So what you are saying is that the community brought more statisical data to the table than blizzard. I find it funny that you think it's a bad thing that players are using facts and blizzard are bring unquantifiable statements.... apart from the matchmaking system thats based around forcing players to have a 50% win ratio is delivery that. And yeah.... where did all the terrans go?
Sigh i find it sad when people try to compare Blizzards data to that of a 3rd party site. Thing is mate why would Blizzard bother lying? They are the Judge, jury and executor in terms of SC2 balance. They could be showing a 80-20 TvP and claiming they still wanna wait out on the protoss to explore tech options, and you would be able to do NOTHING.
Btw since noone else does any research around here, look at this.
It explains very well how they get their adjusted winrates. It really doesn't matter if you think it is a reliable method, all you need to know is that those are the stats they use to determine ladder balance.
That video just proves to me that early game terran is too good and late game protoss is too strong.
But lets remember that its back then when maps were smaller and close spawns exist. Today, maps are larger and more macro based. Macro game/maps = easier to reach late game. Late game = protoss is good. Its transitioning to this point where protoss is too good that terrans often QQ about it (Well duh cuz its easier to hit late game now, the strong point of protoss).
So ultimately, its a game design problem NOT balance. Broken matchup
I didn't think people could be so ignorant. This video is from 2010. We are in 2012. A LOT has changed.
On April 28 2012 06:20 coverpunch wrote: It would be nice if Blizzard released the data sets along with the results so people could look for themselves. I think it's just whining to insist the data must be wrong without having any data of your own, but I'm curious about how or where they got their numbers.
It wouldnt help. They informed people on Bnet that terrans were, in fact, not disappearing from the ladder. The response was people freaking out and challenging them, posting links of SCranks. Blizzard can't win no matter what they say or what data they release.
So what you are saying is that the community brought more statisical data to the table than blizzard. I find it funny that you think it's a bad thing that players are using facts and blizzard are bring unquantifiable statements.... apart from the matchmaking system thats based around forcing players to have a 50% win ratio is delivery that. And yeah.... where did all the terrans go?
I am saying the information they provided is mostly bull shit or just stuff they pulled because they want the myth of the disappearing terrans to be true.
"There seems to be this perception that terran players are fleeing the ladder, when that's not true at all.
I can tell you that the percentage of terran players (in terms of number of players choosing the race) is actually slightly higher this year than it was at the same time last year. The top 500 is also very close to evenly split between the three races as well.
Just some food for thought!"
and
"The stereotype of terran players populating bronze and then falling off in representation isn't reflected by reality, and the anecdotal reports I've seen regarding opponents encountered on the ladder are just that - anecdotal.
Those experiences aren't a comprehensive snapshot of the whole, they're a thin slice of the cookie. Even if the chocolate chips are evenly distributed, you might not get as many in your particular slice.
Mmmm, cookies.
I know what I'm doing for lunch"
Blizzard stated that their information is incorrect. They own the ladder and would have better information that any forum poster in any community. I see no reason to believe people who just go on SC2 ranks and pull out a bunch of questionable numbers and then say that it somehow is better than the information provided by the people who own the ladder. There is no reason for Blizzard to mislead people about this.
So ask yourself, why won't blizzard release the figures. Plus the sample size of sc2ranks makes it a data source you shouldn't discount entirely. There are on 2 way to judge this correctly. Firstly quantifiable data, blizzard in fact have told us nothing, nada. We have heard their conclusions only. You can't trust data interpretations from a bias source because the stats can be spun anyway you like. For (an extreme) example if TvP is 50% win rate but 100% terran wins were in the first 15 min and protoss 100% after that, the only stat blizzard will give you is the overall win rate. It make them look like they've done thing right. The matchup would be broken but hey they wouldn't wanna look bad now, would they...
Secondly, real world experience. Well that side is well documented here in the forums.
I'm not saying bnet players are right, however they would be very correct in trusting in data rather than an interpretation of data. What I am saying is that if the data was released then real conclusions can be drawn. With most computer games this isn't an issue, however blizzard have pitched this as an esport. I find this shocking when we cannot get our hands on basic numbers. No other competitive game (in the larger sense of the word, not just pc games) I can think of hides the data in such a way.
I don't have to ask myself why they won't release the data. People would just pick it apart and call it bull shit anyways. They would say things like "Well maybe terran players just qualify for the seasons and see how broken the match ups are and quit." The data is likely just this anyways, "Hey look, there are the same number of terrans as last month on the ladder. No wait, slightly more."
