|
Hi Guys,
Figured I'd post this months stats myself since it's a somewhat special update; we now have the stats for a full year of 2011!
This album contains both the combined International charts and Korea only, as well as color blind versions. In this update I have also added (approximate) patch markers. As always I appreciate feedback!
http://imgur.com/a/3yZUQ
All in all there are almost 40.000 games recorded in 2011 in TLPD. These charts contain most of them (mirrors are removed of course). In the combined chart the sample size is quite decent, and should give a good picture what the actual win rates where during the year.
As always these stats have little or no bearing on ladder play, they only contain professional league and tournament results. They also do not give any insight into the actual balance of gameplay, only what race managed to secure the most wins.
I would like to thank all the people who work hard adding these stats to TLPD. You are doing a great service to the community creating an amazing resource for doing things like this! (Now get that backlog for 2011 done!  )
Also, thanks to the entire Starcraft community for making 2011 an amazing year!
|
Awesome. Thanks for all your work in 2011.
|
TvZ seems to be moving towards 50/50 in recent months which is good.
PvZ also seems to be the same.
I'm kinda curious how did the PvT gap widen after the EMP nerf......
|
Why did TvP become more Terran favored after the EMP nerf? -.-
Other than that, it looks like the winratios are going in the right direction.
|
THis atually looks really, really good! Gj bliz
|
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
|
TvP is back up a bit into terran's favor because more terrans started allin-ing I believe. It's definitely not because every T's gotten better, late game is still a big problem for many.
|
^^ I Auto-all in vs P every single game after 1.4.2
Either way in korea its 52% T to 48% P
|
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO.
|
i dont feel like terrans allin more. imo rather less than prepatch.
the only thing i noticed in pvt is that more and more terrans realized that they can use a ability called personal cloaking and then snipe your obs with vikings and emp simply everything.
|
On January 02 2012 20:30 MilesTeg wrote:
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO.
Some people like MC had good runs. That is the only reason it went up.
|
On January 02 2012 20:30 MilesTeg wrote:
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO.
It is actually still favoring zerg....
|
On January 02 2012 20:32 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:30 MilesTeg wrote:
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO. Some people like MC had good runs. That is the only reason it went up.
Which should immediately scream that these statistics shouldn't be taken as particularly useful, if one player can flip who the matchup favours.
|
On January 02 2012 20:33 Harstem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:30 MilesTeg wrote:
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO. It is actually still favoring zerg....
Not in Korea it's not.
I wonder why TvP has gotten MORE T favored even after the EMP nerf. Perhaps Protoss' have been extra careful cramming as much units in the smallest area possible so their army still gets blanketed by 4 EMP's?
|
Terran started dominating late game TvP with ghost/viking and protoss reintroduced the turtle-to-mothership back to PvZ. Zergs are starting to deal with motherships much better, though I've yet to see a convincing answer to late game terran from any protoss.
|
It looks good enough, I expect they are mostly looking at points they can tackle for HotS - colossi reliance, MMM dominating from start to finish, mutalisks being too good when massed.
Cheese tends to get weaker over time and tosses were being cheesed A LOT in ZvP and TvP, so no wonder their winrates go up.
|
Why is in this graph the overall international win rate is showing terran at 50 something percent for novmber? while it was at 49 when the november graph was released last month. also why is pvt 52% to 48% in this version for november while last month it was reading 45% T to 55% P?? are these the same graphs done by the same person or different? has the numbers been changed?
|
On January 02 2012 20:35 Chaosvuistje wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:33 Harstem wrote:On January 02 2012 20:30 MilesTeg wrote:
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO. It is actually still favoring zerg.... Not in Korea it's not. I wonder why TvP has gotten MORE T favored even after the EMP nerf. Perhaps Protoss' have been extra careful cramming as much units in the smallest area possible so their army still gets blanketed by 4 EMP's?
I'm not terribly surprised. I think in the P v T matchup, Terran strategy is by far less developed than the Protoss strategy in this matchup. Terrans haven't needed to innovate in a long time, only refining current builds. With Protoss winning a few games, we have strategy being explored by Terrans, so we're going to start seeing metagame shifts back and forth in the coming months.
|
On January 02 2012 20:39 DaveVAH wrote:
Why is in this graph the overall international win rate is showing terran at 50 something percent for novmber? while it was at 49 when the november graph was released last month. also why is pvt 52% to 48% in this version for november while last month it was reading 45% T to 55% P?? are these the same graphs done by the same person or different? has the numbers been changed?
Same person, but more games have been added to TLPD since then, because not all games are added to TLPD as soon as they are played out. There is normally a delay.
Thanks again, Ctuchik. Is your name by any chance taken from the Belgariad by Eddings?
|
Can't wait for another terran nerf. TvP gets harder and harder every day for T for non GM/top masters players, but b/c Pros are getting it done we gonna get nerfed more. Additionally I get bm'ed by every P at start assuming I'm going to cheese or 111 when I don't. I guess I should join the crowd if I'm already being blamed right?
|
Most TvP games never see the lategame because terrans have realized that early aggression is superior to greedy play which makes you vulnerable to protoss all ins without creating a sufficient advantage for the terran player.
|
On January 02 2012 20:30 MilesTeg wrote:
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO.
Holy shit ! After 8 months protoss do beat zerg ! Better call the balance team !
|
On January 02 2012 20:13 HaXXspetten wrote:
Why did TvP become more Terran favored after the EMP nerf? -.-
Other than that, it looks like the winratios are going in the right direction.
I think Terrans just stopped freaking out about it. It only took a single month of a slight Protoss statistical advantage for a bunch of them to start preaching the end of the world, and now it's swung back again. Hilarious.
|
On January 02 2012 20:42 secretary bird wrote:
Most TvP games never see the lategame because terrans have realized that early aggression is superior to greedy play which makes you vulnerable to protoss all ins without creating a sufficient advantage for the terran player.
Agreed. There seems to be a myth going round that the 1-1-1 has been "solved", and it is impossible to pressure Protoss early on. There are still a ton of all-ins which Terran can do, and Protoss basically cannot go Nexus first any more because there are so many ways to abuse it (see: Puma vs HerO Game 6 DHW, HuK vs Keen GSL Code A). MVP has shown that while the Puma 1-1-1 is no longer as effective, Marine/Tank based pushes still crush in the early game, even against the likes of MC.
Then there are Mech/Air TvP attacks in the midgame, like in Jjakji vs Oz (GSL Ro4).
|
On January 02 2012 20:34 Dragar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:32 Silidons wrote:On January 02 2012 20:30 MilesTeg wrote:
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO. Some people like MC had good runs. That is the only reason it went up. Which should immediately scream that these statistics shouldn't be taken as particularly useful, if one player can flip who the matchup favours.
Eh, I don't think you two have actually taken any time to think about this. Take out MC's game and you would not get drastically different results. But please continue to disregard any stats based on feelings.
|
On January 02 2012 20:35 Elwar wrote:
Terran started dominating late game TvP with ghost/viking and protoss reintroduced the turtle-to-mothership back to PvZ. Zergs are starting to deal with motherships much better, though I've yet to see a convincing answer to late game terran from any protoss.
I like this kind of ridiculous generalization. We've not seen THAT many games ending with a mothership PvZ...
|
On January 02 2012 20:48 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:34 Dragar wrote:On January 02 2012 20:32 Silidons wrote:On January 02 2012 20:30 MilesTeg wrote:
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO. Some people like MC had good runs. That is the only reason it went up. Which should immediately scream that these statistics shouldn't be taken as particularly useful, if one player can flip who the matchup favours. Eh, I don't think you two have actually taken any time to think about this. Take out MC's game and you would not get drastically different results. But please continue to disregard any stats based on feelings.
While MC's games alone might not make a dramatic shift in the graph, it's more the trendsetting which will change winrates. For example, MC showed that Gateway armies can be used to attack Terran when nobody thought you could. He showed the power of Sentries early-midgame. He made Stargate work against Zerg, and prompted a bunch of other players to do similar styles. Basically, he blazed a trail for other Protoss players to win. Hence, when he fell from grace (and Code B), the whole Protoss winrate fell too, showing that without innovative leaders and inspiration it would be harder to win. No other Protoss has changed the metagame so absolutely over such a long period.
The same thing could be said about Nestea, but I don't think the same thing can be said of any Terran: While MVP is clearly the best Terran and has innovated quite a bit, I don't think MVP blazed a trail in hard times for his race at all (possibly because Terran has never seen any "hard times" in terms of winrates...)
|
Germany1287 Posts
Thanks, Ctuchik!
Also, in the upcoming January episode, graphs for Sep/Oct/Nov will probably change a bit once more, as there still is quite a backlog of games for these months.
|
On January 02 2012 20:42 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:39 DaveVAH wrote:
Why is in this graph the overall international win rate is showing terran at 50 something percent for novmber? while it was at 49 when the november graph was released last month. also why is pvt 52% to 48% in this version for november while last month it was reading 45% T to 55% P?? are these the same graphs done by the same person or different? has the numbers been changed? Same person, but more games have been added to TLPD since then, because not all games are added to TLPD as soon as they are played out. There is normally a delay. Thanks again, Ctuchik. Is your name by any chance taken from the Belgariad by Eddings?
Yup, quite a few games have been added to those months.
I think it might be yeah. Picked it up ages ago and I honestly don't remember. 
|
Haha, standard.
Glad other Terrans have just decided to just all in until TvP gets fixed.
3rax + stim + vacs + scvs ftw!
|
Korean stats are the only that ought to matter, and fairly balanced. Zerg having the worst winrates, but with the highest skill ceiling for Z I do not see any problem with this. Zerg will in some month's come up on top without patches.
|
On January 02 2012 20:45 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:42 secretary bird wrote:
Most TvP games never see the lategame because terrans have realized that early aggression is superior to greedy play which makes you vulnerable to protoss all ins without creating a sufficient advantage for the terran player. Agreed. There seems to be a myth going round that the 1-1-1 has been "solved", and it is impossible to pressure Protoss early on. There are still a ton of all-ins which Terran can do, and Protoss basically cannot go Nexus first any more because there are so many ways to abuse it (see: Puma vs HerO Game 6 DHW, HuK vs Keen GSL Code A). MVP has shown that while the Puma 1-1-1 is no longer as effective, Marine/Tank based pushes still crush in the early game, even against the likes of MC. Then there are Mech/Air TvP attacks in the midgame, like in Jjakji vs Oz (GSL Ro4).
Well the fact stands that a build that earlier almost felt like a autowin for Terran now is beatable if you know it's coming.
We have seen alot of people beat the 1-1-1 lately, It's still a strong build, but it's been figured out.
Also if Terran goes CC first against P, protoss can abuse it in as many ways as a Nexus first. It's a greedy build on most maps without sufficient Intel.
I still feel that huge timing pushes/allins are the best way to play as T, which makes for less enjoyable games. But atleast when watching pros the matchups feels better now then it felt months ago.
On January 02 2012 20:43 Severian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:13 HaXXspetten wrote:
Why did TvP become more Terran favored after the EMP nerf? -.-
Other than that, it looks like the winratios are going in the right direction. I think Terrans just stopped freaking out about it. It only took a single month of a slight Protoss statistical advantage for a bunch of them to start preaching the end of the world, and now it's swung back again. Hilarious.
I'd rather say that the EMP weakened T's lategame against P even more, making more people do allins which prove to be effective more often and that resulted in stats going up for T again.
|
On January 02 2012 20:09 Tishe wrote:
TvZ seems to be moving towards 50/50 in recent months which is good.
PvZ also seems to be the same.
I'm kinda curious how did the PvT gap widen after the EMP nerf......
Cause before the nerf Terran players got lazy and relied only on mass EMPing the P army and just stimpacking through it after.
With the nerf that got alot harder so T players are starting to use heavy drop styles a lot more which are really good vs early-midgame Protoss.
|
is it safe to say 2011 was the year of terran?
|
On January 02 2012 20:43 Severian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:13 HaXXspetten wrote:
Why did TvP become more Terran favored after the EMP nerf? -.-
Other than that, it looks like the winratios are going in the right direction. I think Terrans just stopped freaking out about it. It only took a single month of a slight Protoss statistical advantage for a bunch of them to start preaching the end of the world, and now it's swung back again. Hilarious.
Don't forget the massive QQ because of the protoss upgrade "buffs" xD
|
On January 02 2012 20:33 Harstem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:30 MilesTeg wrote:
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO. It is actually still favoring zerg....
Uhm, at top level it is 55% winrate for P, 45% winrate for Z?
|
On January 02 2012 21:08 mvtaylor wrote:
Haha, standard.
Glad other Terrans have just decided to just all in until TvP gets fixed.
3rax + stim + vacs + scvs ftw!
How juvenile, the matchup has statistically been in Terran favour for all but 2 months this year. You just need to adapt to patch and meta-game changes like everybody else.
|
Ps expand faster in PvZ and get better with harass instead of allin every game and suddenly the MU is even... just feels good to be right after all that time. now remove mutaheaven TDA from all mappools and wait for the MU to evolve into something good.
for T... kind of sad to see T still up that strong. after all that nerfs one would expect terran winrates to swing around 50% just like the should... still we see them dominate. even the last months graphs have turned out to be proterran (like all the other months).
i seriously think terran should not get nerfed anymore, but just get cut down in possibilities a little. at least for their openings. it just feels like T would be fine if it wasnt for P/Z losing/getting behind against cheeses that look like standard macro BOs all the time and can't be properly scouted in the first 6mins.
|
On January 02 2012 21:25 HowardRoark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:33 Harstem wrote:On January 02 2012 20:30 MilesTeg wrote:
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO. It is actually still favoring zerg.... Uhm, at top level it is 55% winrate for P, 45% winrate for Z?
In korea which has 429 games vs 2274 games Internationally.
I'd say international is a more reliable graph, international it is 50,3% zerg 49,7% protoss.
Even if the winrate gets P favored, who cares? Zerg has been favored in this matchup for 8 months in a row.
|
On January 02 2012 21:15 Zorgaz wrote:
We have seen alot of people beat the 1-1-1 lately, It's still a strong build, but it's been figured out.
did we? i don't recall many 1-1-1's at higher levels recently. as far as i know there still isn't a go-to build to counter it, maybe to allin before terran allins but that's nothing new
MC's weird one base stargate into 3-4 gate into dt shrine is still the only "counter build" i've heard of and i've seen him failing with it as much as succeeding
on my level i can beat it but i'm curious about the highest level, afaik it's still unique in the sense that u can know it's coming for 5 minutes and still there isn't a safe counter build.
|
On January 02 2012 21:27 Troublesome wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 21:08 mvtaylor wrote:
Haha, standard.
Glad other Terrans have just decided to just all in until TvP gets fixed.
3rax + stim + vacs + scvs ftw! How juvenile, the matchup has statistically been in Terran favour for all but 2 months this year. You just need to adapt to patch and meta-game changes like everybody else.
If everyone starts doing allins when previously they weren't it is an adaptation to meta-game and patch changes...
Also, I'm curious how december has 2000 games played. There were barely any tournaments played this month, or did I miss something?
|
On January 02 2012 21:23 Kvz wrote:
is it safe to say 2011 was the year of terran?
I'd say so. Getting always the highest winning %, while getting nerfed over and over. We're finaly approaching balance which is nice. I'd nerf them a bit more tho, they don't really know what "struggling" means 
+ Show Spoiler +
|
France12875 Posts
On January 02 2012 20:42 Kenshi235 wrote:
Can't wait for another terran nerf. TvP gets harder and harder every day for T for non GM/top masters players, but b/c Pros are getting it done we gonna get nerfed more. Additionally I get bm'ed by every P at start assuming I'm going to cheese or 111 when I don't. I guess I should join the crowd if I'm already being blamed right?
Pros are not getting it down, I guess the koreans like PuMa etc who travels for NASL and stuff changes the international winrates ^^
|
On January 02 2012 21:27 Big J wrote:
kind of sad to see T still up that strong. after all that nerfs one would expect terran winrates to swing around 50% just like the should... still we see them dominate.
Well, isn't the word dominate too strong a word for something this balanced? At top level T: 52%, P:51% and Z:45%. I would not call that domination, but really good balancing (if looking at pure winrates). You are aware when you look at the graph that it does not show winrates from 0% to 100% but the range is from 40 to 60%. It therefore can look more than it actually is. You wont be able to get much closer than this IMO, but sure, Z at 45 is a bit low on top level, but with the highest skill ceiling these numbers will even out more if Bliz doesn't patch anymore.
|
On January 02 2012 21:38 HowardRoark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 21:27 Big J wrote:
kind of sad to see T still up that strong. after all that nerfs one would expect terran winrates to swing around 50% just like the should... still we see them dominate. Well, isn't the word dominate too strong a word for something this balanced? At top level T: 52%, P:51% and Z:45%. I would not call that domination, but really good balancing (if looking at pure winrates). You are aware when you look at the graph that it does not show winrates from 0% to 100% but the range is from 40 to 60%. It therefore can look more than it actually is. You wont be able to get much closer than this IMO, but sure, Z at 45 is a bit low on top level, but with the highest skill ceiling these numbers will even out more if Bliz doesn't patch anymore.
Individual matchups are more important to look at than the overall win rates for balance.
|
On January 02 2012 21:29 Jakkerr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 21:25 HowardRoark wrote:On January 02 2012 20:33 Harstem wrote:On January 02 2012 20:30 MilesTeg wrote:
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO. It is actually still favoring zerg.... Uhm, at top level it is 55% winrate for P, 45% winrate for Z? In korea which has 429 games vs 2274 games Internationally. I'd say international is a more reliable graph, international it is 50,3% zerg 49,7% protoss. Even if the winrate gets P favored, who cares? Zerg has been favored in this matchup for 8 months in a row.
agree. Korea has had rougly 100 pvzs this month. it statistically wacky. the MU looks good statistically speaking and also from how we have people seen performing.
but well... i care about balance (as a zerg i have also cared about P balance as it was annoying seeing P clueless how to deal in macro ways with 3hatxh openings). especially as P has hardly been buffed and Z not being nerfed to achieve this balanced state. it was a metagame thing.
|
On January 02 2012 21:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 21:29 Jakkerr wrote:On January 02 2012 21:25 HowardRoark wrote:On January 02 2012 20:33 Harstem wrote:On January 02 2012 20:30 MilesTeg wrote:
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO. It is actually still favoring zerg.... Uhm, at top level it is 55% winrate for P, 45% winrate for Z? In korea which has 429 games vs 2274 games Internationally. I'd say international is a more reliable graph, international it is 50,3% zerg 49,7% protoss. Even if the winrate gets P favored, who cares? Zerg has been favored in this matchup for 8 months in a row. agree. Korea has had rougly 100 pvzs this month. it statistically wacky. the MU looks good statistically speaking and also from how we have people seen performing. but well... i care about balance (as a zerg i have also cared about P balance as it was annoying seeing P clueless how to deal in macro ways with 3hatxh openings). especially as P has hardly been buffed and Z not being nerfed to achieve this balanced state. it was a metagame thing.
off course, i'm not saying it would be fair if P gets favored in PvZ now :p.
But I thought it was a bit hypocritical that some guy started whining about the PvZ winrate getting close to P favored for the first time since 8 months.
|
On January 02 2012 21:38 HowardRoark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 21:27 Big J wrote:
kind of sad to see T still up that strong. after all that nerfs one would expect terran winrates to swing around 50% just like the should... still we see them dominate. Well, isn't the word dominate too strong a word for something this balanced? At top level T: 52%, P:51% and Z:45%. I would not call that domination, but really good balancing (if looking at pure winrates). You are aware when you look at the graph that it does not show winrates from 0% to 100% but the range is from 40 to 60%. It therefore can look more than it actually is. You wont be able to get much closer than this IMO, but sure, Z at 45 is a bit low on top level, but with the highest skill ceiling these numbers will even out more if Bliz doesn't patch anymore.
well i guess dominate is a too strong word this month. i would just like to see terran have this kind of metagame swinging like it should be. p are being really creative these days and have a really strong macro standard build (double forge) yet we still see terran being better off... it's just looks too easy right now for terrans to adapt... it looks like without any new macrogame inventions in TvP Terran is still up which kind of bugs me, as i like it when the race with the newer style gets rewarded for developing.
|
I checked the november stats from TLPD and they differ from the december one?The November stats PVT was 55 to 45, in the december stats is the PVT stats for november is 50.5 to 49.5? Same with PVZ and so on? Is there something wrong or did i understand the stats wrong?
|
On January 02 2012 20:39 DaveVAH wrote:
Why is in this graph the overall international win rate is showing terran at 50 something percent for novmber? while it was at 49 when the november graph was released last month. also why is pvt 52% to 48% in this version for november while last month it was reading 45% T to 55% P?? are these the same graphs done by the same person or different? has the numbers been changed?
That is what i was trying to say! I think the numbers are wrong on this one!
|
On January 02 2012 21:52 DerFreemind wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:39 DaveVAH wrote:
Why is in this graph the overall international win rate is showing terran at 50 something percent for novmber? while it was at 49 when the november graph was released last month. also why is pvt 52% to 48% in this version for november while last month it was reading 45% T to 55% P?? are these the same graphs done by the same person or different? has the numbers been changed? That is what i was trying to say ! I think the numbers are wrong on this one!
Please READ the thread before you post. Sorry if this counts as backseat moderation, but there are answers to your question on Page 1 AND Page 2.
Here:
On January 02 2012 20:42 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:39 DaveVAH wrote:
Why is in this graph the overall international win rate is showing terran at 50 something percent for novmber? while it was at 49 when the november graph was released last month. also why is pvt 52% to 48% in this version for november while last month it was reading 45% T to 55% P?? are these the same graphs done by the same person or different? has the numbers been changed? Same person, but more games have been added to TLPD since then, because not all games are added to TLPD as soon as they are played out. There is normally a delay. Thanks again, Ctuchik. Is your name by any chance taken from the Belgariad by Eddings?
On January 02 2012 21:07 Ctuchik wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:42 SeaSwift wrote:On January 02 2012 20:39 DaveVAH wrote:
Why is in this graph the overall international win rate is showing terran at 50 something percent for novmber? while it was at 49 when the november graph was released last month. also why is pvt 52% to 48% in this version for november while last month it was reading 45% T to 55% P?? are these the same graphs done by the same person or different? has the numbers been changed? Same person, but more games have been added to TLPD since then, because not all games are added to TLPD as soon as they are played out. There is normally a delay. Thanks again, Ctuchik. Is your name by any chance taken from the Belgariad by Eddings? Yup, quite a few games have been added to those months. I think it might be yeah. Picked it up ages ago and I honestly don't remember.
I think it's safe to say that there's no reason to believe the graphs are wrong.
|
On January 02 2012 21:52 DerFreemind wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:39 DaveVAH wrote:
Why is in this graph the overall international win rate is showing terran at 50 something percent for novmber? while it was at 49 when the november graph was released last month. also why is pvt 52% to 48% in this version for november while last month it was reading 45% T to 55% P?? are these the same graphs done by the same person or different? has the numbers been changed? That is what i was trying to say ! I think the numbers are wrong on this one!
its been updated. i think it's somewhere in the OP.
some gameresults/tournamentresults seem to be late. (and these stats are really early... Jan 2nd...)
|
On January 02 2012 21:47 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 21:38 HowardRoark wrote:On January 02 2012 21:27 Big J wrote:
kind of sad to see T still up that strong. after all that nerfs one would expect terran winrates to swing around 50% just like the should... still we see them dominate. Well, isn't the word dominate too strong a word for something this balanced? At top level T: 52%, P:51% and Z:45%. I would not call that domination, but really good balancing (if looking at pure winrates). You are aware when you look at the graph that it does not show winrates from 0% to 100% but the range is from 40 to 60%. It therefore can look more than it actually is. You wont be able to get much closer than this IMO, but sure, Z at 45 is a bit low on top level, but with the highest skill ceiling these numbers will even out more if Bliz doesn't patch anymore. well i guess dominate is a too strong word this month. i would just like to see terran have this kind of metagame swinging like it should be. p are being really creative these days and have a really strong macro standard build (double forge) yet we still see terran being better off... it's just looks too easy right now for terrans to adapt... it looks like without any new macrogame inventions in TvP Terran is still up which kind of bugs me, as i like it when the race with the newer style gets rewarded for developing. ITT: Your general protoss player thinking that these graphs have any correlation with their ladder experience when it's a well-known fact that the micro required to play terran at the highest level is hardly seen outside of korea ( only Juan in NA?LOL).All I see every day is more terrans switching.
|
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework.
|
On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework.
Completely agree. All-ins are still really good as Terran, but Protoss is favoured slightly in passive macro games. Terran has a higher skill requirement, but also a higher skill ceiling, whereas Protoss has a lower skill requirement but a lower skill ceiling, too.
I don't think the matchup will get any better until HotS.
|
On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework.
If by gold level scrubs you mean the entire low to mid masters in EU and NA I totally agree with you.
|
Awesome, thanks for adding the patch note markers at the top helps a lot.
Interesting to see P has gone down a tiny bit again also.
|
On January 02 2012 22:02 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework. Completely agree. All-ins are still really good as Terran, but Protoss is favoured slightly in passive macro games. Terran has a higher skill requirement, but also a higher skill ceiling, whereas Protoss has a lower skill requirement but a lower skill ceiling, too. I don't think the matchup will get any better until HotS.
imo terran skill requirement is rather low compared to Ps... only judging from offracing both, but my terran is way better than my Protoss...
|
Ok i see. But i still think there could be something wrong. In November there were 25900 games played, terran was 10 % behind toss. Same for PVZ! In December we have 27153 game, only 1300 games more! So the question is, how many game must have be added and all those games have to be terran wins against toss and Toss wins against Zerg....looks somewhat strange to me?! 10% is alot in terms of balancing?!
|
On January 02 2012 22:08 DerFreemind wrote:
Ok i see. But i still think there could be something wrong. In November there were 25900 games played, terran was 10 % behind toss. Same for PVZ! In December we have 27153 game, only 1300 games more! So the question is, how many game must have be added and all those games have to be terran wins against toss and Toss wins against Zerg....looks somewhat strange to me?! 10% is alot in terms of balancing?!
