|
On February 08 2012 12:07 SkimGuy wrote:
I don't think it has anything to do with the race, but it has to do with the player
The probability of the better player winning approach 1 the longer the game goes on. Just look at how cheesy players get wins (versus time) and how players like Flash win
In BW Terran has the strongest late game.
Also Flash cheeses a lot.
|
On February 08 2012 12:07 SkimGuy wrote:
I don't think it has anything to do with the race, but it has to do with the player
The probability of the better player winning approach 1 the longer the game goes on. Just look at how cheesy players get wins (versus time) and how players like Flash win
Please do not compare sc2 to BW. BW has had years of balance patches and is arguably one of the most balanced games ever. SC2 is still new and the races are still undergoing balance which is why stats like these occur where several races dominate at certain points of the game rather than 50% plus or minus 5%.
From what I read in your post, you're also stating that terrans can't macro and the other two races are awesome cheesers or fail at defending all ins....
|
Well, just to pointlessly include by games as T...
<10 mins: 36%
10-15mins: 62%
15-20 mins: 67%
>20 mins: 26%
Not really even slightly surprising as my APM is so low for my rank meaning lategame is beyond horrible for me.
|
On February 08 2012 12:07 SkimGuy wrote:
I don't think it has anything to do with the race, but it has to do with the player
The probability of the better player winning approach 1 the longer the game goes on. Just look at how cheesy players get wins (versus time) and how players like Flash win
It has a lot to do with the race. You have to assume there is always going to be a similar distribution of skill levels among players in each race. So when you look at data that is from a large enough pool, you can eliminate the "errors" caused by good players simply outplaying bad players. Collect from a big sample and you can assume that each race has a certain proportion of these "good players" who are, generally, more likely to win than bad players. But since such good players exist in all races, these proportions even out and can be safely ignored. Also, remember that such good players will USE THE STRENGTH OF THEIR RACES, so if T has really high % in early to mid games and really low % in late games, then that should tell you something. That being said, OP said this isn't big enough of a pool. So get what you can out of this graph. I personally think it's spot on.
|
Didn't think terran was so weak late game... This is interesting
|
On February 08 2012 12:34 NeMaTo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2012 12:07 SkimGuy wrote:
I don't think it has anything to do with the race, but it has to do with the player
The probability of the better player winning approach 1 the longer the game goes on. Just look at how cheesy players get wins (versus time) and how players like Flash win It has a lot to do with the race. You have to assume there is always going to be a similar distribution of skill levels among players in each race. So when you look at data that is from a large enough pool, you can eliminate the "errors" caused by good players simply outplaying bad players. Collect from a big sample and you can assume that each race has a certain proportion of these "good players" who are, generally, more likely to win than bad players. But since such good players exist in all races, these proportions even out and can be safely ignored. Also, remember that such good players will USE THE STRENGTH OF THEIR RACES, so if T has really high % in early to mid games and really low % in late games, then that should tell you something. That being said, OP said this isn't big enough of a pool. So get what you can out of this graph. I personally think it's spot on.
I've always wondered how people come to this conclusion. I don't see how it's impossible to assume that one race actually has a higher overall skill level than another based on the perceived strength in BW/SC2's beta and such; not to mention that there is still A LOT to figure out. Infestor+BL was basically auto-win late game against Terran until people figured out mass ghosts were really strong, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Terran won more often than Zerg past 35-40 minutes because of it.
Also, disregarding the fact that this graph doesn't have enough data, is one of the only (or perhaps only?) MLG event with no Terran in the finals, etc. I'm pretty sure that the fact that Terran aggression/all-ins/cheeses are so strong hurts their late-game win-rates indirectly. 95% of the time there are 2 out-comes to a Terran's cheese: 1) the cheese kills the other person 2) the cheese fails and leaves the Terran basically dead, but he remains in the game hoping for miracle. I see it/experience it all the time as a viewer/random player, failed 11/11s,1/1/1s, and 2reactor hellion-all in (which are/were really common) usually leave the Terran dead, but not dead enough to actually leave the game. Especially against Zerg, since most Zerg players are content with taking more bases rather than trying to kill the Terran.
Oh, forgot to mention that styles/maps also play a huge role. Shakuras TvZ will favor the Terran a llot more late-game than TDA willl. Infestor+lling may have different late game win-rates than someone who opened mutas, someone who goes mech will probably win more often late-game than someone who opens bio, etc.
|
On February 08 2012 12:28 mvtaylor wrote:
Well, just to pointlessly include by games as T...