I am going to go with Occam's razor on this issue and not buy into the wild theories as to why Blizzard is hiding the real data about the population of terrans on the ladder.
They don't have to be "hiding" the data. The analysis that shows what the community sees at the ground level could very well be outside the scope of their data. It's very possible that they don't see a need to collect a bunch of race statistics outside of winning, and within that lies the possibility that population/race stats really don't matter in the big picture.
The only thing you can apply Occam's razor to in this situation is that the 3rd party data conflicts with the Blizzard data, and they aren't in a hurry to find out why.
Or what people are "seeing at the ground level" is not correct. I personally have seen no lack of terrans on the ladder. Blizzard's information matches my own experience, so I believe it is correct. I don't believe what people are seeing is outside of the scope of their data, only that people have selective memories and the ability to cherry pick "community data" to make their point.
Whoa, that's so many ways in which Plansix said that he believes Terrans are not disappearing on the ladder because one bnet mod said so.
Yet, that's all there is, an ambiguous statement, a joking one at that, which only fueled more discussion on the topic because of it insufficient clarity.
Plansix, on the other hand, cannot be taken as a neutral judge, considering how often you frequented the "Where did all the terrans go?" thread with a plethora of jabs and little distracting comments. You, for some reason, really dislike this line of thinking to the extent that you're willing to post a bazillion times in this thread to stamp down on reasonable doubts that people have. At the very least people are not informed on the current situation of different ladder populations, and it's perfectly valid to ask for this information.
Regarding that particular mod comment, he does seem to say that there are "an equal amount of people choosing terran" which leads to three interpretations: a) There are an equal number of people choosing terran when they sc2 for the first time (ie. terran as main race players, b) There are an equal number of people choosing terran at the start of the season, c) i) There an equal number of people choosing terran before 1v1 matches, c) ii) There are an equal number of people choosing terran before 1v1 matchs at platinum/diamond level.
You would like people to take (c) (ii) as the interpretation, but all the other ones are equally salient.
So, stop trying steamroll people by out-posting them and find actual data to back up your belief that (c) (ii) is true.
On April 27 2012 10:19 Sajaki wrote: Nothing about TvP lategame what a joke.
let it cook a little, untill terrans figure it out just like toss had to
Yeah Protoss had to figure out so much man. Terrans use Thors - Thors nerfed. Terrans use BFH - blue flame nerfed. Terrans use 2 rax - 2 rax nerfed. Protoss don't use Warp Prism, Blizzard buffs Warp Prism and Protoss start to use it. Yeah man, you sure had to figure a lot of things out.
There's nothing to figure out. Terran higher tech units (Tanks, Thors, Ravens, BCs) are horrible against Protoss, and not good enough against Zerg. That's why Terrans are sticking to MMM all game long.
On April 28 2012 15:18 Emperor_Earth wrote: Summary of Blizz's approach to balance in WoL:
Step 1: Design a system that produces 50-50 games at all skill levels Step 2: Measure to see if system is producing 50-50 games. If not, tweak until it does. Step 3: Assume that the game being balanced is why the system produces 50-50 winrates This is like: Kill all tall elephants Keep mating elephants to make sure all elephants are not tall Determine that elephants are naturally short.
wtf?
Oh, and seriously, nerf early game TvP and lategame PvT. kthxbai
Do you really not understand what the word "adjusted" in adjusted winrates means?
When people just ignore the fact that in 2012 All GSL Tournament the Terran winrate to Protoss is 56.3%, 81W / 63L. There is nothing to talk about with those whiners complaining about how OP Protoss is. It is completely reverse of the reality. Ignorant.
On April 27 2012 10:19 Sajaki wrote: Nothing about TvP lategame what a joke.
let it cook a little, untill terrans figure it out just like toss had to
Yeah Protoss had to figure out so much man. Terrans use Thors - Thors nerfed. Terrans use BFH - blue flame nerfed. Terrans use 2 rax - 2 rax nerfed. Protoss don't use Warp Prism, Blizzard buffs Warp Prism and Protoss start to use it. Yeah man, you sure had to figure a lot of things out.
There's nothing to figure out. Terran higher tech units (Tanks, Thors, Ravens, BCs) are horrible against Protoss, and not good enough against Zerg. That's why Terrans are sticking to MMM all game long.