November's graph is here: http://i.imgur.com/qphvw.png
There were some minor changes (especially in PvT), but nothing too big. I'm glad you are examining the stats with a critical mind though!
|
If anything balance is better than last month because 43% wins for Zerg was a little low.
I call bullshit on terrans dominating TvP because of 52% btw.
|
On January 02 2012 22:22 secretary bird wrote:
If anything balance is better than last month because 43% wins for Zerg was a little low.
I call bullshit on terrans dominating TvP because of 52% btw.
whatu shuld call bs on is terran recently whining about tvp tbh
|
On January 02 2012 20:54 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:35 Elwar wrote:
Terran started dominating late game TvP with ghost/viking and protoss reintroduced the turtle-to-mothership back to PvZ. Zergs are starting to deal with motherships much better, though I've yet to see a convincing answer to late game terran from any protoss. I like this kind of ridiculous generalization. We've not seen THAT many games ending with a mothership PvZ...
Of course its a ridiculous generalization. I was ascribing single metagame changes to a minor balance shift over a large generalised pool of games. Although I disagree we haven't seen that many games ending with a mothership in PvZ in games that go to the late-game. Of course most ZvPs are all-ins from one player or the other, but mothership off 3-4 bases for those games that go to maxed armies is back in a huge way. Like nearly every game a protoss can afford it, they get it.
|
On January 02 2012 20:34 Dragar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:32 Silidons wrote:On January 02 2012 20:30 MilesTeg wrote:
PvZ favouring Protoss again, I can't say I'm surprised. It's only going to get worse IMO. Some people like MC had good runs. That is the only reason it went up. Which should immediately scream that these statistics shouldn't be taken as particularly useful, if one player can flip who the matchup favours.
well hell that's how I've felt about TLPD statistics since I first saw them.
|
If by gold level scrubs you mean the entire low to mid masters in EU and NA I totally agree with you.
Yea
|
terran player performance is better.
not a balance issue.
|
On January 02 2012 22:23 sopas wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 22:22 secretary bird wrote:
If anything balance is better than last month because 43% wins for Zerg was a little low.
I call bullshit on terrans dominating TvP because of 52% btw. whatu shuld call bs on is terran recently whining about tvp tbh
We all know what this thread looked like when terran had 55% instead of protoss like last month though.
|
Hey man, we really appreciate these stats. Thanks so much for your hard work every month to get these out.
|
On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework.
So they should change the match up so you can miss your EMPs and lose your vikings, but still win the fight? I don't think they should change the game to make easier. Now if you want to talk about the PvT match up being to unstable for both sides, that's a discussion worth having. That match up is filled with one sided victories due to one missed forced field, emp, storm, stim or blink.
|
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.
|
On January 02 2012 20:32 ShoWTimE94 wrote:
i dont feel like terrans allin more. imo rather less than prepatch.
the only thing i noticed in pvt is that more and more terrans realized that they can use a ability called personal cloaking and then snipe your obs with vikings and emp simply everything.
Can only say that most pro terrans that I watch streaming seem to just always do soem kind of allin against protoss. The trend I've been noticing is the 2 base big brother of 111, same combination of units, just now with stim and more slowpushing(starting a bit further back that is).
|
On January 02 2012 22:47 Badfatpanda wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I agree with most of this, but Skymech is definitely seeing a resurgence for particularly strong timing attacks (see: Jjakji's TvP). I don't know if this counts as skymech, but MKP in particular loves going 1-1-1 with Hellions/Medivacs in TvP.
|
On January 02 2012 22:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework. So they should change the match up so you can miss your EMPs and lose your vikings, but still win the fight? I don't think they should change the game to make easier. Now if you want to talk about the PvT match up being to unstable for both sides, that's a discussion worth having. That match up is filled with one sided victories due to one missed forced field, emp, storm, stim or blink.
The win ratio of 30 zealots with 3/3 and charge seems pretty solid to me, there's a reason why a PvT monster like Polt says that he feels like he has to either 14cc or 1/1/1 against random ladder scrubs in the new big maps.
|
because people finally get that you don't just add 1 ghost to your army as they did before but MASS them 100% of toss army emped even if a lot get killed...
|
On January 02 2012 22:47 Badfatpanda wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On January 02 2012 22:55 R!! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 22:47 Plansix wrote:On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework. So they should change the match up so you can miss your EMPs and lose your vikings, but still win the fight? I don't think they should change the game to make easier. Now if you want to talk about the PvT match up being to unstable for both sides, that's a discussion worth having. That match up is filled with one sided victories due to one missed forced field, emp, storm, stim or blink. The win ratio of 30 zealots with 3/3 and charge seems pretty solid to me, there's a reason why a PvT monster like Polt says that he feels like he has to either 14cc or 1/1/1 against random ladder scrubs in the new big maps.
Source?
|
Don't assume too much from this data, a non-parametric regression like this one is very sensative to each months data which in some graphs might not be that much. For example PvT korea december is probably not played that much so if T did better there it doesn't mean that much..
Also you have to consider that only the top games are taken so unlike ladder stats for example there isn't corrected for rank here. For example the last patch might have buffed PvZ and PvT, which in turn can cause more P to qualify for the tournaments based on their PvZ for example. In tournaments the PvT results could actually go down then because PvZ was buffed more then PvT. Just an example but many, many effects like these can happen. A narrow observational study like this simply can't reveal things like matchup balance well. Also you can not really assume trends from these lines too much because they are very swingy by nature, the exact line also depends very much on the bin width you choose (month here).
Contrasting this with ladder statistics would be nice, ladder stats corrected for rank are the best way to look at balance still if that's your goal imo.
|
On January 02 2012 23:00 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 22:55 R!! wrote:On January 02 2012 22:47 Plansix wrote:On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework. So they should change the match up so you can miss your EMPs and lose your vikings, but still win the fight? I don't think they should change the game to make easier. Now if you want to talk about the PvT match up being to unstable for both sides, that's a discussion worth having. That match up is filled with one sided victories due to one missed forced field, emp, storm, stim or blink. The win ratio of 30 zealots with 3/3 and charge seems pretty solid to me, there's a reason why a PvT monster like Polt says that he feels like he has to either 14cc or 1/1/1 against random ladder scrubs in the new big maps. Source?
Watching his stream whenever he is up, you can watch the vods.
|
On January 02 2012 23:00 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 22:55 R!! wrote:On January 02 2012 22:47 Plansix wrote:On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework. So they should change the match up so you can miss your EMPs and lose your vikings, but still win the fight? I don't think they should change the game to make easier. Now if you want to talk about the PvT match up being to unstable for both sides, that's a discussion worth having. That match up is filled with one sided victories due to one missed forced field, emp, storm, stim or blink. The win ratio of 30 zealots with 3/3 and charge seems pretty solid to me, there's a reason why a PvT monster like Polt says that he feels like he has to either 14cc or 1/1/1 against random ladder scrubs in the new big maps. Source?
He did mention protoss being OP in one of his stream sessions, although it might have been jokingly.
|
On January 02 2012 23:02 R!! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 23:00 SeaSwift wrote:On January 02 2012 22:55 R!! wrote:On January 02 2012 22:47 Plansix wrote:On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework. So they should change the match up so you can miss your EMPs and lose your vikings, but still win the fight? I don't think they should change the game to make easier. Now if you want to talk about the PvT match up being to unstable for both sides, that's a discussion worth having. That match up is filled with one sided victories due to one missed forced field, emp, storm, stim or blink. The win ratio of 30 zealots with 3/3 and charge seems pretty solid to me, there's a reason why a PvT monster like Polt says that he feels like he has to either 14cc or 1/1/1 against random ladder scrubs in the new big maps. Source? Watching his stream whenever he is up, you can watch the vods.
I think its crazy that people are stilllll complaining because this game isn't balanced around diamond league. The stats are fairly clear - in December, the match up was slightly Terran favoured across the board. Thats not a lie, its a fact. I agree that the match up feels very boring to watch - as pointed out above, its usually one specific action like a missed force field or EMP, one big battle and then its just who wins wins the game, which is pretty bad design. But considering the amount of QQ this month from Terran players regarding the match up, these stats seem to be pretty good vindication for everyone who said 'lets see what happens over the next few months.'
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On January 02 2012 23:01 Markwerf wrote:
Don't assume too much from this data, a non-parametric regression like this one is very sensative to each months data which in some graphs might not be that much. For example PvT korea december is probably not played that much so if T did better there it doesn't mean that much..
Also you have to consider that only the top games are taken so unlike ladder stats for example there isn't corrected for rank here. For example the last patch might have buffed PvZ and PvT, which in turn can cause more P to qualify for the tournaments based on their PvZ for example. In tournaments the PvT results could actually go down then because PvZ was buffed more then PvT. Just an example but many, many effects like these can happen. A narrow observational study like this simply can't reveal things like matchup balance well. Also you can not really assume trends from these lines too much because they are very swingy by nature, the exact line also depends very much on the bin width you choose (month here).
Contrasting this with ladder statistics would be nice, ladder stats corrected for rank are the best way to look at balance still if that's your goal imo.
I know several masters players, and im pretty sure all of them would drop 16-0 in a best of 31 with MVP without issues. Balancing around ladder stats even for the highest league (GM is a broken system, so it would be masters) is wrong, even on korean server, and ESPECIALLY with stats that are "corrected" to change the results in ways that we do not know about.
It would be in blizzards best interests to lie, or change the results in a roundabout way, if something went really wrong.
|
On January 02 2012 22:05 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 22:02 SeaSwift wrote:On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework. Completely agree. All-ins are still really good as Terran, but Protoss is favoured slightly in passive macro games. Terran has a higher skill requirement, but also a higher skill ceiling, whereas Protoss has a lower skill requirement but a lower skill ceiling, too. I don't think the matchup will get any better until HotS. imo terran skill requirement is rather low compared to Ps... only judging from offracing both, but my terran is way better than my Protoss...
I played Terran for a year before i started playing random. I can easily say that i win more PvT's lategame then TvP's.
Of course it's individual but i think most people agree that terran has a higher skill requirement/skill ceiling in that phase of the game. Which is problematic for every Terran who isn't a pro, but also problematic for the pro Protoss who face the terran pro's.
|
So they should change the match up so you can miss your EMPs and lose your vikings, but still win the fight? I don't think they should change the game to make easier. Now if you want to talk about the PvT match up being to unstable for both sides, that's a discussion worth having. That match up is filled with one sided victories due to one missed forced field, emp, storm, stim or blink.
I didn't mean that they should change Bio, i want them to change so that there are other viable(maybe less fragile in lategame) strategies.
|
On January 02 2012 23:17 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:Show nested quote +So they should change the match up so you can miss your EMPs and lose your vikings, but still win the fight? I don't think they should change the game to make easier. Now if you want to talk about the PvT match up being to unstable for both sides, that's a discussion worth having. That match up is filled with one sided victories due to one missed forced field, emp, storm, stim or blink. I didn't mean that they should change Bio, i want them to change so that there are other viable(maybe less fragile in lategame) strategies.
Actually I'd like it if they made lategame P more micro intensive instead... As it is now, micro in that matchup is solely the terrans requirement, and sadly it feels like HotS is aiming to make Terran require little micro as well with the battle hellions...
Edit: And the more I play against P, the more I dislike warp gates as a mechanic, but that one will probably never change...
|
On January 02 2012 23:00 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 22:55 R!! wrote:On January 02 2012 22:47 Plansix wrote:On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework. So they should change the match up so you can miss your EMPs and lose your vikings, but still win the fight? I don't think they should change the game to make easier. Now if you want to talk about the PvT match up being to unstable for both sides, that's a discussion worth having. That match up is filled with one sided victories due to one missed forced field, emp, storm, stim or blink. The win ratio of 30 zealots with 3/3 and charge seems pretty solid to me, there's a reason why a PvT monster like Polt says that he feels like he has to either 14cc or 1/1/1 against random ladder scrubs in the new big maps. Source?
he wrote it on irc
03:24 @TSLPolt • toss is OP
03:24 @TSLPolt • but
03:24 @TSLPolt • If you use 1/1/1 you can win
to be fair bomber says on his stream the only big maps are problem
|
Awesome! Great way to see trends in the game for each matchup!
|
On January 02 2012 22:47 Badfatpanda wrote:Show nested quote +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.
very nice post, you are actually spot on mate.
the ability to crank a million zealots out in no time to tank damage for fucking high templars+colossi+archons is riddiculous.
|
On January 02 2012 23:00 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
I wonder what TvP statistics would look like if you took out the all ins. Imho the matchup is balanced terribly at the moment. Protoss dominates most straight up games while Terran keeps crushing them with all ins.
|
On January 02 2012 23:45 Ermac wrote:
I wonder what TvP statistics would look like if you took out the all ins. Imho the matchup is balanced terribly at the moment. Protoss dominates most straight up games while Terran keeps crushing them with all ins.
+1
User was warned for this post
|
Ye from what I have seen on most pro streams, they often mention one race or another being OP but they do it jokingly. Another thing I noticed on Polt's stream whenever he beats a protoss people are always like well thats understandable because he is a beast where as whenever he loses its not because his opponent is good (which he undoubtedly is because his MMR matches him against Polt) instead it is that Protoss is OP. People need to identify their own racial biases.
If you think back to all the times when you won a game and your opponent called your race OP, you normally understand where they lost the game and it wasn't just that you had OP units. Its normally better macro, better micro, better composition, larger economy, better positioning or better upgrades Unless you look back over the replay and cant see where you could have won there is no point complaining about balance.
It would also be helpful if people didn't underrate the skill required by their opponents constantly. Just some examples: TvP (A-Move more! Zealots dont die! Late game so broken!) PvT (All T does is spam marauders! How is it fair that my T3 army loses to T1 !?! All you do is stim and its GG!) PvZ (srsrsrsrsrsrsrsrsr so skilled! Mutas so imba im glad blizz are fixing them in HotS!) ZvP (Herp derp a move colos = win! All protoss do is cheese!)
|
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one with a lot of problems in zvp :D lets hope for some new breakthrough by the koreans this year though
|
love these charts, thanks !
|
On January 02 2012 23:39 Badfatpanda wrote:Show nested quote +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".
|
On January 02 2012 20:25 DaveVAH wrote:
^^ I Auto-all in vs P every single game after 1.4.2
Either way in korea its 52% T to 48% P
Same. 1/1/1 or marine/SCV all-in every time. My winrate stays above 50% in the matchup but it has nothing to do with playing real games.
On January 02 2012 20:35 Elwar wrote:
Terran started dominating late game TvP with ghost/viking and protoss reintroduced the turtle-to-mothership back to PvZ. Zergs are starting to deal with motherships much better, though I've yet to see a convincing answer to late game terran from any protoss.
This has to be a troll post. Absolutely has to be.
|
On January 03 2012 00:51 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +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"
|
On January 03 2012 00:56 laharl23 wrote:Show nested quote +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"
Oh, look its the usual i make mass stalker, my opponent made marauders. Me mad now.
|
Thanks for this - great work the past year.
|
Nice these are some of the most interesting stats in the community.
|
I would really like to know the win ratio of any TvP game that goes over 20-25 minutes.
|
On January 03 2012 01:03 Talack wrote:
I would really like to know the win ratio of any TvP game that goes over 20-25 minutes.
Yea.
|
I think there's a general lack of quality protoss... personally. Even the better protoss seem to have poor mechanics.
|
As it looks now there´s really no need to buff toss or zerg, blizz should just nerv ghosts a bit more. A little buff for Ultras would be okay too.
|
On January 03 2012 00:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:Show nested quote +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" Oh, look its the usual i make mass stalker, my opponent made marauders. Me mad now.
Well, now that the thread is going to devolve into flaming, I'm away.
Spouting unit counters doesn't make you correct.
|
This is weird how TvP is at the win rate it is at for Korea considering the fact that the GSL is actively trying to favor protoss over terran to even the distribution with the maps and all.
And I could say the same, though to a lesser extent in regards to PvZ.
|
Looks pretty good, only TvP seems to be a slighty imbalanced.
|
Its annoying to see differences in Korea and the international scene. Personally I think the game should be balanced for the highest level, so you look at the korean chart for valuable data. But at Blizzcon the balance panel stated that it was okay that x race was good on y server, because it was the other way around on another server.
Thanks for making these charts. They are really interesting to look at, and probably the only proper thing you can use in a balance debate. Its also fun to see people try to brush of the data when their race is winning way too much.
|
Wait, why are people whinning? Even the korean graph has been hovering at 50% for all year.....
PvZ seem to be the ¨worst¨ MU and even its within acceptable limits. Dunno why people are acting as if we were seeing 90% WR.
sigh
|
On January 03 2012 00:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:Show nested quote +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" Oh, look its the usual i make mass stalker, my opponent made marauders. Me mad now.
Uh...what?
|
On January 03 2012 01:14 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 00:59 StarcraftNerd1547 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" Oh, look its the usual i make mass stalker, my opponent made marauders. Me mad now. Uh...what?
Yes! YOu fell for the troll.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 03 2012 00:56 laharl23 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On January 03 2012 01:49 Badfatpanda wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On January 03 2012 01:49 Badfatpanda wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You were the one to claim that Terran players are just better. What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (RIP Hitchens).
Other people don't have to prove you wrong. You have to put forward evidence that you are right.
|
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.
|
On January 03 2012 02:04 laharl23 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Alright Terrans, bring on the excuses... what's it gonna be this time?
|
I feel bad for TvZ. T_T
It's never been Zerg favored since the beginning.
|
Hahahahhaahha
Vindication. Still TvP is pretty watchable these days so I don't care quite as much as I did a few months ago. Then again I'm more jaded than I was a few months ago.
edit: Someone really needs to make a best of last month's terran bitch thread. Who knows maybe they'll revive the "I'm sub gm and terran is so /difficult/." Though all in all as long as tournaments look competitive what's a few %. I'll take EG's signing of JYP as a sign they feel pretty positive about the overall SoTG.
|
Some like to disreguard the valitity of these graphs, but protoss has been on the bottom for most of the year, and when protoss was on top it was not even by 2%. Terran has been on top the entire time. Sc2 balance is pretty damn good overall. However, the fact that there is not more movement of the races (all taking turns at the top and bottom) in terms of winrates is a bad sign.
While any one month can be pointed out as a fluke, or a bad representation, I don't beleive you can apply that thinking to a year of data. Also, while the overall winrates may look good I think the biggest hurdle yet to be overcome is the balance at different phases of the game.
For example, I believe some races are heavily favored in the late game of certain matches. TvZ seems like the timing of Terran's push when it's a 2base vs 2base scenario is game decicding on most maps. Terran is probably slightly favored in TvZ until after the 2base vs 2base phase. If that timing fails to do signifigant damage, Zerg is favoered. A similiar scernario plays out in TvP.
PvZ seems to be perhaps the most back and forth matchup, giving both players great oppurtunity to "outplay" thier opponent in the mid game. But in a very close/even game, if protoss isn't able to do signifigant damage to zerg before hive tech is well into play, I feel zerg is favored.
This is not an ideal scenario, what we all really want is the game to be perfectly balanced in all phases (early/mid/late) and for there not to be situations where one race has to predict the opponents build choices, or aggression timing in order to not fall behind. A rough example would be protoss defending the 1/1/1, for a while it seemed like protoss had the choice to either blind (or with very limited intel) counter it, because it requires pretty specific responses to defend. But the builds to defend 1/1/1 were very weak against many standard terran plays.
People should read a lot in to these graphs. We have a lot of data over a long period of time, and the data indicates that Sc2 has decent balance. There are just a few very small imbalances in specific phases of some matchups, and slight problems overall racial dominance. These slight imbalances are only expressed at the highest levels, if you're not in GM, how well you play will decide the game, not balance.
|
On January 03 2012 02:50 K3Nyy wrote:
I feel bad for TvZ. T_T
It's never been Zerg favored since the beginning.
but it hasnt been too bad either.
|
On January 03 2012 02:37 Badfatpanda wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On January 03 2012 02:50 K3Nyy wrote:
I feel bad for TvZ. T_T
It's never been Zerg favored since the beginning.
But Terrans not OP, they're more skilled.
See: this thread.
|
It's hilarious how Terran can have such a consistent winrate despite being nerfed to the ground lol. I foresee more nerfs coming to Terrans in the future and adjustments to the Bunker of course 
|
Marine: -5 HP
Think about it.
|
On January 02 2012 20:42 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 20:39 DaveVAH wrote:
Why is in this graph the overall international win rate is showing terran at 50 something percent for novmber? while it was at 49 when the november graph was released last month. also why is pvt 52% to 48% in this version for november while last month it was reading 45% T to 55% P?? are these the same graphs done by the same person or different? has the numbers been changed? Thanks again, Ctuchik. Is your name by any chance taken from the Belgariad by Eddings?
Great book
|
On January 03 2012 03:12 Jermstuddog wrote:
Marine: -5 HP
Think about it.
to vulnurable in the lategame... it's already questionably close to being not useful once colossi and storms are out.
also i think zealots and zerglings early could be too good.
im with bliz on this. really nerfing the marine affects too much in the game. yet i think some very small things could be aplied for statistical reasons (stuff like that might be enough to get zvt to 50% without influencing the metagame) like +0.02 cooldown on firerate.
|
Update: So apparently the November post that was showing such a vast winrate for Toss that all the Terrans were complaining was off. With new data, the winrate in november was nearly 50% in PvT.
|
On January 03 2012 03:04 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 02:50 K3Nyy wrote:
I feel bad for TvZ. T_T
It's never been Zerg favored since the beginning. But Terrans not OP, they're more skilled. See: this thread.
Its been Zerg favored in August so thats wrong but its not like anybody looks at the statistics they just come in the thread and whine about terran since that wont even get you a warning, now Zergs would have a reason to complain about ZvP but they know better.
|
On January 03 2012 03:24 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 03:04 Jermstuddog wrote:On January 03 2012 02:50 K3Nyy wrote:
I feel bad for TvZ. T_T
It's never been Zerg favored since the beginning. But Terrans not OP, they're more skilled. See: this thread. Its been Zerg favored in August so thats wrong but its not like anybody looks at the statistics they just come in the thread and whine about terran since that wont even get you a warning, now Zergs would have a reason to complain about ZvP but they know better.
he was obviously talking about the international graphs.
the korean graphs dont have enough data to argue based on them.
|
These data come from the pros, and is not representative of all players. P>T in lowers leagues.
|
Great work, thanks for this!
|
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.
|
On January 03 2012 03:27 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 03:24 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 03:04 Jermstuddog wrote:On January 03 2012 02:50 K3Nyy wrote:
I feel bad for TvZ. T_T
It's never been Zerg favored since the beginning. But Terrans not OP, they're more skilled. See: this thread. Its been Zerg favored in August so thats wrong but its not like anybody looks at the statistics they just come in the thread and whine about terran since that wont even get you a warning, now Zergs would have a reason to complain about ZvP but they know better. he was obviously talking about the international graphs. the korean graphs dont have enough data to argue based on them.
I thought that doesnt even matter, highest skill level only as I hear so often but I guess people choose whatever supports their bias.
|
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
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
It looks quite balanced right now, great :D
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 love how people still throw that without any proof, and the mmr system makes you play against opponents of your level anyways
|
On January 03 2012 03:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Why do people hate micro-reliant matchups (TvP) that rely on whoever has the better splitting/uses abilities first/gets the most out of their units? I mean, isn't that more skill involved than getting into a choke position that you can automatically win vs, or having maps that favor turtling up a 200 food deathball then 1Aing?
What I guess I mean to ask is, how would you like matchups you don't like to be instead? What would you want to be happening, if not better unit control wins when two similarly sized and upgraded deathballs run headlong into each other, provided they withstand getting to a late-game situation.
|
On January 03 2012 03:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +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
That was for top korean ladder in October I believe.
|
On January 03 2012 03:29 NeonFox wrote: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.
|
On January 03 2012 03:32 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 03:27 Big J wrote:On January 03 2012 03:24 secretary bird wrote:On January 03 2012 03:04 Jermstuddog wrote:On January 03 2012 02:50 K3Nyy wrote:
I feel bad for TvZ. T_T
It's never been Zerg favored since the beginning. But Terrans not OP, they're more skilled. See: this thread. Its been Zerg favored in August so thats wrong but its not like anybody looks at the statistics they just come in the thread and whine about terran since that wont even get you a warning, now Zergs would have a reason to complain about ZvP but they know better. he was obviously talking about the international graphs. the korean graphs dont have enough data to argue based on them. I thought that doesnt even matter, highest skill level only as I hear so often but I guess people choose whatever supports their bias.
i argued the same way only yesterday in another thread, if you want to check for consistency... i think it was the protoss too limited thread)
im all for such balance stats being taken from the highest level, but that doesnt make 100games of the same 20people more statistically relevant. especially as everyone can see by looking at the korean graphs that the statistical varience is really high there.
|
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?
|
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.
|
On January 03 2012 05:03 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 04:59 Sabu113 wrote: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 ean GM players though.
just because I brought it up I would like to add here that I only wanted to use this 65% stats against some dumb comment that claimed that TvP is unplayable for nonpros...
did not think that this would turn out into a discussion abou numbers that are completly offtopic.
|
Looks like we are going for a double dip terran shitstorm. I'm not at a level where this completely dictates everything, but these statistics are considerably more and less balanced, PvZ is pretty much where it should be, PvT may always be a total wild card till HoTS, and TvZ is looking better than before. I'd say all that needs work is PvT now and that they could leave it alone for a good while considering everyone is <3% away from each other besides PvT.
|
these stats =/= balance
to elaborate here's a quote:
International winrates are pointless because they include the most ridiculously pointless games with incredible skill gaps. Let's look at International PvT versus Korean PvT in December and you tell me what's a better indicator of balance.
