|
I love how every zerg player here is probably cherry picking and reading only one half of the win rates based on lower population size in Korea, and concluding from that and saying the matchup of TvZ is balanced.
The irony here is, Zergs are doing the same thing terrans are doing, except Zergs are complaining against terran using the graphs. In the end if you average the June winrates of TvZ, it will still be in favor of Zerg.
|
On July 03 2012 06:44 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 06:42 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:28 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 06:28 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:21 Monochromatic wrote:On July 03 2012 06:17 aHaTsc wrote:On July 03 2012 06:15 Evangelist wrote:
So basically with a complete set of data the win rates of international and Korean TvZ are within a few percent of each other. As a terran I'm not going to discuss balance here (though I think Blizzard should consider this quite carefully) but I think that's quite a remarkable statistic. Not including Code A qualifiers or TSL4 KR Qualifiers (2 zerg dominated tournaments) is why it seems so close  . Why don't we include all tournaments and qualifiers? That way there is nothing left out. Also, is there a way to get ladder winrate by leagues? Because I think that would be most telling of an imbalance. Qualifiers have never been included and I don't think they should be. There is not controling the number of players that can attempt to qualify or the quality of those players for all tournaments world wide. The ladder does not provide useful data to anyone except for Blizzard. It tries to give you a 50/50 win rate and matchs you according to that. TSL4 Kr qualifiers were basically a battle royale of Code S through B teamers. They weren't any old qualifier. I am sure it was, but that does not mean that it should be added to the stats. You can't add one qualifier and not another just because a lot of good players played in it. We can't add them all in because then the stats become meaningless or it gives people the ability to cherry pick the qualifiers that favor the way they want the match ups to look. The whole point if these win rates are to show the same or similar sets of data, month after month to see how the game looks at the highest level for each region. We can't just throw a qualifier or two in the middle of that because the bracket was stacked with pure-bad-ass nerds. If the data represented for Korean match statistics do not take into account something as important and relevant as the TSL4 KR qualifiers, they're flawed. And to ignore the TSL4 KR qualifiers, alone or combined with the rest of the data is the definition of cherry picking.
Are you saying this because a lot of terrans lost to zergs in the TSL4 KR qualifiers? What if someone digs up the stats on a NA qualifier where a lot of protoss lost to terrans, but all the protoss were terrible? Should we include that one too?
|
On July 03 2012 06:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 06:44 Dalavita wrote:On July 03 2012 06:42 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:28 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 06:28 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:21 Monochromatic wrote:On July 03 2012 06:17 aHaTsc wrote:On July 03 2012 06:15 Evangelist wrote:
So basically with a complete set of data the win rates of international and Korean TvZ are within a few percent of each other. As a terran I'm not going to discuss balance here (though I think Blizzard should consider this quite carefully) but I think that's quite a remarkable statistic. Not including Code A qualifiers or TSL4 KR Qualifiers (2 zerg dominated tournaments) is why it seems so close . Why don't we include all tournaments and qualifiers? That way there is nothing left out. Also, is there a way to get ladder winrate by leagues? Because I think that would be most telling of an imbalance. Qualifiers have never been included and I don't think they should be. There is not controling the number of players that can attempt to qualify or the quality of those players for all tournaments world wide. The ladder does not provide useful data to anyone except for Blizzard. It tries to give you a 50/50 win rate and matchs you according to that. TSL4 Kr qualifiers were basically a battle royale of Code S through B teamers. They weren't any old qualifier. I am sure it was, but that does not mean that it should be added to the stats. You can't add one qualifier and not another just because a lot of good players played in it. We can't add them all in because then the stats become meaningless or it gives people the ability to cherry pick the qualifiers that favor the way they want the match ups to look. The whole point if these win rates are to show the same or similar sets of data, month after month to see how the game looks at the highest level for each region. We can't just throw a qualifier or two in the middle of that because the bracket was stacked with pure-bad-ass nerds. If the data represented for Korean match statistics do not take into account something as important and relevant as the TSL4 KR qualifiers, they're flawed. And to ignore the TSL4 KR qualifiers, alone or combined with the rest of the data is the definition of cherry picking. Are you saying this because a lot of terrans lost to zergs in the TSL4 KR qualifiers? What if someone digs up the stats on a NA qualifier where a lot of protoss lost to terrans, but all the protoss were terrible? Should we include that one too?
