|
On April 28 2012 03:49 SuperYo1000 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 03:36 SupLilSon wrote:On April 28 2012 03:23 crocodile wrote:On April 28 2012 02:55 SuperYo1000 wrote:On April 28 2012 02:54 architecture wrote:
Man with those imba scans, it's clear that T plays with full game knowledge! Therefore, T should never lose to stuff like 2 base bane/roach timings or 1 base trickery, or getting fooled that 2base8gate is not 3nexus.
No one that has any objective view on the game should be able to say that any race has good, or even perfect scouting. All races play extremely in the dark, and have the make decisions as such. Go watch any top T replay, most of the time, there's practically no extra information other than the implicit stuff that they read from unit counts/gasses etc.
you do realize that terran IS strongest early mid game BECAUSE they can react so well with there ease of scouting right? He said, without providing any evidence. trololol yea, itd be nice to have some substantial evidence ;\ ..... time frame win rates do provide evidence but Im certain that you will never be satisfied
really? Have you never heard of confounding variables? Or the phrase, "correlation is not causation". Just because Terran has good early game win rates doesn't mean it's because of scouting. There are a number of reasons that could be. That's why I said "substantial".
|
On April 28 2012 03:53 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 03:49 SuperYo1000 wrote:On April 28 2012 03:36 SupLilSon wrote:On April 28 2012 03:23 crocodile wrote:On April 28 2012 02:55 SuperYo1000 wrote:On April 28 2012 02:54 architecture wrote:
Man with those imba scans, it's clear that T plays with full game knowledge! Therefore, T should never lose to stuff like 2 base bane/roach timings or 1 base trickery, or getting fooled that 2base8gate is not 3nexus.
No one that has any objective view on the game should be able to say that any race has good, or even perfect scouting. All races play extremely in the dark, and have the make decisions as such. Go watch any top T replay, most of the time, there's practically no extra information other than the implicit stuff that they read from unit counts/gasses etc.
you do realize that terran IS strongest early mid game BECAUSE they can react so well with there ease of scouting right? He said, without providing any evidence. trololol yea, itd be nice to have some substantial evidence ;\ ..... time frame win rates do provide evidence but Im certain that you will never be satisfied really? Have you never heard of confounding variables? Or the phrase, "correlation is not causation". Just because Terran has good early game win rates doesn't mean it's because of scouting. There are a number of reasons that could be. That's why I said "substantial".
Rofl. You are right, its not only because of good scouting. It is also because marine marauder ball is stupidly good early/mid game. Just because correlation is not causation doesn't mean that this is one of those cases. In this instance the correlation can indicate the causation.
|
70% PvT winrate on Cloud Kingdom is crazy. I wish there was a breakdown per league. Maybe Bronze-Plat terran players can't win on that map but it is okay for diamond and above.
|
On April 28 2012 03:50 SovietHammer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 02:55 willyallthewei wrote:
How you fix this game: remove the Colossus, the Marauder, and the Roach simultaneously (moving Hydra to hatch tech and make Helions armored so BFH hellions don't over run everything in mass now that Colossus are not burning them in 1 shot).
Bring back the lurker at lair tech, add in the viper, and give hydras speed off creep as a lair tech upgrade.
Terrans get the shredder to further boaster their now mech/biomech composition.
Protoss keeps the rest of their units, carriers are OMG GOOD NOW, and the khydarin amulet returns to its BW glory - 65 energy, not the broken 75. And for god sakes, bring back the freaking Reaver. Oh, and the oracle, what a great unit, definitely add that.
What i want PvZ to look like --> Gateway vs. Ling hydra into C-lot archon vs. ling/hydra/lurker ---> Gateway/storm/immortal vs. Ultra, ling, baneling, lurker --> awesome.
What i want PvT to look like --> upgraded gateway units vs. biomech or pure mech ---> siege tank lines with turrets, shredders, and slow thors vs. speed prism immortal drops ---> carrier/templar/gateway vs. pure mech --> air protoss vs. air terran. (Almost looks like a TvT!, wow cool!)
If they also decide to remove mothership, an easy way to buff toss vs. Broodlord infestor would be to put energy back on the corruptors... This would no longer be IMBA since the god forsaken horrible colossus is no longer in the game.