<10 mins: 36%
10-15mins: 62%
15-20 mins: 67%
>20 mins: 26%
Not really even slightly surprising as my APM is so low for my rank meaning lategame is beyond horrible for me.
if you used SC2gears game length filter, the times are in real time not game time. As a ballpark. 3:30 in real time is about 5 minutes in game time. So you're actually faring okay until about 30 minutes on the game clock.
FWIW at mid-diamond, I'm almost always the lower APM player, but my win rate only goes up as the game goes on.
|
On February 08 2012 12:57 Skwid1g wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2012 12:34 NeMaTo wrote:On February 08 2012 12:07 SkimGuy wrote:
I don't think it has anything to do with the race, but it has to do with the player
The probability of the better player winning approach 1 the longer the game goes on. Just look at how cheesy players get wins (versus time) and how players like Flash win It has a lot to do with the race. You have to assume there is always going to be a similar distribution of skill levels among players in each race. So when you look at data that is from a large enough pool, you can eliminate the "errors" caused by good players simply outplaying bad players. Collect from a big sample and you can assume that each race has a certain proportion of these "good players" who are, generally, more likely to win than bad players. But since such good players exist in all races, these proportions even out and can be safely ignored. Also, remember that such good players will USE THE STRENGTH OF THEIR RACES, so if T has really high % in early to mid games and really low % in late games, then that should tell you something. That being said, OP said this isn't big enough of a pool. So get what you can out of this graph. I personally think it's spot on. I've always wondered how people come to this conclusion. I don't see how it's impossible to assume that one race actually has a higher overall skill level than another based on the perceived strength in BW/SC2's beta and such; not to mention that there is still A LOT to figure out. Infestor+BL was basically auto-win late game against Terran until people figured out mass ghosts were really strong, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Terran won more often than Zerg past 35-40 minutes because of it. Also, disregarding the fact that this graph doesn't have enough data, is one of the only (or perhaps only?) MLG event with no Terran in the finals, etc. I'm pretty sure that the fact that Terran aggression/all-ins/cheeses are so strong hurts their late-game win-rates indirectly. 95% of the time there are 2 out-comes to a Terran's cheese: 1) the cheese kills the other person 2) the cheese fails and leaves the Terran basically dead, but he remains in the game hoping for miracle. I see it/experience it all the time as a viewer/random player, failed 11/11s,1/1/1s, and 2reactor hellion-all in (which are/were really common) usually leave the Terran dead, but not dead enough to actually leave the game. Especially against Zerg, since most Zerg players are content with taking more bases rather than trying to kill the Terran.
I will never understand this. Terran players pretty much always claimed that their race is the weakest lategame rac, but never had any statistical evidence to back it up. And so now, when there actually is statistical evidence that proves exactly what most, if not all, terrans think, people like you post and cherrypick and attribute the statistical weakness of terran lategame to their failed cheese or all-ins. Please, show me a single failed 11/11 or 2 reactor hellion build that somehow let's you get into lategame, that is so unlikely since in most cases you will just die to the counter attack or midgame. And what about the games where Zerg and Protoss all-in and "fail" and stay in the game for a while and somehow lose after 20 minutes, it might not be as often, but especialy in TvP protoss often times 6 or 7 gate and then stay in the game after it fails and are really far behind and then lose after 20 minutes, it might not exactly balance it out but I'm almost certain that you can't attribute a 32% lategame win rate in TvZ to failed cheese. That is just a ridiculous statement and you certainly don't have any evidence for that, whatsoever.
I can easily attribute the statisticall weakness of terran lategame to two things. Terran is simply harder to play lategame than the other two races and terran cannot afford to lose fights at all lategame, you lose your army once and you die. As terran you simply don't have to luxury to insta-warp in 20 zealots after a lost fight to buy time or to remax in 30 seconds with mass unit X in the zerg's case. I know, I know, Zergs and Protosses will now be outraged, because it is simply unthinkable that Terran could ever have a disadvantage, I know. But the numbers, oh the numbers... too bad they pretty much support my argument.... and not yours.
|
This is a great graph. Thanks.
|
My win rates, master terran here. I like to macro in all matchups, so that could be why my 5-10 minute is low.
5-10 Minutes 48%
10-15 Minutes 68%
15-20 minutes 53%
20-25 Minutes 42%
25-30 Minutes 39%
Seems to match up with OP's stats fairly well
|
Stats are interesting, but can be interpreted different ways.
