|
http://minus.com/mLvjZlHez/1g
So it seems that TvZ in Korea is fairly balance, but the international games statistic is quite off. PvZ seems pretty balanced worldwide but it should be a couple months until blizzard buff/ or nerf something to oblivion to screw it up somehow someway. PvT seems VERY good but the Protoss strong late game and Terran strong mid game could still exist.
Yes, I know you guys are going to say Zerg is still broken by pointing out at the international graph "but but Korea doesn't have enough games! We cant tell if its imba/ or not based on a few games!", but think of it this way. If the win rates were balanced at the international level for TvZ but imbalanced for KR, would you have posted saying "but but we only look at KR for the highest level possible! Not international chobos?" Most people probably would. Once again, dont read too much into these graphs because they are only one way to decide balance. Yes we know that there are Zergs players that played terribly and lost, but that goes for Protoss and Terran players as well, everyone has their on and off days and these statistics should account for the chokers.
On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote: Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference:
June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24
So Ctuchik explained that the TLPD database doesnt include all the games, but it seems that zerg are indeed doing a bit better than their terran counterpart. To me, it seems like terrans can win when they prepare but lose when they dont have a set plan in mind for the zerg which could explain why they are doing a bit better in GSL than in other tourneys. IMO these stats WILL get worse for terrans since I dont see late game terran being that great. I think if they revert ghost snipe change it would make really interesting end games. Imagine a max zerg army and an army of ghosts and fungals/emp/snipes were being thrown everywhere would make a really great viewing experience =). But, knowing blizzard, next patch some random buff/nerf like "Zealots now get +2 range" will get thrown in and everyone will go O_O?
|
No offence, but isn't it normally Ctuchik who does these graphs?
I'm happy to see PvZ looking pretty much dead even in Korea, but a bit surprised by the Korean TvZ. I thought it would be more imbalanced than that.
|
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?).
|
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?).
Terran got better at not dying against squirtle timing. And generaly feelmore confident about the match up, which help a ton.
TvZ right now is almost the sameproblem, people are scared of it, not confident they can win, so they don't win as much.
|
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.
|
Hmm, I think the zerg buffs are showing accordingly, but terrans haven't yet gotten used to them. S'cool.
|
I would imagine that Terrans got better at abusing the mobility of the midgame when you have Medivacs/Stim/Combat shields etc. and denying Protoss from ever reaching 3+ bases comfortably.
I'd be very interested to see the stats of TvP at different time periods in the game. I think you would start off with it about even (maybe 2rax or blink all-ins or something at very low times) then a big swing to Terran in the midgame then a big swing to Protoss in the lategame.
|
Seems that Korean Terrans were busy figuring out the new TvZ while International Terrans were busy complaining about balance.
|
|
On July 02 2012 22:23 Whole wrote: Seems that Korean Terrans were busy figuring out the new TvZ while International Terrans were complaining about balance.
Which is kinda what happens everytime a patch hits that leads into a very heated discussion about balance.
Looking good as always, I'd say next month tvz should be almost 50% again.
|
On July 02 2012 22:23 Whole wrote: Seems that Korean Terrans were busy figuring out the new TvZ while International Terrans were complaining about balance. lol yeah, that's what happens when you live in a team house and not a frat house
|
Hmm these figures seems weird too me. I'll look into it.
|
United Kingdom38056 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.
All the korean Terrans complain about TvZ =p
but they're just much better players so still win games.
|
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.
The new TvZ looking at korean terrans games are various all-ins?
Nice!
Not to mention that all high end Korean Ts also complain about Z
|
On July 02 2012 22:26 Asha` wrote:Show nested quote +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. All the korean Terrans complain about TvZ =p but they're just much better players so still win games.
oh you!
ofc they complain about z, 51% winrate must feel underpowered after 2 years of dominating
|
fake? no way terran has had so many wins against zerg ive only seen zerg wins in gsl gstl etc
|
On July 02 2012 22:27 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +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. The new TvZ looking at korean terrans games are various all-ins? Nice! Not to mention that all high end Korean Ts also complain about Z
What game have you been playing for the past 2 years? =) somewhere, somehow, someway, someone is always complaining about something.
|
Foreigners can't typically create extremely solid styles on their own like the hellion opener. Only person who's been effective at something like that is Stephano. So when the game gets changed they have to wait for Koreans to figure everything out first.
|
On July 02 2012 22:29 mEtRoSG wrote: fake? no way terran has had so many wins against zerg ive only seen zerg wins in gsl gstl etc
Nah, Korean terrans are actually doing ok against zergs, they have found ways to beat them before 14 minutes.
|
OP, I think your little defensive speech does more harm than good. This thread will become pure zerg balance discussion.
|
On July 02 2012 22:29 Gentso wrote: Foreigners can't typically create extremely solid styles on their own like the hellion opener. Only person who's been effective at something like that is Stephano. So when the game gets changed they have to wait for Koreans to figure everything out first. MaNa? NaNiwa? HuK? All of them have created their own builds which are partly used in Korea aswell.
|
Germany1287 Posts
|
On July 02 2012 22:31 Bagi wrote: OP, I think your little defensive speech does more harm than good. This thread will become pure zerg balance discussion.
I think it was going to head that way anyways. I just gave everyone a model for their balance debates to save them time.
|
On July 02 2012 22:31 Tarotis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 22:29 Gentso wrote: Foreigners can't typically create extremely solid styles on their own like the hellion opener. Only person who's been effective at something like that is Stephano. So when the game gets changed they have to wait for Koreans to figure everything out first. MaNa? NaNiwa? HuK? All of them have created their own builds which are partly used in Korea aswell.
Not to mention ThorZain. The whole SlayerS house loves him because he is the epitome of safe, solid play - and very innovative in the lategame too (mass Reapers TvP).
|
On July 02 2012 22:29 Gentso wrote: Foreigners can't typically create extremely solid styles on their own like the hellion opener. Only person who's been effective at something like that is Stephano. So when the game gets changed they have to wait for Koreans to figure everything out first.
I think that is totally false......and I think you know its false. ThorZain, Illusion, QXC and other foreign terrans have their own type of style that works out for them and can be useful for almost any player.
|
Np i will still be bashed on ladder for playing "that race".
But i think we will make a full circle and soon Terran will be "that race" again.
|
This is just about what I expected from Korea after rewatching alot of the TvZs from June.
|
So basically what has happened in Korea is we get basically the same winrates as before the patch, but the matchup is terrible spectating wise whereas before it was the best in the game?
|
what happen is terran don't aim for late game and mixes in a ton of all in early or mid game, as we can see from recent games
|
TvZ Winrate international is constantly going down in all the months we can see. How far shall it go down that there is a reaction??
|
|
Internationally TvZ is still pretty screwed though and as usual Korean stats are affected by one guy winning a lot more than the international one due to low amount of data it has. We are still better to go with international one since it does have 3000 tournament matches played rather than mere 300 spread among all the match-ups.
|
Wait what else are these actually based on then Code A/S and maybe the Korean weekly which shouldnt be enough to push average?
|
What tournaments does the TLPD cover?
|
On July 02 2012 22:48 Mehukannu wrote: Internationally TvZ is still pretty screwed though and as usual Korean stats are affected by one guy winning a lot more than the international one due to low amount of data it has. We are still better to go with international one since it does have 3000 tournament matches played rather than mere 300 spread among all the match-ups.
