? See how little your question proves?
On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to.
On the contrary, Protoss were using their full techtree before most Zergs knew what Infestors were. HTs were regularly seen in Beta and just after release, and the "deathball" came into play months ago. Zergs only discovered their Infestor/BL combo a couple of months ago - in what way do you not see "different stuff" from Protoss. Again, talking out of your biased, ignorant ass.
On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers!
Because Mothership/Carriers hasn't already been extensively tried in tourney play (Kiwi vs Stephano, MLG, HongUn's MLG PvZ, White-Ra's PvZ on Shakuras for months). [/sarcasm]
On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking.
Yeah, Warp Prism harass is becoming more popular, but it is not purely because Protoss players finally found the extra fingers needed to micro it. There was a buff which made Warp Prism harassment more viable, and this encourages pro use.
It frustrates and shocks me that people even contend with the statistics about the highest level of play. I suppose it's far easier to follow your own pre-existing prejudices and biases than look at logic...
|
On November 08 2011 00:38 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:On November 07 2011 20:17 Sated wrote:On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote:On November 07 2011 17:06 Gheed wrote:On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon 1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself. 2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable. 3. Soom(tm) edit: lol I am not whining , the game is balanced Clearly not. Look at the graphs. The game should be balanced for the highest level of play, not scrubs like me. You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk. The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking. Already answered this: For SC2 to be a legitimate ESPORT, the game has to be balanced at the tournament level. As for the stuff about Protoss players using "gay stuff", are you legitimately trying to say that the top Protoss players don't know what they're doing..? I don't think that's a good argument. EDIT: Also, get creative with "motherships or even carriers"? Those are units that are being removed from the game because Blizzard knows they suck. GG. =/
If you're balancing it for the pros, then it's not balanced. W/e though I'm not gonna try to explain/argue that.
What I'm saying is races get into a rut because EVERYBODY DOES THE SAME DAMN THING. You can say that means the pros "don't know what they're doing" but I'm not letting you put words in my mouth. If a race has options that are easily exploitable, then the people who do those things are going to be further behind in other aspects of the game... period. That's what I'm saying. If protoss was able to herp derp a move their way to a lot of wins for the first 8 months of the game or w/e, then they're going to be behind in everything else. That's pretty much a fact. And please re-read what I said once or twice before you post something like "LOL YOU SAID IT'S A FACT THAT PROTOSS PLAYERS R BAD LOLOLOL" or whatever.
|
Wow this game is relatively balanced. Keep up the good work blizzie.
|
Its funny how all the good terrans have high tailed out of here and the only ones defending T are bronze-gold leaguers.
|
|
|
I wonder when blizzard will realize that terran win rate has never been below 50%
|
On November 08 2011 00:39 MilesTeg wrote:
What a ridiculous post.
-It's ignorant and biased to call the last patches buffs to Protoss? Ok, sorry, didn't realise...
The most recent patches have been a couple of buffs to Protoss, mixed with a few nerfs. These are somehow intended to compensate for the absurd and constant nerfs since release.
You act like Protoss has been consistently buffed since released, and are approaching a point where they are really imba. Nothing could be further from the truth. Go and look at the patches for the past year and then post them here and complain about P constantly getting buffed. Nah, I didn't think so.
On November 08 2011 00:39 MilesTeg wrote: -Balance doesn't mean shit at my level? How about the level of 99% of the people who play, from bronze to grand master? How about your level?
If you aren't a pro, balance means very little to you. If you are below high Masters, you clearly aren't that good anyway (I'm not good at all) and if you really care about the game balance at your level and your win/loss ratio, you should be getting better instead of talking about it on the forums. I care about the balance at the level I watch and try to enjoy: not my personal nooby level.
On November 08 2011 00:39 MilesTeg wrote: Would it be fair that you can be in Master as Protoss with the same skill as a gold Zerg? Wouldn't that be the definition of a balance problem?
It would, but it would be a balance problem for lower leagues (the leagues I play in): an irrelevant one. As I posted above, who cares if mass Void Ray is too good in Bronze? You can get your act together and fix those simple mistakes and those balance problems become irrelevant.
On November 08 2011 00:39 MilesTeg wrote: EVERYONE makes mistakes, by your standard every pro Protoss should stop whining because if they play better they'll never lose. 1/1/1 should never win if the Protoss doesn't screw up, does it mean it was balanced?
Straw man argument - I never said "if you make any mistakes at all, balance doesn't affect your level". I said that if your play still has massive flaws in it, balance is irrelevant. You can easily get better and then the alleged balance problems at your level are just gone.
On November 08 2011 00:39 MilesTeg wrote: -Don't say an assertion is baseless just because you didn't understand it correctly. Also you really shouldn't use words like ad hominem if you don't know what they mean.
Again, instead of addressing my argument directly you throw some straw up in the air and tell me I don't know what words mean.
You said:
On November 07 2011 20:41 MilesTeg wrote: You wouldn't say that if it were the other way around (Protoss hard to play on ladder but doing great in code S).
How do you know what I would say if I was someone else, or playing a different race? That is clearly a baseless assertion and attacks me personally (implying I am unprincipled and selfish) unless you can somehow see into my mind without having a clue who I am.
This argument is in no way sophisticated - why would I misunderstand it? Is this beyond me?
On November 07 2011 20:41 MilesTeg wrote: -Maybe, just maybe, Protoss has been nerfed because they were way too powerful? That shit Protoss players were winning against good Zergs? Quite hilarious that you call me biased and then write this garbage on David Kim...
If Protoss were way too powerful, surely the winrate would have on average been far above 50% at some point on the graph? But no. The highest moving average PvZ had is about 53% on the graph - and then Zerg recieved some massive buffs in the form of Infestor, Protoss recieved some massive nerfs in the form of WG research nerf. At the moment, Zerg is winning a moving average of about 57% - what does that say to you?
If Protoss had previously been broken/horrifically overpowered and is now balanced, the average would move to around 50% rather than dropping lower and lower continually in both PvT and PvZ.
And in case you didn't get it, I was joking about David Kim. I don't seriously think he just went on the ladder one day and decided to nerf Protoss. I think what really happened was a series of uninformed, inconsistent and unintelligent balance decisions that ruined most PvX match-ups.
Johnny Bronze-thought-process Miles-Teg should stop confusing reality with his own prejudices and come up with either an original criticism of the graph's conclusion or stop posting altogether on balance threads.
|
Wow, ZvP is more favored to Z then it was to P during the deathball vs. roach-hydra-corruptor era.
|
I DONT KNOW WHAT WERE YELLING ABOUT
|
On November 08 2011 00:47 SeaSwift wrote: ...Whereas for lower league players, metagame counts for nothing and "true", hypothetical balance means nothing? Balance means nothing for lower leagues: if you get better, the balance issues you are experiencing become nothing and different ones emerge. Blizzard should clearly try to balance for the highest level of balance.
What it means is pros know more about the races they don't play than people in lower leagues. So in lower leagues things like blind aggression are usually more rewarding than playing defensive or reactive.
On November 08 2011 00:47 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Then they would previously have had a higher than 50% winrate and it would be slowly averaging to 50%, dumbass. The only reason for it going lower than 50% would be that other races' players are somehow "better" on average - which there is no evidence AT ALL for, so stop talking bollocks. Also, nice "subtle" homophobia here.
LOL What? Why would it slowly be averaging to 50? How can you expect people to practice basic mechanics in a haphazard game if they usually win on 2 or 3 bases with their first push, or at least do enough dmg to where they have a huge lead? That's my entire point is that with all-ins and timing attacks in general, you learn less overall about the game because you win or loss right there. So when you have a race that THRIVES on 2 base timing attacks, how could you expect them to NOT fall behind in overall skill? And protoss and terran have a lot more all-ins/timing attacks than zerg does. get it? Also, I think you noticing a commonly used word like gay or fag or whatever is much more unusual than me using it. But w/e nice argument, you really smart. You really smart man
you Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk. Baseless assertion, bullshit, yaddayaddayadda. None of this is supported by evidence, it's just some words you managed to spew while looking at statistics you clearly don't understand or else are heavily biased against. Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Zerg has had an over 50% winrate in PvZ since April. I'm sure that counts as "starts to win" to you. And what evidence have you shown there for Zerg having to explore every aspect while other races haven't? That's right, nada. Zilch.
I find it absolutely hilarious that later on in your post you talk about me not using logic. Admittedly that's ALL I'm using, smart guy. I don't have statistics because what I'm talking about can't be quantified. That doesn't mean it's not true. In fact the idea that it can't be quantified is probably why nobody talks about it. Because there are too many people like you that just plug your ears and say things like YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT! WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE?!?!
Like are you serious? Are you really going to argue that
a) protoss is the king of timing attacks
b) if you win most of your games (or more than other races) by using timing attacks or all-ins, then you're simply NOT GOING TO PRACTICE OTHER THINGS ABOUT THE GAME because you're too busy learning your timing attack. So once that particular attack gets figured out, you're done for. Look at MC, people figured him out and now he's losing. Oh, that's right... protoss is underpowered now.... got it. That's why he's losing. I'm so silly sometimes.
you Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? You really want to ask that? OK, how about mass Queen/Baneling vs Protoss with Ultra drops for harassment? See how little your question proves?
No but every individual aspect of that has been and is tried all the time. We don't have entire units that go completely unused.
you Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. On the contrary, Protoss were using their full techtree before most Zergs knew what Infestors were. HTs were regularly seen in Beta and just after release, and the "deathball" came into play months ago. Zergs only discovered their Infestor/BL combo a couple of months ago - in what way do you not see "different stuff" from Protoss. Again, talking out of your biased, ignorant ass.
No, it was before infestors were usuable, not before we knew what they were. Don't worry, now that they're not again, protoss players can go back to the cruncher style... and they are.
you Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! Because Mothership/Carriers hasn't already been extensively tried in tourney play (Kiwi vs Stephano, MLG, HongUn's MLG PvZ, White-Ra's PvZ on Shakuras for months). [/sarcasm]
LOL it has and it works quite often! At the very least those aspects of their play are almost always cost effective, even if they end up losing the game. And what if those things were used by everybody to the point where there were stream lined builds for everybody to copy?
you Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking.
Yeah, Warp Prism harass is becoming more popular, but it is not purely because Protoss players finally found the extra fingers needed to micro it. There was a buff which made Warp Prism harassment more viable, and this encourages pro use.
See this is a PERFECT example of why I'm right. Even now with the warp prism buff, the warp prism often gets the job done without even being hit!! You think they needed a buff, but in reality they can win a shit ton of games vs zerg (at least) without ever even being under fire. This is a prime example of what I mean when I say people don't experiment.
|
That TvZ graph is downright depressing lol.
|
On November 07 2011 20:41 MilesTeg wrote:
-Balance doesn't mean shit at my level? How about the level of 99% of the people who play, from bronze to grand master? How about your level? Would it be fair that you can be in Master as Protoss with the same skill as a gold Zerg? Wouldn't that be the definition of a balance problem? EVERYONE makes mistakes, by your standard every pro Protoss should stop whining because if they play better they'll never lose. 1/1/1 should never win if the Protoss doesn't screw up, does it mean it was balanced?
Rage less, think more before posting, thanks.
Oh god.. the 99% being brought up, should i be expecting some type of Occupy Ladder movement coming?
as for you saying that 1/1/1 should never win, you couldnt be more wrong. have you heard casters say how good this is? it barely takes any skill to win. they just park tanks outside your natural or main and just get vision with air units and you cant kill them becasue of tank support... you have no idea what you are talking about.
|
It's ridiculous that so many people look at these stats, and go "it's not 50% for everything, fucking imbalanced!", I think it's more interesting to look at them and see who's doing well in accordance with the stats. Going "Zerg have a higher winrate, zerg OP" etc, isn't an intelligent interpretation. Something as simple as a new build, a new playstyle, or even one zerg player doing extremely well could affect these stats.
|
On November 08 2011 00:58 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:50 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:38 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:On November 07 2011 20:17 Sated wrote:On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote:On November 07 2011 17:06 Gheed wrote:On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon 1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself. 2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable. 3. Soom(tm) edit: lol I am not whining , the game is balanced Clearly not. Look at the graphs. The game should be balanced for the highest level of play, not scrubs like me. You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk. The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking. Already answered this: For SC2 to be a legitimate ESPORT, the game has to be balanced at the tournament level. As for the stuff about Protoss players using "gay stuff", are you legitimately trying to say that the top Protoss players don't know what they're doing..? I don't think that's a good argument. EDIT: Also, get creative with "motherships or even carriers"? Those are units that are being removed from the game because Blizzard knows they suck. GG. =/ If you're balancing it for the pros, then it's not balanced. W/e though I'm not gonna try to explain/argue that. What I'm saying is races get into a rut because EVERYBODY DOES THE SAME DAMN THING. You can say that means the pros "don't know what they're doing" but I'm not letting you put words in my mouth. If a race has options that are easily exploitable, then the people who do those things are going to be further behind in other aspects of the game... period. That's what I'm saying. If protoss was able to herp derp a move their way to a lot of wins for the first 8 months of the game or w/e, then they're going to be behind in everything else. That's pretty much a fact. And please re-read what I said once or twice before you post something like "LOL YOU SAID IT'S A FACT THAT PROTOSS PLAYERS R BAD LOLOLOL" or whatever. You've just said Protoss players could A-move for months, implying that Protoss players are bad (even at the highest level). I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm simply stating the obvious implication you are making with such a sentence. This assertion is silly for a number of reasons. First of all, you have no evidence for a statement like "[Protoss players] a move their way to a lot of wins". I could say something equally silly like, "All Zerg players do is build Roaches, Roaches are IMBA!", because that has just about as much evidence as your assertion does. Second of all, the so-called "gay" strategies you were referring to earlier (6gate, Stargate harassment etc.) require good use of forcefields/blink/graviton beam/void-ray micro to be viable, which means the Protoss player is doing more than A-moving to victory. Third of all, by saying that Protoss hasn't been explored, you're choosing to ignore a lot of top-level play without any good reasons. Protoss have explored their options and they have been found to be lacking, which is why Blizzard are choosing to remove units like the Mothership and the Carrier. EDIT: Look at my first point again. The fact that "macro-stomping" works at lower-levels shows that lower-level players losing to A-move are only doing so because their macro isn't good enough and they need to work on it... which is exactly why balancing for low-level players is a terrible idea: The number of mistakes they make means it is difficult to see what is imbalanced and what isn't. Besides, it's no fun watching tournaments when you know that Race X has an advantage (could be any race, I don't care which). SC2 will die as an ESPORT if the game doesn't become balanced - BW only survived as long as it did because it is very balanced at the top-level, even though it isn't at lower levels (or so I hear).
I love arguing on TL. A whole bunch of semantics and word games without every approaching my core point. I use a lot of hyperbole, get over it.
Protoss players have stronger timing attacks than zerg. That means protoss players have to practice everything else less. That means if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc) those players will be in relatively bad shape. All the while nobody knows what the current scene would look like if every protoss player played pure macro/reactive from the start
|
On November 08 2011 00:25 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:11 Pippi wrote: Interesting graphs, but what whould be more interesting is some data about whining. Why do people whine?
I mean this is top level play, at bronze-masters (in Eu and NA) where 99 % of TL community are at, protoss got more win % than T for example. In masters + GM Z got 40 % win against T and P... I guess if you play in GM on korean server as P you can whine? No you can't. Korea grandmaster: - Protoss: 39.5% (75)- Terran: 35.8% (68) - Zerg: 24.2% (46) That probably has something to do with the GSL and the new season starting to closely.
If you look at top100 of Korean Masters, its around 41% Terran (Top 200, 42%). Then if you check SC2Ranks GM history, you see that no one from the Korean ladder has been booted from Grand Master, yet.
So yeah, give it sometime and it will most likely go back to being how it has always been when Pro players feel comfortable to play ladder more often
But anyways, people are starting to get way too personal/heated with their race discussions. You guys need to calm down o.o
Protoss players have stronger timing attacks than zerg. That means protoss players have to practice everything else less. That means if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc) those players will be in relatively bad shape. All the while nobody knows what the current scene would look like if every protoss player played pure macro/reactive from the start
"Timing attacks" hardly require much practice from Protoss, but are harder to recover from if scouted/countered.
Though races always tend to all-in more when they are at their weakest. I.E When ZvP was considered terrible for Zerg a half a year ago you always saw Zerg doing some kind of new timing. Even IdrA was at the stage where he would cheese every other game against Protoss but Protoss would always play Macro (with a bunch of Nexus cancles thrown in there for good measure).
Same thing for Terran, way back when people had the mind set that you could never win a macro game as Terran you rarely ever saw fast expands or third bases.
When Terran would do nothing but 1/1/1's you saw Protoss in the GSL do Stargate all-ins virtually every game.
A race will always fall back on timings or all-ins when they feel they are at a disadvantage when playing "standard"
Though watching Protoss games over the past month or two, what new timings have their been for Protoss? I just see the same old stuff
|
On November 08 2011 01:09 SeaSwift wrote: Straw man argument - I never said "if you make any mistakes at all, balance doesn't affect your level". I said that if your play still has massive flaws in it, balance is irrelevant. You can easily get better and then the alleged balance problems at your level are just gone.
I guess the game will never be imbalanced for anybody seeing as how everybody makes hundreds of mistakes (even if tiny) every game. What a ridiculous argument from a ridiculous, ridiculous man. If you're the better player and you can't win (even if you know what the other guy is doing), imbalance. PERIOD. And that includes high level play, too. You so often see lesser protoss players beat better zergs.
|
Quite curious as there are more Protoss in korea GM than any other race. Quite curious indeed.
|
On November 08 2011 01:15 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:47 SeaSwift wrote: ...Whereas for lower league players, metagame counts for nothing and "true", hypothetical balance means nothing? Balance means nothing for lower leagues: if you get better, the balance issues you are experiencing become nothing and different ones emerge. Blizzard should clearly try to balance for the highest level of balance. What it means is pros know more about the races they don't play than people in lower leagues. So in lower leagues things like blind aggression are usually more rewarding than playing defensive or reactive. Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:47 SeaSwift wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Then they would previously have had a higher than 50% winrate and it would be slowly averaging to 50%, dumbass. The only reason for it going lower than 50% would be that other races' players are somehow "better" on average - which there is no evidence AT ALL for, so stop talking bollocks. Also, nice "subtle" homophobia here. LOL What? Why would it slowly be averaging to 50? How can you expect people to practice basic mechanics in a haphazard game if they usually win on 2 or 3 bases with their first push, or at least do enough dmg to where they have a huge lead? That's my entire point is that with all-ins and timing attacks in general, you learn less overall about the game because you win or loss right there. So when you have a race that THRIVES on 2 base timing attacks, how could you expect them to NOT fall behind in overall skill? And protoss and terran have a lot more all-ins/timing attacks than zerg does. get it? Also, I think you noticing a commonly used word like gay or fag or whatever is much more unusual than me using it. But w/e nice argument, you really smart. You really smart man Show nested quote + you On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk. Baseless assertion, bullshit, yaddayaddayadda. None of this is supported by evidence, it's just some words you managed to spew while looking at statistics you clearly don't understand or else are heavily biased against. On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Zerg has had an over 50% winrate in PvZ since April. I'm sure that counts as "starts to win" to you. And what evidence have you shown there for Zerg having to explore every aspect while other races haven't? That's right, nada. Zilch. I find it absolutely hilarious that later on in your post you talk about me not using logic. Admittedly that's ALL I'm using, smart guy. I don't have statistics because what I'm talking about can't be quantified. That doesn't mean it's not true. In fact the idea that it can't be quantified is probably why nobody talks about it. Because there are too many people like you that just plug your ears and say things like YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT! WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE?!?! Like are you serious? Are you really going to argue that a) protoss is the king of timing attacks b) if you win most of your games (or more than other races) by using timing attacks or all-ins, then you're simply NOT GOING TO PRACTICE OTHER THINGS ABOUT THE GAME because you're too busy learning your timing attack. So once that particular attack gets figured out, you're done for. Look at MC, people figured him out and now he's losing. Oh, that's right... protoss is underpowered now.... got it. That's why he's losing. I'm so silly sometimes. Show nested quote + you On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? You really want to ask that? OK, how about mass Queen/Baneling vs Protoss with Ultra drops for harassment? See how little your question proves? No but every individual aspect of that has been and is tried all the time. We don't have entire units that go completely unused. Show nested quote + you On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. On the contrary, Protoss were using their full techtree before most Zergs knew what Infestors were. HTs were regularly seen in Beta and just after release, and the "deathball" came into play months ago. Zergs only discovered their Infestor/BL combo a couple of months ago - in what way do you not see "different stuff" from Protoss. Again, talking out of your biased, ignorant ass. No, it was before infestors were usuable, not before we knew what they were. Don't worry, now that they're not again, protoss players can go back to the cruncher style... and they are. Show nested quote + you On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! Because Mothership/Carriers hasn't already been extensively tried in tourney play (Kiwi vs Stephano, MLG, HongUn's MLG PvZ, White-Ra's PvZ on Shakuras for months). [/sarcasm] LOL it has and it works quite often! At the very least those aspects of their play are almost always cost effective, even if they end up losing the game. And what if those things were used by everybody to the point where there were stream lined builds for everybody to copy? Show nested quote +you On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking.
Yeah, Warp Prism harass is becoming more popular, but it is not purely because Protoss players finally found the extra fingers needed to micro it. There was a buff which made Warp Prism harassment more viable, and this encourages pro use. See this is a PERFECT example of why I'm right. Even now with the warp prism buff, the warp prism often gets the job done without even being hit!! You think they needed a buff, but in reality they can win a shit ton of games vs zerg (at least) without ever even being under fire. This is a prime example of what I mean when I say people don't experiment. Did you really just say carriers "work quite often"? Blizzard themselves have admitted some units aren't for competitive play. (carriers and motherships) It's so funny when people suggest Protoss to make carriers as if that is going to help the race at all. It really highlights how clueless you are. You're also wrong about how Protoss "never had to innovate" and you basically cite MC as an example of this, which is ironic considering he is arguably the most innovative player so far. I think iamke said it well so let me quote his post.
"Protoss has been innovating the most of any race. Look how the PvT macro game has evolved from fast colossus builds to forges and gateways, then to templar builds, then to chargelot archon, and recently to double forge builds. Meanwhile Terrans have been using the same TvP strategy since release and it's still viable: 1 rax FE into 3 rax, tech to reactor medivacs and +1, add 4th and 5th barracks while taking a third, armory and 2nd ebay, tech ghosts and add more barracks on 3 bases. Occasionally they get ghosts before medivacs. MC literally does a new opening in every PvZ played in a Korean tournament while Zergs are doing the same old fast 3rd base into mass roach 1a"
|
I was referring to motherships, obviously. And I don't know anything about PvT cause I don't play either. And I was using MC as an example of a protoss who used to be awesome and now he's not.
More wates of time from another one of the wonderful minds lurking around the TL boards. You make me hate life.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 08 2011 01:54 Holophonist wrote: I was referring to motherships, obviously. And I don't know anything about PvT cause I don't play either. And I was using MC as an example of a protoss who used to be awesome and now he's not.
More wates of time from another one of the wonderful minds lurking around the TL boards. You make me hate life.
I was 30% sure you were a troll before this post.
Now I am 80% sure.
|
|
|
Silly Techno. Don't you know? That data just shows how OP Terran REALLY is. So many people find Terran so easy that they pick the much harder Protoss and Zerg. Duh!
|
On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote: Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers!
carriers only deal 8interceptors*2attacks*5dmg/3attack speed= 23dps(w00t close to what a stimmed marauder does to a armored unit)against enemy units that dont have less armor upgrades then the P player has air attack upgrades(wich you wont vs good opponents), and that is what you get for 450 minerals 250 gas. and that is even assuming your not fighting units with base armor(wich will greatly make things worse). carriers also build so slow that a zerg player can scout the finishing fleet beacon , build the long build time spire AND get the corruptors out before the carrier is finished, and pwn carriers with their 2 base armor.
carriers are just bad, PERIOD
a mothership while having some uses is also worth more then 2 expos teching costs not included(when you add tech costs your easily spending more then 3 expos to get your mothership out).
|
On November 08 2011 01:41 Techno wrote: Quite curious as there are more Protoss in korea GM than any other race. Quite curious indeed. Really?
You have people like Taeja, Dream, MVP, Hawngsin, Puzzle, HuK, etc who aren't even in GM yet. Just look at the tail end of GM, you have a bunch of people who were never in GM before this season in there now.
Pretty obvious that most of the Pros aren't playing ladder because of GSL
carriers only deal 8interceptors*2attacks*5dmg/3attack speed= 23dps(w00t close to what a stimmed marauder does to a armored unit)against enemy units that dont have less armor upgrades then the P player has air attack upgrades(wich you wont vs good opponents), and that is what you get for 450 minerals 250 gas. and that is even assuming your not fighting units with base armor(wich will greatly make things worse). carriers also build so slow that a zerg player can scout the finishing fleet beacon , build the long build time spire AND get the corruptors out before the carrier is finished, and pwn carriers with their 2 base armor.
carriers are just bad, PERIOD
DPS isn't really the strength of Carriers. If that looks bad to you then you have to realize Carrier DPS will be even lower during a fight due to interceptor death.
However a Carrier burst on the other hand is pretty darn strong. It is something like 80DPS (don't quote me on this, I can't quite remember, but it is high) over the first 3 seconds with Graviton Catapult--then it drops down to 23dps~
The only thing that has higher burst is Yamato Cannon, IIRC
Damage isn't the problem for Carriers, more so to do with things like Viking, research time, cost, Marines, etc
|
On November 08 2011 02:10 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 01:41 Techno wrote: Quite curious as there are more Protoss in korea GM than any other race. Quite curious indeed. Really? You have people like Taeja, Dream, Hawngsin, Puzzle, HuK, etc who aren't even in GM yet. Just look at the tail end of GM, you have a bunch of people who were never in GM before this season in there now. Pretty obvious that most of the Pros aren't playing ladder because of GSL Excuses and confirmation bias. This thread is rampant with it. From both sides (Protoss UP vs shits balanced bra)
|
On November 08 2011 01:57 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 01:25 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:58 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:50 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:38 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:On November 07 2011 20:17 Sated wrote:On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote:On November 07 2011 17:06 Gheed wrote:On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon 1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself. 2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable. 3. Soom(tm) edit: lol I am not whining , the game is balanced Clearly not. Look at the graphs. The game should be balanced for the highest level of play, not scrubs like me. You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk. The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking. Already answered this: For SC2 to be a legitimate ESPORT, the game has to be balanced at the tournament level. As for the stuff about Protoss players using "gay stuff", are you legitimately trying to say that the top Protoss players don't know what they're doing..? I don't think that's a good argument. EDIT: Also, get creative with "motherships or even carriers"? Those are units that are being removed from the game because Blizzard knows they suck. GG. =/ If you're balancing it for the pros, then it's not balanced. W/e though I'm not gonna try to explain/argue that. What I'm saying is races get into a rut because EVERYBODY DOES THE SAME DAMN THING. You can say that means the pros "don't know what they're doing" but I'm not letting you put words in my mouth. If a race has options that are easily exploitable, then the people who do those things are going to be further behind in other aspects of the game... period. That's what I'm saying. If protoss was able to herp derp a move their way to a lot of wins for the first 8 months of the game or w/e, then they're going to be behind in everything else. That's pretty much a fact. And please re-read what I said once or twice before you post something like "LOL YOU SAID IT'S A FACT THAT PROTOSS PLAYERS R BAD LOLOLOL" or whatever. You've just said Protoss players could A-move for months, implying that Protoss players are bad (even at the highest level). I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm simply stating the obvious implication you are making with such a sentence. This assertion is silly for a number of reasons. First of all, you have no evidence for a statement like "[Protoss players] a move their way to a lot of wins". I could say something equally silly like, "All Zerg players do is build Roaches, Roaches are IMBA!", because that has just about as much evidence as your assertion does. Second of all, the so-called "gay" strategies you were referring to earlier (6gate, Stargate harassment etc.) require good use of forcefields/blink/graviton beam/void-ray micro to be viable, which means the Protoss player is doing more than A-moving to victory. Third of all, by saying that Protoss hasn't been explored, you're choosing to ignore a lot of top-level play without any good reasons. Protoss have explored their options and they have been found to be lacking, which is why Blizzard are choosing to remove units like the Mothership and the Carrier. EDIT: Look at my first point again. The fact that "macro-stomping" works at lower-levels shows that lower-level players losing to A-move are only doing so because their macro isn't good enough and they need to work on it... which is exactly why balancing for low-level players is a terrible idea: The number of mistakes they make means it is difficult to see what is imbalanced and what isn't. Besides, it's no fun watching tournaments when you know that Race X has an advantage (could be any race, I don't care which). SC2 will die as an ESPORT if the game doesn't become balanced - BW only survived as long as it did because it is very balanced at the top-level, even though it isn't at lower levels (or so I hear). I love arguing on TL. A whole bunch of semantics and word games without every approaching my core point. I use a lot of hyperbole, get over it. Protoss players have stronger timing attacks than zerg. That means protoss players have to practice everything else less. That means if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc) those players will be in relatively bad shape. All the while nobody knows what the current scene would look like if every protoss player played pure macro/reactive from the start I can make this kind of baseless argument, too. - Terran has stronger timing-attacks than Protoss. - That means that Terran players have to practice everything else less. - That means that if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc.) those players will be in relatively bad shape in PvT. - However, Terrans keep winning >50% in PvT, even when their timing-attacks are figured out (i.e. 111). - Therefore, the second point must be incorrect, as Terrans have obviously practiced stuff other than timing-attacks! - Therefore, Protoss players are probably practicing more than just timing-attacks too!! - Therefore, either Protoss are just terrible at PvZ or Protoss is underpowered in PvZ!!! - Conclusion: Protoss is underpowered because top-level players clearly aren't terrible!!!! Now, I don't believe what I have written above because it's obviously incredibly silly, but it's funny how easy it is to make an argument when you start from a flawed hypothesis based on absolutely no data whatsoever (i.e. Terran has more timings than Protoss).
guide to terran:
TvP : 1/1/1 all day errday TvZ: marine/tank/thor like a boss TvT: why care about this when you already auto win the two other matchups?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 08 2011 02:13 Techno wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 02:10 Dommk wrote:On November 08 2011 01:41 Techno wrote: Quite curious as there are more Protoss in korea GM than any other race. Quite curious indeed. Really? You have people like Taeja, Dream, Hawngsin, Puzzle, HuK, etc who aren't even in GM yet. Just look at the tail end of GM, you have a bunch of people who were never in GM before this season in there now. Pretty obvious that most of the Pros aren't playing ladder because of GSL Excuses and confirmation bias. This thread is rampant with it. From both sides (Protoss UP vs shits balanced bra) Well clearly. But are you saying what I've said is due to confirmation bias 0o? I guess to a certain extent yes, but before this Koren Masters was what? 40% Terran in the top 200 (before GM was open). And the current Masters top 100, 200, 300, etc is still 41% Terran for all~ + as I mentioned in the previous post that not a single person has yet to be kicked from Korean GM.
Though it doesn't confirm anything for sure, I'll take you on a bet if you actually think the GM ladder will still look like this 1-2months from now.
|
Despite the small sample size this is the best we have to look at in the community. Thank you so much OP and all of your collaborators for the great work on these graphs each month. They are very enlightening.
