|
Should Terran 2rax all day, every day? Should Zerg play for the late game in every matchup? Is TvP a race against the clock for Terran, losing whenever the Protoss gets Colossus and Templar Tech?
Using SC2gears and some Excel kung-fu, I tried to answer these questions and more by looking at race win rates based on the length of the game from all games at MLG Providence. I came up with this set of charts showing what happens as the game progresses (click on the image for all the charts).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8Wfcc.png)
Data here: MLG Providence Race/Length of Game Win Rates Note: times here use in-game time, not wall clock time. 5 minutes of wall-clock time is about 7 minutes of game-time
The data does show some interesting results. But I'm not satisfied that the sample size is large enough. I'd love to repeat this analysis on a bigger dataset if there is fresher and larger replay pack lying around (coughplayhemcough).
To the Pros, Masters players, and everyone: do the numbers here line up with how you think about the game? Is Terran overmatched in the late game? Does Zerg grow stronger as the game goes on? Should you 6-pool (100% Z win rate in PvZ <5 minute games) or 2-rax every (80% T win rate in ZvT 5-10 minutes) every game? Discuss.
|
I like threads and graphs like these, but always have something to say about the data (don't stop though, for sure).
-Providence: not all matchups really even in skill :p
-On average more >20min TvZ, ZvP and TvP than TvT matchups (maybe the TvTs were like 40 minutes long, but add em up guys) - maybe there were just fewer mirrors in general though. Actually that sounds right.
But I'm not satisfied that the sample size is large enough
Agreed
Also looking at the ridiculous increase in Z and decrease for P before 5 minutes, I'm guessing 6pool is the build against P 
|
On February 05 2012 06:32 Ktk wrote:
-On average more >20min TvZ, ZvP and TvP than TvT matchups (maybe the TvTs were like 40 minutes long, but add em up guys) - maybe there were just fewer mirrors in general though. Actually that sounds right.
I stopped at 30 minutes, and there the most common MU was TvT, TvZ was second and either ZvZ or ZvP third.
On February 05 2012 06:32 Ktk wrote:Also looking at the ridiculous increase in Z and decrease for P before 5 minutes, I'm guessing 6pool is the build against P
Yes, this represents 3 successful 6-pools, in the same way most of the 5-10 minute TvZ games are successful 2rax.
|
Hahahaha, ZvZ oh you...
BTW by all MLG games you mean even open bracket?
Interesting data, don´t know if its really that relevant but its always interesting to see stuff like this
|
I thing line graphs are not the right ones to be used in this kind of analysis, specially at the end of the first one, which goes from 20+ to overall.
|
On February 05 2012 06:47 windsupernova wrote:
Hahahaha, ZvZ oh you...
BTW by all MLG games you mean even open bracket?
Interesting data, don´t know if its really that relevant but its always interesting to see stuff like this
Yes this includes the open bracket. If I used only pool play and the Sunday bracket there wouldn't be a meaningful number of games.
On February 05 2012 06:47 Hoon wrote:
I thing line graphs are not the right ones to be used in this kind of analysis, specially at the end of the first one, which goes from 20+ to overall.
Yeah ... what I wanted to do was just draw a straight line representing overall WRs. If I get a bigger dataset I'll try to make better graphs.
|
To me this is how balance stats should be presented, the length of game variable is really something that can say a lot. Hopefully you get a bigger sample next time =D
|
20+ is very inaccurate :s Any chance you could do it until you reach 40+?
|
I guess it makes somewhat intuitive sense, but it'd be nice to have a bigger sample size.
|
Wow, nice graphs, also it is about time someone did something like this.
I just hope you manage to get bigger sample next time. I'll definitely look forward for it. =)
|
On February 05 2012 07:14 decaf wrote:
20+ is very inaccurate :s Any chance you could do it until you reach 40+?
I'd like to, but the sample size gets too small even at 30 minutes. By setting the cap at 20 minutes you get a sample that's roughly the size of the previous increments. I would need a much larger data set to go past 20 minutes.
Also by 20 minutes unless something has gone wrong, the game really ought to be in the "late game". Players' gas income is high enough to support lots of high-tier units. Neither player is really building up their economy much more. Most upgrades & tech has been completed. The game is much more about protecting later expansions, minimizing harassment damage, trading armies cost effectively, etc., than it is about exploiting timing attacks.
|
Very good indication of the strengths of each race in my opinion. Thanks for this!
|
Ha, love how winrates for Zerg is so high below 5 minutes. The good old 6 pool.
|
Really awesome stats.
Thanks for putting this together. 
|
late game T looks nice O_o
thx for the graph man !
|
On February 05 2012 07:24 Bagration wrote:
Ha, love how winrates for Zerg is so high below 5 minutes. The good old 6 pool.
still the best cheese, screw cannons. it's the mother of cheese. you can call it milk. or even cow.
|
With sc2gear can we know the pourcentage of win of a strategy? Can you know the unit composition at the end of each game?
|
The 'Overall' at the end of the first graph kinda gives the wrong impression. The X-axis there represents time which is increasing left-to-right, while 'Overall' is simply the overall winrate, not based on time. If someone doesn't read the X-axis it seems like Terran winrate steadily goes down as time progresses, then suddenly spikes at the end.
But other than that nice data.
|
On February 05 2012 07:24 K3Nyy wrote:
Very good indication of the strengths of each race in my opinion. Thanks for this!
or current metagame
|
This is what i would expect. It feels like im on the clock vs zerg and protoss when i play as terran
|
Nice
Your analysis shows that Terran cannot play late game. Wish Blizzard would address this.
|
kill him now or die later.
I hear this voice the hole time in my head when i play t.^^
ps: the overall in the graph is total misleading
|
On February 05 2012 08:07 Netsky wrote:
Nice
Your analysis shows that Terran cannot play late game. Wish Blizzard would address this.
Well, that's not entirely true. I'm pretty sure endgame TvZ with mass ghosts would be Terran favored or at least even. If the graph went to 30mins +, I'm sure it'd show this.
|
On February 05 2012 08:11 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 08:07 Netsky wrote:
Nice
Your analysis shows that Terran cannot play late game. Wish Blizzard would address this. Well, that's not entirely true. I'm pretty sure endgame TvZ with mass ghosts would be Terran favored or at least even. If the graph went to 30mins +, I'm sure it'd show this.
would be interesting to see. he should add +30 and remove this overall
|
Kinda what I expected, except for maybe late game tvz, I personally don't find it THAT bad for T.
|
On February 05 2012 08:11 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 08:07 Netsky wrote:
Nice
Your analysis shows that Terran cannot play late game. Wish Blizzard would address this. Well, that's not entirely true. I'm pretty sure endgame TvZ with mass ghosts would be Terran favored or at least even. If the graph went to 30mins +, I'm sure it'd show this.
darkforce says if he gets lategame zvt he doesnt lose unless he screws up
|
Is it possible to do this with all the playhem replays? 35k is a substantial number
|
The ZvT graph is exactly how it should be given the fact that zerg pressure is not nearly as strong as terran pressure in the early to mid game. Since most zergs play for the late game they should have a late game edge. If terrans played for the late game as much as zergs do the graph would be a lot closer. (I play terran)
|
Cool type of stats but considering the immense skill gaps between players, there's not much to say about this right now.
|
France12761 Posts
On February 05 2012 08:11 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 08:07 Netsky wrote:
Nice
Your analysis shows that Terran cannot play late game. Wish Blizzard would address this. Well, that's not entirely true. I'm pretty sure endgame TvZ with mass ghosts would be Terran favored or at least even. If the graph went to 30mins +, I'm sure it'd show this.
It's hard to judge the late late game ith players such as IMMvp (not enough sample size and Mvp's decision making is off the charts)
|
I knew it, Terran gets ridiculously hard when the game goes on longer. It is almost impossible to win a long macro game on maps like Taldarim, but Terrans still keep their winrate at 50% with allins or 1 base timings. I wish Terran would get a stronger lategame, then we would see less allins and more macro games. I mean why would you play a long game if you know your chances of winning get smaller with the time?...
|
On February 05 2012 08:18 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 08:11 K3Nyy wrote:On February 05 2012 08:07 Netsky wrote:
Nice
Your analysis shows that Terran cannot play late game. Wish Blizzard would address this. Well, that's not entirely true. I'm pretty sure endgame TvZ with mass ghosts would be Terran favored or at least even. If the graph went to 30mins +, I'm sure it'd show this. darkforce says if he gets lategame zvt he doesnt lose unless he screws up
He's not in Korea though and there are a total of like 5 good Terrans outside of Korea.
|
IEM releases replays, HSC4 released replays, there's no excuse for not including them! Maybe some online invitationals etc.
|
On February 05 2012 08:07 Netsky wrote:
Nice
Your analysis shows that Terran cannot play late game. Wish Blizzard would address this.
It also shows how dominant Terran is in anything but the late game. two sides to the coin by your logic.
|
On February 05 2012 08:29 Aquila- wrote:
I knew it, Terran gets ridiculously hard when the game goes on longer. It is almost impossible to win a long macro game on maps like Taldarim, but Terrans still keep their winrate at 50% with allins or 1 base timings. I wish Terran would get a stronger lategame, then we would see less allins and more macro games. I mean why would you play a long game if you know your chances of winning get smaller with the time?...
this imo is design flaw, i love terran but its so annoying playing this race is like playing against clock
|
Very informative graphs, tells us more about the current state of starcraft
|
This might be interesting if you pulled data from somewhere else. A large percentage of matches at MLGs aren't even at all. Useless statistics
|
|
|
On February 05 2012 08:37 VenerableSpace wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 08:07 Netsky wrote:
Nice
Your analysis shows that Terran cannot play late game. Wish Blizzard would address this. It also shows how dominant Terran is in anything but the late game. two sides to the coin by your logic.
well i see it as:
allins have a way too high risk/reward factor. in every race. terran is at a disadvantage lategame so they allin/timingpush way more and often dont dare to even think about a third base.
|
Good stats to see... not surprised bout zvz and pvp 
|
On February 05 2012 08:44 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 08:37 VenerableSpace wrote:On February 05 2012 08:07 Netsky wrote:
Nice
Your analysis shows that Terran cannot play late game. Wish Blizzard would address this. It also shows how dominant Terran is in anything but the late game. two sides to the coin by your logic. well i see it as: allins have a way too high risk/reward factor. in every race. terran is at a disadvantage lategame so they allin/timingpush way more and often dont dare to even think about a third base.
What..? Of course they'll have a 3rd base and probably even a 4th base by 20 minutes..
|
Do this with the playhem data! I don't think the MLG data is very representative of the metagame, considering most koreans sent are terrans (so thus terran is the most skillfully represented race at MLG).
