|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On January 03 2012 03:38 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 03:29 NeonFox wrote:On January 03 2012 03:12 Jermstuddog wrote:
Marine: -5 HP
Think about it. Early +1 lings would destroy bio play in ZvT, too big a change. and Early +1 armor Marines would put things back in place. I don't see the problem.
Stalkers killing marines in 4 shots and not 5 and helions in 5 and not 6 would be an enormous change, to promote mech why not, but what against early stalker pressure?
|
KA removed and PvT and PvZ are immediately affected both in Korea and in all servers combined. It's the only consistent trend I can see. Sample size of 1 but still interesting...
|
On January 03 2012 03:38 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 03:29 NeonFox wrote:On January 03 2012 03:12 Jermstuddog wrote:
Marine: -5 HP
Think about it. Early +1 lings would destroy bio play in ZvT, too big a change. and Early +1 armor Marines would put things back in place. I don't see the problem. Mind you, in BW, marines had 40hp flat all the time and did 1/2 the DPS unstimmed that they do in this game. yes, different game is different, but we'd still be talking a comparatively buffed marine vs a comparatively nerfed zergling.
If you really want to try it out you could make a custom map where marines have 5 less hp, must be easy, or ask someone who knows how to do it.
Still think 5 less hp on marines is a much bigger nerf than you might realize, and I'm not even defending terran I play zerg. I'm very frustrated by hellions and scouting in the early game personally, but still think TvZ is balanced and nothing should be touched balance wise.
|
On January 03 2012 03:35 Gurafity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 03:33 Big J wrote:On January 03 2012 03:28 Gurafity wrote:
These data come from the pros, and is not representative of all players. P>T in lowers leagues. i think that david kim said that under grandmaster they have the problem that TvP is like 65% for terrans. not sure if i remember it right (sounds pretty extreme) but i think it was in his last interview It was at the BlizzCon, way before the deadly EMP nerf.
jup sry... only read it on TL where it was published in december...
|
These results always confuse me.
Most zergs I know say zvt is easy and zvp is impossible, but apparently we are favored zvp and have been for a while? I guess it must just be at the highest levels that this is the case.
|
On January 03 2012 02:31 Tehweenus wrote:
Can't we all just look at this from an objective standpoint briefly?
1. People read into things whatever they personally would like to see. Terran success is because Terran's are skilled. Protoss success is imbalance.
2. The individual with a highly subjective and quite generally wrong opinion is always right, and need not evidence himself to people who are too plainly stupid to understand his higher level of thinking inspired by the unjust experiences he has suffered.
3. People subscribe to mob mentality. If enough people say something that is inherently false is actually true, then it becomes true.
That is what we can get from these graphs. These graphs are actually TL's Bible.
I feel like this is the standpoint from which most of the arguments in this thread are made.