You could say terran is weak in the late game, or you could say its very hard for the other races to easily end a game they're winning against a terran and thus it takes a long time for small, earned advantages to accumulate.
In other words, terran might tend to have the easiest time ending a game they're ahead in, but be very hard to finish off if the other race is ahead. A theory I personally think is more representative of the games I see.
I don't see terrans as having a problem with the lategame if they go into it on an even footing. But just by getting to the lategame probably means the terran has been losing ground.
|
On February 08 2012 13:32 Elwar wrote:
Stats are interesting, but can be interpreted different ways.
You could say terran is weak in the late game, or you could say its very hard for the other races to easily end a game they're winning against a terran and thus it takes a long time for small, earned advantages to accumulate.
In other words, terran might tend to have the easiest time ending a game they're ahead in, but be very hard to finish off if the other race is ahead. A theory I personally think is more representative of the games I see.
I don't see terrans as having a problem with the lategame if they go into it on an even footing. But just by getting to the lategame probably means the terran has been losing ground.
But that's exactly the thing. The only way for terran to get into the lategame on an even footing is by either dealing economic damage or tech damage by sniping tech buildings, if all 3 races just macro and sit back and go into the lategame without even attacking once you can bet your a** that terran will be behind. That's part of the reason terran is so aggressive, because you have to be, most terrans who take this "just sit back and macro" approach get absolutely owned lategame. Look at avilo, for example. that guy is probably the best example when it comes down to lategame passive terran. The zerg takes his side of the map and you slowly expand to 4, maybe 5 base, by the time you are maxed the zerg already has a super economy and literally just starts to throw shit at you lol. I watch his stream alot and I enjoy his playstyle and I think he's an awesome player, but this standard terran macro playstyle with no aggression simply doesn't work very often. protoss will just max out on 3/0/3 upgrades with 20 warp gates and most likely roll over you (even MMA said that you have to attack protoss early on or you wont be able to kill them lategame) and zerg will just throw a million units at you with their super economy.
You just fight an uphill battle, as terran you either deal damage early on or you might aswell just quit lategame. For me personally it's not an even lategame when 2 races have the option to just sit back and macro and take their side of the map (zerg and protoss) and 1 race is just behind by playing pure macro (terran). What exactly is the definition of "even footing" when terran is forced to do damage to be even? is it really even footing when you can't "just macro" as terran? I don't think so, I think it's a race against the clock and a bit of bullshit too.
edit: I also think that this is the general problem of SC2. Terran is too strong early and midgame, because the lack lategame strength. It's the very nature of terran in SC2 to be behind in straight up macro games, unless they do damage, so there has to be a certain offensive advantage for terran in early-midgame uotherwise they would always go into the lategame with the other two races ahead. But this results in a higher win rate for terran early and midgame but consequently a lower win rate in the lategame.
It's a design issue, playing terran is a race agaisnt the clock, you either do damage early on or you'll get stomped lategame. If Blizzard wants to fix all balance problems in HOTS they will have to balance terran so that they are even in macro games and not OP early-midgame because they have to be able to do damage. The fact that both Terran matchups are around 50% recently is an illusion. It's only the result of terran being OP ealry game and being UP lategame. And that's not really "balance" is it?
edit2: And you argument that terran only has a less than 50% win rate lategame because of games they lose where they are behind after the midgame and just "drag" the game out is easily countered by the fact that there will be at least as many games where terran got ahead early-midgame and then finished the game after the 20 minute mark. You argument, yet again is just cherrypicking, you can't just say "a=b=c, but b doesnt count", that's just nonsense.
|
On February 08 2012 13:45 ChaosTerran wrote:
But that's exactly the thing. The only way for terran to get into the lategame on an even footing is by either dealing economic damage or tech damage by sniping tech buildings, if all 3 races just macro and sit back and go into the lategame without even attacking once you can bet your a** that terran will be behind. That's part of the reason terran is so aggressive, because you have to be, most terrans who take this "just sit back and macro" approach get absolutely owned lategame.
[stuff]
You just fight an uphill battle, as terran you either deal damage early on or you might aswell just quit lategame. For me personally it's not an even lategame when 2 races have the option to just sit back and macro and take their side of the map (zerg and protoss) and 1 race is just behind by playing pure macro (terran). What exactly is the definition of "even footing" when terran is forced to do damage to be even? is it really even footing when you can't "just macro" as terran? I don't think so, I think it's a race against the clock and a bit of bullshit too.
Its irrelevant whether you have to do damage or not to go into the late-game on an even footing. Thats just the different playstyles of the races and the different paces that their economies and tech develops. Moreover its not even unique to terran, protoss faces the same situation PvZ.