The TvP curve makes sense overall but I think T's midgame advantage is more like 55-60% while P's lategame advantage is more like 75-80%. At the same time I think Z's lategame advantage against T is much less than what that curve shows, perhaps more like 55-60%.
|
Something to keep in mind is that terran has very few methods of active scouting. You can scout your opponent for a given instant with scan but there is no map control scout like overlords and observers for terran. This leads to terrans favoring aggressive builds so that we can poke at our opponents and react to what we see. This is probably one of the reasons terran late game suffers because it is really hard to play passively with terran. Late game terran armies can go toe to toe with zerg armies so I think it is mainly a play style thing than a balance thing.
|
On February 05 2012 07:50 Gyro_SC2 wrote:
With sc2gear can we know the pourcentage of win of a strategy? Can you know the unit composition at the end of each game?
I could get the win percentage for a given build order in a given matchup. The default is to look at the first five buildings, but you can tell it to look for more. But the sample size issues there would be even worse; it might be useful on the Playhem sample set.
Unit composition is impossible; the replay file doesn't contain information on when units die or are cancelled. We'd have to have access to the in-game engine modeling the game, or something similar to the old Brood War API.
|
this is pretty much excatly what i as a terran master would expect.
i checked 800 games with sc2gears:
5-10 min 66%
10-15 min 61%
15-20 min 64%
20+ min 42%
|
Zerg dominating the macro game indeed
|
On February 05 2012 08:19 magnaflow wrote:
Is it possible to do this with all the playhem replays? 35k is a substantial number
I feel while a larger sample size is needed, you can't really include half these daily games.
You run into situations of bronze vs grandmasters, diamonds vs platinums, etc.
I would like to see strictly GSL/GSTL stats. These would reflect stats of the best players in the world playing.
|
I dont find these enharantly useful yet.
Specifically i would be interested in:
What is the P winrate in a 5 minute game, 10 minute game, 15 minute game etc. vs Zerg or Terran.
The fact that terran is eating shit on that graph in the late game doesnt identifiy if they lose more to Z late or P late.
Edit: nvm, thanks oracle
http://i.imgur.com/8Wfcc.png
|
On February 05 2012 10:00 Greenei wrote:
this is pretty much excatly what i as a terran master would expect.
i checked 800 games with sc2gears:
5-10 min 66%
10-15 min 61%
15-20 min 64%
20+ min 42%
T op early game? o.O
it will be very hard to draw solid conclusino from stuff like this. for example, if every terran goes 1-1-1, they will have a huge winrate in the 10muintue range, but if thye fail a 1-1-1 but stay in the game for another 10 minutes, failing a rush like that should probably not reflect in good lategame win rates.
|
Regarding Terran, I think it's very hard to play late game compared to other races, especially TvP late game is very very hard, but there should be no major imbalance.
|
On February 05 2012 10:23 Roxy wrote:
I dont find these enharantly useful yet.
Specifically i would be interested in:
What is the P winrate in a 5 minute game, 10 minute game, 15 minute game etc. vs Zerg or Terran.
The fact that terran is eating shit on that graph in the late game doesnt identifiy if they lose more to Z late or P late.
Was about to bitch at you, then realized you likely didn't click the image. If you click the image, a graph shows up that does show the PvT, etc winrates at X time.
|
I'm glad people like this stuff!
I realize there's going to be issues with skill gaps in a large dataset like playhem or even MLG, but it's just not possible to get a large enough sample of replays any other way. TLPD has 2000 games/month, that's about 2x the number of games in MLG Providence. For differences in skill to alter the win rates, it would have to be the case that either (a) top players consistently play differently (e.g. more aggressive) if they know they are heavily favored in early rounds, or (b) the top players in playhem/MLG had different race composition from the Dead Money. I'm not sure either of those is very likely.
|
On February 05 2012 10:24 Roxy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 10:00 Greenei wrote:
this is pretty much excatly what i as a terran master would expect.
i checked 800 games with sc2gears:
5-10 min 66%
10-15 min 61%
15-20 min 64%
20+ min 42% T op early game? o.O it will be very hard to draw solid conclusino from stuff like this. for example, if every terran goes 1-1-1, they will have a huge winrate in the 10muintue range, but if thye fail a 1-1-1 but stay in the game for another 10 minutes, failing a rush like that should probably not reflect in good lategame win rates.
It's not about succeding a rush and winning or failing and losing... Most "rush" or early timings are not designed to give you the complete win but more like giving you an edge late game - at least at high enough lvl play, which is the case for MLG. All in all, if we strictly follow those curve, T is strong early, weak late.
|
On February 05 2012 10:26 Orracle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 10:23 Roxy wrote:
I dont find these enharantly useful yet.
Specifically i would be interested in:
What is the P winrate in a 5 minute game, 10 minute game, 15 minute game etc. vs Zerg or Terran.
The fact that terran is eating shit on that graph in the late game doesnt identifiy if they lose more to Z late or P late. Was about to bitch at you, then realized you likely didn't click the image. If you click the image, a graph shows up that does show the PvT, etc winrates at X time.
thanks for letting me know
i guess now my complaint about lack of information is that, for example:
you could have 10 games ending at 10 minutes with terran winning 7 of the 10 (70%), then 100 games end at 20 minutes with zerg winning 65 (65%) and the graphs would still look to be in favor of terran.
actual cumulative winrates are in favor of Z winning 61% of the time in this example.
perhaps this is just me. i fiend for sc2 content.
im so stoked about all of the statistical information coming out lately.
|
On February 05 2012 10:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 10:24 Roxy wrote:On February 05 2012 10:00 Greenei wrote:
this is pretty much excatly what i as a terran master would expect.
i checked 800 games with sc2gears:
5-10 min 66%
10-15 min 61%
15-20 min 64%
20+ min 42% T op early game? o.O it will be very hard to draw solid conclusino from stuff like this. for example, if every terran goes 1-1-1, they will have a huge winrate in the 10muintue range, but if thye fail a 1-1-1 but stay in the game for another 10 minutes, failing a rush like that should probably not reflect in good lategame win rates. It's not about succeding a rush and winning or failing and losing... Most "rush" or early timings are not designed to give you the complete win but more like giving you an edge late game - at least at high enough lvl play, which is the case for MLG. All in all, if we strictly follow those curve, T is strong early, weak late.
sometimes i dont express my sentiments correctly.
i just meant that the charts cant account for the strategies and metagame at the moment, and the fact that many people of a particular race may be losing the late game may very well be the result of the decisions they make in the early game that compromise the late game (not that the particular race is actually weak in the late game).
for example, if someone went for a canon rush every single game. failed it. played for another 15 mintues and then lost, it wouldnt be accurate to conclude that protoss is weak in the late game.
|
I think a Win rate-game length graph would be useful. If nothing else, we can see how big a disparity is with mid game and late game TvP, as people say. Though I guess the first graph is somewhat telling of that. Seems like Terrans just have a harder time the longer the game goes.
|
On February 05 2012 10:18 Orracle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 08:19 magnaflow wrote:
Is it possible to do this with all the playhem replays? 35k is a substantial number I feel while a larger sample size is needed, you can't really include half these daily games. You run into situations of bronze vs grandmasters, diamonds vs platinums, etc. I would like to see strictly GSL/GSTL stats. These would reflect stats of the best players in the world playing.
Then we wouldn't have a big enough sample size and one race winning over another could skew results in favor of that race just by one game alone. I don't care if we see bronze vs grandmasters, I think the larger the sample size the better. Of course out of those 31.5k games it would be nice to see the Top 8 only analyzed, or even the just the 2nd and 3rd rounders and above because most 1st rounders who lose will be very bad players.
|
On February 05 2012 10:25 aTnClouD wrote:
Regarding Terran, I think it's very hard to play late game compared to other races, especially TvP late game is very very hard, but there should be no major imbalance.
i agree with this.
terran seems just insanely hard to play lategame...
i think because terran doesn't really have anything that's good in small numbers. like a single infestor or HT can single handedly shut down a drop, or at least quickly deal significant damage to a group of units... but terran doesn't have anything capable of this.... except seeker missile... but raven is just too vulnerable to be a viable unit.
ergo you're forced to using MMM, and it feels like you need a critical mass of MMM to kill 3/3 zealots etc.
|
Haha interesting read. Zerg 6 pools 
As a terran, i find late game extremely difficult due to slow reinforcements. I find that the only way i win, is if i have dealt damage early on and i am just outmacro-ing my opponent OR if my opponent makes a mistake during a deathball engagement.
|
those graphs are not representative
and thats why:
terran is the hardest race to kill
eventhough the game's alrdy "over" it often takes 10 more mins to finish off a terran player. u need to wait for hightech to kill him. just watch some stream of pro zergs playing against much lower opponents on ladder, alot of times the game is alrdy "over" at 10-15min mark,cuz they cleaned up their pushes so hard that they never come back. but the games goes on untill broodlords or other stuff is out.
on the other side terran allins are very powerfull and they mostly hit instantly and force a gg immediatly
lets take a 11/11rax: 11/11 wins u the game -> +1 for 5-10min win, but if 11/11 rax fails hard its not counted as 5-10min lose, its counted as 10+ mins lose. thats just not very representative at all. also u have to mention that its a tournament and there alot of players fighting for their tournament life.
lets take 1-1-1
push wins at 10min -> +1 to 10-15
push loses at 10min -> stay in game 10more mins and get +1 lose at 20min
i still think that it shows abit a small tendency but its by far not that much like 60% 15-20min and just 40% 20+, its just because 20+mins contains all the turtle terrans trying to come back.
tldr:
terran wins earlygame -> +1 for 5-10mins -> high win % earlygame
terran "loses" earllygame -> +1 for 10+ mins -> higher lose % lategame
|
^^ this can be said of all the races idk why you pick on terran. So I think they cancel each other out.
If toss does a blink stalker all in and terran holds then toss loses at 10 min but stays in for another 10 min because he got storm and terran can't attack. There are tons of examples of all the races essentially losing the game but sticking around for 10 min longer. So the graphh should show the averages accurately, Also techinaclly you dont lose if 11/11 rax fails or any of the other examples you provided, terran could do enough damage to transition smoothly and then lose 10min later.
|
On February 05 2012 13:10 -Duderino- wrote:
^^ this can be said of all the races idk why you pick on terran. So I think they cancel each other out.