International:
Brat_OK (T) vs. Pomi (P)
Polt (T) vs. MaNa (P)
MVP (T) vs. BlinG (P)
MVP (T) vs. Cobo (P)
MVP (T) vs. Splendour (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Wern (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Babyknight (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Hui (P)
Korean:
Clide (T) vs. JYP (P)
Bomber (T) vs. Creator (P)
Bomber (T) vs. MC (P)
Noblesse (T) vs. Sage (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Squirtle (P)
ASD (T) vs. Genius (P)
NaDa (T) vs. HuK (P)
Polt (T) vs. Naniwa (P)
|
PVT is pretty borderline, but overall these are very acceptable numbers.
|
On January 03 2012 05:26 Let it Raine wrote:these stats =/= balance to elaborate here's a quote: Show nested quote +
International winrates are pointless because they include the most ridiculously pointless games with incredible skill gaps. Let's look at International PvT versus Korean PvT in December and you tell me what's a better indicator of balance.
International:
Brat_OK (T) vs. Pomi (P)
Polt (T) vs. MaNa (P)
MVP (T) vs. BlinG (P)
MVP (T) vs. Cobo (P)
MVP (T) vs. Splendour (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Wern (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Babyknight (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Hui (P)
Korean:
Clide (T) vs. JYP (P)
Bomber (T) vs. Creator (P)
Bomber (T) vs. MC (P)
Noblesse (T) vs. Sage (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Squirtle (P)
ASD (T) vs. Genius (P)
NaDa (T) vs. HuK (P)
Polt (T) vs. Naniwa (P)
well we/blizzard need some stats to discuss balance.
seeing how international tournament stats at least have a useful monthly samplesize in the amount of game/players i prefer those
furthermore i think (have no stats for this, but i think it has been argued by people with actual stats like blizzard) that race distribution is quite good among the international proscene, so these pro vs nonpro games should balance out overall... though this also means that everything gets closer to 50-50 and therefore 2% in those stats might actually be 10% in pro vs pro matches... fuck... the more i think about it, the less certain I am wether there are any good stats available at all from the proscene and all we can really take from them is something like "race X probably favored"
kind of get now why blizzard uses their own stats...
|
TvZ is getting closer, PvZ is just looping around, and TvP is just lol.
::shrugs:: 10% off 50/50 is supposedly concerning, right? I wonder if Terran is going to get nerfed again.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On January 03 2012 05:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
TvZ is getting closer, PvZ is just looping around, and TvP is just lol.
::shrugs:: 10% off 50/50 is supposedly concerning, right? I wonder if Terran is going to get nerfed again.
No no no. Remember P is op since Terran had a 6% difference last time around in favour of P. Remember
|
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.
Oh I'm not arguing whether or not the stats indicate balance or player skill. I'm just pointing out the correlation between match-up statistics and Terrans in the high ELO are essentially the same thing.
|
On January 02 2012 23:45 Ermac wrote:
I wonder what TvP statistics would look like if you took out the all ins. Imho the matchup is balanced terribly at the moment. Protoss dominates most straight up games while Terran keeps crushing them with all ins.
Unfortunately, that's unlikely to change until HOTS, because they are unlikely to do a big balance patch until then (I could be mistaken obviously, but unless they do something with pylon warp-in, nothing will change).
|
What I think most people in this thread don't realize is that balance does not = good design and a good game. Sure, by looking at these statistics of roughly 50% win ratios at the top level (which is how it should be measured) you can say that the game is "balanced". However, this doesn't look at the real issues of game design. For example, in TvP, Terran tends to win much more before the "late" game. Also, Terran tends to use all-ins like the 1 base or 2 base 1/1/1 a lot to achieve these wins. Protoss, on the other hand, tends to have much higher win ratios in the late game.
You could see a similar situation in pretty much every match up. In PvZ, Protoss tends to win with either a big 2 base all-in, or a super late game situation where the Zerg can't handle the deathball.
In TvZ, Terran also tends to lose much more in the late game, and win much more in the early and mid game. It's no big secret that Terran overall is weaker in the late game than the other races, and instead tends to rely on gimmicky aggression-based builds and timings to win a lot if not most of their games.
I like the fact that most match ups are going towards 50% balance, but that doesn't look at the issue of different races struggling at different points in a game, like Terran in Late game TvP, or Protoss fast expanding versus Zerg. Every race should win and lose at ANY point of the game resulting DIRECTLY from the skill and decisions of the player. THAT is good design, and what I think was almost achieved in Brood War.
|
On January 03 2012 05:26 Let it Raine wrote:these stats =/= balance to elaborate here's a quote: Show nested quote +
International winrates are pointless because they include the most ridiculously pointless games with incredible skill gaps. Let's look at International PvT versus Korean PvT in December and you tell me what's a better indicator of balance.
International:
Brat_OK (T) vs. Pomi (P)
Polt (T) vs. MaNa (P)
MVP (T) vs. BlinG (P)
MVP (T) vs. Cobo (P)
MVP (T) vs. Splendour (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Wern (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Babyknight (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Hui (P)
Korean:
Clide (T) vs. JYP (P)
Bomber (T) vs. Creator (P)
Bomber (T) vs. MC (P)
Noblesse (T) vs. Sage (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Squirtle (P)
ASD (T) vs. Genius (P)
NaDa (T) vs. HuK (P)
Polt (T) vs. Naniwa (P)
What's wrong with the Korean PvT?
It looks perfectly fine to me.
|
Guys, look at the error bars before you freak out. I don't think I've even once seen someone mention the things, but they're there for a reason. The only really significant difference is international PvT (which is kinda surprising...). Everything else is reasonably within error, and has been for the last month or two.
I do wish Ctuchik would standardise his axes. The international looks a lot worse than it is because it's a 20% range and KR is 40.
I would also love it if TLPD stored game lengths. I think you'd see a huge correlation in PvT for that.
|
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 wouldn't read too much into these numbers. Just 3 or 4 weeks ago, Terran was so underrepresented, according to SC2Ranks, that we had that painful thread about Terrans dying out. Once Christmas break came around, the Terrans seemed to re-emerge in diamond. I play against more T now that I do P or Z.
tl;dr These things are in flux.
|
On January 03 2012 08:26 Scila wrote:
What I think most people in this thread don't realize is that balance does not = good design and a good game. Sure, by looking at these statistics of roughly 50% win ratios at the top level (which is how it should be measured) you can say that the game is "balanced". However, this doesn't look at the real issues of game design. For example, in TvP, Terran tends to win much more before the "late" game. Also, Terran tends to use all-ins like the 1 base or 2 base 1/1/1 a lot to achieve these wins. Protoss, on the other hand, tends to have much higher win ratios in the late game.
You could see a similar situation in pretty much every match up. In PvZ, Protoss tends to win with either a big 2 base all-in, or a super late game situation where the Zerg can't handle the deathball.
In TvZ, Terran also tends to lose much more in the late game, and win much more in the early and mid game. It's no big secret that Terran overall is weaker in the late game than the other races, and instead tends to rely on gimmicky aggression-based builds and timings to win a lot if not most of their games.
I like the fact that most match ups are going towards 50% balance, but that doesn't look at the issue of different races struggling at different points in a game, like Terran in Late game TvP, or Protoss fast expanding versus Zerg. Every race should win and lose at ANY point of the game resulting DIRECTLY from the skill and decisions of the player. THAT is good design, and what I think was almost achieved in Brood War.
until there are any statistics for this (which there wont be because it's simply not true... the game has been designed for each race to have achievable composition in the lategame that can at least be even with your opponents) this is nothing but the usual "races i dont play are imba"-crap paired with a little bit of "bw is better"-crap.
|
I wonder if the creators of these graphs could add error bars to the graphics?
Just calculate it on a 95% confidence level (p<0.05) based on the number of matches going into each graph. That would clear up a lot of doubts, because I personally have a feeling that the data base for the December graph - especially the Korean - is rather shaky.
|
On January 03 2012 05:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
TvZ is getting closer, PvZ is just looping around, and TvP is just lol.
::shrugs:: 10% off 50/50 is supposedly concerning, right? I wonder if Terran is going to get nerfed again.
I guess they will continue the pattern and to nothing about the early game and keep buffing protoss late game. Hey, balance!
|
On January 02 2012 21:10 HowardRoark wrote:
Korean stats are the only that ought to matter, and fairly balanced. Zerg having the worst winrates, but with the highest skill ceiling for Z I do not see any problem with this. Zerg will in some month's come up on top without patches.
Elitism for the win man? No not really though, they should definatly take in winrates from more then Koreans seeing as how the majority of the people playing the game are non Koreans. Yea the Koreans are better but when the majority of the populace isn't Korean why only focus on winrates that don't apply to them as players. These winrates are here to get a general consensus of which race is winning an discuss the reasons for that. Only adding Koreans negates more then 50% of the community cause most don't have the skill of a Korean so why have us compare ourselves against them?
|
Give all Protoss units Stim. Watch PvT go to 100%.
|
On January 03 2012 09:36 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 08:26 Scila wrote:
What I think most people in this thread don't realize is that balance does not = good design and a good game. Sure, by looking at these statistics of roughly 50% win ratios at the top level (which is how it should be measured) you can say that the game is "balanced". However, this doesn't look at the real issues of game design. For example, in TvP, Terran tends to win much more before the "late" game. Also, Terran tends to use all-ins like the 1 base or 2 base 1/1/1 a lot to achieve these wins. Protoss, on the other hand, tends to have much higher win ratios in the late game.
You could see a similar situation in pretty much every match up. In PvZ, Protoss tends to win with either a big 2 base all-in, or a super late game situation where the Zerg can't handle the deathball.
In TvZ, Terran also tends to lose much more in the late game, and win much more in the early and mid game. It's no big secret that Terran overall is weaker in the late game than the other races, and instead tends to rely on gimmicky aggression-based builds and timings to win a lot if not most of their games.
I like the fact that most match ups are going towards 50% balance, but that doesn't look at the issue of different races struggling at different points in a game, like Terran in Late game TvP, or Protoss fast expanding versus Zerg. Every race should win and lose at ANY point of the game resulting DIRECTLY from the skill and decisions of the player. THAT is good design, and what I think was almost achieved in Brood War.
until there are any statistics for this (which there wont be because it's simply not true... the game has been designed for each race to have achievable composition in the lategame that can at least be even with your opponents) this is nothing but the usual "races i dont play are imba"-crap paired with a little bit of "bw is better"-crap.
Not really. He is right about design.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 03 2012 08:26 Scila wrote:
What I think most people in this thread don't realize is that balance does not = good design and a good game. Sure, by looking at these statistics of roughly 50% win ratios at the top level (which is how it should be measured) you can say that the game is "balanced". However, this doesn't look at the real issues of game design. For example, in TvP, Terran tends to win much more before the "late" game. Also, Terran tends to use all-ins like the 1 base or 2 base 1/1/1 a lot to achieve these wins. Protoss, on the other hand, tends to have much higher win ratios in the late game.
You could see a similar situation in pretty much every match up. In PvZ, Protoss tends to win with either a big 2 base all-in, or a super late game situation where the Zerg can't handle the deathball.
In TvZ, Terran also tends to lose much more in the late game, and win much more in the early and mid game. It's no big secret that Terran overall is weaker in the late game than the other races, and instead tends to rely on gimmicky aggression-based builds and timings to win a lot if not most of their games.
I like the fact that most match ups are going towards 50% balance, but that doesn't look at the issue of different races struggling at different points in a game, like Terran in Late game TvP, or Protoss fast expanding versus Zerg. Every race should win and lose at ANY point of the game resulting DIRECTLY from the skill and decisions of the player. THAT is good design, and what I think was almost achieved in Brood War.
I really like this post! I think you are 100% right - these are things blizzard should recognize and deal with!
|
On January 03 2012 18:06 Meega wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 03 2012 08:26 Scila wrote:
What I think most people in this thread don't realize is that balance does not = good design and a good game. Sure, by looking at these statistics of roughly 50% win ratios at the top level (which is how it should be measured) you can say that the game is "balanced". However, this doesn't look at the real issues of game design. For example, in TvP, Terran tends to win much more before the "late" game. Also, Terran tends to use all-ins like the 1 base or 2 base 1/1/1 a lot to achieve these wins. Protoss, on the other hand, tends to have much higher win ratios in the late game.
You could see a similar situation in pretty much every match up. In PvZ, Protoss tends to win with either a big 2 base all-in, or a super late game situation where the Zerg can't handle the deathball.
In TvZ, Terran also tends to lose much more in the late game, and win much more in the early and mid game. It's no big secret that Terran overall is weaker in the late game than the other races, and instead tends to rely on gimmicky aggression-based builds and timings to win a lot if not most of their games.
I like the fact that most match ups are going towards 50% balance, but that doesn't look at the issue of different races struggling at different points in a game, like Terran in Late game TvP, or Protoss fast expanding versus Zerg. Every race should win and lose at ANY point of the game resulting DIRECTLY from the skill and decisions of the player. THAT is good design, and what I think was almost achieved in Brood War.
I really like this post! I think you are 100% right - these are things blizzard should recognize and deal with!
Been saying this forever. Just because Terran's cheese a lot more early game (because lategame is incredibly diffucult) and end up winning a decent amount doing it, means game design is flawed, and should be looked at separately from just straight balancing.
|
On January 03 2012 08:26 Scila wrote:
What I think most people in this thread don't realize is that balance does not = good design and a good game. Sure, by looking at these statistics of roughly 50% win ratios at the top level (which is how it should be measured) you can say that the game is "balanced". However, this doesn't look at the real issues of game design. For example, in TvP, Terran tends to win much more before the "late" game. Also, Terran tends to use all-ins like the 1 base or 2 base 1/1/1 a lot to achieve these wins. Protoss, on the other hand, tends to have much higher win ratios in the late game.
You could see a similar situation in pretty much every match up. In PvZ, Protoss tends to win with either a big 2 base all-in, or a super late game situation where the Zerg can't handle the deathball.
In TvZ, Terran also tends to lose much more in the late game, and win much more in the early and mid game. It's no big secret that Terran overall is weaker in the late game than the other races, and instead tends to rely on gimmicky aggression-based builds and timings to win a lot if not most of their games.
I like the fact that most match ups are going towards 50% balance, but that doesn't look at the issue of different races struggling at different points in a game, like Terran in Late game TvP, or Protoss fast expanding versus Zerg. Every race should win and lose at ANY point of the game resulting DIRECTLY from the skill and decisions of the player. THAT is good design, and what I think was almost achieved in Brood War.
None of the situations you describe are actually true. Some matchups may slightly favour a team in the early or late game but nowhere near as much as you describe.
|
On January 03 2012 18:08 Raambo11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 18:06 Meega wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 03 2012 08:26 Scila wrote:
What I think most people in this thread don't realize is that balance does not = good design and a good game. Sure, by looking at these statistics of roughly 50% win ratios at the top level (which is how it should be measured) you can say that the game is "balanced". However, this doesn't look at the real issues of game design. For example, in TvP, Terran tends to win much more before the "late" game. Also, Terran tends to use all-ins like the 1 base or 2 base 1/1/1 a lot to achieve these wins. Protoss, on the other hand, tends to have much higher win ratios in the late game.
You could see a similar situation in pretty much every match up. In PvZ, Protoss tends to win with either a big 2 base all-in, or a super late game situation where the Zerg can't handle the deathball.
In TvZ, Terran also tends to lose much more in the late game, and win much more in the early and mid game. It's no big secret that Terran overall is weaker in the late game than the other races, and instead tends to rely on gimmicky aggression-based builds and timings to win a lot if not most of their games.
I like the fact that most match ups are going towards 50% balance, but that doesn't look at the issue of different races struggling at different points in a game, like Terran in Late game TvP, or Protoss fast expanding versus Zerg. Every race should win and lose at ANY point of the game resulting DIRECTLY from the skill and decisions of the player. THAT is good design, and what I think was almost achieved in Brood War.
I really like this post! I think you are 100% right - these are things blizzard should recognize and deal with! Been saying this forever. Just because Terran's cheese a lot more early game (because lategame is incredibly diffucult) and end up winning a decent amount doing it, means game design is flawed, and should be looked at separately from just straight balancing.
this is actually not true, terran losing late game have nothing to do with balance, theoretically terran can get far bigger and deadlier late game army than zerg and toss(you only need 25-30scv with terrans late game, thats about 30pop more, for example that may be 15 extra vikings, or 15ravens with seeker missile (: ), but why does terrans lose to bl infestor corupter armies so much? well because they f""k up early mid game, giving zerg huge advantiges and letting him to make his dream death ball at that point even if terran max out on 200/200, if wont matter since his max will be terrible compared to zerg be resourse wise zerg max will be 2x+ times bigger, same goes with toss.
|
On January 03 2012 17:20 Catatonic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 21:10 HowardRoark wrote:
Korean stats are the only that ought to matter, and fairly balanced. Zerg having the worst winrates, but with the highest skill ceiling for Z I do not see any problem with this. Zerg will in some month's come up on top without patches. Elitism for the win man? No not really though, they should definatly take in winrates from more then Koreans seeing as how the majority of the people playing the game are non Koreans. Yea the Koreans are better but when the majority of the populace isn't Korean why only focus on winrates that don't apply to them as players. These winrates are here to get a general consensus of which race is winning an discuss the reasons for that. Only adding Koreans negates more then 50% of the community cause most don't have the skill of a Korean so why have us compare ourselves against them?
There's a clear logical progression that justifies such elitism.
1. We accept that the skill level in Korea is overall higher than anywhere else
2. Balance should be determined at the top level
3. We thus balance around Korean results, because if we balance around non-Korean results, then we balance around a level that isn't the top level
|
On January 03 2012 18:29 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 17:20 Catatonic wrote:On January 02 2012 21:10 HowardRoark wrote:
Korean stats are the only that ought to matter, and fairly balanced. Zerg having the worst winrates, but with the highest skill ceiling for Z I do not see any problem with this. Zerg will in some month's come up on top without patches. Elitism for the win man? No not really though, they should definatly take in winrates from more then Koreans seeing as how the majority of the people playing the game are non Koreans. Yea the Koreans are better but when the majority of the populace isn't Korean why only focus on winrates that don't apply to them as players. These winrates are here to get a general consensus of which race is winning an discuss the reasons for that. Only adding Koreans negates more then 50% of the community cause most don't have the skill of a Korean so why have us compare ourselves against them? There's a clear logical progression that justifies such elitism. 1. We accept that the skill level in Korea is overall higher than anywhere else 2. Balance should be determined at the top level 3. We thus balance around Korean results, because if we balance around non-Korean results, then we balance around a level that isn't the top level
These are tournament results only so they dont apply to the majority anyway.
|
On January 03 2012 17:57 darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 09:36 Big J wrote:On January 03 2012 08:26 Scila wrote:
What I think most people in this thread don't realize is that balance does not = good design and a good game. Sure, by looking at these statistics of roughly 50% win ratios at the top level (which is how it should be measured) you can say that the game is "balanced". However, this doesn't look at the real issues of game design. For example, in TvP, Terran tends to win much more before the "late" game. Also, Terran tends to use all-ins like the 1 base or 2 base 1/1/1 a lot to achieve these wins. Protoss, on the other hand, tends to have much higher win ratios in the late game.
You could see a similar situation in pretty much every match up. In PvZ, Protoss tends to win with either a big 2 base all-in, or a super late game situation where the Zerg can't handle the deathball.
In TvZ, Terran also tends to lose much more in the late game, and win much more in the early and mid game. It's no big secret that Terran overall is weaker in the late game than the other races, and instead tends to rely on gimmicky aggression-based builds and timings to win a lot if not most of their games.
I like the fact that most match ups are going towards 50% balance, but that doesn't look at the issue of different races struggling at different points in a game, like Terran in Late game TvP, or Protoss fast expanding versus Zerg. Every race should win and lose at ANY point of the game resulting DIRECTLY from the skill and decisions of the player. THAT is good design, and what I think was almost achieved in Brood War.
until there are any statistics for this (which there wont be because it's simply not true... the game has been designed for each race to have achievable composition in the lategame that can at least be even with your opponents) this is nothing but the usual "races i dont play are imba"-crap paired with a little bit of "bw is better"-crap. Not really. He is right about design.
no he is not. he talks about the lategame as if it was magucally separated from the early game.
the truth is that there are no stats for this.
I could as well just say that terran is completly imba lategame if they get 10+ ghosts. and seeing how terrans have the infrastructure for that I dont see a reason why it shouldnt be possible to build them when the other races have the money
to build mass infestor or mass archon/ht unless terran has screwed up earlier and therefore maxes mainly on the cheap MM (in vP) or mainly on Marines (in vZ)... but you know, Im not even saying that. i cant support that completly made up statement with anything.
also the bw comparison is bullshit to begin with... there were all sorts of "race X has to do damage, else the tank/vessel/carrier/expansion... count gets to high and y becomes unstoppable". thats actually not even bad design. it means that the players have/should interact on certain times, when their races have a window to exploit the opponents weaknesses.
|
On January 03 2012 09:08 skatbone 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? I wouldn't read too much into these numbers. Just 3 or 4 weeks ago, Terran was so underrepresented, according to SC2Ranks, that we had that painful thread about Terrans dying out. Once Christmas break came around, the Terrans seemed to re-emerge in diamond. I play against more T now that I do P or Z. tl;dr These things are in flux.
Terran is the least played race from gold-masters on sc2ranks global, US, EU, and it has been for ages. It's only in Korea/Sea/China where that doesn't apply.
Zerg is now the least played in grandmaster global, where terran used to be, but from what I understand after reading a couple of threads about it some week ago, grandmaster has nothing to do with actual skill but about gaming the system so anyone can get entered into it, which makes it irrelevant.
|
|
|
If we wish to investigate balance it is futile to use statistics based on Korean GSL players. The number of players is so few that individual skill will skew the results too much. It is better to look at the replay, if a player plays better than his opponent but still loses then maybe there could be a balance problem.
Win percentage statistics are only useful when the sample size is large enough that individual skill differences even out.
|
Win rate is not a measure of balance, for the better player wins against the worse player. These graphs don't account for player skill, and therefore it can't possibly accurately represent balance, or even come close.
Lets stop pretending like win rate graphs actually mean something, please. If the best player in the whole world is a Terran, he's going to do better than the 12th best player in the world who is a Zerg or the 5th best player in the world who is a Protoss.
Love always,
Your Friend Logic.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On January 03 2012 22:30 Chargelot wrote:
Win rate is not a measure of balance, for the better player wins against the worse player. These graphs don't account for player skill, and therefore it can't possibly accurately represent balance, or even come close.
Lets stop pretending like win rate graphs actually mean something, please. If the best player in the whole world is a Terran, he's going to do better than the 12th best player in the world who is a Zerg or the 5th best player in the world who is a Protoss.
Love always,
Your Friend Logic.
So there are 10 terrans in the top 12, with zerg and protoss only placing once each at 12'th and 5'th place?
|
On January 03 2012 22:30 Chargelot wrote:
Win rate is not a measure of balance, for the better player wins against the worse player. These graphs don't account for player skill, and therefore it can't possibly accurately represent balance, or even come close.
Lets stop pretending like win rate graphs actually mean something, please. If the best player in the whole world is a Terran, he's going to do better than the 12th best player in the world who is a Zerg or the 5th best player in the world who is a Protoss.
Love always,
Your Friend Logic.
so what should be used else?
based on that argument I could simply say every terran and protoss in the early beta was bad and 1supply 2armor 3range roaches were balanced, because you can't proof that they werent (without stats). immortals, colossi, tanks, marauders and air units still performed well vs them so whatever argument you bring on, i can just counter by: if P/T players had been good enough, they would have had enough of those against roach play.
it's bullshit to argue balance without a focus on statistics. the game isn't played by machines (perfect apm) and neither is it possible to have absolute knowledge (full vision and information about the match and the game overall). but those two ate needed to create a game based on nonstatistical balance.
|
On January 03 2012 22:55 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 22:30 Chargelot wrote:
Win rate is not a measure of balance, for the better player wins against the worse player. These graphs don't account for player skill, and therefore it can't possibly accurately represent balance, or even come close.
Lets stop pretending like win rate graphs actually mean something, please. If the best player in the whole world is a Terran, he's going to do better than the 12th best player in the world who is a Zerg or the 5th best player in the world who is a Protoss.
Love always,
Your Friend Logic. So there are 10 terrans in the top 12, with zerg and protoss only placing once each at 12'th and 5'th place?
Are all 2218 of your other posts like this?
On January 03 2012 23:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 22:30 Chargelot wrote:
Win rate is not a measure of balance, for the better player wins against the worse player. These graphs don't account for player skill, and therefore it can't possibly accurately represent balance, or even come close.
Lets stop pretending like win rate graphs actually mean something, please. If the best player in the whole world is a Terran, he's going to do better than the 12th best player in the world who is a Zerg or the 5th best player in the world who is a Protoss.
Love always,
Your Friend Logic. so what should be used else? based on that argument I could simply say every terran and protoss in the early beta was bad and 1supply 2armor 3range roaches were balanced, because you can't proof that they werent (without stats). immortals, colossi, tanks, marauders and air units still performed well vs them so whatever argument you bring on, i can just counter by: if P/T players had been good enough, they would have had enough of those against roach play. it's bullshit to argue balance without a focus on statistics. the game isn't played by machines (perfect apm) and neither is it possible to have absolute knowledge (full vision and information about the match and the game overall). but those two ate needed to create a game based on nonstatistical balance.
It's equally bullshit to argue incomplete statistics which don't compensate for the biggest difference in win/loss ratio actually describe balance. This is why Blizzard has an internal measure of skill, in a sense, which they can use to compare to win/loss ratios both on ladder and in tournaments. They don't balance the game based on W:L Ratios, with the exception of map pools, which is another thing entirely.
|
On January 03 2012 23:22 Chargelot wrote:
It's equally bullshit to argue incomplete statistics which don't compensate for the biggest difference in win/loss ratio actually describe balance. This is why Blizzard has an internal measure of skill, in a sense, which they can use to compare to win/loss ratios both on ladder and in tournaments. They don't balance the game based on W:L Ratios, with the exception of map pools, which is another thing entirely.
