|
Please DISCUSS the changes and the impact they will have on gameplay.
Straight up whining and bitching will get you a ban, no exceptions. |
On February 11 2012 12:58 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 12:40 Xorphene wrote:On February 11 2012 03:11 xTrim wrote:
overmake vikings = lose to f**king ultra switch... god i hate this, why do i keep playing? Stop feeling so nerfed, zerg's have suffered this forever. Overmake corruptors in ZvP and lose to gateway remax. Stop feeling so special, Terrans moaning about infestors vs vikings need to realise they simply need to split their marines. This is a fantastic patch if you play Zerg. Your bias is showing. Enjoy your free 70-80% ZvT late game winrate as evidenced by the solid statistics in Jormundr's chart.
This has been discussed to death already but you appear to be a little slow so I'll repeat it for you.
A higher win rate in the late game is NOT evidence that Zerg have an advantage in that period of the game. When Terran gain a big enough advantage they win the game then and there or if they inflicted massive damage but lost most of their army they win it 2 minutes later. When Zerg completely crushes a Terran's two base timing attack and takes a third while getting a 25 worker lead, they win the game 10 minutes later because they lack the tools to win the game right away like Terran does have. In a 20 minute game a Zerg might have taken a decisive lead at the ten minute mark when the Terran botched a timing attack and fell 60 food behind.
The earlier in the game you are analyzing the higher the precision with which you can gauge the balance of the match up for that particular moment. As you get into the late game certain patterns skew data and a lot of noise is introduced as players do not reach each stage of the game on equal footing. A significant number of games in ZvT reach the late game with Terran far behind because he made a timing attack that would decide the game earlier on, except instead of the game lasting the same relative length of time depending on who would win, if the Terran wins the game ends almost immediately, if the Zerg wins the game goes on a lot longer.
Please stop quoting statistics you don't understand.
|
On February 11 2012 12:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 12:46 ChriseC wrote:On February 11 2012 12:24 ChaosTerran wrote:On February 11 2012 12:21 ChriseC wrote:
guys can u please stop with the lategame terran stuff? those graphs dont show anything at all just read the comments and you know why.
u cant put the moment a game is "lost" and the gamelength itself into one pot since its different stats. man i bet sc2 community has 20 less IQ average than BW, its hard to read the comments in here and not to pm people and tell them how wrong they are.
seems like 75% of the people in here dont want to have a balanced game. even when its abit harsh next patch something different will be changed(maybe infestor/viking/broodlord or whatever) and thats what pushes the game in a (hopefully) better direction. so much ignorance in here What are you talking about? So terran having a 35% lategame win rate is not a sign that terran lategame is weak? What else could it possibly show? games are "lost" or "won" at a certain point ingame, but they dont end at this point nessecarily, so the stats are highly distorts lemme give an example: terran doing a 111, the time it wins and crushes protoss its a immediate gg -> +1 win for terran earlygame but often (and believe me its very often and i watch a shitload of streams) the fights are very close but mostly when toss hold its basicly over but the game goes on much longer (i doubt over 20mins though) but it shows u the nature of terran overall that its a race that has strong allins but is hard to allin (cuz of its good defence) or to finish off i watched ret playing quite alot on NA server doing his 20win streak run, he was like 200% of his opponents skill, some amateur NA highmaster or grandmaster players but the games were going on mostly for more than 20mins cuz ret needed to wait for broodlords and since hes more a mutaplayer his mutas come at around 18-20mins what means gg often comes after 20mins, does that mean terran has lower winrate lategame? no! but mostly when terran loses its much later into the game than the other races. It takes a least 15 minutes to take out a 1/1/1 when a player refuses to leave. When was the last time you saw a 1/1/1 beaten with a counter attack? Any other game takes much longer vs terran. Protoss and zerg get punished hard for attacking into a turtling terran and its better to get up a kicking economy, max and get a solid bank before going for the kill. I will never attack into a 2 base terran until they after the 18 minute mark, because I can be sure they mined out their main and their income sucks. If your race takes longer to kill, you will have more late game losses.
