[June] win rates are now here! - Page 16

On July 02 2012 22:26 Aocowns wrote:

lol yeah, that's what happens when you live in a team house and not a frat house

On July 03 2012 07:18 one-one-one wrote:


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.

On July 02 2012 23:04 Kenshi235 wrote:
I don't believe the TvZ winrate in Korea ~50/50. I'm calling bs on this. I'd like to know who regularly posts this and what games these are derived from.

I finally found out sample size is only 114 for KR TvZ and excludes Code A qualifers, TSL4 qualifiers, VS 996 sample size of international graph. I'm sorry, but I don't believe Koreans adapted to patch perfectly.

Code A + TSL qualifers are 220 sets alone. Good job lying with your statistics. I added TSL and Code A qualifers in from data further in post. Sample size is 334 and TvZ winrate is 41.5% for T. This is why you don't believe everything you hear.

On July 03 2012 07:17 Theovide wrote:

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.

On July 02 2012 22:20 Raid wrote:
Im shocked Korean TvZ is that balance while Internationally its gotten worse than ever.

Sample size is too small in Korea... but it still looked like every zerg was winning in Korea.. not sure whats up.

On July 03 2012 07:18 one-one-one wrote:


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.

On July 03 2012 08:05 boomudead1 wrote:
i think the stat shows here is invalid. even if its at the highest lvl of play assuming koreans are best. there can still be upsets. and what the heck only 110 or so games counted? i really wonder what the stat wud turn out if they were to count 1000 games. oh wait. thats international..

On July 03 2012 07:30 Silentness wrote:


Yeah you actually play the game for 10 hours a day or more depending on how strict the team is.

On July 03 2012 08:19 marcesr wrote:


...and live in an office building with 20+ people sleeping in 3 rooms. Gratz, what a life, thats where we have to get here as well!

I wonder how tournament results can be so heavily zerg favoured in GSTL, TSL qualifiers etc. and then the winrates show 50% win ratio.

On July 03 2012 07:43 PotatoJunior wrote:
I also love how the guy who made the TLPD June graph cherry picked some useless tournaments like Kespa invitational to help make it look like TvZ is terran favored, but sadly he could do nothing about foreign tournaments. Someone early on page 2 said it, if the graph included more tournaments, then Korean TLPD would be 41.5% for Terran.

This would not have to be explained if you followed the games as a hard core fan. You will naturally feel a problem with the statistics.

On July 03 2012 08:13 emc wrote:


and everyone knows internationally, there is a much bigger skill gap with a lot of awful players, a lot of mediocre players and very few korean caliber players. A guy like stephano will probably murder every terran internationally, but when he faces koreans thats a different story.

stats are stats, take it with a grain of salt or blow up like most people and take it as %100 fact, up to you.

On July 03 2012 07:28 4ZakeN87 wrote:
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%