|
On January 03 2012 04:37 SeaSwift wrote: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?
I (and a lot of other Zergs I know) switched from Zerg because it can be very frustrating to play.
The statistics are nice to look at, but basically meaningless. BW has had much worse "imbalances" in match-ups that got fixed by people figuring out the game better, which is what Blizzard should do for SC2 (obviously after HotS there is going to need to be a good deal of balance patches, but they need to stop once the game gets relatively balanced and only patch something if it remains extremely strong for a LONG time), at least that's how I feel.
|
On January 03 2012 04:36 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:35 SeaSwift wrote: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
That was from ONE DAY. A quote: "adjusted win percentages from September 13th 2011".
From one day to the next, matchups probably to swing from being 1 race favoured to another race favoured, because of the small sample size.
|
On January 03 2012 03:44 NeonFox wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 03:38 Jermstuddog wrote: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.
Yes, -5 hp to the marine would be a massive nerf. But in my opinion, it is a massively OP unit.
I wouldn't mind if other buffs came along with it, such as +10 siege dmg vs armored.
Overall, Terran has held a fairly solid lead in winrates throughout the history of SC2. A nerf to the core unit in their army (which most agree is OP as fuck) would go a long way toward making the race more balanced.
We might even see a Terran buff eventually.
|
On January 03 2012 04:37 SeaSwift wrote: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?
Outside of korea zerg is very popular in the higher leagues I think.
|
On January 03 2012 04:39 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:37 SeaSwift wrote: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? Outside of korea zerg is very popular in the higher leagues I think.
jup, outside of korea terran is the least played race above silver and zerg and protoss are the most played races.
|
i find it completely ironic that the terran win rate in tvp increases after couplle nerfs.... the logic.
|
On January 03 2012 04:39 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:37 SeaSwift wrote: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? Outside of korea zerg is very popular in the higher leagues I think.
Interesting. Looks like you are right, seeing this one as well. Does Korea just not like Zerg? Maybe they feel there are less micro possibilities/cheese wins or something? I know that ever since Boxer Korea has placed far more importance on unit control/early pressure strategies, with less stigma towards "cheese" than foreigners.
|
On January 03 2012 04:39 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:36 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:35 SeaSwift wrote: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 That was from ONE DAY. A quote: "adjusted win percentages from September 13th 2011". From one day to the next, matchups probably to swing from being 1 race favoured to another race favoured, because of the small sample size.
No its not they explain that adjusted win percentages are calculated on the basis of millions of games or at least a lot and if what you say would be true making those stats public would make 0 sense.
|
On the NA masters ladders as a P, vs T i get all in'd over half the time
Anytime i gate FE its instant mass scv pull, which guarantees a win, cause 1 stalker 1 zealot 1 sentry + probes (or any combination of units at such an early point) loses vs 6 rines plus all those scvs
|
On January 03 2012 04:37 SeaSwift wrote: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?
CLEARLY YOU DONT PLAY THIS GAME.
As u can see its in korea. Terrans have vanished from ladder completely outside of korea. out of 10 games the absolute majority will be against protoss and zerg outside of bronze league.
Anyway, as with all stats i take them with a grain of salt, Even if the game was balanced, it would still never be 50/50% because these stats have to also account for player skill . In sure in broodwar the race win % 's go up and down per month too. Do they cry imba each time?
|
On January 03 2012 04:44 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:39 SeaSwift wrote:On January 03 2012 04:36 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:35 SeaSwift wrote: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 That was from ONE DAY. A quote: "adjusted win percentages from September 13th 2011". From one day to the next, matchups probably to swing from being 1 race favoured to another race favoured, because of the small sample size. No its not they explain that adjusted win percentages are calculated on the basis of millions of games or at least a lot and if what you say would be true making those stats public would make 0 sense.
They explain that adjusted win percentages in general are on the basis of millions of games. For one day, the win percentages will not be an accurate representation of overall balance over a month.
|
On January 03 2012 04:39 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:36 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:35 SeaSwift wrote: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 That was from ONE DAY. A quote: "adjusted win percentages from September 13th 2011". From one day to the next, matchups probably to swing from being 1 race favoured to another race favoured, because of the small sample size.