If toss does a blink stalker all in and terran holds then toss loses at 10 min but stays in for another 10 min because he got storm and terran can't attack. There are tons of examples of all the races essentially losing the game but sticking around for 10 min longer. So the graphh should show the averages accurately, Also techinaclly you dont lose if 11/11 rax fails or any of the other examples you provided, terran could do enough damage to transition smoothly and then lose 10min later.
i hope u are not serious
User was warned for this post
|
Put it this way. If T has really good early game and bad late game, then it actually favors T. Why? Because you'll have early game every game no matter what. Some games end before late game. Having strong early game also leads to ability to cripple your opponent so he cannot do much in late game.
|
very interesting. makes terran look like the cheese race. go for the long game zergs~!
asked for comment, idra stated "no fucking kidding terran is op at the beginning; zerg cant scout"
|
this is excellent! Would you or anyone else please continue these kind of statistics similar to the monthly TLPD win rates for international and Korea ? I understand if you wouldn't want to because that sounds like too much work to ask for
|
On February 05 2012 13:15 ChriseC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 13:10 -Duderino- wrote:
^^ this can be said of all the races idk why you pick on terran. So I think they cancel each other out.
If toss does a blink stalker all in and terran holds then toss loses at 10 min but stays in for another 10 min because he got storm and terran can't attack. There are tons of examples of all the races essentially losing the game but sticking around for 10 min longer. So the graphh should show the averages accurately, Also techinaclly you dont lose if 11/11 rax fails or any of the other examples you provided, terran could do enough damage to transition smoothly and then lose 10min later. i hope u are not serious
A more correct response is not to insinuate a facetious remark, but simply tell him why he's wrong and explain your point of view...
What he said, in a vague sense is true, where a Protoss may 7gate a zerg and not do substantial dmg but stay around praying the zerg will make a mistake because simply he is dead at that point... It imo doesn't show the averages correctly for this point, but actually skews them.
|
On February 05 2012 14:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 13:15 ChriseC wrote:On February 05 2012 13:10 -Duderino- wrote:
^^ this can be said of all the races idk why you pick on terran. So I think they cancel each other out.
If toss does a blink stalker all in and terran holds then toss loses at 10 min but stays in for another 10 min because he got storm and terran can't attack. There are tons of examples of all the races essentially losing the game but sticking around for 10 min longer. So the graphh should show the averages accurately, Also techinaclly you dont lose if 11/11 rax fails or any of the other examples you provided, terran could do enough damage to transition smoothly and then lose 10min later. i hope u are not serious A more correct response is not to insinuate a facetious remark, but simply tell him why he's wrong and explain your point of view... What he said, in a vague sense is true, where a Protoss may 7gate a zerg and not do substantial dmg but stay around praying the zerg will make a mistake because simply he is dead at that point... It imo doesn't show the averages correctly for this point, but actually skews them.
That's why you need a large sample size to eliminate such games...
By the same argument say a Zerg 6 pools and manages to kill every single Terran unit and the Terran flies buildings and starts bm'ing while the Zerg takes the entire map and does nothing and lets the game drag on for 3 hours. This happens once in awhile, but is eliminated in the total picture by simply having a large enough sample size.
A 4gate could fail and the toss could be completely screwed but manages to stick around for another 10mins. Yes, this could happen, but how often? Not enough to deter the general statistics imo.
|
i would LOVE to see the monthly TLPD winrate graph include something like OP.
I've always wondered if it was just me that thinks TvP is on a clock for terrans. Especially in lower leagues.
|
On February 05 2012 10:48 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 10:18 Orracle wrote:On February 05 2012 08:19 magnaflow wrote:
Is it possible to do this with all the playhem replays? 35k is a substantial number I feel while a larger sample size is needed, you can't really include half these daily games. You run into situations of bronze vs grandmasters, diamonds vs platinums, etc. I would like to see strictly GSL/GSTL stats. These would reflect stats of the best players in the world playing. Then we wouldn't have a big enough sample size and one race winning over another could skew results in favor of that race just by one game alone. I don't care if we see bronze vs grandmasters, I think the larger the sample size the better. Of course out of those 31.5k games it would be nice to see the Top 8 only analyzed, or even the just the 2nd and 3rd rounders and above because most 1st rounders who lose will be very bad players.
That is a good suggestion actually. Incorporate the top 8, 16, etc depending on tournament size. Would provide a halfway decent sample size, and at least decent skill level players.
|
TvT is so short because people know how fckin long it would be so they just cheese each other xD
|
It would be nice to get more stats like this.
Thing is I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but it's hard to accurately get this information, because replay length is not always the same as "time to win". For instance, once a major winning game move was done at 4 or 10 minutes into the game, the game may go on for another 10 minutes before the other player either surrenders or gets destroyed. One could maybe also consider on the other hand the rare(?) case(s) of premature "GG"s (surrender).
edit: I see this is being discussed.
Thanks, as I suspected, this information is a lot more useful than the overview one, which is kinda meaningless aside from strategies that apply to both match-ups.
It will be interesting to see with larger sample size and finer/more levels of game durations what —if anything— changes.
Oh also, I'm not sure if it provides useful information (I think it does?), but what about weighing the win-rate values based on the number of games played, essentially multiplying the win-rate % by the % of games at that duration.
That way, one could see the durations where players win most of their games for each matchups. In addition, I believe it would provide overall win-rate information if you took the "integral" (volume) of the graph (albeit very rough information, but still would probably give a visual indicator if X race was favored overall in all the match-ups or not).
Alternatively, but [in my opinion] much more confusing, a <number of games> vs <game duration> graph could be superimposed with the win-rate vs duration graph to get a similar effect.
|
20% drop in win rate after 20 minutes for terran, kind of what everyone has been saying. Would prefer to see a much larger sample size (especially since providence wasn't exactly the best sample to honestly).
And including mirror matches is redundant IMO
|
The authority of this particular data set is debatable, but the evaluation format is brilliant! So much more informative than mere winrates!
|
I guess you could use games of all recent tournaments?
|
I looove stats in neat graphs OH YESSS!!!
|
On February 05 2012 08:11 skeldark wrote:
ps: the overall in the graph is total misleading
^ This
And I'd love if the guy with the 30k playhem replays could do a similar analysis
|
Anyone interested in going through GSL vods and recording game lengths manually?
|
On February 06 2012 05:09 gurrpp wrote:
Anyone interested in going through GSL vods and recording game lengths manually?
how many internets are you willing to pay?
|
On February 06 2012 05:09 Roxy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 05:09 gurrpp wrote:
Anyone interested in going through GSL vods and recording game lengths manually? how many internets are you willing to pay?
You can have all the internets. But in all seriousness I'm really curious about game length/win rate stats of top korean players, since they play a lot tighter early game. It could be from any korean tournament with good players, but replays are so hard to come by and GSL has the possibly the largest collection of Korean vods. It wouldn't take a group of people too long to go through a couple months worth of games, since you just need to record the game length and result. It'd be really tedious, and I don't have a GSL subscription anymore.
|
On February 05 2012 19:41 Corsica wrote:
TvT is so short because people know how fckin long it would be so they just cheese each other xD
What? TvT is the longest match-up. Should pay more attention.
|
wee terrible statistics at work...
This is just so bad it's laughable and the 'conclusions' of it are terrible. For a huge replay pack this could be somewhat useful but for anything less then a couple thousand replays this is just bogus, especially when using this method.
Especially the OP's comment to discuss 6-pool every time or 2 rax every time is stupid. I know it's most likely meant as a joke, at least I hope it is, but in the light of the terrible graphs I fear he actually thinks these graphs mean anything.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 06 2012 06:04 Markwerf wrote:
wee terrible statistics at work...
This is just so bad it's laughable and the 'conclusions' of it are terrible. For a huge replay pack this could be somewhat useful but for anything less then a couple thousand replays this is just bogus, especially when using this method.
Especially the OP's comment to discuss 6-pool every time or 2 rax every time is stupid. I know it's most likely meant as a joke, at least I hope it is, but in the light of the terrible graphs I fear he actually thinks these graphs mean anything.
On February 05 2012 06:22 ZeroTalent wrote:
The data does show some interesting results. But I'm not satisfied that the sample size is large enough. I'd love to repeat this analysis on a bigger dataset if there is fresher and larger replay pack lying around (coughplayhemcough).
To the Pros, Masters players, and everyone: do the numbers here line up with how you think about the game? Is Terran overmatched in the late game? Does Zerg grow stronger as the game goes on? Should you 6-pool (100% Z win rate in PvZ <5 minute games) or 2-rax every (80% T win rate in ZvT 5-10 minutes) every game? Discuss.
OP discusses the data, says he's not satisfied with the sample size and points out the ridiculousness of the conclusions which can be drawn from his data, and still gets flamed for "think[ing] these graphs mean anything".
I think the OP brings up a good point, that analyzing win rate match up data and game length may yield novel conclusions about the nature of each match up. When you design an experimental protocol, you don't just go and run your experiment on the whole population you are testing, because your procedure may be total shit. Usually its a good idea to test if the protocol yields reasonable results on just a small sample size. This is basically what the OP is doing, and I would say some of the things shown in the data are indicative (such as the early strength of terran against zerg) that this method of analysis could yield something which reflects the nature of each match up.
So yes, these graphs do mean something, just not what you think.
|
yep late game terran doesn't look so strong, while early game terran is beast. Maybe this is why every race's best strategy against terran is defend and macro until late game
|
Huge props to the author for sitting down with the dataset and doing the number crunching! This is really interesting, although the conclusions that can be drawn are limited by the particulars of the data.
I'd love to see this done with either a bigger or more specialized dataset. As others have noted, many matches (if the dataset is indeed all of Providence including open bracket) will have great disparities in skill, but I still think this gives some (very uncertain) sort of indication of how the various races fare in different situations. The same analysis performed with (say) all top 32 MLG games, or all => ro32 Code S games could yield in some very interesting statistics, especially if graphs are provided for "all of history" as well as grouped by patch/metagame shifts. Gathering the data (the most difficult/dreary part, I reckon) and performing the analysis would - of course - take a lot of time and perhaps not be a lot of fun, but I think the results could be illuminating.
Again, nice work!
|
I am pretty sure the average game length of pvz is only at 10 mins.
that's about when the 2 base all-in starts to hit
cam't remember seeing a macro toss at all
|
Interesting, I wonder if it would be even more interesting if we could look at the specific matchups :D
|
On February 06 2012 12:57 ETisME wrote:
I am pretty sure the average game length of pvz is only at 10 mins.
that's about when the 2 base all-in starts to hit
cam't remember seeing a macro toss at all
Between the instant tech switching, ling runbys and out of control macro, why would any Protoss in a PvZ choose for a long macro lategame?
I didn't expect 15-20min TvP to be so wildly in T's favour, I had thought that 1 base allin timings to be generally over and that the double chronoed forges and T3 to kick in right about that point.
|
On February 05 2012 08:37 jupiter6 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 08:29 Aquila- wrote:
I knew it, Terran gets ridiculously hard when the game goes on longer. It is almost impossible to win a long macro game on maps like Taldarim, but Terrans still keep their winrate at 50% with allins or 1 base timings. I wish Terran would get a stronger lategame, then we would see less allins and more macro games. I mean why would you play a long game if you know your chances of winning get smaller with the time?... this imo is design flaw, i love terran but its so annoying playing this race is like playing against clock
This This This. Terrans late game is weak compared to Toss and Zergs. What viable tech option can terrans look to tech to thats actually viable? A barracks unit called a ghost lol???
