EPTOn December 27 2011 18:26 doko100 wrote:
No, no, the past is irrelevant in terms of current balance (which is what we were originally talking about) it is only relevant in terms of design problems which then lead to balance problems. You were already right with what you said at one point, why make the same mistake again and change your argument into something that is flatout wrong.
Show nested quote +
On December 27 2011 18:24 HolyArrow wrote:
When was "Protoss is statistically the weakest race" my argument? I was merely taking issue with how people will discredit objective evidence when it's inconvenient in my original post. But, I do admit that one thing led to another, and I began arguing that Protoss is statistically the weakest race. However, my final point indeed supports that argument, because that point was made to argue that the past does matter. If the past does matter, then the it's clear that the Red, Blue, and Green lines do matter in the overall winrate graph, and if those do matter, the point still stands that the Protoss line is well below the Zerg and Terran lines.
On December 27 2011 18:18 doko100 wrote:
I'm totally fine with that statement. But that just isn't what you originally said, if you had said this in your first post there would have been no need for an argument. You basically just said something completely different to what you originally said. Let me remind you "protoss is statistically the weakest race" - which is wrong.
To me it seems like you just changed your argument, after realizing that your actual statement was simply wrong.
On December 27 2011 18:12 HolyArrow wrote:
I'm okay with you thinking that I'm wasting your time, because I'm getting kind of tired of this as well. However, I will make one last point: The fact that you don't think the rest of the year matters makes your implication that I'm unintelligent terribly ironic. There's more to balance than simply how a race is currently doing. Races are designed differently - some better, some worse than others, and I'm pretty sure most agree that Terran is the best designed race, in its versatility and modularity. There's a reason Blizzard took so long to nerf the 1-1-1 all-in, and that's because Terran is so well designed that it was difficult for them to figure out what to nerf. The strength of the 1-1-1 all-in wasn't due to a single unit - it was due to how incredibly well all the units worked together - hence, good design, and that's just one example. Throughout the year, Terran has been subjected to plenty of nerfs, yet only now Terran has finally been brought down, and that's ignoring the fact that statistics will be skewed immediately after a nerf because players haven't had much time to figure other things out yet. Why did it take this long for Terran to be brought down? Simple: It's so well designed. And while good design is certainly laudable on behalf of the developers, it's not good for balance when one race is so well designed compared to the other two.
You can try to make the argument that the past is irrelevant, but it isn't. At the core of each race is a design, and that design dictates how the metagame will shift. A badly designed race will flounder when its core strategies are figured out/nerfed and will have a difficult time bouncing back, while a well designed race will always find more options. Design is absolutely paramount in considering the big picture of balance, and hopefully HotS will fix some big design problems present in the game overall.
On December 27 2011 17:57 doko100 wrote:
Like I said, my point is not that Terran is the weakest race. And your post is extremely biased. Seriously just because there is only 1 Protoss in the Top 15 means that Protoss is evidently the weakest race? Or maybe Zerg and Terran players are just better, this is such an incredibly small player pool (15 people) there is no statistical evidence at all because individual skill could very well be the main factor when limiting the scope to just 15 people.
You are incredibly bias and actually wasting my time now, statistically Protoss isn't the weakest race, which is what I was getting at, intelligent people will get the point, others won't.
And you are also ignoring the last 2 patches, who cares about the entire year when ,in the last 2 patches, Terran got nerfed and Protoss got buffed, the game changed so drastically it is absolutely irrelevant what happened before that.
On December 27 2011 17:53 HolyArrow wrote:
In response to your edit: There are quite a few things wrong with your logic, and it's pretty clear to me that all you are doing is exaggerating certain things about my points to misrepresent them, and/or are willfully misinterpreting them because it's convenient for you to make my points look silly, though they are certainly not. First of all, you assume that just because the TLPD for November alone finally has Terran a mere 1% below Protoss and Zerg in overall winrate that Terran is now the weakest race. However, this would be a very limited scope of how things are, and, if you look at the big picture, the Protoss line is still well below both the Terran and Zerg lines, while the Terran line has finally stopped being the top line for the first time in the entire year. Only time will tell as to how the big picture will change, but, right now, Terran is a mere 1% below Zerg and Protoss, which I'm sure anyone would agree is pretty negligible.