This really isn't a good argument. It's irrelevant how many times one race gets buffed/nerfed. Remember that toss had warp gates and high templar nerfed in a big way.
As long as TvP continues at well over 50% on the highest level then Blizzard isn't going to do anything but nerf Terran. They've been very clear from the beginning the game is balanced for e-sports ie. pro gamers. You can agree or disagree with this approach but it's not as if they're keeping it a secret. I tend to agree with them. Seriously...if they balanced this game for diamond and/or below the game would be terrible at the pro level.
You can argue it's Terran OP in early game and Toss OP in late game (it certainly seems that way at my skill level) but that doesn't seem to be the case at the highest levels.
It seems to me that heart of the problem is the Marines. They are damn good, they are so good that the other stuff around them gota be tonned down a little. Why terran have weak aoe? well shit if they had strong aoe everthing would be owned by a few marines after the aoe part, since marine are so cheap you can always have some. If marines where not has strong, storm and collossu could be toned town a little. WHat happen when you are trying to get in the face of a terran with gateway unit and he has support from medvac, you get the fuck out or you DIE. MMM army just doesent die unless there is AoE because it heal so damn fast and deal so much dmg. Its kinda like why gateway unit be cant be too strong, with forcefield it would be insane if they where stronger.
Zealots i guess are a problem too for terrans. I had an idea about that, Zealots could lose their 1 base armor when they get charge, get lighter to be faster, i would not keep charge at 200/200 however if that happened. I doubt blizzard would ever consider something like this however because its a little wierd that an upgrade make you weaker.
PvT was my best matchup for sure and i can see why terran struggle so much with it, but at my level (silver) no terran make ghost while i make high templar all the time, so maybe its why it seem to easy.
On April 28 2012 17:41 larse wrote: When people just ignore the fact that in 2012 All GSL Tournament the Terran winrate to Protoss is 56.3%, 81W / 63L. There is nothing to talk about with those whiners complaining about how OP Protoss is. It is completely reverse of the reality. Ignorant.
Yes and the same link says Protoss have a winrate of 52% (121W / 109L). You might wanna add that to your comments before calling ppl ignorant, in addition to you have just joined TL (5 posts). Welcome btw ^^ In fact, 15 terrans started out in GSL Code S this current season, there are 7 left. 8 terrans got kicked out (we are talking top terrans here like MKP / SlayersMMA etc.) 10 toss started out, there are 7 left, and there are no zergs left. That gives the real picture I am Terran btw.
On April 28 2012 17:41 larse wrote: When people just ignore the fact that in 2012 All GSL Tournament the Terran winrate to Protoss is 56.3%, 81W / 63L. There is nothing to talk about with those whiners complaining about how OP Protoss is. It is completely reverse of the reality. Ignorant.
Yes and the same link says Protoss have a winrate of 52% (121W / 109L). You might wanna add that to your comments before calling ppl ignorant, in addition to you have just joined TL (5 posts). Welcome btw ^^ In fact, 15 terrans started out in GSL Code S this current season, there are 7 left. 8 terrans got kicked out (we are talking top terrans here like MKP / SlayersMMA etc.) 10 toss started out, there are 7 left, and there are no zergs left. That gives the real picture I am Terran btw.
How about providing the link of this GOMTV website where you find this PvT winrate of 52% (121W / 109L)?
On April 28 2012 17:41 larse wrote: When people just ignore the fact that in 2012 All GSL Tournament the Terran winrate to Protoss is 56.3%, 81W / 63L. There is nothing to talk about with those whiners complaining about how OP Protoss is. It is completely reverse of the reality. Ignorant.
Yes and the same link says Protoss have a winrate of 52% (121W / 109L). You might wanna add that to your comments before calling ppl ignorant, in addition to you have just joined TL (5 posts). Welcome btw ^^ In fact, 15 terrans started out in GSL Code S this current season, there are 7 left. 8 terrans got kicked out (we are talking top terrans here like MKP / SlayersMMA etc.) 10 toss started out, there are 7 left, and there are no zergs left. That gives the real picture I am Terran btw.
How about providing the link of this GOMTV website where you find this PvT winrate of 52% (121W / 109L)?
On April 28 2012 17:41 larse wrote: When people just ignore the fact that in 2012 All GSL Tournament the Terran winrate to Protoss is 56.3%, 81W / 63L. There is nothing to talk about with those whiners complaining about how OP Protoss is. It is completely reverse of the reality. Ignorant.