If ravens were less expensive and had a longer range so that you didnt have to suicide them when using their abilitys they'd actually be viable. If BC's had an ability simliar to the carriers and BL's that shoots out units at a long range they'd actually be viable. Blizzard should make BC's shoot out parachuted marines that have combat shields from a range of 9.
To the people that talk about terrans winning in the late game, the only time that a terran will win in the late game is if their micro is far superior to their opponents. Whens the last time that you saw someome baneling/ling splitting just as well as MVP's marine splits and stutter steps?
|
On February 05 2012 10:00 Greenei wrote:
this is pretty much excatly what i as a terran master would expect.
i checked 800 games with sc2gears:
5-10 min 66%
10-15 min 61%
15-20 min 64%
20+ min 42%
The problem is this could be just as indicative of your playstyle or relative strengths as it might say anything about the race in general.
|
On February 06 2012 12:57 ETisME wrote:
I am pretty sure the average game length of pvz is only at 10 mins.
that's about when the 2 base all-in starts to hit
cam't remember seeing a macro toss at all
Wasn't Hero vs Ret a long game that ended with a vortex or two? I'm pretty sure that was Providence.
I think you'll find more than a few long PvZ games, just protoss loses most of them.
On February 06 2012 13:34 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 08:37 jupiter6 wrote:On February 05 2012 08:29 Aquila- wrote:
I knew it, Terran gets ridiculously hard when the game goes on longer. It is almost impossible to win a long macro game on maps like Taldarim, but Terrans still keep their winrate at 50% with allins or 1 base timings. I wish Terran would get a stronger lategame, then we would see less allins and more macro games. I mean why would you play a long game if you know your chances of winning get smaller with the time?... this imo is design flaw, i love terran but its so annoying playing this race is like playing against clock This This This. Terrans late game is weak compared to Toss and Zergs. What viable tech option can terrans look to tech to thats actually viable? A barracks unit called a ghost lol??? If ravens were less expensive and had a longer range so that you didnt have to suicide them when using their abilitys they'd actually be viable. If BC's had an ability simliar to the carriers and BL's that shoots out units at a long range they'd actually be viable. Blizzard should make BC's shoot out parachuted marines that have combat shields from a range of 9. To the people that talk about terrans winning in the late game, the only time that a terran will win in the late game is if their micro is far superior to their opponents. Whens the last time that you saw someome baneling/ling splitting just as well as MVP's marine splits and stutter steps?
This is pretty funny, since most people will declare a TvZ pretty much over if the Terran gets decent positioning with 16+ ghosts. Unless it's fin vs leenock
I do agree that thor / BC are not great 'late game' tech, but for almost all races tier 3 sucks. Colossus are good, more like essential, with Broods and Ultras coming in after that. Then Thors as long as something is flying somewhere in the game. BCs bringing up the rear with the 'mighty' Carrier right at the bottom.
To be fair to the terran race, their mid game units are the strongest in the game. MMMGV is a good counter to the Protoss death ball, and marine, tank, thor(if muta), viking(if BL), ghost(if anything?) does well vs zerg. Most of the time it looks to me like the player who is playing better on any given day wins more than racial imbalance. I would argue that Terran have a kill window where the other two races are trying to kick their tier 3 into gear while terran already have their 'strongest' composition and this is where Terran aim to make the game end.
|
I think in a very very very general sense terran is the most lethal race earliest on in the hands of skilled players
|
Always interesting to be able to take in such information in this fashion.. Don't know that too many conclusions can be drawn from it though.
Thanks for putting it together!
|
MLG providence, too few data points.
Also, I'd really like a breakdown of when they won in the game. This is sort of that, but not quite what I want.
TvP AND PvT, who's winning at which points of the game
ZVT vs TVZ, etc...
|
On February 06 2012 17:34 Divinek wrote:
I think in a very very very general sense terran is the most lethal race earliest on in the hands of skilled players While that might be true, I think another big factor is that terran is by far the best defensive race (even though they're good offensively as well), meaning if they play smart will win a majority of their games where the opponent does any sort of commitment to an early-game attack.
I think it's really a combination of them both. Due to the mechanics of zerg, they have probably the strongest early on potential, I'd say (most efficient t1 unit for the early game, and banelings can destroy anything that can counter the zerglings, such as walls). Thing is, that doesn't give zergs necessarily the highest win-rate for short games, since they might not all play like that, and/or their tactics can easily be dealt with when scouted. For instance, a player who doesn't run aggressive all-in short-term builds will oftentimes succumb to another build attacking offensively early on.
Anyway, whatever; I brought up too much theory craft than I care to.
|
This is exactly why I mainly all-in mid- or earlygame in TvZ and TvP and only play Macro games in TvT.
I'd say Terran is overpowered in the early and midgame but extremely underpowered lategame and about ten times harder to play in a macro game than either Zerg or Protoss. In TvT I know that I won't lose to inferior players in a macro game just because their race is easier to play late game and has a generally stronger late-game aswell.
And if people want to flame me for that, read what cloud said on page 2 (?), he said essentially the same thing, that terran is easily the hardest race to play in a macro game, hence why they have the lowest win rates in 20+ mins game (and because imo terran lategame is underpowered, but like I said, it's balanced out because early and midgame terran is OP, but I feel like if the toss or zerg just defend and drag the game into the lategame I can't win with terran)
|
On February 06 2012 12:27 RedMosquito wrote:
yep late game terran doesn't look so strong, while early game terran is beast. Maybe this is why every race's best strategy against terran is defend and macro until late game
Or Terran is more dominant in the early stages than in the later stages. Thus a greater share of its victories are in the early stages. Toss on the other hand may be less effective in the early stages and enjoy more of its total share of victories in the late stage.
The graphs point to T strength in the early stage but do not necessarily say anything about T in the late game. We're talking about each individual race's share of victories.
|
On February 08 2012 11:47 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 12:27 RedMosquito wrote:
yep late game terran doesn't look so strong, while early game terran is beast. Maybe this is why every race's best strategy against terran is defend and macro until late game Or Terran is more dominant in the early stages than in the later stages. Thus a greater share of its victories are in the early stages. Toss on the other hand may be less effective in the early stages and enjoy more of its total share of victories in the late stage. The graphs point to T strength in the early stage but do not necessarily say anything about T in the late game. We're talking about each individual race's share of victories.
??????????????????
These are percentage graphs.
|
Pretty cool graphs, I always find stuff like this interesting. One big thing I think is you shouldn't have the overall win rate on the end of the graph. It doesn't make sense there, and ruins the flow of the line. Other than that though it's well done. Obviously as some people pointed out a bit longer time frame would be a good thing to add if you managed to get more replays so you had a large enough sample for extended games. A big replay pack release would be really nice for that.
|
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
|
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
You are right, it's not the race, all terrans are just retarded and can't macro.
|
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.
|
I see the low Terran win rate in the late game as a sign that most of them actually play risky strategies that is intended to kill their opponents at the 10-15 minute mark, but they just last so much longer compared to other races.
As an example, a Terran 1-1-1 against a Protoss (I can't site an example right now) would be very effective and can kill of the Protoss at the 14 minute mark if the Protoss doesn't defend properly. However when the contain is broken and Terran retreats, they still stay in the game despite having a very distinct disadvantage of going for a strategy that was intended for an mid game kill but did not work.
I might be completely wrong though and if someone can prove/tell me otherwise, please do!
|
Interesting.
One thing I'd like to add and put in question is that to me Terrans also seem to stay in games waaaay after the've already ,ore or less lost whereas zergs seem to throw in the (too) early GG more.
I guess this would makes sense seeing as Terran has pretty good defensive abilities and are therefore hard to kill whereas if you lose too much as Zerg you do not have anything to fall back on at your base.
|
On February 11 2012 19:15 Cereb wrote:
Interesting.
One thing I'd like to add and put in question is that to me Terrans also seem to stay in games waaaay after the've already ,ore or less lost whereas zergs seem to throw in the (too) early GG more.
I guess this would makes sense seeing as Terran has pretty good defensive abilities and are therefore hard to kill whereas if you lose too much as Zerg you do not have anything to fall back on at your base.
lol so biased
|
You'd perhaps want to remove the "overall" data point in the first graph, since it gives a wrong impression.
It hides the clear trend that the later the game goes, zerg winrate increases and terran winrate declines.
I'd suggest using horizontal lines instead if you want to display the overall winrates.
Otherwise its a very nice statistic to look at, looking forward to more of this.
|
On February 05 2012 06:22 ZeroTalent wrote:
This is why the snipe nerf is dumb fix something early game
35% winrate lategame is pretty bad
|
On February 11 2012 19:15 Cereb wrote:
Interesting.
One thing I'd like to add and put in question is that to me Terrans also seem to stay in games waaaay after the've already ,ore or less lost whereas zergs seem to throw in the (too) early GG more.
I guess this would makes sense seeing as Terran has pretty good defensive abilities and are therefore hard to kill whereas if you lose too much as Zerg you do not have anything to fall back on at your base.
If an attack fails, there is no need to gg out immediately, because you have a chance to equalize the situation until your opponent capitalizes on his advantage (tech, eco, units). If you defense fails, you are dead.
Terran are nearly always the attacking party. Zerg nearly always the defending one.
If a Terran eats a 6-gate and toss tears down bunkers and razes the natural, the terran gg's out. If the terran holds, the toss stays in.
|
The ZvT match over time graph makes me chuckle. Does anyone else chuckle over it? It's quite chuckle-worthy.
|
On February 11 2012 20:56 Zdrastochye wrote:
The ZvT match over time graph makes me chuckle. Does anyone else chuckle over it? It's quite chuckle-worthy.
It just makes me sad when blizzard nerfs a lategame ability when T is already 35% in lategame.
Is it that hard to give vikings a few more dmg against bio and give zerg better scoutting for the early game?
|
On February 11 2012 21:13 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 20:56 Zdrastochye wrote:
The ZvT match over time graph makes me chuckle. Does anyone else chuckle over it? It's quite chuckle-worthy. It just makes me sad when blizzard nerfs a lategame ability when T is already 35% in lategame. Is it that hard to give vikings a few more dmg against bio and give zerg better scoutting for the early game?
Nah mang, just make banelings worth 2x their cost. Either cuts muta balls up in size or there's far less banes, which means less tanks needed, which means more marines! Who needs other units when you have those guys?
|
On February 11 2012 19:18 dde wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 19:15 Cereb wrote:
Interesting.