So from what I can tell, Protoss is still hurting (probably less than this graph shows as the sample size is a bit small but still hurting nonetheless). Hopefully with the advent of 1.4.2 we will see if the numbers will become more favorable but in all honesty the race as a whole just feels a bit weak. Time will tell what the Protoss race is capable of but I hope we get some very serious help here in the near future if this current trend continues. Possibly a buff to Gateway units (at least make Stalkers scale properly!)
Gl and Hf!
(PS Diamond Protoss so I am scrubly ^_^; )
|
On November 08 2011 01:57 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 01:25 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:58 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:50 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:38 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:On November 07 2011 20:17 Sated wrote:On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote:On November 07 2011 17:06 Gheed wrote:On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon 1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself. 2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable. 3. Soom(tm) edit: lol I am not whining , the game is balanced Clearly not. Look at the graphs. The game should be balanced for the highest level of play, not scrubs like me. You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk. The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking. Already answered this: For SC2 to be a legitimate ESPORT, the game has to be balanced at the tournament level. As for the stuff about Protoss players using "gay stuff", are you legitimately trying to say that the top Protoss players don't know what they're doing..? I don't think that's a good argument. EDIT: Also, get creative with "motherships or even carriers"? Those are units that are being removed from the game because Blizzard knows they suck. GG. =/ If you're balancing it for the pros, then it's not balanced. W/e though I'm not gonna try to explain/argue that. What I'm saying is races get into a rut because EVERYBODY DOES THE SAME DAMN THING. You can say that means the pros "don't know what they're doing" but I'm not letting you put words in my mouth. If a race has options that are easily exploitable, then the people who do those things are going to be further behind in other aspects of the game... period. That's what I'm saying. If protoss was able to herp derp a move their way to a lot of wins for the first 8 months of the game or w/e, then they're going to be behind in everything else. That's pretty much a fact. And please re-read what I said once or twice before you post something like "LOL YOU SAID IT'S A FACT THAT PROTOSS PLAYERS R BAD LOLOLOL" or whatever. You've just said Protoss players could A-move for months, implying that Protoss players are bad (even at the highest level). I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm simply stating the obvious implication you are making with such a sentence. This assertion is silly for a number of reasons. First of all, you have no evidence for a statement like "[Protoss players] a move their way to a lot of wins". I could say something equally silly like, "All Zerg players do is build Roaches, Roaches are IMBA!", because that has just about as much evidence as your assertion does. Second of all, the so-called "gay" strategies you were referring to earlier (6gate, Stargate harassment etc.) require good use of forcefields/blink/graviton beam/void-ray micro to be viable, which means the Protoss player is doing more than A-moving to victory. Third of all, by saying that Protoss hasn't been explored, you're choosing to ignore a lot of top-level play without any good reasons. Protoss have explored their options and they have been found to be lacking, which is why Blizzard are choosing to remove units like the Mothership and the Carrier. EDIT: Look at my first point again. The fact that "macro-stomping" works at lower-levels shows that lower-level players losing to A-move are only doing so because their macro isn't good enough and they need to work on it... which is exactly why balancing for low-level players is a terrible idea: The number of mistakes they make means it is difficult to see what is imbalanced and what isn't. Besides, it's no fun watching tournaments when you know that Race X has an advantage (could be any race, I don't care which). SC2 will die as an ESPORT if the game doesn't become balanced - BW only survived as long as it did because it is very balanced at the top-level, even though it isn't at lower levels (or so I hear). I love arguing on TL. A whole bunch of semantics and word games without every approaching my core point. I use a lot of hyperbole, get over it. Protoss players have stronger timing attacks than zerg. That means protoss players have to practice everything else less. That means if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc) those players will be in relatively bad shape. All the while nobody knows what the current scene would look like if every protoss player played pure macro/reactive from the start I can make this kind of baseless argument, too. - Terran has stronger timing-attacks than Protoss. - That means that Terran players have to practice everything else less. - That means that if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc.) those players will be in relatively bad shape in PvT. - However, Terrans keep winning >50% in PvT, even when their timing-attacks are figured out (i.e. 111). - Therefore, the second point must be incorrect, as Terrans have obviously practiced stuff other than timing-attacks! - Therefore, Protoss players are probably practicing more than just timing-attacks too!! - Therefore, either Protoss are just terrible at PvZ or Protoss is underpowered in PvZ!!! - Conclusion: Protoss is underpowered because top-level players clearly aren't terrible!!!! Now, I don't believe what I have written above because it's obviously incredibly silly, but it's funny how easy it is to make an argument when you start from a flawed hypothesis based on absolutely no data whatsoever (i.e. Terran has more timings than Protoss).
Do I really have to hand feed you logic lessons? Protoss and Terran are different races. A big piece of evidence in my argument is that protoss was winning and now protoss isn't winning. Terran is still winning. A number of things could be the cause of this. Maybe their strats don't rely as much on keeping it a secret... maybe they rely MORE on keeping it a secret! Maybe they have more options. I hate how every argument I get in on these forums turns into me holding people's hands through what SHOULD be basic levels of common sense/logic.
|
|
On November 08 2011 03:07 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 02:44 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 01:57 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 01:25 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:58 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:50 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:38 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:On November 07 2011 20:17 Sated wrote:On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote: [quote]
I am not whining , the game is balanced Clearly not. Look at the graphs. The game should be balanced for the highest level of play, not scrubs like me. You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk. The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking. Already answered this: For SC2 to be a legitimate ESPORT, the game has to be balanced at the tournament level. As for the stuff about Protoss players using "gay stuff", are you legitimately trying to say that the top Protoss players don't know what they're doing..? I don't think that's a good argument. EDIT: Also, get creative with "motherships or even carriers"? Those are units that are being removed from the game because Blizzard knows they suck. GG. =/ If you're balancing it for the pros, then it's not balanced. W/e though I'm not gonna try to explain/argue that. What I'm saying is races get into a rut because EVERYBODY DOES THE SAME DAMN THING. You can say that means the pros "don't know what they're doing" but I'm not letting you put words in my mouth. If a race has options that are easily exploitable, then the people who do those things are going to be further behind in other aspects of the game... period. That's what I'm saying. If protoss was able to herp derp a move their way to a lot of wins for the first 8 months of the game or w/e, then they're going to be behind in everything else. That's pretty much a fact. And please re-read what I said once or twice before you post something like "LOL YOU SAID IT'S A FACT THAT PROTOSS PLAYERS R BAD LOLOLOL" or whatever. You've just said Protoss players could A-move for months, implying that Protoss players are bad (even at the highest level). I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm simply stating the obvious implication you are making with such a sentence. This assertion is silly for a number of reasons. First of all, you have no evidence for a statement like "[Protoss players] a move their way to a lot of wins". I could say something equally silly like, "All Zerg players do is build Roaches, Roaches are IMBA!", because that has just about as much evidence as your assertion does. Second of all, the so-called "gay" strategies you were referring to earlier (6gate, Stargate harassment etc.) require good use of forcefields/blink/graviton beam/void-ray micro to be viable, which means the Protoss player is doing more than A-moving to victory. Third of all, by saying that Protoss hasn't been explored, you're choosing to ignore a lot of top-level play without any good reasons. Protoss have explored their options and they have been found to be lacking, which is why Blizzard are choosing to remove units like the Mothership and the Carrier. EDIT: Look at my first point again. The fact that "macro-stomping" works at lower-levels shows that lower-level players losing to A-move are only doing so because their macro isn't good enough and they need to work on it... which is exactly why balancing for low-level players is a terrible idea: The number of mistakes they make means it is difficult to see what is imbalanced and what isn't. Besides, it's no fun watching tournaments when you know that Race X has an advantage (could be any race, I don't care which). SC2 will die as an ESPORT if the game doesn't become balanced - BW only survived as long as it did because it is very balanced at the top-level, even though it isn't at lower levels (or so I hear). I love arguing on TL. A whole bunch of semantics and word games without every approaching my core point. I use a lot of hyperbole, get over it. Protoss players have stronger timing attacks than zerg. That means protoss players have to practice everything else less. That means if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc) those players will be in relatively bad shape. All the while nobody knows what the current scene would look like if every protoss player played pure macro/reactive from the start I can make this kind of baseless argument, too. - Terran has stronger timing-attacks than Protoss. - That means that Terran players have to practice everything else less. - That means that if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc.) those players will be in relatively bad shape in PvT. - However, Terrans keep winning >50% in PvT, even when their timing-attacks are figured out (i.e. 111). - Therefore, the second point must be incorrect, as Terrans have obviously practiced stuff other than timing-attacks! - Therefore, Protoss players are probably practicing more than just timing-attacks too!! - Therefore, either Protoss are just terrible at PvZ or Protoss is underpowered in PvZ!!! - Conclusion: Protoss is underpowered because top-level players clearly aren't terrible!!!! Now, I don't believe what I have written above because it's obviously incredibly silly, but it's funny how easy it is to make an argument when you start from a flawed hypothesis based on absolutely no data whatsoever (i.e. Terran has more timings than Protoss). Do I really have to hand feed you logic lessons? Protoss and Terran are different races. A big piece of evidence in my argument is that protoss was winning and now protoss isn't winning. Terran is still winning. A number of things could be the cause of this. Maybe their strats don't rely as much on keeping it a secret... maybe they rely MORE on keeping it a secret! Maybe they have more options. I hate how every argument I get in on these forums turns into me holding people's hands through what SHOULD be basic levels of common sense/logic. That's not a logic lesson. To be honest, you're just re-inforcing the idea that you're a troll.
Typical response from somebody who doesn't know how to think. You can't say the same thing about Terran. It's possible that terran is just a more powerful race than protoss so even when zergs figure out how to stop a bunker rush (or it gets nerfed), they can find a different, arguably better opening to use (hellion expand). Understand?
|
On November 08 2011 02:13 Techno wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 02:10 Dommk wrote:On November 08 2011 01:41 Techno wrote: Quite curious as there are more Protoss in korea GM than any other race. Quite curious indeed. Really? You have people like Taeja, Dream, Hawngsin, Puzzle, HuK, etc who aren't even in GM yet. Just look at the tail end of GM, you have a bunch of people who were never in GM before this season in there now. Pretty obvious that most of the Pros aren't playing ladder because of GSL Excuses and confirmation bias. This thread is rampant with it. From both sides (Protoss UP vs shits balanced bra)
The whole who is in grandmasters argument isn't very good. GM is based on ladder points and you get those by playing more games. If you watch any pro's stream in Korea, NA or EU, they get cheesed ALL the time and lose to it. Does that mean that the player in GM who cheesed them is better than them and should be a pro? Didn't think anyone is going to make that argument. Should that player be in GM? And how should that factor into balance?
It shouldn't, beause the ladder rank only reflects someones ability to play on the ladder.
|
On November 08 2011 03:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 02:13 Techno wrote:On November 08 2011 02:10 Dommk wrote:On November 08 2011 01:41 Techno wrote: Quite curious as there are more Protoss in korea GM than any other race. Quite curious indeed. Really? You have people like Taeja, Dream, Hawngsin, Puzzle, HuK, etc who aren't even in GM yet. Just look at the tail end of GM, you have a bunch of people who were never in GM before this season in there now. Pretty obvious that most of the Pros aren't playing ladder because of GSL Excuses and confirmation bias. This thread is rampant with it. From both sides (Protoss UP vs shits balanced bra) The whole who is in grandmasters argument isn't very good. GM is based on ladder points and you get those by playing more games. If you watch any pro's stream in Korea, NA or EU, they get cheesed ALL the time and lose to it. Does that mean that the player in GM who cheesed them is better than them and should be a pro? Didn't think anyone is going to make that argument. Should that player be in GM? And how should that factor into balance? It shouldn't, beause the ladder rank only reflects someones ability to play on the ladder.
Then why aren't you gm? Just play on the ladder and cheese.
It's clearly that terran is doing worse then z and p on ladder. When I look at the tournament page I see very few blue, and meanwhile alot of RED. Watch this: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues. If you look HONESTLY then you will see p and t winning equally tournaments. Zerg on the other hand..
|
On November 08 2011 01:41 Techno wrote: Quite curious as there are more Protoss in korea GM than any other race. Quite curious indeed.
Wait I thought there were more Terrans in korea and that's why they're dominating the GSL
|
On November 08 2011 04:02 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 01:41 Techno wrote: Quite curious as there are more Protoss in korea GM than any other race. Quite curious indeed. Wait I thought there were more Terrans in korea and that's why they're dominating the GSL
I will edit your post:
Wait I thought there were more Terrans in korea and that's why they're dominating the GSL code S :P
Code S is full of terrans because of the FORMAT. Take a look at code A..
|
On November 08 2011 02:13 Techno wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 02:10 Dommk wrote:On November 08 2011 01:41 Techno wrote: Quite curious as there are more Protoss in korea GM than any other race. Quite curious indeed. Really? You have people like Taeja, Dream, Hawngsin, Puzzle, HuK, etc who aren't even in GM yet. Just look at the tail end of GM, you have a bunch of people who were never in GM before this season in there now. Pretty obvious that most of the Pros aren't playing ladder because of GSL Excuses and confirmation bias. This thread is rampant with it. From both sides (Protoss UP vs shits balanced bra)
Techno: Nobody who actually understands the game and follows these balance threads bothers to give constructive feedback to you anymore. Whenever you're caught suggesting idiotic strategies or screaming about how easy Protoss is, you just ignore the poster who called attention to it and keep chugging along.
Stop acting so immature, hit the find match button, and be quiet.
|
awwww poor protoss
|
It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3.
|
On November 08 2011 01:57 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 01:25 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:58 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:50 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:38 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:On November 07 2011 20:17 Sated wrote:On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote:On November 07 2011 17:06 Gheed wrote:On November 07 2011 17:00 Topdoller wrote: I wish the mod would lock or delete this thread, for 3 reasons
1. All it does is promote balance whine and QQ.
2. It has nothing to do with the current state of the game. Tournaments don't play on the current ladder map pool, so the results dont reflect 99.9% of total games played
3. HOTS will be here soon 1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself. 2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable. 3. Soom(tm) edit: lol I am not whining , the game is balanced Clearly not. Look at the graphs. The game should be balanced for the highest level of play, not scrubs like me. You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk. The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking. Already answered this: For SC2 to be a legitimate ESPORT, the game has to be balanced at the tournament level. As for the stuff about Protoss players using "gay stuff", are you legitimately trying to say that the top Protoss players don't know what they're doing..? I don't think that's a good argument. EDIT: Also, get creative with "motherships or even carriers"? Those are units that are being removed from the game because Blizzard knows they suck. GG. =/ If you're balancing it for the pros, then it's not balanced. W/e though I'm not gonna try to explain/argue that. What I'm saying is races get into a rut because EVERYBODY DOES THE SAME DAMN THING. You can say that means the pros "don't know what they're doing" but I'm not letting you put words in my mouth. If a race has options that are easily exploitable, then the people who do those things are going to be further behind in other aspects of the game... period. That's what I'm saying. If protoss was able to herp derp a move their way to a lot of wins for the first 8 months of the game or w/e, then they're going to be behind in everything else. That's pretty much a fact. And please re-read what I said once or twice before you post something like "LOL YOU SAID IT'S A FACT THAT PROTOSS PLAYERS R BAD LOLOLOL" or whatever. You've just said Protoss players could A-move for months, implying that Protoss players are bad (even at the highest level). I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm simply stating the obvious implication you are making with such a sentence. This assertion is silly for a number of reasons. First of all, you have no evidence for a statement like "[Protoss players] a move their way to a lot of wins". I could say something equally silly like, "All Zerg players do is build Roaches, Roaches are IMBA!", because that has just about as much evidence as your assertion does. Second of all, the so-called "gay" strategies you were referring to earlier (6gate, Stargate harassment etc.) require good use of forcefields/blink/graviton beam/void-ray micro to be viable, which means the Protoss player is doing more than A-moving to victory. Third of all, by saying that Protoss hasn't been explored, you're choosing to ignore a lot of top-level play without any good reasons. Protoss have explored their options and they have been found to be lacking, which is why Blizzard are choosing to remove units like the Mothership and the Carrier. EDIT: Look at my first point again. The fact that "macro-stomping" works at lower-levels shows that lower-level players losing to A-move are only doing so because their macro isn't good enough and they need to work on it... which is exactly why balancing for low-level players is a terrible idea: The number of mistakes they make means it is difficult to see what is imbalanced and what isn't. Besides, it's no fun watching tournaments when you know that Race X has an advantage (could be any race, I don't care which). SC2 will die as an ESPORT if the game doesn't become balanced - BW only survived as long as it did because it is very balanced at the top-level, even though it isn't at lower levels (or so I hear). I love arguing on TL. A whole bunch of semantics and word games without every approaching my core point. I use a lot of hyperbole, get over it. Protoss players have stronger timing attacks than zerg. That means protoss players have to practice everything else less. That means if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc) those players will be in relatively bad shape. All the while nobody knows what the current scene would look like if every protoss player played pure macro/reactive from the start I can make this kind of baseless argument, too. - Terran has stronger timing-attacks than Protoss. - That means that Terran players have to practice everything else less. - That means that if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc.) those players will be in relatively bad shape in PvT. - However, Terrans keep winning >50% in PvT, even when their timing-attacks are figured out (i.e. 111). - Therefore, the second point must be incorrect, as Terrans have obviously practiced stuff other than timing-attacks! - Therefore, Protoss players are probably practicing more than just timing-attacks too!! - Therefore, either Protoss are just terrible at PvZ or Protoss is underpowered in PvZ!!! - Conclusion: Protoss is underpowered because top-level players clearly aren't terrible!!!! Now, I don't believe what I have written above because it's obviously incredibly silly, but it's funny how easy it is to make an argument when you start from a flawed hypothesis based on absolutely no data whatsoever (i.e. Terran has more timings than Protoss). Quit looking at Code S for your problems....Protoss does well in every tournament other then Code S. I 'm so sick of seeing this balance crap when none of you even at that caliber of play. You don't know anything...you all agree with something huk says because he's so mad that he won MLG Orlando right? Also MC got 2nd. Protoss is a good race and if you don't think so...you're playing the wrong game, go play CoD scrubs
|
On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore.
|
On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore.
They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance .
The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one.
After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke.
|
44.8% keep at it guys we only need 2.3 more to beat the zerg all time low in jan at 42.6 ! But seriously i would have expected PvT to be more imba and ZvT also more terran favored so i guess it kind of oky :p
|
On November 08 2011 04:15 VPVash wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 01:57 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 01:25 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:58 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:50 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:38 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:On November 07 2011 20:17 Sated wrote:On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote:On November 07 2011 17:06 Gheed wrote: [quote]
1. So come up with something constructive to say instead of whining yourself.
2. That is not the purpose of the information being presented. It is clearly intended only as a representation of professional level play, not ladder matches. Whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn for it is debatable.
3. Soom(tm)
edit: lol
I am not whining , the game is balanced Clearly not. Look at the graphs. The game should be balanced for the highest level of play, not scrubs like me. You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk. The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking. Already answered this: For SC2 to be a legitimate ESPORT, the game has to be balanced at the tournament level. As for the stuff about Protoss players using "gay stuff", are you legitimately trying to say that the top Protoss players don't know what they're doing..? I don't think that's a good argument. EDIT: Also, get creative with "motherships or even carriers"? Those are units that are being removed from the game because Blizzard knows they suck. GG. =/ If you're balancing it for the pros, then it's not balanced. W/e though I'm not gonna try to explain/argue that. What I'm saying is races get into a rut because EVERYBODY DOES THE SAME DAMN THING. You can say that means the pros "don't know what they're doing" but I'm not letting you put words in my mouth. If a race has options that are easily exploitable, then the people who do those things are going to be further behind in other aspects of the game... period. That's what I'm saying. If protoss was able to herp derp a move their way to a lot of wins for the first 8 months of the game or w/e, then they're going to be behind in everything else. That's pretty much a fact. And please re-read what I said once or twice before you post something like "LOL YOU SAID IT'S A FACT THAT PROTOSS PLAYERS R BAD LOLOLOL" or whatever. You've just said Protoss players could A-move for months, implying that Protoss players are bad (even at the highest level). I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm simply stating the obvious implication you are making with such a sentence. This assertion is silly for a number of reasons. First of all, you have no evidence for a statement like "[Protoss players] a move their way to a lot of wins". I could say something equally silly like, "All Zerg players do is build Roaches, Roaches are IMBA!", because that has just about as much evidence as your assertion does. Second of all, the so-called "gay" strategies you were referring to earlier (6gate, Stargate harassment etc.) require good use of forcefields/blink/graviton beam/void-ray micro to be viable, which means the Protoss player is doing more than A-moving to victory. Third of all, by saying that Protoss hasn't been explored, you're choosing to ignore a lot of top-level play without any good reasons. Protoss have explored their options and they have been found to be lacking, which is why Blizzard are choosing to remove units like the Mothership and the Carrier. EDIT: Look at my first point again. The fact that "macro-stomping" works at lower-levels shows that lower-level players losing to A-move are only doing so because their macro isn't good enough and they need to work on it... which is exactly why balancing for low-level players is a terrible idea: The number of mistakes they make means it is difficult to see what is imbalanced and what isn't. Besides, it's no fun watching tournaments when you know that Race X has an advantage (could be any race, I don't care which). SC2 will die as an ESPORT if the game doesn't become balanced - BW only survived as long as it did because it is very balanced at the top-level, even though it isn't at lower levels (or so I hear). I love arguing on TL. A whole bunch of semantics and word games without every approaching my core point. I use a lot of hyperbole, get over it. Protoss players have stronger timing attacks than zerg. That means protoss players have to practice everything else less. That means if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc) those players will be in relatively bad shape. All the while nobody knows what the current scene would look like if every protoss player played pure macro/reactive from the start I can make this kind of baseless argument, too. - Terran has stronger timing-attacks than Protoss. - That means that Terran players have to practice everything else less. - That means that if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc.) those players will be in relatively bad shape in PvT. - However, Terrans keep winning >50% in PvT, even when their timing-attacks are figured out (i.e. 111). - Therefore, the second point must be incorrect, as Terrans have obviously practiced stuff other than timing-attacks! - Therefore, Protoss players are probably practicing more than just timing-attacks too!! - Therefore, either Protoss are just terrible at PvZ or Protoss is underpowered in PvZ!!! - Conclusion: Protoss is underpowered because top-level players clearly aren't terrible!!!! Now, I don't believe what I have written above because it's obviously incredibly silly, but it's funny how easy it is to make an argument when you start from a flawed hypothesis based on absolutely no data whatsoever (i.e. Terran has more timings than Protoss). Quit looking at Code S for your problems....Protoss does well in every tournament other then Code S. I 'm so sick of seeing this balance crap when none of you even at that caliber of play. You don't know anything...you all agree with something huk says because he's so mad that he won MLG Orlando right? Also MC got 2nd. Protoss is a good race and if you don't think so...you're playing the wrong game, go play CoD scrubs
You do realize the statistics is not only from Code S but all tournaments and therefore you argument about Terran only doing good in Code S and nowhere else is invalid. You know, just saying.
|
On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??!
|
On November 08 2011 04:33 Bratalix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:15 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 01:57 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 01:25 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:58 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:50 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:38 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:On November 07 2011 20:17 Sated wrote:On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote: [quote]
I am not whining , the game is balanced Clearly not. Look at the graphs. The game should be balanced for the highest level of play, not scrubs like me. You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk. The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking. Already answered this: For SC2 to be a legitimate ESPORT, the game has to be balanced at the tournament level. As for the stuff about Protoss players using "gay stuff", are you legitimately trying to say that the top Protoss players don't know what they're doing..? I don't think that's a good argument. EDIT: Also, get creative with "motherships or even carriers"? Those are units that are being removed from the game because Blizzard knows they suck. GG. =/ If you're balancing it for the pros, then it's not balanced. W/e though I'm not gonna try to explain/argue that. What I'm saying is races get into a rut because EVERYBODY DOES THE SAME DAMN THING. You can say that means the pros "don't know what they're doing" but I'm not letting you put words in my mouth. If a race has options that are easily exploitable, then the people who do those things are going to be further behind in other aspects of the game... period. That's what I'm saying. If protoss was able to herp derp a move their way to a lot of wins for the first 8 months of the game or w/e, then they're going to be behind in everything else. That's pretty much a fact. And please re-read what I said once or twice before you post something like "LOL YOU SAID IT'S A FACT THAT PROTOSS PLAYERS R BAD LOLOLOL" or whatever. You've just said Protoss players could A-move for months, implying that Protoss players are bad (even at the highest level). I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm simply stating the obvious implication you are making with such a sentence. This assertion is silly for a number of reasons. First of all, you have no evidence for a statement like "[Protoss players] a move their way to a lot of wins". I could say something equally silly like, "All Zerg players do is build Roaches, Roaches are IMBA!", because that has just about as much evidence as your assertion does. Second of all, the so-called "gay" strategies you were referring to earlier (6gate, Stargate harassment etc.) require good use of forcefields/blink/graviton beam/void-ray micro to be viable, which means the Protoss player is doing more than A-moving to victory. Third of all, by saying that Protoss hasn't been explored, you're choosing to ignore a lot of top-level play without any good reasons. Protoss have explored their options and they have been found to be lacking, which is why Blizzard are choosing to remove units like the Mothership and the Carrier. EDIT: Look at my first point again. The fact that "macro-stomping" works at lower-levels shows that lower-level players losing to A-move are only doing so because their macro isn't good enough and they need to work on it... which is exactly why balancing for low-level players is a terrible idea: The number of mistakes they make means it is difficult to see what is imbalanced and what isn't. Besides, it's no fun watching tournaments when you know that Race X has an advantage (could be any race, I don't care which). SC2 will die as an ESPORT if the game doesn't become balanced - BW only survived as long as it did because it is very balanced at the top-level, even though it isn't at lower levels (or so I hear). I love arguing on TL. A whole bunch of semantics and word games without every approaching my core point. I use a lot of hyperbole, get over it. Protoss players have stronger timing attacks than zerg. That means protoss players have to practice everything else less. That means if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc) those players will be in relatively bad shape. All the while nobody knows what the current scene would look like if every protoss player played pure macro/reactive from the start I can make this kind of baseless argument, too. - Terran has stronger timing-attacks than Protoss. - That means that Terran players have to practice everything else less. - That means that if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc.) those players will be in relatively bad shape in PvT. - However, Terrans keep winning >50% in PvT, even when their timing-attacks are figured out (i.e. 111). - Therefore, the second point must be incorrect, as Terrans have obviously practiced stuff other than timing-attacks! - Therefore, Protoss players are probably practicing more than just timing-attacks too!! - Therefore, either Protoss are just terrible at PvZ or Protoss is underpowered in PvZ!!! - Conclusion: Protoss is underpowered because top-level players clearly aren't terrible!!!! Now, I don't believe what I have written above because it's obviously incredibly silly, but it's funny how easy it is to make an argument when you start from a flawed hypothesis based on absolutely no data whatsoever (i.e. Terran has more timings than Protoss). Quit looking at Code S for your problems....Protoss does well in every tournament other then Code S. I 'm so sick of seeing this balance crap when none of you even at that caliber of play. You don't know anything...you all agree with something huk says because he's so mad that he won MLG Orlando right? Also MC got 2nd. Protoss is a good race and if you don't think so...you're playing the wrong game, go play CoD scrubs You do realize the statistics is not only from Code S but all tournaments and therefore you argument about Terran only doing good in Code S and nowhere else is invalid. You know, just saying.