Blizzard, you know I'm right, these changes would mean no more "deathball styles"..... freaking do it man. These changes are intresting, but would never happen. Blizzard thinks the collsi, roach, and maurder are awesome and cool, and sense they're used so much they see no need to remove them.
They do want to do away w/ the deathball, but units like the colossus just dont' allow for it. When splash is super mobile, deathballs are going to be everywhere, because the strength of your army together will always be stronger than it is apart. You only have to spread out when you have more territory to cover than your "power" units can travel. This is such a simple concept that i'm just shocked at how Blizzard can't figure it out.
Units need to be a tradeoff between strength and mobility, ignoring cost. Because even if a unit is super costly, but it is both powerful and mobile, then everyone is going to turtle to that unit. Only super late game units (mothership/carrier, battlecruiser, Broodlord) should have mobility and power.
|
On April 28 2012 04:02 SnipedSoul wrote:
70% PvT winrate on Cloud Kingdom is crazy. I wish there was a breakdown per league. Maybe Bronze-Plat terran players can't win on that map but it is okay for diamond and above.
I am sure it gets better the high the leagues go. I can see terrans in the lower leagues getting destroyed due to the easily defended natural, since most games on that level seem to revolve around one single battle.
|
some points here doesnt make sence. if the diagram shows a 55% winrate in Pvt, and david kim says, that the ratios changes every week, why dont he take a rate since the beginning from the last patch to the current date. then you cant say anything about „it changes every week“ because its overall and never changes about 10% in one week. then to the map balances where toss wins 70% of all games vs terra on cloud kingdome, and his statement „Our current stance on this is we believe slight imbalances in maps actually make the game more interesting, as long as the imbalances aren’t too great”
so if 70% is not a big imbalance, then i dont know why you bring out any patches.so the whole update is for shit, because its not reliable. if you cant see the correct winrates. it also doesnt makes sence, because you cant see the rates in the different stages of the game. i´m sure terran has different winratios in early game to lategame. if overall you got a 50% winratio in TvX then i bet terran has 65% earlygame wins and 35% lategame wins..
|
On April 28 2012 02:53 GleaM wrote:
Would like to see what some of you guys think about OTHER things that could be balanced by Mr. Kim?
Here's the thought that immediately came to mind...
David Kim on football:
"Kickers at lower levels, around the 4-7 year age range, seem to be having trouble elevating the ball through the goal posts on field goals and extra points. Therefore, we've decided to lower them, so that the lower crossbar stands two feet in the air instead of nine, and you are now allowed to throw the ball through the posts, so long as you get the throwing upgrade for kickers by crossing the 50 yard line"
While I don't entirely agree with the sentiment, this made me laugh. Well played sir.
|
On April 28 2012 03:21 Mystgun wrote:
I think you guys have to realize that changes are not made in isolation and you can't address something like "TvP late game" without creating issues in other match-ups at other points of the game. SC2 is Blizzard's flagship eSports franchise and you can bet that they have people working hard to address balance issues, but they are not going to make a bunch of changes based solely on qualitative community feedback. I also think ZvP is a bit broken right now thanks to Stephano, but I can't conceive a solution that wouldn't break other match ups ("nerfing roach" will create more problems than it will solve).
I agree that these statistics are a little bit superficial and it's really to show that they have some data to back up their decisions, but I don't really expect them to upload a spreadsheet of all the match-up data from battle.net either. It would be nice to show some trends over time to see how the metagame is evolving and what are the variances from week to week.
The map statistics are a bit surprising. I didn't think of Cloud Kingdom as a PvT favored map but I guess drops in the main are difficult which basically shuts down Terran in the late game. 70% is a huge discrepancy and his casual tone is a bit alarming.
Really, I'm not mad that nothing is on the table for TvP, I'm just concerned that they didn't even make a nod towards it. There was no mention of struggles between Terran lategame at all, just that the early game might favor Terran in TvZ, which really hasn't come up in months before now. It feels like they're really focusing on Korean numbers and US/EU feedback, and Terran is still "fine" in Korea.
|
On April 28 2012 04:19 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 03:21 Mystgun wrote:
I think you guys have to realize that changes are not made in isolation and you can't address something like "TvP late game" without creating issues in other match-ups at other points of the game. SC2 is Blizzard's flagship eSports franchise and you can bet that they have people working hard to address balance issues, but they are not going to make a bunch of changes based solely on qualitative community feedback. I also think ZvP is a bit broken right now thanks to Stephano, but I can't conceive a solution that wouldn't break other match ups ("nerfing roach" will create more problems than it will solve).