|
On January 03 2012 03:01 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 02:37 Badfatpanda wrote:On January 03 2012 02:04 laharl23 wrote:On January 03 2012 01:49 Badfatpanda wrote:On January 03 2012 00:56 laharl23 wrote:On January 03 2012 00:51 ZenithM wrote:On January 02 2012 23:39 Badfatpanda wrote:On January 02 2012 23:00 ZenithM wrote:On January 02 2012 22:47 Badfatpanda wrote:On January 02 2012 20:15 ToastieNL wrote:
TvP is likely changing because
A- people learned to aim with smaller EMP
B- Skymehci s being developped and P needs to adapt
C- The core problem of the matchup (Colossi strong gateway weak) hasn't been attacked
D- Terran goes 2 engi bay faster than 2 forges for P
What? these are from professional matches. Skymech hasn't been seen being used other than here and there in a random bo3 since beta against protoss. People aren't learning to aim with EMP any more than 3 months ago, they've just been getting more ghosts. The core problem of the matchup is warpgate remax and zealots ability to tank damage for Protoss AOE units so well. And Terran getting ebays earlier than Protoss STILL end up with Protoss hitting 3/3 first because of chronoboost. Come on man. So, if there are only problems coming from Protoss OPness, how do you explain the even winrate? Better, Terran is actually ahead. My only problem with Terran is the strength of their one base play because of minerals oversaturation with mules. This is really problematic, design wise. Why would they be allowed to have 25% more income on one base than Protoss or Zerg (you saturate with roughly 16-20 SCV and a MULE mines like 4 SCVs so it's literally 20-25% more mining)? It's gigantic and emphasizes all-in play, because of the momentum you gain over the over races. The rest I'm ready to acknowledge everything you want, from "chargelots a-move boohoohoo OP, I must stutter step and it's hard  " to "mech is so bad, why can't I go mech even though Protoss can't go stargate either :'(". But I'd like the one base terran imbalance (in my humble opinion) to be dealt with, first. Then, nerf Protoss to the ground if you want. I DIDN'T SAY THERE WERE ONLY PROBLEMS. Please ffs just read what I was responding to. He wrote why TvP was changing from P favored to T favored, I said that his reasons didn't hold up. I don't believe in these win rates I think the majority of the system data is inflated due to the nature that TLPD accumulates it's data, the skill difference will be quite large. And in addition look at what Protoss has to offer in Korea among the top tier of players. What have they done recently and what have their Terran equivalents won? It's not due to imbalance it's due to a difference in player skill that has never really been examined and cannot be quantified into little graphs that come up every month. Oh look, it's the usual "Terran players are just better". every time i see that post i just laugh, "guys terran win rates are just high cause u know terrans are just the best players duah" Prove me wrong hot shot? Besides are you really crying over 52-48 LOL. Please enlighten me as to how my assessment was wrong though really. where was i whining about imbalance? I'm just saying its stupid to say that the only reason terran wins is because they're players are just better. if anyone is crying imbalance its you. Its impossible to prove whether a certain race of players are better and its just plain stupid to even bring that up when talking about balance. I'm not crying imbalance, ffs I play random, the only racial affiliation I have comes up when people completely misjudge a matchup. But here's as much proof as I can put forward. We're using these TLPD graphs to gather arguments from. Specifically the Korean W/R graph, as international has little to do with anything as the skill disparity is larger. So, by assuming these to have value, so does the Korean TLPD database. Now we can bring the TLPD ELO into the argument seeing as it is derived from the same games that the graphs are drawn from. Let's examine the amount of Terran players above 2100 ELO by the TLPD's system. We come up with 15, now this is solely Koreans and the majority of gameplay stems from the GSL, I believe 100% of the data stems from offline events as well, so lag and such isn't a factor. Take a look at how many Protoss cross the 2100 mark. 6 Take a look at the win ratios of top Korean Terrans. The large majority are well above 50% as a whole and weak in 1 variable matchup. Now examine the winrates of those Protoss above the 2100 ELO rating, they generally have MUCH lower avg winrates, yet again their weak matchup fluctuates. As to the reason I chose 2100 as a reference point, many of the players below 2100 have fallen inactive, and the players above 2100 rating for all races are easily recognizable as very prolific and having great runs in the GSL Code A/S. What I would like to know, and I would hypothesize it being true, is if this trend continues to follow a similar ratio throughout the entire index, only accounting for players still active as of December where these statistics were gathered from. Now go ahead, strawman this again, I know you will. The statistics for the winrate graphs have to come from somewhere. You know, players. If the top ELO was dominated by Terran that can explain why Terran subsequently dominates match-up statistics for the most part, but you're still at the same cross roads trying to elaborate why. Not very credible to pre-emptively lay down a response will be a strawman.
But there's a very high chance it will be considering the previous posts >.> OK, that's valid but since I look at ELO as a measure of skill in all matchups, mirror does come into account. So considering the fact that mirror matchups will dilute whatever potential imbalance there is, the resulting calculations will be a more accurate indication of performance as a whole. Regarding imbalance, any cries of imbalance relating to these graphs is relating to a fear that eventually if trends continue imbalance would exist.