One person is still highly unlikely to skew the matchup. Most of the occasions in which Koreans play many games in one month are abroad. In the GSL you just don't play enough games to really skew the data by a massive amount.
|
i love how crap protoss is
User was warned for this post
|
On July 02 2012 22:59 saMas wrote: i love how crap protoss is
errr what? tvp and zvp are near perfect...
|
in gsl terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of june....this graph is bs
|
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 02 2012 23:02 mEtRoSG wrote: in gsl terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of june....this graph is bs
Was just going to say the same... something wrong with the numbers here.
|
On July 02 2012 22:55 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 22:48 Mehukannu wrote: Internationally TvZ is still pretty screwed though and as usual Korean stats are affected by one guy winning a lot more than the international one due to low amount of data it has. We are still better to go with international one since it does have 3000 tournament matches played rather than mere 300 spread among all the match-ups. One person is still highly unlikely to skew the matchup. Most of the occasions in which Koreans play many games in one month are abroad. In the GSL you just don't play enough games to really skew the data by a massive amount. There was 111 games played on TvP, which means that one win will change the winrate about 1% It is same for the TvZ too. It is even worse in PvZ which has only 84 matches played. I don't know about you, but to me 1% change per win is pretty darn huge change on the statistics.
|
On July 02 2012 23:04 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:02 mEtRoSG wrote: in gsl terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of june....this graph is bs Was just going to say the same... something wrong with the numbers here.
gsl is around 50 games
those graphs cover alot more tournaments, just check the games number on the graph. gsl ones are included
|
United Kingdom38056 Posts
On July 02 2012 22:50 Adreme wrote:Wait what else are these actually based on then Code A/S and maybe the Korean weekly which shouldnt be enough to push average?
Probably has ESV, maybe some EWM. Would have KSL but the season is over (and maybe over forever TT)
Might even have PL lol
|
On July 02 2012 23:05 ChriseC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:04 CaptainCrush wrote:On July 02 2012 23:02 mEtRoSG wrote: in gsl terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of june....this graph is bs Was just going to say the same... something wrong with the numbers here. gsl is around 50 games those graphs cover alot more tournaments, just check the games number on the graph. gsl ones are included
this
Yea, These are KR stats. Not GSTL/GSL only stats.
|
On July 02 2012 22:54 graNite wrote: What tournaments does the TLPD cover? TLPD international includes most big and small tournaments (TSL4 Qualifiers, Weeklies, MLG/IPL/GESL etc). TLPD korea has GSL, Proleagues, Korean Weeklies etc.
However, it's missing for example the Code A Qualifiers (as far as I can tell?). That's games with about 200-300 players I suppose which are completely missing...
|
On July 02 2012 22:27 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +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. The new TvZ looking at korean terrans games are various all-ins? Nice! Not to mention that all high end Korean Ts also complain about Z Yes though they still win more, funny how that works out huh? Though timings also work too.
|
On July 02 2012 23:02 mEtRoSG wrote: in gsl terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of june....this graph is bs
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.
The statistics you see on the GSL page has games from 15 of may and forward and this is June only. That and the sample size from just GSL is kinda small (~100 games in 1,5 month) so calling these statistics out over the GSL statistics is quite stupid.
|
On July 02 2012 23:04 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:02 mEtRoSG wrote: in gsl terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of june....this graph is bs Was just going to say the same... something wrong with the numbers here. You surely realize there is more then just GSL in Korea right?
|
I love reading the comments on these TLPD Winrate threads lol I don't understand how people can look at these graphs and determine balance in the matchups -.- These graphs only show winrates not balance, and they certainly don't show that many matchups have become really boring to watch and to play imo.
|
On July 02 2012 22:50 Adreme wrote:Wait what else are these actually based on then Code A/S and maybe the Korean weekly which shouldnt be enough to push average? Korean database is not all about GSL anymore, but there's Proleague and ESV. ESV is really wild because the race distribution is varied from week to week, and Terran play ESV a lot. Moreover, there're lots of walkovers that have people go straight to ro16, ro8. Proleague is wild because the level of game is lower, and players are sent to play on just one map, so they have time to practice on that map specifically.
International looks skew because TSL4, DreamHack, MLG and the bunch are counted as International Tournaments.
Teaja is the other factor for Terran this month. Excluding TvT, he has gone 13-6 in TvZ and TvP, which although doesn't sound much, but since there're only ~200 games in Korean database, it skew couple percents in Terran favors.
So yeah, although Terran is losing in some tournament like GSL, TSL, Dreamhack, as long as Terran can hold ground in ESV, and Proleague, the stats will still looks balance.
|
Would be pretty cool if someone made the effort to show the winrate distribution of "important games" (major tournaments, etc.) since Starcraft II's release.
|
Lololol it didn't take much time for our dear Korean Terrans to get back on top. If only foreigners weren't so trashy now :'(
|
I always enjoy when people quote Korean Terrans on balance... I wonder why they're so upset, after 2 years of complete Terran dominance in which GomTV was GOMTVT it's no surprise that when the Zergs have a fighting chance, the games auto imbalanced. They're playing this game for money, they couldn't give a shit about whether they're biased or not, the more it favours them the more they can win.
So let us please stop quoting professional Korean Terran players going "it's so hard". Good, that's the idea of the game.
|
On July 02 2012 23:07 moe475 wrote:TLPD international includes most big and small tournaments (TSL4 Qualifiers, Weeklies, MLG/IPL/GESL etc). TLPD korea has GSL, Proleagues, Korean Weeklies etc. However, it's missing for example the Code A Qualifiers (as far as I can tell?). That's games with about 200-300 players I suppose which are completely missing...
if that's true it's really important, because terran got smacked brutally in the code a prelims.
|
On July 02 2012 23:02 mEtRoSG wrote: in gsl terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of june....this graph is bs GSL =/= Korean stats. There are more tournaments than that.
|
there has to be something hinky in this, every single tournament there has been terran has been doing terrible, you only need to look at tlpd invidual leagues and its quite obvious that the situation is horrible for terrans, so these statistics are somehow rigged
|
On July 02 2012 22:31 Tarotis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 22:29 Gentso wrote: Foreigners can't typically create extremely solid styles on their own like the hellion opener. Only person who's been effective at something like that is Stephano. So when the game gets changed they have to wait for Koreans to figure everything out first. MaNa? NaNiwa? HuK? All of them have created their own builds which are partly used in Korea aswell.
Ehhhhh, Naniwa had that two base collosus timing for a while and I'm not familiar with mana or huk creating a style of play that changed the meta game. I'm talking abut seriously figuring out something completely solid with timings figured out for attacks and defense that other people shift to. For the most part, foreigners create some personal builds that take games here and there but nothing too significant.
|
On July 02 2012 23:24 Satiinifi wrote: there has to be something hinky in this, every single tournament there has been terran has been doing terrible, you only need to look at tlpd invidual leagues and its quite obvious that the situation is horrible for terrans, so these statistics are somehow rigged
satinii i loved you in wc3 but plz stop whining in sc2 ! ^^
theres nothing rigged about those stats and anyone can easily see the individual games in tlpd
|
The graph doesn't represent my view of the balance. They must be fake.
oh you guys
|
Game looks very balanced atm
|
On July 02 2012 23:30 Benjamin99 wrote: Game looks very balanced atm
troll ?
|
On July 02 2012 23:32 NoDDiE wrote:troll ?
Look at the graph?
Matter infact acording to those winrates I cant recall seeing it so even ever
|
On July 02 2012 23:21 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I always enjoy when people quote Korean Terrans on balance... I wonder why they're so upset, after 2 years of complete Terran dominance in which GomTV was GOMTVT it's no surprise that when the Zergs have a fighting chance, the games auto imbalanced. They're playing this game for money, they couldn't give a shit about whether they're biased or not, the more it favours them the more they can win.
So let us please stop quoting professional Korean Terran players going "it's so hard". Good, that's the idea of the game.
Lol, the game has been hard for terrans for a while now, if only Blizzard could do the same for zerg and protoss then us terrans would be happy. Just look at all the Blizzard WCS Nationals/Qualifiers + TSLs and look at the number of Terrans, not to mention all the good foreigner zergs/toss compared to good foreigner terrans. Zergs and Protoss sure have gotten better lol or maybe they're just easier to play, dunno which one seems more plausible ? xD
|
Looking pretty good balance wise. ZvT is scraping the edges though,which is a bit worrysome.
|
On July 02 2012 23:34 Benjamin99 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:32 NoDDiE wrote:On July 02 2012 23:30 Benjamin99 wrote: Game looks very balanced atm troll ? Look at the graph?
you can't be serious lol...
|
On July 02 2012 23:34 Benjamin99 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:32 NoDDiE wrote:On July 02 2012 23:30 Benjamin99 wrote: Game looks very balanced atm troll ? Look at the graph?
and ? korea : 100 games. 1 game = 1% not even worth watching unless it would be something ridiclous like 25-75
international zvt 55-45 for 2nd month. same as year ago for tvz. and in that time zerg were crying HEAVILY that t>>>>>>>>>>z. also tvp : t > p mid game p > t late game. i woudlnt call it balance in terms of gameplay. are you sure you aren't trolling ?
|
On July 02 2012 23:35 rysecake wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:34 Benjamin99 wrote:On July 02 2012 23:32 NoDDiE wrote:On July 02 2012 23:30 Benjamin99 wrote: Game looks very balanced atm troll ? Look at the graph? you can't be serious lol...