first of all this is about korean stats. lets leave NA stats aside. . well i think they should include it because its an official tournament and if they stated that the stats are based on tournaments then they shud include it too imo. taken accounts in some tournaments and leaving out other is unfair imo.
|
On July 03 2012 06:51 Heavenlee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 05:10 Femari wrote:On July 03 2012 03:50 Bluerain wrote:On July 03 2012 03:30 Dalavita wrote:On July 03 2012 02:42 Flonomenalz wrote:On July 03 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 02:32 The_Stampede wrote:On July 03 2012 02:30 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 01:32 Bluerain wrote:On July 03 2012 00:59 Shiori wrote:
I tire of seeing debate over these graphs, because it's always the same:
If something agrees with the balance whine of the day, everyone who plays the apparently overpowered race claims it's "metagame." If something disagrees, those same people turn right around and take the stats as gospel.
It's pretty simple: watch the games. TvZ and PvZ are both broken because Zerg in general is broken. Yes, Zerg was underpowered at release, but they haven't been for a long time. The other thing to consider is that in many respects, there were simply more top level Korean T/P players in tournaments than Zerg. Nestea is a notoriously weak traveller, and DRG is actually pretty new in the scheme of the Zerg scene; same with Symbol. There was a long period of time in which you had Nestea and then a big void of skill beneath him as far as Zerg went. Even now, I can only think of less than 10 truly top Zerg players, but I can think of at least 20 Terrans and probably 15 Protoss.
Tl;dr when MKP or Hero beat Moon or something it doesn't mean the matchup is balanced. dumbest/most biased post ever plus flame baiting. a biased zerg response would be that zerg is just UP and nestea is just way better so he can win while all other zerg players who are equal in skill to T/P players cannot win due to UP race. see how stupid heavily biased comments are? Except mine's based in fact. If you look at the most mechanically proficient/creative players, you get a lot of Terrans, a decent number of Protosses, and a few Zergs. It's not biased; it's just the way it is. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're actually a moron. Zing! Feel free to back up your argument with facts rather than sniveling. I don't even play Terran and I can see that they have the most mechanically skilled players. What evidence could you POSSIBLY use to make this claim? Following the scene since release. Playing all races. Knowing what all races have to do during all stages of the game. Listening to what pro players say. Reading up on discussions. Asking random players. Asking people who off race. There might not be any mathematical formula that will give you an unquestionable answer, but everything points to the fact, and making the claim is not sensational at all. I will even go so far as to say that Terran being more mechanically demanding has turned the best terran players into the best players in the world, since they've constantly been improving at a pace that outweighs their Zerg and Protoss counterparts, who due to limited race designs will have to depend on Blizzard to buff them mathematically constantly to compensate. Unless Zerg/Protoss design changes dramatically, this will be the continuing trend throughout SC2s life. Terran gets nerfed, terran players get better, the other races get buffed to compensate. This'll eventually lead into Terran being nigh unplayable anywhere outside the absolute top level of play. It's a problem of shit design in essence. i agree with what you said. it does seem that terran is the race that best utilizes good mechanics and naturally the terran players will just get better and better while zerg/protoss players stagnate in the mechanical aspects of the game and will be buffed in order to keep up. but i was talking about skill in my post which i was meaning as a general term for the ability to win. and winning takes more than just mechanics. many games are lost due to bad decision making as well as limiting mechanics. edit: oh the other guy actually said terran players are not the most mechnically sound but the most creative too. LOL guess i cant argue against such heavy bias you win I'm assuming by this you don't think Terran players have been the most creative players. Which I laugh at considering we are the race that has the most builds which by definition pretty much makes us the most creative/innovative race. I'm not saying I'm creative, but Terran players as a whole trump the other two races in creativity. Especially Protoss. "Especially protoss". You're right, terrans are just SOOO much better than everyone else, and if they played the imba ez-mode races they would probably be even MORE dominant, but Blizzard just despises them completely so those super-skilled players can't show their true skill like they used to.