These numbers aren’t static. They shift almost constantly with the metagame as newly discovered strategies spread through the community, and that heavily influences how they’re interpreted. Also, due to the way the math works out we will almost never see ratios of 50:50; we expect a variance of +/- 5% in these results. So, if a win/loss ratio is approximately 55%:45%, this would indicate that the matchup is well balanced—we expect those numbers to fluctuate within that range to some degree. Ratios just outside of that range are still within acceptable boundaries. It is only after win/loss ratios exceed 60%:40% that there is an indication that a potential imbalance might exist. We keep a sharp eye on these variations from day to day and week to week, staying constantly alert for where the numbers are changing and what the possible causes could be. It’s fairly common, for example, for a new strategy or build order to skew the numbers in favor of a particular race for a brief period, until the metagame catches up and the counter strategies spread through the community.
From the balance team, source: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/3551858/StarCraft_II_Balance_Snapshot_-9_22_2011#blog
So disregarding April, the game has been in a state of overall balance. And even the April turn only reinforces the point of the article I provided. Directly after the amulet removal toss were in a depression, 1 month later with no balance patch the MU magically was buffed up 14%.
So I feel ELO up to this point is determined more from player skill than it exists from a state of imbalance in the game overall.
|
starting to look quite balanced maybe a few small changes from blizz or toss and zerg figuring something out
|
On January 03 2012 03:53 TheMooseHeed wrote:
These results always confuse me.
Most zergs I know say zvt is easy and zvp is impossible, but apparently we are favored zvp and have been for a while? I guess it must just be at the highest levels that this is the case.
If both players dont really micro a lot most of the time zerg will beat terran and the protoss deathball beats zerg but if they do the result can be very different I think that explains it.
|
ZvT feel fine, but PvT and especially ZvP have been messy as a spectating matchup for months now. Dunno what it is, but it feel like protoss matchups are like always based on all-ins and with poor drop/harass play. Funny thing is in PvT it's T who all-in more often, while in ZvP it's P.
|
On January 03 2012 04:09 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 03:53 TheMooseHeed wrote:
These results always confuse me.
Most zergs I know say zvt is easy and zvp is impossible, but apparently we are favored zvp and have been for a while? I guess it must just be at the highest levels that this is the case. If both players dont really micro a lot most of the time zerg will beat terran and the protoss deathball beats zerg but if they do the result can be very different I think that explains it.
i dont
also zerg is favored by 1% in the graph full of randoms playing.
protoss is favored by 5% in the graph of korean pros playing, but very few games played.
morale of the story = stats =/= balance.
|
On January 03 2012 04:05 Badfatpanda wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 03:01 Tyrant0 wrote:On January 03 2012 02:37 Badfatpanda wrote:On January 03 2012 02:04 laharl23 wrote:On January 03 2012 01:49 Badfatpanda wrote:On January 03 2012 00:56 laharl23 wrote:On January 03 2012 00:51 ZenithM wrote:On January 02 2012 23:39 Badfatpanda wrote:On January 02 2012 23:00 ZenithM wrote:On January 02 2012 22:47 Badfatpanda wrote:
[quote]
What? these are from professional matches.
Skymech hasn't been seen being used other than here and there in a random bo3 since beta against protoss.
People aren't learning to aim with EMP any more than 3 months ago, they've just been getting more ghosts.
The core problem of the matchup is warpgate remax and zealots ability to tank damage for Protoss AOE units so well.
And Terran getting ebays earlier than Protoss STILL end up with Protoss hitting 3/3 first because of chronoboost.
