[Nov] TLPD Race Winrate Graphs - Page 29

On December 09 2011 02:58 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote:
Interesting thing about imbalances. If at some point a race is imbalacned, that race will win more than their skill level would provide. If the imbalance is removed then that race will immediately lose more, as they get re-balanced against appropriate level opponents.

That also becomes less relevant the higher up in play you go, but a lot of these games are not from the top 10 players in the world.

This is why for example blizzard removed KA, despite the win rates being nearly 50% for PvT. They saw an imbalance and removed it.

On December 09 2011 03:04 SafeAsCheese wrote:


It was OP vs zerg as well.

Protoss just had to sit on 3 base and max out.

Zerg then tries to counter attack or base trade, because their army can't win, yet you can warp in storms anywhere with banked gas and melt the army so easily as it tries to pass buildings

On December 09 2011 03:26 perestain wrote:
Appearantly zerg has a slight edge after the last patch,

otherwise winrates appear pretty symmetric in that p>t, z>p, and terran only doing slightly better than zerg. If maps will be a tiny bit less favorable for zerg it might be perfect.

To bad HOTS is around the corner to ruin everything again.

On December 09 2011 03:28 Big J wrote:


HotS is another game... It won't change anything about WoL winrates.

On December 09 2011 03:26 perestain wrote:
Appearantly zerg has a slight edge after the last patch,

otherwise winrates appear pretty symmetric in that p>t, z>p, and terran only doing slightly better than zerg. If maps will be a tiny bit less favorable for zerg it might be perfect.

To bad HOTS is around the corner to ruin everything again.

On December 09 2011 03:30 trias_e wrote:


Who will care about WoL winrates when HotS is released?

On December 09 2011 03:33 BlueyD wrote:
I like how protoss has its first month with any matchup over 50% since June, and suddenly people call the race imbalanced.

Once terrans get a feel for what the nerfed ghost can still do and can't do anymore, I expect the matchup will become a bit more even in terms of winrates.

On December 09 2011 03:30 aksfjh wrote:

To be fair, HOTS will fix a lot of things that are wrong with SC2. Possibly to the point where we don't complain nearly as much about balance. We might get worse numbers, but it could end up being a better experience for players and spectators alike.

On December 09 2011 03:36 Erasme wrote:


I really hope that they'll kill warpgate. But, somehow, I doubt it.

On December 09 2011 03:35 aksfjh wrote:

You realize that Terrans have been complaining about Protoss for MONTHS. It's not about winrates, but instead how Terran feels when they win or lose games. Graphs just substantiate those feelings.

On December 09 2011 03:35 aksfjh wrote:

You realize that Terrans have been complaining about Protoss for MONTHS. It's not about winrates, but instead how Terran feels when they win or lose games. Graphs just substantiate those feelings.

On December 09 2011 03:24 Big J wrote:


And it also led to bad gameplay. "Hey I'm completly caught off guard, yet it doesn't matter at all!"
(not to say it was the Protoss players fault... it was simply viable to not think about defending bases, so noone would waste APM and ressources on defense)

On December 09 2011 03:46 iamke55 wrote:

Is it really bad gameplay for Protoss to have one cushion that prevents them from losing the instant they make a mistake? The planetary fortress makes Terran never have to think about defending bases, and that is much cheaper than constantly having to warp in templars every time 1 medivac flies near a nexus. Why aren't you calling that OP? IMO removing KA led to bad gameplay because that created situations where you're playing a PvT and you auto-lose from one unscouted drop killing a crucial nexus (something that will never happen to Terran due to orbital lifting off, planetary fortress repairing, and low DPS of whatever is dropped). It takes, what, 10 seconds for a group of marauders to kill a nexus? It's rather absurd to me that in a 20 minute game, you only have to "outplay" your opponent for 10 seconds of it to win. That to me is bad gameplay. I would think in well-designed game you win by consistently outplaying your opponent throughout the course of the game, i.e. at least 11 minutes out of 20. Not 10 seconds.