One thing I'd like to add and put in question is that to me Terrans also seem to stay in games waaaay after the've already ,ore or less lost whereas zergs seem to throw in the (too) early GG more.
I guess this would makes sense seeing as Terran has pretty good defensive abilities and are therefore hard to kill whereas if you lose too much as Zerg you do not have anything to fall back on at your base.
lol so biased
Very biased... but there is an element of truth to it actually >.>
|
I really want to see the number of games involved in the game length winning percentage in each data point.
I'm not arguing for or against Terran late game, but as far as I know Terrans try to finish their games very early. So if the late game count is drastically lower than mid game it might be at least part of the reason.
|
On February 11 2012 20:25 thezanursic wrote:This is why the snipe nerf is dumb fix something early game 35% winrate lategame is pretty bad
On February 11 2012 21:13 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 20:56 Zdrastochye wrote:
The ZvT match over time graph makes me chuckle. Does anyone else chuckle over it? It's quite chuckle-worthy. It just makes me sad when blizzard nerfs a lategame ability when T is already 35% in lategame. Is it that hard to give vikings a few more dmg against bio and give zerg better scoutting for the early game?
lol, so you think better scouting for Z will fix the overall terran 68% win ratio in first 10 minutes of the game.... no, some major nerf to terran early game would have to be made, for example nerfing marines or inability of cc lift, but i can't imagine what outrage would it cause looking at the snipe nerf discussion. I'd be more than happy to see terran late game buffed in exchange, because as much as i love the diversity of each race, I don't want to get to the state where one race is only for turtling, second is only for cheesing and third is somewhere inbetween.
|
On February 11 2012 21:34 david0925 wrote:
I really want to see the number of games involved in the game length winning percentage in each data point.
I'm not arguing for or against Terran late game, but as far as I know Terrans try to finish their games very early. So if the late game count is drastically lower than mid game it might be at least part of the reason.
The trend of getting 3 fast orbital in TvZ recenlty totaly show that indeed.
/facepalm
|
As a Terran player, I can definitely say that these results can be skewed towards Z in ZvT late game simply for the following reason.
At the 10 minute mark, Terran does a marine tank push to 'pressure the Zerg' (it's an all in). Zergs get mutas out afterwards and lolz Terran around for 10 minutes. Terran can do nothing but turtle until max on 3 bases. Terran finally goes for it at 20 minutes into the game, but Zerg arrives with 5 brood lords and 8 infestors after losing the first engagement. Terran loses a 10 minute game at the 25 minute mark.
With Protoss, if your blink all in fails, or your dt rush is spotted, zerg makes 200/200 and attacks.
|
Sorry, how much games were analyzed ? 100 ? (from 2rd graph)
|
On February 11 2012 19:15 Cereb wrote:
Interesting.
One thing I'd like to add and put in question is that to me Terrans also seem to stay in games waaaay after the've already ,ore or less lost whereas zergs seem to throw in the (too) early GG more.
I guess this would makes sense seeing as Terran has pretty good defensive abilities and are therefore hard to kill whereas if you lose too much as Zerg you do not have anything to fall back on at your base.
This arguments can be used the other way: Terrans cheese early-mid game, because they have a hard time fighting against late Z or P, and it would also be confirmed by most terran players imo. Then, the fact that Terrans have same problems with P lategame, shows that there is something wrong with Terran late army composition, given reality that P like to cheese in pvt as much as T and therefor should have same late game win rate if everything were balanced.
|
-too small amount of games
-most of people will make wrong conclusions, so it doesn't matter anyway :D
|
Interesting statistics.
Would you mind sharing the sample size and a breakdown between races, if possible?
|
Lol at all those people stating that Terran loses early game by going for a risky all- in, and stays in the game to lose after the 20 minute mark to scew the graphs.
Anybody thought of WHY so many terrans go for those all- ins.
Hint; lategame is retarded.
|
Has anyone done any significance tests on this data, or us the raw data even available. Without analysis and investigation into error it is hard to actually draw any meaningful conclusions from any statistics.
also it is hardly 35%, more like 38/39
|
Vatican City State733 Posts
On February 11 2012 22:47 ToastieNL wrote:
Lol at all those people stating that Terran loses early game by going for a risky all- in, and stays in the game to lose after the 20 minute mark to scew the graphs.
Anybody thought of WHY so many terrans go for those all- ins.
Hint; lategame is retarded.
Or their early game is extremely strong? There are any number of possible explanations and I doubt you could come up with quantitative data to back your claim
|
On February 11 2012 23:18 RDaneelOlivaw wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 22:47 ToastieNL wrote:
Lol at all those people stating that Terran loses early game by going for a risky all- in, and stays in the game to lose after the 20 minute mark to scew the graphs.
Anybody thought of WHY so many terrans go for those all- ins.
Hint; lategame is retarded. Or their early game is extremely strong? There are any number of possible explanations and I doubt you could come up with quantitative data to back your claim
Indeed there are different explanations and without more evidence we would be rational to accept most simple of them as most probable - Terrans wins more early and lose more later because their early game is strong and late game weak, any explanation postulating more then that without evidence backing them up would be less likely to be true.
|
On February 11 2012 21:34 david0925 wrote:
I really want to see the number of games involved in the game length winning percentage in each data point.
I'm not arguing for or against Terran late game, but as far as I know Terrans try to finish their games very early. So if the late game count is drastically lower than mid game it might be at least part of the reason.
I extracted and recompiled the information in the OP for personal use, but you might find it good to know too.
games played and the respective winrates
(non-mirrors, taken by inspection, approximations, error small and almost negligable)
syntax:
games total: the total amount of games played during thedescribed timeframe, wins and losses
winrate: the winrate of the first mentioned race (for TvP, its the winrate for T, the P winrate is 100-T winrate)
games won: the amount of games won by the first mentioned race during the timeframe.
TvP:
+ Show Spoiler +
PvZ
+ Show Spoiler +
ZvT
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 11 2012 23:30 Roblin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 21:34 david0925 wrote:
I really want to see the number of games involved in the game length winning percentage in each data point.
I'm not arguing for or against Terran late game, but as far as I know Terrans try to finish their games very early. So if the late game count is drastically lower than mid game it might be at least part of the reason. I extracted and recompiled the information in the OP for personal use, but you might find it good to know too. games played and the respective winrates (non-mirrors, taken by inspection, approximations, error small and almost negligable) syntax: games total: the total amount of games played during thedescribed timeframe, wins and losses winrate: the winrate of the first mentioned race (for TvP, its the winrate for T, the P winrate is 100-T winrate) games won: the amount of games won by the first mentioned race during the timeframe. TvP: + Show Spoiler +PvZ + Show Spoiler +ZvT + Show Spoiler +
It should say TvZ and ZvP.
|
On February 11 2012 23:30 Roblin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 21:34 david0925 wrote:
I really want to see the number of games involved in the game length winning percentage in each data point.
I'm not arguing for or against Terran late game, but as far as I know Terrans try to finish their games very early. So if the late game count is drastically lower than mid game it might be at least part of the reason. I extracted and recompiled the information in the OP for personal use, but you might find it good to know too.
... the OP has a link to a spreadsheet with the raw data.
|
Dat negative correlation between TvZ
|
altho the numbers can be flawed. i wonder (highly doubt) that blizzard takes into account these things when balancing the game. I wonder if their internal data balances the game this way. its a sort of "relative balance". I doubt it though.
|
All the data really represents is the current metagame. Z almost always plays for the late game and T/P almost always does some sort of timing attack/push, and it's quite clearly reflected in the data.
If all races had aimed for late game every game then I suspect the results would be quite different.
|
On February 11 2012 23:30 Roblin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 21:34 david0925 wrote:
I really want to see the number of games involved in the game length winning percentage in each data point.
I'm not arguing for or against Terran late game, but as far as I know Terrans try to finish their games very early. So if the late game count is drastically lower than mid game it might be at least part of the reason. I extracted and recompiled the information in the OP for personal use, but you might find it good to know too. games played and the respective winrates (non-mirrors, taken by inspection, approximations, error small and almost negligable) syntax: games total: the total amount of games played during thedescribed timeframe, wins and losses winrate: the winrate of the first mentioned race (for TvP, its the winrate for T, the P winrate is 100-T winrate) games won: the amount of games won by the first mentioned race during the timeframe. TvP: + Show Spoiler +PvZ + Show Spoiler +ZvT + Show Spoiler +
man i love that tvz statistic for after the 15-20min marker. 35%! just brilliant, anyone want to make bets on how much lower it drops after the snipe nerf? i bet it will drop below 20%
|
Vatican City State733 Posts
On February 11 2012 23:29 Remi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 23:18 RDaneelOlivaw wrote:On February 11 2012 22:47 ToastieNL wrote:
Lol at all those people stating that Terran loses early game by going for a risky all- in, and stays in the game to lose after the 20 minute mark to scew the graphs.
Anybody thought of WHY so many terrans go for those all- ins.
Hint; lategame is retarded. Or their early game is extremely strong? There are any number of possible explanations and I doubt you could come up with quantitative data to back your claim Indeed there are different explanations and without more evidence we would be rational to accept most simple of them as most probable - Terrans wins more early and lose more later because their early game is strong and late game weak, any explanation postulating more then that without evidence backing them up would be less likely to be true.
That's incredibly weak reasoning in this situation. This is a case where dismissing unknown details as unnecessary obscuring bits of information could very easily lead to incorrect conclusions.
|
I think the low win rates late game for tvz and high win rates in the beginning are linked. Terran has such a strong early game that most terrans can just win then and there if they apply alot of pressure early on. In other words alot of terrans currently disregard even trying to go for a macro game so if they don't kill the zerg early on they're in a really bad spot because they somewhat disregarded their economy to get a game ending army. If you watch some games by thorzain for example that guy sometimes maxes out as fast as the zerg does almost by going to three bases really fast. The only thing a terran really has to worry about doing this is some early 1base roach allin.
|
On February 12 2012 12:20 CptCutter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 23:30 Roblin wrote:On February 11 2012 21:34 david0925 wrote:
I really want to see the number of games involved in the game length winning percentage in each data point.