And yet it applies to their entire philosophy on balance. better yet, that is taken from LADDER statistics that encourages a 50% win ratio, which would only aid these statistics in proving the skill of player. You honestly don't think they thought on Sept 13 that they magically cooked up this philosophy on balance, and as you see I provided analysis of the entire year, I DIDN'T USE THOSE STATISTICS. I used the graphs. Come on
|
On January 03 2012 04:41 OpTiKDream wrote:
i find it completely ironic that the terran win rate in tvp increases after couplle nerfs.... the logic.
That's because the nerf wasn't such a big deal at all, even with all the cries it brought with him.
|
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.
When have we cared about anything else? I am talking about watchability and balance at that level. Kim vindicated the claims that the game really was broken during those months.
|
why are people arguing about balance on ladder? I highly doubt there is imbalance on ladder games
if you are bronze/silver/plat/diamond or whatever, thats probably accurate of your skill level
|
On January 03 2012 04:37 SeaSwift wrote: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?
it's just kr/tai
|
On January 03 2012 04:53 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:44 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:39 SeaSwift wrote:On January 03 2012 04:36 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:35 SeaSwift wrote: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 That was from ONE DAY. A quote: "adjusted win percentages from September 13th 2011". From one day to the next, matchups probably to swing from being 1 race favoured to another race favoured, because of the small sample size. No its not they explain that adjusted win percentages are calculated on the basis of millions of games or at least a lot and if what you say would be true making those stats public would make 0 sense. They explain that adjusted win percentages in general are on the basis of millions of games. For one day, the win percentages will not be an accurate representation of overall balance over a month.
Are you kidding me? Its implied that these are the adjusted win percentages over a longer period of time but the date is given so people like us who look it up at a later time realize they could have changed since then.
I'm sorry that you dont want to accept this fact but its really quite obvious.
|
On January 03 2012 04:59 Sabu113 wrote: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. When have we cared about anything else? I am talking about watchability and balance at that level. Kim vindicated the claims that the game really was broken during those months.
If anyone doesnt take ladder seriously at all its korean GM players though.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On January 03 2012 04:59 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:53 SeaSwift wrote:On January 03 2012 04:44 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:39 SeaSwift wrote:On January 03 2012 04:36 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:35 SeaSwift wrote: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 That was from ONE DAY. A quote: "adjusted win percentages from September 13th 2011". From one day to the next, matchups probably to swing from being 1 race favoured to another race favoured, because of the small sample size. No its not they explain that adjusted win percentages are calculated on the basis of millions of games or at least a lot and if what you say would be true making those stats public would make 0 sense. They explain that adjusted win percentages in general are on the basis of millions of games. For one day, the win percentages will not be an accurate representation of overall balance over a month. Are you kidding me? Its implied that these are the adjusted win percentages over a longer period of time but the date is given so people like us who look it up at a later time realize they could have changed since then. I'm sorry that you dont want to accept this fact but its really quite obvious.
Now that you might have a clearer idea regarding what they are, we'd like to share some recent adjusted win percentages from September 13th 2011 for North America, Europe and Korea.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not really good at english, but I understand this sentence as "we took september 13th win percentages" and not as "we took from an unknown date to september 13th win percentages"
Anyways, the day where we will balance the game around ladder results will be a really sad day
|
On January 03 2012 05:06 pPingu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:59 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:53 SeaSwift wrote:On January 03 2012 04:44 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:39 SeaSwift wrote:On January 03 2012 04:36 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 04:35 SeaSwift wrote: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:
[quote]
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 That was from ONE DAY. A quote: "adjusted win percentages from September 13th 2011". From one day to the next, matchups probably to swing from being 1 race favoured to another race favoured, because of the small sample size. No its not they explain that adjusted win percentages are calculated on the basis of millions of games or at least a lot and if what you say would be true making those stats public would make 0 sense. They explain that adjusted win percentages in general are on the basis of millions of games. For one day, the win percentages will not be an accurate representation of overall balance over a month. Are you kidding me? Its implied that these are the adjusted win percentages over a longer period of time but the date is given so people like us who look it up at a later time realize they could have changed since then. I'm sorry that you dont want to accept this fact but its really quite obvious. Show nested quote +Now that you might have a clearer idea regarding what they are, we'd like to share some recent adjusted win percentages from September 13th 2011 for North America, Europe and Korea. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not really good at english, but I understand this sentence as "we took september 13th win percentages" and not as "we took from an unknown date to september 13th win percentages" Anyways, the day where we will balance the game around ladder results will be a really sad day
If you read the explanation for adjusted win percentages and/or think about why on earth they would make those win percentages public if they were based on a meaningless amount of games you will probably come to the same conclusion I did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