Yes and the same link says Protoss have a winrate of 52% (121W / 109L). You might wanna add that to your comments before calling ppl ignorant, in addition to you have just joined TL (5 posts). Welcome btw ^^ In fact, 15 terrans started out in GSL Code S this current season, there are 7 left. 8 terrans got kicked out (we are talking top terrans here like MKP / SlayersMMA etc.) 10 toss started out, there are 7 left, and there are no zergs left. That gives the real picture I am Terran btw.
Thats the set "bar", not a protoss "bar".
Terrans have a 56.3% win rate in MATCHES, and a 52.6%win rate in SETS.
On April 28 2012 17:41 larse wrote: When people just ignore the fact that in 2012 All GSL Tournament the Terran winrate to Protoss is 56.3%, 81W / 63L. There is nothing to talk about with those whiners complaining about how OP Protoss is. It is completely reverse of the reality. Ignorant.
Yes and the same link says Protoss have a winrate of 52% (121W / 109L). You might wanna add that to your comments before calling ppl ignorant, in addition to you have just joined TL (5 posts). Welcome btw ^^ In fact, 15 terrans started out in GSL Code S this current season, there are 7 left. 8 terrans got kicked out (we are talking top terrans here like MKP / SlayersMMA etc.) 10 toss started out, there are 7 left, and there are no zergs left. That gives the real picture I am Terran btw.
Now I know how he gets "the winrate of 52% (121W / 109L)". Yeah, but it's Terran has 52% (121W / 109L) winrate in SETs to Protoss in 2012 ALL GSL Tournaments, not the other way around.
SoniC_eu, you surely have good eyes and great understanding about winrate.
On April 28 2012 08:22 Sergio1992 wrote: The only thing that should be addressed about tvp lategame, is the amount of non-micro the protoss must do. That should be improved, mixed together with the scaling efficiency of being cost effective while the units are being microed.
Lack of micro needed in late game protoss is only true on lower levels of ladder, the higher the level (and especially at pro level) the difference really isn't that huge. If you watch the apm of players like puzzle/parting/MC(in his prime) in big battles of PvT, their APM is every bit as high, if not exceeding the terran counterpart. Of course, a few players isn't necessarily representative of the whole race, but to suggest tosses don't need to micro much is the furthest thing from the truth.
Anyways, I'm not here to debate that which race is harder to micro or what not, but I want to list what high level tosses do (to dispel the myth that all they do just is "a-move"). First is that they constantly have to rearrange their army formation even in mid battle to have the zealots in front (granted much easier to do with blink, but terrans don't have that to worry about that as their units are all ranged), forcefielding when there is zealot charge against a kiting bio group is honestly pretty difficult and takes quite a lot of skill, as its very easy to have the ff's hurt the zealots instead. Stalkers blinking+targeting medivacs; furthermore, now that so many terrans use the floating factory to mess up the unit AI, stalkers/archons can't even be a-moved in the first place.
Now the next two I have only seen on rare occasions (needs to be done more for sure imo), but moving the guardian shield sentry with the zealots to shield them and not the stalkers/collosus, and also having the collosus targeting the bigger clump of units when opponent has like half concave coverage. And of course there is high templar micro, but thats pretty much the identical with the ghost, so there's not much to talk about. Basically the only unit that tosses don't really control during battles are the zealots (aside from pulling back from time to time), and while one may think thats already bad enough since chargelots with upgrades are pretty tough, but don't forget that unlike terran where you can 'tap macro' during battles, protoss has to look away from the screen to warp in units. If you consider that, then tosses having that leeway in not needing to micro zealots is somewhat a fair trade off I think.
Again, I want to emphasize this isn't an argument which race has to micro more - its just that I'm tired of people saying that PvT late game toss doesn't need any micro/control and is all a-moving to victory, when its nothing like that at all.
I don't know. Maybe you are right. I think protoss is the second hardest race to be used on pro levels.
And for the pro level you are talking about: the only thing that protoss must do is use an observer, and preemptive split to avoid emp. Then it all comes to blinking stalker to get cloaked\uncloaked ghost...viking. The fact that terrans are abusing the factory is a clear sign of the relevant problem of the protoss. They are sadly a bad designed race.
On April 28 2012 08:30 ticklishmusic wrote: I think the problem with TvP lategame is not that Terrans can't beat Protoss, its just that the game is designed in a way that Terran think they can't win.