I agree that these statistics are a little bit superficial and it's really to show that they have some data to back up their decisions, but I don't really expect them to upload a spreadsheet of all the match-up data from battle.net either. It would be nice to show some trends over time to see how the metagame is evolving and what are the variances from week to week.
The map statistics are a bit surprising. I didn't think of Cloud Kingdom as a PvT favored map but I guess drops in the main are difficult which basically shuts down Terran in the late game. 70% is a huge discrepancy and his casual tone is a bit alarming. Really, I'm not mad that nothing is on the table for TvP, I'm just concerned that they didn't even make a nod towards it. There was no mention of struggles between Terran lategame at all, just that the early game might favor Terran in TvZ, which really hasn't come up in months before now. It feels like they're really focusing on Korean numbers and US/EU feedback, and Terran is still "fine" in Korea.
Maybe it is not as big of a problem as people think it is. Maybe there are silent terrans out there having no problem at all. Or Blizzard sees that the problem is correcting itself as the metagame moves on.
|
On April 28 2012 04:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 04:19 aksfjh wrote:On April 28 2012 03:21 Mystgun wrote:
I think you guys have to realize that changes are not made in isolation and you can't address something like "TvP late game" without creating issues in other match-ups at other points of the game. SC2 is Blizzard's flagship eSports franchise and you can bet that they have people working hard to address balance issues, but they are not going to make a bunch of changes based solely on qualitative community feedback. I also think ZvP is a bit broken right now thanks to Stephano, but I can't conceive a solution that wouldn't break other match ups ("nerfing roach" will create more problems than it will solve).
I agree that these statistics are a little bit superficial and it's really to show that they have some data to back up their decisions, but I don't really expect them to upload a spreadsheet of all the match-up data from battle.net either. It would be nice to show some trends over time to see how the metagame is evolving and what are the variances from week to week.
The map statistics are a bit surprising. I didn't think of Cloud Kingdom as a PvT favored map but I guess drops in the main are difficult which basically shuts down Terran in the late game. 70% is a huge discrepancy and his casual tone is a bit alarming. Really, I'm not mad that nothing is on the table for TvP, I'm just concerned that they didn't even make a nod towards it. There was no mention of struggles between Terran lategame at all, just that the early game might favor Terran in TvZ, which really hasn't come up in months before now. It feels like they're really focusing on Korean numbers and US/EU feedback, and Terran is still "fine" in Korea. Maybe it is not as big of a problem as people think it is. Maybe there are silent terrans out there having no problem at all. Or Blizzard sees that the problem is correcting itself as the metagame moves on.
Well Terrans still have high represantation and winning tournaments, so i guess?
|
On April 28 2012 03:46 Rokoz wrote:
I see no talk about early, mid- and late-game. No word about Terran forced to stick with T1 units while both others races are frequently using their T3.
Is that supposed to be a problem?
Zerg has crappy T1 and T2 (except Infestor) and are forced to use them to stall until T3.
Protoss and Terran have T1 that are solid all around units that will be the bulk of your army, with a few T3 splashed in for extra.
The three races are different...deal with it.
|
On April 28 2012 04:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 04:19 aksfjh wrote:On April 28 2012 03:21 Mystgun wrote:
I think you guys have to realize that changes are not made in isolation and you can't address something like "TvP late game" without creating issues in other match-ups at other points of the game. SC2 is Blizzard's flagship eSports franchise and you can bet that they have people working hard to address balance issues, but they are not going to make a bunch of changes based solely on qualitative community feedback. I also think ZvP is a bit broken right now thanks to Stephano, but I can't conceive a solution that wouldn't break other match ups ("nerfing roach" will create more problems than it will solve).
I agree that these statistics are a little bit superficial and it's really to show that they have some data to back up their decisions, but I don't really expect them to upload a spreadsheet of all the match-up data from battle.net either. It would be nice to show some trends over time to see how the metagame is evolving and what are the variances from week to week.