The sad thing is that some people really do think like that.
|
On July 03 2012 06:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 06:28 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 06:28 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:21 Monochromatic wrote:On July 03 2012 06:17 aHaTsc wrote:On July 03 2012 06:15 Evangelist wrote:
So basically with a complete set of data the win rates of international and Korean TvZ are within a few percent of each other. As a terran I'm not going to discuss balance here (though I think Blizzard should consider this quite carefully) but I think that's quite a remarkable statistic. Not including Code A qualifiers or TSL4 KR Qualifiers (2 zerg dominated tournaments) is why it seems so close . Why don't we include all tournaments and qualifiers? That way there is nothing left out. Also, is there a way to get ladder winrate by leagues? Because I think that would be most telling of an imbalance. Qualifiers have never been included and I don't think they should be. There is not controling the number of players that can attempt to qualify or the quality of those players for all tournaments world wide. The ladder does not provide useful data to anyone except for Blizzard. It tries to give you a 50/50 win rate and matchs you according to that. TSL4 Kr qualifiers were basically a battle royale of Code S through B teamers. They weren't any old qualifier. I am sure it was, but that does not mean that it should be added to the stats. You can't add one qualifier and not another just because a lot of good players played in it. We can't add them all in because then the stats become meaningless or it gives people the ability to cherry pick the qualifiers that favor the way they want the match ups to look. The whole point if these win rates are to show the same or similar sets of data, month after month to see how the game looks at the highest level for each region. We can't just throw a qualifier or two in the middle of that because the bracket was stacked with pure-bad-ass nerds.
Of course we can add all qualifiers, why not. Otherwise we have matchups with maximum 100 games and winrates chaning by 10-20 % every month in Korean graph. Go ahead and try to drwa some conclusion based on that,
|
On July 03 2012 06:58 boomudead1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 06:55 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:44 Dalavita wrote:On July 03 2012 06:42 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:28 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 06:28 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:21 Monochromatic wrote:On July 03 2012 06:17 aHaTsc wrote:On July 03 2012 06:15 Evangelist wrote:
So basically with a complete set of data the win rates of international and Korean TvZ are within a few percent of each other. As a terran I'm not going to discuss balance here (though I think Blizzard should consider this quite carefully) but I think that's quite a remarkable statistic. Not including Code A qualifiers or TSL4 KR Qualifiers (2 zerg dominated tournaments) is why it seems so close . Why don't we include all tournaments and qualifiers? That way there is nothing left out. Also, is there a way to get ladder winrate by leagues? Because I think that would be most telling of an imbalance. Qualifiers have never been included and I don't think they should be. There is not controling the number of players that can attempt to qualify or the quality of those players for all tournaments world wide. The ladder does not provide useful data to anyone except for Blizzard. It tries to give you a 50/50 win rate and matchs you according to that. TSL4 Kr qualifiers were basically a battle royale of Code S through B teamers. They weren't any old qualifier. I am sure it was, but that does not mean that it should be added to the stats. You can't add one qualifier and not another just because a lot of good players played in it. We can't add them all in because then the stats become meaningless or it gives people the ability to cherry pick the qualifiers that favor the way they want the match ups to look. The whole point if these win rates are to show the same or similar sets of data, month after month to see how the game looks at the highest level for each region. We can't just throw a qualifier or two in the middle of that because the bracket was stacked with pure-bad-ass nerds. If the data represented for Korean match statistics do not take into account something as important and relevant as the TSL4 KR qualifiers, they're flawed. And to ignore the TSL4 KR qualifiers, alone or combined with the rest of the data is the definition of cherry picking. Are you saying this because a lot of terrans lost to zergs in the TSL4 KR qualifiers? What if someone digs up the stats on a NA qualifier where a lot of protoss lost to terrans, but all the protoss were terrible? Should we include that one too? well i think we should because its a tournament and if they stated that the stats are based on tournaments then they shud include it imo. taken accounts in some tournaments and leaving out other is unfair imo.
