EPTOn July 03 2012 07:19 Gobe wrote:
Guess it's time to nerf Terran again.
Guess it's time to nerf Terran again.
I lol'ed.
The TvZ KR stats really do not seem to be reflecting what I've been seeing.
[June] win rates are now here! - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
kckkryptonite
1126 Posts
I lol'ed. The TvZ KR stats really do not seem to be reflecting what I've been seeing. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
The Korean numbers look good, though they are not reliable yet because this "balance" could just be coused by new terran all ins that are taking Zergs by surprize. Not saying this is the case, but i think we need at least one more month before drawing conclusions. | ||
|
phodacbiet
United States1740 Posts
| ||
|
phodacbiet
United States1740 Posts
| ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
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. A mod should edit that into the OP and then lock the thread. | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
| ||
Empyrean
17046 Posts
| ||
|
cskalias.pbe
United States293 Posts
On July 02 2012 22:23 Whole wrote: Seems that Korean Terrans were busy figuring out the new TvZ while International Terrans were busy complaining about balance. ^^ This post is not getting nearly enough attention. I'm qualifying the rest of this with "In my experience...." I've found that most of the done damage I do happens when the zerg fails to block their ramp or their nat in some way. The queen range doesn't let me do as much damage, but if they are not in the right place, I'm still going to have the opportunity run by and hurt their economy. In addition, for creep control, the Queen still needs to PLANT the tumor. They can plant the tumor within their creep, and give you an easier time sniping the tumor off, OR they queen sloowwwllyy come off creep to give more defense to their tumor, which gives you a greater runby opportunity. On games with far thirds you have a decent runby opportunity when their queens come out, OR you force the zerg into some roaches, OR you delay their third fast enough to get your own quickly. Sure the queen buff hurt early game builds as T in general, but I still find all my losses vZ to be 90% my mistakes regardless (late game positioning, wasting my hellions, forgetting upgrades at the right times, etc, etc) | ||
|
Stress
United States980 Posts
On July 03 2012 10:28 Talack wrote: So these statistics are not correct is what I'm guessing? Correct, they don't include the TSL 4 Qualifiers and Code A Qualifiers. Leaving out a ton of games that skew the stats heavily into Zergs favor. Someone really needs to redo all of the data with Code A and TSL 4 Qualifiers added to the graphs to give an accurate representation. I would completely ignore all data in the OP until it is done so. | ||
|
PotatoJunior
United States7 Posts
On July 03 2012 10:28 Talack wrote: So these statistics are not correct is what I'm guessing? No statistics can ever be absolutely accurate, if that answers your question. Pertaining to the TLPD win rates, the korean graphs were skewed in favor of Terran by a slight percentage due to the selection of tournaments, which was achieved due to the lower population size. The foreign tournaments have a higher population, which makes it harder for any "accidental anomalies" to make a difference in the graphs, and thus the graph representing foreign tournaments likely portrays the actual state of the game. Whenever you have to judge something with a graph, use the graph with the most population size. | ||
|
Ace.Xile
United States286 Posts
On July 02 2012 22:18 phodacbiet wrote: Got it from twitter. But yeah PvZ looks pretty good actually, PvT is surprising as well with terran beginning to take the lead (what changed?). Frequency of strategies, small shifts in meta, strategies of the month etc etc. This is the key problem with using these things as meaning anything, trends by playstle and more change every month and it takes into account almost no extraneous variables. Small sample sizes that don't account for any extraneous variables and that are done with any sort of method, scientific or not, are pretty much useless honestly. This is why I don't understand why people even bother with balance threads, all people have is anecdotal evidence which proves nothing. For example even if zerg has a higher win ratethan terran it doesn't necessarily mean the game is imbalanced. Terran win rate could go up to 90% one month if all zergs just started 6 pooling every game. It wouldn't mean the match up is imbalanced, just that you can't keep using "x" strategy. | ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
On July 03 2012 10:41 cskalias.pbe wrote: Sure the queen buff hurt early game builds as T in general, but I still find all my losses vZ to be 90% my mistakes regardless (late game positioning, wasting my hellions, forgetting upgrades at the right times, etc, etc) The problem is, no matter what league you are in, you're supposed to play against players at your skills. So if you think you make mistakes, the other guys will also make mistakes here and there too. But because of the race, your mistake may be harder to recover than his (lose all the units due to bad rally point), or his mistake may be easier to recover (don't lose all bad rally zerglings becaue they're super fast) *example is example, nothing relevant here*. If you waste your hellions and forget upgrades, then that guy also waste his lings and forget upgrades too. | ||