On February 08 2012 13:45 ChaosTerran wrote:edit: I also think that this is the general problem of SC2. Terran is too strong early and midgame, because the lack lategame strength.
[stuff]
It's a design issue, playing terran is a race agaisnt the clock, you either do damage early on or you'll get stomped lategame.
We know more or less for a fact that terran ultimately has the best late-game composition in TvZ (nigh unbeatable at that), and whilst theres arguments over who bears out in TvP lategame, people recognise that well controlled viking/MMM/ghosts weakness is the faster resupply and tech-switches protoss can do, no one doubts it trades very favourably straight up. So ultimately, its not fair to say terran lacks lategame strength when they have very strong armies if they get there. Thats what 'doing damage' early is. Getting there. But games getting to 20+ minutes on an even footing are way more unlikely than games getting there with one player ahead. My argument is that the player ahead at that point is less likely to be terran, and not because terran is weaker in the lategame, just more resilient in the early-mid.
On February 08 2012 13:45 ChaosTerran wrote:edit2: And you argument that terran only has a less than 50% win rate lategame because of games they lose where they are behind after the midgame and just "drag" the game out is easily countered by the fact that there will be at least as many games where terran got ahead early-midgame and then finished the game after the 20 minute mark. You argument, yet again is just cherrypicking, you can't just say "a=b=c, but b doesnt count", that's just nonsense.
Uh no, I wasn't cherrypicking because my argument is that there are not as many games where terran gets ahead early and then the game drags out. Far, far fewer I believe. My entire point was that when terran gets a lead they can and do finish the game much faster than the opposite.
If you think thats not true, thats fine, but don't twist my argument thanks.
|
On February 08 2012 14:34 Elwar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2012 13:45 ChaosTerran wrote:
But that's exactly the thing. The only way for terran to get into the lategame on an even footing is by either dealing economic damage or tech damage by sniping tech buildings, if all 3 races just macro and sit back and go into the lategame without even attacking once you can bet your a** that terran will be behind. That's part of the reason terran is so aggressive, because you have to be, most terrans who take this "just sit back and macro" approach get absolutely owned lategame.
[stuff]
You just fight an uphill battle, as terran you either deal damage early on or you might aswell just quit lategame. For me personally it's not an even lategame when 2 races have the option to just sit back and macro and take their side of the map (zerg and protoss) and 1 race is just behind by playing pure macro (terran). What exactly is the definition of "even footing" when terran is forced to do damage to be even? is it really even footing when you can't "just macro" as terran? I don't think so, I think it's a race against the clock and a bit of bullshit too. Its irrelevant whether you have to do damage or not to go into the late-game on an even footing. Thats just the different playstyles of the races and the different paces that their economies and tech develops. Moreover its not even unique to terran, protoss faces the same situation PvZ. Show nested quote +On February 08 2012 13:45 ChaosTerran wrote:edit: I also think that this is the general problem of SC2. Terran is too strong early and midgame, because the lack lategame strength.
[stuff]
It's a design issue, playing terran is a race agaisnt the clock, you either do damage early on or you'll get stomped lategame. We know more or less for a fact that terran ultimately has the best late-game composition in TvZ (nigh unbeatable at that),
This is not known "more or less as a fact". Yes, recently terrans don't just roll over and die to infestor/BL because they've learned to use ghosts better, but at this point there's definitely no verdict as to which race is stronger late game. I'm pretty sure most terrans would still say late game TvZ is hard (but no longer seemingly unwinnable).
and whilst theres arguments over who bears out in TvP lategame, people recognise that well controlled viking/MMM/ghosts weakness is the faster resupply and tech-switches protoss can do, no one doubts it trades very favourably straight up.
How can you possibly think viking/MMM/ghosts trades favorably straight-up with col/archon/templar/chargelot? watch some recent GSL games, watch streams, or ask terrans: late game TvP is a death sentence. The only way you can "trade favorably" as terran in late game (both sides 3/3) is if you significantly outmaneuver the protoss army or catch them out of position. Even in that situation, you'll end up with about 1/3 of your army left at best (depleted medivac energy and orange units, most likely), and protoss has already replenished 60 supply with warp gates to repel your attempt to capitalize on your won battle. This is the one thing in the game I wouldn't hesitate to call imbalanced with no hope of improvement without a patch or waiting until hots.
|
On February 08 2012 14:34 Elwar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2012 13:45 ChaosTerran wrote:
But that's exactly the thing. The only way for terran to get into the lategame on an even footing is by either dealing economic damage or tech damage by sniping tech buildings, if all 3 races just macro and sit back and go into the lategame without even attacking once you can bet your a** that terran will be behind. That's part of the reason terran is so aggressive, because you have to be, most terrans who take this "just sit back and macro" approach get absolutely owned lategame.