Explain to me where you see a matchup that looks unbalance in this graph. They are allmost at 50% in Korea if thats not a balanced game then i dont know what is?
On July 02 2012 23:37 NoDDiE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:34 Benjamin99 wrote:On July 02 2012 23:32 NoDDiE wrote:On July 02 2012 23:30 Benjamin99 wrote: Game looks very balanced atm troll ? Look at the graph? and ? korea : 100 games. 1 game = 1% not even worth watching unless it would be something ridiclous like 25-75 international zvt 55-45 for 2nd month. same as year ago for tvz. and in that time zerg were crying HEAVILY that t>>>>>>>>>>z. also tvp : t > p mid game p > t late game. i woudlnt call it balance in terms of gameplay. are you sure you aren't trolling ?
these are the stats from June like every other month
|
Good job blizzard, continue to improve balance and don't listen to whiners
|
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?).
protoss doesn´t know how to defend 2 base all ins
|
On July 02 2012 23:37 Benjamin99 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:35 rysecake wrote:On July 02 2012 23:34 Benjamin99 wrote:On July 02 2012 23:32 NoDDiE wrote:On July 02 2012 23:30 Benjamin99 wrote: Game looks very balanced atm troll ? Look at the graph? you can't be serious lol... Explain to me where you see a matchup that looks unbalance in this graph. They are allmost at 50% in Korea if thats not a balanced game then i dont know what is?
yes, i forgot about the graph, it's balanced i guess. Also forgot I'm speaking to a kid born in 99, so 13 yrs old? I recommend you major in statistics in a couple years.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 02 2012 23:38 rysecake wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:37 Benjamin99 wrote:On July 02 2012 23:35 rysecake wrote:On July 02 2012 23:34 Benjamin99 wrote:On July 02 2012 23:32 NoDDiE wrote:On July 02 2012 23:30 Benjamin99 wrote: Game looks very balanced atm troll ? Look at the graph? you can't be serious lol... Explain to me where you see a matchup that looks unbalance in this graph. They are allmost at 50% in Korea if thats not a balanced game then i dont know what is? yes, i forgot about the graph, it's balanced i guess. Also forgot I'm speaking to a kid born in 99, so 13 yrs old? I recommend you major in statistics in a couple years.
+1 on 99 argument.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 02 2012 23:38 rysecake wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:37 Benjamin99 wrote:On July 02 2012 23:35 rysecake wrote:On July 02 2012 23:34 Benjamin99 wrote:On July 02 2012 23:32 NoDDiE wrote:On July 02 2012 23:30 Benjamin99 wrote: Game looks very balanced atm troll ? Look at the graph? you can't be serious lol... Explain to me where you see a matchup that looks unbalance in this graph. They are allmost at 50% in Korea if thats not a balanced game then i dont know what is? yes, i forgot about the graph, it's balanced i guess. Also forgot I'm speaking to a kid born in 99, so 13 yrs old? I recommend you major in statistics in a couple years.
Wow personal insults? So you pissed the game is not unbalance becuase in you mind it is? Btw reason why im called Benjamin99 got nothign todo with my age but the fact Benjamin wasnt available!
Whine more child
|
On July 02 2012 23:41 Benjamin99 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:38 rysecake wrote:On July 02 2012 23:37 Benjamin99 wrote:On July 02 2012 23:35 rysecake wrote:On July 02 2012 23:34 Benjamin99 wrote:On July 02 2012 23:32 NoDDiE wrote:On July 02 2012 23:30 Benjamin99 wrote: Game looks very balanced atm troll ? Look at the graph? you can't be serious lol... Explain to me where you see a matchup that looks unbalance in this graph. They are allmost at 50% in Korea if thats not a balanced game then i dont know what is? yes, i forgot about the graph, it's balanced i guess. Also forgot I'm speaking to a kid born in 99, so 13 yrs old? I recommend you major in statistics in a couple years. Wow personal insults? So you pissed the game is not unbalance becuase in you mind it is? Btw reason why im called Benjamin99 got nothign todo with my age but the fact Benjamin wasnt available! Whine more child
Yes, you totally got me!
|
On July 02 2012 23:37 NoDDiE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:34 Benjamin99 wrote:On July 02 2012 23:32 NoDDiE wrote:On July 02 2012 23:30 Benjamin99 wrote: Game looks very balanced atm troll ? Look at the graph? and ? korea : 100 games. 1 game = 1% not even worth watching unless it would be something ridiclous like 25-75international zvt 55-45 for 2nd month. same as year ago for tvz. and in that time zerg were crying HEAVILY that t>>>>>>>>>>z. also tvp : t > p mid game p > t late game. i woudlnt call it balance in terms of gameplay. are you sure you aren't trolling ? + Show Spoiler +The hell are you all on about. There were only 8 additional games in KR-May but it was 100% for Terrans to flip the fuck out all month?
NOW the chart is misleading? NOW it's unfair to cite the chart? NOW that it isn't helping your argument? I want you to walk away from the computer right now and think about what you're saying. No, no you know what no. I need to stay away from these threads. Inferring data from these statistics is only for amusement. I don't mind Blizzards approach of looking at all games but taking a small sample each month and flipping shit over it is ridiculous. Maybe Zergs played against worse opponents? Who knows! No one here will because they will not do the leg work of cross checking all 100+ Korean games (Let alone the thousands of international) and compare the ELO of opponents, consider their history and whether they're traditionally weak or strong in a match up. Or even if they were screwing around and trying wacky strategies that were not completely ready. Or maybe they had a bad case of the shits.
It's just a number and people take these threads and stretch that number out to mean whatever they want. I'm never posting in one of these threads again.
Final note: I apologize for quoting you NoDDiE. It singles you out and makes it look like my contempt and frustration is directed solely at you. This is for every post of Terran whine I've read in the last two months. It's been brewing a long time and I needed to let it loose or else it was just going to fester.
|
both of you stfu plz, we dont need that talk in here
Just remember its a graph. KR stats are 'very low amount of games'. Always take it with a grain of salt. And no balance discussions plz. You guys only choose the graph that 'helps' your argument. So why not no arguing at all?
|
So what I could take from this discussion with Rysecake and NoDDie is they aperently dont give a shit about statistic. its all a lie and infact the game is so unbalance becuase they SAYD SO!
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Seems like KSL/... had a huge impact on TvZ as GSL/GSTL was pretty bad imho Oo
|
On July 02 2012 23:44 Benjamin99 wrote: So what I could take from this discussion with Rysecake and NoDDie is they aperently dont give a shit about statistic. its all a lie and infact the game is so unbalance becuase they SAYD SO!
you don't seem to understand you cannot just look at a graph without seeing the sample size do you?
your spelling is certainly convincing me you chose your name because benjamin wasn't available.
|
Right now the win% for game length would be the most interesting. The balanced overall graphs came with a huge price i fear.
|
On July 02 2012 23:43 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:37 NoDDiE wrote:On July 02 2012 23:34 Benjamin99 wrote:On July 02 2012 23:32 NoDDiE wrote:On July 02 2012 23:30 Benjamin99 wrote: Game looks very balanced atm troll ? Look at the graph? and ? korea : 100 games. 1 game = 1% not even worth watching unless it would be something ridiclous like 25-75international zvt 55-45 for 2nd month. same as year ago for tvz. and in that time zerg were crying HEAVILY that t>>>>>>>>>>z. also tvp : t > p mid game p > t late game. i woudlnt call it balance in terms of gameplay. are you sure you aren't trolling ? The hell are you all on about. There were only 8 additional games in KR-May but it was 100% for Terrans to flip the fuck out all month?NOW the chart is misleading? NOW it's unfair to cite the chart? NOW that it isn't helping your argument? I want you to walk away from the computer right now and think about what you're saying.