thats what im talking about
|
On February 11 2012 13:05 bovineblitz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 05:00 Ashes wrote:RIP mutalisks..and this sounds fair in PvZ because, base racing should not be considered as the ultimate strategy  ...anyways, I guess it could have been worse if they added a splash damage upgrade on phoenix .. But now I think they should not remove carriers in HOTS .. A phoenix upgrade that comes from a post-stargate 300/200 building is RIP mutalisks? Not a chance.
lol this^ If they keep this upgrade at fleet beacon no one will ever actually get it... how the hell are we supposed to get fleet beacon and that upgrade while producing enough pheonix and ground units(So don't isnta die to lings) to deal with mutas? Will never happen.
|
After much theorycrafting, this change is going to FORCE Terrans into using Ravens, Ghosts and Vikings all at once to beat the Corruptor/Broodlord/Infestor ball.
Ghosts to EMP the Infestors, Ravens to PDD the Corruptors and Vikings to Hit the broods. While Marines mop up whatever else is left.
You could make the case that Terrans should use Battlecruisers as well but that's out of the question considering the gas requirement for the units already required.
My only problem with this, is how difficult it's going to be to deal with that death ball. If you can't get the EMPS off or if the Raven gets sniped before PDD goes down you're essentially boned. Broodlords deal with the marines well enough on their own once they get firing.
|
On February 11 2012 13:12 ChriseC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 12:52 Plansix wrote:On February 11 2012 12:46 ChriseC wrote:On February 11 2012 12:24 ChaosTerran wrote:On February 11 2012 12:21 ChriseC wrote:
guys can u please stop with the lategame terran stuff? those graphs dont show anything at all just read the comments and you know why.
u cant put the moment a game is "lost" and the gamelength itself into one pot since its different stats. man i bet sc2 community has 20 less IQ average than BW, its hard to read the comments in here and not to pm people and tell them how wrong they are.
seems like 75% of the people in here dont want to have a balanced game. even when its abit harsh next patch something different will be changed(maybe infestor/viking/broodlord or whatever) and thats what pushes the game in a (hopefully) better direction. so much ignorance in here What are you talking about? So terran having a 35% lategame win rate is not a sign that terran lategame is weak? What else could it possibly show? games are "lost" or "won" at a certain point ingame, but they dont end at this point nessecarily, so the stats are highly distorts lemme give an example: terran doing a 111, the time it wins and crushes protoss its a immediate gg -> +1 win for terran earlygame but often (and believe me its very often and i watch a shitload of streams) the fights are very close but mostly when toss hold its basicly over but the game goes on much longer (i doubt over 20mins though) but it shows u the nature of terran overall that its a race that has strong allins but is hard to allin (cuz of its good defence) or to finish off i watched ret playing quite alot on NA server doing his 20win streak run, he was like 200% of his opponents skill, some amateur NA highmaster or grandmaster players but the games were going on mostly for more than 20mins cuz ret needed to wait for broodlords and since hes more a mutaplayer his mutas come at around 18-20mins what means gg often comes after 20mins, does that mean terran has lower winrate lategame? no! but mostly when terran loses its much later into the game than the other races. It takes a least 15 minutes to take out a 1/1/1 when a player refuses to leave. When was the last time you saw a 1/1/1 beaten with a counter attack? Any other game takes much longer vs terran. Protoss and zerg get punished hard for attacking into a turtling terran and its better to get up a kicking economy, max and get a solid bank before going for the kill. I will never attack into a 2 base terran until they after the 18 minute mark, because I can be sure they mined out their main and their income sucks. If your race takes longer to kill, you will have more late game losses. thats what im talking about
And I was agreeing with you. Terran takes longer to lose than the other races. Its a slow death, where you wait for them to mine out, rather than finish them off.
|
this means ghosts will be able to snipe sentries in the early game, nice little change unless they still mean it can only target biological still.