These statistics are FISHY as hell. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues take a look here and come back with these stats.
|
On November 08 2011 04:33 Bratalix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:15 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 01:57 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 01:25 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:58 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:50 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:38 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:On November 07 2011 20:17 Sated wrote:On November 07 2011 17:39 Topdoller wrote: [quote]
I am not whining , the game is balanced Clearly not. Look at the graphs. The game should be balanced for the highest level of play, not scrubs like me. You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk. The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking. Already answered this: For SC2 to be a legitimate ESPORT, the game has to be balanced at the tournament level. As for the stuff about Protoss players using "gay stuff", are you legitimately trying to say that the top Protoss players don't know what they're doing..? I don't think that's a good argument. EDIT: Also, get creative with "motherships or even carriers"? Those are units that are being removed from the game because Blizzard knows they suck. GG. =/ If you're balancing it for the pros, then it's not balanced. W/e though I'm not gonna try to explain/argue that. What I'm saying is races get into a rut because EVERYBODY DOES THE SAME DAMN THING. You can say that means the pros "don't know what they're doing" but I'm not letting you put words in my mouth. If a race has options that are easily exploitable, then the people who do those things are going to be further behind in other aspects of the game... period. That's what I'm saying. If protoss was able to herp derp a move their way to a lot of wins for the first 8 months of the game or w/e, then they're going to be behind in everything else. That's pretty much a fact. And please re-read what I said once or twice before you post something like "LOL YOU SAID IT'S A FACT THAT PROTOSS PLAYERS R BAD LOLOLOL" or whatever. You've just said Protoss players could A-move for months, implying that Protoss players are bad (even at the highest level). I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm simply stating the obvious implication you are making with such a sentence. This assertion is silly for a number of reasons. First of all, you have no evidence for a statement like "[Protoss players] a move their way to a lot of wins". I could say something equally silly like, "All Zerg players do is build Roaches, Roaches are IMBA!", because that has just about as much evidence as your assertion does. Second of all, the so-called "gay" strategies you were referring to earlier (6gate, Stargate harassment etc.) require good use of forcefields/blink/graviton beam/void-ray micro to be viable, which means the Protoss player is doing more than A-moving to victory. Third of all, by saying that Protoss hasn't been explored, you're choosing to ignore a lot of top-level play without any good reasons. Protoss have explored their options and they have been found to be lacking, which is why Blizzard are choosing to remove units like the Mothership and the Carrier. EDIT: Look at my first point again. The fact that "macro-stomping" works at lower-levels shows that lower-level players losing to A-move are only doing so because their macro isn't good enough and they need to work on it... which is exactly why balancing for low-level players is a terrible idea: The number of mistakes they make means it is difficult to see what is imbalanced and what isn't. Besides, it's no fun watching tournaments when you know that Race X has an advantage (could be any race, I don't care which). SC2 will die as an ESPORT if the game doesn't become balanced - BW only survived as long as it did because it is very balanced at the top-level, even though it isn't at lower levels (or so I hear). I love arguing on TL. A whole bunch of semantics and word games without every approaching my core point. I use a lot of hyperbole, get over it. Protoss players have stronger timing attacks than zerg. That means protoss players have to practice everything else less. That means if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc) those players will be in relatively bad shape. All the while nobody knows what the current scene would look like if every protoss player played pure macro/reactive from the start I can make this kind of baseless argument, too. - Terran has stronger timing-attacks than Protoss. - That means that Terran players have to practice everything else less. - That means that if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc.) those players will be in relatively bad shape in PvT. - However, Terrans keep winning >50% in PvT, even when their timing-attacks are figured out (i.e. 111). - Therefore, the second point must be incorrect, as Terrans have obviously practiced stuff other than timing-attacks! - Therefore, Protoss players are probably practicing more than just timing-attacks too!! - Therefore, either Protoss are just terrible at PvZ or Protoss is underpowered in PvZ!!! - Conclusion: Protoss is underpowered because top-level players clearly aren't terrible!!!! Now, I don't believe what I have written above because it's obviously incredibly silly, but it's funny how easy it is to make an argument when you start from a flawed hypothesis based on absolutely no data whatsoever (i.e. Terran has more timings than Protoss). Quit looking at Code S for your problems....Protoss does well in every tournament other then Code S. I 'm so sick of seeing this balance crap when none of you even at that caliber of play. You don't know anything...you all agree with something huk says because he's so mad that he won MLG Orlando right? Also MC got 2nd. Protoss is a good race and if you don't think so...you're playing the wrong game, go play CoD scrubs You do realize the statistics is not only from Code S but all tournaments and therefore you argument about Terran only doing good in Code S and nowhere else is invalid. You know, just saying. Tecnically this month terran has been getting destoryed in Code S and even in Code A....sorry brohan looks like they suck shit other then MvP, Bomber, and MMA. Only terrans that are amazing becasue of "SKILL" not "IMBALANCE"...I believe none of you think a player can actually be better then another player....it's so sad when a player wins you all look to imbalance of a race not the players skill
|
On November 08 2011 04:34 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:33 Bratalix wrote:On November 08 2011 04:15 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 01:57 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 01:25 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:58 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:50 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 00:38 Sated wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:On November 07 2011 20:17 Sated wrote: [quote] Clearly not. Look at the graphs. The game should be balanced for the highest level of play, not scrubs like me. You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk. The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking. Already answered this: For SC2 to be a legitimate ESPORT, the game has to be balanced at the tournament level. As for the stuff about Protoss players using "gay stuff", are you legitimately trying to say that the top Protoss players don't know what they're doing..? I don't think that's a good argument. EDIT: Also, get creative with "motherships or even carriers"? Those are units that are being removed from the game because Blizzard knows they suck. GG. =/ If you're balancing it for the pros, then it's not balanced. W/e though I'm not gonna try to explain/argue that. What I'm saying is races get into a rut because EVERYBODY DOES THE SAME DAMN THING. You can say that means the pros "don't know what they're doing" but I'm not letting you put words in my mouth. If a race has options that are easily exploitable, then the people who do those things are going to be further behind in other aspects of the game... period. That's what I'm saying. If protoss was able to herp derp a move their way to a lot of wins for the first 8 months of the game or w/e, then they're going to be behind in everything else. That's pretty much a fact. And please re-read what I said once or twice before you post something like "LOL YOU SAID IT'S A FACT THAT PROTOSS PLAYERS R BAD LOLOLOL" or whatever. You've just said Protoss players could A-move for months, implying that Protoss players are bad (even at the highest level). I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm simply stating the obvious implication you are making with such a sentence. This assertion is silly for a number of reasons. First of all, you have no evidence for a statement like "[Protoss players] a move their way to a lot of wins". I could say something equally silly like, "All Zerg players do is build Roaches, Roaches are IMBA!", because that has just about as much evidence as your assertion does. Second of all, the so-called "gay" strategies you were referring to earlier (6gate, Stargate harassment etc.) require good use of forcefields/blink/graviton beam/void-ray micro to be viable, which means the Protoss player is doing more than A-moving to victory. Third of all, by saying that Protoss hasn't been explored, you're choosing to ignore a lot of top-level play without any good reasons. Protoss have explored their options and they have been found to be lacking, which is why Blizzard are choosing to remove units like the Mothership and the Carrier. EDIT: Look at my first point again. The fact that "macro-stomping" works at lower-levels shows that lower-level players losing to A-move are only doing so because their macro isn't good enough and they need to work on it... which is exactly why balancing for low-level players is a terrible idea: The number of mistakes they make means it is difficult to see what is imbalanced and what isn't. Besides, it's no fun watching tournaments when you know that Race X has an advantage (could be any race, I don't care which). SC2 will die as an ESPORT if the game doesn't become balanced - BW only survived as long as it did because it is very balanced at the top-level, even though it isn't at lower levels (or so I hear). I love arguing on TL. A whole bunch of semantics and word games without every approaching my core point. I use a lot of hyperbole, get over it. Protoss players have stronger timing attacks than zerg. That means protoss players have to practice everything else less. That means if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc) those players will be in relatively bad shape. All the while nobody knows what the current scene would look like if every protoss player played pure macro/reactive from the start I can make this kind of baseless argument, too. - Terran has stronger timing-attacks than Protoss. - That means that Terran players have to practice everything else less. - That means that if certain strats stop working (get figured out, nerfed, etc.) those players will be in relatively bad shape in PvT. - However, Terrans keep winning >50% in PvT, even when their timing-attacks are figured out (i.e. 111). - Therefore, the second point must be incorrect, as Terrans have obviously practiced stuff other than timing-attacks! - Therefore, Protoss players are probably practicing more than just timing-attacks too!! - Therefore, either Protoss are just terrible at PvZ or Protoss is underpowered in PvZ!!! - Conclusion: Protoss is underpowered because top-level players clearly aren't terrible!!!! Now, I don't believe what I have written above because it's obviously incredibly silly, but it's funny how easy it is to make an argument when you start from a flawed hypothesis based on absolutely no data whatsoever (i.e. Terran has more timings than Protoss). Quit looking at Code S for your problems....Protoss does well in every tournament other then Code S. I 'm so sick of seeing this balance crap when none of you even at that caliber of play. You don't know anything...you all agree with something huk says because he's so mad that he won MLG Orlando right? Also MC got 2nd. Protoss is a good race and if you don't think so...you're playing the wrong game, go play CoD scrubs You do realize the statistics is not only from Code S but all tournaments and therefore you argument about Terran only doing good in Code S and nowhere else is invalid. You know, just saying. These statistics are FISHY as hell. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues take a look here and come back with these stats.
Yeah seriously, I honestly thought Protoss did quite well in the international scene last month, at least compared to the other month before.
|
PvZ now is worse than ZvP at the height of the deathball era, and has been for two straight months. PvZ is getting worse and not better, even as pro P players attempt to explore more possibilities like the FFE into 2 gates and warp prism play.
|
On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. ok, i'll bite.
well firstly, toss doesn't take 1st and 2nd in almost every international tournament, and secondly, the only reason people like huk and mc were at the finals was because they were way better than anyone else there.
so am i allowed to make the same argument terran players do or is not not allowed? "the protoss were just better than everyone else there"
|
On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore.
I feel like you're just baiting but it has been brought the reasons have been brought up many, many times. I'll give you one:
-Ghosts: Specifically EMP. Which is being nerfed next patch. And yes we may not all be top code S players, but I know personally I've had games where a smaller EMP radius would've been enough to get just a couple more storms off and win the game.
Also I think you're using 'every tournament' incorrectly instead of saying 'the last MLG'.
Blizzard seems to agree toss needs help by looking at the PTR notes.
|
On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore.
While he deserved the title, it should also be noted that Huk probably played more PvPs than any other match-ups at MLG. MC who came in second went through a more balanced road to the finals, though he came from the group of PvP as well. The other major tournament that had Protoss as second was ESWC, where Mana had a pure PvP route in the main tournament to the finals. Even Oz in the Code A finals had PvP for the quarter and semi finals.
I'm not saying they failed to impress, but rather, statistically speaking, it just turns out that the tournament roads for these Protoss achievements had little impact on Protoss match-ups relative to the other two races. This just simply means that there's reason for me to trust the graph that the Protoss indeed have trouble in playing other races.
|
On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??!
@ Vash and Snow.
Why don't you want to see a balanced game?
|
Upload the korean games please.
edit: i mean the graph, ofc.
|
On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3.
But there has already been innovation with warp prism harass and that kind of stuff and it isn't really helping . Although balance doesn't really affect me I still feel bad for my race doing so poorly.
|
On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game?
We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo.
When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans".
Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it.
|
I don´t know why you guys love trying to prove someone wrong on this kind of threads.
Everybody shows up with their minds already made up no matter what.
If stats say they are wrong they don´t matter If they do they matter.
Hell, most tournaments bar Code S have been pretty balanced results wise, but people don´t want to acknowledge that. I don´t know if the game is balanced or not, but things are not as bad as people are making them out to be.
|
On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument.
|
On November 08 2011 06:17 Rantech wrote: Upload the korean games please.
edit: i mean the graph, ofc. No, don't upload it. People usually want the Korean one because they feel the international one doesn't look imba enough for their claim (because, be serious, are all the terrible whine posts in this thread are really justified by the 53.4% TvP winrate ? LOL. I read the first page of this thread, then re-watch the graph, then re-read the first page...and then I don't understand where I am), but then the Korean one is released, it's even less imba, and people who asked for the Korean one will turn and say "LOL SAMPLE SIZE THIS MEAN NOTHING". So either the korean graph is more balanced and it means nothing. Or the korean graph is less balanced and it feeds the imba cry. Lose lose situation.
|
|
On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument.
I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S?
I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA".
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks.
|
On November 08 2011 06:30 MCDayC wrote: I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks. TvP 53.9% TvZ 52% ZvP 56.3%
|
On November 08 2011 05:06 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. ok, i'll bite. well firstly, toss doesn't take 1st and 2nd in almost every international tournament, and secondly, the only reason people like huk and mc were at the finals was because they were way better than anyone else there. so am i allowed to make the same argument terran players do or is not not allowed? "the protoss were just better than everyone else there" Hokay buddy go look at recent tourneys then come back please. But terrans aren't better...only 3 of them are. Bomber, MvP, and MMA. There REALLY good at this game. The only reason other terrans are in code s is because it's almost impossible to drop out. Terran was good a long time ago when mech was starting to come around...now the games pretty balance. Everyone just ignores other tournaments so they can QQ more here on the forums and use the same excuses over and over again. All of your arguments make no sense what so ever. Do some homework next time before making such a biased post.
|
On November 08 2011 05:06 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. ok, i'll bite. well firstly, toss doesn't take 1st and 2nd in almost every international tournament, and secondly, the only reason people like huk and mc were at the finals was because they were way better than anyone else there. so am i allowed to make the same argument terran players do or is not not allowed? "the protoss were just better than everyone else there" But of course it's allowed ! It's also encouraged. Because the moment you realize that is the moment you realize that usually, it's the better player who wins ! Amazing, isn't it ? A new world to explore for imbacrypeople xD
|
On November 08 2011 06:43 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 05:06 Silidons wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. ok, i'll bite. well firstly, toss doesn't take 1st and 2nd in almost every international tournament, and secondly, the only reason people like huk and mc were at the finals was because they were way better than anyone else there. so am i allowed to make the same argument terran players do or is not not allowed? "the protoss were just better than everyone else there" But of course it's allowed ! It's also encouraged. Because the moment you realize that is the moment you realize that usually, it's the better player who wins ! Amazing, isn't it ? A new world to explore for imbacrypeople xD Nobody can grasp this on TL forums. They all want there wins handed to them with A-moves when the EMP gets nerfed. Protoss will be back to there a move tactics. I promise
|
On November 08 2011 05:06 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. ok, i'll bite. well firstly, toss doesn't take 1st and 2nd in almost every international tournament, and secondly, the only reason people like huk and mc were at the finals was because they were way better than anyone else there. so am i allowed to make the same argument terran players do or is not not allowed? "the protoss were just better than everyone else there"
not really safe to say huk and MC are WAY better than people like stc, alive, stephano, ret, sheth, idra, july, alive, artist, bomber, marineking, polt, puma, rain, inori, kiwikaki, sase, whitera, yadda yadda yadda
|
On November 08 2011 06:48 Masq wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 05:06 Silidons wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. ok, i'll bite. well firstly, toss doesn't take 1st and 2nd in almost every international tournament, and secondly, the only reason people like huk and mc were at the finals was because they were way better than anyone else there. so am i allowed to make the same argument terran players do or is not not allowed? "the protoss were just better than everyone else there" not really safe to say huk and MC are WAY better than people like stc, alive, stephano, ret, sheth, idra, july, alive, artist, bomber, marineking, polt, puma, rain, inori, kiwikaki, sase, whitera, yadda yadda yadda Nope you're wrong there clearly more talented in everyway shape and form
|
On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA". People agree but they are just afraid of getting flamed. Remember this forum has a lot more Protoss and Zerg players than Terran. We are the minority.
|
On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. You made this entire speech on whiners to end with .... A WHINE ?
|
I wonder if these numbers are normalized over race distribution or not. If they are provided "as is", there is frankly little to no merit to them
|
On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument.
Not really. Korea grandmaster is the only place where Terran far out number Zerg and Protoss. It's exactly the opposite for NA and Europe.
Korea have 72 Terran to 48 zerg, EU 48 Terran to 84 Zerg, and NA 56 T to 64 Z, and EU
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Korean pros have more of a tendency to go Terran, possibly contributing to all the big names Terran players have fostered even since the BW to SC2 transition
|
On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA".
I have not seen any of these stats that show the opposite. The ladder is also a bad place to for stats, since it is build to give everyone a 50/50 win ratio. From my understanding Korea is a bad land for protoss and a grand land for terran. Korea is pretty much accepted that is the place with the highest level of play. Even pros like PainUser, EGDeMusliM and MVP have been quoted there are some parts of terran that are slightly over powered.
Its a bummer if your having a rough time and your race may be nerfed, no one cared when I was getting rolled as a Protoss and they increased the time on Warpgate.
|
On November 08 2011 07:17 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. Not really. Korea grandmaster is the only place where Terran far out number Zerg and Protoss. It's exactly the opposite for NA and Europe.
You are wrong!
Korea grandmaster: - Protoss: 39.5% (75) - Terran: 35.8% (68) - Zerg: 24.2% (46)
|
On November 08 2011 07:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA". I have not seen any of these stats that show the opposite. The ladder is also a bad place to for stats, since it is build to give everyone a 50/50 win ratio. From my understanding Korea is a bad land for protoss and a grand land for terran. Korea is pretty much accepted that is the place with the highest level of play. Even pros like PainUser, EGDeMusliM and MVP have been quoted there are some parts of terran that are slightly over powered. Its a bummer if your having a rough time and your race may be nerfed, no one cared when I was getting rolled as a Protoss and they increased the time on Warpgate.
The opposite is showed on sc2ranks (see ladder grandmaster stats) and on this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues
|
On November 08 2011 07:22 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:17 iky43210 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. Not really. Korea grandmaster is the only place where Terran far out number Zerg and Protoss. It's exactly the opposite for NA and Europe. You are wrong! Korea grandmaster: - Protoss: 39.5% (75) - Terran: 35.8% (68) - Zerg: 24.2% (46)
nvm, I wasn't checking Protoss.
|
On November 07 2011 08:50 Firesilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:48 Blade Fox wrote: It's obvious.
Patch 1.3
High Templar Khaydarin Amulet upgrade (+25 starting energy) has been removed.
Thats when protoss started losing every matchup. No, it really wasn't, that needed to be removed because of how strong it was, it's stupid to blame the recent down slope of P win % on that alone.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2514162
Read those patch notes. Compare to the bar graph. Look at the protoss winrate line slump PERFECTLY at the exact same time this patch came out. Which is march onwards.
The protoss race as others have said has little to no options with their units when you compare to the other races. If protoss aren't outnumbering the other race or laying absolutely perfect forcefields if they manage to dodge an EMP or a fungal they lose. Terrans units are all ranged and do huge damage, easily micro'd and their siege units like Vikings and Siege Tanks have no real counter in the protoss army OTHER THAN STORM.
Why do you think so many protoss do risky fast expand builds these days? They have to get ahead early and out macro their opponent if they want any chance of winning. There's no effective harass unit that's not easily countered by the other races to get ahead so the only way is to be very risky with your builds.
Tell me do you think Immortals counter siege tanks? In a bizarro world of tanks vs immortals and nothing else yes but that will never happen. The counter is actually splash damage on the terran bio ball then taking out their siege units afterward.
I'm amazed that people have the nerve to say khydarin amulet was broken when clearly if you looked at old infestors and ghosts to this day both have their +25 upgrade and top level players always get these upgrades. They pop out ready to do 1000+ damage to a protoss army with EMP and you call that balance? Templar are balanced with being the most squishy of casters on top of the most slowly moving.
It would be amusing if they took away EMP from ghosts as a skill then had to be researched and then on top of that removed mobius reactor. Then did the same with fungal to infestors. Believe me both races win rate would drop after that change.
Continue living in a bubble where everyone thinks protoss players are bad and not innovative when it's the absolutely bottom of the barrel race that has had multiple abilities removed from it that made it viable into the puddle of mud that gets stomped these days.
|
On November 08 2011 07:23 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:20 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA". I have not seen any of these stats that show the opposite. The ladder is also a bad place to for stats, since it is build to give everyone a 50/50 win ratio. From my understanding Korea is a bad land for protoss and a grand land for terran. Korea is pretty much accepted that is the place with the highest level of play. Even pros like PainUser, EGDeMusliM and MVP have been quoted there are some parts of terran that are slightly over powered. Its a bummer if your having a rough time and your race may be nerfed, no one cared when I was getting rolled as a Protoss and they increased the time on Warpgate. The opposite is showed on sc2ranks (see ladder grandmaster stats) and on this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues
You keep throwning those status up like that mean something. Most of the professional players do not agree with you. I am sorry I do not have a page full of stats that show this, but it is true. If you want, listen to Inside the Game from 10/25 where they discuss the EMP nerf. Both PainUser and EGDeMusliM, both terran players, have no issues and believe it is good for the game.
|
On November 08 2011 07:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:20 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote: [quote] Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA". I have not seen any of these stats that show the opposite. The ladder is also a bad place to for stats, since it is build to give everyone a 50/50 win ratio. From my understanding Korea is a bad land for protoss and a grand land for terran. Korea is pretty much accepted that is the place with the highest level of play. Even pros like PainUser, EGDeMusliM and MVP have been quoted there are some parts of terran that are slightly over powered. Its a bummer if your having a rough time and your race may be nerfed, no one cared when I was getting rolled as a Protoss and they increased the time on Warpgate. The opposite is showed on sc2ranks (see ladder grandmaster stats) and on this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues You keep throwning those status up like that mean something. Most of the professional players do not agree with you. I am sorry I do not have a page full of stats that show this, but it is true. If you want, listen to Inside the Game from 10/25 where they discuss the EMP nerf. Both PainUser and EGDeMusliM, both terran players, have no issues and believe it is good for the game.
Yes, and meanwhile demuslim and painuser are winning tournaments , or don't they?
|
well some terrans gotta lose...guess i fill that role in quite nicely
|
On November 08 2011 07:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:20 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote: [quote] Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA". I have not seen any of these stats that show the opposite. The ladder is also a bad place to for stats, since it is build to give everyone a 50/50 win ratio. From my understanding Korea is a bad land for protoss and a grand land for terran. Korea is pretty much accepted that is the place with the highest level of play. Even pros like PainUser, EGDeMusliM and MVP have been quoted there are some parts of terran that are slightly over powered. Its a bummer if your having a rough time and your race may be nerfed, no one cared when I was getting rolled as a Protoss and they increased the time on Warpgate. The opposite is showed on sc2ranks (see ladder grandmaster stats) and on this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues You keep throwning those status up like that mean something. Most of the professional players do not agree with you. I am sorry I do not have a page full of stats that show this, but it is true. If you want, listen to Inside the Game from 10/25 where they discuss the EMP nerf. Both PainUser and EGDeMusliM, both terran players, have no issues and believe it is good for the game. Wait wait wait wait...didn't painuser get wrecked by HerO??????????????
On November 08 2011 07:34 hytonight wrote: well some terrans gotta lose...guess i fill that role in quite nicely Also you mean all Terrans other then Mvp,and MMA?
|
On November 08 2011 06:48 Masq wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 05:06 Silidons wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. ok, i'll bite. well firstly, toss doesn't take 1st and 2nd in almost every international tournament, and secondly, the only reason people like huk and mc were at the finals was because they were way better than anyone else there. so am i allowed to make the same argument terran players do or is not not allowed? "the protoss were just better than everyone else there" not really safe to say huk and MC are WAY better than people like stc, alive, stephano, ret, sheth, idra, july, alive, artist, bomber, marineking, polt, puma, rain, inori, kiwikaki, sase, whitera, yadda yadda yadda
As far as I'm aware they only encountered STC (both), Ret (MC), Marineking (both), July (both but MC did lose that series due to his pylon mess-up, even though his build when executed properly beats July's all-in),Puma (MC), and Rain (MC) and yes, they are better than all of them with Marineking being around even because of the power of his early/mid game and STC a bit behind. In the end you named a bunch of other protoss which is weird in light of your argument, but yes they are better than all of those protosses minus Inori being better PvP.
|
On November 08 2011 07:38 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:48 Masq wrote:On November 08 2011 05:06 Silidons wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. ok, i'll bite. well firstly, toss doesn't take 1st and 2nd in almost every international tournament, and secondly, the only reason people like huk and mc were at the finals was because they were way better than anyone else there. so am i allowed to make the same argument terran players do or is not not allowed? "the protoss were just better than everyone else there" not really safe to say huk and MC are WAY better than people like stc, alive, stephano, ret, sheth, idra, july, alive, artist, bomber, marineking, polt, puma, rain, inori, kiwikaki, sase, whitera, yadda yadda yadda As far as I'm aware they only encountered STC (both), Ret (MC), Marineking (both), July (Huk),Puma (MC), and Rain (MC) and yes, they are better than all of them with Marineking being around even because of the power of his early/mid game and STC a bit behind. In the end you named a bunch of other protoss which is weird in light of your argument, but yes they are better than all of those protosses minus Inori being better PvP. Your argument is so well thought out. Calling them "better". Nicely stated
|
to be fair- BW was NEVER balanced
|
On November 08 2011 07:32 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:27 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 07:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:20 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:[quote] They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA". I have not seen any of these stats that show the opposite. The ladder is also a bad place to for stats, since it is build to give everyone a 50/50 win ratio. From my understanding Korea is a bad land for protoss and a grand land for terran. Korea is pretty much accepted that is the place with the highest level of play. Even pros like PainUser, EGDeMusliM and MVP have been quoted there are some parts of terran that are slightly over powered. Its a bummer if your having a rough time and your race may be nerfed, no one cared when I was getting rolled as a Protoss and they increased the time on Warpgate. The opposite is showed on sc2ranks (see ladder grandmaster stats) and on this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues You keep throwning those status up like that mean something. Most of the professional players do not agree with you. I am sorry I do not have a page full of stats that show this, but it is true. If you want, listen to Inside the Game from 10/25 where they discuss the EMP nerf. Both PainUser and EGDeMusliM, both terran players, have no issues and believe it is good for the game. Yes, and meanwhile demuslim and painuser are winning tournaments , or don't they?
I think you just made my point for me. They are not winning tournments, but they seem to have no problem with the nerf. Also, demuslim is doing quite well recently.
|
On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it.
Are you using straight up ladder win rates? or some kind of mmr adjusted stat? Because if you're not, it doesn't mean anything at all except their mmr system is effective enough to keep people of the same capabilities (personal skill + race preference) together.
|
On November 08 2011 07:48 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. Are you using straight up ladder win rates? or some kind of mmr adjusted stat? Because if you're not, it doesn't mean anything at all except their mmr system is effective enough to keep people of the same capabilities (personal skill + race preference) together.
I'm using the amount of players in grandmaster. If there are more tosses then terran in grandmaster then toss isn't that weak, or is it?
|
On November 08 2011 07:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:32 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:27 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 07:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:20 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote: [quote] Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA". I have not seen any of these stats that show the opposite. The ladder is also a bad place to for stats, since it is build to give everyone a 50/50 win ratio. From my understanding Korea is a bad land for protoss and a grand land for terran. Korea is pretty much accepted that is the place with the highest level of play. Even pros like PainUser, EGDeMusliM and MVP have been quoted there are some parts of terran that are slightly over powered. Its a bummer if your having a rough time and your race may be nerfed, no one cared when I was getting rolled as a Protoss and they increased the time on Warpgate. The opposite is showed on sc2ranks (see ladder grandmaster stats) and on this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues You keep throwning those status up like that mean something. Most of the professional players do not agree with you. I am sorry I do not have a page full of stats that show this, but it is true. If you want, listen to Inside the Game from 10/25 where they discuss the EMP nerf. Both PainUser and EGDeMusliM, both terran players, have no issues and believe it is good for the game. Yes, and meanwhile demuslim and painuser are winning tournaments , or don't they? I think you just made my point for me. They are not winning tournments, but they seem to have no problem with the nerf. Also, demuslim is doing quite well recently. That doesn't prove your point. You don't even have a point.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 08 2011 07:51 VPVash wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:47 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 07:32 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:27 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 07:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:20 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote: [quote]
@ Vash and Snow.
Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA". I have not seen any of these stats that show the opposite. The ladder is also a bad place to for stats, since it is build to give everyone a 50/50 win ratio. From my understanding Korea is a bad land for protoss and a grand land for terran. Korea is pretty much accepted that is the place with the highest level of play. Even pros like PainUser, EGDeMusliM and MVP have been quoted there are some parts of terran that are slightly over powered. Its a bummer if your having a rough time and your race may be nerfed, no one cared when I was getting rolled as a Protoss and they increased the time on Warpgate. The opposite is showed on sc2ranks (see ladder grandmaster stats) and on this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues You keep throwning those status up like that mean something. Most of the professional players do not agree with you. I am sorry I do not have a page full of stats that show this, but it is true. If you want, listen to Inside the Game from 10/25 where they discuss the EMP nerf. Both PainUser and EGDeMusliM, both terran players, have no issues and believe it is good for the game. Yes, and meanwhile demuslim and painuser are winning tournaments , or don't they? I think you just made my point for me. They are not winning tournments, but they seem to have no problem with the nerf. Also, demuslim is doing quite well recently. That doesn't prove your point. You don't even have a point.
Vash, do you actually have a point in the whole topic?
|
On November 08 2011 07:51 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:48 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. Are you using straight up ladder win rates? or some kind of mmr adjusted stat? Because if you're not, it doesn't mean anything at all except their mmr system is effective enough to keep people of the same capabilities (personal skill + race preference) together. I'm using the amount of players in grandmaster. If there are more tosses then terran in grandmaster then toss isn't that weak, or is it?
The correct answer is there should be an equal percentage of players for the race in grandmaster relative to the total population that plays that race. If the game were truely balanced that would be the expectation at least. So yes, if 40% of players play Protoss but 50% of GM is toss, you might be able to conclude toss being OP. Obviously many other factors and my numbers are just made up.
|
Kill me. Please. <-Protoss player =(
|
On November 08 2011 07:55 pPingu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:51 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 07:47 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 07:32 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:27 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 07:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:20 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote: [quote]
We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo.
When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans".
Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA". I have not seen any of these stats that show the opposite. The ladder is also a bad place to for stats, since it is build to give everyone a 50/50 win ratio. From my understanding Korea is a bad land for protoss and a grand land for terran. Korea is pretty much accepted that is the place with the highest level of play. Even pros like PainUser, EGDeMusliM and MVP have been quoted there are some parts of terran that are slightly over powered. Its a bummer if your having a rough time and your race may be nerfed, no one cared when I was getting rolled as a Protoss and they increased the time on Warpgate. The opposite is showed on sc2ranks (see ladder grandmaster stats) and on this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues You keep throwning those status up like that mean something. Most of the professional players do not agree with you. I am sorry I do not have a page full of stats that show this, but it is true. If you want, listen to Inside the Game from 10/25 where they discuss the EMP nerf. Both PainUser and EGDeMusliM, both terran players, have no issues and believe it is good for the game. Yes, and meanwhile demuslim and painuser are winning tournaments , or don't they? I think you just made my point for me. They are not winning tournments, but they seem to have no problem with the nerf. Also, demuslim is doing quite well recently. That doesn't prove your point. You don't even have a point. Vash, do you actually have a point in the whole topic?
His point is that GSL statistics are meaningless, and should not be used to guage balance now or ever.
Blizzard's stats "account for skill," which is a complex algorithm that takes into account factors of uneven skilled players playing one another. (For example you would expect MMA to always beat Sheth(or other pseudo pro) because he's simply better, not because of race. This is not accounted for in straight up GSL stats, amongst other things such as Korean dominance.)
|
On November 08 2011 07:45 mrRoflpwn wrote: to be fair- BW was NEVER balanced
Doesnt mean we should not try to makes this game balanced tho?
Edit: Wow that was some poor english right there, ill just leave it for you guys to figure it out.
|
On November 08 2011 07:58 JustTray wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:55 pPingu wrote:On November 08 2011 07:51 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 07:47 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 07:32 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:27 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 07:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:20 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote: [quote] All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA". I have not seen any of these stats that show the opposite. The ladder is also a bad place to for stats, since it is build to give everyone a 50/50 win ratio. From my understanding Korea is a bad land for protoss and a grand land for terran. Korea is pretty much accepted that is the place with the highest level of play. Even pros like PainUser, EGDeMusliM and MVP have been quoted there are some parts of terran that are slightly over powered. Its a bummer if your having a rough time and your race may be nerfed, no one cared when I was getting rolled as a Protoss and they increased the time on Warpgate. The opposite is showed on sc2ranks (see ladder grandmaster stats) and on this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues You keep throwning those status up like that mean something. Most of the professional players do not agree with you. I am sorry I do not have a page full of stats that show this, but it is true. If you want, listen to Inside the Game from 10/25 where they discuss the EMP nerf. Both PainUser and EGDeMusliM, both terran players, have no issues and believe it is good for the game. Yes, and meanwhile demuslim and painuser are winning tournaments , or don't they? I think you just made my point for me. They are not winning tournments, but they seem to have no problem with the nerf. Also, demuslim is doing quite well recently. That doesn't prove your point. You don't even have a point. Vash, do you actually have a point in the whole topic? His point is that GSL statistics are meaningless, and should not be used to guage balance now or ever. Blizzard's stats "account for skill," which is a complex algorithm that takes into account factors of uneven skilled players playing one another. (For example you would expect MMA to always beat Sheth(or other pseudo pro) because he's simply better, not because of race. This is not accounted for in straight up GSL stats, amongst other things such as Korean dominance.) This is my point exactly
|
On November 08 2011 07:55 pPingu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:51 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 07:47 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 07:32 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:27 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 07:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:20 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote: [quote]
We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo.
When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans".
Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA". I have not seen any of these stats that show the opposite. The ladder is also a bad place to for stats, since it is build to give everyone a 50/50 win ratio. From my understanding Korea is a bad land for protoss and a grand land for terran. Korea is pretty much accepted that is the place with the highest level of play. Even pros like PainUser, EGDeMusliM and MVP have been quoted there are some parts of terran that are slightly over powered. Its a bummer if your having a rough time and your race may be nerfed, no one cared when I was getting rolled as a Protoss and they increased the time on Warpgate. The opposite is showed on sc2ranks (see ladder grandmaster stats) and on this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues You keep throwning those status up like that mean something. Most of the professional players do not agree with you. I am sorry I do not have a page full of stats that show this, but it is true. If you want, listen to Inside the Game from 10/25 where they discuss the EMP nerf. Both PainUser and EGDeMusliM, both terran players, have no issues and believe it is good for the game. Yes, and meanwhile demuslim and painuser are winning tournaments , or don't they? I think you just made my point for me. They are not winning tournments, but they seem to have no problem with the nerf. Also, demuslim is doing quite well recently. That doesn't prove your point. You don't even have a point. Vash, do you actually have a point in the whole topic? I do...maybe read my previous posts instead of trolling.
|
On November 08 2011 07:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:32 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:27 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 07:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:20 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote: [quote] Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA". I have not seen any of these stats that show the opposite. The ladder is also a bad place to for stats, since it is build to give everyone a 50/50 win ratio. From my understanding Korea is a bad land for protoss and a grand land for terran. Korea is pretty much accepted that is the place with the highest level of play. Even pros like PainUser, EGDeMusliM and MVP have been quoted there are some parts of terran that are slightly over powered. Its a bummer if your having a rough time and your race may be nerfed, no one cared when I was getting rolled as a Protoss and they increased the time on Warpgate. The opposite is showed on sc2ranks (see ladder grandmaster stats) and on this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues You keep throwning those status up like that mean something. Most of the professional players do not agree with you. I am sorry I do not have a page full of stats that show this, but it is true. If you want, listen to Inside the Game from 10/25 where they discuss the EMP nerf. Both PainUser and EGDeMusliM, both terran players, have no issues and believe it is good for the game. Yes, and meanwhile demuslim and painuser are winning tournaments , or don't they? I think you just made my point for me. They are not winning tournments, but they seem to have no problem with the nerf. Also, demuslim is doing quite well recently.