[stuff]
You just fight an uphill battle, as terran you either deal damage early on or you might aswell just quit lategame. For me personally it's not an even lategame when 2 races have the option to just sit back and macro and take their side of the map (zerg and protoss) and 1 race is just behind by playing pure macro (terran). What exactly is the definition of "even footing" when terran is forced to do damage to be even? is it really even footing when you can't "just macro" as terran? I don't think so, I think it's a race against the clock and a bit of bullshit too. Its irrelevant whether you have to do damage or not to go into the late-game on an even footing. Thats just the different playstyles of the races and the different paces that their economies and tech develops. Moreover its not even unique to terran, protoss faces the same situation PvZ. Show nested quote +On February 08 2012 13:45 ChaosTerran wrote:edit: I also think that this is the general problem of SC2. Terran is too strong early and midgame, because the lack lategame strength.
[stuff]
It's a design issue, playing terran is a race agaisnt the clock, you either do damage early on or you'll get stomped lategame. We know more or less for a fact that terran ultimately has the best late-game composition in TvZ (nigh unbeatable at that), and whilst theres arguments over who bears out in TvP lategame, people recognise that well controlled viking/MMM/ghosts weakness is the faster resupply and tech-switches protoss can do, no one doubts it trades very favourably straight up. So ultimately, its not fair to say terran lacks lategame strength when they have very strong armies if they get there. Thats what 'doing damage' early is. Getting there. But games getting to 20+ minutes on an even footing are way more unlikely than games getting there with one player ahead. My argument is that the player ahead at that point is less likely to be terran, and not because terran is weaker in the lategame, just more resilient in the early-mid. Show nested quote +On February 08 2012 13:45 ChaosTerran wrote:edit2: And you argument that terran only has a less than 50% win rate lategame because of games they lose where they are behind after the midgame and just "drag" the game out is easily countered by the fact that there will be at least as many games where terran got ahead early-midgame and then finished the game after the 20 minute mark. You argument, yet again is just cherrypicking, you can't just say "a=b=c, but b doesnt count", that's just nonsense. Uh no, I wasn't cherrypicking because my argument is that there are not as many games where terran gets ahead early and then the game drags out. Far, far fewer I believe. My entire point was that when terran gets a lead they can and do finish the game much faster than the opposite. If you think thats not true, thats fine, but don't twist my argument thanks.
What am I supposed to say to this? Statistically terran has BY FAR the weakest late game in both matchups. And you just claim that this is absolutely not true and Terran actually has the strongest lategame in both matchups. But you also say that terran has the strongest early or midgame. I don't even want to hear your explanation for the 50% win rate in TvP and TvZ. According to you it should be around 80% if not 100%, because Terran always has an advantage.
Let me guess, it's because Terran players are just worse? you realize that claiming something like this is highly offensive? I mean there is simply no logic in your post (and zero evidence anyway, but hey, who am I kidding, that has never stopped protoss and zerg players from whining about Terran) so I'm not going to waste any more time in talking to you.
|
would love to see similar winrate/time graphs for the individual matchups (zvt/zvp).
mirror optional
|
On February 08 2012 18:57 Vei wrote:
would love to see similar winrate/time graphs for the individual matchups (zvt/zvp).
mirror optional
If you click the graph, you should see a full picture that includes the graphs you're looking for.
|
This is very interesting, but stats aside I feel like Providence is actually pretty old at this point in regards to the metagame.
I've been watching the new batch of tourneys that just started up, and I really don't see how terran *shouldn't* win the super-lategame games. Maybe the 20+ minute final bin is too early to show, but I get the sense that terran "superlate" game has some advantages.
TvP looks backwards to me, where I would expect P to have the advantage in the 15 minute range due to faster upgrades, and the strength of the first few HTs or colossi (like the PvZ graph), but once everyone's 3/3 and has their upgrades P looks weak to me lately. T has the most "direct counter" options, which should lend itself to picking apart other late game comps. It also has the unique ability to pre-emptively create a larger army by throwing down 10 orbitals and saccing all the mineral workers, which should be a much bigger advantage than warpgate/larva fast remax.