This is a good patch, but the phoenix might be too big of a buff. Think of it this way, you don't tech to stargate and get a fleetbeacon to counter mutas if you didn't already have a stargate, you usually just get blink and try to get storm. If you do open stargate, then you're going to already have phoenix numbers available to you and if you scout spire you can just keep massing phoenix for air control. I mean maybe it's needed but then again I think phoenix are already strong as hell.
|
On February 11 2012 12:53 SolidMoose wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 12:48 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On February 11 2012 12:14 Jormundr wrote:+ Show Spoiler +From : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=309042This is taken from a sample size of 102 TvZ matchups Since this was taken from MLG Providence, I will assume that this sample is almost entirely representative of the top 2% of players (masters and grandmasters). This graph provides evidence that ghosts do not 'counter' tier 3 zerg. Considering the whole broodlord infestor vs ghost marine tank viking dance usually starts at or after 20 minutes, why were terrans not winning here? I am pretty sure that snipe efficiency was figured out pretty well this summer (when we first started to see MVP using it profusely, especially against ultralisk comps). So; Question: If ghosts are so strong, why didn't terrans have a positive win-rate after the 20 minute mark? Answer: Ghosts are incredibly expensive, and require tech lab rax instead of reactor rax (important in a marine dominated matchup) Ghosts actually happen to be the most expensive unit per supply in the terran arsenal (I would argue that 2 supply makes them too easy to mass in TvZ, but 3 supply would have too massive of an effect on TvP) For example, to build the scary ball of ghosts that "counters zerg t3" (as I have read over and over again in this thread) I will assume that they mean a ball of: 15 Ghosts 25 ghosts 3000 minerals 5000 minerals 1500 gas 2500 gas 30 supply 50 supply 120 to 200 seconds* 200 to 330 seconds* * note that the first value corresponds to the mad terran player who just happens to have 5 tech lab rax on hand. Second number is for a terran who has 3. 5 tech lab rax would be slightly unusual in a matchup that is marine dominated So without the ghost, what do you suggest to counter broodlord corruptor infestor? m̶a̶r̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ 1 full energy infestor can kill 35 marines, with enough energy left for two infested terrans. OVERPOWERED, I DON'T LIKE IT, COUNTERS TERRAN T1, NEEDS A NERF (etcetera) ̶t̶h̶o̶r̶s̶ 4 broodlords kill 4 micro'd thors with 2 full health broods left v̶i̶k̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ - 8 corruptors kill 8 vikings with 1 corruptor left (no micro, no corruption) b̶a̶t̶t̶l̶e̶c̶r̶u̶i̶s̶e̶r̶ - I tested 4 cruisers (24 supply, 1 arm, 1 leg,) vs 8 corruptors - 1 battlecruiser lives with 57/550 hp. SAVED r̶a̶v̶e̶n̶ - 13 ravens with HSM kill 8 broodlords (if you use 125 energy each) all of these were done with equal upgrades The problem is that broodlord + corruptor + infestor has a ridiculous advantage in the air battle already. corruptor broodlord is better than terran anti air in a straight up fight. Corruptors are also easier to produce en masse (see larvae) which gives them the ability to take momentum in the air battle much more quickly than a terran with 2-3 reactor ports. Also note that zerg air will generally have both armor and attack upgrades, whereas terran air will at best have attack upgrades, because there is no terran air endgame ball that is effective in tvz. TL;DR Without ghosts, terrans have no answer to zerg air superiority because - wait for it - ZERG AIR IS SUPERIOR Um no sorry vikings own everything in the air o.o Also keep in mind other factors will effect such a graph. For example, games where a terran does an all-in and fails but stays in the game past 20 minutes will make the graph look like what it is now. It could just be that a like event happens more than the opposite (a macro terran getting past 20 minutes) Um no sorry numbers speak the truth o.o. Vikings do not beat corruptor/muta. Zerg has better air to air 100%.
Vikings can micro dude...amongst other things..