Is he? You're just buying into EG's hype machine. He hasn't posted any results for quite a while from what I can see on TLPD.
I doubt the ghost nerfs will do anything to reduce the korean terran winrate though. They're winning for generally very different reasons as far as I can tell.
I'm kind of surprised threads like this are allowed to go unmoderated for so long though - this is the biggest, sloppiest whinefest I've seen in quite a while. I haven't seen one good, analytical post here yet that aims to figure out why protoss is having such a hard time, least of all from the protoss players themselves. It's all "terran OP," which unfortunately is even a mentality that has spread to unrelated areas such as platinum/diamond on the EU server. It's just silly at this point.
|
You guys can argue for 50 more pages but it won't make any difference because both sides have already made up their minds.
|
With all the whining going on one would think P have 0% winrate.
You guys would have had a heart attack when oov was raping everyone left and right. IIRC TvZ hit an all time low during that era.
And P is getting buffed, I don´t know what you guys want, MUs winrates atm look pretty balanced, GSL format is being changed so we will see if the T dominance in Code S was just the format or if T is really OP at Code S level. But shit calm down guys, not every loss is due to balance, people make mistakes too(and pros are people too) I didn´t whine when Savior started losing.
And other than code S All races seem pretty even as far as tournament representation.As far as major tournaments lately:
IEM Guangzhou P got 2nd and 4th, Z got 1st and T 4th IEM NY Zerg got 1st 2nd and 3rd with a P on 4th on IPL P did badly, Z got 1st and 2nd T 3rd and 4th MLG orlando P got 1st and 2nd , Zerg 4th and T 3rd
I mean, we can´t always have a perfect 1-1-1 (hehehe) race distribution on all tournaments and even then stuff overall its not as bad as people are making them out to be. What pisses me off is how little credit people are giving to the players themeselves and just look at the races.
I mean when P/Z do well we get people making up excuses as to why they ¨lucked out¨ or ¨were 10000x more skilled than everybody¨. When a T player does well its because of their race. Have some fucking respect for the players, stuff is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be, on ladder imbalances don't even fucking affect the majority of the players.
Stop excusing stuff and undermining the players. Of course people already made up their mind so I don't know why I am bothering is telling people to calm down. I'll just leave saying that if you want to find imbalances you will find them no matter what, hell even in BW if you look enough you will perceive some imbalance. BW is balanced because people accepted that it was balanced.Stop making excuses and just cheer for your favourite players
|
On November 08 2011 07:37 VPVash wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:27 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 07:23 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 07:20 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2011 06:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:24 iamke55 wrote:On November 08 2011 06:20 Snowbear wrote:On November 08 2011 06:16 Sabu113 wrote:On November 08 2011 04:33 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:23 Snowbear wrote:[quote] They don't have a reason why they think terran is imba. Toss and zerg are dominating on ladder (you know, the place where all these whiners play), and tourneys (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues) get dominated by zergs. People just love to think that their race is UP and that other races are OP. This way they win because of their awesomeness, and lose because of imbalance . The only place where we see terrans dominating is GSL CODE S, and that's the only argument they have. Don't expect some other argument because there is not a single one. After this emp nerf tvp lategame will be even a bigger joke. Someone who is actually smart????!?!?!!?!?!? Is this real life?!?!??!??! @ Vash and Snow. Why don't you want to see a balanced game? We want? I showed you grandmaster ladder stats AND I showed the tournament page. Both indicate a balanced game. The only thing you guys use is "GSL CODE S is full of terrans". Meanwhile terran is getting nerfed and alot of people claim more nerfs. This is just sad imo. When I show ladder stats I get the response: "ladder is not important, tournaments are". When I show tournament stats I get the response: "but GSL code S is full of terrans". Take a look at the tournament stat page, then take a look at the graph, and notice how something is fishy about it. All your grandmaster stats have accomplished is disprove the whole "more good players play Terran" argument. I never said that the high population of terrans in code S is due more good players playing terran. Code S is the only place with such a high population of terrans, and I think it's sad to conclude imbalance from that. Isn't it the GSL format that makes terrans stay in code S? I don't understand why so few people agree with this. You guys all conclude imbalance from code S GSL. Ladder and any other tournament show the opposite, but everybody seems to ignore this. The only thing I read is "MORE TERRAN NERFS" and "TERRAN IS IMBA". I have not seen any of these stats that show the opposite. The ladder is also a bad place to for stats, since it is build to give everyone a 50/50 win ratio. From my understanding Korea is a bad land for protoss and a grand land for terran. Korea is pretty much accepted that is the place with the highest level of play. Even pros like PainUser, EGDeMusliM and MVP have been quoted there are some parts of terran that are slightly over powered. Its a bummer if your having a rough time and your race may be nerfed, no one cared when I was getting rolled as a Protoss and they increased the time on Warpgate. The opposite is showed on sc2ranks (see ladder grandmaster stats) and on this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues You keep throwning those status up like that mean something. Most of the professional players do not agree with you. I am sorry I do not have a page full of stats that show this, but it is true. If you want, listen to Inside the Game from 10/25 where they discuss the EMP nerf. Both PainUser and EGDeMusliM, both terran players, have no issues and believe it is good for the game. Wait wait wait wait...didn't painuser get wrecked by HerO?????????????? Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 07:34 hytonight wrote: well some terrans gotta lose...guess i fill that role in quite nicely Also you mean all Terrans other then Mvp,and MMA? i am afraid that they will nerf terran into oblivion like they did with protoss after mc was wining a lot but maybe im a little bias so dont pay attention to me
|
On November 08 2011 06:43 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 05:06 Silidons wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. ok, i'll bite. well firstly, toss doesn't take 1st and 2nd in almost every international tournament, and secondly, the only reason people like huk and mc were at the finals was because they were way better than anyone else there. so am i allowed to make the same argument terran players do or is not not allowed? "the protoss were just better than everyone else there" But of course it's allowed ! It's also encouraged. Because the moment you realize that is the moment you realize that usually, it's the better player who wins ! Amazing, isn't it ? A new world to explore for imbacrypeople xD ^ This
|
So basically the game was MORE balanced before the patches? Figures... Blizzard catering to silver league terrans crying about KA raping 200 marines 40 minutes into a game.
|
On November 08 2011 11:00 CellTech wrote: So basically the game was MORE balanced before the patches? Figures... Blizzard catering to silver league terrans crying about KA raping 200 marines 40 minutes into a game. It was more that everyone was a lot worse, so little imbalances weren't as obvious.
FruitDealer was the best player in the world and Tester was the best protoss. It was a weird era in retrospect.
|
On November 08 2011 11:11 Daralii wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 11:00 CellTech wrote: So basically the game was MORE balanced before the patches? Figures... Blizzard catering to silver league terrans crying about KA raping 200 marines 40 minutes into a game. It was more that everyone was a lot worse, so little imbalances weren't as obvious. FruitDealer was the best player in the world and Tester was the best protoss. It was a weird era in retrospect. lol i like this post
and don't most people agree that KA was too strong?
|
On November 08 2011 11:15 blagoonga123 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 11:11 Daralii wrote:On November 08 2011 11:00 CellTech wrote: So basically the game was MORE balanced before the patches? Figures... Blizzard catering to silver league terrans crying about KA raping 200 marines 40 minutes into a game. It was more that everyone was a lot worse, so little imbalances weren't as obvious. FruitDealer was the best player in the world and Tester was the best protoss. It was a weird era in retrospect. lol i like this post and don't most people agree that KA was too strong? Not only most people, but blizzard too thinks it was too strong.
|
On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:
You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk.
The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking.
This is a hilarious one. "It's because the Protoss players aren't creative enough, guys! They practice the same amount of time as their teammates but the coaches FORCE them to repeat the same three strategies over and over! If only they used the Warp Prism more!"
That argument is almost a year old now. Remember people telling Zerg players they had to experiment more with Nydus worms? Well they didn't, but what happend was Z got buffed, better maps and P got heavily nerfed. And now Z are doing awesome with pretty much the same strategies they've always used.
The fact that there are several pro teams in Korea with several pro players being coached 10-12 hours a day means that they have tried pretty much everything; remember it is their job to win games. If what you see in pro play isn't creative enough in your opinion, then guess what, it means the creative stuff just doesn't fucking work.
|
On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated! um, this is all data (foreign and korean) I would immagine that the korean data is much worse lol.
|
On November 08 2011 08:10 Quotidian wrote: I haven't seen one good, analytical post here yet that aims to figure out why protoss is having such a hard time, least of all from the protoss players themselves. It's all "terran OP," which unfortunately is even a mentality that has spread to unrelated areas such as platinum/diamond on the EU server. It's just silly at this point.
You haven't read the thread then.
|
On November 08 2011 08:59 windsupernova wrote:
IEM Guangzhou P got 2nd and 4th, Z got 1st and T 4th IEM NY Zerg got 1st 2nd and 3rd with a P on 4th on IPL P did badly, Z got 1st and 2nd T 3rd and 4th MLG orlando P got 1st and 2nd , Zerg 4th and T 3rd
By posting something like this, you are effectively saying that only the Semi Finals and Finals of any tournament really mean anything and that the 90% of other games played don't count.
|
On November 08 2011 08:59 windsupernova wrote: With all the whining going on one would think P have 0% winrate.
You guys would have had a heart attack when oov was raping everyone left and right. IIRC TvZ hit an all time low during that era.
And P is getting buffed, I don´t know what you guys want, MUs winrates atm look pretty balanced, GSL format is being changed so we will see if the T dominance in Code S was just the format or if T is really OP at Code S level. But shit calm down guys, not every loss is due to balance, people make mistakes too(and pros are people too) I didn´t whine when Savior started losing.
And other than code S All races seem pretty even as far as tournament representation.As far as major tournaments lately:
IEM Guangzhou P got 2nd and 4th, Z got 1st and T 4th IEM NY Zerg got 1st 2nd and 3rd with a P on 4th on IPL P did badly, Z got 1st and 2nd T 3rd and 4th MLG orlando P got 1st and 2nd , Zerg 4th and T 3rd
I mean, we can´t always have a perfect 1-1-1 (hehehe) race distribution on all tournaments and even then stuff overall its not as bad as people are making them out to be. What pisses me off is how little credit people are giving to the players themeselves and just look at the races.
I mean when P/Z do well we get people making up excuses as to why they ¨lucked out¨ or ¨were 10000x more skilled than everybody¨. When a T player does well its because of their race. Have some fucking respect for the players, stuff is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be, on ladder imbalances don't even fucking affect the majority of the players.
Stop excusing stuff and undermining the players. Of course people already made up their mind so I don't know why I am bothering is telling people to calm down. I'll just leave saying that if you want to find imbalances you will find them no matter what, hell even in BW if you look enough you will perceive some imbalance. BW is balanced because people accepted that it was balanced.Stop making excuses and just cheer for your favourite players Well said, sir. Amen.
|
On November 08 2011 11:15 blagoonga123 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 11:11 Daralii wrote:On November 08 2011 11:00 CellTech wrote: So basically the game was MORE balanced before the patches? Figures... Blizzard catering to silver league terrans crying about KA raping 200 marines 40 minutes into a game. It was more that everyone was a lot worse, so little imbalances weren't as obvious. FruitDealer was the best player in the world and Tester was the best protoss. It was a weird era in retrospect. lol i like this post and don't most people agree that KA was too strong?
Most people think it was too strong (I do too, man would I abuse it if it was still in the game now ;D), but most people think they went overboard to just remove the upgrade altogether. Just nerf it to +15 or +10 energy or something and no more "insta imba storm". Right now, when you warp in a templar to use for storm, he's vulnerable on the field for more than 40 seconds, which is a lot. No baracks or egg to protect him, and he doesn't benefit from the warpgame mechanics at all.
|
Germany219 Posts
On November 07 2011 04:31 andis35 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? infestor broodlord Mothership Blink Stalker Voidray Archon
What is your point? I think PvZ is in a major upswing 'cause Protoss players are finally realising how good Warp Prisms and Stargate openings are. That, plus the fact that Immortals got a buff and Infestors got a nerf in the last patch, gives this matchup enough new timings and compositions to play around with, before Blizzard should even consider making a new change.
|
On November 08 2011 11:15 blagoonga123 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 11:11 Daralii wrote:On November 08 2011 11:00 CellTech wrote: So basically the game was MORE balanced before the patches? Figures... Blizzard catering to silver league terrans crying about KA raping 200 marines 40 minutes into a game. It was more that everyone was a lot worse, so little imbalances weren't as obvious. FruitDealer was the best player in the world and Tester was the best protoss. It was a weird era in retrospect. lol i like this post and don't most people agree that KA was too strong?
Actually Ive always wondered if this is true. Before the KA nerf (removal) was announced Ive never even once seen someone call KA imbalanced. People were complaining about Protoss lategame, but I cant remember people complaining about KA specifically. As soon as blizzard announced that they are going to remove KA people suddenly were like "uh yeah, I guess KA is imbalanced".
About the graphs: What bothers me is that, besides june 2011, Terran had the highest winrate every single month. And even in june Zergs winrate was only higher by 0,1%. Obviously, in some months Terran was pretty close to 50%, but Terran is the only race that has never been below 50% and has basically had the highest winrate for a year. If we think about it, even though Terran was rarely buffed and instead constantly nerfed Terran remains the highest winrate. This might change drastically as soon as HOTS is released though, as new units will most likely change the game quite a bit.
|
On November 08 2011 14:55 zanmat0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:
You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk.
The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking.
This is a hilarious one. "It's because the Protoss players aren't creative enough, guys! They practice the same amount of time as their teammates but the coaches FORCE them to repeat the same three strategies over and over! If only they used the Warp Prism more!" That argument is almost a year old now. Remember people telling Zerg players they had to experiment more with Nydus worms? Well they didn't, but what happend was Z got buffed, better maps and P got heavily nerfed. And now Z are doing awesome with pretty much the same strategies they've always used. The fact that there are several pro teams in Korea with several pro players being coached 10-12 hours a day means that they have tried pretty much everything; remember it is their job to win games. If what you see in pro play isn't creative enough in your opinion, then guess what, it means the creative stuff just doesn't fucking work.
You didn't actually say anything at all.... you sound like an idiot to be honest.
Nydus isn't and won't ever be good with things the way they are now. And you do see people trying it.
As for your last paragraph... it seriously does anger me when people are completely incapable of understanding BASIC ideas, no matter how many times I try to hand feed it to you people like you're fucking babies. I'm not saying any professional starcraft player (protoss or not) is more or less creative than any other person on the planet.
What I'm saying is if you spend your time doing one thing, you're not doing another, RIGHT? So you're necessarily going to be worse at things other than predetermined timing attacks if you primarily rely on on them to win most of your games(or at least more than other races. Or at least more than zerg), RIGHT? Seriously, this shouldn't be hard.
|
On November 08 2011 09:12 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:43 MrCon wrote:On November 08 2011 05:06 Silidons wrote:On November 08 2011 04:19 VPVash wrote:On November 08 2011 04:11 hellohilo wrote: It's interesting that pro tosses (yuk yuk yuk) are having so much difficulty recently, especially with some of the recent metagame shifts that have occurred (mainly the use of immortals way more). I feel like it may take a new "innovator" to redefine the metagame and bring toss back to prominence, kind of like MC first did with his void ray play way back when in GSL3. Hello, please tell me why there having trouble "recently" I wanna know. This graph proves nothing at all. Look at tournaments "the only thing that matters" protoss players are winning and taking 2nd in almost every tournament. Please tell me what Terran does outside of Code S. Please???? I really wanna know why all of you think Terran is Imba...because you never been so wrong. Like the arguments on balance are literally a joke anymore. ok, i'll bite. well firstly, toss doesn't take 1st and 2nd in almost every international tournament, and secondly, the only reason people like huk and mc were at the finals was because they were way better than anyone else there. so am i allowed to make the same argument terran players do or is not not allowed? "the protoss were just better than everyone else there" But of course it's allowed ! It's also encouraged. Because the moment you realize that is the moment you realize that usually, it's the better player who wins ! Amazing, isn't it ? A new world to explore for imbacrypeople xD ^ This rofl but many people agree that a significant amount of terrans in code s dont belong there
also how was KA imba if toss still had <50% w:l
|
On November 08 2011 17:05 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 14:55 zanmat0 wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:
You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk.
The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking.
This is a hilarious one. "It's because the Protoss players aren't creative enough, guys! They practice the same amount of time as their teammates but the coaches FORCE them to repeat the same three strategies over and over! If only they used the Warp Prism more!" That argument is almost a year old now. Remember people telling Zerg players they had to experiment more with Nydus worms? Well they didn't, but what happend was Z got buffed, better maps and P got heavily nerfed. And now Z are doing awesome with pretty much the same strategies they've always used. The fact that there are several pro teams in Korea with several pro players being coached 10-12 hours a day means that they have tried pretty much everything; remember it is their job to win games. If what you see in pro play isn't creative enough in your opinion, then guess what, it means the creative stuff just doesn't fucking work. You didn't actually say anything at all.... you sound like an idiot to be honest. Nydus isn't and won't ever be good with things the way they are now. And you do see people trying it. As for your last paragraph... it seriously does anger me when people are completely incapable of understanding BASIC ideas, no matter how many times I try to hand feed it to you people like you're fucking babies. I'm not saying any professional starcraft player (protoss or not) is more or less creative than any other person on the planet. What I'm saying is if you spend your time doing one thing, you're not doing another, RIGHT? So you're necessarily going to be worse at things other than predetermined timing attacks if you primarily rely on on them to win most of your games(or at least more than other races. Or at least more than zerg), RIGHT? Seriously, this shouldn't be hard.
Or people have tried both other things and timing attacks, and figured out that timing attacks were way more efficient than these other things, the same way that timing attacks as zerg are easily defended unless completely unscouted, so people don't do them.
Currently the very lategame PvZ is largely in favor of Zerg. Zerg's deathball is making Protoss deathball litterally a laughing stock (HuK vs Stephano, Mana vs Stephano, Coca vs Sage, etc...). Protoss players cannot even tell how to theoretically beat that army (broodlords, corruptors, infestors + whatever ground units you can fill your supply with). What zergs need to understand when they throw at us dream compositions like "pure void rays, mothership, mass archons, 3/3 carriers" (which we're not even sure it would work, unless some archon toilet garbage) is that we usually have less money than them for one, we must keep producing units all game long for two, those units are not "tradable", when we have a max, we cannot afford to just sacrifice it and make another, and even if we could, it would not be fast enough. So when the zerg doomcloud comes, you have your slowly built-up, now useless, maxed army designed to deal with strong midgame-ish zerg compositions that the Zerg players sacrifies at you since the 13:00 minute mark where he was at 200/200 while you were at your 120/200. No wonder Protoss are making timing attacks. I mean I could be wrong here, but this is honestly how a "macro game" against zerg unfolds in my eyes in recent pro games. Zerg wears the daddy pants in that matchup, UNLESS you do timing attacks, either very strong ones, borderline all ins, or very weird ones, borderline cheesy. You're going to reply that "Zerg is the reactive race, Protoss can just make whatever he wants, blablabla", and then blind spire and mass mutas anyway, infestor timing, or mass roaches if we want a third. So Protoss makes an ungodly amount of units, with some upgrades and throw everything he's got at you, to at least force you to react with what you have right now, not what monstrous army you plan to have with your 80 drones @ 10 minutes economy. Aka the so called Protoss timing attacks.
Still, I'm sure people are trying other things, because they're not winning. I'm not actually too worried about Protoss players, obviously they are, or will be, very skilled, because their race is hard to win with. It can only be good for Aiur's future
|
On November 08 2011 08:59 windsupernova wrote: Stop excusing stuff and undermining the players. Of course people already made up their mind so I don't know why I am bothering is telling people to calm down. I'll just leave saying that if you want to find imbalances you will find them no matter what, hell even in BW if you look enough you will perceive some imbalance. BW is balanced because people accepted that it was balanced.Stop making excuses and just cheer for your favourite players
The problem is, in BW all the players are/were actually amazingly good.
In GSL we see mediocre terrans winning all the time, despite making terrible mistakes. This is proven by the fact that the few good terrans (that are not more in numbers than good zergs or protoss) dominate the larger group of mediocre terrans all the time in mirror match-ups. With protoss and zerg, the few mirrors that we see are usually close, tense fights - since the worse zergs/protoss got swept away already.
|
there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable. There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it??
|
|
well lets hope Protoss get better with the new patch and no longer go down, any further down in the ratings and we have some serious problems.
Decreasing every month is such a depressing thing.
|
MC vs Sen looked so pathetic. PvZ just looks broken right now. I don't even know how people can defend it.
|
Thank you for the statistics, always interesting to read.
|
On November 08 2011 17:05 Holophonist wrote:
You didn't actually say anything at all.... you sound like an idiot to be honest.
Nydus isn't and won't ever be good with things the way they are now. And you do see people trying it.
As for your last paragraph... it seriously does anger me when people are completely incapable of understanding BASIC ideas, no matter how many times I try to hand feed it to you people like you're fucking babies. I'm not saying any professional starcraft player (protoss or not) is more or less creative than any other person on the planet.
What I'm saying is if you spend your time doing one thing, you're not doing another, RIGHT? So you're necessarily going to be worse at things other than predetermined timing attacks if you primarily rely on on them to win most of your games(or at least more than other races. Or at least more than zerg), RIGHT? Seriously, this shouldn't be hard.
I'm the one who didn't say anything at all and I'm the idiot?
Oh, the irony. Take a step back and re-read your substanceless post. You have no arguments, no proof, you're simply spewing some unrelated nonsense out of left field. In fact, I hope you were inebrieated when you wrote that because it makes so little sense.
Whatever you were trying to say, you failed. I'd encourage you to give it another attempt but you seem pretty hopeless.
|
On November 08 2011 20:02 zanmat0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 17:05 Holophonist wrote:
You didn't actually say anything at all.... you sound like an idiot to be honest.
Nydus isn't and won't ever be good with things the way they are now. And you do see people trying it.
As for your last paragraph... it seriously does anger me when people are completely incapable of understanding BASIC ideas, no matter how many times I try to hand feed it to you people like you're fucking babies. I'm not saying any professional starcraft player (protoss or not) is more or less creative than any other person on the planet.
What I'm saying is if you spend your time doing one thing, you're not doing another, RIGHT? So you're necessarily going to be worse at things other than predetermined timing attacks if you primarily rely on on them to win most of your games(or at least more than other races. Or at least more than zerg), RIGHT? Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. I'm the one who didn't say anything at all and I'm the idiot? Oh, the irony. Take a step back and re-read your substanceless post. You have no arguments, no proof, you're simply spewing some unrelated nonsense that is somehow logical in your simpleton mind. In fact, I hope you were inebrieated when you wrote that because it makes so little sense. Whatever you were trying to say, you failed. I'd encourage you to give it another attempt but you seem pretty hopeless.
I wouldn't bother replying. Look at his post history: it is a combination of guileless trolling and random insults. You will only feed the troll by responding.
|
On November 08 2011 20:09 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 20:02 zanmat0 wrote:On November 08 2011 17:05 Holophonist wrote:
You didn't actually say anything at all.... you sound like an idiot to be honest.
Nydus isn't and won't ever be good with things the way they are now. And you do see people trying it.
As for your last paragraph... it seriously does anger me when people are completely incapable of understanding BASIC ideas, no matter how many times I try to hand feed it to you people like you're fucking babies. I'm not saying any professional starcraft player (protoss or not) is more or less creative than any other person on the planet.
What I'm saying is if you spend your time doing one thing, you're not doing another, RIGHT? So you're necessarily going to be worse at things other than predetermined timing attacks if you primarily rely on on them to win most of your games(or at least more than other races. Or at least more than zerg), RIGHT? Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. I'm the one who didn't say anything at all and I'm the idiot? Oh, the irony. Take a step back and re-read your substanceless post. You have no arguments, no proof, you're simply spewing some unrelated nonsense that is somehow logical in your simpleton mind. In fact, I hope you were inebrieated when you wrote that because it makes so little sense. Whatever you were trying to say, you failed. I'd encourage you to give it another attempt but you seem pretty hopeless. I wouldn't bother replying. Look at his post history: it is a combination of guileless trolling and random insults. You will only feed the troll by responding.
Glad to see you read our respective posts and are participating in the discussion constructively. Thank you for your valuable input.
|
On November 08 2011 20:12 zanmat0 wrote:
Glad to see you read our respective posts and are participating in the discussion constructively. Thank you for your valuable input.
...I was talking TO you, telling YOU not to respond to Holophonist, who is not worth the effort. If you thought it was the other way round, sorry, it was not meant to read like that.
And yes, I read your respective posts, and participated in the discussion a few pages back before I realised too that Holophonist was not worth responding to. He is now saying exactly the same crap he was then, too. Lots of words with very little meaning behind them backed up by lots of ad hominem attacks.
|
KA was the only way P had to keep up with the mobility of Terran in the endgame (by being able to warp in templars to storm/feedback drops), as well as their most reliable way to get some successful storms out in big battles because in a straight ghost vs templar fight ghosts obviously have the upper hand (cloaked, bigger range, aoe, better vision with scans etc). Also keep in mind that Terrans weren't really using ghosts effectively to take out the shields of the protoss army as well as the sentry energy, so they were feeling at a disadvantage in the endgame, since bio against forcefield/colossus/storm obviously sucks.
Nowadays though with the ghost being so strong in the endgame it is practically impossible to forcefield (most Protosses don't even bother building more than a couple of sentries in the endgame) and really hard to storm. That coupled with the fact that Terrans exploit their mobility and their MULEs on big maps makes TvP T favoured towards the end game, where Terran basically keeps building his T1 units and wins since he can so easily deny the storms that are supposed to counter his bio composition.
|
On November 08 2011 20:20 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 20:12 zanmat0 wrote:
Glad to see you read our respective posts and are participating in the discussion constructively. Thank you for your valuable input.
...I was talking TO you, telling YOU not to respond to Holophonist, who is not worth the effort. If you thought it was the other way round you, sorry, it was not meant to read like that. And yes, I read your respective posts, and participated in the discussion a few pages back before I realised too that Holophonist was not worth responding to. He is now saying exactly the same crap he was then, too. Lots of words with very little meaning behind them backed up by lots of ad hominem attacks.
Oops, my bad. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
On November 08 2011 16:44 Chise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 11:15 blagoonga123 wrote:On November 08 2011 11:11 Daralii wrote:On November 08 2011 11:00 CellTech wrote: So basically the game was MORE balanced before the patches? Figures... Blizzard catering to silver league terrans crying about KA raping 200 marines 40 minutes into a game. It was more that everyone was a lot worse, so little imbalances weren't as obvious. FruitDealer was the best player in the world and Tester was the best protoss. It was a weird era in retrospect. lol i like this post and don't most people agree that KA was too strong? Actually Ive always wondered if this is true. Before the KA nerf (removal) was announced Ive never even once seen someone call KA imbalanced. People were complaining about Protoss lategame, but I cant remember people complaining about KA specifically. As soon as blizzard announced that they are going to remove KA people suddenly were like "uh yeah, I guess KA is imbalanced". About the graphs: What bothers me is that, besides june 2011, Terran had the highest winrate every single month. And even in june Zergs winrate was only higher by 0,1%. Obviously, in some months Terran was pretty close to 50%, but Terran is the only race that has never been below 50% and has basically had the highest winrate for a year. If we think about it, even though Terran was rarely buffed and instead constantly nerfed Terran remains the highest winrate. This might change drastically as soon as HOTS is released though, as new units will most likely change the game quite a bit. Well, you have to remember that pretty much most of the protoss players weren't even using HT, because they were all using colossus instead, because the mentality at the time was ''why make HT when you can have a lot better and easier to use colossus?'' not only that I think it helped too that most people considered colossus imba back then too. Hell, there was only one protoss pro gamer I knew who used HT instead of colossus which was mana. So the whole instant warp-in storm HT strategies didn't get any chance to evolve either, before blizzard cut the amulet off. It might be possible that blizzard cut it out before it even started being a problem, which means blizzard has some foresight, but then again, we might never know if it was truly imbalanced at all.
|
Well, to account for statistical artifacts, one should ignore results where both data sets have overlapping error bars. There is a significant probability that the deviation is just a statistical error.
This would leave TvP terran favoured, TvZ pretty balanced (even though it looks T favoured, look at my statement above) and ZvP hugely zerg favoured.
So the logical consequence would be that protoss need some buffs against terran and more against zerg. TvP could also be helped by a little nerf to terran which could level the minor (if at all) imbalance in TvZ.
|
On November 08 2011 22:04 Mehukannu wrote: Hell, there was only one protoss pro gamer I knew who used HT instead of colossus which was mana. So the whole instant warp-in storm HT strategies didn't get any chance to evolve either, before blizzard cut the amulet off.
Given that White-Ra was using HT+Warp Prism drops when SC2 was first released, I don't think the whole "Protoss players just weren't innovative" argument holds any more water here than it does elsewhere.
|
On November 08 2011 23:18 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 22:04 Mehukannu wrote: Hell, there was only one protoss pro gamer I knew who used HT instead of colossus which was mana. So the whole instant warp-in storm HT strategies didn't get any chance to evolve either, before blizzard cut the amulet off. Given that White-Ra was using HT+Warp Prism drops when SC2 was first released, I don't think the whole "Protoss players just weren't innovative" argument holds any more water here than it does elsewhere. Your argument doesn't even make sense since I didn't even say that protoss players are not innovative which I don't think is not even true at all. -_- I am sure you remember all the talk back then about colossus being imba and people having the mentality to not to use HT because colossus was considered to be better choice all around. Also I didn't get to watch that much White-Ra's games either back then so I wouldn't know how he played, but that is why I said mana was the only protoss player I knew who used HT, because I didn't know there were others.
|
On November 08 2011 23:36 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 23:18 SeaSwift wrote:On November 08 2011 22:04 Mehukannu wrote: Hell, there was only one protoss pro gamer I knew who used HT instead of colossus which was mana. So the whole instant warp-in storm HT strategies didn't get any chance to evolve either, before blizzard cut the amulet off. Given that White-Ra was using HT+Warp Prism drops when SC2 was first released, I don't think the whole "Protoss players just weren't innovative" argument holds any more water here than it does elsewhere. Your argument doesn't even make sense since I didn't even say that protoss players are not innovative which I don't think is not even true at all. -_- I am sure you remember all the talk back then about colossus being imba and people having the mentality to not to use HT because colossus was considered to be better choice all around. Also I didn't get to watch that much White-Ra's games either back then so I wouldn't know how he played, but that is why I said mana was the only protoss player I knew who used HT, because I didn't know there were others.
Sorry if it seemed aggressive: you seemed to be claiming that KA was horrifically imba, but players never used HTs and never innovated (you use the word "evolve", which to all intents and purposes means the same) so we never found out that it was imba. I was countering your claim by giving an example of a player who frequently used HTs and innovated tremendously.