I'm not arguing for or against Terran late game, but as far as I know Terrans try to finish their games very early. So if the late game count is drastically lower than mid game it might be at least part of the reason. I extracted and recompiled the information in the OP for personal use, but you might find it good to know too. games played and the respective winrates (non-mirrors, taken by inspection, approximations, error small and almost negligable) syntax: games total: the total amount of games played during thedescribed timeframe, wins and losses winrate: the winrate of the first mentioned race (for TvP, its the winrate for T, the P winrate is 100-T winrate) games won: the amount of games won by the first mentioned race during the timeframe. TvP: + Show Spoiler +PvZ + Show Spoiler +ZvT + Show Spoiler + man i love that tvz statistic for after the 15-20min marker. 35%! just brilliant, anyone want to make bets on how much lower it drops after the snipe nerf? i bet it will drop below 20%
Unless I'm missing something, the statistics apply to the first race mentioned in the matchup (which would be Z in ZvT), meaning that Z is the one with the 35% winrate 20+ minutes in? I'm confused.
|
I would say that Zerg v Non-Zerg match ups take the longest because Zerg has to play the economic game (i.e. I'm getting more bases and more economy to beat you later) and if Protoss or Terran plays turtle defense, Zerg's option is usually to take the map than to try to bust in.
Also, a 6-pool is never going to result in a loss for Zerg in under 5 minutes unless they give up immediately. On a 6-pool Zerg gets to the base with the initial 6 Zerglings around 3:00 (longer on some maps) and the ensuing micro usually takes a while unless Zerg completely screws up. Even if the end result is the Protoss holds off the rush, unless the Zerg player leaves immediately it's going to result in a win for the Protoss longer than 5 minutes.
|
On February 11 2012 21:33 HaXXspetten wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 19:18 dde wrote:On February 11 2012 19:15 Cereb wrote:
Interesting.
One thing I'd like to add and put in question is that to me Terrans also seem to stay in games waaaay after the've already ,ore or less lost whereas zergs seem to throw in the (too) early GG more.
I guess this would makes sense seeing as Terran has pretty good defensive abilities and are therefore hard to kill whereas if you lose too much as Zerg you do not have anything to fall back on at your base.
lol so biased Very biased... but there is an element of truth to it actually >.>
Biased towards what? You think it's better to leave early than to stay in the game and defend? I'm just addressing that one race makes more sense to play one way over the other :/
This was just ment as an explanation for a PART of the graphs. It's not like I said that this was the only reason -_-;;
|
I would love to see this applied to the 10,000+ playhem pack.
|
It would be more useful with sample numbers.
|
On February 11 2012 23:43 foxmeep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 23:30 Roblin wrote:On February 11 2012 21:34 david0925 wrote:
I really want to see the number of games involved in the game length winning percentage in each data point.
I'm not arguing for or against Terran late game, but as far as I know Terrans try to finish their games very early. So if the late game count is drastically lower than mid game it might be at least part of the reason. I extracted and recompiled the information in the OP for personal use, but you might find it good to know too. games played and the respective winrates (non-mirrors, taken by inspection, approximations, error small and almost negligable) syntax: games total: the total amount of games played during thedescribed timeframe, wins and losses winrate: the winrate of the first mentioned race (for TvP, its the winrate for T, the P winrate is 100-T winrate) games won: the amount of games won by the first mentioned race during the timeframe. TvP: + Show Spoiler +PvZ + Show Spoiler +ZvT + Show Spoiler + It should say TvZ and ZvP.
this is true, it was a mistake by me, the real stuff is the following:
TvP:
+ Show Spoiler +
ZvP
+ Show Spoiler +
TvZ
+ Show Spoiler +
edit: I would very much like the OP to extend the TvZ chart such that we can see the following timeframes:
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40+
|
i think these stats illustrate an interesting aspect of the current meta-game. a lot of people complain about certain all-in timing attacks in some match-ups, but these attacks may just be a result of the need to end the game within a specific time period. if a timing attack is not strong enough (not all-in: often these timings are very precise and only work if executed perfectly and with enough force) and there is a transition to late game, it may just come to a point of no return where the game statistically favors one race over the other. in these cases, an all-in timing would be favored if not required to increase the chances of success in a certain match up on a certain map. yeah, it might seem like a better game if everyone played a straight-up match but what is the point of doing a middle-of-the-road build if it is easily defensible and leads to a late-game auto loss?
all skill being equal, a smart player would want to end the game in a certain timing and the other player would want to survive during that time. i would say don't blame the player blame the game.
|
Mirror match game length is interesting. All mirror matches have a low frequency of games lasting 20+ minutes. I think each of you should look at that information and draw a conclusion.
|
|
|
On February 14 2012 00:54 Sated wrote:
Wow. Looking at that, PvT is a case of getting to the 20 minute mark and still being alive. Probably due to the large number of viable all-ins Terran can do off one base compared to the number Protoss can do, and the fact that 2base Terran w/ enough bunkers and repair is incredibly difficult to break with a timing attack.
I dont think a large number of 1 base strats are viable anymore could you give some examples, for breaking bunkers try 6 gating with FF its pretty good.
|
Can someone please send these stats to the missinformed guys at Blizzard who decided to turn Ghosts into Goats.
|
On February 14 2012 02:27 Freud wrote:
Can someone please send these stats to the missinformed guys at Blizzard who decided to turn Ghosts into Goats.
I think blizzard wants less than 25% win rate in late game Terran since the overall win rate for Terran is still highest. Since Terran is already winning games under 10 minutes, they need to weaken Terran late game more so that it balances the overall win% statistics.
|
On February 12 2012 12:36 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 12:20 CptCutter wrote:On February 11 2012 23:30 Roblin wrote:On February 11 2012 21:34 david0925 wrote:
I really want to see the number of games involved in the game length winning percentage in each data point.
I'm not arguing for or against Terran late game, but as far as I know Terrans try to finish their games very early. So if the late game count is drastically lower than mid game it might be at least part of the reason. I extracted and recompiled the information in the OP for personal use, but you might find it good to know too. games played and the respective winrates (non-mirrors, taken by inspection, approximations, error small and almost negligable) syntax: games total: the total amount of games played during thedescribed timeframe, wins and losses winrate: the winrate of the first mentioned race (for TvP, its the winrate for T, the P winrate is 100-T winrate) games won: the amount of games won by the first mentioned race during the timeframe. TvP: + Show Spoiler +PvZ + Show Spoiler +ZvT + Show Spoiler + man i love that tvz statistic for after the 15-20min marker. 35%! just brilliant, anyone want to make bets on how much lower it drops after the snipe nerf? i bet it will drop below 20% Unless I'm missing something, the statistics apply to the first race mentioned in the matchup (which would be Z in ZvT), meaning that Z is the one with the 35% winrate 20+ minutes in? I'm confused.
It's a typo, it's supposed to say TvZ :3
|
On February 14 2012 02:39 VPFaith wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 02:27 Freud wrote:
Can someone please send these stats to the missinformed guys at Blizzard who decided to turn Ghosts into Goats. I think blizzard wants less than 25% win rate in late game Terran since the overall win rate for Terran is still highest. Since Terran is already winning games under 10 minutes, they need to weaken Terran late game more so that it balances the overall win% statistics.
I think the issue most of us Terrans have is that this seems like bad game design. We want a way to play a macro game in all three MU. Ghosts allowed us to do that in tvz. Now that that is going away we need to figure out a new way to go into the late game tvz. I think most of us would rather have other races get some buff that would help them in the early game, rather than make our late game just that much weaker.
As much as I like executing a solid timing attack, I'd prefer if that option was weakened slightly and I were given the opportunity to play a long macro game. Our complaint, I think anyway, isn't that a ghost nerf will make tvz, Zerg favored over all but that it will make Terran late game even less viable than it already is.
tldr; buff Z early game, buff T late game, MU balance as a whole.
|
On February 14 2012 02:39 VPFaith wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 02:27 Freud wrote:
Can someone please send these stats to the missinformed guys at Blizzard who decided to turn Ghosts into Goats. I think blizzard wants less than 25% win rate in late game Terran since the overall win rate for Terran is still highest. Since Terran is already winning games under 10 minutes, they need to weaken Terran late game more so that it balances the overall win% statistics.
what a retarded way to fix the problem and destroying fun in playing one race
|
On February 14 2012 02:39 VPFaith wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 02:27 Freud wrote:
Can someone please send these stats to the missinformed guys at Blizzard who decided to turn Ghosts into Goats. I think blizzard wants less than 25% win rate in late game Terran since the overall win rate for Terran is still highest. Since Terran is already winning games under 10 minutes, they need to weaken Terran late game more so that it balances the overall win% statistics.
Troll I hope/suspect... otherwise you logic is hilarious at best... With that logic you are basically saying that its perfectly fine if a race has an ultimate end game unit that will win you the game 100 % of the time.
So if Terran cant kill Zerg by the 20 min mark, the game just ends when Zerg has teched up to this God. This is in a way what 1.4.3 will mean for TvZ. And just as IMBensin says; if you cant play a standard macro game against Zerg, then whats the point in trying. There will just be loads of 1-2 base all-ins... And thats just boring... =(
|
So, how would you go about interpreting this stuff?
For example: ZvT. Winrates for Zerg seem to go up with the length of the match.
One might think: "Ok, Zerg seems to have the late game advantage here, I should play the most Macro game possible!".
Another way of thinking would be: "Hmmm, seems like all the Zerg play way too macro and get owned for it early game."
Pretty contradicting conclusions. Quite interesting stuff though, love statistics data on this game.
|
This topic is the reason why SC 2 will never be as good as SC 1.
David Kim PLEASE watch this thread and balance the game by this standards.
|
On February 14 2012 03:06 Freud wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 02:39 VPFaith wrote:On February 14 2012 02:27 Freud wrote:
Can someone please send these stats to the missinformed guys at Blizzard who decided to turn Ghosts into Goats. I think blizzard wants less than 25% win rate in late game Terran since the overall win rate for Terran is still highest. Since Terran is already winning games under 10 minutes, they need to weaken Terran late game more so that it balances the overall win% statistics. Troll I hope/suspect... otherwise you logic is hilarious at best... With that logic you are basically saying that its perfectly fine if a race has an ultimate end game unit that will win you the game 100 % of the time. So if Terran cant kill Zerg by the 20 min mark, the game just ends when Zerg has teched up to this God. This is in a way what 1.4.3 will mean for TvZ. And just as IMBensin says; if you cant play a standard macro game against Zerg, then whats the point in trying. There will just be loads of 1-2 base all-ins... And thats just boring... =(
I am a Terran player. I didn't say 100% zergs win after 20 minute mark. I'm just saying majority of the zergs will enjoy late game past 20 minute mark. <3
|
On February 14 2012 03:23 VPFaith wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 03:06 Freud wrote:On February 14 2012 02:39 VPFaith wrote:On February 14 2012 02:27 Freud wrote:
Can someone please send these stats to the missinformed guys at Blizzard who decided to turn Ghosts into Goats. I think blizzard wants less than 25% win rate in late game Terran since the overall win rate for Terran is still highest. Since Terran is already winning games under 10 minutes, they need to weaken Terran late game more so that it balances the overall win% statistics. Troll I hope/suspect... otherwise you logic is hilarious at best... With that logic you are basically saying that its perfectly fine if a race has an ultimate end game unit that will win you the game 100 % of the time. So if Terran cant kill Zerg by the 20 min mark, the game just ends when Zerg has teched up to this God. This is in a way what 1.4.3 will mean for TvZ. And just as IMBensin says; if you cant play a standard macro game against Zerg, then whats the point in trying. There will just be loads of 1-2 base all-ins... And thats just boring... =( I am a Terran player. I didn't say 100% zergs win after 20 minute mark. I'm just saying majority of the zergs will enjoy late game past 20 minute mark. <3
Considering most Zergs wait for Broodlords to finish off a terran, most games would take a while. As a protoss, I would rather deny a terran the ability to expand than attempt to finish them off early on. Even games where the terran goes 1/1/1 take around 12-15 minutes to resolve if the protoss wins.