On the topic of Terran whining here... have you even considered that the best 2 players in the world are still both Terran? Have you considered that in the top level of SC2 games there are still either 3 or 4 in the round of 8 with only 1 zerg? I'm not a zerg but perhaps they should be the ones complaining. They havn't been performing for quite awhile now. Has anyone complaining really watched a pro game where one guy had 10-12 ghosts against Zerg? This complaining is stupid. Heck your snipe ability is slightly better against casters now(Not sure if it makes it one less hit or not) and the ghost should exist to counter the enemy casters... -_-
|
On February 11 2012 13:11 Ziggitz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 12:58 DemigodcelpH wrote:On February 11 2012 12:40 Xorphene wrote:On February 11 2012 03:11 xTrim wrote:
overmake vikings = lose to f**king ultra switch... god i hate this, why do i keep playing? Stop feeling so nerfed, zerg's have suffered this forever. Overmake corruptors in ZvP and lose to gateway remax. Stop feeling so special, Terrans moaning about infestors vs vikings need to realise they simply need to split their marines. This is a fantastic patch if you play Zerg. Your bias is showing. Enjoy your free 70-80% ZvT late game winrate as evidenced by the solid statistics in Jormundr's chart. This has been discussed to death already but you appear to be a little slow so I'll repeat it for you. A higher win rate in the late game is NOT evidence that Zerg have an advantage in that period of the game. When Terran gain a big enough advantage they win the game then and there or if they inflicted massive damage but lost most of their army they win it 2 minutes later. When Zerg completely crushes a Terran's two base timing attack and takes a third while getting a 25 worker lead, they win the game 10 minutes later because they lack the tools to win the game right away like Terran does have. In a 20 minute game a Zerg might have taken a decisive lead at the ten minute mark when the Terran botched a timing attack and fell 60 food behind. The earlier in the game you are analyzing the higher the precision with which you can gauge the balance of the match up for that particular moment. As you get into the late game certain patterns skew data and a lot of noise is introduced as players do not reach each stage of the game on equal footing. A significant number of games in ZvT reach the late game with Terran far behind because he made a timing attack that would decide the game earlier on, except instead of the game lasting the same relative length of time depending on who would win, if the Terran wins the game ends almost immediately, if the Zerg wins the game goes on a lot longer. Please stop quoting statistics you don't understand.
Thats just your own groundless assumption without any proof to back it up. Trust me, there are many ways for zerg to take out terrans in the early game. Once zergs have an decisive advantage, they can morph a bigillion banelings and steamroll the terran or drop a ton of roaches into the terran's base. The fact that most zerg choose to get more ahead and go into a long game when they win an engagement is that zerg late game is better than terran lategame. Furthermore you are apparently oblivious to the fact that good terrans such as mvp often choose to turtle up and set up for late game instead of ending the game. Therefore whatever you said about terran applies to zergs too.
|
On February 11 2012 13:13 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 13:05 bovineblitz wrote:On February 11 2012 05:00 Ashes wrote:RIP mutalisks..and this sounds fair in PvZ because, base racing should not be considered as the ultimate strategy ...anyways, I guess it could have been worse if they added a splash damage upgrade on phoenix .. But now I think they should not remove carriers in HOTS .. A phoenix upgrade that comes from a post-stargate 300/200 building is RIP mutalisks? Not a chance. lol this^ If they keep this upgrade at fleet beacon no one will ever actually get it... how the hell are we supposed to get fleet beacon and that upgrade while producing enough pheonix and ground units(So don't isnta die to lings) to deal with mutas? Will never happen.
I think it is more to make sure mutas do not have an unlimited shelf life. If you slowly upgrade, play safe and push out when you have enough to deal with them, you can roll over the zerg before he reloads. If the upgrade comes to early, muta have no window to be awesome and well used.
|
Rant: It amazes me that terran and zerg have to learn to play differently every patch... need I say more?
On topic: I feel that the range +2 increase might be slightly too much for pheonix, however I agree that a range increase is necessary (+1), I guess we will need to test out this increase to see if it is effective or Too much.
On a positive note, as a terran player, I really think the mule nerf was needed. That will make things more balanced when it comes to high-yield resourcing, etc.
The snipe damage is meh, I think by 10 might have been sufficient. "slightly" does not equal "greatly" all I have to say about that.