But they aren't tournaments, they are only qualifiers for tournaments. No qualifier has been used in the past, even when great players were in the qualifier. Why start adding them now?
|
On July 03 2012 06:58 boomudead1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 06:55 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:44 Dalavita wrote:On July 03 2012 06:42 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:28 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 06:28 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:21 Monochromatic wrote:On July 03 2012 06:17 aHaTsc wrote:On July 03 2012 06:15 Evangelist wrote:
So basically with a complete set of data the win rates of international and Korean TvZ are within a few percent of each other. As a terran I'm not going to discuss balance here (though I think Blizzard should consider this quite carefully) but I think that's quite a remarkable statistic. Not including Code A qualifiers or TSL4 KR Qualifiers (2 zerg dominated tournaments) is why it seems so close . Why don't we include all tournaments and qualifiers? That way there is nothing left out. Also, is there a way to get ladder winrate by leagues? Because I think that would be most telling of an imbalance. Qualifiers have never been included and I don't think they should be. There is not controling the number of players that can attempt to qualify or the quality of those players for all tournaments world wide. The ladder does not provide useful data to anyone except for Blizzard. It tries to give you a 50/50 win rate and matchs you according to that. TSL4 Kr qualifiers were basically a battle royale of Code S through B teamers. They weren't any old qualifier. I am sure it was, but that does not mean that it should be added to the stats. You can't add one qualifier and not another just because a lot of good players played in it. We can't add them all in because then the stats become meaningless or it gives people the ability to cherry pick the qualifiers that favor the way they want the match ups to look. The whole point if these win rates are to show the same or similar sets of data, month after month to see how the game looks at the highest level for each region. We can't just throw a qualifier or two in the middle of that because the bracket was stacked with pure-bad-ass nerds. If the data represented for Korean match statistics do not take into account something as important and relevant as the TSL4 KR qualifiers, they're flawed. And to ignore the TSL4 KR qualifiers, alone or combined with the rest of the data is the definition of cherry picking. Are you saying this because a lot of terrans lost to zergs in the TSL4 KR qualifiers? What if someone digs up the stats on a NA qualifier where a lot of protoss lost to terrans, but all the protoss were terrible? Should we include that one too? first of all this is about korean stats. lets leave NA stats aside. . well i think they should include it because its an official tournament and if they stated that the stats are based on tournaments then they shud include it too imo. taken accounts in some tournaments and leaving out other is unfair imo.
*based on relevant tournaments of the highest level of play* would be better then
|
On July 03 2012 06:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 06:28 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 06:28 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:21 Monochromatic wrote:On July 03 2012 06:17 aHaTsc wrote:On July 03 2012 06:15 Evangelist wrote:
So basically with a complete set of data the win rates of international and Korean TvZ are within a few percent of each other. As a terran I'm not going to discuss balance here (though I think Blizzard should consider this quite carefully) but I think that's quite a remarkable statistic. Not including Code A qualifiers or TSL4 KR Qualifiers (2 zerg dominated tournaments) is why it seems so close . Why don't we include all tournaments and qualifiers? That way there is nothing left out. Also, is there a way to get ladder winrate by leagues? Because I think that would be most telling of an imbalance. Qualifiers have never been included and I don't think they should be. There is not controling the number of players that can attempt to qualify or the quality of those players for all tournaments world wide. The ladder does not provide useful data to anyone except for Blizzard. It tries to give you a 50/50 win rate and matchs you according to that. TSL4 Kr qualifiers were basically a battle royale of Code S through B teamers. They weren't any old qualifier. I am sure it was, but that does not mean that it should be added to the stats. You can't add one qualifier and not another just because a lot of good players played in it. We can't add them all in because then the stats become meaningless or it gives people the ability to cherry pick the qualifiers that favor the way they want the match ups to look.