The lenght of the game may not directly relate to the moment when one player won. When you get an advantage against a terran, it is a slow process of playing safely and using that advantage to finish them off.
|
Interesting to see, but i arent sure if i should trust this. Protoss loses agaisnt terran? until late game?
|
On February 14 2012 03:32 Plansix wrote:
The length of the game may not directly relate to the moment when one player won. When you get an advantage against a terran, it is a slow process of playing safely and using that advantage to finish them off.
This is exactly correct. When the OP asks if the statistics mean that Zerg should 6-pool more often b/c they win 100% of the games that are less than 5 minutes, the answer is a simply you cannot make this type of conclusion from these statistics. In this case, if a Zerg player 6-pools, they will either a) win in the first 5 minutes, b) come out roughly even and transition into a longer game, or c) do no damage and lose somewhere in the 5-15 minute range. So, if the game is <5 minutes, it means that Zerg won. It doesn't mean that 6pools are successful or unsuccessful percentage-wise.
Similarly, if Terrans do some sort of strong 2-base timing in TvZ, then they will either a) win a quick game, b) come out roughly even and transition into a longer game, c) not do enough damage and be behind, most likely losing in the late game because of it. Regardless of when a Zerg gets ahead in ZvT, they will most likely win later in the game simply b/c it's hard to completely kill off a Terran and end the game before brood lords or ultras come out. When a Terran gets ahead in TvZ, on the other hand, they can use their advantage to do a game-ending push, especially since passively macroing is a good way to let Zerg catch up.
Note: I am not saying that Terrans tend to do 2-base timings or that 6pools don't work in ZvP. All I'm saying is that you can't make the conclusions that almost everyone is making in this thread based on these statistics. It might be true that Z late-game is stronger than T late-game assuming all else is equal, but these statistics are not supporting evidence. It might be true that T early-mid game is stronger than T early-mid game, but these statistics are not supporting evidence.
Please stop drawing stupid conclusions from these statistics.
|
pvz makes a lot of sense- 0-5 is i guess 6 pool/ cannon rush no surprise z has edge there; 5-10 roach ling pushes i suppose; 10-15 gateway all-ins, 15-20 p death pushes 20+ infestor/bl before mother ship out
surprised about pvt tho. i'd think 10-15 would be closer if not p favored; 15-20 is always death zone for pvt; usually ends up p isn't able to take 3rd and t just kills them off 3 bases or strong 2 base. 20+ i guess dual tech or p was able to stabalize on 3+ bases.
|
|
|
To be honest, I don't really care about Terran units getting nerfed every patch. In fact, it makes me a better player because each patch forces Terran players to improve and find better ways to counter these nerfs. For example, when ghost emps nerf was introduced, I changed my TvP in that I don't use ghosts, instead, Triple expand and multi-prong harass vs the Protoss players during midgame. I improved a lot with my multitasking int that I can harass multiple fronts while pushing and hitting at the front. I think it helps Terran players more to improve even though the game gets harder and harder for Terran. Then again, I kinda feel sad about the other races as they rely a lot on patches that go in their favor, hence, less motivation to improve. I don't know, but this is my take and experience on this so far. What do you guys think?
|
So basically Zerg already owns late game TvZ, this only makes that snipe nerf look even more ridiculous.... Based on the rest of those graphs, I shouldnt really be trying to get my macro up, terran seems to have very little luck after 15 mins, so I need to start basing all mu builds off of one or two base timing pushes 
|
On February 14 2012 04:03 CaptainCrush wrote:So basically Zerg already owns late game TvZ, this only makes that snipe nerf look even more ridiculous.... Based on the rest of those graphs, I shouldnt really be trying to get my macro up, terran seems to have very little luck after 15 mins, so I need to start basing all mu builds off of one or two base timing pushes
No, you are misinterpreting the statistics. That is not what they mean (see my previous post).
|
On February 14 2012 04:03 CaptainCrush wrote:So basically Zerg already owns late game TvZ, this only makes that snipe nerf look even more ridiculous.... Based on the rest of those graphs, I shouldnt really be trying to get my macro up, terran seems to have very little luck after 15 mins, so I need to start basing all mu builds off of one or two base timing pushes
You make the mistake of assuming that in all of those games that both players were on equal footing the entire game. The stats could mean that terran takes longer to finish off than the other two races and can play from behind for longer.
|
On February 14 2012 04:01 VPFaith wrote:
To be honest, I don't really care about Terran units getting nerfed every patch. In fact, it makes me a better player because each patch forces Terran players to improve and find better ways to counter these nerfs. For example, when ghost emps nerf was introduced, I changed my TvP in that I don't use ghosts, instead, Triple expand and multi-prong harass vs the Protoss players during midgame. I improved a lot with my multitasking int that I can harass multiple fronts while pushing and hitting at the front. I think it helps Terran players more to improve even though the game gets harder and harder for Terran. Then again, I kinda feel sad about the other races as they rely a lot on patches that go in their favor, hence, less motivation to improve. I don't know, but this is my take and experience on this so far. What do you guys think?
i think you just continued making banshees each patch ^^
|
On February 14 2012 04:16 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 04:01 VPFaith wrote:
To be honest, I don't really care about Terran units getting nerfed every patch. In fact, it makes me a better player because each patch forces Terran players to improve and find better ways to counter these nerfs. For example, when ghost emps nerf was introduced, I changed my TvP in that I don't use ghosts, instead, Triple expand and multi-prong harass vs the Protoss players during midgame. I improved a lot with my multitasking int that I can harass multiple fronts while pushing and hitting at the front. I think it helps Terran players more to improve even though the game gets harder and harder for Terran. Then again, I kinda feel sad about the other races as they rely a lot on patches that go in their favor, hence, less motivation to improve. I don't know, but this is my take and experience on this so far. What do you guys think? i think you just continued making banshees each patch ^^
I rarely makes Banshee in TvP and TvZ.
|
Mid to late game against Protoss and Zerg for that matter frustrate the hell out of me. This graph is very indicative of how I feel. I feel like I have to end the game within the first 15 minutes of the game, because otherwise I’m done no matter how well I macro. It makes me feel like I have to do an all-in 1 or 2 base timing attack.
The other frustration I have is in TvP, I feel like I am forced into going ghost no matter what unit composition Protoss has to even have a chance in the mid to late game. This doesn’t hold true for Protoss. There’s not 1 particular unit they have to have in order to compete with Terran, but in order to compete with Protoss you have to have ghost. You are not going to beat Protoss in an army vs. army engagement. You might be able to side step it with mineral harass, drops, etc., but if you try to engage in a straight up battle, you are going to lose without the ghost. I don’t feel like this is the case with Protoss. Now that is only my opinion, and I could be wrong, but in almost every game I see or play that goes past the mid game you better get ghost or you’re done.
|
On February 14 2012 04:49 p1cKLes wrote:
Mid to late game against Protoss and Zerg for that matter frustrate the hell out of me. This graph is very indicative of how I feel. I feel like I have to end the game within the first 15 minutes of the game, because otherwise I’m done no matter how well I macro. It makes me feel like I have to do an all-in 1 or 2 base timing attack.
The other frustration I have is in TvP, I feel like I am forced into going ghost no matter what unit composition Protoss has to even have a chance in the mid to late game. This doesn’t hold true for Protoss. There’s not 1 particular unit they have to have in order to compete with Terran, but in order to compete with Protoss you have to have ghost. You are not going to beat Protoss in an army vs. army engagement. You might be able to side step it with mineral harass, drops, etc., but if you try to engage in a straight up battle, you are going to lose without the ghost. I don’t feel like this is the case with Protoss. Now that is only my opinion, and I could be wrong, but in almost every game I see or play that goes past the mid game you better get ghost or you’re done.
Well, if any Terran player who is struggling, let me know, I will try to help you out.
|
I would like to posit another explanation for Terran's decline in the late game.
Simply put, a good Terran will often end the game before 20 minutes against Zerg or Protoss. If the game runs to 20 minutes, it is evidence that the Terran is outmatched / not making good strategic choices / whatever.
Not saying this is always the case, but food for thought.
|
Interesting, i never thought T has a weakest late game, but if that is true, then, why not every T play nothing but macro games, loses, what looks not dificult, and then see how blizz buff your late game =D
|
The way this is graphed is flawed. For example, you said 100% of ZvPs before 5 minutes result in a win by the zerg. This is misleading because probably something around ~5% of ZvPs end at that stage. (I'm pulling the number out of my head but I know that it is really low and something around like that). I would assume that the vast majority end after 10+ minutes.
In order for these statistics to be more accurate, you should have some form to represent what percentage of games end at what time interval. I suggest using a scatter plot with each zerg win as a red dot and each protoss win as a green dot. This way, they will still follow a general trend but you will be able to see at what time most games actually end by seeing the largest cluster of dots.
I really hope you will update this because I just do not think these are valid statistics at the moment.
EDIT: I also see a lot of people saying that T has the weakest late game. I think that they are forgetting that T ends a good amount of their games before 20 mins. Just want to remind everyone to keep in mind that these graphs are not proportionate so the line does not represent win rates in a matchup, just the win rates in x number of games (could be 10, could be 100).
|
Need more data. One tournament is not statistically relevant to draw any conclusions not to mention the various skill gaps at an MLG.
|
On February 14 2012 11:58 shizaep wrote:
The way this is graphed is flawed. For example, you said 100% of ZvPs before 5 minutes result in a win by the zerg. This is misleading because probably something around ~5% of ZvPs end at that stage. (I'm pulling the number out of my head but I know that it is really low and something around like that). I would assume that the vast majority end after 10+ minutes.
In order for these statistics to be more accurate, you should have some form to represent what percentage of games end at what time interval. I suggest using a scatter plot with each zerg win as a red dot and each protoss win as a green dot. This way, they will still follow a general trend but you will be able to see at what time most games actually end by seeing the largest cluster of dots.
I really hope you will update this because I just do not think these are valid statistics at the moment.