On another positive note, I like how they are going back to the old style apm counter. (I like being able to see my not gosu spamming of key apm. lol )
Overall, good patch.
|
On February 11 2012 02:11 decerto wrote:
Cant see how the phoenix change will help, the difference the range will make seems negligible to how quickly 20-30 mutas can kill a pack of phoenix
Well Phoenixes as they are currently move faster than mutas, have longer range than mutas, and can shoot while moving. The problem is that nobody is fast enough to micro them against mutas effectively because the mutas just run away then turn around randomly to fight again. This change will give players a little more time to react to this since the range will be longer.
|
On February 11 2012 13:16 emc wrote:
this means ghosts will be able to snipe sentries in the early game, nice little change unless they still mean it can only target biological still.
This is a good patch, but the phoenix might be too big of a buff. Think of it this way, you don't tech to stargate and get a fleetbeacon to counter mutas if you didn't already have a stargate, you usually just get blink and try to get storm. If you do open stargate, then you're going to already have phoenix numbers available to you and if you scout spire you can just keep massing phoenix for air control. I mean maybe it's needed but then again I think phoenix are already strong as hell.
No it doesn't,
You can't snipe sentries since they are a mechanical unit. You can only snipe Biological units.
|
On February 11 2012 13:13 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 13:05 bovineblitz wrote:On February 11 2012 05:00 Ashes wrote:RIP mutalisks..and this sounds fair in PvZ because, base racing should not be considered as the ultimate strategy ...anyways, I guess it could have been worse if they added a splash damage upgrade on phoenix .. But now I think they should not remove carriers in HOTS .. A phoenix upgrade that comes from a post-stargate 300/200 building is RIP mutalisks? Not a chance. lol this^ If they keep this upgrade at fleet beacon no one will ever actually get it... how the hell are we supposed to get fleet beacon and that upgrade while producing enough pheonix and ground units(So don't isnta die to lings) to deal with mutas? Will never happen.
Because you can turtle up and chrono the upgrade out while chronoing air attacks on the cyber core? Because mutas can't attack into a turtling protoss and once you have 6 range the mutas can never ever hit the phoenixes again unless you fall out of your chair?
This is yet another circumstance in which the Protoss can hard counter a Zerg tech path with fewer units at a lower cost and still have useful units left over. This is why ZvP isn't fun anymore, because its a game of getting cornered over time as each tech path opportunity gets cut off because the protoss can generally hardcounter 100 food's worth of units with just 20 - 30 food's worth of supply. See Archons, Colossi, Immortals, High Templar and now Phoenixes.
Zerg may be slightly favoured against Protoss right now, but the match up fucking sucks to play, I'd rather play ZvZ or ZvT all day long. Because barring ghosts, with good awareness and a reasonablly equal game economically I can have a fair fight. ZvP is far more volatile and luck based where skill often plays a much smaller role.
|
On February 11 2012 12:40 Xorphene wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 03:11 xTrim wrote:
overmake vikings = lose to f**king ultra switch... god i hate this, why do i keep playing? Stop feeling so nerfed, zerg's have suffered this forever. Overmake corruptors in ZvP and lose to gateway remax. Stop feeling so special, Terrans moaning about infestors vs vikings need to realise they simply need to split their marines. This is a fantastic patch.
The most bias response, and most rediculous. Split your marines? Are you trolling? You negate the fact entirely as well that corruptors, the pre cursor to BL's, counter your bl counter of vikings. They just roll ur main army with ling bling, snipe off ur vikings, remax with bls. That doesn't seem weird???? NOW we also are hella nerfed if both are on golds, it hurts the terran to drop a mule period because of 0 bonus, you lose out in the end.
|
This is something I've noticed in PvT, Protoss switching from collosi to HT/archon really hurts Terrans. Zerg tech switch will be even harder on Terrans. 20 landed vikings vs 10 ultralisks. lol
|
the +2 range on phoenix could change PvT slightly? may we see +2 phoenix used in the late game to counter or help against vikings when using colossus?