Come on man. So, if there are only problems coming from Protoss OPness, how do you explain the even winrate? Better, Terran is actually ahead. My only problem with Terran is the strength of their one base play because of minerals oversaturation with mules. This is really problematic, design wise. Why would they be allowed to have 25% more income on one base than Protoss or Zerg (you saturate with roughly 16-20 SCV and a MULE mines like 4 SCVs so it's literally 20-25% more mining)? It's gigantic and emphasizes all-in play, because of the momentum you gain over the over races. The rest I'm ready to acknowledge everything you want, from "chargelots a-move boohoohoo OP, I must stutter step and it's hard " to "mech is so bad, why can't I go mech even though Protoss can't go stargate either :'(". But I'd like the one base terran imbalance (in my humble opinion) to be dealt with, first. Then, nerf Protoss to the ground if you want. I DIDN'T SAY THERE WERE ONLY PROBLEMS. Please ffs just read what I was responding to. He wrote why TvP was changing from P favored to T favored, I said that his reasons didn't hold up. I don't believe in these win rates I think the majority of the system data is inflated due to the nature that TLPD accumulates it's data, the skill difference will be quite large. And in addition look at what Protoss has to offer in Korea among the top tier of players. What have they done recently and what have their Terran equivalents won? It's not due to imbalance it's due to a difference in player skill that has never really been examined and cannot be quantified into little graphs that come up every month. Oh look, it's the usual "Terran players are just better". every time i see that post i just laugh, "guys terran win rates are just high cause u know terrans are just the best players duah" Prove me wrong hot shot? Besides are you really crying over 52-48 LOL. Please enlighten me as to how my assessment was wrong though really. where was i whining about imbalance? I'm just saying its stupid to say that the only reason terran wins is because they're players are just better. if anyone is crying imbalance its you. Its impossible to prove whether a certain race of players are better and its just plain stupid to even bring that up when talking about balance. I'm not crying imbalance, ffs I play random, the only racial affiliation I have comes up when people completely misjudge a matchup. But here's as much proof as I can put forward. We're using these TLPD graphs to gather arguments from. Specifically the Korean W/R graph, as international has little to do with anything as the skill disparity is larger. So, by assuming these to have value, so does the Korean TLPD database. Now we can bring the TLPD ELO into the argument seeing as it is derived from the same games that the graphs are drawn from. Let's examine the amount of Terran players above 2100 ELO by the TLPD's system. We come up with 15, now this is solely Koreans and the majority of gameplay stems from the GSL, I believe 100% of the data stems from offline events as well, so lag and such isn't a factor. Take a look at how many Protoss cross the 2100 mark. 6 Take a look at the win ratios of top Korean Terrans. The large majority are well above 50% as a whole and weak in 1 variable matchup. Now examine the winrates of those Protoss above the 2100 ELO rating, they generally have MUCH lower avg winrates, yet again their weak matchup fluctuates. As to the reason I chose 2100 as a reference point, many of the players below 2100 have fallen inactive, and the players above 2100 rating for all races are easily recognizable as very prolific and having great runs in the GSL Code A/S. What I would like to know, and I would hypothesize it being true, is if this trend continues to follow a similar ratio throughout the entire index, only accounting for players still active as of December where these statistics were gathered from. Now go ahead, strawman this again, I know you will. The statistics for the winrate graphs have to come from somewhere. You know, players. If the top ELO was dominated by Terran that can explain why Terran subsequently dominates match-up statistics for the most part, but you're still at the same cross roads trying to elaborate why. Not very credible to pre-emptively lay down a response will be a strawman. But there's a very high chance it will be considering the previous posts >.> OK, that's valid but since I look at ELO as a measure of skill in all matchups, mirror does come into account. So considering the fact that mirror matchups will dilute whatever potential imbalance there is, the resulting calculations will be a more accurate indication of performance as a whole. Regarding imbalance, any cries of imbalance relating to these graphs is relating to a fear that eventually if trends continue imbalance would exist. These numbers aren’t static. They shift almost constantly with the metagame as newly discovered strategies spread through the community, and that heavily influences how they’re interpreted. Also, due to the way the math works out we will almost never see ratios of 50:50; we expect a variance of +/- 5% in these results. So, if a win/loss ratio is approximately 55%:45%, this would indicate that the matchup is well balanced—we expect those numbers to fluctuate within that range to some degree. Ratios just outside of that range are still within acceptable boundaries. It is only after win/loss ratios exceed 60%:40% that there is an indication that a potential imbalance might exist. We keep a sharp eye on these variations from day to day and week to week, staying constantly alert for where the numbers are changing and what the possible causes could be. It’s fairly common, for example, for a new strategy or build order to skew the numbers in favor of a particular race for a brief period, until the metagame catches up and the counter strategies spread through the community. From the balance team, source: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/3551858/StarCraft_II_Balance_Snapshot_-9_22_2011#blogSo disregarding April, the game has been in a state of overall balance. And even the April turn only reinforces the point of the article I provided. Directly after the amulet removal toss were in a depression, 1 month later with no balance patch the MU magically was buffed up 14%. So I feel ELO up to this point is determined more from player skill than it exists from a state of imbalance in the game overall.