Secondly, Terran being 1% below Zerg/Protoss in overall winrate is negligible; the first Protoss in the Korean ELO being at rank 15 is not. If you have a relatively small pool of players (compared to an international view of tons of different games) and none of the top 14 are Protoss, then I think it clearly shows that the best Protoss players are clearly having trouble competing with the very best of the other races. This also shows in the general popular perception of respective heroes of each race. Terran has very clear heros, such as MVP and MMA. Zerg as well, with Nestea, DRG, and Leenock. But, in the Korean scene, what does Protoss have? Oz? He's looked fairly strong, but far from MVP/MMA/Nestea/DRG status. HerO? He's not even out of Code A, and overall has a pretty bad record in Korea. MC is the best candidate in my opinion, but even he hasn't done all that much lately, and has certainly fallen from being up there with MVP and Nestea in terms of results.
On December 27 2011 17:30 doko100 wrote:
Nice cop-out. So you are just ignoring the fact that TLPD shows terran as the statistically weakest race in November (after the last 2 patches in which Terran got nerfed and Protoss got buffed). According to you that proves that Terran is the weakest race, because TLPD = statistical evidence for imbalance..
edit: Then how does the argument that TvP is terran favored make any sense at all, even statistically it's protoss favored (after the last 2 patches) and how does your argument of protoss being the weakest race make any sense when TLPD (what you base your argument on) shows Terran as the weakest race? Contradiction much?
And I love how you called me stubborn when your post is actually one big contradiction that doesn't even make sense, yes I'm stubborn because other people don't know what they are talking about.... ouch.
On December 27 2011 17:25 HolyArrow wrote:
The problem here is that we're simultaneously editing stuff and thus are missing each other's edits, so don't try to use that as an excuse to accuse me of ignoring evidence.
On December 27 2011 17:21 doko100 wrote:
check out my edit then. oh wait you will just ignore that because it shows terran as the weakest race in november. herp derp TLPD indicates how balanced the game is, eh? Buff terran then.... I guess?
On December 27 2011 17:20 HolyArrow wrote:
[quote]
Check out my edit. I will say again: It's not good for player-to-player comparisons, but it's good for indicating trends. Furthermore, plenty of trends in the GSL support the general trend TLPD is displaying: That Protoss is weaker at the top level. Seriously, just look at how many Protosses have been in the finals/semifinals of Code S or Code A compared to Terrans. Surely, you can't deny that the first Protoss player on TLPD in Korea is all the way down at the 15th spot is a mere coincidence, a product of the "extreme randomness" that you speak of.
[quote]
Check out my edit. I will say again: It's not good for player-to-player comparisons, but it's good for indicating trends. Furthermore, plenty of trends in the GSL support the general trend TLPD is displaying: That Protoss is weaker at the top level. Seriously, just look at how many Protosses have been in the finals/semifinals of Code S or Code A compared to Terrans. Surely, you can't deny that the first Protoss player on TLPD in Korea is all the way down at the 15th spot is a mere coincidence, a product of the "extreme randomness" that you speak of.
check out my edit then. oh wait you will just ignore that because it shows terran as the weakest race in november. herp derp TLPD indicates how balanced the game is, eh? Buff terran then.... I guess?
The problem here is that we're simultaneously editing stuff and thus are missing each other's edits, so don't try to use that as an excuse to accuse me of ignoring evidence.
Nice cop-out. So you are just ignoring the fact that TLPD shows terran as the statistically weakest race in November (after the last 2 patches in which Terran got nerfed and Protoss got buffed). According to you that proves that Terran is the weakest race, because TLPD = statistical evidence for imbalance..
edit: Then how does the argument that TvP is terran favored make any sense at all, even statistically it's protoss favored (after the last 2 patches) and how does your argument of protoss being the weakest race make any sense when TLPD (what you base your argument on) shows Terran as the weakest race? Contradiction much?
And I love how you called me stubborn when your post is actually one big contradiction that doesn't even make sense, yes I'm stubborn because other people don't know what they are talking about.... ouch.
In response to your edit: There are quite a few things wrong with your logic, and it's pretty clear to me that all you are doing is exaggerating certain things about my points to misrepresent them, and/or are willfully misinterpreting them because it's convenient for you to make my points look silly, though they are certainly not. First of all, you assume that just because the TLPD for November alone finally has Terran a mere 1% below Protoss and Zerg in overall winrate that Terran is now the weakest race. However, this would be a very limited scope of how things are, and, if you look at the big picture, the Protoss line is still well below both the Terran and Zerg lines, while the Terran line has finally stopped being the top line for the first time in the entire year. Only time will tell as to how the big picture will change, but, right now, Terran is a mere 1% below Zerg and Protoss, which I'm sure anyone would agree is pretty negligible.