|
PotatoJunior
United States7 Posts
On July 03 2012 10:48 Ace.Xile wrote: Frequency of strategies, small shifts in meta, strategies of the month etc etc. This is the key problem with using these things as meaning anything, trends by playstle and more change every month and it takes into account almost no extraneous variables. Small sample sizes that don't account for any extraneous variables and that are done with any sort of method, scientific or not, are pretty much useless honestly. This is why I don't understand why people even bother with balance threads, all people have is anecdotal evidence which proves nothing. For example even if zerg has a higher win ratethan terran it doesn't necessarily mean the game is imbalanced. Terran win rate could go up to 90% one month if all zergs just started 6 pooling every game. It wouldn't mean the match up is imbalanced, just that you can't keep using "x" strategy. Statistics are pretty much all we have, aside from player experience. Even then, it's not like you can read minds over great distances and collect unbiased experiences from different players. | ||
|
Ace.Xile
United States286 Posts
On July 03 2012 11:06 PotatoJunior wrote: Statistics is pretty much all we have, aside from player experience. I'm aware that it's all we have but it's kind of at the same time kind of useless. Like I said these stats mean literally nothing in the grand scheme, it's data that is pertty much useless because of all the faults. I understand people want to justify and say that something is imbalanced, you can speculate sure but there's quite a bit of difference between the speculation that is reasonable and the adamant knee jerk reactions that you see on 90% of posts. Data that is flawed is useless data. I could likely go make data tmrw that says that terran wins 95% of the time against zerg using specific data, it would be about as indicative of the true balance as this is. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 03 2012 11:06 PotatoJunior wrote: Statistics are pretty much all we have, aside from player experience. Even then, it's not like you can read minds over great distances and collect unbiased experiences from different players. There's 1 way to play TvZ right now, and it's mass bio expand. And no, it's not going to put you even. It puts you on a level to compete. | ||
|
Ace.Xile
United States286 Posts
On July 03 2012 11:15 Shiori wrote: There's 1 way to play TvZ right now, and it's mass bio expand. And no, it's not going to put you even. It puts you on a level to compete. There also used to be pretty much one way to play protoss, mass deathball with colossus and maybe a few HTs, there also used to be only one way to play zvt from the zerg perspective ling/bane/muta. Zealot/archon and ling/infestor were largely unknown or at least extremely underused for quite some time. Stating there is only 1 strategy to do something implies that all options have been explored, and citing bw as an example, there were new playstyles coming out a decade after the game was released. | ||
|
WeaponX.7
Canada52 Posts
| ||
|
Bippzy
United States1466 Posts
On July 03 2012 06:51 keglu wrote: Based oo that criteria game was balanced for a year now with exception for one month in ZvP. So where these all patches come from? Consider the following statement: Blizzard will patch if a race goes above 55% win rate so this can be concluded: If a race goes above 55% win rate, blizzard will patch. Not either of these: Blizzard will not patch if a race doesn't go above 55% win rate. If a race doesn't go above 55% win rate, blizzard will not patch. So yeah Blizz can patch if win rates don't matter, you are just trying to argue. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
On July 03 2012 09:28 DemigodcelpH wrote: In GSL Terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of June. Also A mod should edit that into the OP and then lock the thread. oh no, a 40/60 win rate? my god, the game must be broken. Just look at the graph yourself and see what the winrates used to be last year. It was brutal for Zergs from September to November in 2011. I bet we could have looked at Code A qualifiers back then and would've had a different picture painted. If we didn't count qualifiers back then, why should we now? to justify the terrans QQ? but we never did that for zerg OR protoss, and protoss has probably had it the worst in SC2. | ||
|
Drascus
United States100 Posts
My question is this. Terran have to have at least one rax with a tech lab to get stim if they're going bio. Why not make like, 2 marauders and kite queens all day long? 6 range, can get concussive shell, seems like you could either kill the queens or force them away from the leading edge of the creep and just kill any tumors that pop up un-supported. I'm aware there may be a perfectly good reason why this isn't done. I don't play at a high level and I don't play Terran but to me as a Zerg player it seems like the obvious counter. | ||
| ||
55,3% vs 44,7%. That would be 10,6% imbalance. And it would be even bigger if the international graph didn't include the Korean statistics. 