TvZ is interesting, but I'm surprised that the lategame Z is that much better. I must admit, watching recent games where Z goes ultras instead of BLs pretty much never works out, and when T doesn't mass ghosts they get hosed too, but whenever I see what looks like the "right" lategame of BL/Corruptor/festor/X meat shield vs viking/ghost/(tank or hellion)/X meat shield, it's really amazing at how having enough ghosts is basically a panacea against zerg T3. That's what it looks like in the last few weeks, anyway.
ZvP looks mostly how I'd expect except I still take exception to P having a reasonable answer to Z air play. Psi storm seems necessary to defend bases against mutas, but then isn't actually that strong against BLs. Basically the super-late game seems to come down to needing a mothership to deal with BLs, and getting a good vortex with some archons will win while not doing so will lose.
As for people talking about specific builds and good vs bad decision-making... that's the whole point of statistics. If playhem has 35k replays, even if there are GM vs bronze in there it will balance out with that many data points. I'd love to see that, especially if it's more recent. I feel like the metagame is still moving too fast for stats from 3-4 months ago to be appropriate for what's going on right now.
Thanks though, it's really interesting to see this stuff!
Rasm
|
On February 08 2012 13:32 Elwar wrote:
Stats are interesting, but can be interpreted different ways.
You could say terran is weak in the late game, or you could say its very hard for the other races to easily end a game they're winning against a terran and thus it takes a long time for small, earned advantages to accumulate.
In other words, terran might tend to have the easiest time ending a game they're ahead in, but be very hard to finish off if the other race is ahead. A theory I personally think is more representative of the games I see.
I don't see terrans as having a problem with the lategame if they go into it on an even footing. But just by getting to the lategame probably means the terran has been losing ground.
this.
using this graphs for balance debates is just a waste of time in general. games are decided at certain points in the game and shouldnt be mixed in with how long the game goes on in general.
|
I feel like this is just indicative of how lobsided terran strategy development has been. Does the terran late game now look that much different than a few months ago? or maybe even almost a year ago? The units that terrans try to get in their lategame stayed the same for quite a long time. While zergs have added infestors, ling run bys figured out when ultras can be useful etc etc. Or protoss has figured out more warp prism plays, tech switch strategies, use of motherships. PvT, and ZvT lategame has evolved while TvX lategame has stayed stagnant except for maybe the addition of ghosts. But even ghosts aren't used as often as they should, or as well as they should, and i think most ppl can agree at that point. On the other hand, terrans have always had the most versatile opening, AND they've added on more openings as time progressed. 1/1/1 has so many variant i feel like almost every high level terran has their own variant of the 1/1/1. Addition of 1 more opening to the already abundant choice of terran openings make TvX so much easier to win in the early game.
Honestly as a BW fan, I feel like we've seen this before. Terran's TvZ lategame in BW was very very difficult to say the least. Untill terran started transitioning to mech lategame. I don't understand why i don't see that much in SC2. I understand why someone wouldn't want to go straight in to mech(while i personally believe someone will make it work that's up for debate), but once you've established 3 solid bases, instead of adding 5~6 more raxes, why don't terrans add facts and get up tanks and thors as their late game army?
PvT I've personally found to be very.... difficult. I just feel like protoss army's a lot like a stonearch bridge. You built this army trying to finish the composition, and untill you finish everything all you're doing it trying not to just fall over. But once you get that last piece, (the last piece can be different depending on what you starting tech was.) it's amazingly sturdy.
PvZ I.. can not comment, because my PvZ is sort of terrible, and most of my PvZ go to late game where zergs get out broods and i just fall over and die cause i'm bad at this game and haven't bothered to figure out when to get that mothership out.
TvZ seems almost too perfectly in line it makes me laugh. it's almost perfectly symmetrical.
Lastly: Terrans, stop complaining your lategame sux, your early game is Ah-Mazing. I think i read somewhere someone complaining that their winrate drops by 20% after 20 min..... Why is that such a big deal. Terrans still have the highest winrate overall, and if it didn't drop by 20%, the game would be closer to being imbalanced than it's current state.
Protoss, protoss win rate is actually not bad anymore... I still hear a lot of protosses complaining, Slowly the buffs the blizzard's given is kicking in.
Zergs, Broodlords are the best "i win the game now" card in the game. While everything is strong in between a timing "window", broodlords are good no matter what.... There's no other unit in the game like that. That should count for a big plus. Stop looking at the negetives like "hydras suck"... well, broodlords are amazing in a way that no other unit in the game is.
Anyways. I like these stats. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