This chart use TLPD and thus is useless for the korean side because it ignores the biggest event: Code A qualifier.
|
On July 02 2012 23:44 rysecake wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:44 Benjamin99 wrote: So what I could take from this discussion with Rysecake and NoDDie is they aperently dont give a shit about statistic. its all a lie and infact the game is so unbalance becuase they SAYD SO!
you don't seem to understand you cannot just look at a graph without seeing the sample size do you?
A sample is a sample what do you want a million games? they do this each month and the sample size is about the same from Korea. So if you wanna disregard this month becuase it dont suit you beliefs you have to disregard every month. Its a real bad argument
|
a lot of people seem to be forgetting that a 55/45 tilt doesn't effectively mean that 45/100 terrans will beat a zerg at all times... there is still the underlying problem that a lot of pro terran players feel that they only win <40% versus zerg, and a lot of pro zerg players feel they win >60% against terran. there aren't many pro players advocating the opposite.
personally i think terran has become too predictable, lacking viable options since they've all been nerfed. therefore terran is overly dependent on successful coinflips to get an advantage (or to NOT get a disadvantage).
|
On July 02 2012 23:47 Benjamin99 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:44 rysecake wrote:On July 02 2012 23:44 Benjamin99 wrote: So what I could take from this discussion with Rysecake and NoDDie is they aperently dont give a shit about statistic. its all a lie and infact the game is so unbalance becuase they SAYD SO!
you don't seem to understand you cannot just look at a graph without seeing the sample size do you? A sample is a sample what do you want a million games? they do this each month and the sample size is about the same from Korea. So if you wanna disregard this month becuase it dont suit you beliefs you have to disregard every month. Its a real bad argument
Actually no the sample is not the same as before. We have different leagues to consider now, most notably proleague.
|
idk how to read the graphs. help?
|
The interesting question, in my opinion, is whether or not Blizzard will actually address the broken TvZ matchup or not.
They could well leave it alone since HotS is so close to being released. In fact, a heavily imbalanced matchup could even be a selling point for people to switch over, cynical as it may sound.
|
there's no way that graph is correct. I remember seeing wwwaaaayyyy more Zerg wins than I did with Terrans. Where were these games taken from?
|
I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing.
|
On July 02 2012 23:52 blamekilly wrote: there's no way that graph is correct. I remember seeing wwwaaaayyyy more Zerg wins than I did with Terrans. Where were these games taken from?
You've seen all the games played in the graph? Pretty impressive man.
|
On July 02 2012 23:47 Benjamin99 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:44 rysecake wrote:On July 02 2012 23:44 Benjamin99 wrote: So what I could take from this discussion with Rysecake and NoDDie is they aperently dont give a shit about statistic. its all a lie and infact the game is so unbalance becuase they SAYD SO!
you don't seem to understand you cannot just look at a graph without seeing the sample size do you? A sample is a sample what do you want a million games? they do this each month and the sample size is about the same from Korea. So if you wanna disregard this month becuase it dont suit you beliefs you have to disregard every month. Its a real bad argument
1 game diffrence leading to 1% winrate diffrence is trustworthy sample size for you ? [kr]
|
On July 02 2012 23:50 RUFinalBoss wrote: idk how to read the graphs. help? 1. click on the link 2.choose which graph you wanna browse by clicking it 3. click "view original (1612px by 1033px) 4. click the picture with your mouse to zoom-in
well at least that's how I inspect the graphs
|
Why is it hosted on that weird minus website? Whats wrong with imgur?
|
On July 02 2012 23:53 IshinShishi wrote: I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing.
Good on you for being skeptical, but these are indeed legit. =P
You can always check my twitter for the originals.
Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference:
June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13
|
On July 02 2012 23:59 Hypemeup wrote: Why is it hosted on that weird minus website? Whats wrong with imgur?
Imgur upload was broken, still seems to be. =(
|
This graph is a useless metric considering the sample. I'd have to see thousands to make an opinion, not 100.
|
On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:53 IshinShishi wrote: I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing. Good on you for being skeptical, but these are indeed legit. =P You can always check my twitter for the originals. Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference: June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24
Thank you for posting the actual data. That graph is missing roughly another 200 games...
not to mention the osl qualifiers
|
On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:53 IshinShishi wrote: I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing. Good on you for being skeptical, but these are indeed legit. =P You can always check my twitter for the originals. Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference: June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24
Soooo, ESV weekly is counted in your calculations that push TvZ winrates to Terran favored (apart from KSL the only Terran favored TvZ on your list), which is an online KR only tournament, but an online TSL4 KR only tournament isn't counted? That's pretty strange. Or Code A qualifiers?
TLDR: Sod off OP, your claim is biased on poor reporting of graphical data that nitpicked incorrectly.
|
On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:53 IshinShishi wrote: I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing. Good on you for being skeptical, but these are indeed legit. =P You can always check my twitter for the originals. Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference: June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24
Could you make a graph with those games included? I'm just curious how it looks
|
Wow... Terrans are ripping TvP pretty bad... how was it that a month ago Terrans were whinning like crazy... should let the ZvT match-up go on a lil longer to see how things balance out there as well...
|
Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game.
|
On July 03 2012 00:07 mec wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote:On July 02 2012 23:53 IshinShishi wrote: I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing. Good on you for being skeptical, but these are indeed legit. =P You can always check my twitter for the originals. Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference: June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Could you make a graph with those games included? I'm just curious how it looks
Would be TvZ in Korea 139 - 196. Which is 41.5% T to 58.5% Z
|
On July 03 2012 00:07 mec wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote:On July 02 2012 23:53 IshinShishi wrote: I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing. Good on you for being skeptical, but these are indeed legit. =P You can always check my twitter for the originals. Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference: June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Could you make a graph with those games included? I'm just curious how it looks
139-196.
so roughly 41 % T vs 59% for Z.
edit: im too slow =(
|
On July 03 2012 00:09 Falconblade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:07 mec wrote:On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote:On July 02 2012 23:53 IshinShishi wrote: I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing. Good on you for being skeptical, but these are indeed legit. =P You can always check my twitter for the originals. Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference: June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Could you make a graph with those games included? I'm just curious how it looks Would be TvZ in Korea 139 - 196. Which is 41.5% T to 58.5% Z
Thanks, well that should add some fuel on the fire. Terrans, go at it!
|
On July 03 2012 00:09 Falconblade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:07 mec wrote:On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote:On July 02 2012 23:53 IshinShishi wrote: I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing. Good on you for being skeptical, but these are indeed legit. =P You can always check my twitter for the originals. Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference: June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Could you make a graph with those games included? I'm just curious how it looks Would be TvZ in Korea 139 - 196. Which is 41.5% T to 58.5% Z
This should be added in the OP :/
That said, I still dont like these stats, 50% winrate are misleading since it doesnt reflect the content of the games, only the outcome. Having 50% winrates with only cheeses or 200supply 1a games isn't something Blizzard should be satisfied with.
|
On July 02 2012 23:30 Benjamin99 wrote: Game looks very balanced atm
still thinking the same ?
|
On July 03 2012 00:10 mec wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:09 Falconblade wrote:On July 03 2012 00:07 mec wrote:On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote:On July 02 2012 23:53 IshinShishi wrote: I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing. Good on you for being skeptical, but these are indeed legit. =P You can always check my twitter for the originals. Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference: June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Could you make a graph with those games included? I'm just curious how it looks Would be TvZ in Korea 139 - 196. Which is 41.5% T to 58.5% Z Thanks, well that should add some fuel on the fire. Terrans, go at it! Let the terran buffs rain! =D ... ... No? ... Darn. =[
|
How does tvp look good? I'm reading it wrong or something because it looks like Terran has the advantage every month. I mean, terran players whine even when it's clear they are favored. If they aren't crying non stop, then obviously something is horribly wrong. O, no, if the game goes to 50 minutes, I lose some of my advantage. Ptff.
|
they should just revert the queen changed and everything would be fine... until hots
|
On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote: That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. [/[/[/ Not sure about code A qualifiers (weren't they all in may anyway?) but KR TSL qualifier data is in international TLPD (due to this being international tournament - same story with homestorycup qualifiers).