So, we know the usual uber macro lategame Terran 3/3 bio force loses to the Protoss "deathball" pretty much no matter what. EMP's, snipes, etc. are, admittedly, tricky to hit, and make a lot of big engagements essentially coinflip wins. Also, Terran's biggest is that they pretty much lose when their centralized production facilities get attacked.
In a very good article which I forget the name of, the OP (if someone can think of it and PM me the name) discusses the "idea" behind SC2. Basically, the flashy graphics and everything want players to go in with big army and bash each other to death, then rinse and repeat. Sure its cool-- you see the BL/ imbafestor combo slowly pushing across the map with constant streams of reinforcements while the other side desperately tries to stop the tide with waves of reinforcements, or when War of the Worlds happens in an epic PvP. Yay, starcraft machinma.
Thing is, it simply doesn't work. Toss's supply efficiency becomes, essentially, king lategame when resources become less of a restriction on army value when combined with lots of warpgates and double/triple robo or stargate with chrono. People need to simply stop trying to tackle Toss head on. That is simply the wrong way to beat Toss, and it makes me facepalm so hard when people say "lategame Toss army imba". It's true, but that deathball army is only one aspect of the game, and there are other points where Toss is weaker.
Drops do not magically stop working lategame. If a Toss is maxxed, he can't warp in more stuff. Toss units move at different speeds and in different ways. BC's are really good against Toss (meaning, Toss has no efficient counter). With mules, Terrans can potentially have a larger army. Those are just a couple things off the top of my head.
For the note, I'm Masters Protoss, I do play Terran about 20% of the time, and my PvT winrate is around 40%.
tl;dr : as an oversimplification, yes, protoss can "a-move" to victory (ignoring the need to split templars, throw down storms, ff, guardian shields, keep colossi in the back, warp in units and keep zealots in the front etc), but its only effective if you're dumb enough to let protoss a-move into your army.
Funny thing.. that you tell in the first paragraph, why the 'solution' from later in your post doesn't work. Yes, you can load up 4 medivacs and attack. That means that protoss amoves into you base, completely flattening the remainder of your army. Now toss is sitting at your production facilities killing your base, while your doom drop has to fight against waves of warpins that will wittle it down. Yes, there is supply available, because you will kill probes enabling warpins. Terran will kill all the tech of protoss leaving only warpgates, but protoss will kill everything of terran.
For your tl;dr: I love how you put 'keep colossus in the back" and "keep zealots in the front" in there.. because that's what happens when you amove. Colossus will stay back, zealots will charge to the front. Late-game when you have double splash you don't need forcefields - you just need storms and maybe guardian shield (which is like hitting stim a non-issue). So yes..a-move and casually strolling forward with your pre-split templar to place storms where is seems fitting will produce decent results. FAR better results than a terran army hitting stim and a-moving into a protoss army with a few emps thrown into unit clumps when the fight is half-way done.
On April 28 2012 08:30 ticklishmusic wrote: I think the problem with TvP lategame is not that Terrans can't beat Protoss, its just that the game is designed in a way that Terran think they can't win.
So, we know the usual uber macro lategame Terran 3/3 bio force loses to the Protoss "deathball" pretty much no matter what. EMP's, snipes, etc. are, admittedly, tricky to hit, and make a lot of big engagements essentially coinflip wins. Also, Terran's biggest is that they pretty much lose when their centralized production facilities get attacked.
In a very good article which I forget the name of, the OP (if someone can think of it and PM me the name) discusses the "idea" behind SC2. Basically, the flashy graphics and everything want players to go in with big army and bash each other to death, then rinse and repeat. Sure its cool-- you see the BL/ imbafestor combo slowly pushing across the map with constant streams of reinforcements while the other side desperately tries to stop the tide with waves of reinforcements, or when War of the Worlds happens in an epic PvP. Yay, starcraft machinma.
Thing is, it simply doesn't work. Toss's supply efficiency becomes, essentially, king lategame when resources become less of a restriction on army value when combined with lots of warpgates and double/triple robo or stargate with chrono. People need to simply stop trying to tackle Toss head on. That is simply the wrong way to beat Toss, and it makes me facepalm so hard when people say "lategame Toss army imba". It's true, but that deathball army is only one aspect of the game, and there are other points where Toss is weaker.
Drops do not magically stop working lategame. If a Toss is maxxed, he can't warp in more stuff. Toss units move at different speeds and in different ways. BC's are really good against Toss (meaning, Toss has no efficient counter). With mules, Terrans can potentially have a larger army. Those are just a couple things off the top of my head.