Except with hundreds of games played, the player skill will on average tend towards equal. While outstanding players like MVP and Nestea can and will win far more games than race balance would estimate, the variance caused by player skill will never be great enough to make more than 1-2% difference.
There is no reason to believe any race is superior in terms of skill to either of the others, so these statistics are still very useful in looking at race balance.
|
Terran has such a high win rate because a majority of the terran players are not pushovers at all and they have a VERY high level of skill. Terran pros are always finding new ways to get around the nerfs they get. Cant say its that easy for us low league players. lol
|
On January 03 2012 23:31 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 23:22 Chargelot wrote:
It's equally bullshit to argue incomplete statistics which don't compensate for the biggest difference in win/loss ratio actually describe balance. This is why Blizzard has an internal measure of skill, in a sense, which they can use to compare to win/loss ratios both on ladder and in tournaments. They don't balance the game based on W:L Ratios, with the exception of map pools, which is another thing entirely. Except with hundreds of games played, the player skill will on average tend towards equal. While outstanding players like MVP and Nestea can and will win far more games than race balance would estimate, the variance caused by player skill will never be great enough to make more than 1-2% difference. There is no reason to believe any race is superior in terms of skill to either of the others, so these statistics are still very useful in looking at race balance.
But you have absolutely no ability to say that skill only makes a 1-2% difference. Because it is completely unmeasured on this graph and any other chart or graph that you've ever seen. There is no reason to believe that a race is superior, true. But a player? There are a few $100,000.00 reasons to believe that.
|
On January 03 2012 23:22 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 22:55 Cyro wrote:On January 03 2012 22:30 Chargelot wrote:
Win rate is not a measure of balance, for the better player wins against the worse player. These graphs don't account for player skill, and therefore it can't possibly accurately represent balance, or even come close.
Lets stop pretending like win rate graphs actually mean something, please. If the best player in the whole world is a Terran, he's going to do better than the 12th best player in the world who is a Zerg or the 5th best player in the world who is a Protoss.
Love always,
Your Friend Logic. So there are 10 terrans in the top 12, with zerg and protoss only placing once each at 12'th and 5'th place? Are all 2218 of your other posts like this? Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 23:09 Big J wrote:On January 03 2012 22:30 Chargelot wrote:
Win rate is not a measure of balance, for the better player wins against the worse player. These graphs don't account for player skill, and therefore it can't possibly accurately represent balance, or even come close.
Lets stop pretending like win rate graphs actually mean something, please. If the best player in the whole world is a Terran, he's going to do better than the 12th best player in the world who is a Zerg or the 5th best player in the world who is a Protoss.
Love always,
Your Friend Logic. so what should be used else? based on that argument I could simply say every terran and protoss in the early beta was bad and 1supply 2armor 3range roaches were balanced, because you can't proof that they werent (without stats). immortals, colossi, tanks, marauders and air units still performed well vs them so whatever argument you bring on, i can just counter by: if P/T players had been good enough, they would have had enough of those against roach play. it's bullshit to argue balance without a focus on statistics. the game isn't played by machines (perfect apm) and neither is it possible to have absolute knowledge (full vision and information about the match and the game overall). but those two ate needed to create a game based on nonstatistical balance. It's equally bullshit to argue incomplete statistics which don't compensate for the biggest difference in win/loss ratio actually describe balance. This is why Blizzard has an internal measure of skill, in a sense, which they can use to compare to win/loss ratios both on ladder and in tournaments. They don't balance the game based on W:L Ratios.
well they do and you know why they balance around W/L ratios?
because there is a statistcal rule that says in bigger samples of statistics the numbers you get are close to what you have to expect (=balance). you can argue that those statistics are not really good and can only signal trends (like i did at the beginning of the last page) but in the end all your balancing efforts have to be based on statistics.
especially as skill isn't really measureable... maybe the game is completly zergfavored but noone plays them right, right now. in that case i still prefer it that blizzard doesnt hardnerf zerg right now, and rather keeps the game playable/balanced with the current metagame.
|
On January 03 2012 23:36 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 23:31 SeaSwift wrote:On January 03 2012 23:22 Chargelot wrote:
It's equally bullshit to argue incomplete statistics which don't compensate for the biggest difference in win/loss ratio actually describe balance. This is why Blizzard has an internal measure of skill, in a sense, which they can use to compare to win/loss ratios both on ladder and in tournaments. They don't balance the game based on W:L Ratios, with the exception of map pools, which is another thing entirely. Except with hundreds of games played, the player skill will on average tend towards equal. While outstanding players like MVP and Nestea can and will win far more games than race balance would estimate, the variance caused by player skill will never be great enough to make more than 1-2% difference. There is no reason to believe any race is superior in terms of skill to either of the others, so these statistics are still very useful in looking at race balance. But you have absolutely no ability to say that skill only makes a 1-2% difference. Because it is completely unmeasured on this graph. There is no reason to believe that a race is superior, true. But a player? There are a few $100,000.00 reasons to believe that.
As I said, this is based on TLPD. For example, Nestea only played 8 games last month in Korea, with a total of 429 games played last month in Korea.
No way that is going to make a significant difference (more than 1-2%) to the graph.
|
On January 03 2012 23:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 22:30 Chargelot wrote:
Win rate is not a measure of balance, for the better player wins against the worse player. These graphs don't account for player skill, and therefore it can't possibly accurately represent balance, or even come close.
Lets stop pretending like win rate graphs actually mean something, please. If the best player in the whole world is a Terran, he's going to do better than the 12th best player in the world who is a Zerg or the 5th best player in the world who is a Protoss.
Love always,
Your Friend Logic. so what should be used else? based on that argument I could simply say every terran and protoss in the early beta was bad and 1supply 2armor 3range roaches were balanced, because you can't proof that they werent (without stats). immortals, colossi, tanks, marauders and air units still performed well vs them so whatever argument you bring on, i can just counter by: if P/T players had been good enough, they would have had enough of those against roach play. it's bullshit to argue balance without a focus on statistics. the game isn't played by machines (perfect apm) and neither is it possible to have absolute knowledge (full vision and information about the match and the game overall). but those two ate needed to create a game based on nonstatistical balance.
To be honest witnessing how imbalanced a unit can be, for example early beta roaches is a much better indicator than statistics. A huge disparity in winrate still requires you to find the cause of the imbalance either way. Not that statistics aren't useful, but the entire matter of balance is completely subjective. Even when accounting for statistics.
On January 03 2012 22:03 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 09:08 skatbone wrote: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 wouldn't read too much into these numbers. Just 3 or 4 weeks ago, Terran was so underrepresented, according to SC2Ranks, that we had that painful thread about Terrans dying out. Once Christmas break came around, the Terrans seemed to re-emerge in diamond. I play against more T now that I do P or Z. tl;dr These things are in flux. Terran is the least played race from gold-masters on sc2ranks global, US, EU, and it has been for ages. It's only in Korea/Sea/China where that doesn't apply. Zerg is now the least played in grandmaster global, where terran used to be, but from what I understand after reading a couple of threads about it some week ago, grandmaster has nothing to do with actual skill but about gaming the system so anyone can get entered into it, which makes it irrelevant.
The fuck. You can't game the system to get into GM. How the fuck are people still making this retarded comment.
|
On January 03 2012 09:08 skatbone 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? I wouldn't read too much into these numbers. Just 3 or 4 weeks ago, Terran was so underrepresented, according to SC2Ranks, that we had that painful thread about Terrans dying out. Once Christmas break came around, the Terrans seemed to re-emerge in diamond. I play against more T now that I do P or Z. tl;dr These things are in flux.
Not really, Diamond Terran population is smaller this season(24,1)% than last (25,7%)(data for US server).
|
What a suprise, after stupid balance changes in a patch that did nothing to fix the actual problems in PvT, Terran dominate even more? November gave protoss a bit of luck becuase of the fact that pretty much all GSL protoss had to play baller and go straight down two tier 3 tech paths at once or rush double forge in order to counter...MMM... Now it seems terran all had an epiphany of "oh, if I play like that to it'll be roflcakes ezpz."
|
The volatility in TvP over the past 3 months is disheartening.
|
On January 02 2012 20:42 Kenshi235 wrote:
Can't wait for another terran nerf. TvP gets harder and harder every day for T for non GM/top masters players, but b/c Pros are getting it done we gonna get nerfed more. Additionally I get bm'ed by every P at start assuming I'm going to cheese or 111 when I don't. I guess I should join the crowd if I'm already being blamed right?
Unfortunately : (. I think I'm going to keep to 1 rax FE'ing every game and staying at a 30% win rate as i get rofl stomped by mid/late game P comps. Really hope they don't nerf T more (not asking for a P nerf either.)
Either way, stats are looking better and better with each passing month : )
|
Wow, the PvT is horrible.
Blizzard needs to take action for this matchup. Seriously , terran's 1-base all-ins are impossible.
|
On January 04 2012 02:06 Sphen5117 wrote:
What a suprise, after stupid balance changes in a patch that did nothing to fix the actual problems in PvT, Terran dominate even more? November gave protoss a bit of luck becuase of the fact that pretty much all GSL protoss had to play baller and go straight down two tier 3 tech paths at once or rush double forge in order to counter...MMM... Now it seems terran all had an epiphany of "oh, if I play like that to it'll be roflcakes ezpz."
lmao why are you taking this so personally? Does such a small % difference at the PRO level really affect your play in whatever league you're in? You say Terran's are dominating but I honestly can't remember the last time a foreign Terran won a major live tournament. They are doing well in the GSL, yes, but is that fact honestly enough to make you act like a drama queen? calm down man lmao, it's a video game.
|
On January 04 2012 13:12 imEnex wrote:
Wow, the PvT is horrible.
Blizzard needs to take action for this matchup. Seriously , terran's 1-base all-ins are impossible.
All they have to do is give faster WG back. 4 gate stopped that for the most part. Not as good as 3 gate VR did but VR only does 25 DPS now instead of 41 when MC was wining everything. Anyway, that WG change which people/blizz said would stop PvP 4 gate and didnt but did make P more vulnerable early game one base all ins AND took away a harassment option.
|
Its funny how Terran remains the race with the best winrate even though its been nerfed the most in every patch since the game came out.
|
On January 04 2012 00:51 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 23:09 Big J wrote:On January 03 2012 22:30 Chargelot wrote:
Win rate is not a measure of balance, for the better player wins against the worse player. These graphs don't account for player skill, and therefore it can't possibly accurately represent balance, or even come close.
Lets stop pretending like win rate graphs actually mean something, please. If the best player in the whole world is a Terran, he's going to do better than the 12th best player in the world who is a Zerg or the 5th best player in the world who is a Protoss.
Love always,
Your Friend Logic. so what should be used else? based on that argument I could simply say every terran and protoss in the early beta was bad and 1supply 2armor 3range roaches were balanced, because you can't proof that they werent (without stats). immortals, colossi, tanks, marauders and air units still performed well vs them so whatever argument you bring on, i can just counter by: if P/T players had been good enough, they would have had enough of those against roach play. it's bullshit to argue balance without a focus on statistics. the game isn't played by machines (perfect apm) and neither is it possible to have absolute knowledge (full vision and information about the match and the game overall). but those two ate needed to create a game based on nonstatistical balance. To be honest witnessing how imbalanced a unit can be, for example early beta roaches is a much better indicator than statistics. A huge disparity in winrate still requires you to find the cause of the imbalance either way. Not that statistics aren't useful, but the entire matter of balance is completely subjective. Even when accounting for statistics. Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 22:03 Dalavita wrote:On January 03 2012 09:08 skatbone wrote: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 wouldn't read too much into these numbers. Just 3 or 4 weeks ago, Terran was so underrepresented, according to SC2Ranks, that we had that painful thread about Terrans dying out. Once Christmas break came around, the Terrans seemed to re-emerge in diamond. I play against more T now that I do P or Z. tl;dr These things are in flux. Terran is the least played race from gold-masters on sc2ranks global, US, EU, and it has been for ages. It's only in Korea/Sea/China where that doesn't apply. Zerg is now the least played in grandmaster global, where terran used to be, but from what I understand after reading a couple of threads about it some week ago, grandmaster has nothing to do with actual skill but about gaming the system so anyone can get entered into it, which makes it irrelevant. The fuck. You can't game the system to get into GM. How the fuck are people still making this retarded comment.
You can't game the system to get into GM? Then explain the players that were GM in season 2, played one game in season 3, zero games in season 4, lost one game this season and were placed into GM.
Are you honestly saying that it makes sense for such a player to be in GM? Perhaps they were once good enough to deserve being in GM but after 3 seasons of inactivity it doesn't make any sense for them to still be able to get placed into GM over active players.
|
On January 04 2012 13:12 imEnex wrote:
Wow, the PvT is horrible.
Blizzard needs to take action for this matchup. Seriously , terran's 1-base all-ins are impossible.
Wow, the PvT is horrible.
Blizzard needs to take action for this matchup. Seriously, terran shouldn't have to 1-base all-in to win.
|
On January 04 2012 13:50 Active.815 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 13:12 imEnex wrote:
Wow, the PvT is horrible.
Blizzard needs to take action for this matchup. Seriously , terran's 1-base all-ins are impossible. Wow, the PvT is horrible. Blizzard needs to take action for this matchup. Seriously, terran shouldn't have to 1-base all-in to win.
I agree with both statements ><
-Reduce Marine HP by 5 (takes the tankiness away from a unit that should have never been tanky to begin with, shouldn't affect defense as bunkers exist for that purpose)
-Remove 250mm Cannon (since it's useless)
-Remove Thor energy bar (since all it does is makes HTs counter Thors)
*Now Thors are a viable "generalist unit" in TvP mech style and we might even see them used in bio balls to break FFs (yeah, I know, I'm dreaming)
-Increase Siege Tank Siege damage vs armored to 60
-Do whatever else needs to be done to make mech viable (I don't think that would be much from this point honestly)
Yey TvP is fixed!!
|
On January 04 2012 13:57 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 13:50 Active.815 wrote:On January 04 2012 13:12 imEnex wrote:
Wow, the PvT is horrible.
Blizzard needs to take action for this matchup. Seriously , terran's 1-base all-ins are impossible. Wow, the PvT is horrible. Blizzard needs to take action for this matchup. Seriously, terran shouldn't have to 1-base all-in to win. I agree with both statements >< - Reduce Marine HP by 5 (takes the tankiness away from a unit that should have never been tanky to begin with, shouldn't affect defense as bunkers exist for that purpose) -Remove 250mm Cannon (since it's useless) -Remove Thor energy bar (since all it does is makes HTs counter Thors) *Now Thors are a viable "generalist unit" in TvP mech style and we might even see them used in bio balls to break FFs (yeah, I know, I'm dreaming) -Increase Siege Tank Siege damage vs armored to 60 -Do whatever else needs to be done to make mech viable (I don't think that would be much from this point honestly) Yey TvP is fixed!!
Late games Marines are worthless. You even see players like Bomber and Major killing their marines because they serve no purpose other than being evaporated by storms and collosi, I have no idea why you are calling them 'tanky.' A guardian shielded zealot taking 1 damage from a marine is pretty tanky imo.
Mech is no where near being viable. Even with an insane army advantage an entire mech army can die to chargelots and immortals. The thor energy removal is needed, no doubt, but helions don't really counter chargelots late game and die instantly. Once chargelots get to your tanks you just kill your own units with friendly fire and immortals tank damage and dish it out unparalleled.
Major, Gretorp, and Jinro have said mech is straight up terrible vs toss, I don't think mech is 'close' to being viable, like you said.
I share sentiments with many people above me. As the race with the highest skillcap, Terran will always do well in Korea. Look outside of Korea and they don't do nearly as well, and look at Diamond and masters and Terrans are crying. In a late game battle Terran will require more micro and APM than a protoss, not a knock on them it's just the nature of the race. So a player with diamond level mechanics will have a rather hard time defeating a toss player with the same mechanics.
|
On January 05 2012 14:06 xrapture wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 13:57 Jermstuddog wrote:On January 04 2012 13:50 Active.815 wrote:On January 04 2012 13:12 imEnex wrote:
Wow, the PvT is horrible.
Blizzard needs to take action for this matchup. Seriously , terran's 1-base all-ins are impossible. Wow, the PvT is horrible. Blizzard needs to take action for this matchup. Seriously, terran shouldn't have to 1-base all-in to win. I agree with both statements >< - Reduce Marine HP by 5 (takes the tankiness away from a unit that should have never been tanky to begin with, shouldn't affect defense as bunkers exist for that purpose) -Remove 250mm Cannon (since it's useless) -Remove Thor energy bar (since all it does is makes HTs counter Thors) *Now Thors are a viable "generalist unit" in TvP mech style and we might even see them used in bio balls to break FFs (yeah, I know, I'm dreaming) -Increase Siege Tank Siege damage vs armored to 60 -Do whatever else needs to be done to make mech viable (I don't think that would be much from this point honestly) Yey TvP is fixed!! Late games Marines are worthless. You even see players like Bomber and Major killing their marines because they serve no purpose other than being evaporated by storms and collosi, I have no idea why you are calling them 'tanky.' A guardian shielded zealot taking 1 damage from a marine is pretty tanky imo. Mech is no where near being viable. Even with an insane army advantage an entire mech army can die to chargelots and immortals. The thor energy removal is needed, no doubt, but helions don't really counter chargelots late game and die instantly. Once chargelots get to your tanks you just kill your own units with friendly fire and immortals tank damage and dish it out unparalleled. Major, Gretorp, and Jinro have said mech is straight up terrible vs toss, I don't think mech is 'close' to being viable, like you said. I share sentiments with many people above me. As the race with the highest skillcap, Terran will always do well in Korea. Look outside of Korea and they don't do nearly as well, and look at Diamond and masters and Terrans are crying. In a late game battle Terran will require more micro and APM than a protoss, not a knock on them it's just the nature of the race. So a player with diamond level mechanics will have a rather hard time defeating a toss player with the same mechanics.
-) terran does not require more apm... no matter what level you play. at least there are no stats and the whole myth comes from whiners that exist in every race. (if you dont inject/forcefield/blink/stutter step/muta harass/drop... like a pro...)
-) all races have skillcaps that are not reachable by humans. not in the slightest. therefore argumenting based on skillcaps makes no sense to begin with.
-) if you split the discussion in pro and nonpro you cant say that mech isnt viable in TvP. at least up to diamond mech is very very viable and if you thonk apm spamming... sry i meant stutter stepping is too hard for you, then you should be in a league in which mech is a good style.
-) if terrans outside of korea did as well as in korea, then you would be glad about those little nerfs like emp range and.that blizzard did not remove the marine and the tank at all.
|
Terran gets nerfed and continues to win tourneys? I bet it's the player that wins, not the race
|
I play zerg so what I'm saying might be completely wrong. In ZvP zerg has to do something to stop protoss from getting away with bases and reaching their late game. It feels like terran has to do the same and this is where terrans are complaining because they can't stop them.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Big J - from a low masters perspective as a Protoss, I would say mid-late game requirements on Terran are higher than Protoss.
Early game is hard for Protoss, because of all the weird shenaningans Terran can do. Drops are hard too. But generally, warping in 15 chargelots in the middle of a large battle is quite nice, and in mid-late game, so is tech switches - the Protoss just has to be clever enough to make the switches, Terran has to anticipate and respond to them.
I think Terran definitely has the tools to deal with Protoss, which is why they do so well at the highest levels; ghosts, vikings, and excellent stutter-step are really pretty damn good counters to the Protoss army. It just all has to be done very well, with a very high skill cap.
This seems to contrast to PvZ, where Zerg shit their pants between 8-12 minutes, trying to work out and respond to the large variety of very strong 2 base attacks/all-ins that Protoss can do. But beyond that in a longer macro game, Protoss has to work very very hard to keep up with the Zerg (it is possible, as in TvP, but hard).
|
On January 05 2012 22:44 marvellosity wrote:
Big J - from a low masters perspective as a Protoss, I would say mid-late game requirements on Terran are higher than Protoss.
Early game is hard for Protoss, because of all the weird shenaningans Terran can do. Drops are hard too. But generally, warping in 15 chargelots in the middle of a large battle is quite nice, and in mid-late game, so is tech switches - the Protoss just has to be clever enough to make the switches, Terran has to anticipate and respond to them.
I think Terran definitely has the tools to deal with Protoss, which is why they do so well at the highest levels; ghosts, vikings, and excellent stutter-step are really pretty damn good counters to the Protoss army. It just all has to be done very well, with a very high skill cap.
This seems to contrast to PvZ, where Zerg shit their pants between 8-12 minutes, trying to work out and respond to the large variety of very strong 2 base attacks/all-ins that Protoss can do. But beyond that in a longer macro game, Protoss has to work very very hard to keep up with the Zerg (it is possible, as in TvP, but hard).
well, maybe it's just my own perspective but as mid- high masters zerg player I always got the feeling that (whenever I was offracing with terran) I could just bang my head against the keyboard and whatever composition came out worked as long as I was spamming enough apm, while as protoss I usually had the feeling that whenever I did not engage with the proper composition (and therefore played right for all of the game, not just in battles) I was dead to begin with in TvP.
(to put things into perspective, i could beat master/high diamond players of all races with terran, but started to have trouble with protoss in macro games somewhere around mid diamond)
so in conclusion I would say that this sort of X is harder than Y is just a question of the player and what they have trouble with and can by no means be generalized.
|
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be.
|
On January 04 2012 13:33 kofman wrote:
Its funny how Terran remains the race with the best winrate even though its been nerfed the most in every patch since the game came out.
It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better?
You can't have 50% balance all across the board. When will people realize talent/skill is not equally distributed? Not saying this is true to this situation, but just saying that a 50% winrate does not necessarily mean everything is fine and dandy.
|
On January 06 2012 04:39 SniXSniPe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 13:33 kofman wrote:
Its funny how Terran remains the race with the best winrate even though its been nerfed the most in every patch since the game came out. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? You can't have 50% balance all across the board. When will people realize talent/skill is not equally distributed? Not saying this is true to this situation, but just saying that a 50% winrate does not necessarily mean everything is fine and dandy.
If anything, it indicates that the race has way more potential than is being used right now, and that patches force terrans to explore those options and refine their play.
|
This is what you call a balanced game, theres obviously always going to be small difference, cant be a perfect ratio for all races
|
i actually feel that terran cannot win a macro game vs protoss with out a bit of luck... if you build to many vikings you get run over by chargelot remax and if you dont build enough ghost you get stomped by templar and if you dont have enough vikings you get smashed by colossus... the terran win rates are high because of one base all ins and two base aggression. it would be interesting to see the winrates of tvps longer then 15 minuets in order to figure out what is wrong... terran is strong early to midgame, toss is strong lategame and i dont think that is very good game design
|
On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be.
Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then.
It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better?
This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that.
|
On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that.
Great argument. You've surely changed my opinion by throwing out a how taking a college statistics course refutes everything I just said. Lets not take into consideration, how many of these top Pros were playing BW in the first place and switched over to play Terran. Even if they were not a Jaedong or Flash, having a brackground in BW certainly helps them over all else. Go ahead and look it up, you'll find there are more ex-BW Pros/semi-pros whatever, who switched from playing Terran in BW to Terran again.
And these are the people the sample size is partly constructed from.
|
Im not sure that the Korean win rates are that valid. The way GSL works if you lose you fall out. So for example say protoss all lost in GSL except for the 4 best toss. Those best 4 toss stayed because they have ok win rates vs the other races. Wouldn't that skew the winrates toward balanced?
|
On January 06 2012 04:47 AndreiDaGiant wrote:
i actually feel that terran cannot win a macro game vs protoss with out a bit of luck... if you build to many vikings you get run over by chargelot remax and if you dont build enough ghost you get stomped by templar and if you dont have enough vikings you get smashed by colossus... the terran win rates are high because of one base all ins and two base aggression. it would be interesting to see the winrates of tvps longer then 15 minuets in order to figure out what is wrong... terran is strong early to midgame, toss is strong lategame and i dont think that is very good game design
It's bad game design, but mainly because at lower levels, Protoss doesn't even get the chance to get to lategame.
Why would you need "luck" in building a terran composition when: a) the terran tech "tree" is more of a tech "straight fucking line", b) terran have a unit that counters all protoss units, even after being nerfed... the ghost, and c) terran have the best scouting in the game?
It's not 1-base allins or two base agression that's winning for terran; they're just straight up a stronger race than protoss, in almost every way.
|
On January 02 2012 22:02 R!! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework. If by gold level scrubs you mean the entire low to mid masters in EU and NA I totally agree with you.
Heck, did you see QXC practicing vs. protoss deathball over christmas break? He was definitely struggling to win an engagement. The bottomline is that terran's are better off if they avoid the late game.
|
On January 06 2012 05:01 SniXSniPe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. Great argument. You've surely changed my opinion by throwing out a how taking a college statistics course refutes everything I just said. Lets not take into consideration, how many of these top Pros were playing BW in the first place and switched over to play Terran. Even if they were not a Jaedong or Flash, having a brackground in BW certainly helps them over all else. Go ahead and look it up, you'll find there are more ex-BW Pros/semi-pros whatever, who switched from playing Terran in BW to Terran again. And these are the people the sample size is partly constructed from.
Okay... name the korean pros that did not play BW, all of them did and they didn't all choose terran.
In the international numbers the number of crazy elite t.rran players compared to the overall number of players is under .5%; certainly not enough to explain the descrepency in PvT win rates.
And really my arguing with you is pointless, as you won't change your opinion regardless.
|
On January 06 2012 05:01 SniXSniPe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. Great argument. You've surely changed my opinion by throwing out a how taking a college statistics course refutes everything I just said. Lets not take into consideration, how many of these top Pros were playing BW in the first place and switched over to play Terran. Even if they were not a Jaedong or Flash, having a brackground in BW certainly helps them over all else. Go ahead and look it up, you'll find there are more ex-BW Pros/semi-pros whatever, who switched from playing Terran in BW to Terran again. And these are the people the sample size is partly constructed from.