|
give terrans some time, and it'll be a lot closer.
|
On July 03 2012 00:19 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote: That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. [/[/[/ Not sure about code A qualifiers (weren't they all in may anyway?) but KR TSL qualifier data is in international TLPD (due to this being international tournament - same story with homestorycup qualifiers). It's still 99% Korean players in the TSL Kr qualies, so it gives useful data for how the game is working in Korea.
|
On July 03 2012 00:19 playa wrote: How does tvp look good? I'm reading it wrong or something because it looks like Terran has the advantage every month. I mean, terran players whine even when it's clear they are favored. If they aren't crying non stop, then obviously something is horribly wrong. O, no, if the game goes to 50 minutes, I lose some of my advantage. Ptff. It has been said a ton of times already, but terrans are complaining about the bad late-game that terrans have in the match-up, also it is the most stale match-up ever. That in it self would make people complain about it.
|
On July 03 2012 00:19 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote: That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. [/[/[/ Not sure about code A qualifiers (weren't they all in may anyway?) but KR TSL qualifier data is in international TLPD (due to this being international tournament - same story with homestorycup qualifiers).
nvm, misread.
|
On July 03 2012 00:22 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:19 playa wrote: How does tvp look good? I'm reading it wrong or something because it looks like Terran has the advantage every month. I mean, terran players whine even when it's clear they are favored. If they aren't crying non stop, then obviously something is horribly wrong. O, no, if the game goes to 50 minutes, I lose some of my advantage. Ptff. It has been said a ton of times already, but terrans are complaining about the bad late-game that terrans have in the match-up, also it is the most stale match-up ever. That in it self would make people complain about it.
If that's the case, then toss players need to start crying that it's impossible/hard to make it to the late game, because obviously that's either not happening that much or it's a bs premise to begin with.
|
This chart has been and probably will be in the future nothing more than a giant distraction. Anything that isnt code S player vs code S player is virtually useless and even then you have to factor in so many variables that getting good data is very very hard (maps opening etc.).
For example lets say you want to argue the 6 queen build is imbalance using data. You get 100 games that have a TvZ record of like 48-52 but of those games lets say 44 have the 6 queen build and lets say they went 30-14. Even that data isnt enough to prove anything because maps still play a role and who is playing in those games still play a role. So in order to see anything you would have to watch each game which sort of defeats purpose of this chart anyway.
|
On July 03 2012 00:24 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:22 Mehukannu wrote:On July 03 2012 00:19 playa wrote: How does tvp look good? I'm reading it wrong or something because it looks like Terran has the advantage every month. I mean, terran players whine even when it's clear they are favored. If they aren't crying non stop, then obviously something is horribly wrong. O, no, if the game goes to 50 minutes, I lose some of my advantage. Ptff. It has been said a ton of times already, but terrans are complaining about the bad late-game that terrans have in the match-up, also it is the most stale match-up ever. That in it self would make people complain about it. If that's the case, then toss players need to start crying that it's impossible/hard to make it to the late game, because obviously that's either not happening that much or it's a bs premise to begin with.
Balance and bad design are two different things. Terrans are crying about TvP because of bad design. Sure we can get 50% win, but the matchup is just not interesting/fun to play on the terran side of things.
|
On July 03 2012 00:24 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:22 Mehukannu wrote:On July 03 2012 00:19 playa wrote: How does tvp look good? I'm reading it wrong or something because it looks like Terran has the advantage every month. I mean, terran players whine even when it's clear they are favored. If they aren't crying non stop, then obviously something is horribly wrong. O, no, if the game goes to 50 minutes, I lose some of my advantage. Ptff. It has been said a ton of times already, but terrans are complaining about the bad late-game that terrans have in the match-up, also it is the most stale match-up ever. That in it self would make people complain about it. If that's the case, then toss players need to start crying that it's impossible/hard to make it to the late game, because obviously that's either not happening that much or it's a bs premise to begin with. I think TvP is a stale matchup, but balance concerns arise out of the fact that at sub high-Masters level, the matchup is next to impossible because people either don't have the crispness of play (Protoss) or the APM to micro late (Terran). At the highest level, the matchup is completely fine.
|
Looks like its fairly balanced overall. Its just a chaotic type of balance; each race seems to have its turn in the sun each month (except protoss ). But still they're not that much lower
|
There's a huge difference between tournaments and ladder matches. For those of you who still think ladder winrates matter.
|
On July 03 2012 00:27 DidYuhim wrote: There's a huge difference between tournaments and ladder matches. For those of you who still think ladder winrates matter.
because clearly code a and osl qualifiers are ladder matches
|
On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too...
User was warned for this post
|
TvP stats are wrong too, in fact, this thread should be closed or OP edited with complete graphs, I look at it and imagine Browder talking about siege tanks being too strong and terran deathballs.
|
On July 03 2012 00:06 Falconblade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote:On July 02 2012 23:53 IshinShishi wrote: I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing. Good on you for being skeptical, but these are indeed legit. =P You can always check my twitter for the originals. Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference: June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Soooo, ESV weekly is counted in your calculations that push TvZ winrates to Terran favored (apart from KSL the only Terran favored TvZ on your list), which is an online KR only tournament, but an online TSL4 KR only tournament isn't counted? That's pretty strange. Or Code A qualifiers? TLDR: Sod off OP, your claim is biased on poor reporting of graphical data that nitpicked incorrectly. TLPD only counts ESV games starting from ro8. ESV has way more Terran participated in every week, and they got walkovers left and right. For example, We have Terran participants like Jjaki, theStC, Teaja, Ganzi, while the most notable Zerg participated were Leenock, Seal (who didn't show up and were walkovered), Life (who won that ESV)
|
Holy crap I didn't know the May win rates for Korean zvt were so skewed. 120 games sucks, but at least for me it's showing that Korean balance for that mu isn't horrific. I mean if something was truly imbalanced, they'd be winning more, regardless of whether or not they're having an off day.
Edit: Although I swore more terrans were losing, apparently the statistics are buggy?
|
On July 03 2012 00:28 Roggay wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too... Find me some professional Terrans (or honest Zergs) who think that TvZ isn't favouring Zerg right now. Besides, didn't you see the updated stats? Terran is at 41% if you factor those in.
|
On July 03 2012 00:32 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:28 Roggay wrote:On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too... Find me some professional Terrans (or honest Zergs) who think that TvZ isn't favouring Zerg right now. Besides, didn't you see the updated stats? Terran is at 41% if you factor those in.
Considering Zerg was at 39% just last month, that actually isn't too bad at all considering how much whine was going round.
edit: I was expecting something like a 25% winrate for Terran to justify all the whine. Nope, turns out that when Terran goes below 45% for the first time in the race's entire history it is enough to justify a forum explosion.
|
This Thread is very interesting...
last month:
"look how imbalanced it is in Korea!" "The sample is too small and doesnt include all..." "Doesnt matter! Zerg imba!" "Look at the international graph, it got a bigger sample size and is pretty balanced" "International doesnt matter!"
This month:
"wtf Korea balanced... you must have made this up!" "its the same like every month..." "no you made it up and besides the sample size is too small and doesnt cover all tournaments!" "but last month you said...." "Shut up! Just look at international!" "but last month..." "Doesnt matter, zerg imba!"
|
I wish win rates weren't looked at too much, but rather we should look at the match-ups more thoroughly.
From a spectator view I loved TvZ before queen patch, but now it feels that the whole match-up has been dumbed down and it's just a bad match-up overall.
Balanced or not? I don't want to take part in that, since it's not what concerns me most.
|
you got winrates by game time? That would be useful info
|
you could also add tvz winrates from
mlg kr open qualifier (41-41) mlg kr invite qualifier (25-19) ipl5 kr qualifier (11-11)
which in itself results in 77-71 (52%) winrate for terran
but then again, korean tlpd never included these kind of qualifiers, it was always gsl/gstl, korean weekly, ewm and now proleague
|
On July 03 2012 00:40 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:32 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 00:28 Roggay wrote:On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too... Find me some professional Terrans (or honest Zergs) who think that TvZ isn't favouring Zerg right now. Besides, didn't you see the updated stats? Terran is at 41% if you factor those in. Considering Zerg was at 39% just last month, that actually isn't too bad at all considering how much whine was going round. edit: I was expecting something like a 25% winrate for Terran to justify all the whine. Nope, turns out that when Terran goes below 45% for the first time in the race's entire history it is enough to justify a forum explosion.