|
On February 11 2012 13:17 MaNaVoId wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 13:11 Ziggitz wrote:On February 11 2012 12:58 DemigodcelpH wrote:On February 11 2012 12:40 Xorphene wrote:On February 11 2012 03:11 xTrim wrote:
overmake vikings = lose to f**king ultra switch... god i hate this, why do i keep playing? Stop feeling so nerfed, zerg's have suffered this forever. Overmake corruptors in ZvP and lose to gateway remax. Stop feeling so special, Terrans moaning about infestors vs vikings need to realise they simply need to split their marines. This is a fantastic patch if you play Zerg. Your bias is showing. Enjoy your free 70-80% ZvT late game winrate as evidenced by the solid statistics in Jormundr's chart. This has been discussed to death already but you appear to be a little slow so I'll repeat it for you. A higher win rate in the late game is NOT evidence that Zerg have an advantage in that period of the game. When Terran gain a big enough advantage they win the game then and there or if they inflicted massive damage but lost most of their army they win it 2 minutes later. When Zerg completely crushes a Terran's two base timing attack and takes a third while getting a 25 worker lead, they win the game 10 minutes later because they lack the tools to win the game right away like Terran does have. In a 20 minute game a Zerg might have taken a decisive lead at the ten minute mark when the Terran botched a timing attack and fell 60 food behind. The earlier in the game you are analyzing the higher the precision with which you can gauge the balance of the match up for that particular moment. As you get into the late game certain patterns skew data and a lot of noise is introduced as players do not reach each stage of the game on equal footing. A significant number of games in ZvT reach the late game with Terran far behind because he made a timing attack that would decide the game earlier on, except instead of the game lasting the same relative length of time depending on who would win, if the Terran wins the game ends almost immediately, if the Zerg wins the game goes on a lot longer. Please stop quoting statistics you don't understand. Thats just your own groundless assumption without any proof to back it up. Trust me, there are many ways for zerg to take out terrans in the early game. Once zergs have an decisive advantage, they can morph a bigillion banelings and steamroll the terran or drop a ton of roaches into the terran's base. The fact that most zerg choose to get more ahead and go into a long game when they win an engagement is that zerg late game is better than terran lategame. Furthermore you are apparently oblivious to the fact that good terrans such as mvp often choose to turtle up and set up for late game instead of ending the game. Therefore whatever you said about terran applies to zergs too.
It is pretty much accepted that attacking into a tutling terran is bad. No one needs proof to back that up. I often beat passive terrans by denying their third base and waiting until I get maxed with solid upgrades. That takes a while. Most protoss will play it safe against a terran, rather than try to finish it at the 11 minute mark.
People are pointing out that the point where the player loses the game is not the point where the game ends. It differs for each race and terran seem to take the longest to finish off. This likely factors into the terran loss rate late game.
|
Hmm.. will the combination of the increased phoenix range along with their ability to shoot while moving mean that you'd never really have to fight mutas head on? With how it works now you can retreat your phoenix from mutas but you can't really damage them as you fly away. Seems that range upgrade could make the phoenix vs muta dance much more favorable for the protoss player.
|
On February 11 2012 13:11 Ziggitz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 12:58 DemigodcelpH wrote:On February 11 2012 12:40 Xorphene wrote:On February 11 2012 03:11 xTrim wrote:
overmake vikings = lose to f**king ultra switch... god i hate this, why do i keep playing? Stop feeling so nerfed, zerg's have suffered this forever. Overmake corruptors in ZvP and lose to gateway remax. Stop feeling so special, Terrans moaning about infestors vs vikings need to realise they simply need to split their marines. This is a fantastic patch if you play Zerg. Your bias is showing. Enjoy your free 70-80% ZvT late game winrate as evidenced by the solid statistics in Jormundr's chart. This has been discussed to death already but you appear to be a little slow so I'll repeat it for you. A higher win rate in the late game is NOT evidence that Zerg have an advantage in that period of the game. When Terran gain a big enough advantage they win the game then and there or if they inflicted massive damage but lost most of their army they win it 2 minutes later. When Zerg completely crushes a Terran's two base timing attack and takes a third while getting a 25 worker lead, they win the game 10 minutes later because they lack the tools to win the game right away like Terran does have. In a 20 minute game a Zerg might have taken a decisive lead at the ten minute mark when the Terran botched a timing attack and fell 60 food behind. The earlier in the game you are analyzing the higher the precision with which you can gauge the balance of the match up for that particular moment. As you get into the late game certain patterns skew data and a lot of noise is introduced as players do not reach each stage of the game on equal footing. A significant number of games in ZvT reach the late game with Terran far behind because he made a timing attack that would decide the game earlier on, except instead of the game lasting the same relative length of time depending on who would win, if the Terran wins the game ends almost immediately, if the Zerg wins the game goes on a lot longer. Please stop quoting statistics you don't understand.