This is what J is seeking:
Q.The match-making in the battle-net is designed so that players usually have around 50% win ratio in the ladder. How are you able to achieve that?
Hide Spoiler - A. (David Kim) All we can get are numbers. The match-making may be 50:50 overall, but PvT Matchup tends to be 65% Terran winning. There are other ways for us in calculating these numbers.
Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=297048
As for your posts, are you stating that the game was balanced and the better player won in the PvT matchup during the pre-1.4.2 period ?
|
On January 03 2012 04:21 Sabu113 wrote:This is what J is seeking: Q.The match-making in the battle-net is designed so that players usually have around 50% win ratio in the ladder. How are you able to achieve that? Hide Spoiler - A. (David Kim) All we can get are numbers. The match-making may be 50:50 overall, but PvT Matchup tends to be 65% Terran winning. There are other ways for us in calculating these numbers. Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=297048As for your posts, are you stating that the game was balanced and the better player won in the PvT matchup during the pre-1.4.2 period ?
Thats for korean GM only obviously.
|
Badfatpanda, what you are saying makes no sense.
The reason why players have high ELO is because they win a lot. Therefore, player ELO will be higher when their matchup is imbalanced in favour of their race. Therefore, using high ELO of a race to disprove race imbalance in that race's favour is completely illogical.
On January 03 2012 04:28 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:21 Sabu113 wrote:This is what J is seeking: Q.The match-making in the battle-net is designed so that players usually have around 50% win ratio in the ladder. How are you able to achieve that? Hide Spoiler - A. (David Kim) All we can get are numbers. The match-making may be 50:50 overall, but PvT Matchup tends to be 65% Terran winning. There are other ways for us in calculating these numbers. Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=297048As for your posts, are you stating that the game was balanced and the better player won in the PvT matchup during the pre-1.4.2 period ? Thats for korean GM only obviously.
No, it's not. Read the thread. In the top spoiler, he talks about the Korean GM in particular, but below that he's talking about Ladder in general. And yes, I know this was before 1.4.2, read the spoilered quote and you'll find Sabu was talking about pre-1.4.2
|
On January 03 2012 04:28 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:21 Sabu113 wrote:This is what J is seeking: Q.The match-making in the battle-net is designed so that players usually have around 50% win ratio in the ladder. How are you able to achieve that? Hide Spoiler - A. (David Kim) All we can get are numbers. The match-making may be 50:50 overall, but PvT Matchup tends to be 65% Terran winning. There are other ways for us in calculating these numbers. Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=297048As for your posts, are you stating that the game was balanced and the better player won in the PvT matchup during the pre-1.4.2 period ? Thats for korean GM only obviously.
ty sabu!!! but the interview is from october, so mighg not be true anymore...
and ad secretary bird: i cant find a line that says so. not sure why you think its "obvious", especially as noone knows how the MMR works, outside of blizzard.