Yes, you can. You can add only those qualifiers which are classified as premier qualifiers, much like we include MLG open brackets (which are open) but not some after-school tournament held by a couple of friends with no notable players. When you have a wealth of great players, like in TSL4 KR, the odd noob who joined in becomes irrelevant, because they only end up playing 1 game and get eliminated right after. Plus, those noobs existing doesn't really favour any one race.
|
On July 03 2012 06:44 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 06:28 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:21 Monochromatic wrote:On July 03 2012 06:17 aHaTsc wrote:On July 03 2012 06:15 Evangelist wrote:
So basically with a complete set of data the win rates of international and Korean TvZ are within a few percent of each other. As a terran I'm not going to discuss balance here (though I think Blizzard should consider this quite carefully) but I think that's quite a remarkable statistic. Not including Code A qualifiers or TSL4 KR Qualifiers (2 zerg dominated tournaments) is why it seems so close . Why don't we include all tournaments and qualifiers? That way there is nothing left out. Also, is there a way to get ladder winrate by leagues? Because I think that would be most telling of an imbalance. Qualifiers have never been included and I don't think they should be. There is not controling the number of players that can attempt to qualify or the quality of those players for all tournaments world wide. The ladder does not provide useful data to anyone except for Blizzard. It tries to give you a 50/50 win rate and matchs you according to that. if the proleague sc2 games are counted, the TSL quals should be, they have a higher skill representation than the kespa games.
1 is a tournament, the other is a qualifier.
Only tournaments get counted.
You cannot adjust the rules of the game when you see fit.
If skill was the only thing stat here might as well just check out the gsl stats and remove international.
|
On July 03 2012 06:53 PotatoJunior wrote:
I love how every zerg player here is probably cherry picking and reading only one half of the win rates based on lower population size in Korea, and concluding from that and saying the matchup of TvZ is balanced.
The irony here is, Zergs are doing the same thing terrans are doing, except Zergs are complaining against terran using the graphs. In the end if you average the June winrates of TvZ, it will still be in favor of Zerg.
Just like to point out that the average of the win rates is no the same as the average win rate. The average of the win rates tells you almost nothing.
|
On July 03 2012 06:59 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 06:51 Heavenlee wrote:On July 03 2012 05:10 Femari wrote:On July 03 2012 03:50 Bluerain wrote:On July 03 2012 03:30 Dalavita wrote:On July 03 2012 02:42 Flonomenalz wrote:On July 03 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 02:32 The_Stampede wrote:On July 03 2012 02:30 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 01:32 Bluerain wrote:
[quote]
dumbest/most biased post ever plus flame baiting. a biased zerg response would be that zerg is just UP and nestea is just way better so he can win while all other zerg players who are equal in skill to T/P players cannot win due to UP race. see how stupid heavily biased comments are?
Except mine's based in fact. If you look at the most mechanically proficient/creative players, you get a lot of Terrans, a decent number of Protosses, and a few Zergs. It's not biased; it's just the way it is. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're actually a moron. Zing! Feel free to back up your argument with facts rather than sniveling. I don't even play Terran and I can see that they have the most mechanically skilled players. What evidence could you POSSIBLY use to make this claim? Following the scene since release. Playing all races. Knowing what all races have to do during all stages of the game. Listening to what pro players say. Reading up on discussions. Asking random players. Asking people who off race. There might not be any mathematical formula that will give you an unquestionable answer, but everything points to the fact, and making the claim is not sensational at all. I will even go so far as to say that Terran being more mechanically demanding has turned the best terran players into the best players in the world, since they've constantly been improving at a pace that outweighs their Zerg and Protoss counterparts, who due to limited race designs will have to depend on Blizzard to buff them mathematically constantly to compensate. Unless Zerg/Protoss design changes dramatically, this will be the continuing trend throughout SC2s life. Terran gets nerfed, terran players get better, the other races get buffed to compensate. This'll eventually lead into Terran being nigh unplayable anywhere outside the absolute top level of play. It's a problem of shit design in essence. i agree with what you said. it does seem that terran is the race that best utilizes good mechanics and naturally the terran players will just get better and better while zerg/protoss players stagnate in the mechanical aspects of the game and will be buffed in order to keep up. but i was talking about skill in my post which i was meaning as a general term for the ability to win. and winning takes more than just mechanics. many games are lost due to bad decision making as well as limiting mechanics. edit: oh the other guy actually said terran players are not the most mechnically sound but the most creative too. LOL guess i cant argue against such heavy bias you win I'm assuming by this you don't think Terran players have been the most creative players. Which I laugh at considering we are the race that has the most builds which by definition pretty much makes us the most creative/innovative race. I'm not saying I'm creative, but Terran players as a whole trump the other two races in creativity. Especially Protoss. "Especially protoss". You're right, terrans are just SOOO much better than everyone else, and if they played the imba ez-mode races they would probably be even MORE dominant, but Blizzard just despises them completely so those super-skilled players can't show their true skill like they used to. The sad thing is that some people really do think like that.