Sorry but please stop correcting statistics when you don't understand about statistics. The data holds value because there are two corollaries which give it a measure of significance (The TvP endgame @ ~55% toss, and the TvZ endgame at ~55% z) These are both very close to a 'balanced' (50/50) win ratio, and the difference can be easily explained by the margin of error. the 65% win ratio for zerg is in sharp contrast to these. The majority of the confounding variables you mention (failed all-in, failed timing attack, possible eco cheese) should apply across all races.
|
On February 11 2012 13:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 13:17 MaNaVoId wrote:On February 11 2012 13:11 Ziggitz wrote:On February 11 2012 12:58 DemigodcelpH wrote:On February 11 2012 12:40 Xorphene wrote:On February 11 2012 03:11 xTrim wrote:
overmake vikings = lose to f**king ultra switch... god i hate this, why do i keep playing? Stop feeling so nerfed, zerg's have suffered this forever. Overmake corruptors in ZvP and lose to gateway remax. Stop feeling so special, Terrans moaning about infestors vs vikings need to realise they simply need to split their marines. This is a fantastic patch if you play Zerg. Your bias is showing. Enjoy your free 70-80% ZvT late game winrate as evidenced by the solid statistics in Jormundr's chart. This has been discussed to death already but you appear to be a little slow so I'll repeat it for you. A higher win rate in the late game is NOT evidence that Zerg have an advantage in that period of the game. When Terran gain a big enough advantage they win the game then and there or if they inflicted massive damage but lost most of their army they win it 2 minutes later. When Zerg completely crushes a Terran's two base timing attack and takes a third while getting a 25 worker lead, they win the game 10 minutes later because they lack the tools to win the game right away like Terran does have. In a 20 minute game a Zerg might have taken a decisive lead at the ten minute mark when the Terran botched a timing attack and fell 60 food behind. The earlier in the game you are analyzing the higher the precision with which you can gauge the balance of the match up for that particular moment. As you get into the late game certain patterns skew data and a lot of noise is introduced as players do not reach each stage of the game on equal footing. A significant number of games in ZvT reach the late game with Terran far behind because he made a timing attack that would decide the game earlier on, except instead of the game lasting the same relative length of time depending on who would win, if the Terran wins the game ends almost immediately, if the Zerg wins the game goes on a lot longer. Please stop quoting statistics you don't understand. Thats just your own groundless assumption without any proof to back it up. Trust me, there are many ways for zerg to take out terrans in the early game. Once zergs have an decisive advantage, they can morph a bigillion banelings and steamroll the terran or drop a ton of roaches into the terran's base. The fact that most zerg choose to get more ahead and go into a long game when they win an engagement is that zerg late game is better than terran lategame. Furthermore you are apparently oblivious to the fact that good terrans such as mvp often choose to turtle up and set up for late game instead of ending the game. Therefore whatever you said about terran applies to zergs too. It is pretty much accepted that attacking into a tutling terran is bad. No one needs proof to back that up. I often beat passive terrans by denying their third base and waiting until I get maxed with solid upgrades. That takes a while. Most protoss will play it safe against a terran, rather than try to finish it at the 11 minute mark. People are pointing out that the point where the player loses the game is not the point where the game ends. It differs for each race and terran seem to take the longest to finish off. This likely factors into the terran loss rate late game.
Protoss can turtle far better than Terran. It's almost impossible to attack Protoss on 2 bases on some maps like Shakuras.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/114/zvt.png)