.... Zerg was at 39% just last month? June? Please link me to the thread with that.
|
On July 03 2012 00:42 BlindKill wrote: you got winrates by game time? That would be useful info
Yeah, I'd love this. I reckon all non-mirror matchups would be heavily skewed.
|
On July 03 2012 00:44 Digamma wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:40 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:32 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 00:28 Roggay wrote:On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too... Find me some professional Terrans (or honest Zergs) who think that TvZ isn't favouring Zerg right now. Besides, didn't you see the updated stats? Terran is at 41% if you factor those in. Considering Zerg was at 39% just last month, that actually isn't too bad at all considering how much whine was going round. edit: I was expecting something like a 25% winrate for Terran to justify all the whine. Nope, turns out that when Terran goes below 45% for the first time in the race's entire history it is enough to justify a forum explosion. .... Zerg was at 39% just last month? June? Please link me to the thread with that.
May. Last month before the month which just had stats released. Don't be facetious.
edit: boy was I wrong. My bad, that was Terran xD
|
well the only important things i watch from kr are gsl code a / s and their quali and those things terran did poorly vs zerg
I dont think the list is complete when u just take random stuff...from one tourney and leave out other stuff, thats just not complete and makes for a poor list and should not be worth the effort (only worth it if u wanna fuck up other peoples perception....but who is that retarded?)
|
On July 03 2012 00:45 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:42 BlindKill wrote: you got winrates by game time? That would be useful info Yeah, I'd love this. I reckon all non-mirror matchups would be heavily skewed. Yes, we need to take out those walkovers that I'm sure won't help that 41%.
|
On July 03 2012 00:41 Charon1979 wrote: This Thread is very interesting...
last month:
"look how imbalanced it is in Korea!" "The sample is too small and doesnt include all..." "Doesnt matter! Zerg imba!" "Look at the international graph, it got a bigger sample size and is pretty balanced" "International doesnt matter!"
This month:
"wtf Korea balanced... you must have made this up!" "its the same like every month..." "no you made it up and besides the sample size is too small and doesnt cover all tournaments!" "but last month you said...." "Shut up! Just look at international!" "but last month..." "Doesnt matter, zerg imba!"
haha. Why stop at last month? Could have done this for the last year.
|
Even though I'm a protoss player, and all my match ups are quite balanced. (at least according to the states before some zerg or terran runs in and cries that protoss is op).
However I'm interested on how TvZ has been going to the last half a year. It seems they have been overnerfed, from one side from having either lategame weakened with the ghost nerf and from other side having their early game weakened by the queen range buff.
It seems it's really hard to play terran against zerg, from all my offrace match ups, TvZ seems the hardest. Zerg gets their creep across all the map, gets early broodlords and infestors and I can't pressure him because of the queens. While going macro doesn't look effective because late game is at zerg's favor while the ghost.
Personally, I dislike those changes and think that at least one of them should be reverted for TvZ balance. Either ghost snipe being back or queen range going away. This is from a protoss player point of view though.
|
On July 03 2012 00:46 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:44 Digamma wrote:On July 03 2012 00:40 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:32 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 00:28 Roggay wrote:On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too... Find me some professional Terrans (or honest Zergs) who think that TvZ isn't favouring Zerg right now. Besides, didn't you see the updated stats? Terran is at 41% if you factor those in. Considering Zerg was at 39% just last month, that actually isn't too bad at all considering how much whine was going round. edit: I was expecting something like a 25% winrate for Terran to justify all the whine. Nope, turns out that when Terran goes below 45% for the first time in the race's entire history it is enough to justify a forum explosion. .... Zerg was at 39% just last month? June? Please link me to the thread with that. May. Last month before the month which just had stats released. Don't be facetious. You're reading it wrong -_-
|
Proxy barracks keeping Terrans in shape.
|
On July 03 2012 00:40 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:32 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 00:28 Roggay wrote:On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too... Find me some professional Terrans (or honest Zergs) who think that TvZ isn't favouring Zerg right now. Besides, didn't you see the updated stats? Terran is at 41% if you factor those in. Considering Zerg was at 39% just last month, that actually isn't too bad at all considering how much whine was going round. edit: I was expecting something like a 25% winrate for Terran to justify all the whine. Nope, turns out that when Terran goes below 45% for the first time in the race's entire history it is enough to justify a forum explosion. Even forgetting about the fact that it was Terran at 39-41% last month, not Zerg, the fact that you expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order to justify the MU being imbalanced shows you have no idea how this stuff works. This reddit post should be required reading for people to talk about these graphs. There is no way any race could get a 25% winrate especially not in the month after a change.
|
On July 03 2012 00:50 Sent. wrote: Proxy barracks keeping Terrans in shape.
Actually, I have seen a lot of proxy rax and 2 rax recently. In my opinion, this trend is develping again because Terrans try to avoid the late game.
|
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.
|
i don't really need these graphs, i just look who qualifies for TSL, HSC, OSL and WCS and get angry that these rare and special tournaments have their qualifiers right now, because OSL and WCS happen for the first time in sc2, and the other tournaments are very rare compared to MLGs and GSL for example, where terrans are right back if the game changes play or patchwise.
|
On July 03 2012 00:55 Warpish wrote:Actually, I have seen a lot of proxy rax and 2 rax recently. In my opinion, this trend is develping again because Terrans try to avoid the late game.
i agree, i have avoided late game as much as possible over the last few weeks, my tvz wins all come from 2 raxxing or another all in, PERSONALLY i dont know how to play tvz lategame right now, i have tryed so many options but they dont seem to work for me, note im top 8 masters on both EU and NA
|
On July 02 2012 22:29 Tsubbi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 22:26 Asha` wrote: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. All the korean Terrans complain about TvZ =p but they're just much better players so still win games. oh you! ofc they complain about z, 51% winrate must feel underpowered after 2 years of dominating They complain because it is ridiculous to be more mechanically skilled than your opponent and yet have no real chance of winning unless your opponent messes up.
|
On July 03 2012 01:08 AltOptimus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:55 Warpish wrote:On July 03 2012 00:50 Sent. wrote: Proxy barracks keeping Terrans in shape. Actually, I have seen a lot of proxy rax and 2 rax recently. In my opinion, this trend is develping again because Terrans try to avoid the late game. i agree, i have avoided late game as much as possible over the last few weeks, my tvz wins all come from 2 raxxing or another all in, PERSONALLY i dont know how to play tvz lategame right now, i have tryed so many options but they dont seem to work for me, note im top 8 masters on both EU and NA
Here is my argument why Terran avoids late-game:
People are now familiar with the common argument that the queen range buff made Zerg OP because Terran can't no longer do damage to Zerg economy early-game and Zerg can just be greedy and drone up to more than 70 and it's very difficult to beat Zerg after that. Before the 1.4.3.2 patch, Terran can do early and serious economic damage to Zerg, so Terran can beat Zerg in the mid-to-late game.
But why is that Terran has to do early economic damage to Zerg to win?
In fact, this is implicitly saying that there are some inherent problems in TvZ late-game. This is saying that if both sides are peaceful before mid-game, and then both sides start battling, Terran will have difficulty beating Zerg.
Is there truly some inherent problems in TvZ late-game? Let's do some analyses.
There are two main late-game Zerg composition these days: 1, ultra + zergling + bane + roach + infestor; 2, broodlord + corruptor + infestor + zergling + bane + roach. The ratio of different units is different in different situations but the essence is in the above composition.
There are also two main late-game Terran composition in response to the above Zerg composition: 1, marine + marauder + tank + medivac + ghost + thor 2, marine + marauder + tank + medivac + ghost + thor + viking + raven
You may already see the problems in the above compositions. That is you can hardly see the full composition of "marine + marauder + tank + medivac + ghost + thor + viking + raven", though there have been some rare situation that such composition is developed in TvZ.
But it’s much easier to see the full composition of “ultra + zergling + bane + roach + infestor” and “broodlord + corruptor + infestor + zergling + bane + roach”.