The map statistics are a bit surprising. I didn't think of Cloud Kingdom as a PvT favored map but I guess drops in the main are difficult which basically shuts down Terran in the late game. 70% is a huge discrepancy and his casual tone is a bit alarming. Really, I'm not mad that nothing is on the table for TvP, I'm just concerned that they didn't even make a nod towards it. There was no mention of struggles between Terran lategame at all, just that the early game might favor Terran in TvZ, which really hasn't come up in months before now. It feels like they're really focusing on Korean numbers and US/EU feedback, and Terran is still "fine" in Korea. Maybe it is not as big of a problem as people think it is. Maybe there are silent terrans out there having no problem at all. Or Blizzard sees that the problem is correcting itself as the metagame moves on.
But that seems to be the opposite approach they've taken so far. The last time I remember them taking a really hands-off approach to balance was the initial lategame TvZ stance, where they said something about infestor/BL combo maybe being too strong, and we heard nothing for months until the situation "flipped" and ghosts got more screen time in major tournaments.
I mean, looking back at the Thor energy change and Ghost nerfs, they were all fairly fast paced without waiting for strategies to catch up. It's not like Blizzard to wait things out like this. Also, Terran pros have made comments about TvP, especially non-Koreans.
|
On April 28 2012 04:29 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2012 04:19 aksfjh wrote:On April 28 2012 03:21 Mystgun wrote:
I think you guys have to realize that changes are not made in isolation and you can't address something like "TvP late game" without creating issues in other match-ups at other points of the game. SC2 is Blizzard's flagship eSports franchise and you can bet that they have people working hard to address balance issues, but they are not going to make a bunch of changes based solely on qualitative community feedback. I also think ZvP is a bit broken right now thanks to Stephano, but I can't conceive a solution that wouldn't break other match ups ("nerfing roach" will create more problems than it will solve).
I agree that these statistics are a little bit superficial and it's really to show that they have some data to back up their decisions, but I don't really expect them to upload a spreadsheet of all the match-up data from battle.net either. It would be nice to show some trends over time to see how the metagame is evolving and what are the variances from week to week.
The map statistics are a bit surprising. I didn't think of Cloud Kingdom as a PvT favored map but I guess drops in the main are difficult which basically shuts down Terran in the late game. 70% is a huge discrepancy and his casual tone is a bit alarming. Really, I'm not mad that nothing is on the table for TvP, I'm just concerned that they didn't even make a nod towards it. There was no mention of struggles between Terran lategame at all, just that the early game might favor Terran in TvZ, which really hasn't come up in months before now. It feels like they're really focusing on Korean numbers and US/EU feedback, and Terran is still "fine" in Korea. Maybe it is not as big of a problem as people think it is. Maybe there are silent terrans out there having no problem at all. Or Blizzard sees that the problem is correcting itself as the metagame moves on. But that seems to be the opposite approach they've taken so far. The last time I remember them taking a really hands-off approach to balance was the initial lategame TvZ stance, where they said something about infestor/BL combo maybe being too strong, and we heard nothing for months until the situation "flipped" and ghosts got more screen time in major tournaments. I mean, looking back at the Thor energy change and Ghost nerfs, they were all fairly fast paced without waiting for strategies to catch up. It's not like Blizzard to wait things out like this. Also, Terran pros have made comments about TvP, especially non-Koreans.
I will agree they jumped the gun with the snipe, but they have always been reluctant to mess with late game issues otherwise. The other changes were more for all ins of specific types. People forget that when the thor had no energy, players like Nony were trying things like using phoenixes to pick up stunned immortals(a terrible plan) in an attempt to deal with thors and the strike cannons. It was a silly time.
But the current “issue” in PvT is not some all in, but late game with 200/200 armies. When an issue is so far in the late game, it is far more likely to work itself out.
|
On April 27 2012 10:31 Andreas wrote:
David Kim just oozes of incompetence. All he talks about are statistics, and all he can show to is Blizzard's "justified winrates" which we don't know if are reliable stats or not. The stats we do know are real (map winrates) are skewed as hell. TvP is my main concern right now, and I'd love how David Kim thinks it's balanced that Terran has a slightly better chance to win in the first 13 minutes, and then a really low chance to win once it gets past that point. Insead, all I get to know is that their justified TvP winrate is 50% in Korea, so I guess it's fine?
Seriously?
Did you even read the article? It contains composition analysis, feedback from pros, tournament results, internal metrics and analytics, regional breakdowns, meta analysis...