I don't think there is any changing your opinion regardless of what is said, and I don't intend to try. I'm simply saying your logic is flawed. When a large amount of statistics point to something, you can't just dismiss that to a theory that can't be proven using statistics. That was the point of my college statistics post, it is a really basic idea that you learn at a very basic level of statistics study. But putting all of that aside, if you can't understand why the argument "terran players are just better" is bad, I don't know what to tell you.
|
On January 03 2012 03:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +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
Seems to contradict this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=163417
"In North America, we feel that ZvT/ZvP are balanced. Protoss seems to be favored in PvT with a 60% win percentage."
However, he goes on to say in top-tier korea, terran is favored:
"In PvT however, top-tier terrans have a 6% win rate advantage over protoss. We generally don't see a difference within 5% as a balance issue, but 6% is a little bit outside that range. As in the past, Terran may become more powerful once Korean strategies make their way to other regions. We are keeping an eye on it at the moment."
|
On January 06 2012 04:47 AndreiDaGiant wrote:
i actually feel that terran cannot win a macro game vs protoss with out a bit of luck... if you build to many vikings you get run over by chargelot remax and if you dont build enough ghost you get stomped by templar and if you dont have enough vikings you get smashed by colossus... the terran win rates are high because of one base all ins and two base aggression. it would be interesting to see the winrates of tvps longer then 15 minuets in order to figure out what is wrong... terran is strong early to midgame, toss is strong lategame and i dont think that is very good game design
I think it kinda goes both ways. I can tell you that Protoss in lower levels can not defend drops well. Generally if Terran can't micro well lategame, Protoss won't have the multitasking either to stop a few bases from getting sniped from multipronged attacks.
|
|
|
On January 06 2012 06:05 stormtemplar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 05:09 Smackzilla wrote:On January 02 2012 22:02 R!! wrote:On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework. If by gold level scrubs you mean the entire low to mid masters in EU and NA I totally agree with you. Heck, did you see QXC practicing vs. protoss deathball over christmas break? He was definitely struggling to win an engagement. The bottomline is that terran's are better off if they avoid the late game. I have a problem with this. The entire FRIGGING race of protoss is based upon the deathball. Protoss needs to survive a hard as hell early game to get it, and then you have ONE shot. Protoss cannot get enough money to replace the deathball. I guarantee that if PvT gets to a point where lategame is 50:50, protoss will have a worse winrate than terran unless it's earlygame gets a large buff..
I don't really see where we disagree. I only made statements about the late game. I won't argue that terran has advantages early. And this is why terran's who are out to win should favor strategies to win in the early-mid game vs. late game macro play. I'm really not trying to argue about overall balance of the matchup. I'm just supporting the point that late-game ehad-to-head engagements are very hard for all terran and not just "gold-level scrubs".
|
The bottom line is international tournament winrates are meaningless and according to korean winrates the only matchup that can really be considered imbalanced is PvZ.
|
On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that.
At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time.
|
Wow.. how can Terran still be the one with most wins?
I mean Protoss fuckes up every terran in my eyes. ( Koreans not included xD)
|
On January 06 2012 06:21 fantasy305 wrote:
Wow.. how can Terran still be the one with most wins?
I mean Protoss fuckes up every terran in my eyes. ( Koreans not included xD)
might have to do with your terran bias
|
when HOTS comes out and mech may be viable vs toss, that should fix things up a bit so terran actually has a solid lategame vs them. I mean if all terran can make is bio then the toss has storms, collosi and archons/zealots... it's pretty clear which army is stronger. When mech is viable though I feel like bio could be nerfed a tad to ease the early game TvP.
|
I hope someone is actively cross-checking these data carefully. And its just not one mans word into something this important to the community.
My concern is that the patch notes noted in these graphs mostly focuses on protoss changes. Also I have heard that the creator of this graph mainly plays protoss. Coupling that with continuous numbers changes I do hope there are some checks and balances on something that carries so much weigh and its just not one mans work.
|
My opinion about PvT.
In the past months, terrans did not have to play macro games against toss. They simply do not have to. For example, in gsl group nomination, puzzle said marineking on ladder never played marco games against him and mkp respond that because he does not think he has to. As a result, toss losing a lot of pvt and terran had many easy wins. Even one of the best pvt er in sc2 at all time, oGsMc lost a lot of pvts because he can not defend in the early game.
And because of 111, almost all the early toss cheese or timing did not work, simply because toss players had to prepared for 111 agresstion in the early and therefore, no 4 gate, no dt, no 6 gate. Toss needed a robo in the early game.
Therefore, the only way for toss to win is macro game.
A few months past, terran got nerf because the winrate in pvt looked too good for terran. In gsl, terran got even more nerf with some new introduced maps. So terrans are forced to play macro games. For example, puma is known to play 111. But in DH final, he used 111 in only one game and failed. He won nasl season2 with no 111 at all.
Terrans again needed to play macro games. But in general they found it hard and that makes sense. Because a lots of terrans they do not play macro games seriously in pvt for months and they are playing against toss players who only had a chance to win with macro games. Of course, in macro game, toss should be doing better.
If you can beat diamond toss with 111 before and now that did not work any more and you find yourself always lose to diamond toss in a macro game. That is not because of game inbalance, it is because you do not have the skill.
As a toss player, I agree at the moment pvt late game looks favored to toss. But I believe that can change anytime. For terran, there is one good thing which is in gsl codes there are so many good terran players there and they are showing new things all the time. For example, when Jiajji showed his mech play against puzzle, puzzle was in trouble and he had no answer to that.
After all, if there is one race should be nerf, it is terran. There is no reason to nerf a race losing more games than other races.
|
On January 06 2012 06:17 Raambo11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time.
Just because you'll lose a lot makes it unplayable? I've played Terran since beta and I'm not going to switch now just because times are tough. My macro games vs toss probably have me at a 30% winrate, hell I've even lost to plat tosses I've tried to play in a macro game, but working your ass off trying to improve your multitasking and micro against toss should be the main goal.
Who care's if Koreans are causing Terran to get nerfed? Any game we lose is SOLEY because our micro or macro wasn't good enough. More GG = More Skill.
|
On January 06 2012 15:39 xrapture wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 06:17 Raambo11 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time. Just because you'll lose a lot makes it unplayable? I've played Terran since beta and I'm not going to switch now just because times are tough. My macro games vs toss probably have me at a 30% winrate, hell I've even lost to plat tosses I've tried to play in a macro game, but working your ass off trying to improve your multitasking and micro against toss should be the main goal. Who care's if Koreans are causing Terran to get nerfed? Any game we lose is SOLEY because our micro or macro wasn't good enough. More GG = More Skill.
Repeating it doesn't make it true. Games that you lost were not solely because of your macro/micro or strategy. Those are enormous variables, yes, but it doesn't zero out the contribution of race dynamics. You're matched with someone that the system thinks is equally skilled, you're not playing against HuK.
|
On January 06 2012 16:03 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 15:39 xrapture wrote:On January 06 2012 06:17 Raambo11 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time. Just because you'll lose a lot makes it unplayable? I've played Terran since beta and I'm not going to switch now just because times are tough. My macro games vs toss probably have me at a 30% winrate, hell I've even lost to plat tosses I've tried to play in a macro game, but working your ass off trying to improve your multitasking and micro against toss should be the main goal. Who care's if Koreans are causing Terran to get nerfed? Any game we lose is SOLEY because our micro or macro wasn't good enough. More GG = More Skill. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Games that you lost were not solely because of your macro/micro or strategy. Those are enormous variables, yes, but it doesn't zero out the contribution of race dynamics. You're matched with someone that the system thinks is equally skilled, you're not playing against HuK.
more gg = more skill, its an attitude thing. The game balance has nothing to do with the mindset of getting better and ignoring the rest. This is why some people are in gm and beyond, while many are stuck in a hopeless shithole
|
On January 06 2012 16:03 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 15:39 xrapture wrote:On January 06 2012 06:17 Raambo11 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time. Just because you'll lose a lot makes it unplayable? I've played Terran since beta and I'm not going to switch now just because times are tough. My macro games vs toss probably have me at a 30% winrate, hell I've even lost to plat tosses I've tried to play in a macro game, but working your ass off trying to improve your multitasking and micro against toss should be the main goal. Who care's if Koreans are causing Terran to get nerfed? Any game we lose is SOLEY because our micro or macro wasn't good enough. More GG = More Skill. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Games that you lost were not solely because of your macro/micro or strategy. Those are enormous variables, yes, but it doesn't zero out the contribution of race dynamics. You're matched with someone that the system thinks is equally skilled, you're not playing against HuK.
Jesus you are so contradictory. If you do not play at the pro level, then it's not your race holding you back, it's your macro/micro/mechanics, pick one two or three. There's just so much shit you're doing wrong at lower levels that racial imbalances play very little role in your losses, stop igniting imbalance wars, this is FACT. Get over your losses, improve your play till you're a pro, then complain.
|
On January 06 2012 05:49 Smackzilla 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 Seems to contradict this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=163417"In North America, we feel that ZvT/ZvP are balanced. Protoss seems to be favored in PvT with a 60% win percentage." However, he goes on to say in top-tier korea, terran is favored: "In PvT however, top-tier terrans have a 6% win rate advantage over protoss. We generally don't see a difference within 5% as a balance issue, but 6% is a little bit outside that range. As in the past, Terran may become more powerful once Korean strategies make their way to other regions. We are keeping an eye on it at the moment."
that's from october 2010 lol
|
On January 06 2012 16:08 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 16:03 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 15:39 xrapture wrote:On January 06 2012 06:17 Raambo11 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time. Just because you'll lose a lot makes it unplayable? I've played Terran since beta and I'm not going to switch now just because times are tough. My macro games vs toss probably have me at a 30% winrate, hell I've even lost to plat tosses I've tried to play in a macro game, but working your ass off trying to improve your multitasking and micro against toss should be the main goal. Who care's if Koreans are causing Terran to get nerfed? Any game we lose is SOLEY because our micro or macro wasn't good enough. More GG = More Skill. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Games that you lost were not solely because of your macro/micro or strategy. Those are enormous variables, yes, but it doesn't zero out the contribution of race dynamics. You're matched with someone that the system thinks is equally skilled, you're not playing against HuK. more gg = more skill, its an attitude thing. The game balance has nothing to do with the mindset of getting better and ignoring the rest. This is why some people are in gm and beyond, while many are stuck in a hopeless shithole
The attitude is about realizing that you control 90% of the game. It's, as you said, a mindset for improving, not a model of how games are actually decided. "The only reason you didn't win was because you didn't have better macro/micro/strategy." is untrue, but it makes a good meme.
|
On January 06 2012 16:03 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 15:39 xrapture wrote:On January 06 2012 06:17 Raambo11 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time. Just because you'll lose a lot makes it unplayable? I've played Terran since beta and I'm not going to switch now just because times are tough. My macro games vs toss probably have me at a 30% winrate, hell I've even lost to plat tosses I've tried to play in a macro game, but working your ass off trying to improve your multitasking and micro against toss should be the main goal. Who care's if Koreans are causing Terran to get nerfed? Any game we lose is SOLEY because our micro or macro wasn't good enough. More GG = More Skill. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Games that you lost were not solely because of your macro/micro or strategy. Those are enormous variables, yes, but it doesn't zero out the contribution of race dynamics. You're matched with someone that the system thinks is equally skilled, you're not playing against HuK.
I'd much rather lose because i know my multitasking/micro/macro/mechanichs need work.
Then to lose because some obvious imbalance.
However, I'm gonna say that P is just a stupid race by design...
You either have to iron out some silly all in timing atack (which they refuse to call allins.). Or you sit on 3 base and your 6 gaysers getting a deathball, while the game is just a long macro fest, where both sides can do very little to each other, and multitasking is completely irrelevant.
I have to say i hate playing against P as any race. And i dislike playing P as well. Icing on the cake is PvP which is hands down the worst MU in sc2 according to i think anyone objective (or not even obj)...
I am really having high hopes for P in HoTs....P has been just silly .
|
Terran is already so hard to play between Diamond and High Master... i don't want another terran nerf aimed at TvP.
|
On January 02 2012 20:42 Kenshi235 wrote:
Can't wait for another terran nerf. TvP gets harder and harder every day for T for non GM/top masters players, but b/c Pros are getting it done we gonna get nerfed more. Additionally I get bm'ed by every P at start assuming I'm going to cheese or 111 when I don't. I guess I should join the crowd if I'm already being blamed right?
well, the fact is that Protoss (besides PvZ in Korea) is still the worst race, and Terran is starting to dominate the late game hard, Zerg is doing fine so far and those statistics just nailed it
|
Nobody should compare international graphs with the korean graphs. The graph we should be spotting out for is the international graph, simply because we are not koreans and we do not play like them. A 55% win rate for protoss in korea does not reflect the winrate of protosses internationally. Korean's mindset is to kill the enemy as soon as possible, while the mindset out of korea is to be really passive. Therefore, the graph of korea cannot represent the top level of play in StarCraft2. It only represents the korean's community in all aspect.
|
TvP is heavily favored for the protoss as the game goes longer. Hence we will see lot of terrans going 1/1/1 or all-in vs toss players. Mid and late game heavily favour toss armies. T_T
|
On January 06 2012 18:36 HaruRH wrote:
Nobody should compare international graphs with the korean graphs. The graph we should be spotting out for is the international graph, simply because we are not koreans and we do not play like them. A 55% win rate for protoss in korea does not reflect the winrate of protosses internationally. Korean's mindset is to kill the enemy as soon as possible, while the mindset out of korea is to be really passive. Therefore, the graph of korea cannot represent the top level of play in StarCraft2. It only represents the korean's community in all aspect.
The korean graph represents the highest level of play,the international one doesnt because most of the players are pretty bad. The international tournament winrates dont represent most of us because we dont play in tournaments and its meaningless because its for the most part progamers against random masters players, top koreans against foreigners and rarely players of somewhat equal skill against each other.
|
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.
I think you are completely right. But if there is around 45%-55% balanced with the same races remaining on each side of the scale for over 6 months or even a whole year. Like Terran has in ZvT, and in PvT. Then that should be enough cause to do something. Because even if the races just reverse its still not worse or better, but maybe they would get 47%-53% then it's better and we can see if players find something that would let them land on a even more balanced ground, or maybe more imbalanced back to 45%-55% agains, or even worse. But that is better than just have a continuous imbalance pointing towards the same race for above a year even.
|
On January 06 2012 18:41 hyperknight wrote:
TvP is heavily favored for the protoss as the game goes longer. Hence we will see lot of terrans going 1/1/1 or all-in vs toss players. Mid and late game heavily favour toss armies. T_T
I don't think that late game protoss(when terran has ghosts) (or especially Mid-game) is overpowered against T. I think the reason why terrans decide to all in is simply because its easier to execute than a macro game against toss, because of the way protoss techs(charge/blink/tier3aoe/upgrade advantages).
|
On January 06 2012 19:24 erazerr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 18:41 hyperknight wrote:
TvP is heavily favored for the protoss as the game goes longer. Hence we will see lot of terrans going 1/1/1 or all-in vs toss players. Mid and late game heavily favour toss armies. T_T I don't think that late game protoss(when terran has ghosts) (or especially Mid-game) is overpowered against T. I think the reason why terrans decide to all in is simply because its easier to execute than a macro game against toss, because of the way protoss techs(charge/blink/tier3aoe/upgrade advantages).
I would say Mid game goes to terran, but once the game gets into late game it becomes extremely hard once the armies to engage to pull of a win against toss. You have to micro your vikings, your bio force, and ghosts. I know a lot of my wins usually when it does come down to late game against toss is that I caught him in a bad position, or he had his HT clumped up, but the toss who I've played against who spread their HT out usually kill me because I can't at the moment snipe, and do the other things in the fight.
|
On January 06 2012 10:13 double620 wrote:
My opinion about PvT.
In the past months, terrans did not have to play macro games against toss. They simply do not have to. For example, in gsl group nomination, puzzle said marineking on ladder never played marco games against him and mkp respond that because he does not think he has to. As a result, toss losing a lot of pvt and terran had many easy wins. Even one of the best pvt er in sc2 at all time, oGsMc lost a lot of pvts because he can not defend in the early game.
And because of 111, almost all the early toss cheese or timing did not work, simply because toss players had to prepared for 111 agresstion in the early and therefore, no 4 gate, no dt, no 6 gate. Toss needed a robo in the early game.
Therefore, the only way for toss to win is macro game.
A few months past, terran got nerf because the winrate in pvt looked too good for terran. In gsl, terran got even more nerf with some new introduced maps. So terrans are forced to play macro games. For example, puma is known to play 111. But in DH final, he used 111 in only one game and failed. He won nasl season2 with no 111 at all.
Terrans again needed to play macro games. But in general they found it hard and that makes sense. Because a lots of terrans they do not play macro games seriously in pvt for months and they are playing against toss players who only had a chance to win with macro games. Of course, in macro game, toss should be doing better.
If you can beat diamond toss with 111 before and now that did not work any more and you find yourself always lose to diamond toss in a macro game. That is not because of game inbalance, it is because you do not have the skill.
As a toss player, I agree at the moment pvt late game looks favored to toss. But I believe that can change anytime. For terran, there is one good thing which is in gsl codes there are so many good terran players there and they are showing new things all the time. For example, when Jiajji showed his mech play against puzzle, puzzle was in trouble and he had no answer to that.
After all, if there is one race should be nerf, it is terran. There is no reason to nerf a race losing more games than other races.
Doesn't make sense because if all the Terrans were allinning and not playing macro TvP, then none of the Protoss would have any experience either in the lategame as no Terran would take them there.
|
On January 06 2012 18:50 secretary bird wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 18:36 HaruRH wrote:
Nobody should compare international graphs with the korean graphs. The graph we should be spotting out for is the international graph, simply because we are not koreans and we do not play like them. A 55% win rate for protoss in korea does not reflect the winrate of protosses internationally. Korean's mindset is to kill the enemy as soon as possible, while the mindset out of korea is to be really passive. Therefore, the graph of korea cannot represent the top level of play in StarCraft2. It only represents the korean's community in all aspect. The korean graph represents the highest level of play,the international one doesnt because most of the players are pretty bad. The international tournament winrates dont represent most of us because we dont play in tournaments and its meaningless because its for the most part progamers against random masters players, top koreans against foreigners and rarely players of somewhat equal skill against each other.
What would you consider highest level of play? The korean graph represents the 'highest korean level of play', not the 'highest level of play throughout the world'. The highest level of play is not playing with korean mindsets.
|
My theory on why there aren't that many terrans at masters is that it's the least intuitive race to play strategically. Masters is the point where you need to have a little understanding of how timings work. Terran generally doesn't make units in bursts, so it's not clear how one takes advantage of timings.
Conversely, there are so many zergs around this level because they can make the most units in a small window of time. Protoss is in between.
|
On January 06 2012 19:49 AndAgain wrote:
My theory on why there aren't that many terrans at masters is that it's the least intuitive race to play strategically. Masters is the point where you need to have a little understanding of how timings work. Terran generally doesn't make units in bursts, so it's not clear how one takes advantage of timings.
Conversely, there are so many zergs around this level because they can make the most units in a small window of time. Protoss is in between.
Afaik there are less terrans at all levels except bronze (which is most likely because campaign heroes picks terran to start of their multiplaying experience). And I think you can do timings just fine as a terran, at least I use timings a lot :o.
|
On January 06 2012 19:49 AndAgain wrote:
My theory on why there aren't that many terrans at masters is that it's the least intuitive race to play strategically. Masters is the point where you need to have a little understanding of how timings work. Terran generally doesn't make units in bursts, so it's not clear how one takes advantage of timings.
Conversely, there are so many zergs around this level because they can make the most units in a small window of time. Protoss is in between.
wat?..
there arent as many terrans cuz their race involves most micro, which seems to be pretty hard for eu/na players, compared to z/p terran has to multitask drops while pushing in zvt at the proper timing window, lategame battles in tvp (ghosts emp/snipe hts while splitting army).
|
On January 06 2012 17:51 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 16:08 biology]major wrote:On January 06 2012 16:03 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 15:39 xrapture wrote:On January 06 2012 06:17 Raambo11 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time. Just because you'll lose a lot makes it unplayable? I've played Terran since beta and I'm not going to switch now just because times are tough. My macro games vs toss probably have me at a 30% winrate, hell I've even lost to plat tosses I've tried to play in a macro game, but working your ass off trying to improve your multitasking and micro against toss should be the main goal. Who care's if Koreans are causing Terran to get nerfed? Any game we lose is SOLEY because our micro or macro wasn't good enough. More GG = More Skill. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Games that you lost were not solely because of your macro/micro or strategy. Those are enormous variables, yes, but it doesn't zero out the contribution of race dynamics. You're matched with someone that the system thinks is equally skilled, you're not playing against HuK. more gg = more skill, its an attitude thing. The game balance has nothing to do with the mindset of getting better and ignoring the rest. This is why some people are in gm and beyond, while many are stuck in a hopeless shithole The attitude is about realizing that you control 90% of the game. It's, as you said, a mindset for improving, not a model of how games are actually decided. "The only reason you didn't win was because you didn't have better macro/micro/strategy." is untrue, but it makes a good meme.
You have horrible mindset, and you will forever remain in limbo with your "racial imbalance" mindset. Pros hardly ever complain about racial imbalance, and again i said "hardly" not "never." Especially the tip-top pros we all oh so love to put on a pedestal, yea the Koreans.
When they run into losses, they find solutions, they don't sit there and whine about this race is imbalanced this and that, that's why they are fucking pros. This is why you will never ever become a pro heck you won't even be tip top tier foreigner, because you sit there and whine all day about this huge immovable obstacle that stands in the way of you winning tiny meaningless games, where as pros play thousands and thousands and realize their losses are nothing but their mistakes, and that is it.
For Christ's sake if you are not a fucking pro, you have almost no right to complain about balance, you are fucking terrible at the game, so there's other shit holding you back. I am not pro, so when I lose, it's because of my mistakes, and my piss poor mechanics that are not up to par with pros/my opponent, this is fucking fact!
Quit the bullshit my fellow non-pro players, which I will call casuals. As casual players you're just bad, so please stfu and play, and enjoy watching pros play at a level you will never reach because you bitch and complain.
|
On January 06 2012 20:42 deadmau wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 17:51 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 16:08 biology]major wrote:On January 06 2012 16:03 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 15:39 xrapture wrote:On January 06 2012 06:17 Raambo11 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time. Just because you'll lose a lot makes it unplayable? I've played Terran since beta and I'm not going to switch now just because times are tough. My macro games vs toss probably have me at a 30% winrate, hell I've even lost to plat tosses I've tried to play in a macro game, but working your ass off trying to improve your multitasking and micro against toss should be the main goal. Who care's if Koreans are causing Terran to get nerfed? Any game we lose is SOLEY because our micro or macro wasn't good enough. More GG = More Skill. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Games that you lost were not solely because of your macro/micro or strategy. Those are enormous variables, yes, but it doesn't zero out the contribution of race dynamics. You're matched with someone that the system thinks is equally skilled, you're not playing against HuK. more gg = more skill, its an attitude thing. The game balance has nothing to do with the mindset of getting better and ignoring the rest. This is why some people are in gm and beyond, while many are stuck in a hopeless shithole The attitude is about realizing that you control 90% of the game. It's, as you said, a mindset for improving, not a model of how games are actually decided. "The only reason you didn't win was because you didn't have better macro/micro/strategy." is untrue, but it makes a good meme. You have horrible mindset, and you will forever remain in limbo with your "racial imbalance" mindset. Pros hardly ever complain about racial imbalance, and again i said "hardly" not "never." Especially the tip-top pros we all oh so love to put on a pedestal, yea the Koreans. When they run into losses, they find solutions, they don't sit there and whine about this race is imbalanced this and that, that's why they are fucking pros. This is why you will never ever become a pro heck you won't even be tip top tier foreigner, because you sit there and whine all day about this huge immovable obstacle that stands in the way of you winning tiny meaningless games, where as pros play thousands and thousands and realize their losses are nothing but their mistakes, and that is it.For Christ's sake if you are not a fucking pro, you have almost no right to complain about balance, you are fucking terrible at the game, so there's other shit holding you back. I am not pro, so when I lose, it's because of my mistakes, and my piss poor mechanics that are not up to par with pros/my opponent, this is fucking fact! Quit the bullshit my fellow non-pro players, which I will call casuals. As casual players you're just bad, so please stfu and play, and enjoy watching pros play at a level you will never reach because you bitch and complain.
yey, the first clever post in this thread, awesome.
|
I wasn't trying to be clever, but it gets really ignorant and silly that players COMPLETELY disregard their lack of perfection-of-skillsets required to play this game and complain that their losses are in no way self inflicted. This game takes so much damn practice and until you truly hit top-tier or pro level, your perceptions are probably way off, there are some smart people that can argue properly but not this bull shit total disregard of "it wasn't my micro/macro/strategy, it was his/her race"
|
On January 06 2012 20:57 deadmau wrote:
I wasn't trying to be clever, but it gets really ignorant and silly that players COMPLETELY disregard their lack of perfection-of-skillsets required to play this game and complain that their losses are in no way self inflicted. This game takes so much damn practice and until you truly hit top-tier or pro level, your perceptions are probably way off, there are some smart people that can argue properly but not this bull shit total disregard of "it wasn't my micro/macro/strategy, it was his/her race"
Quote me where I said anything about losses not being due to micro/macro/strategy? Newsflash: Things can have more than one contributing factor.
|
On January 06 2012 20:37 Artok wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 19:49 AndAgain wrote:
My theory on why there aren't that many terrans at masters is that it's the least intuitive race to play strategically. Masters is the point where you need to have a little understanding of how timings work. Terran generally doesn't make units in bursts, so it's not clear how one takes advantage of timings.
Conversely, there are so many zergs around this level because they can make the most units in a small window of time. Protoss is in between. wat?.. there arent as many terrans cuz their race involves most micro, which seems to be pretty hard for eu/na players, compared to z/p terran has to multitask drops while pushing in zvt at the proper timing window, lategame battles in tvp (ghosts emp/snipe hts while splitting army).