Terran mostly is using their tier 1 and tier 2 units to fight the “full-tiers” composition of Zerg. So why doesn’t Terran build higher-tier units?
Many people have said things like “marine counters everything” or “Terran should explore more compositions behind MMM balls” or “Many Terrans overlook that ghost is so good” or “Terran should use raven late-game; they are powerful than most people think”.
But the truth is not that Terran doesn’t want to build higher-tier units or Terran players are too stupid to come up with new late-game compositions but that their higher-tier units are either not worth building or too expensive for the crippled late-game economy.
Let’s do some comparison. 1. Viking vs Corruptor Viking is widely used in TvZ but it’s not so good compare to corruptor which is considered the most powerful air-to-air unit in the game.
Corruptor: Cost: 150 / 100 Build time: 40 Life: 200
Viking: Cost: 150 / 75 Build time: 42 Life: 125
Viking can’t win corruptor with the same supply. Some one may said you can kite Corruptor because Viking’s range is 9. But no you can’t, because corruptor is much faster than Viking. It’s like saying you can use tank to kite roach.
So, you have to use PDD to win an air battle against Corruptor. But your Viking will face the danger of fungal growth.
2. Ultra vs Thor Normally Terran doesn’t use Thor to fight ultra, but actually Thor wins in one on one against ultra by one shot. But still people normally use marauder to counter ultra. Why? One important reason is that ultra has a build time buff in 1.4.0 where its build time decreased from 75 to 55.
Ultra: Cost: 300 / 200 Build time: 55 Speed: 2.9531. Speed Multiplier on Creep: 1.3
Thor: Cost: 300/ 200 Build time: 60 Speed: 1,875
You would just wonder with larvae Zerg can build multiple units much faster than other races, why their late-game units have shorter build time than other races? They just do. When Zerg normally build 3-5 ultra at a time, you never saw a Terran build more than 2 thors at one time. And did you see the mobility of ultra?
3. Ghost / Raven vs Infestor
Infestor Cost: 100 / 150 Build time: 50
Ghost Cost: 200 / 100 Build time: 40
Raven Cost: 100 / 200 Build time: 60
First fungal growth outranges EMP and sniper. The range of fungal is 9 + 2 = 11. EMP is 10 + 1.5 = 11.5 But EMP requires an animation while fungal is instant cast, so fungal can always hit ghost before ghost can shoot EMP. Snipe’s range is 10 and it requires an animation too, so fungal easily outranges snipe too.
Also, the ghost cost change from 150 / 150 to 200 / 100 is definitely a nerf, according to QXC and Bomber. Late-game Terran has excessive gas but lacks mineral, the cost change increased the mineral cost but reduced the gas cost.
This is not my point. It's the words from QXC and Bomber. In SOTG EP72, QXC talks about why ghost's cost will damage the production of other Terran units in the mid-to-late game. Bomber in the GSL interview this season laid out the reason that he built raven late-game is that Terran has excessive gas the late-game but enough mineral. (Raven cost is 100 / 200).
But when do you see auto-turret? Infested terran is now used in almost every TvZ matchup to shot down dropships, to attract enemy fire, and even to mass infested terrans like in Freaky’s play. Infested terran is 25 energy cost but has a range fo 9. Auto-turret is 50 energy cost but has a range of 3. And the DPS of one auto-turret is much lower than two infested terrans.
The infestors pit costs 100 / 100 and a build time of 50. The starport and tech lab combine cost 200 / 125 and a build time of 75. And three raven researches cost 600 / 600 and research time of 330. But the infestor researches cost 300 / 300 and research time of 190.
Several raven is easily shut down by chain fungal + infested terran. But you can’t even use seeker missile to kill infestors before they use fungal and infested terran, because the range of seeker missile is 6 but the fungal growth’s range is 11 and the infested Terran’s range is 9 + 5 = 14.
Creep and Burrowed Unit
Beside all the above comparisons of late-game units, Zerg has several advantages late-game. First, one hatchery’s max larvae number is 19. When Zerg has more than 5 bases, they may have more than 100 larvae at maximum.
Also, Terran’s expansion to the fourth base is easily blocked by creep. Killing the creep and wait for the creep to go away will cost another 2 minutes. In addition, a single burrowed Zergling can deny your further expansion and force you to bring several marines back and use a scan to clean up the burrowed Zerglings.
The suggestion for further patches: 1. Don’t revert the queen buff, but change the range to 4 should be the best solution. Anyone remember of the pre-patch days when BFH just kill all the drones right away will not support reverting the queen buff.
2. Zerg’s burrowed Light units can no longer prevent Terran flying build from landing. The burrowed Light unit will instantly die when building lands. (Terran flying building still cannot land with unburrowed Light units or other non-Light burrowed units underneath.)
3. Revert ghost cost to 150 / 150 or 125 / 150. Snipe changed to 45 (30 vs Massive)
4. Some minor Raven buff: ----Auto-turret's hit point increased to 200, up from 150 and damage increased to 12, up from 10. ----Seeker Missile's casting range increased to 7, up from 6. ----Durable Materials research removed. Auto-Turrets and Point Defense Drones's duration are now 240 seconds. Seeker Missile's duration is now 20 seconds.
|
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.
Do you really think PvZ is imbalanced towards zerg? I understand if you just disagree with some of the lategame mechanics in zerg deathball vs vortex, but I hardly think it's fair to say the matchup is broken towards zerg.
|
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.
So zerg is so OP they only have 3 good players?
Terran and Protoss are so underpowered that almost the entire korean pro scene is made up of terran/toss?
|
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?
|
I still don't get how 1-sided the tvp whines are. They flat out win more games every month. Yet, I'm only supposed to hear about how the late game is in favor of the protoss. I've never once in my life played a game where I just magically ended up in the late game; there was no such thing as an early game. So, the question is, if toss has an imbalanced part of the game in their favor, then just how imbalanced are the other stages of the game that you can't avoid? I've never heard anyone say "I'm stronger at every part of the game but the late game, and that game design bothers me."
Then I hear interviews with David Kim where he is talking about analyzing the late game and noticing the stats are a lot more balanced than people are letting on to... (correct me if I'm wrong). Terran players are either imbalanced when it comes to crying, or they are just really good players that earn their > than Toss win percent, every day.
New player and biased, sure, but something doesn't add up for me. I think it's a bs matchup and it's gay that nothing in the stargate is worth making in the mu and there's 10000 god damn things to research and 100000 timing windows to kill you. Meanwhile, being able to stay on tier 1 all game sounds real hard.
|
On July 03 2012 00:41 Charon1979 wrote: This Thread is very interesting...
last month:
"look how imbalanced it is in Korea!" "The sample is too small and doesnt include all..." "Doesnt matter! Zerg imba!" "Look at the international graph, it got a bigger sample size and is pretty balanced" "International doesnt matter!"
This month:
"wtf Korea balanced... you must have made this up!" "its the same like every month..." "no you made it up and besides the sample size is too small and doesnt cover all tournaments!" "but last month you said...." "Shut up! Just look at international!" "but last month..." "Doesnt matter, zerg imba!"
But clearly terran is under powered! It has to be....I mean....terrans keep losing....50% of the time.
I guess terrans are not used to waiting for the pro to figure out the next go to build or play style to copy. Protoss and zerg are used to waiting months before a solid, well rounded build is found.
|
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. That's likely due to your bias. You see Terran lose a couple games and zerg lose a couple and focus much more strongly on the Terran losses.
I do find it fairly amusing that Terran has the best win rate in Korea considering the state of the current balance whining.
|
Reading this thread shows how sad people are. Can't accept Z isn't imba...
|
On July 03 2012 01:33 playa wrote: I still don't get how 1-sided the tvp whines are. They flat out win more games every month. Yet, I'm only supposed to hear about how the late game is in favor of the protoss. I've never once in my life played a game where I just magically ended up in the late game; there was no such thing as an early game. So, the question is, if toss has an imbalanced part of the game in their favor, then just how imbalanced are the other stages of the game that you can't avoid? I've never heard anyone say "I'm stronger at every part of the game but the late game, and that game design bothers me."