There was a lot of talk about Colossus imba, but because of that Blizzard's mindset is even harder to comprehend. Colossus imba ---> nerf HT but not Colossus? Even apart from the obvious flaws at the time in play for people to consider Colossus imba, the logic here just doesn't make sense at all.
Also, the Korean scene wasn't very large then nor open to Westerners, so even when players like MC used HTs a lot, no foreigners heard about it at the time.
|
On November 08 2011 23:45 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 23:36 Mehukannu wrote:On November 08 2011 23:18 SeaSwift wrote:On November 08 2011 22:04 Mehukannu wrote: Hell, there was only one protoss pro gamer I knew who used HT instead of colossus which was mana. So the whole instant warp-in storm HT strategies didn't get any chance to evolve either, before blizzard cut the amulet off. Given that White-Ra was using HT+Warp Prism drops when SC2 was first released, I don't think the whole "Protoss players just weren't innovative" argument holds any more water here than it does elsewhere. Your argument doesn't even make sense since I didn't even say that protoss players are not innovative which I don't think is not even true at all. -_- I am sure you remember all the talk back then about colossus being imba and people having the mentality to not to use HT because colossus was considered to be better choice all around. Also I didn't get to watch that much White-Ra's games either back then so I wouldn't know how he played, but that is why I said mana was the only protoss player I knew who used HT, because I didn't know there were others. Sorry if it seemed aggressive: you seemed to be claiming that KA was horrifically imba, but players never used HTs and never innovated (you use the word "evolve", which to all intents and purposes means the same) so we never found out that it was imba. I was countering your claim by giving an example of a player who frequently used HTs and innovated tremendously. There was a lot of talk about Colossus imba, but because of that Blizzard's mindset is even harder to comprehend. Colossus imba ---> nerf HT but not Colossus? Even apart from the obvious flaws at the time in play for people to consider Colossus imba, the logic here just doesn't make sense at all. Also, the Korean scene wasn't very large then nor open to Westerners, so even when players like MC used HTs a lot, no foreigners heard about it at the time. Well, my point kinda was we won't ever find out if it was truly imba or not, since there weren't many pro players even using it to begin with. Yeah, the KA nerf did get a some weird looks from the community when people were expecting the colossus getting a nerf rather than the HT. I still remember people saying that they will continue to go colossus since HT is really bad now and what not. Blizzard's mindset seems to be really weird at times, like in HotS they might remove carrier because not many people seem to use it at all, even though the most restricting thing about the unit is the god awfully long build time and not only that, they are taking the hard counter to terran mech too which they are trying to make more viable by adding the warhound and the battle hellion. Or how about the patch they slightly buffed mothership, but couldn't buff carriers because there was some weird choice they had to make or something. So pretty much that isn't the only time when blizzard has made some weird choices.
|
On November 09 2011 00:10 Mehukannu wrote: Well, my point kinda was we won't ever find out if it was truly imba or not, since there weren't many pro players even using it to begin with. Yeah, the KA nerf did get a some weird looks from the community when people were expecting the colossus getting a nerf rather than the HT. I still remember people saying that they will continue to go colossus since HT is really bad now and what not.
Understood. I don't understand why Blizzard removed both it and Flux Vanes from the game entirely, as if it was a last resort, while fiddling with +/- 5seconds on the bunker build time for about 3 months. Blizzard has never responded to why they completely removed KA from the game - it just blows my mind how inconsistent they are.
On November 09 2011 00:10 Mehukannu wrote: Blizzard's mindset seems to be really weird at times, like in HotS they might remove carrier because not many people seem to use it at all, even though the most restricting thing about the unit is the god awfully long build time and not only that, they are taking the hard counter to terran mech too which they are trying to make more viable by adding the warhound and the battle hellion. Or how about the patch they slightly buffed mothership, but couldn't buff carriers because there was some weird choice they had to make or something. So pretty much that isn't the only time when blizzard has made some weird choices.
Agreed entirely. Blizzard's solution to problems seems to sometimes bludgeon it until it goes away (Carrier, Archon toilet, KA, Flux Vanes), and sometimes be to tinker for ages with seemingly irrelevant things (bunker build time, Warp Gate/pylon radius/vision up ramps/Observer cost/Immortal range).
Often, they throw out some changes the community didn't ask for at all, and ignore the community completely. But then, sometimes they seem to respond really well (like here, with the EMP nerf).
|
On November 09 2011 00:10 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 23:45 SeaSwift wrote:On November 08 2011 23:36 Mehukannu wrote:On November 08 2011 23:18 SeaSwift wrote:On November 08 2011 22:04 Mehukannu wrote: Hell, there was only one protoss pro gamer I knew who used HT instead of colossus which was mana. So the whole instant warp-in storm HT strategies didn't get any chance to evolve either, before blizzard cut the amulet off. Given that White-Ra was using HT+Warp Prism drops when SC2 was first released, I don't think the whole "Protoss players just weren't innovative" argument holds any more water here than it does elsewhere. Your argument doesn't even make sense since I didn't even say that protoss players are not innovative which I don't think is not even true at all. -_- I am sure you remember all the talk back then about colossus being imba and people having the mentality to not to use HT because colossus was considered to be better choice all around. Also I didn't get to watch that much White-Ra's games either back then so I wouldn't know how he played, but that is why I said mana was the only protoss player I knew who used HT, because I didn't know there were others. Sorry if it seemed aggressive: you seemed to be claiming that KA was horrifically imba, but players never used HTs and never innovated (you use the word "evolve", which to all intents and purposes means the same) so we never found out that it was imba. I was countering your claim by giving an example of a player who frequently used HTs and innovated tremendously. There was a lot of talk about Colossus imba, but because of that Blizzard's mindset is even harder to comprehend. Colossus imba ---> nerf HT but not Colossus? Even apart from the obvious flaws at the time in play for people to consider Colossus imba, the logic here just doesn't make sense at all. Also, the Korean scene wasn't very large then nor open to Westerners, so even when players like MC used HTs a lot, no foreigners heard about it at the time. Well, my point kinda was we won't ever find out if it was truly imba or not, since there weren't many pro players even using it to begin with. Yeah, the KA nerf did get a some weird looks from the community when people were expecting the colossus getting a nerf rather than the HT. I still remember people saying that they will continue to go colossus since HT is really bad now and what not. Blizzard's mindset seems to be really weird at times, like in HotS they might remove carrier because not many people seem to use it at all, even though the most restricting thing about the unit is the god awfully long build time and not only that, they are taking the hard counter to terran mech too which they are trying to make more viable by adding the warhound and the battle hellion. Or how about the patch they slightly buffed mothership, but couldn't buff carriers because there was some weird choice they had to make or something. So pretty much that isn't the only time when blizzard has made some weird choices.
Before the KA nerf, Sanzenith was abusing the templars to the max. You should check some of the LR threads of the GSL back then, especially sanzenith vs scfou. So many people were shitting on San because he would lose every single engagement, but would just warp in storm and defend + harass till he ultimately won the game lol. Almost every game of that series went like that and there was non-stop whine about the KA + new threads being created about it i believe.
|
On November 09 2011 00:21 poorcloud wrote:
Before the KA nerf, Sanzenith was abusing the templars to the max. You should check some of the LR threads of the GSL back then, especially sanzenith vs scfou. So many people were shitting on San because he would lose every single engagement, but would just warp in storm and defend + harass till he ultimately won the game lol. Almost every game of that series went like that and there was non-stop whine about the KA + new threads being created about it i believe.
Blizzard's response to that was very different to the response to Colossus, however.
For Colossus, Blizzard went "use the counter, Vikings" For HT, Blizzard went "wow, Warp-in storms is OP, no need to use Ghosts, we'll completely remove the upgrade from the game"
That's what's strange - how inconsistent they have been.
|
On November 09 2011 00:25 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 00:21 poorcloud wrote:
Before the KA nerf, Sanzenith was abusing the templars to the max. You should check some of the LR threads of the GSL back then, especially sanzenith vs scfou. So many people were shitting on San because he would lose every single engagement, but would just warp in storm and defend + harass till he ultimately won the game lol. Almost every game of that series went like that and there was non-stop whine about the KA + new threads being created about it i believe.
Blizzard's response to that was very different to the response to Colossus, however. For Colossus, Blizzard went "use the counter, Vikings" For HT, Blizzard went "wow, Warp-in storms is OP, no need to use Ghosts, we'll completely remove the upgrade from the game" That's what's strange - how inconsistent they have been.
Just because you can't understand their reasoning doesn't mean they are inconsistent.
|
On November 09 2011 00:32 nam nam wrote: Just because you can't understand their reasoning doesn't mean they are inconsistent.
They should have been damn clear about their reasoning then, not put out patches which look completely random and then let the community try and figure their reasoning out like some elaborate riddle.
|
On November 09 2011 00:21 poorcloud wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 00:10 Mehukannu wrote:On November 08 2011 23:45 SeaSwift wrote:On November 08 2011 23:36 Mehukannu wrote:On November 08 2011 23:18 SeaSwift wrote:On November 08 2011 22:04 Mehukannu wrote: Hell, there was only one protoss pro gamer I knew who used HT instead of colossus which was mana. So the whole instant warp-in storm HT strategies didn't get any chance to evolve either, before blizzard cut the amulet off. Given that White-Ra was using HT+Warp Prism drops when SC2 was first released, I don't think the whole "Protoss players just weren't innovative" argument holds any more water here than it does elsewhere. Your argument doesn't even make sense since I didn't even say that protoss players are not innovative which I don't think is not even true at all. -_- I am sure you remember all the talk back then about colossus being imba and people having the mentality to not to use HT because colossus was considered to be better choice all around. Also I didn't get to watch that much White-Ra's games either back then so I wouldn't know how he played, but that is why I said mana was the only protoss player I knew who used HT, because I didn't know there were others. Sorry if it seemed aggressive: you seemed to be claiming that KA was horrifically imba, but players never used HTs and never innovated (you use the word "evolve", which to all intents and purposes means the same) so we never found out that it was imba. I was countering your claim by giving an example of a player who frequently used HTs and innovated tremendously. There was a lot of talk about Colossus imba, but because of that Blizzard's mindset is even harder to comprehend. Colossus imba ---> nerf HT but not Colossus? Even apart from the obvious flaws at the time in play for people to consider Colossus imba, the logic here just doesn't make sense at all. Also, the Korean scene wasn't very large then nor open to Westerners, so even when players like MC used HTs a lot, no foreigners heard about it at the time. Well, my point kinda was we won't ever find out if it was truly imba or not, since there weren't many pro players even using it to begin with. Yeah, the KA nerf did get a some weird looks from the community when people were expecting the colossus getting a nerf rather than the HT. I still remember people saying that they will continue to go colossus since HT is really bad now and what not. Blizzard's mindset seems to be really weird at times, like in HotS they might remove carrier because not many people seem to use it at all, even though the most restricting thing about the unit is the god awfully long build time and not only that, they are taking the hard counter to terran mech too which they are trying to make more viable by adding the warhound and the battle hellion. Or how about the patch they slightly buffed mothership, but couldn't buff carriers because there was some weird choice they had to make or something. So pretty much that isn't the only time when blizzard has made some weird choices. Before the KA nerf, Sanzenith was abusing the templars to the max. You should check some of the LR threads of the GSL back then, especially sanzenith vs scfou. So many people were shitting on San because he would lose every single engagement, but would just warp in storm and defend + harass till he ultimately won the game lol. Almost every game of that series went like that and there was non-stop whine about the KA + new threads being created about it i believe.
Sanzenith barely won that series despite the fact that SC missed like 100 EMPs that would have won him every single game. Not a really good example at all.
And the reason why Sanzenith was losing every engagement is because bio is literally bullshit, and it takes something as broken as KA to even keep the match-up remotely balanced. However, Terran players will never admit that Marine/Maurader/Medivac is far too cost efficient when perfectly controlled. This is on top of SC missing a SHITLOAD of money EMPs that would have won him the game.
Basically, anyone who is arguing that KA is imbalanced because of that match is an idiot. Period. SC made so many mistakes that game and still nearly beat SanZenith who played HT/Mass Expand play nearly perfectly.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On November 08 2011 06:32 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:30 MCDayC wrote: I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks. TvP 53.9% TvZ 52% ZvP 56.3% Thank you very much. These stats are really not that bad at all, I don't see why everyone is complaining, especially with some of the Protoss buffs hopefully coming in the next patch.
|
On November 09 2011 00:58 MCDayC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:32 MrCon wrote:On November 08 2011 06:30 MCDayC wrote: I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks. TvP 53.9% TvZ 52% ZvP 56.3% Thank you very much. These stats are really not that bad at all, I don't see why everyone is complaining, especially with some of the Protoss buffs hopefully coming in the next patch.
Well, the patch was only announced less than a day ago, and a lot of this thread was made before it was announced.
It's partly because what MrCon left out (admittedly, he wasn't asked for it) was the overall trend: TvP has never been less than 50% moving average winrate, and ZvP has had a steady downward trend for months. Also, regardless of the results of the graph, there were at the start of this GSL 19 terrans out of 32 places in Code S and only 5 Protoss, and GomTvTvTvT isn't particularly fun to watch for many people even if the percentages say the balance isn't bad.
|
On November 09 2011 00:58 MCDayC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:32 MrCon wrote:On November 08 2011 06:30 MCDayC wrote: I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks. TvP 53.9% TvZ 52% ZvP 56.3% Thank you very much. These stats are really not that bad at all, I don't see why everyone is complaining, especially with some of the Protoss buffs hopefully coming in the next patch.
Not that bad? What matchup has Protoss in a non-getting-their-shit-pwned situation? PvP? Which situation has Terran losing? TvT? you make think that 56.3 percent is "Only 6.4 percent above even", but really, tha tmeans th eopponent is sitting at a 43.7 percent chance. 43.7 vs 56.3. That's a 12.6 percent difference. 12.6 is well over a 4th of the base 43.7. The Zerg have a winrate over 25% percent higher in ZvP than Protoss does. That's not that bad?
|
United Kingdom35817 Posts
That's the thing and I don't see why people keep saying one month's statistics don't look too bad. No, but when it's the same month after month after month, it's a different thing entirely. If a matchup were balanced, month on month winrates should fluctuate around 50%. Since March or so, Protoss win rates against T are fluctuating around 47% and vs Zerg around 45%. I don't see how over a sustained, long period, people can say that the matchups are balanced.
|
On November 09 2011 01:17 Sphen5117 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 00:58 MCDayC wrote:On November 08 2011 06:32 MrCon wrote:On November 08 2011 06:30 MCDayC wrote: I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks. TvP 53.9% TvZ 52% ZvP 56.3% Thank you very much. These stats are really not that bad at all, I don't see why everyone is complaining, especially with some of the Protoss buffs hopefully coming in the next patch. Not that bad? What matchup has Protoss in a non-getting-their-shit-pwned situation? PvP? Which situation has Terran losing? TvT? you make think that 56.3 percent is "Only 6.4 percent above even", but really, tha tmeans th eopponent is sitting at a 43.7 percent chance. 43.7 vs 56.3. That's a 12.6 percent difference. 12.6 is well over a 4th of the base 43.7. The Zerg have a winrate over 25% percent higher in ZvP than Protoss does. That's not that bad?
It isn't so much that the winrates are bad for this month. In BW they fluctuated a lot, sometimes to 60/40. But the important point is that they are getting consistently worse - this is no statistical fluctuation. There is a clear trend here, and you could extrapolate this out (assuming no patches) to show how poor PvX winrates would be in the future.
EDIT: marvellosity, great minds think alike
|
Italy12246 Posts
On November 09 2011 01:19 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 01:17 Sphen5117 wrote:On November 09 2011 00:58 MCDayC wrote:On November 08 2011 06:32 MrCon wrote:On November 08 2011 06:30 MCDayC wrote: I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks. TvP 53.9% TvZ 52% ZvP 56.3% Thank you very much. These stats are really not that bad at all, I don't see why everyone is complaining, especially with some of the Protoss buffs hopefully coming in the next patch. Not that bad? What matchup has Protoss in a non-getting-their-shit-pwned situation? PvP? Which situation has Terran losing? TvT? you make think that 56.3 percent is "Only 6.4 percent above even", but really, tha tmeans th eopponent is sitting at a 43.7 percent chance. 43.7 vs 56.3. That's a 12.6 percent difference. 12.6 is well over a 4th of the base 43.7. The Zerg have a winrate over 25% percent higher in ZvP than Protoss does. That's not that bad? It isn't so much that the winrates are bad for this month. In BW they fluctuated a lot, sometimes to 60/40. But the important point is that they are getting consistently worse - this is no statistical fluctuation. There is a clear trend here, and you could extrapolate this out (assuming no patches) to show how poor PvX winrates would be in the future. EDIT: marvellosity, great minds think alike
Not only are they getting worse, but some matchups have been consistently favoured for one race for a long period of time, through patches and metagame shifts. While stats from a single month mean little, stats from 6 months to a year are indeed very meaningful.
|
I'm unsure if anyone answered it but I did read the 6 pages after my question and none did there. Basically, how come the september graph on the october graph is greatly different from the september graph from september? Basically it was nearly balanced in september (at least T was) according to these october graphs, meanwhile the september graphs from september where showing T being imba as shit.
|
On November 08 2011 17:47 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 17:05 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 14:55 zanmat0 wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:
You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk.
The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking.
This is a hilarious one. "It's because the Protoss players aren't creative enough, guys! They practice the same amount of time as their teammates but the coaches FORCE them to repeat the same three strategies over and over! If only they used the Warp Prism more!" That argument is almost a year old now. Remember people telling Zerg players they had to experiment more with Nydus worms? Well they didn't, but what happend was Z got buffed, better maps and P got heavily nerfed. And now Z are doing awesome with pretty much the same strategies they've always used. The fact that there are several pro teams in Korea with several pro players being coached 10-12 hours a day means that they have tried pretty much everything; remember it is their job to win games. If what you see in pro play isn't creative enough in your opinion, then guess what, it means the creative stuff just doesn't fucking work. You didn't actually say anything at all.... you sound like an idiot to be honest. Nydus isn't and won't ever be good with things the way they are now. And you do see people trying it. As for your last paragraph... it seriously does anger me when people are completely incapable of understanding BASIC ideas, no matter how many times I try to hand feed it to you people like you're fucking babies. I'm not saying any professional starcraft player (protoss or not) is more or less creative than any other person on the planet. What I'm saying is if you spend your time doing one thing, you're not doing another, RIGHT? So you're necessarily going to be worse at things other than predetermined timing attacks if you primarily rely on on them to win most of your games(or at least more than other races. Or at least more than zerg), RIGHT? Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. Or people have tried both other things and timing attacks, and figured out that timing attacks were way more efficient than these other things, the same way that timing attacks as zerg are easily defended unless completely unscouted, so people don't do them. Currently the very lategame PvZ is largely in favor of Zerg. Zerg's deathball is making Protoss deathball litterally a laughing stock (HuK vs Stephano, Mana vs Stephano, Coca vs Sage, etc...). Protoss players cannot even tell how to theoretically beat that army (broodlords, corruptors, infestors + whatever ground units you can fill your supply with). What zergs need to understand when they throw at us dream compositions like "pure void rays, mothership, mass archons, 3/3 carriers" (which we're not even sure it would work, unless some archon toilet garbage) is that we usually have less money than them for one, we must keep producing units all game long for two, those units are not "tradable", when we have a max, we cannot afford to just sacrifice it and make another, and even if we could, it would not be fast enough. So when the zerg doomcloud comes, you have your slowly built-up, now useless, maxed army designed to deal with strong midgame-ish zerg compositions that the Zerg players sacrifies at you since the 13:00 minute mark where he was at 200/200 while you were at your 120/200. No wonder Protoss are making timing attacks. I mean I could be wrong here, but this is honestly how a "macro game" against zerg unfolds in my eyes in recent pro games. Zerg wears the daddy pants in that matchup, UNLESS you do timing attacks, either very strong ones, borderline all ins, or very weird ones, borderline cheesy. You're going to reply that "Zerg is the reactive race, Protoss can just make whatever he wants, blablabla", and then blind spire and mass mutas anyway, infestor timing, or mass roaches if we want a third. So Protoss makes an ungodly amount of units, with some upgrades and throw everything he's got at you, to at least force you to react with what you have right now, not what monstrous army you plan to have with your 80 drones @ 10 minutes economy. Aka the so called Protoss timing attacks. Still, I'm sure people are trying other things, because they're not winning. I'm not actually too worried about Protoss players, obviously they are, or will be, very skilled, because their race is hard to win with. It can only be good for Aiur's future
I never said timing attacks weren't the best option for protoss. In fact I said they were. That's my whole point. If protoss as a race spends more time working on timing attacks, then you'll have less insight for the late game. Let me put it this way: If you take professional protoss players from like a year from now and put them up against zergs from today, the result may look a bit different. That's because races as a whole learn how to deal with certain things very slowly over time. So, again, if protoss players have less experience dealing with zerg in the late game (because a lot of games are won or lost earlier than that), of course they're going to struggle once their timing attacks stop working (because people are used to them).
|
On November 08 2011 18:19 KingPwny wrote:there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable. There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it??
The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 09 2011 01:39 Theovide wrote: I'm unsure if anyone answered it but I did read the 6 pages after my question and none did there. Basically, how come the september graph on the october graph is greatly different from the september graph from september? Basically it was nearly balanced in september (at least T was) according to these october graphs, meanwhile the september graphs from september where showing T being imba as shit.
Don't quote me on this, but many games are added a bit late on LP and so the graph evdiently variates because it is corrected.
But I think it has also something to do with the way it is made (with error calculation, average, etc)
|
On November 08 2011 20:02 zanmat0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 17:05 Holophonist wrote:
You didn't actually say anything at all.... you sound like an idiot to be honest.
Nydus isn't and won't ever be good with things the way they are now. And you do see people trying it.
As for your last paragraph... it seriously does anger me when people are completely incapable of understanding BASIC ideas, no matter how many times I try to hand feed it to you people like you're fucking babies. I'm not saying any professional starcraft player (protoss or not) is more or less creative than any other person on the planet.
What I'm saying is if you spend your time doing one thing, you're not doing another, RIGHT? So you're necessarily going to be worse at things other than predetermined timing attacks if you primarily rely on on them to win most of your games(or at least more than other races. Or at least more than zerg), RIGHT? Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. I'm the one who didn't say anything at all and I'm the idiot? Oh, the irony. Take a step back and re-read your substanceless post. You have no arguments, no proof, you're simply spewing some unrelated nonsense out of left field. In fact, I hope you were inebrieated when you wrote that because it makes so little sense. Whatever you were trying to say, you failed. I'd encourage you to give it another attempt but you seem pretty hopeless.
What? Read my last paragraph. This is what's wrong with the vast majority of people on the internet. You just insult with no substance. You'll pick apart what people say and try to find "gotcha" moments of when somebody may slip up, but when it comes to the actual point that I've been trying to make over and over, you won't answer it. Enjoy the internet, I doubt you'd make it in the real world.
|
On November 08 2011 20:20 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 20:12 zanmat0 wrote:
Glad to see you read our respective posts and are participating in the discussion constructively. Thank you for your valuable input.
...I was talking TO you, telling YOU not to respond to Holophonist, who is not worth the effort. If you thought it was the other way round, sorry, it was not meant to read like that. And yes, I read your respective posts, and participated in the discussion a few pages back before I realised too that Holophonist was not worth responding to. He is now saying exactly the same crap he was then, too. Lots of words with very little meaning behind them backed up by lots of ad hominem attacks.
I'm not insulting/attacking anybody more than they're attacking me. Am I? Even though I probably have the right because I'm actually responding to just about everything people are saying to me, whereas you guys won't even address my main thought process. That's what you do. Argue while you have something to pick apart, and when it comes down the meat and potatoes.. you just ignore me and say I'm a troll. You're just... awful.
|
On November 08 2011 20:20 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 20:12 zanmat0 wrote:
Glad to see you read our respective posts and are participating in the discussion constructively. Thank you for your valuable input.
...I was talking TO you, telling YOU not to respond to Holophonist, who is not worth the effort. If you thought it was the other way round, sorry, it was not meant to read like that. And yes, I read your respective posts, and participated in the discussion a few pages back before I realised too that Holophonist was not worth responding to. He is now saying exactly the same crap he was then, too. Lots of words with very little meaning behind them backed up by lots of ad hominem attacks. Knee jerk reaction? ha
|
Hmm, didn't expect ZvP winrate gap to be so big....
Not gunna lie, as a zerg player I feel bad for protoss players .
|
On November 09 2011 01:18 marvellosity wrote: That's the thing and I don't see why people keep saying one month's statistics don't look too bad. No, but when it's the same month after month after month, it's a different thing entirely. If a matchup were balanced, month on month winrates should fluctuate around 50%. Since March or so, Protoss win rates against T are fluctuating around 47% and vs Zerg around 45%. I don't see how over a sustained, long period, people can say that the matchups are balanced.
Yup, a few months back when Protoss was doing bad I thought it was just going to be a metagame shift. For about 7 months, this Protoss has been consistently doing bad. If that isn't sufficient statistic data then I don't know what is. I just feel bad for TvZ more.
|
blizz is just so great at balancing protoss to the other races -_-, I know that we have this new patch coming up, but holy crap those winrates are rediculous T.T
|
On November 09 2011 01:40 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 17:47 ZenithM wrote:On November 08 2011 17:05 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 14:55 zanmat0 wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:
You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk.
The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking.
This is a hilarious one. "It's because the Protoss players aren't creative enough, guys! They practice the same amount of time as their teammates but the coaches FORCE them to repeat the same three strategies over and over! If only they used the Warp Prism more!" That argument is almost a year old now. Remember people telling Zerg players they had to experiment more with Nydus worms? Well they didn't, but what happend was Z got buffed, better maps and P got heavily nerfed. And now Z are doing awesome with pretty much the same strategies they've always used. The fact that there are several pro teams in Korea with several pro players being coached 10-12 hours a day means that they have tried pretty much everything; remember it is their job to win games. If what you see in pro play isn't creative enough in your opinion, then guess what, it means the creative stuff just doesn't fucking work. You didn't actually say anything at all.... you sound like an idiot to be honest. Nydus isn't and won't ever be good with things the way they are now. And you do see people trying it. As for your last paragraph... it seriously does anger me when people are completely incapable of understanding BASIC ideas, no matter how many times I try to hand feed it to you people like you're fucking babies. I'm not saying any professional starcraft player (protoss or not) is more or less creative than any other person on the planet. What I'm saying is if you spend your time doing one thing, you're not doing another, RIGHT? So you're necessarily going to be worse at things other than predetermined timing attacks if you primarily rely on on them to win most of your games(or at least more than other races. Or at least more than zerg), RIGHT? Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. Or people have tried both other things and timing attacks, and figured out that timing attacks were way more efficient than these other things, the same way that timing attacks as zerg are easily defended unless completely unscouted, so people don't do them. Currently the very lategame PvZ is largely in favor of Zerg. Zerg's deathball is making Protoss deathball litterally a laughing stock (HuK vs Stephano, Mana vs Stephano, Coca vs Sage, etc...). Protoss players cannot even tell how to theoretically beat that army (broodlords, corruptors, infestors + whatever ground units you can fill your supply with). What zergs need to understand when they throw at us dream compositions like "pure void rays, mothership, mass archons, 3/3 carriers" (which we're not even sure it would work, unless some archon toilet garbage) is that we usually have less money than them for one, we must keep producing units all game long for two, those units are not "tradable", when we have a max, we cannot afford to just sacrifice it and make another, and even if we could, it would not be fast enough. So when the zerg doomcloud comes, you have your slowly built-up, now useless, maxed army designed to deal with strong midgame-ish zerg compositions that the Zerg players sacrifies at you since the 13:00 minute mark where he was at 200/200 while you were at your 120/200. No wonder Protoss are making timing attacks. I mean I could be wrong here, but this is honestly how a "macro game" against zerg unfolds in my eyes in recent pro games. Zerg wears the daddy pants in that matchup, UNLESS you do timing attacks, either very strong ones, borderline all ins, or very weird ones, borderline cheesy. You're going to reply that "Zerg is the reactive race, Protoss can just make whatever he wants, blablabla", and then blind spire and mass mutas anyway, infestor timing, or mass roaches if we want a third. So Protoss makes an ungodly amount of units, with some upgrades and throw everything he's got at you, to at least force you to react with what you have right now, not what monstrous army you plan to have with your 80 drones @ 10 minutes economy. Aka the so called Protoss timing attacks. Still, I'm sure people are trying other things, because they're not winning. I'm not actually too worried about Protoss players, obviously they are, or will be, very skilled, because their race is hard to win with. It can only be good for Aiur's future I never said timing attacks weren't the best option for protoss. In fact I said they were. That's my whole point. If protoss as a race spends more time working on timing attacks, then you'll have less insight for the late game. Let me put it this way: If you take professional protoss players from like a year from now and put them up against zergs from today, the result may look a bit different. That's because races as a whole learn how to deal with certain things very slowly over time. So, again, if protoss players have less experience dealing with zerg in the late game (because a lot of games are won or lost earlier than that), of course they're going to struggle once their timing attacks stop working (because people are used to them).
That's a bit ridiculous though. If Protoss players have few late game experience in PvZ, it's the same for Zerg in ZvP, their games last the same amount of time. If Zergs are better in late game just like that out of nowhere, it just confirms that their late game is at least easier to play than Protoss, if not better. You can maybe argue that ZvT (ok...) and ZvZ (haha) are longer matchups, but I think that late game ZvT is way different than ZvP, due to many different reasons. The core terran unit, the marine, becomes so much better that our core unit (stalker), at max upgrades, and tanks control space, while there is really no terran deathball except mech. It means naturally that Protoss has to keep his army together to maximize its effectiveness while Terran can, and must, threaten Zerg on several front. To sum up, I don't think experiencing more late game situations in another matchup should matter too much. It's like saying that as Protoss players experiences more early game situations, they are better early game, which is lawl.
|
On November 09 2011 02:07 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 01:40 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 17:47 ZenithM wrote:On November 08 2011 17:05 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 14:55 zanmat0 wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:
You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk.
The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking.