Shift-click moving a medivac with a drop command at the end of the shift-queue, after that move your army out.
I don't see how this requires much micro on the T side?
The defending player will be the one that will have to multitask the battle ánd defending the drop, not the terran player.
Drops are done in spare APM time, it's defending the drop that's multi-task intensive.
|
On January 06 2012 21:06 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 20:57 deadmau wrote:
I wasn't trying to be clever, but it gets really ignorant and silly that players COMPLETELY disregard their lack of perfection-of-skillsets required to play this game and complain that their losses are in no way self inflicted. This game takes so much damn practice and until you truly hit top-tier or pro level, your perceptions are probably way off, there are some smart people that can argue properly but not this bull shit total disregard of "it wasn't my micro/macro/strategy, it was his/her race" Quote me where I said anything about losses not being due to micro/macro/strategy? Newsflash: Things can have more than one contributing factor.
unless you are high gm the micro/macro/strategy is the biggest contributing factor, and your clueless bitching abt the smallest factor is annoying and doesnt have any value.
On January 06 2012 21:16 kaluro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 20:37 Artok wrote:On January 06 2012 19:49 AndAgain wrote:
My theory on why there aren't that many terrans at masters is that it's the least intuitive race to play strategically. Masters is the point where you need to have a little understanding of how timings work. Terran generally doesn't make units in bursts, so it's not clear how one takes advantage of timings.
Conversely, there are so many zergs around this level because they can make the most units in a small window of time. Protoss is in between. wat?.. there arent as many terrans cuz their race involves most micro, which seems to be pretty hard for eu/na players, compared to z/p terran has to multitask drops while pushing in zvt at the proper timing window, lategame battles in tvp (ghosts emp/snipe hts while splitting army). Shift-click moving a medivac with a drop command at the end of the shift-queue, after that move your army out. I don't see how this requires much micro on the T side? The defending player will be the one that will have to multitask the battle ánd defending the drop, not the terran player. Drops are done in spare APM time, it's defending the drop that's multi-task intensive.
I'm zerg player myself, and to me dropping marines, moving them to choke point in 2 different places, macroing and pushing at the same time seem harder than defending from drops, but whatever.
|
On January 06 2012 21:06 hummingbird23 wrote:
Quote me where I said anything about losses not being due to micro/macro/strategy? Newsflash: Things can have more than one contributing factor.
As I said, until your play is at top tier or pro level, you still got a lot of other more important stuff to work on than this supposed "racial imbalance." Just think about when coaches coach newbies, often they find students always worrying about useless stuff like trying to counter this, or counter that, or should i do this or that build order, but when in reality, they need to just focus on mechanics in order to even begin thinking about strategy, or else they get pigeonholed into a spot where they plateau because like you, your mechanics are unrefined, and have hit a ceiling.
So when you hit that ceiling with your oh so UBER knowledge of strategy, build orders, and tactics, but your mechanics suck, you are tricked into thinking you actually are better than you are because you have all this knowledge, but can't use it because your mechanics are bad. Get over it man, we are all bad at this game, unless we are GM/pros. I do not know how you continue believe you are any better than you are? It takes a RIDICULOUS amount of work that I don't think you can fathom with your mindset. Until you put in that work to fix your play, your perceptions of imbalance whether they carry weight or not, are relatively meaningless because you're just bad, me included so why even complain about balance.
P.S. humming im not personally attacking you, i'm saying we are all bad because our mechanics are shit compared to GM/pros, and any thought of racial imbalance just doesn't carry any or much weight, if you think it does well you're delusional as many others are.
|
Terran is going to continue being the dominant race, at least until HotS were things can change dramatically in all directions.
|
On January 06 2012 20:42 deadmau wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 17:51 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 16:08 biology]major wrote:On January 06 2012 16:03 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 15:39 xrapture wrote:On January 06 2012 06:17 Raambo11 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time. Just because you'll lose a lot makes it unplayable? I've played Terran since beta and I'm not going to switch now just because times are tough. My macro games vs toss probably have me at a 30% winrate, hell I've even lost to plat tosses I've tried to play in a macro game, but working your ass off trying to improve your multitasking and micro against toss should be the main goal. Who care's if Koreans are causing Terran to get nerfed? Any game we lose is SOLEY because our micro or macro wasn't good enough. More GG = More Skill. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Games that you lost were not solely because of your macro/micro or strategy. Those are enormous variables, yes, but it doesn't zero out the contribution of race dynamics. You're matched with someone that the system thinks is equally skilled, you're not playing against HuK. more gg = more skill, its an attitude thing. The game balance has nothing to do with the mindset of getting better and ignoring the rest. This is why some people are in gm and beyond, while many are stuck in a hopeless shithole The attitude is about realizing that you control 90% of the game. It's, as you said, a mindset for improving, not a model of how games are actually decided. "The only reason you didn't win was because you didn't have better macro/micro/strategy." is untrue, but it makes a good meme. You have horrible mindset, and you will forever remain in limbo with your "racial imbalance" mindset. Pros hardly ever complain about racial imbalance, and again i said "hardly" not "never." Especially the tip-top pros we all oh so love to put on a pedestal, yea the Koreans. When they run into losses, they find solutions, they don't sit there and whine about this race is imbalanced this and that, that's why they are fucking pros. This is why you will never ever become a pro heck you won't even be tip top tier foreigner, because you sit there and whine all day about this huge immovable obstacle that stands in the way of you winning tiny meaningless games, where as pros play thousands and thousands and realize their losses are nothing but their mistakes, and that is it.For Christ's sake if you are not a fucking pro, you have almost no right to complain about balance, you are fucking terrible at the game, so there's other shit holding you back. I am not pro, so when I lose, it's because of my mistakes, and my piss poor mechanics that are not up to par with pros/my opponent, this is fucking fact! Quit the bullshit my fellow non-pro players, which I will call casuals. As casual players you're just bad, so please stfu and play, and enjoy watching pros play at a level you will never reach because you bitch and complain.
lol you are very angry.
At this point, I don't really care about the pros. I don't want the game to be balanced around 200 guys in Korea, sue me. I just want to play casually and know that I can play a variety of ways and still have a relatively equal chance of winning against someone of equivalent skill level. And right now, I don't feel like I can win in late game tvp and that makes me not want to play as much and that should worry blizzard more than the balance at the highest level.
|
It would be interesting adding GM winrates also in this context - should be the only data from ladder that is not on an even 50 50 winrate base.
|
On January 06 2012 19:44 HaruRH wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 18:50 secretary bird wrote:On January 06 2012 18:36 HaruRH wrote:
Nobody should compare international graphs with the korean graphs. The graph we should be spotting out for is the international graph, simply because we are not koreans and we do not play like them. A 55% win rate for protoss in korea does not reflect the winrate of protosses internationally. Korean's mindset is to kill the enemy as soon as possible, while the mindset out of korea is to be really passive. Therefore, the graph of korea cannot represent the top level of play in StarCraft2. It only represents the korean's community in all aspect. The korean graph represents the highest level of play,the international one doesnt because most of the players are pretty bad. The international tournament winrates dont represent most of us because we dont play in tournaments and its meaningless because its for the most part progamers against random masters players, top koreans against foreigners and rarely players of somewhat equal skill against each other. What would you consider highest level of play? The korean graph represents the 'highest korean level of play', not the 'highest level of play throughout the world'. The highest level of play is not playing with korean mindsets.
Just because you think that koreans cheese too much and should play passive most of the time doesnt make it the best way to play. The fact is that koreans own everyone else with a few exceptions.
I dont think you realize just how bad many of these international tournament players are. They make too many mistakes to show if something is balanced or not if you play correctly.
|
On January 06 2012 21:37 maize wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 20:42 deadmau wrote:On January 06 2012 17:51 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 16:08 biology]major wrote:On January 06 2012 16:03 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 15:39 xrapture wrote:On January 06 2012 06:17 Raambo11 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time. Just because you'll lose a lot makes it unplayable? I've played Terran since beta and I'm not going to switch now just because times are tough. My macro games vs toss probably have me at a 30% winrate, hell I've even lost to plat tosses I've tried to play in a macro game, but working your ass off trying to improve your multitasking and micro against toss should be the main goal. Who care's if Koreans are causing Terran to get nerfed? Any game we lose is SOLEY because our micro or macro wasn't good enough. More GG = More Skill. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Games that you lost were not solely because of your macro/micro or strategy. Those are enormous variables, yes, but it doesn't zero out the contribution of race dynamics. You're matched with someone that the system thinks is equally skilled, you're not playing against HuK. more gg = more skill, its an attitude thing. The game balance has nothing to do with the mindset of getting better and ignoring the rest. This is why some people are in gm and beyond, while many are stuck in a hopeless shithole The attitude is about realizing that you control 90% of the game. It's, as you said, a mindset for improving, not a model of how games are actually decided. "The only reason you didn't win was because you didn't have better macro/micro/strategy." is untrue, but it makes a good meme. You have horrible mindset, and you will forever remain in limbo with your "racial imbalance" mindset. Pros hardly ever complain about racial imbalance, and again i said "hardly" not "never." Especially the tip-top pros we all oh so love to put on a pedestal, yea the Koreans. When they run into losses, they find solutions, they don't sit there and whine about this race is imbalanced this and that, that's why they are fucking pros. This is why you will never ever become a pro heck you won't even be tip top tier foreigner, because you sit there and whine all day about this huge immovable obstacle that stands in the way of you winning tiny meaningless games, where as pros play thousands and thousands and realize their losses are nothing but their mistakes, and that is it.For Christ's sake if you are not a fucking pro, you have almost no right to complain about balance, you are fucking terrible at the game, so there's other shit holding you back. I am not pro, so when I lose, it's because of my mistakes, and my piss poor mechanics that are not up to par with pros/my opponent, this is fucking fact! Quit the bullshit my fellow non-pro players, which I will call casuals. As casual players you're just bad, so please stfu and play, and enjoy watching pros play at a level you will never reach because you bitch and complain. lol you are very angry. At this point, I don't really care about the pros. I don't want the game to be balanced around 200 guys in Korea, sue me. I just want to play casually and know that I can play a variety of ways and still have a relatively equal chance of winning against someone of equivalent skill level. And right now, I don't feel like I can win in late game tvp and that makes me not want to play as much and that should worry blizzard more than the balance at the highest level.
Balancing around top players is how competitive games are done, you are always free to switch games, and no, worrying about random ignorant guy shouldnt be higher priority than making game into esport, bye.
|
I have no intention of getting heavily into that argument, but you have to remember that if people are complaining based on ladder, they're complaining based on at least moderately equivalent skill-level opponents, even with all the people who may have ridden their way to a certain level on seemingly abusively strong all-ins etc, even those that might be less skilled an managing to stay at whatever level from "abuse" would not typically be too much below the similar MMR opponents who might supposedly be better. This means that saying this like "improve micro, macro" etc likely apply equally to their opponents, so if they improve those and their MMR increases, they will mostly be against opponents who (supposedly) have the same level of macro/micro as the now improved subject has. Improving mechanics would affect the general level of the opponents, so it makes no difference to any inherent balance/imbalance with the exception of specific micro manoeuvres that favour one (eg. once terrans at a certain level learn to split marines well. Even if the game is balanced only around the tip-top level, balance exists at all levels. We may decide that at below-Platinum (wherever; it's an example) balance is pretty much irrelevant, but if some unit is super duper for little bronzies and they improve their mechanics, they might find it's not so super anymore, or it might be just as super strong, in which case people can feel it's UP/just as OP at the new level. What people often find is that they can put a lot of time into practising, work hard and study tip-top prefssionals and find that as they improve, as they realise how much better they're becoming strategically and mechanically...something may still have no efficient way of being dealt with, just inefficient measures. If they are improving so much, the level of their opponents does also and the apparent 'imbalance' may never disappear, because as they get better at dealing with it, so do their opponents become better at using it.
If people were finding things to be balanced from lower levels and continue to be balanced as they and their opponents improve, we'd think that's great. Instead, people can find that they do improve, there opponents do, nothing changes, but that's bad, because it was never balanced in the first place. This whole discussion of balance being irrelevant to discussion by non-GMs is ridiculous; plenty of the swings have (yes, as you said) come as a result of hard work paying off...AFTER THE RELEASE OF A PATCH. They can work hard at it, get it to work a bit better but still find something too strong, then a patch gets release and suddenly what they've been working hard at falls into place! Yippee! If the patch hadn't come though, the hard work may not have amounted to much.
It's NOT just a matter of mechanics being more important, because they ARE, but being "MORE important" is unimportant here, when both are so relevant.
Now, I keep changing my mind about whether I want to take much notice of these charts or not and if so, which to go by, but so that I can see the statistics, where is the korean one? I thought they were only initially uploaded to Twitter, but I refuse to use that () and there will always be others, so I expect they're somewhere. *Goes on a hunt, checks older posts*
On January 06 2012 21:41 Artok wrote:
Balancing around top players is how competitive games are done, you are always free to switch games, and no, worrying about random ignorant guy shouldnt be higher priority than making game into esport, bye.
Don't be so quick to call another "random ignorant guy". Consider that if the majority of the "top players of one race" (and this is just discussion) were all a little more skilled than the majority of another race, but the second players' race was too strong at some points at that level, you might see ~50% winrates, which, with the knowledge that the first group was overall superior, we could see was not balance. I'm not saying that IS the case now, but it should always be considered that the highest amount of skill involved in using a race could be higher than another. It also does not mean that the potential skill of the second race's players was lower, it could mean the skill cap of their race was lower; less might be needed to handle the basics, less multitasking at the very top level, less micro at the top level. If you balance based on the highest skill of each race but one race simply has more that they could do with 100% perfect, like-a-robot precision, when most GMs and pretty high up players would not be quite so strong as that, you end up balancing around one race playing with more micro, multitasking etc than another, which means that for a 50% winrate, players of the first need to do more than players of another. More should be done to balance these sorts of requirements for each race, to see if we can avoid letting this be the case. Heck, if toss had more to do at the lower levels (say Diamond and below?), I'm sure the amount of whinge from zergs about multitasking requirements and how much more they have to "do" would drastically decline, without the strength of the units overall being affected.
I agree that the game should mostly be balanced with top professionals in mind for the highest skill caps, but the ignorant people are the ones who truly believe that you can't simultaneously balance below that as well. If mechanics are the key thing for people to improve, then shouldn't ranks and leagues mostly be an indicator or that? Currently, they are not.¹
¹ I mean, obviously in general higher league players have better mechanics :Þ, but at levels below diamond (or at Diamond too, I think) there is certainly a discrepancy in mechanical skill requirement right now.
EDIT 2: Just in, live on the IM stream, just to make the point, Nestea just said, as the one piece of advice to zergs looking to improve, "Don't play zerg". Now Nestea doesn't COMPLAIN about it often, but you must acknowledge that koreans mostly have just as strong opinions about the balance of the game as 'foreigners'. Whether they mention them often or not is another matter, but it's not like plenty of them not thinking about it regularly too.
|
On January 06 2012 21:53 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:I have no intention of getting heavily into that argument, but you have to remember that if people are complaining based on ladder, they're complaining based on at least moderately equivalent skill-level opponents, even with all the people who may have ridden their way to a certain level on seemingly abusively strong all-ins etc, even those that might be less skilled an managing to stay at whatever level from "abuse" would not typically be too much below the similar MMR opponents who might supposedly be better. This means that saying this like "improve micro, macro" etc likely apply equally to their opponents, so if they improve those and their MMR increases, they will mostly be against opponents who (supposedly) have the same level of macro/micro as the now improved subject has. Improving mechanics would affect the general level of the opponents, so it makes no difference to any inherent balance/imbalance with the exception of specific micro manoeuvres that favour one (eg. once terrans at a certain level learn to split marines well. Even if the game is balanced only around the tip-top level, balance exists at all levels. We may decide that at below-Platinum (wherever; it's an example) balance is pretty much irrelevant, but if some unit is super duper for little bronzies and they improve their mechanics, they might find it's not so super anymore, or it might be just as super strong, in which case people can feel it's UP/just as OP at the new level. What people often find is that they can put a lot of time into practising, work hard and study tip-top prefssionals and find that as they improve, as they realise how much better they're becoming strategically and mechanically...something may still have no efficient way of being dealt with, just inefficient measures. If they are improving so much, the level of their opponents does also and the apparent 'imbalance' may never disappear, because as they get better at dealing with it, so do their opponents become better at using it. If people were finding things to be balanced from lower levels and continue to be balanced as they and their opponents improve, we'd think that's great. Instead, people can find that they do improve, there opponents do, nothing changes, but that's bad, because it was never balanced in the first place. This whole discussion of balance being irrelevant to discussion by non-GMs is ridiculous; plenty of the swings have (yes, as you said) come as a result of hard work paying off...AFTER THE RELEASE OF A PATCH. They can work hard at it, get it to work a bit better but still find something too strong, then a patch gets release and suddenly what they've been working hard at falls into place! Yippee! If the patch hadn't come though, the hard work may not have amounted to much. It's NOT just a matter of mechanics being more important, because they ARE, but being "MORE important" is unimportant here, when both are so relevant. Now, I keep changing my mind about whether I want to take much notice of these charts or not and if so, which to go by, but so that I can see the statistics, where is the korean one? I thought they were only initially uploaded to Twitter, but I refuse to use that ( ) and there will always be others, so I expect they're somewhere. *Goes on a hunt, checks older posts*
So, i read your post 3 times, started having a headache and still didnt really understand it, may have something to do with me being tired as hell, but oh well. The same balance on all ladders is impossible as long as there are different races in the game, since different skill sets come with time, lets say race that is heavily reliant on timing attacks will do bad at lower levels, because to get a proper timing attack done you need to have decent amount of mechanics, including macro and micro, while heavily turtle based strat may work at low level better, because its easier to defend badly done attacks than properly done ones, and these factors only already make only at least gm player's opinions valid, since most of them are well developed in every aspect of mechanics. I'm sorry if i totally missed your point ;/
EDIT to counter your ninja edit:
Overall i think balance discussion is pretty silly when game is in such an early stage, unless its an obvious imbalance like thor push against toss was, and i called him ignorant because, well, read his posts about competitive game that should be balanced around him.
Another edit:
and about races requiring different amount of skills, i wouldnt say its really possible, lets say even though terran requires more unit micro, toss requires a lot of spellcast precision and zerg probably requires more macro management skills, so they require different skill sets, but you cant really call one easier to pull out.
|
On January 06 2012 22:20 Artok wrote:
So, i read your post 3 times
I'm laughing so hard right now, I'm not even kidding. "So, i read your post 3 times..."
How the hell, I stopped after 3 broken sentences, my mind could not process this at this hour 5:30am PST.
|
On January 06 2012 22:27 deadmau wrote:I'm laughing so hard right now, I'm not even kidding. "So, i read your post 3 times..." How the hell, I stopped after 3 broken sentences, my mind could not process this at this hour 5:30am PST.
Well, it didn't seem like another one of those "that race is op cuz i lost to it on my gold league account" posts.
|
Don't really care about Deadmau's opinions nor him laughing after his points, but sorry, where were the broken sentences? I was in the process of editing again (not ninja, just not wanting to double-post) so I may have left some sentences incomplete while trying to watch Nestea and check the Homestory Cup stream.
EDIT: Yeah, thanks for confirming the above, it's meant as discussion not complaining and I disagree with the mentality some people have about achieving balance.
|
On January 06 2012 22:32 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:
Don't really care about Deadmau's opinions nor him laughing after his points, but sorry, where were the broken sentences? I was in the process of editing again (not ninja, just not wanting to double-post) so I may have left some sentences incomplete while trying to watch Nestea and check the Homestory Cup stream.
Hey I'm not want to criticize another's English, as it's just a language, sorry if i offended you. I was just surprised that another poster actually read your post 3 times over, where as I couldn't make it through one read, without getting a headache.
|
Ah, okay.
Just for the laugh, "Hey I'm not want to criticize" should be "Hey, I'm not one to criticize" or Hey, I'm not wanting/don't meant to criticize, but it's 5:30am there. :D
|
On January 06 2012 22:32 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:
Don't really care about Deadmau's opinions nor him laughing after his points, but sorry, where were the broken sentences? I was in the process of editing again (not ninja, just not wanting to double-post) so I may have left some sentences incomplete while trying to watch Nestea and check the Homestory Cup stream.
EDIT: Yeah, thanks for confirming the above, it's meant as discussion not complaining and I disagree with the mentality some people have about achieving balance.
At least for me your post was pretty unclear, like there didn't seem to be a real statement made, so it was kinda weird responding to it ^_^
at above: you are baiting a war now :D
|
On January 06 2012 22:39 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:
Ah, okay.
Just for the laugh, "Hey I'm not want to criticize" should be "Hey, I'm not one to criticize" or Hey, I'm not wanting/don't meant to criticize, but it's 5:30am there. :D
EDIT: D: You think I'm baiting? As Cloud would say, I disagree!
Bah, meant to edit previous post. At above, not below now. :\
|
On January 06 2012 22:47 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 22:39 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:
Ah, okay.
Just for the laugh, "Hey I'm not want to criticize" should be "Hey, I'm not one to criticize" or Hey, I'm not wanting/don't meant to criticize, but it's 5:30am there. :D EDIT: D: You think I'm baiting? As Cloud would say, I disagree! Bah, meant to edit previous post. At above, not below now. :\
Oh well, last few posts were out of topic anw, and no1 seem to be interested in responding to real posts as well ;/
|
Ok, so I'll restate what I said earlier.
According to every random ladder Terran:
- They all have a shitty TvP winrate, at most 30% (it's always 30% in their posts)
- TvT naturally is a 50% winrate matchup over all ladder Terrans.
- Blizzard system is designed to give you 50% winrate.
--> Hence, they all have a pretty fucking good TvZ winrate. Every single fucking Terran rocks at TvZ.
There we go, TvZ is imbalanced and unwinnable for Zerg.
Is that what it is, my dear random Terrans?
And btw, I can't see how we can still discuss "Terran worst race" when we see that Terran is still way ahead... At least when Protoss was whining, the pro winrates were at like 30%, there was a "reason" to whine, somewhat. Same for Zerg in ZvP, it did look rough for them a long time ago.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On January 06 2012 23:09 ZenithM wrote:
Ok, so I'll restate what I said earlier.
According to every random ladder Terran:
- They all have a shitty TvP winrate, at most 30% (it's always 30% in their posts)
- TvT naturally is a 50% winrate matchup over all ladder Terrans.
- Blizzard system is designed to give you 50% winrate.
--> Hence, they all have a pretty fucking good TvZ winrate. Every single fucking Terran rocks at TvZ.
There we go, TvZ is imbalanced and unwinnable for Zerg.
Giggle, I always think the same.
|
Terran were whining the last month because they were under 50% win against Protoss, saying how Imba protoss was now because of the last patch, and that it will only get worst... how they could not win any more. And now, basically, they are back at over 55% win rate, without any change.
Seriously, people should understand once and for all, especially all those terran that are crying on every board about how Terran is so much harder, that you can't look at only one month of stats, It's ludicrous.
Protoss seems to get back into PvZ each month, even more in korea. That's a good thing.
Now if Toss could keep a near 50% win rate against Terran, we will have a nice balanced graph.
And, for god sake, if you are a terran and you are winning only 30% of your TvP, then go on the SC2 Strategy board, post some replay and ask for help. It have NOTHING to do with with balance. And, if you seriously have 30% (why on fucking hell are every terran winning exactly 30% of their games against P on TL, tho?) against P, knowing that Battle.net is made so you always have 50% win rate until GM, that would mean that you are a fucking beast at TvT and TvZ to keep up for it. Stop working on those, and train your TvP.
If you don't care about training and improvement, and you just want to play for fun... then stop whining.
|
Very neatly presented data! Thanks.
|
On January 06 2012 21:41 Artok wrote:
Balancing around top players is how competitive games are done, you are always free to switch games, and no, worrying about random ignorant guy shouldnt be higher priority than making game into esport, bye.
His point was that if blizzard wants to make money (which i guarantee they do above all else) then balancing ONLY for the top 200 guys in Korea isn't a good thing.
Luckily Blizzard try to balance for everyone and personally i think its a huge task which they have done a fantastic job of so far. They realise the promotion of esports is good for their current sales as well as future sales.
The issue for a lot of people is the perceived balance on the ladder when not at the top. You have to remember that 80% of players are in bronze to platinum. If you lose the interest of those 80% then you will lose your esport.
Lets assume that terran and protoss macro mechanics are equal. so a protoss that was top gold should have the same macro skill level as a terran in top gold.
The issue is that people see terran Micro as being more difficult / requiring more skill *to be even at lower levels*
Think of chargelot archon against whatever the terran has. If the game was balanced at silver and gold levels then terran a-move into protoss a-move would come out even, but this isnt the case and we all know it. Therefore the game isnt balanced at silver and gold. Terran is required to micro to a higher level.
To look at it a different way imagine you were CAPPED at 30 apm... how would things turn out between the races?
What you will find though is that the MMR system actually kinda works around this. Since it aims to give you a 50% winrate. In the chargelot archon example, a terran keeps losing to it, until his unit control completely surpasses that of the protoss'. Just before this though, he will likely be of a skill that is above the zerg he is being matched against. That terren will then hit another wall, and another etc.. until at GM level.
The same goes for protoss and zerg. Zerg will have to overcome the early reactor helion tactic in order to climb the ladder (gold). Protoss will have to deal with early rax agression until they realise its stopped by a few force fields (silver).
The way to look at it is as though skill is a hurdles race but where the hurdles are set out differently in each lane. You approach a hurdle and look at the person in the next lane and think, "wait a minute, why doesnt he have to jump one, thats not fair", but as soon as you are able to jump it you have a clear run and its the other persons time to jump, and he'll be thinking "its not fair"
@ZenithM
Im plat terran. My TvP is 30%, my TvZ is 70%....go figure.
@Xalorian
The winrates are from TL database. They have almost no relevance to the ladder. Most people that whine are below masters league. So these graphs have even less relevance to them.
|
On January 06 2012 23:09 ZenithM wrote:
Ok, so I'll restate what I said earlier.