How would you propose he analyze balance, by listening to one person? By figuring it out with a pen and paper on his own? When you're trying to address something as complex as this, you need a variety of information to paint a detailed and nuanced picture. He does this and you say it's incompetence because the results aren't either what you expected or what you want to see?
|
On April 28 2012 04:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 04:29 aksfjh wrote:On April 28 2012 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2012 04:19 aksfjh wrote:On April 28 2012 03:21 Mystgun wrote:
I think you guys have to realize that changes are not made in isolation and you can't address something like "TvP late game" without creating issues in other match-ups at other points of the game. SC2 is Blizzard's flagship eSports franchise and you can bet that they have people working hard to address balance issues, but they are not going to make a bunch of changes based solely on qualitative community feedback. I also think ZvP is a bit broken right now thanks to Stephano, but I can't conceive a solution that wouldn't break other match ups ("nerfing roach" will create more problems than it will solve).
I agree that these statistics are a little bit superficial and it's really to show that they have some data to back up their decisions, but I don't really expect them to upload a spreadsheet of all the match-up data from battle.net either. It would be nice to show some trends over time to see how the metagame is evolving and what are the variances from week to week.
The map statistics are a bit surprising. I didn't think of Cloud Kingdom as a PvT favored map but I guess drops in the main are difficult which basically shuts down Terran in the late game. 70% is a huge discrepancy and his casual tone is a bit alarming. Really, I'm not mad that nothing is on the table for TvP, I'm just concerned that they didn't even make a nod towards it. There was no mention of struggles between Terran lategame at all, just that the early game might favor Terran in TvZ, which really hasn't come up in months before now. It feels like they're really focusing on Korean numbers and US/EU feedback, and Terran is still "fine" in Korea. Maybe it is not as big of a problem as people think it is. Maybe there are silent terrans out there having no problem at all. Or Blizzard sees that the problem is correcting itself as the metagame moves on. But that seems to be the opposite approach they've taken so far. The last time I remember them taking a really hands-off approach to balance was the initial lategame TvZ stance, where they said something about infestor/BL combo maybe being too strong, and we heard nothing for months until the situation "flipped" and ghosts got more screen time in major tournaments. I mean, looking back at the Thor energy change and Ghost nerfs, they were all fairly fast paced without waiting for strategies to catch up. It's not like Blizzard to wait things out like this. Also, Terran pros have made comments about TvP, especially non-Koreans. I will agree they jumped the gun with the snipe, but they have always been reluctant to mess with late game issues otherwise. The other changes were more for all ins of specific types. People forget that when the thor had no energy, players like Nony were trying things like using phoenixes to pick up stunned immortals(a terrible plan) in an attempt to deal with thors and the strike cannons. It was a silly time. But the current “issue” in PvT is not some all in, but late game with 200/200 armies. When an issue is so far in the late game, it is far more likely to work itself out.
How much time passed between a serious thor build being played in tournament and the thor nerf? IIRC it was about 2-3 weeks and pretty much only one prominent game. It was so fast that Nony never really tried things but was thinking about things.
|
On April 27 2012 10:28 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:
I have the same concerns about TvP...also, I found their comment that Protoss had the lowest representation at the highest levels of tournaments. Huh? The majority of the top 8 in current code S are protoss...
The last two GSL's have had alot of P players... but if you consider IPL 4 or the recent MLG, the recent Dreamhack... there was 1 or no Protosses in the top 8...
|
Reading through about 20 pages of this, really no conversation about Zerg. Just TvP and PvP. Pretty much what the current pro scene is TROLOLOL.
|
On April 28 2012 04:57 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 04:39 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2012 04:29 aksfjh wrote:On April 28 2012 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2012 04:19 aksfjh wrote:On April 28 2012 03:21 Mystgun wrote:
I think you guys have to realize that changes are not made in isolation and you can't address something like "TvP late game" without creating issues in other match-ups at other points of the game. SC2 is Blizzard's flagship eSports franchise and you can bet that they have people working hard to address balance issues, but they are not going to make a bunch of changes based solely on qualitative community feedback. I also think ZvP is a bit broken right now thanks to Stephano, but I can't conceive a solution that wouldn't break other match ups ("nerfing roach" will create more problems than it will solve).
I agree that these statistics are a little bit superficial and it's really to show that they have some data to back up their decisions, but I don't really expect them to upload a spreadsheet of all the match-up data from battle.net either. It would be nice to show some trends over time to see how the metagame is evolving and what are the variances from week to week.