This is a hilarious one. "It's because the Protoss players aren't creative enough, guys! They practice the same amount of time as their teammates but the coaches FORCE them to repeat the same three strategies over and over! If only they used the Warp Prism more!" That argument is almost a year old now. Remember people telling Zerg players they had to experiment more with Nydus worms? Well they didn't, but what happend was Z got buffed, better maps and P got heavily nerfed. And now Z are doing awesome with pretty much the same strategies they've always used. The fact that there are several pro teams in Korea with several pro players being coached 10-12 hours a day means that they have tried pretty much everything; remember it is their job to win games. If what you see in pro play isn't creative enough in your opinion, then guess what, it means the creative stuff just doesn't fucking work. You didn't actually say anything at all.... you sound like an idiot to be honest. Nydus isn't and won't ever be good with things the way they are now. And you do see people trying it. As for your last paragraph... it seriously does anger me when people are completely incapable of understanding BASIC ideas, no matter how many times I try to hand feed it to you people like you're fucking babies. I'm not saying any professional starcraft player (protoss or not) is more or less creative than any other person on the planet. What I'm saying is if you spend your time doing one thing, you're not doing another, RIGHT? So you're necessarily going to be worse at things other than predetermined timing attacks if you primarily rely on on them to win most of your games(or at least more than other races. Or at least more than zerg), RIGHT? Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. Or people have tried both other things and timing attacks, and figured out that timing attacks were way more efficient than these other things, the same way that timing attacks as zerg are easily defended unless completely unscouted, so people don't do them. Currently the very lategame PvZ is largely in favor of Zerg. Zerg's deathball is making Protoss deathball litterally a laughing stock (HuK vs Stephano, Mana vs Stephano, Coca vs Sage, etc...). Protoss players cannot even tell how to theoretically beat that army (broodlords, corruptors, infestors + whatever ground units you can fill your supply with). What zergs need to understand when they throw at us dream compositions like "pure void rays, mothership, mass archons, 3/3 carriers" (which we're not even sure it would work, unless some archon toilet garbage) is that we usually have less money than them for one, we must keep producing units all game long for two, those units are not "tradable", when we have a max, we cannot afford to just sacrifice it and make another, and even if we could, it would not be fast enough. So when the zerg doomcloud comes, you have your slowly built-up, now useless, maxed army designed to deal with strong midgame-ish zerg compositions that the Zerg players sacrifies at you since the 13:00 minute mark where he was at 200/200 while you were at your 120/200. No wonder Protoss are making timing attacks. I mean I could be wrong here, but this is honestly how a "macro game" against zerg unfolds in my eyes in recent pro games. Zerg wears the daddy pants in that matchup, UNLESS you do timing attacks, either very strong ones, borderline all ins, or very weird ones, borderline cheesy. You're going to reply that "Zerg is the reactive race, Protoss can just make whatever he wants, blablabla", and then blind spire and mass mutas anyway, infestor timing, or mass roaches if we want a third. So Protoss makes an ungodly amount of units, with some upgrades and throw everything he's got at you, to at least force you to react with what you have right now, not what monstrous army you plan to have with your 80 drones @ 10 minutes economy. Aka the so called Protoss timing attacks. Still, I'm sure people are trying other things, because they're not winning. I'm not actually too worried about Protoss players, obviously they are, or will be, very skilled, because their race is hard to win with. It can only be good for Aiur's future I never said timing attacks weren't the best option for protoss. In fact I said they were. That's my whole point. If protoss as a race spends more time working on timing attacks, then you'll have less insight for the late game. Let me put it this way: If you take professional protoss players from like a year from now and put them up against zergs from today, the result may look a bit different. That's because races as a whole learn how to deal with certain things very slowly over time. So, again, if protoss players have less experience dealing with zerg in the late game (because a lot of games are won or lost earlier than that), of course they're going to struggle once their timing attacks stop working (because people are used to them). That's a bit ridiculous though. If Protoss players have few late game experience in PvZ, it's the same for Zerg in ZvP, their games last the same amount of time. If Zergs are better in late game just like that out of nowhere, it just confirms that their late game is at least easier to play than Protoss, if not better. You can maybe argue that ZvT (ok...) and ZvZ (haha) are longer matchups, but I think that late game ZvT is way different than ZvP, due to many different reasons. The core terran unit, the marine, becomes so much better that our core unit (stalker), at max upgrades, and tanks control space, while there is really no terran deathball except mech. It means naturally that Protoss has to keep his army together to maximize its effectiveness while Terran can, and must, threaten Zerg on several front. To sum up, I don't think experiencing more late game situations in another matchup should matter too much. It's like saying that as Protoss players experiences more early game situations, they are better early game, which is lawl.
Even if the zvt late game is different (which it obviously is), the army is often the same. And just late game experience in general helps.
And if you're trying to convince me that marines are better than stalkers... you don't have to try hard.
EDIT: It's also not just lategame, it's just playing reactively/defensive in general. For instance, I'm a ridiculously standard player, I never all-in unless I scout something greedy like nexus first or nexus before gateway or something like that. And even then I usually just naturally sneak in some drones because that's my nature. As a result, I lose some games I could probably win if I were just more aggressive. But the entire reason I play like that is because by NOT winning those games, I'm learning more about the game as a whole. Winning with a timing attack teaches you nothing but how to win with that timing attack.
|
On November 09 2011 01:19 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 01:17 Sphen5117 wrote:On November 09 2011 00:58 MCDayC wrote:On November 08 2011 06:32 MrCon wrote:On November 08 2011 06:30 MCDayC wrote: I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks. TvP 53.9% TvZ 52% ZvP 56.3% Thank you very much. These stats are really not that bad at all, I don't see why everyone is complaining, especially with some of the Protoss buffs hopefully coming in the next patch. Not that bad? What matchup has Protoss in a non-getting-their-shit-pwned situation? PvP? Which situation has Terran losing? TvT? you make think that 56.3 percent is "Only 6.4 percent above even", but really, tha tmeans th eopponent is sitting at a 43.7 percent chance. 43.7 vs 56.3. That's a 12.6 percent difference. 12.6 is well over a 4th of the base 43.7. The Zerg have a winrate over 25% percent higher in ZvP than Protoss does. That's not that bad? It isn't so much that the winrates are bad for this month. In BW they fluctuated a lot, sometimes to 60/40. But the important point is that they are getting consistently worse - this is no statistical fluctuation. There is a clear trend here, and you could extrapolate this out (assuming no patches) to show how poor PvX winrates would be in the future. EDIT: marvellosity, great minds think alike
Well I think too many people focus on the curve instead of the histogram. If you look at the curve, Terran imba but if you look at the histogram yo can see that in June and Septembre PvT is exactly 50% ...
|
Italy12246 Posts
On November 09 2011 02:16 Rombur wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 01:19 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 01:17 Sphen5117 wrote:On November 09 2011 00:58 MCDayC wrote:On November 08 2011 06:32 MrCon wrote:On November 08 2011 06:30 MCDayC wrote: I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks. TvP 53.9% TvZ 52% ZvP 56.3% Thank you very much. These stats are really not that bad at all, I don't see why everyone is complaining, especially with some of the Protoss buffs hopefully coming in the next patch. Not that bad? What matchup has Protoss in a non-getting-their-shit-pwned situation? PvP? Which situation has Terran losing? TvT? you make think that 56.3 percent is "Only 6.4 percent above even", but really, tha tmeans th eopponent is sitting at a 43.7 percent chance. 43.7 vs 56.3. That's a 12.6 percent difference. 12.6 is well over a 4th of the base 43.7. The Zerg have a winrate over 25% percent higher in ZvP than Protoss does. That's not that bad? It isn't so much that the winrates are bad for this month. In BW they fluctuated a lot, sometimes to 60/40. But the important point is that they are getting consistently worse - this is no statistical fluctuation. There is a clear trend here, and you could extrapolate this out (assuming no patches) to show how poor PvX winrates would be in the future. EDIT: marvellosity, great minds think alike Well I think too many people focus on the curve instead of the histogram. If you look at the curve, Terran imba but if you look at the histogram yo can see that in June and Septembre PvT is exactly 50% ...
And that's the best it's been in the last 6 months. Even at worst, mostly favoured for t, vs even at best, mostly unfavoured for p.
|
On November 09 2011 02:19 Teoita wrote: And that's the best it's been in the last 6 months. Even at worst, mostly favoured for t, vs even at best, mostly unfavoured for p.
11 months actually. PvT winrates were slightly above 50% in the first month of release. Since then, it has been almost always <50%, with one month of about equality.
|
i think the reason why many people(including me) feel unsatisfied is because protoss has been the worst race since 7 months now and terran constantly the best. i wouldnt care if a race would be at 45% or 55% winrate over 1-2 months because thats kind of "normal" due to metagame development etc., but over such a long time you simply get frustrated and it´s hard not to complain about it.
i think nearly everyone would act the same way when his/her favoured race would be in this situation, just like it was with zerg in 2010.
|
Holy shit! terrans win 1% more games than Zerg? They are soooo OP omfg! I will go and ambush David Kim right now and threaten to kick him in the balls unless he buffs Zerg. This is a joke.
|
I don't get all the protoss QQ. It's one thing to want your race to do well.. but this act of total despair doesn't make sense. Protoss does fine on the ladder. If it's because you want to root for your favorite protss, I guess that's ok.
|
On November 09 2011 01:41 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 18:19 KingPwny wrote:there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable. There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it?? The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle.
last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time.
people needs to calm down
|
On November 09 2011 02:48 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 01:41 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 18:19 KingPwny wrote:there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable. There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it?? The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle. last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time. people needs to calm down
I'll refer you to this post on the first page of this thread:
On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated!
Emphasis mine.
Claiming that there isn't enough data has been done before, refuted before, and argued before. Like so many threads, this one is coming full circle.
|
On November 09 2011 02:51 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 02:48 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 01:41 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 18:19 KingPwny wrote:there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable. There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it?? The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle. last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time. people needs to calm down I'll refer you to this post on the first page of this thread: Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated! Emphasis mine. Claiming that there isn't enough data has been done before, refuted before, and argued before. Like so many threads, this one is coming full circle.
Nothing in my post claims or suggests there was not enough data, I have no idea where you even get that idea
|
On November 09 2011 02:54 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 02:51 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:48 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 01:41 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 18:19 KingPwny wrote:there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable. There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it?? The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle. last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time. people needs to calm down I'll refer you to this post on the first page of this thread: On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated! Emphasis mine. Claiming that there isn't enough data has been done before, refuted before, and argued before. Like so many threads, this one is coming full circle. Nothing in my post claims or suggests there was not enough data, I have no idea where you even get that idea
...Yes you did. "last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time." <- you said that. That is a different way of saying 'there isn't enough data to conclude anything'. Arguing the difference between the two is just absurd semantics.
|
On November 09 2011 02:59 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 02:54 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 02:51 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:48 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 01:41 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 18:19 KingPwny wrote:there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable. There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it?? The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle. last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time. people needs to calm down I'll refer you to this post on the first page of this thread: On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated! Emphasis mine. Claiming that there isn't enough data has been done before, refuted before, and argued before. Like so many threads, this one is coming full circle. Nothing in my post claims or suggests there was not enough data, I have no idea where you even get that idea ...Yes you did. "last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time." <- you said that. That is a different way of saying 'there isn't enough data to conclude anything'. Arguing the difference between the two is just absurd semantics.
Obviously given the context what I meant was very different from what you're inferring, there is a difference between having the data to see current winrates and having one 6 months from now. Not having enough data to show full trends is not the same as not having enough data to make the statistics invalid
|
Italy12246 Posts
On November 09 2011 03:09 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 02:59 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:54 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 02:51 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:48 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 01:41 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 18:19 KingPwny wrote:there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable. There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it?? The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle. last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time. people needs to calm down I'll refer you to this post on the first page of this thread: On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated! Emphasis mine. Claiming that there isn't enough data has been done before, refuted before, and argued before. Like so many threads, this one is coming full circle. Nothing in my post claims or suggests there was not enough data, I have no idea where you even get that idea ...Yes you did. "last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time." <- you said that. That is a different way of saying 'there isn't enough data to conclude anything'. Arguing the difference between the two is just absurd semantics. Obviously given the context what I meant was very different from what you're inferring, there is a difference between having the data to see current winrates and having one 6 months from now. Not having enough data to show full trends is not the same as not having enough data to make the statistics invalid
It's been well over one year since release. When would you say we can draw conclusions? Two years? Three? Right before HotS is released?
|
It almost seems like Blizzard has accepted that WoL won't be perfectly balanced at the highest level. That is why they are doing such radical changes in HotS, particularly to Protoss and Nexus energy.
As a casual protoss player, that doesn't bother me that much, because at my level (mid/high masters on NA), the game feels generally balanced.
I do feel sorry for the pro Protoss players, though. They could have potentially made a lot more money if they would have just picked a different race in beta/release. It kind of makes you feel like when HotS is released you might accidentally pick the wrong race and end up paying for it until LotV :/
|
On November 09 2011 03:15 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 03:09 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 02:59 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:54 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 02:51 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:48 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 01:41 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 18:19 KingPwny wrote:there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable. There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it?? The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle. last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time. people needs to calm down I'll refer you to this post on the first page of this thread: On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated! Emphasis mine. Claiming that there isn't enough data has been done before, refuted before, and argued before. Like so many threads, this one is coming full circle. Nothing in my post claims or suggests there was not enough data, I have no idea where you even get that idea ...Yes you did. "last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time." <- you said that. That is a different way of saying 'there isn't enough data to conclude anything'. Arguing the difference between the two is just absurd semantics. Obviously given the context what I meant was very different from what you're inferring, there is a difference between having the data to see current winrates and having one 6 months from now. Not having enough data to show full trends is not the same as not having enough data to make the statistics invalid It's been well over one year since release. When would you say we can draw conclusions? Two years? Three? Right before HotS is released?
and within only a year time frame we have some drastic fluctuation, such as ZvP dynamics, and even TvP.
Who to say it won't change to something completely different a year from now? Similar trends had happened in sc1 before
|
I think on a fundamental level, playing 8+ hours a day rewards terran and zerg players a lot more than protoss players, with terran probably being rewarded the most. There's just so much multitasking and micro and timing and all that jazz that you can improve with terran, but protoss lacks a lot of that so I think if the game stays the same the gap between protoss and terran/zerg will just continue to widen. I think that's why protoss is perfectly fine in the amateur scene (bronze to low GM), but doing so poorly at the professional level.
That is, progamer protosses aren't as rewarded for their time spent as other progamers.
|
On November 09 2011 03:25 Starshaped wrote: I think on a fundamental level, playing 8+ hours a day rewards terran and zerg players a lot more than protoss players, with terran probably being rewarded the most. There's just so much multitasking and micro and timing and all that jazz that you can improve with terran, but protoss lacks a lot of that so I think if the game stays the same the gap between protoss and terran/zerg will just continue to widen. I think that's why protoss is perfectly fine in the amateur scene (bronze to low GM), but doing so poorly at the professional level.
That is, progamer protosses aren't as rewarded for their time spent as other progamers.
That would be consistent with HotS adding, what seems to be, a lot more difficulty/options for protoss.
|
On November 09 2011 03:25 Starshaped wrote: I think on a fundamental level, playing 8+ hours a day rewards terran and zerg players a lot more than protoss players, with terran probably being rewarded the most. There's just so much multitasking and micro and timing and all that jazz that you can improve with terran, but protoss lacks a lot of that so I think if the game stays the same the gap between protoss and terran/zerg will just continue to widen. I think that's why protoss is perfectly fine in the amateur scene (bronze to low GM), but doing so poorly at the professional level.
That is, progamer protosses aren't as rewarded for their time spent as other progamers.
I've been saying this for a while now. Protoss has just fewer options to display their skill and that's bad for everyone. At lower levels (amateur scene as you call it), they do pretty well (even just doing 1a) while in the progamer level they do bad.
|
Lol'd @ ZvT in janv 2011 :D
|
On November 09 2011 02:51 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 02:48 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 01:41 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 18:19 KingPwny wrote:there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable. There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it?? The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle. last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time. people needs to calm down I'll refer you to this post on the first page of this thread: Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated! Emphasis mine. Claiming that there isn't enough data has been done before, refuted before, and argued before. Like so many threads, this one is coming full circle. That someone said the argument before him in an ironic manner doesn't make the argument bad ._.
graphs from bw 2007-2011, every measurement is over a 3 month period: http://i.imgur.com/uxz19.png As you see P>T T>Z Z>P according to these graphs for a great majority of the time. On top of that there is several entire 3 month periods where T>Z and Z>P where over 60%. It is a myth that SC2 is totally imba meanwhile SCBW is totally balanced. Also since 4.1 TvP has started to look more and more balanced (according to graphs), meanwhile the real reason P is doing bad is ZvP (most likely because of the 3 hatch vs ffe that just was discovered into the meta game, if that is op or if P just hasn't found a counter yet, I don't know). The reason why T is doing best overall though is because they have above 50% in both TvZ and TvP.
I'm not saying this patch is bad, but those who think TvP is the most imba match up after 4.1 (basically when protoss started to be able to beat 1-1-1) are simply wrong, statistics shows that currently it's ZvP.
|
On November 09 2011 03:25 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 03:15 Teoita wrote:On November 09 2011 03:09 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 02:59 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:54 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 02:51 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:48 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 01:41 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 18:19 KingPwny wrote:there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable. There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it?? The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle. last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time. people needs to calm down I'll refer you to this post on the first page of this thread: On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated! Emphasis mine. Claiming that there isn't enough data has been done before, refuted before, and argued before. Like so many threads, this one is coming full circle. Nothing in my post claims or suggests there was not enough data, I have no idea where you even get that idea ...Yes you did. "last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time." <- you said that. That is a different way of saying 'there isn't enough data to conclude anything'. Arguing the difference between the two is just absurd semantics. Obviously given the context what I meant was very different from what you're inferring, there is a difference between having the data to see current winrates and having one 6 months from now. Not having enough data to show full trends is not the same as not having enough data to make the statistics invalid It's been well over one year since release. When would you say we can draw conclusions? Two years? Three? Right before HotS is released? and within only a year time frame we have some drastic fluctuation, such as ZvP dynamics, and even TvP. Who to say it won't change to something completely different a year from now? Similar trends had happened in sc1 before
The changes in win percentage are directly influenced by changes introduced by Blizzard. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. ZvP did not suddenly change into Zerg favor for no reason; Protoss got massive nerfs and Zerg got a monstrous buff with the Infestor.
|
On November 07 2011 21:38 Klystron wrote: The ZvP winrates are kinda interesting. I think that this is mostly due to what has so far been a very stale metagame that Zergs have recently shaken up with increasing muta play.
The problem is that most ZvP's boil down to a FFE into double stargate, 6-8 gate, stargate into 6-8gate, or stargate into 2-base robo. These openings have been used for months now and most zerg players know the timings and exactly how to counter these plays.
On top of that Zerg players have discovered that Protoss players haven't figured out how to deal with mutas yet. I don't think that protoss lacks any ability to counter mutas, in fact they have some of the best counters to mutas in the game. The problem is that they don't quite know how to effectively split their army, when to start putting down cannons, how many cannons they need, and that colossi are not good against mutas. Once protoss players start to get a feel for the timings and the required responses to mutas I have a feeling that muta play in ZvP will largely disappear. You really think protoss has some of the best counters to mutas in the game? I really think you should try playing protoss against muta ling just to see how frusterating it really is. Marines thors and turrets and ghosts with snipe are all better than anything protoss has to defend against mutas save maybe pheonix's , and id way prefer to have a marine, ghost or a thor against mutas because they are actually good units still if the zerg does a quick tech switch.
Once the muta size gets big enough, mutas have absolutely no problems taking on equal number of stalkers at all even with a few sentries with GS up (which usually doesnt happen since the only way you can catch a good muta player is with blink stalkers and sentries cant get there fast enough) Pheonix's are decent but you need a decent amount of them to deal with a big muta pack, and then you are left really vulnerable to a roach infestor (or something) tech switch which you are super vulnerable too after defending mutas. Then there is storm which any competent muta player should beable to avoid, mutas are one of the fastest air units in the game and should have no problem dodging storms, see a templar moving up? move your mutas, not to mention how easy it is to come behind the army and pick off templars as the protoss is moving across the map. Archons are decent but magic box negates their threat even more so then thors and they become pretty useless except for cleaning up lings.
Ive honestly had games where I am on equal bases equal upgrades (somehow i managed to get that far, with ridiculous amounts of cannons) and an equal size army comprised of 6-7 pheonix's, 20-30 stalkers, a few Ht's with storm, 4-6 archons, and a good number of zealots to soak up lings, and a sentry or 2 for gs. Seems pretty ideal for holding off muta ling right? nope. Although i lasted probably longer then i ever have going into the lalte game against muta ling, this player had a very good way of negating anything that could kill mutas quickly, usually when we engaged he would form a sort of singular circle around my army, makig it hard for storms to hit more than 1-3 mutas and for archons to hit more than 1 muta at a time, from there i would just get demolished as everything eventually fell with him having a decent number of mutas and no lings left at the end each time. After that game i switched to zerg and i dont think i will ever go back ive told this muta ling story probably 5 times on the forums, i know i probably didnt play perfectly but a race should never feel like they have no options against a particular strategy when they have equal income , bases , upgrades which i did for a good portion of the game. Nothing is more frusterating playing a race where you know their are certain strategies that are really really difficult to beat and yoou will most likely have to vastly outplay your opponent to win.
Protoss is the race that has the problem of having strategies that are frusterating / really hard to beat. 1-1-1 and muta ling are both ones that come to mind off the top of my head. I cant really think of any strategies protoss has against terran or zerg where they simply have almost no options and they hope their opponent will make a mistake. I think it used to be like that with the protoss deathball in pvz though before infestor buffs and such. I know protoss has options in the early game against muta ling and thats not really the problem its when it gets into the late game where its just so difficult, it shouldnt have to be way harder to defend against mutas then to play as them (which it is) i play zerg now and although my muta micro isnt perfect I still have a pretty damn good win rate with muta ling in ZVP, and i know first hand how hard it is to defend that.
|
On November 09 2011 04:41 Executor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 21:38 Klystron wrote: The ZvP winrates are kinda interesting. I think that this is mostly due to what has so far been a very stale metagame that Zergs have recently shaken up with increasing muta play.
The problem is that most ZvP's boil down to a FFE into double stargate, 6-8 gate, stargate into 6-8gate, or stargate into 2-base robo. These openings have been used for months now and most zerg players know the timings and exactly how to counter these plays.
On top of that Zerg players have discovered that Protoss players haven't figured out how to deal with mutas yet. I don't think that protoss lacks any ability to counter mutas, in fact they have some of the best counters to mutas in the game. The problem is that they don't quite know how to effectively split their army, when to start putting down cannons, how many cannons they need, and that colossi are not good against mutas. Once protoss players start to get a feel for the timings and the required responses to mutas I have a feeling that muta play in ZvP will largely disappear. You really think protoss has some of the best counters to mutas in the game? I really think you should try playing protoss against muta ling just to see how frusterating it really is. Marines thors and turrets and ghosts with snipe are all better than anything protoss has to defend against mutas save maybe pheonix's , and id way prefer to have a marine, ghost or a thor against mutas because they are actually good units still if the zerg does a quick tech switch. Once the muta size gets big enough, mutas have absolutely no problems taking on equal number of stalkers at all even with a few sentries with GS up (which usually doesnt happen since the only way you can catch a good muta player is with blink stalkers and sentries cant get there fast enough) Pheonix's are decent but you need a decent amount of them to deal with a big muta pack, and then you are left really vulnerable to a roach infestor (or something) tech switch which you are super vulnerable too after defending mutas. Then there is storm which any competent muta player should beable to avoid, mutas are one of the fastest air units in the game and should have no problem dodging storms, see a templar moving up? move your mutas, not to mention how easy it is to come behind the army and pick off templars as the protoss is moving across the map. Archons are decent but magic box negates their threat even more so then thors and they become pretty useless except for cleaning up lings. Ive honestly had games where I am on equal bases equal upgrades (somehow i managed to get that far, with ridiculous amounts of cannons) and an equal size army comprised of 6-7 pheonix's, 20-30 stalkers, a few Ht's with storm, 4-6 archons, and a good number of zealots to soak up lings, and a sentry or 2 for gs. Seems pretty ideal for holding off muta ling right? nope. Although i lasted probably longer then i ever have going into the lalte game against muta ling, this player had a very good way of negating anything that could kill mutas quickly, usually when we engaged he would form a sort of singular circle around my army, makig it hard for storms to hit more than 1-3 mutas and for archons to hit more than 1 muta at a time, from there i would just get demolished as everything eventually fell with him having a decent number of mutas and no lings left at the end each time. After that game i switched to zerg and i dont think i will ever go back ive told this muta ling story probably 5 times on the forums, i know i probably didnt play perfectly but a race should never feel like they have no options against a particular strategy when they have equal income , bases , upgrades which i did for a good portion of the game. Nothing is more frusterating playing a race where you know their are certain strategies that are really really difficult to beat. Protoss is the race that has the problem of having strategies that are frusterating / really hard to beat. 1-1-1 and muta ling are both ones that come to mind off the top of my head. I cant really think of any strategies protoss has against terran or zerg where they simply have almost no options and they hope their opponent will make a mistake. I think it used to be like that with the protoss deathball in pvz though before infestor buffs and such. I know protoss has options in the early game against muta ling and thats not really the problem its when it gets into the late game where its just so difficult, it shouldnt have to be way harder to defend against mutas then to play as them (which it is) i play zerg now and although my muta micro isnt perfect I still have a pretty damn good win rate with muta ling in ZVP, and i know first hand how hard it is to defend that. The guy made a good point. Protoss have been doing the same thing for several months in PvZ. You can argue its cause they have to but there are 2 problems with that arguement: 1) You are bad at the game and thus dont know 2) Kiwikaki
If you want Marines and Thors well your just gonna have to play terran
|
On November 09 2011 04:49 Techno wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 04:41 Executor1 wrote:On November 07 2011 21:38 Klystron wrote: The ZvP winrates are kinda interesting. I think that this is mostly due to what has so far been a very stale metagame that Zergs have recently shaken up with increasing muta play.
The problem is that most ZvP's boil down to a FFE into double stargate, 6-8 gate, stargate into 6-8gate, or stargate into 2-base robo. These openings have been used for months now and most zerg players know the timings and exactly how to counter these plays.
On top of that Zerg players have discovered that Protoss players haven't figured out how to deal with mutas yet. I don't think that protoss lacks any ability to counter mutas, in fact they have some of the best counters to mutas in the game. The problem is that they don't quite know how to effectively split their army, when to start putting down cannons, how many cannons they need, and that colossi are not good against mutas. Once protoss players start to get a feel for the timings and the required responses to mutas I have a feeling that muta play in ZvP will largely disappear. You really think protoss has some of the best counters to mutas in the game? I really think you should try playing protoss against muta ling just to see how frusterating it really is. Marines thors and turrets and ghosts with snipe are all better than anything protoss has to defend against mutas save maybe pheonix's , and id way prefer to have a marine, ghost or a thor against mutas because they are actually good units still if the zerg does a quick tech switch. Once the muta size gets big enough, mutas have absolutely no problems taking on equal number of stalkers at all even with a few sentries with GS up (which usually doesnt happen since the only way you can catch a good muta player is with blink stalkers and sentries cant get there fast enough) Pheonix's are decent but you need a decent amount of them to deal with a big muta pack, and then you are left really vulnerable to a roach infestor (or something) tech switch which you are super vulnerable too after defending mutas. Then there is storm which any competent muta player should beable to avoid, mutas are one of the fastest air units in the game and should have no problem dodging storms, see a templar moving up? move your mutas, not to mention how easy it is to come behind the army and pick off templars as the protoss is moving across the map. Archons are decent but magic box negates their threat even more so then thors and they become pretty useless except for cleaning up lings. Ive honestly had games where I am on equal bases equal upgrades (somehow i managed to get that far, with ridiculous amounts of cannons) and an equal size army comprised of 6-7 pheonix's, 20-30 stalkers, a few Ht's with storm, 4-6 archons, and a good number of zealots to soak up lings, and a sentry or 2 for gs. Seems pretty ideal for holding off muta ling right? nope. Although i lasted probably longer then i ever have going into the lalte game against muta ling, this player had a very good way of negating anything that could kill mutas quickly, usually when we engaged he would form a sort of singular circle around my army, makig it hard for storms to hit more than 1-3 mutas and for archons to hit more than 1 muta at a time, from there i would just get demolished as everything eventually fell with him having a decent number of mutas and no lings left at the end each time. After that game i switched to zerg and i dont think i will ever go back ive told this muta ling story probably 5 times on the forums, i know i probably didnt play perfectly but a race should never feel like they have no options against a particular strategy when they have equal income , bases , upgrades which i did for a good portion of the game. Nothing is more frusterating playing a race where you know their are certain strategies that are really really difficult to beat. Protoss is the race that has the problem of having strategies that are frusterating / really hard to beat. 1-1-1 and muta ling are both ones that come to mind off the top of my head. I cant really think of any strategies protoss has against terran or zerg where they simply have almost no options and they hope their opponent will make a mistake. I think it used to be like that with the protoss deathball in pvz though before infestor buffs and such. I know protoss has options in the early game against muta ling and thats not really the problem its when it gets into the late game where its just so difficult, it shouldnt have to be way harder to defend against mutas then to play as them (which it is) i play zerg now and although my muta micro isnt perfect I still have a pretty damn good win rate with muta ling in ZVP, and i know first hand how hard it is to defend that. The guy made a good point. Protoss have been doing the same thing for several months in PvZ. You can argue its cause they have to but there are 2 problems with that arguement: 1) You are bad at the game and thus dont know 2) Kiwikaki If you want Marines and Thors well your just gonna have to play terran lol we all know how well kiwikaki has been doing. and also mc (as said earlier in the thread) has probably created 10+ builds himself...
|
On November 09 2011 04:41 Executor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 21:38 Klystron wrote: The ZvP winrates are kinda interesting. I think that this is mostly due to what has so far been a very stale metagame that Zergs have recently shaken up with increasing muta play.
The problem is that most ZvP's boil down to a FFE into double stargate, 6-8 gate, stargate into 6-8gate, or stargate into 2-base robo. These openings have been used for months now and most zerg players know the timings and exactly how to counter these plays.
On top of that Zerg players have discovered that Protoss players haven't figured out how to deal with mutas yet. I don't think that protoss lacks any ability to counter mutas, in fact they have some of the best counters to mutas in the game. The problem is that they don't quite know how to effectively split their army, when to start putting down cannons, how many cannons they need, and that colossi are not good against mutas. Once protoss players start to get a feel for the timings and the required responses to mutas I have a feeling that muta play in ZvP will largely disappear. You really think protoss has some of the best counters to mutas in the game? I really think you should try playing protoss against muta ling just to see how frusterating it really is. Marines thors and turrets and ghosts with snipe are all better than anything protoss has to defend against mutas save maybe pheonix's , and id way prefer to have a marine, ghost or a thor against mutas because they are actually good units still if the zerg does a quick tech switch. Once the muta size gets big enough, mutas have absolutely no problems taking on equal number of stalkers at all even with a few sentries with GS up (which usually doesnt happen since the only way you can catch a good muta player is with blink stalkers and sentries cant get there fast enough) Pheonix's are decent but you need a decent amount of them to deal with a big muta pack, and then you are left really vulnerable to a roach infestor (or something) tech switch which you are super vulnerable too after defending mutas. Then there is storm which any competent muta player should beable to avoid, mutas are one of the fastest air units in the game and should have no problem dodging storms, see a templar moving up? move your mutas, not to mention how easy it is to come behind the army and pick off templars as the protoss is moving across the map. Archons are decent but magic box negates their threat even more so then thors and they become pretty useless except for cleaning up lings. Ive honestly had games where I am on equal bases equal upgrades (somehow i managed to get that far, with ridiculous amounts of cannons) and an equal size army comprised of 6-7 pheonix's, 20-30 stalkers, a few Ht's with storm, 4-6 archons, and a good number of zealots to soak up lings, and a sentry or 2 for gs. Seems pretty ideal for holding off muta ling right? nope. Although i lasted probably longer then i ever have going into the lalte game against muta ling, this player had a very good way of negating anything that could kill mutas quickly, usually when we engaged he would form a sort of singular circle around my army, makig it hard for storms to hit more than 1-3 mutas and for archons to hit more than 1 muta at a time, from there i would just get demolished as everything eventually fell with him having a decent number of mutas and no lings left at the end each time. After that game i switched to zerg and i dont think i will ever go back ive told this muta ling story probably 5 times on the forums, i know i probably didnt play perfectly but a race should never feel like they have no options against a particular strategy when they have equal income , bases , upgrades which i did for a good portion of the game. Nothing is more frusterating playing a race where you know their are certain strategies that are really really difficult to beat and yoou will most likely have to vastly outplay your opponent to win. Protoss is the race that has the problem of having strategies that are frusterating / really hard to beat. 1-1-1 and muta ling are both ones that come to mind off the top of my head. I cant really think of any strategies protoss has against terran or zerg where they simply have almost no options and they hope their opponent will make a mistake. I think it used to be like that with the protoss deathball in pvz though before infestor buffs and such. I know protoss has options in the early game against muta ling and thats not really the problem its when it gets into the late game where its just so difficult, it shouldnt have to be way harder to defend against mutas then to play as them (which it is) i play zerg now and although my muta micro isnt perfect I still have a pretty damn good win rate with muta ling in ZVP, and i know first hand how hard it is to defend that.