According to every random ladder Terran:
- They all have a shitty TvP winrate, at most 30% (it's always 30% in their posts)
- TvT naturally is a 50% winrate matchup over all ladder Terrans.
- Blizzard system is designed to give you 50% winrate.
--> Hence, they all have a pretty fucking good TvZ winrate. Every single fucking Terran rocks at TvZ.
There we go, TvZ is imbalanced and unwinnable for Zerg.
Is that what it is, my dear random Terrans?
And btw, I can't see how we can still discuss "Terran worst race" when we see that Terran is still way ahead... At least when Protoss was whining, the pro winrates were at like 30%, there was a "reason" to whine, somewhat. Same for Zerg in ZvP, it did look rough for them a long time ago.
lol... still laughing so hard, havent thought about this yet :-)
that's why TvZ is completly unwinnable if you're not DRG or NesTea.
i guess the reason for this is that building units takes way to many apm, while terrans only have to queue units and go for a cup of tea. ^^
btw this leads to PvZ being completly unwinnable for P on low level. anyone know why? ;-)
|
On January 06 2012 23:39 Rye. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 21:41 Artok wrote:
@ZenithM
Im plat terran. My TvP is 30%, my TvZ is 70%....go figure.
Honestly, and without wanting to insult anyone, I think Terran is the easiest race in platinum and below. I mean I don't even play Terran, but I sometimes offrace against diamond Protoss, and I just make bio, stim, get a good concave and a-move and it's over.
I think the usual complaints come from at least diamond, mostly master players, who are kinda good-ish mechanically, as good as their protoss/zerg opponent at the very least, but they feel like they must micro and multitask more or something, like kite chargelots for a very long time, or split marines against banelings.
In plat or below, any form of balance is probably out of reach and irrelevant, I'd venture that 4 gate is still the powerfulest gosuest shit at that level, even though it's ridiculously easy to hold when you know what to do and 6 pools probably kill most plat Protoss on the other side.
|
On January 06 2012 23:39 Rye. wrote:
@ZenithM
Im plat terran. My TvP is 30%, my TvZ is 70%....go figure.
@Xalorian
The winrates are from TL database. They have almost no relevance to the ladder. Most people that whine are below masters league. So these graphs have even less relevance to them.
Another one with a TvP of 30%, lol.
Why are those "Below master" are fucking whining in this thread if this thread have no relevance to them? This make no sense, sorry.
And, I will repeat it : blizzard income from SC2 do NOT come from low level players playing casually, and will never be. Those players have already bought the game, anyway, so eh? And you do understand that probably half if not more of those who bought the game are playing only custom games and are absolutly not competitive? And that the other half care more about high level play than their own play, because they are following the scene?
And you do understand that blizzard probably make way more money from sponsoring tournament, from receiving money from tournamenet and organisation for "rights" of using their games, and from all the people that heard of the scene because of tournament and etc and have bought the game afterward?
Saying that blizzard need to start balacing the game toward low level players to make money is retarded, sorry. The game is that popular only because SC1 was competitive and balanced toward high level players, in the first place.
And no, blizzard is not balancing toward low and high level players. It is only balanced toward high level players and it's fine this way.
Don't worry. Blizzard know how to make money and they don't need tips.
|
On January 06 2012 16:25 ant885 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 05:49 Smackzilla wrote: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 Seems to contradict this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=163417"In North America, we feel that ZvT/ZvP are balanced. Protoss seems to be favored in PvT with a 60% win percentage." However, he goes on to say in top-tier korea, terran is favored: "In PvT however, top-tier terrans have a 6% win rate advantage over protoss. We generally don't see a difference within 5% as a balance issue, but 6% is a little bit outside that range. As in the past, Terran may become more powerful once Korean strategies make their way to other regions. We are keeping an eye on it at the moment." that's from october 2010 lol
Hah! My bad.
|
On January 07 2012 00:16 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 23:39 Rye. wrote:
@ZenithM
Im plat terran. My TvP is 30%, my TvZ is 70%....go figure.
@Xalorian
The winrates are from TL database. They have almost no relevance to the ladder. Most people that whine are below masters league. So these graphs have even less relevance to them. Another one with a TvP of 30%, lol. Why are those "Below master" are fucking whining in this thread if this thread have no relevance to them? This make no sense, sorry. And, I will repeat it : blizzard income from SC2 do NOT come from low level players playing casually, and will never be. Those players have already bought the game, anyway, so eh? And you do understand that probably half if not more of those who bought the game are playing only custom games and are absolutly not competitive? And that the other half care more about high level play than their own play, because they are following the scene? And you do understand that blizzard probably make way more money from sponsoring tournament, from receiving money from tournamenet and organisation for "rights" of using their games, and from all the people that heard of the scene because of tournament and etc and have bought the game afterward? Saying that blizzard need to stop balacing the game toward high level to make money is retarded, sorry. The game is that popular only because SC1 was competitive and balanced toward high level players, in the first place. Don't worry. Blizzard know how to make money and they don't need your tips.
From a quick google search, SC2 sold 4.5 million copies. At the current price of 40€ that makes 180 million euros. and thats just from sc2, it doesnt include WoW or any of their other games.
180 Million euros completely smashes anything that is made at a tournament. Not to mention that HOTs will probably sell well when its released.
Sponsoring a tournament means THEY PAY towards if not all of the expenses. Therefore not making money. They do it in the hope of increased sales through publicity and keeping the game alive and fresh. If they can get 4.5 million HOTS sales they will be extremely happy.
As for broadcasting rights, yes they probably make a bit of money, but it will be tiny compared to 180 million euros in game sales.
Advert revenues to streamers, which as we recently have been informed by TwitchTV themselves, are nice but by no means are they millions of euros. And if these revenues are not high then the amount they pay blizzard cant be high either.
As for the game being popular because of SC1, again not true. SC2 was big because of the name Blizzard, because of WoW, and Diablo etc.. and because it got fantastic reviews and appeared in lots of magazines etc.. SCBW will have played a part, but not as big as you think.
|
I had a Terran on ladder last night whine about Terran being under powered even though the graphs show differently. Sad thing is he blamed him losing the game on the Ghost nerf and he didn't use a ghost the entire game.
|
Blizzard looks at ladder data to balance as well guys... they just don't show us the numbers.. IMO if you play terran and think you are losing more, perhaps you might consider that you were previously winning too much.
|
On January 07 2012 01:01 Rye. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 00:16 Xalorian wrote:On January 06 2012 23:39 Rye. wrote:
@ZenithM
Im plat terran. My TvP is 30%, my TvZ is 70%....go figure.
@Xalorian
The winrates are from TL database. They have almost no relevance to the ladder. Most people that whine are below masters league. So these graphs have even less relevance to them. Another one with a TvP of 30%, lol. Why are those "Below master" are fucking whining in this thread if this thread have no relevance to them? This make no sense, sorry. And, I will repeat it : blizzard income from SC2 do NOT come from low level players playing casually, and will never be. Those players have already bought the game, anyway, so eh? And you do understand that probably half if not more of those who bought the game are playing only custom games and are absolutly not competitive? And that the other half care more about high level play than their own play, because they are following the scene? And you do understand that blizzard probably make way more money from sponsoring tournament, from receiving money from tournamenet and organisation for "rights" of using their games, and from all the people that heard of the scene because of tournament and etc and have bought the game afterward? Saying that blizzard need to stop balacing the game toward high level to make money is retarded, sorry. The game is that popular only because SC1 was competitive and balanced toward high level players, in the first place. Don't worry. Blizzard know how to make money and they don't need your tips. From a quick google search, SC2 sold 4.5 million copies. At the current price of 40€ that makes 180 million euros. and thats just from sc2, it doesnt include WoW or any of their other games. 180 Million euros completely smashes anything that is made at a tournament. Not to mention that HOTs will probably sell well when its released. Sponsoring a tournament means THEY PAY towards if not all of the expenses. Therefore not making money. They do it in the hope of increased sales through publicity and keeping the game alive and fresh. If they can get 4.5 million HOTS sales they will be extremely happy. As for broadcasting rights, yes they probably make a bit of money, but it will be tiny compared to 180 million euros in game sales. Advert revenues to streamers, which as we recently have been informed by TwitchTV themselves, are nice but by no means are they millions of euros. And if these revenues are not high then the amount they pay blizzard cant be high either. As for the game being popular because of SC1, again not true. SC2 was big because of the name Blizzard, because of WoW, and Diablo etc.. and because it got fantastic reviews and appeared in lots of magazines etc.. SCBW will have played a part, but not as big as you think.
You do know that making a game cost money, that printing box cost money, that running servers cost money, etc, etc, etc... and that, therefore, it is no way near 180 milion in profit, probably more like 50 or 60, if not less?
Money from stream, tournament and etc, goes pretty much directly in their pocket. Do you even have an idea how much money they probably make with the partnership with GOMTV and pretty much every event? They don't make "the same money than a streamer", no, sorry. They make waaay more, since they are asking for rights, are getting money from publicity and sponsors directly, are getting funded by organisations, get a lot of media attention attention, therefore investor attention, and what not.
Selling box is only a part of it. Yes, it's an important part of it, but only one.
And my point was that most people that bought the games don't really care about balance, since they don't even play competitively. Most of those who bought SC2 bought it for the campaign and the custom game, nothing to do with the low level balance.
The only one who really care and "could" porentially leave the game over that and not buying the next expansion (the only way to make blizzard lose money because of it) are those who are laddering, are good enough to spot real imbalances at the lower level, but do not care about the higher level play, don't want to get better and don't watch stream. (those who do, care about the high level balance, not the bronze-low master level balance.)... How much people is that? Do you really think that this could lose them more money than not focusing all their attention to the high level balance?
|
I like a few of the perspectives of why T winrates are still higher despite being nerfed pretty hard in the TvP MU that I've read.
1) Terran micro-multitasking must extremely out-do the Protosses, with drops, army positioning and micro, constantly scouting where the deathball is, and trying to stay even on upgrades. When it is time to re-max an army, the 15 zealots who tank like bosses and do pretty good DPS when close is really difficult to handle as T (plus chronoboosting the warpgates for more templar/archon behind it).
1-b) Lots of what T can do to harass can almost instantly be cleaned up by a few cannons, a HT sitting near the exposed base (+awareness to feedback/storm), a few stalkers, or warping in a few zealots. The Drop window is fairly narrow, depending on how threatened he feels about them and reposition army to deal with it before it is a hassle. Forces T to play P's game unless the game goes like 4 base+ where the bio army can harass multiple mining bases without drops.
2) Terran players are all-inning and T has the most friendly all-in mechanics (mules and ranged T1), so of course protoss loses without a scout or incredible micro. This is most likely the cause of the winrate being in T's favor, as the 111 is so popular.
The problem lies within the relative strengths of the midgame as terran (with drops and mauraders and a few upgrades) compared to the relative strength of the protoss midgame to force full-army engagement + warpgate remaxes with chrono. Where it is different in the TvZ game, as T has early advantage until he loses a small army then Z does for mid/late game after a muta flock has been spawned and he can upgrade, expand, tech, etc. according to his desires. The advantages can be lost with poor control on both sides. Oops Z just A moved 20 mutas into a few thors and marines and did next to no sustained damage. Oops T just got caught unsieged and got 5-6 tanks and a good amount of marines killed by ling/bling.
The TvZ MU is very volatile from game to game and Z can strengthen himself early on to defend T pressure at cost of a later advantage (expos, tech, econ) and the late-game Z composition deathball (Infestor, Brood, ling, and some bling) is much weaker and may be split apart by Terran drop-play much easier than P deathball. Terran is pretty well favored in this MU because of the inherent weaknesses in Zerg play (such as making a few drones too many, expoing when you needed army, teching when you needed some Blings) and even "Standard" zerg has many variations that are determined on a match-by-match basis of how they think the terran is playing. (IE more mutas and aggression vs mech T OR 3rd at 5 minutes if you feel safe enough etc.)
By pointing this out I wish to point out the relative standardness of both the T and P mechanics in their meta-game. Neither T nor P really can swap out early expansions for faster army to punish a weakness they see/defend (reactively, not planned). In TvZ, Zerg can change how fast he wants to drone + put up spines if threatened by a 2rax or earlier all-in. P can choose to chrono different buildings but it doesn't make the same effect because 1 gate, even chrono boosted for faster army, will not stand up to T super early all-ins and T has completely stagnant production based on how early he puts up production facilities.
Now we go to the 7 minute mark where both players likely have their expansion up. Build dependent with player consistency, both players will have the same amount of army 10 games in a row. Same will be at the 14 minute mark if neither player decides to attack. Protoss continually gets stronger and has stable growth in economy at a faster rate than terran can keep up with, as Toss tech is much stronger than Terran tech in this MU. (Ghosts are powerful, but in time to build two collosi, for T to defend he must spend much more money on vikings and find the collosi before getting sniped by stalkers.)
The problem, I believe, lies in how stable growth is a mechanic of both races and that the army strength curve for terran increases quicker and earlier than protoss (early and midgame) but that the protoss curve increases at a more dramatic rate for a longer span of time later in the game, once they have their first "techy" units out (immortals, collosus, HT, Archon, DT). Given pro level skillsets for both players, T needs to either innovate or get a patch to help hit-and-run against protoss tech units to keep their army from getting exponentially stronger.
Thanks for reading, I hope that my Platinum level understanding didn't ruin this entire thought process.
|
On January 07 2012 00:16 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 23:39 Rye. wrote:
@ZenithM
Im plat terran. My TvP is 30%, my TvZ is 70%....go figure.
@Xalorian
The winrates are from TL database. They have almost no relevance to the ladder. Most people that whine are below masters league. So these graphs have even less relevance to them. Another one with a TvP of 30%, lol. Why are those "Below master" are fucking whining in this thread if this thread have no relevance to them? This make no sense, sorry. And, I will repeat it : blizzard income from SC2 do NOT come from low level players playing casually, and will never be. Those players have already bought the game, anyway, so eh? And you do understand that probably half if not more of those who bought the game are playing only custom games and are absolutly not competitive? And that the other half care more about high level play than their own play, because they are following the scene? And you do understand that blizzard probably make way more money from sponsoring tournament, from receiving money from tournamenet and organisation for "rights" of using their games, and from all the people that heard of the scene because of tournament and etc and have bought the game afterward? Saying that blizzard need to start balacing the game toward low level players to make money is retarded, sorry. The game is that popular only because SC1 was competitive and balanced toward high level players, in the first place. And no, blizzard is not balancing toward low and high level players. It is only balanced toward high level players and it's fine this way. Don't worry. Blizzard know how to make money and they don't need tips.
I really don't the logic either. I also love the "my TvP is around 30% wins, but I have no proof of that, I am just saying it. Also I happen to be in masters and I'm amazing at TvZ, which is how I avoid getting demoted." All that tells me is that your really bad at that match up. You know why? Because I see Liquid Hero and JYP losing to really good terrans.
SC 2 is great because it is a hard game, you always need to improve and there is room to do so. Making claims that terrans need 100s more AMP that their opponents to be able to defeat them in the late game silly. I am sure if their protoss oppenents were here, they would have a different story to tell about the amount of effort it took to beat the terrans.
|
On January 06 2012 23:09 ZenithM wrote:
Ok, so I'll restate what I said earlier.
According to every random ladder Terran:
- They all have a shitty TvP winrate, at most 30% (it's always 30% in their posts)
- TvT naturally is a 50% winrate matchup over all ladder Terrans.
- Blizzard system is designed to give you 50% winrate.
--> Hence, they all have a pretty fucking good TvZ winrate. Every single fucking Terran rocks at TvZ.
There we go, TvZ is imbalanced and unwinnable for Zerg.
Is that what it is, my dear random Terrans?
And btw, I can't see how we can still discuss "Terran worst race" when we see that Terran is still way ahead... At least when Protoss was whining, the pro winrates were at like 30%, there was a "reason" to whine, somewhat. Same for Zerg in ZvP, it did look rough for them a long time ago.
I play Random at mid-high Masters. Not sure how it is for other players who play more than one race, but Terran is insanely hard above Diamond/low Masters. TvP is more than doable as long as you don't go to 3/4 base macro game (full tech trees). Pretty sure the long games are why people complain. It's my honest opinion (+ quite a few pros...) that TvP is essentially unwinnable barring mistakes once full tech trees are up.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On January 07 2012 03:21 oxxo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 23:09 ZenithM wrote:
Ok, so I'll restate what I said earlier.
According to every random ladder Terran:
- They all have a shitty TvP winrate, at most 30% (it's always 30% in their posts)
- TvT naturally is a 50% winrate matchup over all ladder Terrans.
- Blizzard system is designed to give you 50% winrate.
--> Hence, they all have a pretty fucking good TvZ winrate. Every single fucking Terran rocks at TvZ.
There we go, TvZ is imbalanced and unwinnable for Zerg.
Is that what it is, my dear random Terrans?
And btw, I can't see how we can still discuss "Terran worst race" when we see that Terran is still way ahead... At least when Protoss was whining, the pro winrates were at like 30%, there was a "reason" to whine, somewhat. Same for Zerg in ZvP, it did look rough for them a long time ago. I play Random at mid-high Masters. Not sure how it is for other players who play more than one race, but Terran is insanely hard above Diamond/low Masters. TvP is more than doable as long as you don't go to 3/4 base macro game (full tech trees). Pretty sure the long games are why people complain. It's my honest opinion (+ quite a few pros...) that TvP is essentially unwinnable barring mistakes once full tech trees are up.
If TvP is unwinnable with tech trees up, then it means that in order to get 50% win ratio, the early game must be heavily imbalanced in favor of terran. I dont really think the matchup is in a good place, it seems almost universally hated right now.
|
On January 07 2012 03:21 oxxo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 23:09 ZenithM wrote:
Ok, so I'll restate what I said earlier.
According to every random ladder Terran:
- They all have a shitty TvP winrate, at most 30% (it's always 30% in their posts)
- TvT naturally is a 50% winrate matchup over all ladder Terrans.
- Blizzard system is designed to give you 50% winrate.
--> Hence, they all have a pretty fucking good TvZ winrate. Every single fucking Terran rocks at TvZ.
There we go, TvZ is imbalanced and unwinnable for Zerg.
Is that what it is, my dear random Terrans?
And btw, I can't see how we can still discuss "Terran worst race" when we see that Terran is still way ahead... At least when Protoss was whining, the pro winrates were at like 30%, there was a "reason" to whine, somewhat. Same for Zerg in ZvP, it did look rough for them a long time ago. I play Random at mid-high Masters. Not sure how it is for other players who play more than one race, but Terran is insanely hard above Diamond/low Masters. TvP is more than doable as long as you don't go to 3/4 base macro game (full tech trees). Pretty sure the long games are why people complain. It's my honest opinion (+ quite a few pros...) that TvP is essentially unwinnable barring mistakes once full tech trees are up.
EVEN if it would be true that the late game is imbalanced and protoss favored, the fact that Terran have an higher than 50% winrate, mean that if the late game was balanced, then Terran would be fucking imba.
So what do we nerf early and late game and what do we buff late game, eh?
100% balanced in every aspect of the game is impossible if there is more than one race, simply because some race will have different pro/con because of their different mechanic... saying that the late game is unwinnable is a plain bullshit. Saying that it is harder may be true, but since Terran have 55% winrate, I would say that it is completly fine this way. Don't start stating that Terran players are better and that's why they are winning more than 50% of the time while being underpower, because that's simply not true.
If Terran are a bit OP in the mid game but are a bit UP in the late game, and that we have globally a winrate between 45-55% for the pros, then it is balanced.
To any Terran saying that the matchup is imbalanced, I dare you to send me a replay of a TvP that you should have won, that you were more skilled, but lost because of imbalance. If you can't find one, then i'm sorry, you can't state that, at all.
|
Most Terran players are too upset to admit this, but on ladder, about 90% of Protoss players complain about PvT. In the last week, I've had an unbelievable number of Protoss tell me PvT is impossible and their winrate is 30% in it. EVERY single macro game I play ends in the Protoss telling me that trying to win lategame vs Terran is absolutely impossible. Also, GSL stats have traditionally shown that winrates favor T slightly in longer games.
The issue has NOTHING to do with balance. It has nothing to do with one race taking "more skill" which both sides try to convince themselves to make themselves feel better when they lose. You know there's something going on when both parties claim to have a 30% winrate and both parties claim to find lategame impossible. It's not balance, it's just a boring matchup that nobody enjoys playing. There's no reason for either player (especially Protoss because T has drops/harassment options) to ever attack until they're maxed. And for both players, the tiniest most insubstantial mistake will lose you the game. For both P and T, when you lose a battle, you almost always get smashed; there are almost never close battles in PvT and it usually comes down to one big one.
|
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.
This. The reason that Terran players complain is that every terran player is not MVP or Puma. These statistics prove that terran might be better on tip top play. But for the rest of the world it's not like this and the majority of low level players think that protoss is way stronger.
|
On January 07 2012 04:16 AceTenRyu wrote:Show nested quote +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. This. The reason that Terran players complain is that every terran player is not MVP or Puma. These statistics prove that terran might be better on tip top play. But for the rest of the world it's not like this and the majority of low level players think that protoss is way stronger.
ok then get better, I don't understand the problem here
|
It seems like Koreans have achieved slightly more balance than foreign players in general. Otherwise, Protoss is kind of screwed against Terrans and Zergs. lol
|
It's absolutely retarded that TvP is starting to heavily favor Terran once again. I won't doubt that we'll hear more Protoss QQ Terran imba after seeing these results. But really, you can't say that you haven't had enough buffs to get good at the match up because that is just completely wrong. And how are you going to say that Terran needs another nerf to even up the statistics in the TvP match up. IMO Protoss just aren't adapting and getting better to Terran play. If EMP radius reduction wasn't a big enough difference for Protoss to start actually winning games then maybe they need actually work on tactics such as positioning and spllitting your forces better or perhaps start innovating on different effective strategies. I just don't see any excuse in why the results ended up that way because it literally makes 0% sense that after being "heavily nerfed" Terran just suddenly got even more imba
|
Terran is still OP
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 02 2012 21:59 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote:
I think the thing about TvP is that unless you have godly micro as T it's incredibly hard to win a late game engagement as terran. The reason why terran though is favored in these charts though is that in pro-level terrans has that micro which i was talking about and protoss can't do much about about it as TvP engagements is mostly about what terran does. If terran does a shit job and misses all EMP and gets his vikings kiled before defeating the toss army he loses, if he hits all EMP and kills every collosi before they can do significant damage he wins. This is why pros with good micro wins TvP and gold-level scrubs loses it.
I feel like the matchup needs a rework.
So what you're saying is that in a late game scenario 200 vs 200 army. A gold terran player (we can assume that his micro is absolutely bad) will almost always lose to a gold Protoss player because the micro ability of the terran player is no where near GM/High Master while in the Protoss case, it doesn't really matter what Protoss does in engagements, a simple gold level 1a will do the job in most Leagues. Seems pretty balanced to me.
|
On January 07 2012 04:44 Avril_Lavigne wrote:
It's absolutely retarded that TvP is starting to heavily favor Terran once again. I won't doubt that we'll hear more Protoss QQ Terran imba after seeing these results. But really, you can't say that you haven't had enough buffs to get good at the match up because that is just completely wrong. And how are you going to say that Terran needs another nerf to even up the statistics in the TvP match up. IMO Protoss just aren't adapting and getting better to Terran play. If EMP radius reduction wasn't a big enough difference for Protoss to start actually winning games then maybe they need actually work on tactics such as positioning and spllitting your forces better or perhaps start innovating on different effective strategies. I just don't see any excuse in why the results ended up that way because it literally makes 0% sense that after being "heavily nerfed" Terran just suddenly got even more imba
Maybe terran players are actually better then protoss players :O
|
On January 07 2012 05:05 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 04:44 Avril_Lavigne wrote:
It's absolutely retarded that TvP is starting to heavily favor Terran once again. I won't doubt that we'll hear more Protoss QQ Terran imba after seeing these results. But really, you can't say that you haven't had enough buffs to get good at the match up because that is just completely wrong. And how are you going to say that Terran needs another nerf to even up the statistics in the TvP match up. IMO Protoss just aren't adapting and getting better to Terran play. If EMP radius reduction wasn't a big enough difference for Protoss to start actually winning games then maybe they need actually work on tactics such as positioning and spllitting your forces better or perhaps start innovating on different effective strategies. I just don't see any excuse in why the results ended up that way because it literally makes 0% sense that after being "heavily nerfed" Terran just suddenly got even more imba Maybe terran players are actually better then protoss players :O
Occam's razor states otherwise. It more likely that the meta game has shifted to protoss may have an edge in the late game. However, it is likely that new terran styles of play will emerge that will address this. Also, the graphs do not support any of the arguments that terran players are doing badly. Still some players will argue that terran they are so much better than their opponents and the only reason protoss wins is because they are the A-move race.
|
On January 07 2012 05:05 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 04:44 Avril_Lavigne wrote:
It's absolutely retarded that TvP is starting to heavily favor Terran once again. I won't doubt that we'll hear more Protoss QQ Terran imba after seeing these results. But really, you can't say that you haven't had enough buffs to get good at the match up because that is just completely wrong. And how are you going to say that Terran needs another nerf to even up the statistics in the TvP match up. IMO Protoss just aren't adapting and getting better to Terran play. If EMP radius reduction wasn't a big enough difference for Protoss to start actually winning games then maybe they need actually work on tactics such as positioning and spllitting your forces better or perhaps start innovating on different effective strategies. I just don't see any excuse in why the results ended up that way because it literally makes 0% sense that after being "heavily nerfed" Terran just suddenly got even more imba Maybe terran players are actually better then protoss players :O
That's what he's saying. :p
But we see more and more all in in tvp since it seems that late game somehow favor protoss.
|
On January 07 2012 04:25 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 04:16 AceTenRyu 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. This. The reason that Terran players complain is that every terran player is not MVP or Puma. These statistics prove that terran might be better on tip top play. But for the rest of the world it's not like this and the majority of low level players think that protoss is way stronger. ok then get better, I don't understand the problem here
You can't "just get better" and hop into master league. srsly it's not that easy. If the real solution to everything was to just get better protoss wouldn't even complain at PvT and they would just get better
EDIT: I know the real solution is to get better but it's not really that simple as you make it sound
|
On January 07 2012 05:54 AceTenRyu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 04:25 biology]major wrote:On January 07 2012 04:16 AceTenRyu 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. This. The reason that Terran players complain is that every terran player is not MVP or Puma. These statistics prove that terran might be better on tip top play. But for the rest of the world it's not like this and the majority of low level players think that protoss is way stronger. ok then get better, I don't understand the problem here You can't "just get better" and hop into master league. srsly it's not that easy. If the real solution to everything was to just get better protoss wouldn't even complain at PvT and they would just get better EDIT: I know the real solution is to get better but it's not really that simple as you make it sound
No one said it was simple or easy, its just understood that sc is an incredibly difficult game to get good at. It takes massive amounts of time and hardwork, something low level players do not put in. Then they complain that the matchup is imbalanced at "their" level. It does not make any sense
|
On January 07 2012 00:16 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 23:39 Rye. wrote:
@ZenithM
Im plat terran. My TvP is 30%, my TvZ is 70%....go figure.