|
On January 03 2012 04:30 SeaSwift wrote:Badfatpanda, what you are saying makes no sense. The reason why players have high ELO is because they win a lot. Therefore, player ELO will be higher when their matchup is imbalanced in favour of their race. Therefore, using high ELO of a race to disprove race imbalance in that race's favour is completely illogical. Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:28 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:21 Sabu113 wrote:This is what J is seeking: Q.The match-making in the battle-net is designed so that players usually have around 50% win ratio in the ladder. How are you able to achieve that? Hide Spoiler - A. (David Kim) All we can get are numbers. The match-making may be 50:50 overall, but PvT Matchup tends to be 65% Terran winning. There are other ways for us in calculating these numbers. Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=297048As for your posts, are you stating that the game was balanced and the better player won in the PvT matchup during the pre-1.4.2 period ? Thats for korean GM only obviously. No, it's not. Read the thread. In the top spoiler, he talks about the Korean GM in particular, but below that he's talking about Ladder in general. And yes, I know this was before 1.4.2, read the spoilered quote and you'll find Sabu was talking about pre-1.4.2
Of course it is look at the link for the balance snapshot how could it change from protoss favored overall to terrans winning 65% in such a short time with no changes.
|
|
|
On January 03 2012 04:33 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:30 SeaSwift wrote:Badfatpanda, what you are saying makes no sense. The reason why players have high ELO is because they win a lot. Therefore, player ELO will be higher when their matchup is imbalanced in favour of their race. Therefore, using high ELO of a race to disprove race imbalance in that race's favour is completely illogical. On January 03 2012 04:28 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:21 Sabu113 wrote:This is what J is seeking: Q.The match-making in the battle-net is designed so that players usually have around 50% win ratio in the ladder. How are you able to achieve that? Hide Spoiler - A. (David Kim) All we can get are numbers. The match-making may be 50:50 overall, but PvT Matchup tends to be 65% Terran winning. There are other ways for us in calculating these numbers. Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=297048As for your posts, are you stating that the game was balanced and the better player won in the PvT matchup during the pre-1.4.2 period ? Thats for korean GM only obviously. No, it's not. Read the thread. In the top spoiler, he talks about the Korean GM in particular, but below that he's talking about Ladder in general. And yes, I know this was before 1.4.2, read the spoilered quote and you'll find Sabu was talking about pre-1.4.2 Of course it is look at the link for the balance snapshot how could it change from protoss favored overall to terrans winning 65% in such a short time with no changes.
??? He didn't say it was Protoss favoured overall. He said "overall Protoss seems quite weak while Terran and Zerg seem about the same". I have no idea where you are getting this all from.
|
On January 03 2012 04:35 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:33 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:30 SeaSwift wrote:Badfatpanda, what you are saying makes no sense. The reason why players have high ELO is because they win a lot. Therefore, player ELO will be higher when their matchup is imbalanced in favour of their race. Therefore, using high ELO of a race to disprove race imbalance in that race's favour is completely illogical. On January 03 2012 04:28 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:21 Sabu113 wrote:This is what J is seeking: Q.The match-making in the battle-net is designed so that players usually have around 50% win ratio in the ladder. How are you able to achieve that? Hide Spoiler - A. (David Kim) All we can get are numbers. The match-making may be 50:50 overall, but PvT Matchup tends to be 65% Terran winning. There are other ways for us in calculating these numbers. Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=297048As for your posts, are you stating that the game was balanced and the better player won in the PvT matchup during the pre-1.4.2 period ? Thats for korean GM only obviously. No, it's not. Read the thread. In the top spoiler, he talks about the Korean GM in particular, but below that he's talking about Ladder in general. And yes, I know this was before 1.4.2, read the spoilered quote and you'll find Sabu was talking about pre-1.4.2 Of course it is look at the link for the balance snapshot how could it change from protoss favored overall to terrans winning 65% in such a short time with no changes. ??? He didn't say it was Protoss favoured overall. He said "overall Protoss seems quite weak while Terran and Zerg seem about the same". I have no idea where you are getting this all from.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/3551858/StarCraft_II_Balance_Snapshot_-9_22_2011#blog
|
Interesting. It looks like on ladder, at least, Zerg is underrepresented in almost every league. Is the race just not appealing to play as or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