For the note, I'm Masters Protoss, I do play Terran about 20% of the time, and my PvT winrate is around 40%.
tl;dr : as an oversimplification, yes, protoss can "a-move" to victory (ignoring the need to split templars, throw down storms, ff, guardian shields, keep colossi in the back, warp in units and keep zealots in the front etc), but its only effective if you're dumb enough to let protoss a-move into your army.
Funny thing.. that you tell in the first paragraph, why the 'solution' from later in your post doesn't work. Yes, you can load up 4 medivacs and attack. That means that protoss amoves into you base, completely flattening the remainder of your army. Now toss is sitting at your production facilities killing your base, while your doom drop has to fight against waves of warpins that will wittle it down. Yes, there is supply available, because you will kill probes enabling warpins. Terran will kill all the tech of protoss leaving only warpgates, but protoss will kill everything of terran.
For your tl;dr: I love how you put 'keep colossus in the back" and "keep zealots in the front" in there.. because that's what happens when you amove. Colossus will stay back, zealots will charge to the front. Late-game when you have double splash you don't need forcefields - you just need storms and maybe guardian shield (which is like hitting stim a non-issue). So yes..a-move and casually strolling forward with your pre-split templar to place storms where is seems fitting will produce decent results. FAR better results than a terran army hitting stim and a-moving into a protoss army with a few emps thrown into unit clumps when the fight is half-way done.
Nonsense. No professional protoss player is amoving. There is lots of micro that has to be done, to make a protoss army an efficient one. Just because you are ignorant about it, doesnt meant its not there and its not being done.
Zerg scouting? lol what do they need to scout? Every opener has been figured out and can be countered with a spine or two and several queens, blindly. How about addressing some real issues ffs
On April 28 2012 17:41 larse wrote: When people just ignore the fact that in 2012 All GSL Tournament the Terran winrate to Protoss is 56.3%, 81W / 63L. There is nothing to talk about with those whiners complaining about how OP Protoss is. It is completely reverse of the reality. Ignorant.
Yes and the same link says Protoss have a winrate of 52% (121W / 109L). You might wanna add that to your comments before calling ppl ignorant, in addition to you have just joined TL (5 posts). Welcome btw ^^ In fact, 15 terrans started out in GSL Code S this current season, there are 7 left. 8 terrans got kicked out (we are talking top terrans here like MKP / SlayersMMA etc.) 10 toss started out, there are 7 left, and there are no zergs left. That gives the real picture I am Terran btw.
Now I know how he gets "the winrate of 52% (121W / 109L)". Yeah, but it's Terran has 52% (121W / 109L) winrate in SETs to Protoss in 2012 ALL GSL Tournaments, not the other way around.
SoniC_eu, you surely have good eyes and great understanding about winrate.
But u haven't addressed my question? Saying TvP winrate is 56% makes it sound like Terrans are doing well these days in Code S and slaughtering protoss, when in fact just by the sheer number of terrans in GSL they should have a higher chance of winning if you assume all matchups are 50/50?? The 56% statistic doesnt show that over half the terrans in Code S are out now (many cos of protoss)...in fact the best one in the world right now, sniped in fact by a protoss (e.g. MKP). The entire meta game of TvP has shifted even in KR, and it's quite obvious if you watch the GSL that there is a protoss resurgence specifically in PvT. Ofc zergs have been completely obliterated (but that's another topic for a zerg to discuss ) It's exciting to see this protoss comeback after MC's glory days, and I for one hope to see a protoss champion emerge from the new playstyles emerging. It's easy to sit in a corner with a bag over your head and scream 56% winrate TvP!!! That implies that terran is favoured against protoss. But if you look at the bigger picture, you'll see that protoss are on par with terran (at the least) and in fact the tides are turning in slight favour of protoss.
Sources for race distribution at the start of Code S: http://www.gomtv.net/schedule/index.gom Sources for race distribution at the current Code S: ARtosis and GOMTV Or u can just watch the GSL, and know that my facts are in order
Wow David Kim hiding behind scewed numbers once again... why can't they have real players on their team and not casualls that probaly hasn't even reached platinum yet.
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.
For example, our data shows a 70% PvT win ratio on Cloud Kingdom, a 62% win ratio in PvZ on Korhal Compound, and a 37% win ratio on Metalopolis for TvZ
EPT