The map statistics are a bit surprising. I didn't think of Cloud Kingdom as a PvT favored map but I guess drops in the main are difficult which basically shuts down Terran in the late game. 70% is a huge discrepancy and his casual tone is a bit alarming. Really, I'm not mad that nothing is on the table for TvP, I'm just concerned that they didn't even make a nod towards it. There was no mention of struggles between Terran lategame at all, just that the early game might favor Terran in TvZ, which really hasn't come up in months before now. It feels like they're really focusing on Korean numbers and US/EU feedback, and Terran is still "fine" in Korea. Maybe it is not as big of a problem as people think it is. Maybe there are silent terrans out there having no problem at all. Or Blizzard sees that the problem is correcting itself as the metagame moves on. But that seems to be the opposite approach they've taken so far. The last time I remember them taking a really hands-off approach to balance was the initial lategame TvZ stance, where they said something about infestor/BL combo maybe being too strong, and we heard nothing for months until the situation "flipped" and ghosts got more screen time in major tournaments. I mean, looking back at the Thor energy change and Ghost nerfs, they were all fairly fast paced without waiting for strategies to catch up. It's not like Blizzard to wait things out like this. Also, Terran pros have made comments about TvP, especially non-Koreans. I will agree they jumped the gun with the snipe, but they have always been reluctant to mess with late game issues otherwise. The other changes were more for all ins of specific types. People forget that when the thor had no energy, players like Nony were trying things like using phoenixes to pick up stunned immortals(a terrible plan) in an attempt to deal with thors and the strike cannons. It was a silly time. But the current “issue” in PvT is not some all in, but late game with 200/200 armies. When an issue is so far in the late game, it is far more likely to work itself out. How much time passed between a serious thor build being played in tournament and the thor nerf? IIRC it was about 2-3 weeks and pretty much only one prominent game. It was so fast that Nony never really tried things but was thinking about things.
It was like 5 months from what liquidpedia shows and that was a while. I don't think that thor needs mana to be balanced, but strike cannons with a cool down it makes it so it can auto kill immortals, which is no good With marine support, there isn't a lot else that can really touch the thor is one of those 2 base pushes. Really, if anything, strike cannons should be removed.
|
On April 27 2012 10:24 avilo wrote:It's "interesting" they still have not acknowledged / addressed this. The only mention we've heard of this was in a previous balance blog where they mentioned about chargelot warp-ins being "powerful" lategame.
Nothing about TvPearly game. What a joke.
|
On April 28 2012 04:00 KiLLJoy216 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 03:53 SupLilSon wrote:On April 28 2012 03:49 SuperYo1000 wrote:On April 28 2012 03:36 SupLilSon wrote:On April 28 2012 03:23 crocodile wrote:On April 28 2012 02:55 SuperYo1000 wrote:On April 28 2012 02:54 architecture wrote:
Man with those imba scans, it's clear that T plays with full game knowledge! Therefore, T should never lose to stuff like 2 base bane/roach timings or 1 base trickery, or getting fooled that 2base8gate is not 3nexus.
No one that has any objective view on the game should be able to say that any race has good, or even perfect scouting. All races play extremely in the dark, and have the make decisions as such. Go watch any top T replay, most of the time, there's practically no extra information other than the implicit stuff that they read from unit counts/gasses etc.
you do realize that terran IS strongest early mid game BECAUSE they can react so well with there ease of scouting right? He said, without providing any evidence. trololol yea, itd be nice to have some substantial evidence ;\ ..... time frame win rates do provide evidence but Im certain that you will never be satisfied really? Have you never heard of confounding variables? Or the phrase, "correlation is not causation". Just because Terran has good early game win rates doesn't mean it's because of scouting. There are a number of reasons that could be. That's why I said "substantial". Rofl. You are right, its not only because of good scouting. It is also because marine marauder ball is stupidly good early/mid game. Just because correlation is not causation doesn't mean that this is one of those cases. In this instance the correlation can indicate the causation.
I'm not disputing that Terran is strong early, or even that Terran's scouting is the best early. I am a Terran player, ex random player and I'd agree with both those statements. Terran's got alot of good ways to get early scouting/denial of scouting. However, it would still be nice to have some indication of how DK is arriving at all his "feelings". And no, correlation can not indicate causation unless you account for all the other variables. That is the whole fricken point of the scientific method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