HT. Just ht. Storm is awesome vs mutas because even if they "dodge" it, you still are hitting them at least a little and it makes them back up and have to heal... that's a big deal. At worst you're going to take like 10 - 20 hp off of all the mutas and at best you could take them down by like half or more. And, despite your bleak outlook on archons, they DESTROY mutas. It's not even close. The extremely high health, mixed with the bonus/splash dmg is just not even close. Storm/archons also happen to be the counter to the other half of the muta/ling combo as well.
The bottom line is they're new and protoss players aren't too familiar with how to defend against them and when to go put pressure once you have it decently under control.
|
Judging by profile pics (innacurate i know) no protoss players responded to my post. Every one knows muta ling is hard right now for protoss, and obviously its going to be harder for a diamond protoss player like myself then it is for a pro player. Regardless i have seen pro level players get owned by muta ling in recent weeks , it is gaining popularity and is an effective strategy. Not to mention blizzard even said themselves that protoss doesnt have a good answer to mutas in the late game.
This doesnt really effect me anymore as i play zerg, i was just reminiscing back on how frusterating it was for me when i was a protoss player + the recent resurgence of the strategy and how i have seen protoss's struggling against it.
That being said i think 1 effective way is to open stargate and pump a few pheonix to deter muta production and i have been seeing that gain popularity on the protoss side of things, but i still dont agree with the fact that mass muta doesnt really have a good counter end game for protoss, assuming equal economy , production , upgrades i think their always should be something a player can do (without having to drastically outplay their opponent) to counter a strategy, when a certain strategy doesnt have an effective counter at a point in the game assuming the things i stated above i think something needs to be looked at, and that is what i think blizzard realised and is potentially implementing in heart of the swarm.
For any not convinced go to unit tester and put 25 mutas against around 30 stalkers, both with 2 attack upgrade, the mutas win fairly convincingly if i recall, even with a sentry or 2 with guardian shield (dont quote me on this but i did tests with it a few months back where i was using more stalkers vs less mutas and the stalkers lost pretty bad, cant remember the exact numbers i used) Considering stalkers are the only effective ground anti air protoss has aside from the archon (which is too slow to deal with good harassment) it seems like they should do at least slightly better than they did
|
On November 09 2011 08:06 Executor1 wrote: Judging by profile pics (innacurate i know) no protoss players responded to my post. Every one knows muta ling is hard right now for protoss, and obviously its going to be harder for a diamond protoss player like myself then it is for a pro player. Regardless i have seen pro level players get owned by muta ling in recent weeks , it is gaining popularity and is an effective strategy. Not to mention blizzard even said themselves that protoss doesnt have a good answer to mutas in the late game.
This doesnt really effect me anymore as i play zerg, i was just reminiscing back on how frusterating it was for me when i was a protoss player + the recent resurgence of the strategy and how i have seen protoss's struggling against it.
That being said i think 1 effective way is to open stargate and pump a few pheonix to deter muta production and i have been seeing that gain popularity on the protoss side of things, but i still dont agree with the fact that mass muta doesnt really have a good counter end game for protoss, assuming equal economy , production , upgrades i think their always should be something a player can do (without having to drastically outplay their opponent) to counter a strategy, when a certain strategy doesnt have an effective counter at a point in the game assuming the things i stated above i think something needs to be looked at, and that is what i think blizzard realised and is potentially implementing in heart of the swarm.
For any not convinced go to unit tester and put 25 mutas against around 30 stalkers, both with 2 attack upgrade, the mutas win fairly convincingly if i recall, even with a sentry or 2 with guardian shield (dont quote me on this but i did tests with it a few months back where i was using more stalkers vs less mutas and the stalkers lost pretty bad, cant remember the exact numbers i used) Considering stalkers are the only effective ground anti air protoss has aside from the archon (which is too slow to deal with good harassment) it seems like they should do at least slightly better than they did
Are you blinking? I just did a quick and dirty test of 25 on 25 NO upgrades (because it was just me in the unit tester map and could only generate an AI opponent, couldn't make it myself. And the 25 stalkers beat the 25 mutas with 6 stalkers left over. 25 stalkers + 1 sentry for GS vs 25 mutas left 16 stalkers left over.
And you're either misunderstanding what I'm saying or you weren't responding to me with your post. I'm not saying protoss players don't have trouble with mutas, I'm just saying it's not a problem with protoss as a race, it's the fact that they're not used to it. I think protoss is the most equipped race to deal with mutas.
|
On November 09 2011 08:28 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 08:06 Executor1 wrote: Judging by profile pics (innacurate i know) no protoss players responded to my post. Every one knows muta ling is hard right now for protoss, and obviously its going to be harder for a diamond protoss player like myself then it is for a pro player. Regardless i have seen pro level players get owned by muta ling in recent weeks , it is gaining popularity and is an effective strategy. Not to mention blizzard even said themselves that protoss doesnt have a good answer to mutas in the late game.
This doesnt really effect me anymore as i play zerg, i was just reminiscing back on how frusterating it was for me when i was a protoss player + the recent resurgence of the strategy and how i have seen protoss's struggling against it.
That being said i think 1 effective way is to open stargate and pump a few pheonix to deter muta production and i have been seeing that gain popularity on the protoss side of things, but i still dont agree with the fact that mass muta doesnt really have a good counter end game for protoss, assuming equal economy , production , upgrades i think their always should be something a player can do (without having to drastically outplay their opponent) to counter a strategy, when a certain strategy doesnt have an effective counter at a point in the game assuming the things i stated above i think something needs to be looked at, and that is what i think blizzard realised and is potentially implementing in heart of the swarm.
For any not convinced go to unit tester and put 25 mutas against around 30 stalkers, both with 2 attack upgrade, the mutas win fairly convincingly if i recall, even with a sentry or 2 with guardian shield (dont quote me on this but i did tests with it a few months back where i was using more stalkers vs less mutas and the stalkers lost pretty bad, cant remember the exact numbers i used) Considering stalkers are the only effective ground anti air protoss has aside from the archon (which is too slow to deal with good harassment) it seems like they should do at least slightly better than they did Are you blinking? I just did a quick and dirty test of 25 on 25 NO upgrades (because it was just me in the unit tester map and could only generate an AI opponent, couldn't make it myself. And the 25 stalkers beat the 25 mutas with 6 stalkers left over. 25 stalkers + 1 sentry for GS vs 25 mutas left 16 stalkers left over. And you're either misunderstanding what I'm saying or you weren't responding to me with your post. I'm not saying protoss players don't have trouble with mutas, I'm just saying it's not a problem with protoss as a race, it's the fact that they're not used to it. I think protoss is the most equipped race to deal with mutas.
Also keep in mind that a protoss should always be ahead in upgrades in mutas vs stalkers.
|
On November 09 2011 07:08 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 04:41 Executor1 wrote:On November 07 2011 21:38 Klystron wrote: The ZvP winrates are kinda interesting. I think that this is mostly due to what has so far been a very stale metagame that Zergs have recently shaken up with increasing muta play.
The problem is that most ZvP's boil down to a FFE into double stargate, 6-8 gate, stargate into 6-8gate, or stargate into 2-base robo. These openings have been used for months now and most zerg players know the timings and exactly how to counter these plays.
On top of that Zerg players have discovered that Protoss players haven't figured out how to deal with mutas yet. I don't think that protoss lacks any ability to counter mutas, in fact they have some of the best counters to mutas in the game. The problem is that they don't quite know how to effectively split their army, when to start putting down cannons, how many cannons they need, and that colossi are not good against mutas. Once protoss players start to get a feel for the timings and the required responses to mutas I have a feeling that muta play in ZvP will largely disappear. You really think protoss has some of the best counters to mutas in the game? I really think you should try playing protoss against muta ling just to see how frusterating it really is. Marines thors and turrets and ghosts with snipe are all better than anything protoss has to defend against mutas save maybe pheonix's , and id way prefer to have a marine, ghost or a thor against mutas because they are actually good units still if the zerg does a quick tech switch. Once the muta size gets big enough, mutas have absolutely no problems taking on equal number of stalkers at all even with a few sentries with GS up (which usually doesnt happen since the only way you can catch a good muta player is with blink stalkers and sentries cant get there fast enough) Pheonix's are decent but you need a decent amount of them to deal with a big muta pack, and then you are left really vulnerable to a roach infestor (or something) tech switch which you are super vulnerable too after defending mutas. Then there is storm which any competent muta player should beable to avoid, mutas are one of the fastest air units in the game and should have no problem dodging storms, see a templar moving up? move your mutas, not to mention how easy it is to come behind the army and pick off templars as the protoss is moving across the map. Archons are decent but magic box negates their threat even more so then thors and they become pretty useless except for cleaning up lings. Ive honestly had games where I am on equal bases equal upgrades (somehow i managed to get that far, with ridiculous amounts of cannons) and an equal size army comprised of 6-7 pheonix's, 20-30 stalkers, a few Ht's with storm, 4-6 archons, and a good number of zealots to soak up lings, and a sentry or 2 for gs. Seems pretty ideal for holding off muta ling right? nope. Although i lasted probably longer then i ever have going into the lalte game against muta ling, this player had a very good way of negating anything that could kill mutas quickly, usually when we engaged he would form a sort of singular circle around my army, makig it hard for storms to hit more than 1-3 mutas and for archons to hit more than 1 muta at a time, from there i would just get demolished as everything eventually fell with him having a decent number of mutas and no lings left at the end each time. After that game i switched to zerg and i dont think i will ever go back ive told this muta ling story probably 5 times on the forums, i know i probably didnt play perfectly but a race should never feel like they have no options against a particular strategy when they have equal income , bases , upgrades which i did for a good portion of the game. Nothing is more frusterating playing a race where you know their are certain strategies that are really really difficult to beat and yoou will most likely have to vastly outplay your opponent to win. Protoss is the race that has the problem of having strategies that are frusterating / really hard to beat. 1-1-1 and muta ling are both ones that come to mind off the top of my head. I cant really think of any strategies protoss has against terran or zerg where they simply have almost no options and they hope their opponent will make a mistake. I think it used to be like that with the protoss deathball in pvz though before infestor buffs and such. I know protoss has options in the early game against muta ling and thats not really the problem its when it gets into the late game where its just so difficult, it shouldnt have to be way harder to defend against mutas then to play as them (which it is) i play zerg now and although my muta micro isnt perfect I still have a pretty damn good win rate with muta ling in ZVP, and i know first hand how hard it is to defend that. HT. Just ht. Storm is awesome vs mutas because even if they "dodge" it, you still are hitting them at least a little and it makes them back up and have to heal... that's a big deal. At worst you're going to take like 10 - 20 hp off of all the mutas and at best you could take them down by like half or more. And, despite your bleak outlook on archons, they DESTROY mutas. It's not even close. The extremely high health, mixed with the bonus/splash dmg is just not even close. Storm/archons also happen to be the counter to the other half of the muta/ling combo as well. The bottom line is they're new and protoss players aren't too familiar with how to defend against them and when to go put pressure once you have it decently under control.
Templars have this huge mobility problem against mutalisks. Which is pretty much the same problem the entire protoss army has with mutas. They aren't dangerous because of their burst damage or their HP, or their splash. They're dangerous because of their crazy mobility. Normally, a zerg player can make it so protoss can NEVER get an all out engagement for an entire game.
Sure, if zerg sends his mutas head on against an Archon/Stalker/HT ball he'll get DESTROYED, but that's not the point. With a large mutalisk ball, zerg can pull a protoss players from one arm at a time, eventually ripping them off. This is not kratoss brutality, but rather a slower, more insidious but still huge amount of damage.
Watch Crazymoving vs Hero. Hero showed some AMAZING templar play, and still couldn't deal with mutas at all. Crazymoving just avoided archons, dodged storms, attacked at the natural, then the third, then the main, then the pylons, all while losing a few mutas which were quickly replaced. Eventually, Hero was starved. Had crazymoving been a better player, he'd have dealt the damage, then transitioned into infestor ling play and rolled way before what he did. Crazymoving even managed to just nosedive some templars and snipe them in the face of stalkers and receive almost no damage.
Archons do destroy mutas... if they can ever hit them... Storms do counter mutas, if mutas ever stop moving that is. You're putting it way too simple, like it's easy. It's tough as hell.
|
On November 09 2011 08:51 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 07:08 Holophonist wrote:On November 09 2011 04:41 Executor1 wrote:On November 07 2011 21:38 Klystron wrote: The ZvP winrates are kinda interesting. I think that this is mostly due to what has so far been a very stale metagame that Zergs have recently shaken up with increasing muta play.
The problem is that most ZvP's boil down to a FFE into double stargate, 6-8 gate, stargate into 6-8gate, or stargate into 2-base robo. These openings have been used for months now and most zerg players know the timings and exactly how to counter these plays.
On top of that Zerg players have discovered that Protoss players haven't figured out how to deal with mutas yet. I don't think that protoss lacks any ability to counter mutas, in fact they have some of the best counters to mutas in the game. The problem is that they don't quite know how to effectively split their army, when to start putting down cannons, how many cannons they need, and that colossi are not good against mutas. Once protoss players start to get a feel for the timings and the required responses to mutas I have a feeling that muta play in ZvP will largely disappear. You really think protoss has some of the best counters to mutas in the game? I really think you should try playing protoss against muta ling just to see how frusterating it really is. Marines thors and turrets and ghosts with snipe are all better than anything protoss has to defend against mutas save maybe pheonix's , and id way prefer to have a marine, ghost or a thor against mutas because they are actually good units still if the zerg does a quick tech switch. Once the muta size gets big enough, mutas have absolutely no problems taking on equal number of stalkers at all even with a few sentries with GS up (which usually doesnt happen since the only way you can catch a good muta player is with blink stalkers and sentries cant get there fast enough) Pheonix's are decent but you need a decent amount of them to deal with a big muta pack, and then you are left really vulnerable to a roach infestor (or something) tech switch which you are super vulnerable too after defending mutas. Then there is storm which any competent muta player should beable to avoid, mutas are one of the fastest air units in the game and should have no problem dodging storms, see a templar moving up? move your mutas, not to mention how easy it is to come behind the army and pick off templars as the protoss is moving across the map. Archons are decent but magic box negates their threat even more so then thors and they become pretty useless except for cleaning up lings. Ive honestly had games where I am on equal bases equal upgrades (somehow i managed to get that far, with ridiculous amounts of cannons) and an equal size army comprised of 6-7 pheonix's, 20-30 stalkers, a few Ht's with storm, 4-6 archons, and a good number of zealots to soak up lings, and a sentry or 2 for gs. Seems pretty ideal for holding off muta ling right? nope. Although i lasted probably longer then i ever have going into the lalte game against muta ling, this player had a very good way of negating anything that could kill mutas quickly, usually when we engaged he would form a sort of singular circle around my army, makig it hard for storms to hit more than 1-3 mutas and for archons to hit more than 1 muta at a time, from there i would just get demolished as everything eventually fell with him having a decent number of mutas and no lings left at the end each time. After that game i switched to zerg and i dont think i will ever go back ive told this muta ling story probably 5 times on the forums, i know i probably didnt play perfectly but a race should never feel like they have no options against a particular strategy when they have equal income , bases , upgrades which i did for a good portion of the game. Nothing is more frusterating playing a race where you know their are certain strategies that are really really difficult to beat and yoou will most likely have to vastly outplay your opponent to win. Protoss is the race that has the problem of having strategies that are frusterating / really hard to beat. 1-1-1 and muta ling are both ones that come to mind off the top of my head. I cant really think of any strategies protoss has against terran or zerg where they simply have almost no options and they hope their opponent will make a mistake. I think it used to be like that with the protoss deathball in pvz though before infestor buffs and such. I know protoss has options in the early game against muta ling and thats not really the problem its when it gets into the late game where its just so difficult, it shouldnt have to be way harder to defend against mutas then to play as them (which it is) i play zerg now and although my muta micro isnt perfect I still have a pretty damn good win rate with muta ling in ZVP, and i know first hand how hard it is to defend that. HT. Just ht. Storm is awesome vs mutas because even if they "dodge" it, you still are hitting them at least a little and it makes them back up and have to heal... that's a big deal. At worst you're going to take like 10 - 20 hp off of all the mutas and at best you could take them down by like half or more. And, despite your bleak outlook on archons, they DESTROY mutas. It's not even close. The extremely high health, mixed with the bonus/splash dmg is just not even close. Storm/archons also happen to be the counter to the other half of the muta/ling combo as well. The bottom line is they're new and protoss players aren't too familiar with how to defend against them and when to go put pressure once you have it decently under control. Templars have this huge mobility problem against mutalisks. Which is pretty much the same problem the entire protoss army has with mutas. They aren't dangerous because of their burst damage or their HP, or their splash. They're dangerous because of their crazy mobility. Normally, a zerg player can make it so protoss can NEVER get an all out engagement for an entire game. Sure, if zerg sends his mutas head on against an Archon/Stalker/HT ball he'll get DESTROYED, but that's not the point. With a large mutalisk ball, zerg can pull a protoss players from one arm at a time, eventually ripping them off. This is not kratoss brutality, but rather a slower, more insidious but still huge amount of damage. Watch Crazymoving vs Hero. Hero showed some AMAZING templar play, and still couldn't deal with mutas at all. Crazymoving just avoided archons, dodged storms, attacked at the natural, then the third, then the main, then the pylons, all while losing a few mutas which were quickly replaced. Eventually, Hero was starved. Had crazymoving been a better player, he'd have dealt the damage, then transitioned into infestor ling play and rolled way before what he did. Crazymoving even managed to just nosedive some templars and snipe them in the face of stalkers and receive almost no damage. Archons do destroy mutas... if they can ever hit them... Storms do counter mutas, if mutas ever stop moving that is. You're putting it way too simple, like it's easy. It's tough as hell.
Well I'm assuming we're talking about the best players in the world here. And I don't think cannons + HT have any more of a mobility issue than turrets + marines/thors. Simply because storm has a longer range than marines and 1 HT can storm away mutas whereas it takes a bunch of marines to fend off mutas. Not to mention blink stalkers.
And like I said, casting storm on a ball of mutas is at least going to bring them into the light yellow, which is a big deal if you do it to the whole flock. And it will make them pull back which gives you more time for your stalkers to get there. I'm not saying it's easy, I'm just saying the reason they're having trouble is cause it's new.
|
On November 09 2011 03:25 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 03:15 Teoita wrote:On November 09 2011 03:09 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 02:59 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:54 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 02:51 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:48 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 01:41 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 18:19 KingPwny wrote:there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable. There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it?? The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle. last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time. people needs to calm down I'll refer you to this post on the first page of this thread: On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated! Emphasis mine. Claiming that there isn't enough data has been done before, refuted before, and argued before. Like so many threads, this one is coming full circle. Nothing in my post claims or suggests there was not enough data, I have no idea where you even get that idea ...Yes you did. "last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time." <- you said that. That is a different way of saying 'there isn't enough data to conclude anything'. Arguing the difference between the two is just absurd semantics. Obviously given the context what I meant was very different from what you're inferring, there is a difference between having the data to see current winrates and having one 6 months from now. Not having enough data to show full trends is not the same as not having enough data to make the statistics invalid It's been well over one year since release. When would you say we can draw conclusions? Two years? Three? Right before HotS is released? and within only a year time frame we have some drastic fluctuation, such as ZvP dynamics, and even TvP. Who to say it won't change to something completely different a year from now? Similar trends had happened in sc1 before
The big fluctuation in ZvP was not a metagame evolution, it was the infestor buff where fungal growth dps was increased by 160% against armored and by 100% against light. This turned the matchup around and caused zergs to have the upper hand in ZvP.
The big TvP fluctuation was also a patch change, the removal of KA, a major nerf to HTs.
Also protosses don't complain about zerg so much even though they PvZ is harder atm now because zergs haven't been winning the matchup so consistently, and are losing against terran at the same time. Terran though has been basically winning against everyone since day one and keeps winning one year later, which is a bit inexplicable for a game that is meant to be competitive.
|
On November 09 2011 19:59 Lothargr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 03:25 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 03:15 Teoita wrote:On November 09 2011 03:09 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 02:59 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:54 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 02:51 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:48 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 01:41 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 18:19 KingPwny wrote:there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable. There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it?? The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle. last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time. people needs to calm down I'll refer you to this post on the first page of this thread: On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated! Emphasis mine. Claiming that there isn't enough data has been done before, refuted before, and argued before. Like so many threads, this one is coming full circle. Nothing in my post claims or suggests there was not enough data, I have no idea where you even get that idea ...Yes you did. "last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time." <- you said that. That is a different way of saying 'there isn't enough data to conclude anything'. Arguing the difference between the two is just absurd semantics. Obviously given the context what I meant was very different from what you're inferring, there is a difference between having the data to see current winrates and having one 6 months from now. Not having enough data to show full trends is not the same as not having enough data to make the statistics invalid It's been well over one year since release. When would you say we can draw conclusions? Two years? Three? Right before HotS is released? and within only a year time frame we have some drastic fluctuation, such as ZvP dynamics, and even TvP. Who to say it won't change to something completely different a year from now? Similar trends had happened in sc1 before The big fluctuation in ZvP was not a metagame evolution, it was the infestor buff where fungal growth dps was increased by 160% against armored and by 100% against light. This turned the matchup around and caused zergs to have the upper hand in ZvP. The big TvP fluctuation was also a patch change, the removal of KA, a major nerf to HTs. Also protosses don't complain about zerg so much even though they PvZ is harder atm now because zergs haven't been winning the matchup so consistently, and are losing against terran at the same time. Terran though has been basically winning against everyone since day one and keeps winning one year later, which is a bit inexplicable for a game that is meant to be competitive.
I guess the infestor nerf must mean protoss is going to come back, even slightly against zerg right?
I highly doubt the infestor buffed is truly the only reason for the fluctuation given that they don't really appear often in pro ZvP except in late game
|
Lol at the PVT win rates in Korea
|
|
On November 09 2011 20:06 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 19:59 Lothargr wrote:On November 09 2011 03:25 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 03:15 Teoita wrote:On November 09 2011 03:09 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 02:59 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:54 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 02:51 SeaSwift wrote:On November 09 2011 02:48 iky43210 wrote:On November 09 2011 01:41 Holophonist wrote: [quote]
The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle. last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time. people needs to calm down I'll refer you to this post on the first page of this thread: On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote: 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.
Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that one: The difference is actually not that huge guys! The scale of the Y-axis is exagerated! Emphasis mine. Claiming that there isn't enough data has been done before, refuted before, and argued before. Like so many threads, this one is coming full circle. Nothing in my post claims or suggests there was not enough data, I have no idea where you even get that idea ...Yes you did. "last I remember flunctuation in sc1 isn't a month by month basis either, its usually over a long period of time." <- you said that. That is a different way of saying 'there isn't enough data to conclude anything'. Arguing the difference between the two is just absurd semantics. Obviously given the context what I meant was very different from what you're inferring, there is a difference between having the data to see current winrates and having one 6 months from now. Not having enough data to show full trends is not the same as not having enough data to make the statistics invalid It's been well over one year since release. When would you say we can draw conclusions? Two years? Three? Right before HotS is released? and within only a year time frame we have some drastic fluctuation, such as ZvP dynamics, and even TvP. Who to say it won't change to something completely different a year from now? Similar trends had happened in sc1 before The big fluctuation in ZvP was not a metagame evolution, it was the infestor buff where fungal growth dps was increased by 160% against armored and by 100% against light. This turned the matchup around and caused zergs to have the upper hand in ZvP. The big TvP fluctuation was also a patch change, the removal of KA, a major nerf to HTs. Also protosses don't complain about zerg so much even though they PvZ is harder atm now because zergs haven't been winning the matchup so consistently, and are losing against terran at the same time. Terran though has been basically winning against everyone since day one and keeps winning one year later, which is a bit inexplicable for a game that is meant to be competitive. I guess the infestor nerf must mean protoss is going to come back, even slightly against zerg right? I highly doubt the infestor buffed is truly the only reason for the fluctuation given that they don't really appear often in pro ZvP except in late game
Well every buff helps obviously, even the upgrade cost reduction will help, but these are relatively small changes, so I don't expect to see any drastic results. 20% is a totally different scale of change compared to 160%.
Also the main problem zergs had pre infestor buff was that even though they took map control and were ahead in economy they didn't have a cost effective composition against the deathball and infestors gave them just that, both in the mid and late game. And actually we did see a lot of ling/infestor in the midgame at the pro level it was quite common for a long time.
|
Here are the winrates for Korea:
Here, Terrans, I'll just say it for you so you can spare the effort:
"The sample size is too small, this graph is meaningless, PvT is balanced!"
|
Regarding the Muta vs Protoss discussion, the problem isn't a straight up fight. As noted, storm, archones and blink works quite well.
The problem is that it gets extremely hard to take and hold additional bases or attack the Zerg player. Typically the zerg will turtle a little with Spine Crawlers which works very nicely with Mutalisks so attacking isn't a good idea. In addition, if you leave your base all the probes die before you reach the zergs base, so it's an all-in attack.
The solution I have seen Protoss use against this is to pressure the Zerg before they get mutalisks so they have to use the gas for roaches, hydras or infestors.
There actually was a game in the GSL recently where a protoss player managed to beat a zerg who got the muta ball going (on crossfire), he did it by denying the extra expansions from the zerg so he was stuck at 2 bases and eventually mined out. The protoss didn't mine anything either (lost all but about 7 probes), but since the Zerg didn't mine from more than 1-2 patches at the end, it ended in a fight with Muta/(ling)/spinecrawler vs Stalker/Zealot/Archon with the Protoss winning. In other words, a base trade.
|
On November 09 2011 21:23 zanmat0 wrote:Here are the winrates for Korea: Here, Terrans, I'll just say it for you so you can spare the effort: "The sample size is too small, this graph is meaningless, PvT is balanced!"
Meanwhile in code S: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=283992
Stop this bullshit please, it's clearly that these stats are FISHY AS HELL and I hope that mods close this thread.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
Post updated with korean graph
|
On November 09 2011 21:27 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 21:23 zanmat0 wrote:Here are the winrates for Korea: Here, Terrans, I'll just say it for you so you can spare the effort: "The sample size is too small, this graph is meaningless, PvT is balanced!" Meanwhile in code S: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=283992Stop this bullshit please, it's clearly that these stats are FISHY AS HELL and I hope that mods close this thread. Oh please. So what if Clide, the only terran in his group didnt make it through? And are you saying these stats are fake? Please stop trying to give yourself excuses just cos you're getting your ass kicked in ladder even though you're terran. People have already stated that this graphs are for tournaments at the HIGHEST LVL of play, where terran is clearly OP at the moment.
|
On November 09 2011 21:41 ambrosiaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 21:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 09 2011 21:23 zanmat0 wrote:Here are the winrates for Korea: Here, Terrans, I'll just say it for you so you can spare the effort: "The sample size is too small, this graph is meaningless, PvT is balanced!" Meanwhile in code S: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=283992Stop this bullshit please, it's clearly that these stats are FISHY AS HELL and I hope that mods close this thread. Oh please. So what if Clide, the only terran in his group didnt make it through? And are you saying these stats are fake? Please stop trying to give yourself excuses just cos you're getting your ass kicked in ladder even though you're terran. People have already stated that this graphs are for tournaments at the HIGHEST LVL of play, where terran is clearly OP at the moment.
If you look at the HIGHEST LVL of play you will NOTICE that terrans are not doing that well. If you see these graphs you would expect alot of terrans in the top 8 of almost every tournament. Then you take a look here: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues. Then you realise that these graphs are FISHY.
|
On November 09 2011 21:44 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 21:41 ambrosiaa wrote:On November 09 2011 21:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 09 2011 21:23 zanmat0 wrote:Here are the winrates for Korea: Here, Terrans, I'll just say it for you so you can spare the effort: "The sample size is too small, this graph is meaningless, PvT is balanced!" Meanwhile in code S: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=283992Stop this bullshit please, it's clearly that these stats are FISHY AS HELL and I hope that mods close this thread. Oh please. So what if Clide, the only terran in his group didnt make it through? And are you saying these stats are fake? Please stop trying to give yourself excuses just cos you're getting your ass kicked in ladder even though you're terran. People have already stated that this graphs are for tournaments at the HIGHEST LVL of play, where terran is clearly OP at the moment. If you look at the HIGHEST LVL of play you will NOTICE that terrans are not doing that well. If you see these graphs you would expect alot of terrans in the top 8 of almost every tournament. Then you take a look here: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues. Then you realise that these graphs are FISHY.
That's the International database. This latest graph is from Korea.
|
On November 09 2011 21:44 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 21:41 ambrosiaa wrote:On November 09 2011 21:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 09 2011 21:23 zanmat0 wrote:Here are the winrates for Korea: Here, Terrans, I'll just say it for you so you can spare the effort: "The sample size is too small, this graph is meaningless, PvT is balanced!" Meanwhile in code S: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=283992Stop this bullshit please, it's clearly that these stats are FISHY AS HELL and I hope that mods close this thread. Oh please. So what if Clide, the only terran in his group didnt make it through? And are you saying these stats are fake? Please stop trying to give yourself excuses just cos you're getting your ass kicked in ladder even though you're terran. People have already stated that this graphs are for tournaments at the HIGHEST LVL of play, where terran is clearly OP at the moment. If you look at the HIGHEST LVL of play you will NOTICE that terrans are not doing that well. If you see these graphs you would expect alot of terrans in the top 8 of almost every tournament. Then you take a look here: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues. Then you realise that these graphs are FISHY.
Make your own graph then if you think it's fishy. And as far as Code S go Terrans are doing pretty well given how over-represented they are.
|
On November 09 2011 21:23 zanmat0 wrote:
Here, Terrans, I'll just say it for you so you can spare the effort:
"The sample size is too small, this graph is meaningless, PvT is balanced!"
You forgot "the game is balanced on the ladder".
What a disaster for Terrans today though, only 50% Terrans in the Ro16. This is unacceptable.
|
GSL is terrible format to look at for winrates really. Getting into GSL requires a large qualification thus there is already quite a bit of selection going on for getting into GSL. Up until recently the change in players has been very minimal as well. Thus the balance of players in GSL could be very lopsided because it was determined by games being played quite some time ago. In other words there is a pretty huge selection bias when you use GSL games for winrates. The worst race from months ago is underrepresented because it could be so hard to get in months ago. That means the players that did get in are likely to be more skilled then the players from other races that are in and this influences the validity of the winrates.
Anyway the stuff is still great overall, it's good to see a fairly reliable source which is at least quite complete. That stops people from referring too much to anecdotal evidence which happens WAY too much on TL (and basically any non-scientific community).
|
I expect graphs to be better next month.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 09 2011 22:22 darkness wrote:I expect graphs to be better next month.