Such a stupid statement, even if it were true there is no way whatsoever to prove who is superior because the race mechanics are so different. Maybe they just look like they are the better players because at the time their race was so dominant that they crushed everyone else? What if MKP played protoss and was a nobody? What if somelike like Alicia had chosen terran from the beginning and was the best of all time? Even watching people's streams you can't objectively judge how good they are compared to the other people of top races. Zerg is too different compared to the other races, I guess terran and protoss are somewhat similar to the point you can see who is good at general macro and precision but that's still impossible to judge anything.
|
On July 03 2012 07:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 06:58 boomudead1 wrote:On July 03 2012 06:55 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:44 Dalavita wrote:On July 03 2012 06:42 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:28 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 06:28 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:21 Monochromatic wrote:On July 03 2012 06:17 aHaTsc wrote:On July 03 2012 06:15 Evangelist wrote:
So basically with a complete set of data the win rates of international and Korean TvZ are within a few percent of each other. As a terran I'm not going to discuss balance here (though I think Blizzard should consider this quite carefully) but I think that's quite a remarkable statistic. Not including Code A qualifiers or TSL4 KR Qualifiers (2 zerg dominated tournaments) is why it seems so close . Why don't we include all tournaments and qualifiers? That way there is nothing left out. Also, is there a way to get ladder winrate by leagues? Because I think that would be most telling of an imbalance. Qualifiers have never been included and I don't think they should be. There is not controling the number of players that can attempt to qualify or the quality of those players for all tournaments world wide. The ladder does not provide useful data to anyone except for Blizzard. It tries to give you a 50/50 win rate and matchs you according to that. TSL4 Kr qualifiers were basically a battle royale of Code S through B teamers. They weren't any old qualifier. I am sure it was, but that does not mean that it should be added to the stats. You can't add one qualifier and not another just because a lot of good players played in it. We can't add them all in because then the stats become meaningless or it gives people the ability to cherry pick the qualifiers that favor the way they want the match ups to look. The whole point if these win rates are to show the same or similar sets of data, month after month to see how the game looks at the highest level for each region. We can't just throw a qualifier or two in the middle of that because the bracket was stacked with pure-bad-ass nerds. If the data represented for Korean match statistics do not take into account something as important and relevant as the TSL4 KR qualifiers, they're flawed. And to ignore the TSL4 KR qualifiers, alone or combined with the rest of the data is the definition of cherry picking. Are you saying this because a lot of terrans lost to zergs in the TSL4 KR qualifiers? What if someone digs up the stats on a NA qualifier where a lot of protoss lost to terrans, but all the protoss were terrible? Should we include that one too? well i think we should because its a tournament and if they stated that the stats are based on tournaments then they shud include it imo. taken accounts in some tournaments and leaving out other is unfair imo. But they aren't tournaments, they are only qualifiers for tournaments. No qualifier has been used in the past, even when great players were in the qualifier. Why start adding them now?
hmm.. .. but what about code A trying to qualify for code S? they didnt just take the stats of only code S players.code B and A are trying to qualify too. how many TvZ matches are actually in code S? is that enough for the stats to determine balance? the range for this stat is too small imo. they didnt so do in the past and so i think this data doesnt make much sense because too less TvZ matches are played. i still think they shud start adding it for more data.