Secondly, Terran being 1% below Zerg/Protoss in overall winrate is negligible; the first Protoss in the Korean ELO being at rank 15 is not. If you have a relatively small pool of players (compared to an international view of tons of different games) and none of the top 14 are Protoss, then I think it clearly shows that the best Protoss players are clearly having trouble competing with the very best of the other races. This also shows in the general popular perception of respective heroes of each race. Terran has very clear heros, such as MVP and MMA. Zerg as well, with Nestea, DRG, and Leenock. But, in the Korean scene, what does Protoss have? Oz? He's looked fairly strong, but far from MVP/MMA/Nestea/DRG status. HerO? He's not even out of Code A, and overall has a pretty bad record in Korea. MC is the best candidate in my opinion, but even he hasn't done all that much lately, and has certainly fallen from being up there with MVP and Nestea in terms of results.
Like I said, my point is not that Terran is the weakest race. And your post is extremely biased. Seriously just because there is only 1 Protoss in the Top 15 means that Protoss is evidently the weakest race? Or maybe Zerg and Terran players are just better, this is such an incredibly small player pool (15 people) there is no statistical evidence at all because individual skill could very well be the main factor when limiting the scope to just 15 people.
You are incredibly bias and actually wasting my time now, statistically Protoss isn't the weakest race, which is what I was getting at, intelligent people will get the point, others won't.
And you are also ignoring the last 2 patches, who cares about the entire year when ,in the last 2 patches, Terran got nerfed and Protoss got buffed, the game changed so drastically it is absolutely irrelevant what happened before that.
I'm okay with you thinking that I'm wasting your time, because I'm getting kind of tired of this as well. However, I will make one last point: The fact that you don't think the rest of the year matters makes your implication that I'm unintelligent terribly ironic. There's more to balance than simply how a race is currently doing. Races are designed differently - some better, some worse than others, and I'm pretty sure most agree that Terran is the best designed race, in its versatility and modularity. There's a reason Blizzard took so long to nerf the 1-1-1 all-in, and that's because Terran is so well designed that it was difficult for them to figure out what to nerf. The strength of the 1-1-1 all-in wasn't due to a single unit - it was due to how incredibly well all the units worked together - hence, good design, and that's just one example. Throughout the year, Terran has been subjected to plenty of nerfs, yet only now Terran has finally been brought down, and that's ignoring the fact that statistics will be skewed immediately after a nerf because players haven't had much time to figure other things out yet. Why did it take this long for Terran to be brought down? Simple: It's so well designed. And while good design is certainly laudable on behalf of the developers, it's not good for balance when one race is so well designed compared to the other two.
You can try to make the argument that the past is irrelevant, but it isn't. At the core of each race is a design, and that design dictates how the metagame will shift. A badly designed race will flounder when its core strategies are figured out/nerfed and will have a difficult time bouncing back, while a well designed race will always find more options. Design is absolutely paramount in considering the big picture of balance, and hopefully HotS will fix some big design problems present in the game overall.
I'm totally fine with that statement. But that just isn't what you originally said, if you had said this in your first post there would have been no need for an argument. You basically just said something completely different to what you originally said. Let me remind you "protoss is statistically the weakest race" - which is wrong.
To me it seems like you just changed your argument, after realizing that your actual statement was simply wrong.
When was "Protoss is statistically the weakest race" my argument? I was merely taking issue with how people will discredit objective evidence when it's inconvenient in my original post. But, I do admit that one thing led to another, and I began arguing that Protoss is statistically the weakest race. However, my final point indeed supports that argument, because that point was made to argue that the past does matter. If the past does matter, then the it's clear that the Red, Blue, and Green lines do matter in the overall winrate graph, and if those do matter, the point still stands that the Protoss line is well below the Zerg and Terran lines.
No, no, the past is irrelevant in terms of current balance (which is what we were originally talking about) it is only relevant in terms of design problems which then lead to balance problems. You were already right with what you said at one point, why make the same mistake again and change your argument into something that is flatout wrong.
I don't think I was ever talking about "current balance". I was talking about "trends" originally, which is completely different, since "trend" implies long-term. I'm going to stop here because it's clear that our argument is fraught with misunderstandings. We've made our points and I'm kind of tired, so I'll just let people read them and decide for themselves.