EDIT: I also see a lot of people saying that T has the weakest late game. I think that they are forgetting that T ends a good amount of their games before 20 mins. Just want to remind everyone to keep in mind that these graphs are not proportionate so the line does not represent win rates in a matchup, just the win rates in x number of games (could be 10, could be 100).
Come on... Click the image to enlarge. There is the game count by matchup/length.
|
|
|
This thread needs to be called out, it is statistically invalid and will never hold water no matter how large your sample size or what sort of games you are measuring (ladder, tournament, team leagues, etc.). I noticed two people already covered my thoughts so I will give them credit and briefly elaborate.
On February 05 2012 07:56 Primal666 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 07:24 K3Nyy wrote:
Very good indication of the strengths of each race in my opinion. Thanks for this! or current metagame
I could not have said it better myself, Primal666. Statistically, all this data will ever be an indication of is the current metagame. To try to explain this better, particular strategies that people use tend to end the games around the same time. Therefore, when gathering data, game end times start to be an indicator of the strategy people used. Thus, a graph of the most common end times would simply show how long it takes to win with the most common strategies. So if you see terrans with a high win rate at less than 15 minutes, it just means that the strategies most terran are using end the game around 15 minutes. Onto the next thing.
On February 11 2012 19:02 [17]Purple wrote:
I see the low Terran win rate in the late game as a sign that most of them actually play risky strategies that is intended to kill their opponents at the 10-15 minute mark, but they just last so much longer compared to other races.
As an example, a Terran 1-1-1 against a Protoss (I can't site an example right now) would be very effective and can kill of the Protoss at the 14 minute mark if the Protoss doesn't defend properly. However when the contain is broken and Terran retreats, they still stay in the game despite having a very distinct disadvantage of going for a strategy that was intended for an mid game kill but did not work.
I might be completely wrong though and if someone can prove/tell me otherwise, please do!
This explains the dropoff in win rate for terran quite nicely. First off, if a terran is playing to win the game before 15 minutes, and they fail, they are generally behind. So since the data before 15 minutes indicates the most common terran strategies, data after 15 minutes relates to terran players who are already behind. Also, terrans can turtle better than most races, so when they fail their 15 minutes strategy, it becomes very hard to kill them right away, but easier as the game goes on, explaining the downward slope.
I hope this makes sense to people. For shame all of you terrans who used this as an excuse to complain.
On a side note, even though this sample size was very small, it actually turned out to be a very accurate indicator of the current metagame (aside from less than 5 minutes).
|
On February 14 2012 12:11 Jarree wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 11:58 shizaep wrote:
The way this is graphed is flawed. For example, you said 100% of ZvPs before 5 minutes result in a win by the zerg. This is misleading because probably something around ~5% of ZvPs end at that stage. (I'm pulling the number out of my head but I know that it is really low and something around like that). I would assume that the vast majority end after 10+ minutes.
In order for these statistics to be more accurate, you should have some form to represent what percentage of games end at what time interval. I suggest using a scatter plot with each zerg win as a red dot and each protoss win as a green dot. This way, they will still follow a general trend but you will be able to see at what time most games actually end by seeing the largest cluster of dots.
I really hope you will update this because I just do not think these are valid statistics at the moment.
EDIT: I also see a lot of people saying that T has the weakest late game. I think that they are forgetting that T ends a good amount of their games before 20 mins. Just want to remind everyone to keep in mind that these graphs are not proportionate so the line does not represent win rates in a matchup, just the win rates in x number of games (could be 10, could be 100). Come on... Click the image to enlarge. There is the game count by matchup/length.
Actually, I think showing some sort of 1D scatter plot or histogram showing the time of the wins might be useful...
Also playhem people: WHERE CAN I GET THAT GINORMOUS REPLAY PACK. :D :D
|
On February 14 2012 12:11 Jarree wrote:
Come on... Click the image to enlarge. There is the game count by matchup/length.
You misunderstand what I mean. I see the fact that there are win percentages by race, I'm not retarded. What I'm trying to point out is that it does not indicate at what time the majority of games end. For example, it may be (just pulling random numbers here) that 80% of ZvPs end at 15 minutes. If toss has a 70% win rate in this time frame, it has heavier weight than if zerg has a 100% win rate in the first 5 minutes of the game, where only say 5% of all games end. Read the post, son.
|
On February 14 2012 13:35 smoosh wrote:
This explains the dropoff in win rate for terran quite nicely. First off, if a terran is playing to win the game before 15 minutes, and they fail, they are generally behind. So since the data before 15 minutes indicates the most common terran strategies, data after 15 minutes relates to terran players who are already behind. Also, terrans can turtle better than most races, so when they fail their 15 minutes strategy, it becomes very hard to kill them right away, but easier as the game goes on, explaining the downward slope.
I've seen a lot of people make various forms of this argument I'm trying to come up with a way to test this ... I assume I would have to do something tricky like inspect the build order to see if it suggests an all-in or quasi all-in: for instance, building > 8 production facilities before building a third CC. There are other theories I'd like to test (how much difference does APM make? Do the Korean pros play more aggressively? If I get a large enough data set can I account for skill differences somehow?), but (a) I need a bigger data set, and (b) I need to think harder about how to test those theories.
|
On February 14 2012 13:35 smoosh wrote:
This thread needs to be called out, it is statistically invalid and will never hold water no matter how large your sample size or what sort of games you are measuring (ladder, tournament, team leagues, etc.).
I want to push back on this idea. Obviously whatever data set we can come up with is imperfect. Starcraft is not played in some sort of experimental vacuum. But nor is are baseball, basketball, or football, and yet people made great strides in making quantitative assessments in player performance. To say "oh, well, the results here just reflect the current metagame" is a cop-out.
When Billy Beane built the Moneyball A's in the late '90s (everyone should read the book, not just watch the movie), most teams overvalued speed, defense, batting average, not striking outs and pitcher ERA while undervaluing on base percentage, slugging percentage, and pitcher strikeouts. The only way the A's were able to figure this out was by looking at the numbers. But once the A's started winning, other teams started adopting their player evaluation techniques. In fact, the lack of emphasis on defense promoted by Beane eventually made speed and defense undervalued(!). Does that mean the A's were wrong to look for fat guys who drew walks and hit home runs, simply because those characteristics reflected the "current metagame"? No; Beane's job was to win games in the present, not create an ideal baseball team suited to play in any conditions.
The current metagame as it relates to race (dis)advantages will have an obvious effect on the results at any point in time, in the same way that the metagame in baseball affects league-wide statistics over time (steals are up because catcher defense has gotten so bad that good base stealers are valuable; home runs are down because most players who can steal can't hit home runs, and because of the crackdown on steroids; strikeouts are up because every team is now obsessed with strikeouts; etc.). But that doesn't mean we should just wave away what the data show us. If anything, it means we should look more closely at the results. Perhaps there are significant differences in the builds in winning games versus losing games. Perhaps the late game unit composition is different (sadly the SC2 replay format makes it impossible to examine unit composition). But please, please, please, let's let our theorycraft be informed by the results that we have available, rather than just guess as what Ideal Starcraft ought to look like.
|
On February 14 2012 11:58 shizaep wrote:
The way this is graphed is flawed. For example, you said 100% of ZvPs before 5 minutes result in a win by the zerg. This is misleading because probably something around ~5% of ZvPs end at that stage. (I'm pulling the number out of my head but I know that it is really low and something around like that). I would assume that the vast majority end after 10+ minutes.
In order for these statistics to be more accurate, you should have some form to represent what percentage of games end at what time interval. I suggest using a scatter plot with each zerg win as a red dot and each protoss win as a green dot. This way, they will still follow a general trend but you will be able to see at what time most games actually end by seeing the largest cluster of dots.
I really hope you will update this because I just do not think these are valid statistics at the moment.
EDIT: I also see a lot of people saying that T has the weakest late game. I think that they are forgetting that T ends a good amount of their games before 20 mins. Just want to remind everyone to keep in mind that these graphs are not proportionate so the line does not represent win rates in a matchup, just the win rates in x number of games (could be 10, could be 100).
You say the graphs are flawed but you're also misreading them completely.
|
|
|
I hope they don't make any direct gameplay changes before HotS (apart from something like the MULE gold base thing and other non-direct changes).
Every matchup is fine in the early game and there is still a lot to explore in the late game, I don't see any problems.
The ghost nerf is a bit saddening though, because I think its very over the top. Also its a bit sad that PvP relies heavy on having a ramp at your base to get interesting, but you can't have everything I guess.
edit:
Also note that part of the reason why the statistic for terrans is SO bad after 20 minutes is that they often 1 or 2-base allin and in case it gets delayed they will still play it out, although they know they have probably lost. You shouldn't value these statistics too much, they are influenced a lot by current trends of how to play.
The thing is, a 1-1-1 is really strong if it hits fast enough. If a Protoss can stall it and slow the push it gets worse and worse, so if you hit 20+ minutes you will lose with a 1-1-1 for sure. That happens quite often.
Many ppl value statistics way too much and they DEMAND that something has to change with players not changing their playstyle so the statistics get even. That doesn't even make sense, my mind is blown. Think about how players played 1 year ago and think about how they play now. And there is still so much room to improve and change.
I still think that maxed terran vs maxed protoss/zerg might get a problem at some point. Especially Broodlord/Infestor which is just sad to play against. But I don't think its time to change anything right now.
Also TvZ early game might STILL be worth to look at, there are really a lot of all ins the terran can do. But I think it is not impossible to solve and usually if zerg loses early they were too greedy in the first place.
|
On February 05 2012 06:22 ZeroTalent wrote:
To the Pros, Masters players, and everyone: do the numbers here line up with how you think about the game? Is Terran overmatched in the late game? Does Zerg grow stronger as the game goes on? Should you 6-pool (100% Z win rate in PvZ <5 minute games) or 2-rax every (80% T win rate in ZvT 5-10 minutes) every game? Discuss.
your information is misleading. it may very well be that zerg has a 100% winrate vs protoss under 5 minutes, yet, that does not account for failed sixpools.if sixpool fails, the game goes on, at least 5 more minutes ...
thus, this statistic says nothing about the success of sixpools. assume only 1 in 10 works, that gives you 10% winrate, of those 10%, 100% are within the first 5 minutes..
nonetheless, interesting stats
|
This is actually pretty much expected. no surprise here
|
Terran has by far the worse late-game potential so its not surprising that their winrate drops significantly the longer the game goes on. You really shouldn't lose a game as a Z or P if you can survive to get out HT/Colo/Archon/Chargelot or Infestor/BL/Corruptor. Almost every game I watch that the T wins in the late game is due to a massive mistake by their opponent.
|
I don't understand why this thread was bumped. No new data. Am I missing something here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