|
On July 03 2012 06:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 06:28 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 06:28 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 06:21 Monochromatic wrote:On July 03 2012 06:17 aHaTsc wrote:On July 03 2012 06:15 Evangelist wrote:
So basically with a complete set of data the win rates of international and Korean TvZ are within a few percent of each other. As a terran I'm not going to discuss balance here (though I think Blizzard should consider this quite carefully) but I think that's quite a remarkable statistic. Not including Code A qualifiers or TSL4 KR Qualifiers (2 zerg dominated tournaments) is why it seems so close . Why don't we include all tournaments and qualifiers? That way there is nothing left out. Also, is there a way to get ladder winrate by leagues? Because I think that would be most telling of an imbalance. Qualifiers have never been included and I don't think they should be. There is not controling the number of players that can attempt to qualify or the quality of those players for all tournaments world wide. The ladder does not provide useful data to anyone except for Blizzard. It tries to give you a 50/50 win rate and matchs you according to that. TSL4 Kr qualifiers were basically a battle royale of Code S through B teamers. They weren't any old qualifier. I am sure it was, but that does not mean that it should be added to the stats. You can't add one qualifier and not another just because a lot of good players played in it. We can't add them all in because then the stats become meaningless or it gives people the ability to cherry pick the qualifiers that favor the way they want the match ups to look. The whole point if these win rates are to show the same or similar sets of data, month after month to see how the game looks at the highest level for each region. We can't just throw a qualifier or two in the middle of that because the bracket was stacked with pure-bad-ass nerds.
So ESV with a bunch of Code B player should be counted but Code S-A-B stacked qualifier shouldn't be? Can't have it both way man..
|
Lol the contrast between Korean ZvT win rates in May and July. So this begs the question... are Korean terrans just mechanical gods or have they actually figured something out that allows them to work with the queen buff. I think the only way you can settle this is with replay analysis of a LOT of games. No amount of arguing on the forums is going to settle this.
|
On July 03 2012 07:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
Lol the contrast between Korean ZvT win rates in May and July. So this begs the question... are Korean terrans just mechanical gods or have they actually figured something out that allows them to work with the queen buff. I think the only way you can settle this is with replay analysis of a LOT of games. No amount of arguing on the forums is going to settle this.
Or you don't need that at all as including TSL4, OSL and GSL qualifiers show you the real numbers, which is 58,5% win for Z in TvZ.
|
The game is really balanced. Yes, there are some design flaws and parts that pigeonhole one into playing a certain way, but in terms of pure fairness you're not much better off picking one race over another when you started. Just because there are some dynamics players don't approve of (lategame tvp and tvz, broodlord infestor spine vs mothership archon gambling) doesn't change the fact that every matchup is quite close to 50/50 except tvz.
|
On July 03 2012 05:50 blamekilly wrote:
Why do you have to look at win loss statistics to see how balanced the game is? All you have to do is watch the actual games. Go watch gsl, gstl, tsl, mlg qualifier, osl prelim and try to tell me with a straight face that TvZ is balanced.
You sir are full of win!
Not in the sense that you claim TvZ imbalance though.
The concept of imbalance is a very deep topic and no sane person could ever prove that an actual imbalance exists.
Balance and imbalance are dual notions, so therefore it is equally hard to prove that the game is balanced by the same logic.
The only thing that realistically can be proven is some weird map specific issue where race X can rush Y units of some kind and somehow get a freewin. But even if such an issue was found, it could probably be solved by innovative play.
The cliff above the natural on lost temple comes to mind ...
So how do we go about it?
Well, if the game is played out in a retarded way over significant periods of time to remedy some kind of issue we could say stuff like: race X HAS to do strategy A vs race Y in the case that Y goes for strategy B, and this is bad gameplay.
Someone (day[9] I think) stated that the game will always have a balanced meta-game.
If the meta-game becomes retarded a change to the game might be needed.
Artosis used the "Terran starts with 2 marauders map" as an example and talked about the sick meta-game that would ensue where zerg has to 6 pool and protoss just automatically dies
All the attempts to use statistics to show imbalance are fundamentally flawed.