I expect for pvt better graphs (even maybe protoss favored), but with the popularization of mass mutas in zvp, I don't think it will be better in pvz.
Only future will show it to us
|
On November 09 2011 21:27 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 21:23 zanmat0 wrote:Here are the winrates for Korea: Here, Terrans, I'll just say it for you so you can spare the effort: "The sample size is too small, this graph is meaningless, PvT is balanced!" Meanwhile in code S: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=283992Stop this bullshit please, it's clearly that these stats are FISHY AS HELL and I hope that mods close this thread.
You've become a parody of yourselves. It's really sad.
|
I really wish we would stop posting these TLPD trend threads... The sample size is very small and skewed. These posts don't really shed that much light on balance but do fuel the fire for balance whiners. If there's imbalance, I'm sure Blizzard is aware, as they have the best metrics out of any of us, and they are clearly trying to address it cautiously.
People need to calm down and play the game.
|
hrm, about 1/3 the data from the norm... interesting
|
On November 09 2011 15:49 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 08:51 mordk wrote:On November 09 2011 07:08 Holophonist wrote:On November 09 2011 04:41 Executor1 wrote:On November 07 2011 21:38 Klystron wrote: The ZvP winrates are kinda interesting. I think that this is mostly due to what has so far been a very stale metagame that Zergs have recently shaken up with increasing muta play.
The problem is that most ZvP's boil down to a FFE into double stargate, 6-8 gate, stargate into 6-8gate, or stargate into 2-base robo. These openings have been used for months now and most zerg players know the timings and exactly how to counter these plays.
On top of that Zerg players have discovered that Protoss players haven't figured out how to deal with mutas yet. I don't think that protoss lacks any ability to counter mutas, in fact they have some of the best counters to mutas in the game. The problem is that they don't quite know how to effectively split their army, when to start putting down cannons, how many cannons they need, and that colossi are not good against mutas. Once protoss players start to get a feel for the timings and the required responses to mutas I have a feeling that muta play in ZvP will largely disappear. You really think protoss has some of the best counters to mutas in the game? I really think you should try playing protoss against muta ling just to see how frusterating it really is. Marines thors and turrets and ghosts with snipe are all better than anything protoss has to defend against mutas save maybe pheonix's , and id way prefer to have a marine, ghost or a thor against mutas because they are actually good units still if the zerg does a quick tech switch. Once the muta size gets big enough, mutas have absolutely no problems taking on equal number of stalkers at all even with a few sentries with GS up (which usually doesnt happen since the only way you can catch a good muta player is with blink stalkers and sentries cant get there fast enough) Pheonix's are decent but you need a decent amount of them to deal with a big muta pack, and then you are left really vulnerable to a roach infestor (or something) tech switch which you are super vulnerable too after defending mutas. Then there is storm which any competent muta player should beable to avoid, mutas are one of the fastest air units in the game and should have no problem dodging storms, see a templar moving up? move your mutas, not to mention how easy it is to come behind the army and pick off templars as the protoss is moving across the map. Archons are decent but magic box negates their threat even more so then thors and they become pretty useless except for cleaning up lings. Ive honestly had games where I am on equal bases equal upgrades (somehow i managed to get that far, with ridiculous amounts of cannons) and an equal size army comprised of 6-7 pheonix's, 20-30 stalkers, a few Ht's with storm, 4-6 archons, and a good number of zealots to soak up lings, and a sentry or 2 for gs. Seems pretty ideal for holding off muta ling right? nope. Although i lasted probably longer then i ever have going into the lalte game against muta ling, this player had a very good way of negating anything that could kill mutas quickly, usually when we engaged he would form a sort of singular circle around my army, makig it hard for storms to hit more than 1-3 mutas and for archons to hit more than 1 muta at a time, from there i would just get demolished as everything eventually fell with him having a decent number of mutas and no lings left at the end each time. After that game i switched to zerg and i dont think i will ever go back ive told this muta ling story probably 5 times on the forums, i know i probably didnt play perfectly but a race should never feel like they have no options against a particular strategy when they have equal income , bases , upgrades which i did for a good portion of the game. Nothing is more frusterating playing a race where you know their are certain strategies that are really really difficult to beat and yoou will most likely have to vastly outplay your opponent to win. Protoss is the race that has the problem of having strategies that are frusterating / really hard to beat. 1-1-1 and muta ling are both ones that come to mind off the top of my head. I cant really think of any strategies protoss has against terran or zerg where they simply have almost no options and they hope their opponent will make a mistake. I think it used to be like that with the protoss deathball in pvz though before infestor buffs and such. I know protoss has options in the early game against muta ling and thats not really the problem its when it gets into the late game where its just so difficult, it shouldnt have to be way harder to defend against mutas then to play as them (which it is) i play zerg now and although my muta micro isnt perfect I still have a pretty damn good win rate with muta ling in ZVP, and i know first hand how hard it is to defend that. HT. Just ht. Storm is awesome vs mutas because even if they "dodge" it, you still are hitting them at least a little and it makes them back up and have to heal... that's a big deal. At worst you're going to take like 10 - 20 hp off of all the mutas and at best you could take them down by like half or more. And, despite your bleak outlook on archons, they DESTROY mutas. It's not even close. The extremely high health, mixed with the bonus/splash dmg is just not even close. Storm/archons also happen to be the counter to the other half of the muta/ling combo as well. The bottom line is they're new and protoss players aren't too familiar with how to defend against them and when to go put pressure once you have it decently under control. Templars have this huge mobility problem against mutalisks. Which is pretty much the same problem the entire protoss army has with mutas. They aren't dangerous because of their burst damage or their HP, or their splash. They're dangerous because of their crazy mobility. Normally, a zerg player can make it so protoss can NEVER get an all out engagement for an entire game. Sure, if zerg sends his mutas head on against an Archon/Stalker/HT ball he'll get DESTROYED, but that's not the point. With a large mutalisk ball, zerg can pull a protoss players from one arm at a time, eventually ripping them off. This is not kratoss brutality, but rather a slower, more insidious but still huge amount of damage. Watch Crazymoving vs Hero. Hero showed some AMAZING templar play, and still couldn't deal with mutas at all. Crazymoving just avoided archons, dodged storms, attacked at the natural, then the third, then the main, then the pylons, all while losing a few mutas which were quickly replaced. Eventually, Hero was starved. Had crazymoving been a better player, he'd have dealt the damage, then transitioned into infestor ling play and rolled way before what he did. Crazymoving even managed to just nosedive some templars and snipe them in the face of stalkers and receive almost no damage. Archons do destroy mutas... if they can ever hit them... Storms do counter mutas, if mutas ever stop moving that is. You're putting it way too simple, like it's easy. It's tough as hell. Well I'm assuming we're talking about the best players in the world here. And I don't think cannons + HT have any more of a mobility issue than turrets + marines/thors. Simply because storm has a longer range than marines and 1 HT can storm away mutas whereas it takes a bunch of marines to fend off mutas. Not to mention blink stalkers. And like I said, casting storm on a ball of mutas is at least going to bring them into the light yellow, which is a big deal if you do it to the whole flock. And it will make them pull back which gives you more time for your stalkers to get there. I'm not saying it's easy, I'm just saying the reason they're having trouble is cause it's new.
Cannons + HT are definitely A LOT worse than turrets + thor/marine for dealing with mutas. Mostly because thor shots are inevitable damage, and stimmed marines are not only fast as hell, but they can shoot down mutas in mere seconds, while stalkers take like a million years to kill them. Mutas can fly away from stalkers without taking heavy losses even if stalkers blink right beneath them, while marines will shred them if they do as much as fly near them.
Also, given Thor range, you can't hide mutas behind bases effectively, as most maps don't have enough space, while protoss can't shoot mutas so far. Also, you don't mention that mutas can force storms and waste energy, and even fly in for templar snipe then fly away.
Stalker/HT is not effective against mutalisks. Phoenix is SUPPOSED to be the natural counter, but given the numbers you need it isn't. I don't think the tempest is a solution, or that it needs to be solved at all, I just think that this is and will be problematic forever, and even when they don't do too much damage, they give map control and basically contain protoss, so zerg can expand almost freely.
|
Mutas speed 3.75 -> 3.5 Remove ghost snipe
There I fixed balance
|
|
On November 10 2011 05:16 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 15:49 Holophonist wrote:On November 09 2011 08:51 mordk wrote:On November 09 2011 07:08 Holophonist wrote:On November 09 2011 04:41 Executor1 wrote:On November 07 2011 21:38 Klystron wrote: The ZvP winrates are kinda interesting. I think that this is mostly due to what has so far been a very stale metagame that Zergs have recently shaken up with increasing muta play.
The problem is that most ZvP's boil down to a FFE into double stargate, 6-8 gate, stargate into 6-8gate, or stargate into 2-base robo. These openings have been used for months now and most zerg players know the timings and exactly how to counter these plays.
On top of that Zerg players have discovered that Protoss players haven't figured out how to deal with mutas yet. I don't think that protoss lacks any ability to counter mutas, in fact they have some of the best counters to mutas in the game. The problem is that they don't quite know how to effectively split their army, when to start putting down cannons, how many cannons they need, and that colossi are not good against mutas. Once protoss players start to get a feel for the timings and the required responses to mutas I have a feeling that muta play in ZvP will largely disappear. You really think protoss has some of the best counters to mutas in the game? I really think you should try playing protoss against muta ling just to see how frusterating it really is. Marines thors and turrets and ghosts with snipe are all better than anything protoss has to defend against mutas save maybe pheonix's , and id way prefer to have a marine, ghost or a thor against mutas because they are actually good units still if the zerg does a quick tech switch. Once the muta size gets big enough, mutas have absolutely no problems taking on equal number of stalkers at all even with a few sentries with GS up (which usually doesnt happen since the only way you can catch a good muta player is with blink stalkers and sentries cant get there fast enough) Pheonix's are decent but you need a decent amount of them to deal with a big muta pack, and then you are left really vulnerable to a roach infestor (or something) tech switch which you are super vulnerable too after defending mutas. Then there is storm which any competent muta player should beable to avoid, mutas are one of the fastest air units in the game and should have no problem dodging storms, see a templar moving up? move your mutas, not to mention how easy it is to come behind the army and pick off templars as the protoss is moving across the map. Archons are decent but magic box negates their threat even more so then thors and they become pretty useless except for cleaning up lings. Ive honestly had games where I am on equal bases equal upgrades (somehow i managed to get that far, with ridiculous amounts of cannons) and an equal size army comprised of 6-7 pheonix's, 20-30 stalkers, a few Ht's with storm, 4-6 archons, and a good number of zealots to soak up lings, and a sentry or 2 for gs. Seems pretty ideal for holding off muta ling right? nope. Although i lasted probably longer then i ever have going into the lalte game against muta ling, this player had a very good way of negating anything that could kill mutas quickly, usually when we engaged he would form a sort of singular circle around my army, makig it hard for storms to hit more than 1-3 mutas and for archons to hit more than 1 muta at a time, from there i would just get demolished as everything eventually fell with him having a decent number of mutas and no lings left at the end each time. After that game i switched to zerg and i dont think i will ever go back ive told this muta ling story probably 5 times on the forums, i know i probably didnt play perfectly but a race should never feel like they have no options against a particular strategy when they have equal income , bases , upgrades which i did for a good portion of the game. Nothing is more frusterating playing a race where you know their are certain strategies that are really really difficult to beat and yoou will most likely have to vastly outplay your opponent to win. Protoss is the race that has the problem of having strategies that are frusterating / really hard to beat. 1-1-1 and muta ling are both ones that come to mind off the top of my head. I cant really think of any strategies protoss has against terran or zerg where they simply have almost no options and they hope their opponent will make a mistake. I think it used to be like that with the protoss deathball in pvz though before infestor buffs and such. I know protoss has options in the early game against muta ling and thats not really the problem its when it gets into the late game where its just so difficult, it shouldnt have to be way harder to defend against mutas then to play as them (which it is) i play zerg now and although my muta micro isnt perfect I still have a pretty damn good win rate with muta ling in ZVP, and i know first hand how hard it is to defend that. HT. Just ht. Storm is awesome vs mutas because even if they "dodge" it, you still are hitting them at least a little and it makes them back up and have to heal... that's a big deal. At worst you're going to take like 10 - 20 hp off of all the mutas and at best you could take them down by like half or more. And, despite your bleak outlook on archons, they DESTROY mutas. It's not even close. The extremely high health, mixed with the bonus/splash dmg is just not even close. Storm/archons also happen to be the counter to the other half of the muta/ling combo as well. The bottom line is they're new and protoss players aren't too familiar with how to defend against them and when to go put pressure once you have it decently under control. Templars have this huge mobility problem against mutalisks. Which is pretty much the same problem the entire protoss army has with mutas. They aren't dangerous because of their burst damage or their HP, or their splash. They're dangerous because of their crazy mobility. Normally, a zerg player can make it so protoss can NEVER get an all out engagement for an entire game. Sure, if zerg sends his mutas head on against an Archon/Stalker/HT ball he'll get DESTROYED, but that's not the point. With a large mutalisk ball, zerg can pull a protoss players from one arm at a time, eventually ripping them off. This is not kratoss brutality, but rather a slower, more insidious but still huge amount of damage. Watch Crazymoving vs Hero. Hero showed some AMAZING templar play, and still couldn't deal with mutas at all. Crazymoving just avoided archons, dodged storms, attacked at the natural, then the third, then the main, then the pylons, all while losing a few mutas which were quickly replaced. Eventually, Hero was starved. Had crazymoving been a better player, he'd have dealt the damage, then transitioned into infestor ling play and rolled way before what he did. Crazymoving even managed to just nosedive some templars and snipe them in the face of stalkers and receive almost no damage. Archons do destroy mutas... if they can ever hit them... Storms do counter mutas, if mutas ever stop moving that is. You're putting it way too simple, like it's easy. It's tough as hell. Well I'm assuming we're talking about the best players in the world here. And I don't think cannons + HT have any more of a mobility issue than turrets + marines/thors. Simply because storm has a longer range than marines and 1 HT can storm away mutas whereas it takes a bunch of marines to fend off mutas. Not to mention blink stalkers. And like I said, casting storm on a ball of mutas is at least going to bring them into the light yellow, which is a big deal if you do it to the whole flock. And it will make them pull back which gives you more time for your stalkers to get there. I'm not saying it's easy, I'm just saying the reason they're having trouble is cause it's new. Cannons + HT are definitely A LOT worse than turrets + thor/marine for dealing with mutas. Mostly because thor shots are inevitable damage, and stimmed marines are not only fast as hell, but they can shoot down mutas in mere seconds, while stalkers take like a million years to kill them. Mutas can fly away from stalkers without taking heavy losses even if stalkers blink right beneath them, while marines will shred them if they do as much as fly near them. Also, given Thor range, you can't hide mutas behind bases effectively, as most maps don't have enough space, while protoss can't shoot mutas so far. Also, you don't mention that mutas can force storms and waste energy, and even fly in for templar snipe then fly away. Stalker/HT is not effective against mutalisks. Phoenix is SUPPOSED to be the natural counter, but given the numbers you need it isn't. I don't think the tempest is a solution, or that it needs to be solved at all, I just think that this is and will be problematic forever, and even when they don't do too much damage, they give map control and basically contain protoss, so zerg can expand almost freely.
I was talking more about the mobility of each. you don't think blink stalkers and HT are more mobile than marine thor? I know what you mean about the superior dps of marines compared to stalkers but the stalkers have a lot going for them as well... they don't have stim themselves to death, they have blink and they can be warped in. Basically the point I'm trying to get across is, in theory, protoss should have everything it needs to deal with mutas, once protoss players get used to dealing with them.
But in the interest of accuracy, flying away from marines feels about the same as flying away from blink stalkers. And yes, you can make templars waste energy, but again, same with baiting a stim from a bunch of marines. And it's even worth noting that having to spot the mutas and storm them is a lot more difficult than just keeping a thor in your base that will auto attack. Again, I'm not saying protoss players don't have trouble with mutas, I'm saying they just have to get used to dealing with them and they don't need any buff/muta nerf to do so.
|
Blizzard already anticipated that mass muta will be the new norm in ZvP weeks/months before the rest of the world, hence the tempest =))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
|
On November 10 2011 07:06 Coal wrote: Blizzard already anticipated that mass muta will be the new norm in ZvP weeks/months before the rest of the world, hence the tempest =))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
but this is idiotic. the tempest clearly shows that blizzard knows muta play is very hard for toss to deal with but they don't want to fix it until what, 2013?
|
Thanks for color blind version, I spent like 5 minutes aquinting at the first one then gave up, then I saw the colorblind zerson. :D
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 10 2011 06:59 Holophonist wrote: I was talking more about the mobility of each. you don't think blink stalkers and HT are more mobile than marine thor?
Not really a question of mobility, a thor can defend alone a base with some turrets beofre the number of mutas becomes too big, and you can very easily split marines in small groups because they have a too high dps to take the risk to kill them if you don't have enough mutas, and even if the zerg kills them, it gies the time to the terran reinforcements to come defend. You could think protoss can do the same, but terrans don't give a shit if they lose marines, they can do a lot of them in a very short time for not a lot of money. Stalkers are far more expensive and you can't lose them and if you lose to much of them mutas can kill your entire army.
Storms can be "easy" to doge if you have a good muta control, because when you see the ht moving to storm, you have time to retreat most of your mutas and kill it with 2 mutas.
|
On November 09 2011 21:44 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 21:41 ambrosiaa wrote:On November 09 2011 21:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 09 2011 21:23 zanmat0 wrote:Here are the winrates for Korea: Here, Terrans, I'll just say it for you so you can spare the effort: "The sample size is too small, this graph is meaningless, PvT is balanced!" Meanwhile in code S: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=283992Stop this bullshit please, it's clearly that these stats are FISHY AS HELL and I hope that mods close this thread. Oh please. So what if Clide, the only terran in his group didnt make it through? And are you saying these stats are fake? Please stop trying to give yourself excuses just cos you're getting your ass kicked in ladder even though you're terran. People have already stated that this graphs are for tournaments at the HIGHEST LVL of play, where terran is clearly OP at the moment. If you look at the HIGHEST LVL of play you will NOTICE that terrans are not doing that well. If you see these graphs you would expect alot of terrans in the top 8 of almost every tournament. Then you take a look here: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues. Then you realise that these graphs are FISHY.
EU Go4SC2 Cup # 137 isn't the highest level of play.
|
On November 10 2011 07:48 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 21:44 Snowbear wrote:On November 09 2011 21:41 ambrosiaa wrote:On November 09 2011 21:27 Snowbear wrote:On November 09 2011 21:23 zanmat0 wrote:Here are the winrates for Korea: Here, Terrans, I'll just say it for you so you can spare the effort: "The sample size is too small, this graph is meaningless, PvT is balanced!" Meanwhile in code S: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=283992Stop this bullshit please, it's clearly that these stats are FISHY AS HELL and I hope that mods close this thread. Oh please. So what if Clide, the only terran in his group didnt make it through? And are you saying these stats are fake? Please stop trying to give yourself excuses just cos you're getting your ass kicked in ladder even though you're terran. People have already stated that this graphs are for tournaments at the HIGHEST LVL of play, where terran is clearly OP at the moment. If you look at the HIGHEST LVL of play you will NOTICE that terrans are not doing that well. If you see these graphs you would expect alot of terrans in the top 8 of almost every tournament. Then you take a look here: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/individual-leagues. Then you realise that these graphs are FISHY. EU Go4SC2 Cup # 137 isn't the highest level of play. Exactly, any league where Protoss wins stuff isn't the highest league. It goes against the narrative that Protoss needs buffs and Terran needs nerfs.
|
Hehe standard deviation and binomial distributions... I hate statistics..
I feel bad for toss, jeez they are really getting the short end of the stick now.
|
On November 10 2011 07:51 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 07:48 AndAgain wrote: EU Go4SC2 Cup # 137 isn't the highest level of play. Exactly, any league where Protoss wins stuff isn't the highest league. It goes against the narrative that Protoss needs buffs and Terran needs nerfs.
funny thing is how couple of months before all those small tournaments were no.1 thing to mention when people like sjow and other terrans dominated all of them.
|
|
We're looking at october, the time when we had like 20 terrans in code S. This isn't surprising to me at all. I can't wait to see the november win rates, they should be pretty even. The only remarkable thing is that in october zergs did much better against Terran which is relieving for me considering that nothing has really changed ZvT in patches. I'm only relieved because zerg didn't need a patch to increase their win rate against terran, shows that with enough skill we can win.
|
On November 10 2011 07:43 pPingu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 06:59 Holophonist wrote: I was talking more about the mobility of each. you don't think blink stalkers and HT are more mobile than marine thor? Not really a question of mobility, a thor can defend alone a base with some turrets beofre the number of mutas becomes too big, and you can very easily split marines in small groups because they have a too high dps to take the risk to kill them if you don't have enough mutas, and even if the zerg kills them, it gies the time to the terran reinforcements to come defend. You could think protoss can do the same, but terrans don't give a shit if they lose marines, they can do a lot of them in a very short time for not a lot of money. Stalkers are far more expensive and you can't lose them and if you lose to much of them mutas can kill your entire army. Storms can be "easy" to doge if you have a good muta control, because when you see the ht moving to storm, you have time to retreat most of your mutas and kill it with 2 mutas.
Yeah thors are definitely good at defending from mutas, especially in conjunction with turrets for a couple reasons
-The thor is only good if there are turrets because it stops you from sniping turrets (cause you'd clump up)
-You can't really go in to magic box the thor cause you'll take turret fire the whole time (if the thor is positioned well).
But these concepts carry over to HT and cannons. Sure they can go in and snipe a HT, but they're going to take cannon fire the whole time unless they snipe the cannons, in which case it would be a perfect time to storm them. You could say that it's easier and faster to focus down a HT than a thor, so you take less cannon fire while doing it. True, but 1 thor equals a couple HT (almost) and HT can be warped in. Not to mention that stalkers can get there to defend the HT faster than marines can.. sometimes dramatically faster if it's a situation of like blinking up onto the high ground rather than going alll the way around.
I'm not sure if protoss has it easier/harder against mutas than terran, but going mutas vs terran is STANDARD. It would have to be significantly harder for protoss to defend from mutas in order for mutas to be standard versus terran and overpowered vs protoss. But, like I said, we won't know for a while because it's new.
|
I'm sure it was said already but the protoss has far less games played. Not sure if that is because they get eliminated due to imbalance at the top level or that they are just coincidentally the unlucky race. Anyways, the new patch should definitely give protoss some real power by saving money on those upgrades.
|
On November 10 2011 14:19 SpoR wrote: I'm sure it was said already but the protoss has far less games played. Not sure if that is because they get eliminated due to imbalance at the top level or that they are just coincidentally the unlucky race. Anyways, the new patch should definitely give protoss some real power by saving money on those upgrades.
Don't think the least amount of games matter in this situation because this has been a trend for over like 6 months.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 10 2011 05:22 Killcani wrote:Mutas speed 3.75 -> 3.5 Remove ghost snipe There I fixed balance ..... Remove ghost snipe and terran might as well type GG if zerg gets to hive tech.
|
On November 10 2011 10:15 emc wrote: We're looking at october, the time when we had like 20 terrans in code S. This isn't surprising to me at all. I can't wait to see the november win rates, they should be pretty even. The only remarkable thing is that in october zergs did much better against Terran which is relieving for me considering that nothing has really changed ZvT in patches. I'm only relieved because zerg didn't need a patch to increase their win rate against terran, shows that with enough skill we can win.
Patch 1.4.0 released September 20, 2011.
TERRAN
Barracks Build time increased from 60 to 65.
Hellion Infernal Pre-Igniter damage upgrade decreased from 10 to 5.
|
On November 10 2011 14:38 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 10:15 emc wrote: We're looking at october, the time when we had like 20 terrans in code S. This isn't surprising to me at all. I can't wait to see the november win rates, they should be pretty even. The only remarkable thing is that in october zergs did much better against Terran which is relieving for me considering that nothing has really changed ZvT in patches. I'm only relieved because zerg didn't need a patch to increase their win rate against terran, shows that with enough skill we can win. Patch 1.4.0 released September 20, 2011. TERRAN Barracks Build time increased from 60 to 65. Hellion Infernal Pre-Igniter damage upgrade decreased from 10 to 5.
EMP included for next month. :D Hehe, I guess it won't change much for ZvT win rate.
|
|
On November 10 2011 05:22 Killcani wrote:Mutas speed 3.75 -> 3.5 Remove ghost snipe There I fixed balance
You know, I think it might be fun if people used the Editor to create a version of the game that corresponds to their ideals of gameplay and ideas of balance. Everyone could showcase their own preferences leading to a variety of versions of StarCraft II. We could even have a competition where the community votes on their favourite settings on various criteria.
I know my version would kill off the Colossus and reinstate Khaydarin Amulet :D.
|
On November 10 2011 15:35 Fanatic-Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 05:22 Killcani wrote:Mutas speed 3.75 -> 3.5 Remove ghost snipe There I fixed balance You know, I think it might be fun if people used the Editor to create a version of the game that corresponds to their ideals of gameplay and ideas of balance. Everyone could showcase their own preferences leading to a variety of versions of StarCraft II. We could even have a competition where the community votes on their favourite settings on various criteria. I know my version would kill off the Colossus and reinstate Khaydarin Amulet :D. Why bother, we already BW UMS in SC2. You know it is just going to be add all BW units, remove all SC2 units at some point. Just saying.
|
|
On November 10 2011 14:29 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 05:22 Killcani wrote:Mutas speed 3.75 -> 3.5 Remove ghost snipe There I fixed balance ..... Remove ghost snipe and terran might as well type GG if zerg gets to hive tech.
Haha yes that is true but snipe as it is right now is a bit too strong and muta play is abit too strong as well so i think both should get minor nerfs
|
On November 13 2011 12:09 Killcani wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 14:29 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 10 2011 05:22 Killcani wrote:Mutas speed 3.75 -> 3.5 Remove ghost snipe There I fixed balance ..... Remove ghost snipe and terran might as well type GG if zerg gets to hive tech. Haha yes that is true but snipe as it is right now is a bit too strong and muta play is abit too strong as well so i think both should get minor nerfs
Both of them are perfectly fine. Terrans need something to fight T3 zerg and zerg needs a solid harass/map control unit.
|
On November 09 2011 22:21 Markwerf wrote: GSL is terrible format to look at for winrates really. Getting into GSL requires a large qualification thus there is already quite a bit of selection going on for getting into GSL. Up until recently the change in players has been very minimal as well. Thus the balance of players in GSL could be very lopsided because it was determined by games being played quite some time ago. In other words there is a pretty huge selection bias when you use GSL games for winrates. The worst race from months ago is underrepresented because it could be so hard to get in months ago. That means the players that did get in are likely to be more skilled then the players from other races that are in and this influences the validity of the winrates.
Anyway the stuff is still great overall, it's good to see a fairly reliable source which is at least quite complete. That stops people from referring too much to anecdotal evidence which happens WAY too much on TL (and basically any non-scientific community). Moreover, because code S tournament ro32 use the Dual Tournament format, you only need to win 2 games to get to ro16. There's no tiebreak, no 2-1 2-1 2-1 situation, and sometimes you have to play the same opponent twice.
|
dang pvt korea is painful.
|
I don't think there is enough data to draw any good conclusions from monthly winrates (quarterly would be better in my opinion). I did a small overview of winrates per player in Korea (it seemed a better way to look at it except you don't have enough data to do monthly overviews). The main thing I realised was that there were not enough games to read anything particularly good out from there about the current state. What I did find though, was that winrates against Terran are lower on average (I think it's been generally accepted that terrans have been the strongest race so far over the game's existance) and the Zerg and Protoss are pretty much the same. It is somewhat interesting that almost all the Protoss players I looked at had the favored race of Protoss (I looked at about 40 top players according to their ELO rating) which would actually artificially lower their winrates against other races due to the single elimination tournament format (I don't know how much though).
Another thing I found was that average winning percentages were quite a bit higher for SC2 compared to BW, which would indicate that SC2 wins are less luck based than Broodwar wins. But this is probably mostly due to the greater number of games played by the BW players (also my player selection probably was far from perfect).
|
A note on the Korean winrates as well. The number of matches in the september graph for PvT was 1041 and in the october graph 1048 (the difference is very small that is there probably isn't much data on october). In addition the september winrates are different in the september graph and in the october graph (pPingu maybe you can explain how you get your data?).
|
On November 08 2011 07:26 Blade Fox wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 08:50 Firesilver wrote:On November 07 2011 08:48 Blade Fox wrote: It's obvious.
Patch 1.3
High Templar Khaydarin Amulet upgrade (+25 starting energy) has been removed.
Thats when protoss started losing every matchup. No, it really wasn't, that needed to be removed because of how strong it was, it's stupid to blame the recent down slope of P win % on that alone. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2514162Read those patch notes. Compare to the bar graph. Look at the protoss winrate line slump PERFECTLY at the exact same time this patch came out. Which is march onwards. The protoss race as others have said has little to no options with their units when you compare to the other races. If protoss aren't outnumbering the other race or laying absolutely perfect forcefields if they manage to dodge an EMP or a fungal they lose. Terrans units are all ranged and do huge damage, easily micro'd and their siege units like Vikings and Siege Tanks have no real counter in the protoss army OTHER THAN STORM. Why do you think so many protoss do risky fast expand builds these days? They have to get ahead early and out macro their opponent if they want any chance of winning. There's no effective harass unit that's not easily countered by the other races to get ahead so the only way is to be very risky with your builds. Tell me do you think Immortals counter siege tanks? In a bizarro world of tanks vs immortals and nothing else yes but that will never happen. The counter is actually splash damage on the terran bio ball then taking out their siege units afterward. I'm amazed that people have the nerve to say khydarin amulet was broken when clearly if you looked at old infestors and ghosts to this day both have their +25 upgrade and top level players always get these upgrades. They pop out ready to do 1000+ damage to a protoss army with EMP and you call that balance? Templar are balanced with being the most squishy of casters on top of the most slowly moving. It would be amusing if they took away EMP from ghosts as a skill then had to be researched and then on top of that removed mobius reactor. Then did the same with fungal to infestors. Believe me both races win rate would drop after that change. Continue living in a bubble where everyone thinks protoss players are bad and not innovative when it's the absolutely bottom of the barrel race that has had multiple abilities removed from it that made it viable into the puddle of mud that gets stomped these days.
If you read my post, I said that you cannot blame the downslope of Protoss winrates on KA alone.
And it's funny that you posted all of this and didn't even read the one line related I put in the first place.
You mention Ghosts, yes, they get an energy upgrade, but if you actually read the threads when this change first came out, you would see the mathematics behind each of these units and basically how you can't spawn 5 ghosts instantly to the battle and EMP and can't instantly spawn 10 infestors to the middle of a battle and use fungal growth, so removing KA allowed the same time for a ghost/infestor to spawn to the battle as a HT to charge up 25 energy to storm anywhere, you should read up about this before posting and telling people - that play protoss mind you - that they shouldn't have the nerve to even bring it up. Your post basically consists of 90% irrelevance information to what I posted and 10% uninformed babble attacking me for discussing.
And thanks for assuming everything about my opinions on the entire matter over a single post that consisted of two lines - that's awesome but totally incorrect, but infact I think Protoss does have a lot of flaws and that there are a number of fixes that need to be made.
|
|
|
|