@Xalorian
The winrates are from TL database. They have almost no relevance to the ladder. Most people that whine are below masters league. So these graphs have even less relevance to them. Another one with a TvP of 30%, lol. Why are those "Below master" are fucking whining in this thread if this thread have no relevance to them? This make no sense, sorry. And, I will repeat it : blizzard income from SC2 do NOT come from low level players playing casually, and will never be. Those players have already bought the game, anyway, so eh? And you do understand that probably half if not more of those who bought the game are playing only custom games and are absolutly not competitive? And that the other half care more about high level play than their own play, because they are following the scene? And you do understand that blizzard probably make way more money from sponsoring tournament, from receiving money from tournamenet and organisation for "rights" of using their games, and from all the people that heard of the scene because of tournament and etc and have bought the game afterward? Saying that blizzard need to start balacing the game toward low level players to make money is retarded, sorry. The game is that popular only because SC1 was competitive and balanced toward high level players, in the first place. And no, blizzard is not balancing toward low and high level players. It is only balanced toward high level players and it's fine this way. Don't worry. Blizzard know how to make money and they don't need tips.
I don't agree with this.
I was a diamond player. I got bored with the game during the extended "sad zealot" period that lasted most of this year and mostly stopped playing. I wasn't close to a pro, but I also knew that I never would be because I have a life outside of this game. I lost interest because the game isn't balanced at diamond level; it makes the game feel flawed. I don't care if it's balanced at some perfect level of play that I would never achieve; if I'm going to put my time in I want it to be balanced for me. So I mostly stopped playing, but I continued to watch the GSL and a few streams for entertainment.
I'm gamer, though, and just watching from the sidelines doesn't cut it for me. So I started playing LoL instead. Shortly thereafter I stopped playing SC2 completely and stopped watching streams and tournaments because I...just moved on. I check this forum on TL every Friday to see whether some new patch of awesomeness is pending that would make me interested in the game again. From what I've seen of HotS, it doesn't look interesting enough to pay for when there are more fun games in the genre that are 100% free like LoL.
Starcraft 2 may as well bear a warning label, "Not for casual play". Not because it's hard, but because it's not balanced at the levels of skill that casual players can reach. It leads to people giving up on playing the game out of frustration. People who stop playing eventually stop watching tournaments too, and that means they stop contributing to Blizzard's income. Gamers are not like couch-potato football fans who are content to cheer at a television set broadcasting a game they could never hope to play. Gamers care about games they can play themselves, on even footing with their competition.
Hell, even in football, it's one football team playing another football team at the game of football. It's not a football team playing against a cricket team at the game of polo. What does balance even mean in a game like SC2, outside of mirror-matches? In LoL it's so much more clearcut.
|
On January 07 2012 07:45 galivet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 00:16 Xalorian wrote:On January 06 2012 23:39 Rye. wrote:
@ZenithM
Im plat terran. My TvP is 30%, my TvZ is 70%....go figure.
@Xalorian
The winrates are from TL database. They have almost no relevance to the ladder. Most people that whine are below masters league. So these graphs have even less relevance to them. Another one with a TvP of 30%, lol. Why are those "Below master" are fucking whining in this thread if this thread have no relevance to them? This make no sense, sorry. And, I will repeat it : blizzard income from SC2 do NOT come from low level players playing casually, and will never be. Those players have already bought the game, anyway, so eh? And you do understand that probably half if not more of those who bought the game are playing only custom games and are absolutly not competitive? And that the other half care more about high level play than their own play, because they are following the scene? And you do understand that blizzard probably make way more money from sponsoring tournament, from receiving money from tournamenet and organisation for "rights" of using their games, and from all the people that heard of the scene because of tournament and etc and have bought the game afterward? Saying that blizzard need to start balacing the game toward low level players to make money is retarded, sorry. The game is that popular only because SC1 was competitive and balanced toward high level players, in the first place. And no, blizzard is not balancing toward low and high level players. It is only balanced toward high level players and it's fine this way. Don't worry. Blizzard know how to make money and they don't need tips. I don't agree with this. I was a diamond player. I got bored with the game during the extended "sad zealot" period that lasted most of this year and mostly stopped playing. I wasn't close to a pro, but I also knew that I never would be because I have a life outside of this game. I lost interest because the game isn't balanced at diamond level; it makes the game feel flawed. I don't care if it's balanced at some perfect level of play that I would never achieve; if I'm going to put my time in I want it to be balanced for me. So I mostly stopped playing, but I continued to watch the GSL and a few streams for entertainment. I'm gamer, though, and just watching from the sidelines doesn't cut it for me. So I started playing LoL instead. Shortly thereafter I stopped playing SC2 completely and stopped watching streams and tournaments because I...just moved on. I check this forum on TL every Friday to see whether some new patch of awesomeness is pending that would make me interested in the game again. From what I've seen of HotS, it doesn't look interesting enough to pay for when there are more fun games in the genre that are 100% free like LoL. Starcraft 2 may as well bear a warning label, "Not for casual play". Not because it's hard, but because it's not balanced at the levels of skill that casual players can reach. It leads to people giving up on playing the game out of frustration. People who stop playing eventually stop watching tournaments too, and that means they stop contributing to Blizzard's income. Gamers are not like couch-potato football fans who are content to cheer at a television set broadcasting a game they could never hope to play. Gamers care about games they can play themselves.
this sums up my thoughts pretty well.
you can't balance a game at the top level of play and expect it to be successful. people who buy the game expecting to play ladder want the game to be balanced for them and 99% of them are not pro.
|
I don't agree with this.
I was a diamond player. I got bored with the game during the extended "sad zealot" period that lasted most of this year and mostly stopped playing. I wasn't close to a pro, but I also knew that I never would be because I have a life outside of this game. I lost interest because the game isn't balanced at diamond level; it makes the game feel flawed. I don't care if it's balanced at some perfect level of play that I would never achieve; if I'm going to put my time in I want it to be balanced for me. So I mostly stopped playing, but I continued to watch the GSL and a few streams for entertainment.
I'm gamer, though, and just watching from the sidelines doesn't cut it for me. So I started playing LoL instead. Shortly thereafter I stopped playing SC2 completely and stopped watching streams and tournaments because I...just moved on. I check this forum on TL every Friday to see whether some new patch of awesomeness is pending that would make me interested in the game again. From what I've seen of HotS, it doesn't look interesting enough to pay for when there are more fun games in the genre that are 100% free like LoL.
Starcraft 2 may as well bear a warning label, "Not for casual play". Not because it's hard, but because it's not balanced at the levels of skill that casual players can reach. It leads to people giving up on playing the game out of frustration. People who stop playing eventually stop watching tournaments too, and that means they stop contributing to Blizzard's income. Gamers are not like couch-potato football fans who are content to cheer at a television set broadcasting a game they could never hope to play. Gamers care about games they can play themselves.
No offense, but there was no reason to believe protoss was underpowered at a diamond level of play during the sad zealot period. I even think protoss is probably the strongest at such level because most can macro decent but not micro and terran has to kite and stuff. The real reason people stop playing this game is because it's such a mentally challenging game and the easiest thing to do is blame the game instead of yourself.
Occam's razor states otherwise. It more likely that the meta game has shifted to protoss may have an edge in the late game. However, it is likely that new terran styles of play will emerge that will address this. Also, the graphs do not support any of the arguments that terran players are doing badly. Still some players will argue that terran they are so much better than their opponents and the only reason protoss wins is because they are the A-move race.
Wouldn't be believing that Terran players are actually better be the simplest explanation? Seeing how there are so many variables involved into balancing, and also that terran has been the last couple of patches yet keep winning the same amount.
|
On January 07 2012 07:45 galivet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 00:16 Xalorian wrote:On January 06 2012 23:39 Rye. wrote:
@ZenithM
Im plat terran. My TvP is 30%, my TvZ is 70%....go figure.
@Xalorian
The winrates are from TL database. They have almost no relevance to the ladder. Most people that whine are below masters league. So these graphs have even less relevance to them. Another one with a TvP of 30%, lol. Why are those "Below master" are fucking whining in this thread if this thread have no relevance to them? This make no sense, sorry. And, I will repeat it : blizzard income from SC2 do NOT come from low level players playing casually, and will never be. Those players have already bought the game, anyway, so eh? And you do understand that probably half if not more of those who bought the game are playing only custom games and are absolutly not competitive? And that the other half care more about high level play than their own play, because they are following the scene? And you do understand that blizzard probably make way more money from sponsoring tournament, from receiving money from tournamenet and organisation for "rights" of using their games, and from all the people that heard of the scene because of tournament and etc and have bought the game afterward? Saying that blizzard need to start balacing the game toward low level players to make money is retarded, sorry. The game is that popular only because SC1 was competitive and balanced toward high level players, in the first place. And no, blizzard is not balancing toward low and high level players. It is only balanced toward high level players and it's fine this way. Don't worry. Blizzard know how to make money and they don't need tips. I don't agree with this. I was a diamond player. I got bored with the game during the extended "sad zealot" period that lasted most of this year and mostly stopped playing. I wasn't close to a pro, but I also knew that I never would be because I have a life outside of this game. I lost interest because the game isn't balanced at diamond level; it makes the game feel flawed. I don't care if it's balanced at some perfect level of play that I would never achieve; if I'm going to put my time in I want it to be balanced for me. So I mostly stopped playing, but I continued to watch the GSL and a few streams for entertainment. I'm gamer, though, and just watching from the sidelines doesn't cut it for me. So I started playing LoL instead. Shortly thereafter I stopped playing SC2 completely and stopped watching streams and tournaments because I...just moved on. I check this forum on TL every Friday to see whether some new patch of awesomeness is pending that would make me interested in the game again. From what I've seen of HotS, it doesn't look interesting enough to pay for when there are more fun games in the genre that are 100% free like LoL. Starcraft 2 may as well bear a warning label, "Not for casual play". Not because it's hard, but because it's not balanced at the levels of skill that casual players can reach. It leads to people giving up on playing the game out of frustration. People who stop playing eventually stop watching tournaments too, and that means they stop contributing to Blizzard's income. Gamers are not like couch-potato football fans who are content to cheer at a television set broadcasting a game they could never hope to play. Gamers care about games they can play themselves, on even footing with their competition. Hell, even in football, it's one football team playing another football team at the game of football. It's not a football team playing against a cricket team at the game of polo. What does balance even mean in a game like SC2, outside of mirror-matches? In LoL it's so much more clearcut.
I play at gold, and I don't believe the game is inbalanced because I can't micro/macro as well as the top players, that doesn't make it in balanced it makes it that I need to improve.
|
So I still dont really understand terran has like 1% more wins than protoss overall = terran super op?
How does that logic work exactly.
|
On January 07 2012 08:01 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +Occam's razor states otherwise. It more likely that the meta game has shifted to protoss may have an edge in the late game. However, it is likely that new terran styles of play will emerge that will address this. Also, the graphs do not support any of the arguments that terran players are doing badly. Still some players will argue that terran they are so much better than their opponents and the only reason protoss wins is because they are the A-move race. Wouldn't be believing that Terran players are actually better be the simplest explanation? Seeing how there are so many variables involved into balancing, and also that terran has been the last couple of patches yet keep winning the same amount.
isn't the easiest explantion: we have no intell about skill at all (it's not measurable at all), therefore our only way to balance the game is around statistics. If the statistics are independend from the gametime, even better (meaning early, mid and lategame wins are all 50:50). Right now blizzard is focusing on the overall 50:50 (and HotS), because it's the most important indicator of balance by far.
That's not to say that blizzard should immidiatly patch if winrates are slightly off, but if for some extended periode of time those are favoring one race blizzard should react, because imbalances have to be expected in such a young game. (for all we know and can expect, the start of beta balancing was probably made to work around the skill/gameknowledge of the developers at that time. Things like stutterstepping, magic box and specific BOs surly changed that severly)
Also it's kind of hard to say that "midgame" or "lategame" is flawed, if the winrates indicate 50:50. For all we know (or maybe it's better to say: for all we don't know, because the game is still extremly young), it could be just that players of a race with a better earlygame (>50%), worse lategame (<50%) are simply not setting up for the lategame in the right way, due to their playstyles working out overall very well.
But that's not even saying that such a MU does exist right now, as there is no statistics being released for it.
|
On January 07 2012 05:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 05:05 Recognizable wrote:On January 07 2012 04:44 Avril_Lavigne wrote:
It's absolutely retarded that TvP is starting to heavily favor Terran once again. I won't doubt that we'll hear more Protoss QQ Terran imba after seeing these results. But really, you can't say that you haven't had enough buffs to get good at the match up because that is just completely wrong. And how are you going to say that Terran needs another nerf to even up the statistics in the TvP match up. IMO Protoss just aren't adapting and getting better to Terran play. If EMP radius reduction wasn't a big enough difference for Protoss to start actually winning games then maybe they need actually work on tactics such as positioning and spllitting your forces better or perhaps start innovating on different effective strategies. I just don't see any excuse in why the results ended up that way because it literally makes 0% sense that after being "heavily nerfed" Terran just suddenly got even more imba Maybe terran players are actually better then protoss players :O Occam's razor states otherwise. It more likely that the meta game has shifted to protoss may have an edge in the late game. However, it is likely that new terran styles of play will emerge that will address this. Also, the graphs do not support any of the arguments that terran players are doing badly. Still some players will argue that terran they are so much better than their opponents and the only reason protoss wins is because they are the A-move race.
No matter WHAT, a race will have better average players in it than the others. An perfect distribution of talent across the 3 races would be impossible. Is it that far fetched that in Korea, a country that celebrated and still celebrates BW like it was their national past time and where Terran has been the most popular race for 10 years (because of the icons that played it), there are better players playing Terran?
Tell me why you believe that the difference between Korean and foreign protoss players is substantially closer than the gap between their Terran-Terran and Zerg-Zerg counterparts? Is it because of a low skill cap? Or are the best Korean players not playing Toss? Do you believe that foreign Protoss players are just that good? What would the Vegas odds be for Thorzain/Kas/Major vs Mvp/MMA/Bomber? Idra/Nerchio/Ret vs Nestea/DRG/Losira? Naniwa/Huk/Mana vs MC/JYP? See what I'm saying?
If every Korean result was erased from the past year, in Korea and outside, would Terran have received these nerfs? They'd certainly have received the first few, but when's the last time a foreign Terran won a major live event? Jinro at DC? Someone who has been practicing in Korea and competed against foreigners? People say 'get better.' But at what point does the 'get better' motto stop applying? When you get to a Korean skill level? Think about it man, not all of us can be among the 1%.
|
On January 07 2012 05:54 AceTenRyu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 04:25 biology]major wrote:On January 07 2012 04:16 AceTenRyu 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. This. The reason that Terran players complain is that every terran player is not MVP or Puma. These statistics prove that terran might be better on tip top play. But for the rest of the world it's not like this and the majority of low level players think that protoss is way stronger. ok then get better, I don't understand the problem here You can't "just get better" and hop into master league. srsly it's not that easy. If the real solution to everything was to just get better protoss wouldn't even complain at PvT and they would just get better EDIT: I know the real solution is to get better but it's not really that simple as you make it sound
It really is. Just play more and get better. If you're not good enough to be at least master league you don't understand the game enough to justifiably act like you know enough to complain about imbalance. The game is completely different even between the top and bottom of master, you might as well be playing something else if you're in gold.
|
P is taking over PvZ completely....
Edit: In korea i mean, it is where the stats actually matters.... lol
|
The reason we see TvP in Terran favor is pretty simple... Protoss struggle when dealing with multi pronged harassment with drops, and in small engagements, terran is often favored. Top player terrans are extremely good at these things. To add on top of this again, a top level Terran will never accept a bad engagement. Take PuMa vs HerO in the NASL final, the game on bel'shir. Puma was maxed like forever, just sharking outside and making sure his engagement was perfect. When the control from Terran is close to perfect, the terran wins. Think about it, there isn't that much protoss can do, it all lays on terran to execute it correctly. With the right counter composition and great control, terran wins. On top level terrans just gets more wins because of this.
This still don't change the fact that at lower levels, terrans are struggling with protoss for that exact reason - the micro potensial in terran units. It is absolutely needed with good control. I'm not saying that protoss players don't need to micro because they do, but their options are limited and in my own opinion it is much more simple to micro the deathball than the bio ball. Taking into account that lower level players of terran isn't that good at scouting, their composition will often be slightly or way off. Terran is the reactionary race in this game, and you need crisp game understanding, micro and scouting to be effective against a Protoss. Top level players have exactly that, lower level players does not. This goes for TvZ also. A lot of people are struggling because in TvZ terran also depends upon good micro. If you screw up the big engagement you are dead, if you play it perfectly you will most likely win. This is why I think terran is and will remain the strongest race on top top level, but the "worst" or "hardest" race on lower levels.
|
It's funny that people gave Idra shit for saying zvp is toss favored in the interview a few days ago and it turns out it's actually kinda true :p
Also! Why is the line always inaccurate? It never fits the numbers behind.
|
On January 07 2012 07:45 galivet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 00:16 Xalorian wrote:On January 06 2012 23:39 Rye. wrote:
@ZenithM
Im plat terran. My TvP is 30%, my TvZ is 70%....go figure.
@Xalorian
The winrates are from TL database. They have almost no relevance to the ladder. Most people that whine are below masters league. So these graphs have even less relevance to them. Another one with a TvP of 30%, lol. Why are those "Below master" are fucking whining in this thread if this thread have no relevance to them? This make no sense, sorry. And, I will repeat it : blizzard income from SC2 do NOT come from low level players playing casually, and will never be. Those players have already bought the game, anyway, so eh? And you do understand that probably half if not more of those who bought the game are playing only custom games and are absolutly not competitive? And that the other half care more about high level play than their own play, because they are following the scene? And you do understand that blizzard probably make way more money from sponsoring tournament, from receiving money from tournamenet and organisation for "rights" of using their games, and from all the people that heard of the scene because of tournament and etc and have bought the game afterward? Saying that blizzard need to start balacing the game toward low level players to make money is retarded, sorry. The game is that popular only because SC1 was competitive and balanced toward high level players, in the first place. And no, blizzard is not balancing toward low and high level players. It is only balanced toward high level players and it's fine this way. Also your comparison to football fans is stereotypical and flat out wrong. Get off your high horse, you're terrible at starcraft 2 and your blaming the game for your poor play. Deal with it. Don't worry. Blizzard know how to make money and they don't need tips. I don't agree with this. I was a diamond player. I got bored with the game during the extended "sad zealot" period that lasted most of this year and mostly stopped playing. I wasn't close to a pro, but I also knew that I never would be because I have a life outside of this game. I lost interest because the game isn't balanced at diamond level; it makes the game feel flawed. I don't care if it's balanced at some perfect level of play that I would never achieve; if I'm going to put my time in I want it to be balanced for me. So I mostly stopped playing, but I continued to watch the GSL and a few streams for entertainment. I'm gamer, though, and just watching from the sidelines doesn't cut it for me. So I started playing LoL instead. Shortly thereafter I stopped playing SC2 completely and stopped watching streams and tournaments because I...just moved on. I check this forum on TL every Friday to see whether some new patch of awesomeness is pending that would make me interested in the game again. From what I've seen of HotS, it doesn't look interesting enough to pay for when there are more fun games in the genre that are 100% free like LoL. Starcraft 2 may as well bear a warning label, "Not for casual play". Not because it's hard, but because it's not balanced at the levels of skill that casual players can reach. It leads to people giving up on playing the game out of frustration. People who stop playing eventually stop watching tournaments too, and that means they stop contributing to Blizzard's income. Gamers are not like couch-potato football fans who are content to cheer at a television set broadcasting a game they could never hope to play. Gamers care about games they can play themselves, on even footing with their competition. Hell, even in football, it's one football team playing another football team at the game of football. It's not a football team playing against a cricket team at the game of polo. What does balance even mean in a game like SC2, outside of mirror-matches? In LoL it's so much more clearcut.
You play LoL and you are saying sc2 isn't balanced properly at low levels? What? I'm sorry to sound offensive but if you haven't noticed the revolving door, wheel of fortune way Riot buffs champions to god tier only to nerf them into oblivion then you don't really play much. LoL is incredibly imbalanced, the only reason its less noticeable is because there is a massive selection of champions to choose from. Try going into a 5v5 with a team of tier 4 champions and not QQ.
I'm a diamond Protoss and I don't understand what you are saying at all. When I lose, its because I'm bad, not becuase of some kind of imaginary low level imbalance.
|
On January 31 2012 03:16 Cereb wrote:
It's funny that people gave Idra shit for saying zvp is toss favored in the interview a few days ago and it turns out it's actually kinda true :p
Also! Why is the line always inaccurate? It never fits the numbers behind.
The bar is for the last month, the line is for the last three months.
|
On January 31 2012 03:16 Cereb wrote:
It's funny that people gave Idra shit for saying zvp is toss favored in the interview a few days ago and it turns out it's actually kinda true :p
On January 31 2012 03:05 weiliem wrote:P is taking over PvZ completely.... Edit: In korea i mean, it is where the stats actually matters.... lol
Wow this is awesome. Terran dominates protoss and zerg everywhere since day 1, means terran players must be better!
Zerg dominates ZvP for 4 months (korea) and 6 months (international), means game is ok.
Two months of P>Z and the game is broken? xD Had a good laugh, honestly.
|
It's a bit late, but:
LET THE BALANCE WHINES COMMENCE
|
I hope this wasn't asked before, but does anyone know why the number of ZvPs is a good 10% lower than the other two matchups?
|
On January 31 2012 03:47 Jerubaal wrote:
I hope this wasn't asked before, but does anyone know why the number of ZvPs is a good 10% lower than the other two matchups?
Because there are more terrans in the GSL.
|
On January 31 2012 03:44 Salteador Neo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 03:16 Cereb wrote:
It's funny that people gave Idra shit for saying zvp is toss favored in the interview a few days ago and it turns out it's actually kinda true :p
Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 03:05 weiliem wrote:P is taking over PvZ completely.... Edit: In korea i mean, it is where the stats actually matters.... lol Wow this is awesome. Terran dominates protoss and zerg everywhere since day 1, means terran players must be better! Zerg dominates ZvP for 4 months (korea) and 6 months (international), means game is ok. Two months of P>Z and the game is broken? xD Had a good laugh, honestly.
This. Terran has more or less always been a bit favored and the last half year or so zerg has generally been favored against protoss too. But if protoss is favored just slightly for more than one month straight the game must be broken!!1
|
Protoss y u no win
User was warned for this post
|
It's funny; in February, we had T>Z>P>T, each with a 60-40 margin.
|
why are people such drama queens? since when is a 10% difference in winrates "dominating differences"?
|
On January 31 2012 03:54 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 03:47 Jerubaal wrote:
I hope this wasn't asked before, but does anyone know why the number of ZvPs is a good 10% lower than the other two matchups? Because there are more terrans in the GSL.
Yeah, I thought it might have meant something more significant, but I guess if T>Z>P then T*Z>T*P>Z*P.
|
|
|
can't wait till players will drop ghost marauders mixes in lategame pvt. Warpin zealots, snipe gone before it was there. Its so much fun if you see a round of zealots and then the ghost drops out. That being said, in some pvt i noticed the toss just went to 190 supply to fend of harassment with warpins and it seems to work pretty well. Alongside with a prism to warpin for harassment.
But ye after the emp nerf, protoss doesn't seem to spread their energy units at all. And chargelots still are baited to clump up around after charge so 1 emp gets them all. It is quiet interesting how well chargelots work if you charge per hand. So there is still alot of potential in the toss army to fight against these winrates. Terran just boosted their play alot faster after the emp nerf. (Ghost heavy play just came up, so the nerf didn't destroy alot of research for the terran).
But more and more tosses use storm again, which works quiet effective.
|
TyTy.
Terran winrate still higher than all else but w/e.
It's k.
|
Kay, from my personal opinion
High level Terran <-----------------------> High level Protoss
-Needs good army control -Good forcefields, storm
-Multitask opponent -Defend against harassment
Low level Terran <------------------------------------------------> Low level Protoss
-Needs better army control than Protoss -Just needs to hit one good storm
-Out-multitask, in hopes that it will do damage -warpin units are good to stop drops
From my opinion Terran needs a lot of APM and skill to beat Protoss between bronze-diamond, because we aren't MVPs and we can't make every marine trade cost effectively, nor can we instantly get another army once we lose ours (ohey I wish I could warp in sentries and hold off my ramp forever!) Later on at the high levels, Protoss can hold off harassment pretty well (dunno how you guys can't already, warpins are pretty good until max) and their storms are stupidly good.
Call me biased and a QQing noob, but it's true. Protoss micro is a lot less demanding and forgiving than Terran.
|
Can't wait for Janurarys.
|
At least the Terrans crying over Protoss "upgrades buff" that gave an extra stalker or zealot is over that shit was laughable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