A 50% win-rate in all matchup does NOT have to imply that the game is balanced in any experienced Starcraft players view or by some reasonable definition that anyone would sign.
However, a balanced game (by the same persons view) has to imply a (close to) 50% winrate in all matchups.
It is very unlikely that the game can be perfectly balanced for all existing and future maps so one has to accept some small margin around 50%. It is of course good if not all maps show 49vs51 in the XvY matchup.
Sadly though, most people in the community seems to accept the notion that 50/50 win-rates is equivalent to balance.
If the game actually is imbalanced (only god knows this) the win-rates might still circle around 50% ± some acceptable margin. Maps that have really bad win percentages will be removed. Moreover, the maps might have to get very similar features to compensate for the imbalance. The meta-game will be very simple for the same reasons.
This is not a game that anyone wants, and therefore one has to be subjective when arguing "imbalance".
Persisting issues like the impossibility fast expanding in PvP is bad for the game in the sense that it gets more one-dimensional. Recently we have seen GSL level terrans struggle with their old openers and it seems that fast 3 ccs will almost be a necessity. In ZvP the games are often decided by a hit-or-miss vortex.
These are all examples of game design issues that causes bad game-play or perceived imbalance and limits creativity and the spectator experience.
Thus, even if we will never know if the game is balanced or not, it is still acceptable to change the game through patches to try to hone out the oddities. What such an oddity might be is highly subjective, but by listening to high level pros there seems to be a consensus about a list of things that makes the game bad.
Ultimately it is up to a hopefully objective part, Blizzard , to do something about it.
The community should just not be quiet about it and hope for fixes though.
It is reasonable to demand that changes are made in a way to be as minimal as possible. Patches should definitely not be implemented in a way that stifles creativity and causes the above mentioned issues that an imbalanced game will display.
To ensure this it is very important that the suggested changes are thoroughly tested by high level players over the course of several weeks and hundreds of games.
I feel that Blizzard has the wrong mentality about this. Check the link in my signature for a hilarious example.
A lot of pros has also expressed concerns over this.
I can only recall terran examples at the moment , but I'm sure others can find protoss and zerg pros having comments about some patch.
So this example is not to be viewed as balance whine, but merely an example of what I meant in the last paragraph:
Take qxc who directed criticism that would fall into the category above about the ghost nerf.
The patch was made to address issues of lategame ghost usage TvZ, but affected ghost usage in all stages of the game in every matchup. In particular it made the ghost almost useless vs brood lords and ultras.
I am not saying this is bad but in the comments to the patch Blizzard stated that they didn't want to redefine the role of the ghost in the TvZ matchup.
Therefore it seemed very reckless to implement the change without a PTR test period.
The patch did indeed change the role of the ghost since it is no longer used vs T3 zerg units.
Where does that leave us now? Should the patch have been reverted?
Also, they wrote that they didn't like the gameplay where a race could just sit back and mass casters.
This description doesn't make sense as it could also apply to infestors and high templars for example.
Ironically, the new thing suggested for lategame TvZ relies on hardcore turtling while massing ravens and waiting for them to get 125 energy for seeker missiles
As Sc2 is growing as an E-sport it is more and more important that patches are done in a consistent and orderly fashion as progamers careers are at stake.
The balance team has to show a lot more accountability, independence and integrity in my humble opinion.
Tl;dr:
Lies, damn lies and statistics really fits 90% of the posts in this thread.
Don't refer to these statistics to try to show imbalance/balance because then you are insane.
Instead talk about specific design issues that will improve gameplay if addressed.
See the qxc blog post about the snipe nerf for an excellent example how to discuss game issues while not lowering the level to the usual standard
Also , be nice and try to separate actual balance whine from people venting their frustrations after losing games.
|
Guess it's time to nerf Terran again.
|
TL would be a better place if no one ever makes threads/graphs like these again.
|
Someone should make a graph on how large percent of the people that think the game is balanced as of now are Zerg players x)
I guess maybe 95%
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