Then I hear interviews with David Kim where he is talking about analyzing the late game and noticing the stats are a lot more balanced than people are letting on to... (correct me if I'm wrong). Terran players are either imbalanced when it comes to crying, or they are just really good players that earn their > than Toss win percent, every day.
New player and biased, sure, but something doesn't add up for me. I think it's a bs matchup and it's gay that nothing in the stargate is worth making in the mu and there's 10000 god damn things to research and 100000 timing windows to kill you. Meanwhile, being able to stay on tier 1 all game sounds real hard. I said this for quite awhile actually. Terrans think they suck at late game vs protoss? Well considering the balance that obviously mean Protoss sucks early game vs Terran.
|
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.
THIS!
Please lock this thread now
|
Protoss nealry not getting above 50% against P/Z once in one year (international graph), thats sso confusing. I don't get this, many of the foreigners i'd consider being the stronger players are often times P, pretty often Z, but very rarely T. Even in Korea P's don't look so hot anymore. Pretty surprised that the "OP race" has such a hard time getting at least even.
|
On July 03 2012 01:36 mrtomjones wrote:Show nested quote +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. That's likely due to your bias. You see Terran lose a couple games and zerg lose a couple and focus much more strongly on the Terran losses. I do find it fairly amusing that Terran has the best win rate in Korea considering the state of the current balance whining.
Seeing as that is a false statement as it has been pointed out that the Korea stats show ESV online matches, but don't take into account TSL Qualifiers which are also online, and by no means less than ESV. On pure GSL, GSTL, etc, TvZ is below 50, throw in ESV, it goes to slightly over, throw in TSL, it drops magnificently to show Zerg winning more.
Sampling Bias!
|
On July 03 2012 01:43 EnE wrote:Show nested quote +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. THIS!Please lock this thread now lol Evidence must be wrong! It doesn't agree with what I know for a fact!
If you listened to certain shows in the last while you would realize that Korean Terrans HAVE adapted quite a bit already. If you want to look at balance you should never look at international too much. Korea also ALWAYS adapts faster than International scenes do. Code A qualifiers shouldn't be included due to the non Pro players in there and the people who just aren't very good playing in it. TSL should probably be included but yah.
|
On July 03 2012 01:44 CruelZeratul wrote: Protoss nealry not getting above 50% against P/Z once in one year (international graph), thats sso confusing. I don't get this, many of the foreigners i'd consider being the stronger players are often times P, pretty often Z, but very rarely T. Even in Korea P's don't look so hot anymore. Pretty surprised that the "OP race" has such a hard time getting at least even.
It's widely known that Protoss has the lowest skill ceiling in terms of what you can do with your APM, that's the nature of the race design and that's why in Korea, Protoss players really don't differ as much stylistically. Evidence of this is seen in the massive impact the Protoss buff at the beginning of 2012, and Protoss performance has improved drastically as a result of this.
The opposite is true of Terran as a race, it has the highest skill ceiling, so the tournament results vary massively across the board, to the point where the less skilled players cannot compete, whilst the pros still can after nerfs.
|
On July 02 2012 22:25 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +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. It may well be "worse than ever", but it's scraping the 55/45 limit that Blizzard has stated several times is perfectly acceptable...
hmm? TvZ Korea is actually 50.9 / 49.1, Terran favoured The only MU scraping 55/45 is TvP which is 54.1 / 45.9, Terran favoured t.t
|
I don't think these winrates prove anything. You have to look at win by game time.
|
On July 03 2012 00:41 Charon1979 wrote: This Thread is very interesting...
last month:
"look how imbalanced it is in Korea!" "The sample is too small and doesnt include all..." "Doesnt matter! Zerg imba!" "Look at the international graph, it got a bigger sample size and is pretty balanced" "International doesnt matter!"
This month:
"wtf Korea balanced... you must have made this up!" "its the same like every month..." "no you made it up and besides the sample size is too small and doesnt cover all tournaments!" "but last month you said...." "Shut up! Just look at international!" "but last month..." "Doesnt matter, zerg imba!"
People will always turn statistics into their favour, but this is something I've been think about before, what games are counted and which are not. Not saying that these graphs needs to be remade, but that everyone should consider what games are represented. Also one should consider the various game lengths and build orders on how it influences the statistics.
|
I don't believe that considering TSL4 shows 1T 1P and 8zergs in top10 finals, and if u look at top20 its over 15 zergs
|
|
Am I the only one in here that is annoyed by the poor level of knowledge about basic statistics?
There is a lot of herpeteederp going on here about the interpretation of the presented data.
Here is what this all means. It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread. + Show Spoiler +see what I did there?
Ok, so people have mentioned the "small" sample size being an issue. There seems to be some consensus that a larger sample is better. But how big does it have to be to give reliable answers?
Imo. the creator of these graphs should do a more thorough presentation and also specify how reliable the numbers are.
I will take the Korean TvZ numbers as an example. The data from June is based on 114 games. If you do the maths you will realize that there are 58 Terran wins and 56 Zerg wins. + Show Spoiler +58/114 = 0.50877.. 56/114 = 0.49122.. 56+58=114
Now, let us assume that there is an actual imbalance in the sense that over many games one of the races will win x% of them for players above some (high) skill level. Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game.
Now we want to determine x using only a small sample of games. Imagine that we reversed time and played those 114 games again. It is unlikely that every game has the exact same outcome as before because of random stuff that might happen. + Show Spoiler +To make the problem more clear. Flip a coin twice. With a 50% likelihood you will get either tails-tails or heads-heads. From the sample size of 2 coin flips alone it is then hard to say that the coin-flip game is "balanced".
Fortunately this problem is already solved in the world of statistics. We can calculate a so called confidence interval from the data. To do this, go to: http://www.mccallum-layton.co.uk/stats/ConfidenceIntervalCalcProportions.aspx and enter the numbers 114 as sample size and 50.9 as Observed Proportion. Set the confidence interval to 95% and calculate to get a confidence interval of 9.18%.
The interpretation of this number is: with a certainty of 95% the number that we seek , x , is in the interval 50.9 ± 9.18 %.
Now, this doesn't tell us very much does it ? It could be as bad as good (from a T perspective) as a 60.1% TvZ favor or as bad as a 41.7% disfavor.
If we do the calculation with a larger sample size with data from TSL4 Code A qualifiers we get a sample size of 335 games with 139 Terran wins and 196 Zerg wins. The observed proportion is now: 139/335 = 41.5 %. Going back to the site above and entering these numbers gives us a 95% confidence interval of 5.28%.
The number x would then lie in the interval 41.5 ± 5.28% , i.e. between 36.2% and 46.78% with a 95% certainty.
+ Show Spoiler +- But hey! You just proved that the game IS imbalanced. + Show Spoiler +- No N00B, I did not! l2maths !!!
The problem is that my assumptions are a bit flawed. It is nice to idealize things to make the maths more clear, but in the real world Starcraft 2 is a constantly developing game. It only takes one game to revolutionize TvZ by abusing some timing or some other innovative play. People study each others games and learn from them.
Only if these numbers persist over several months we can begin to talk about some kind of imbalance.
And even if the numbers somehow finds their way into the 50±5 % interval that Blizzard wants it doesn't have to mean that the game is any better than today. It has been stressed so many times by clever individuals in this forum that one has to look subjectively on the games. Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ? This means both a balanced and fair game and a nice viewer experience.
I'll conceal some kind of balance whine in a spoiler to illustrate my point. Don't click this if you are a sensitive individual!! + Show Spoiler +Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common.
Oh, don't forget to check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval
edit: and play around a little bit with different confidence intervals and other parameters on the statistics page I linked to above.
|
On July 03 2012 00:03 rysecake wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote:On July 02 2012 23:53 IshinShishi wrote: I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing. Good on you for being skeptical, but these are indeed legit. =P You can always check my twitter for the originals. Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference: June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Thank you for posting the actual data. That graph is missing roughly another 200 games... not to mention the osl qualifiers
Well, let's forget the OSL qualifiers, as this should be about the winrates in June, but the TSL qualifiers should definitely be included.
|
On July 03 2012 01:15 sieksdekciw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 22:29 Tsubbi wrote:On July 02 2012 22:26 Asha` wrote: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. All the korean Terrans complain about TvZ =p but they're just much better players so still win games. oh you! ofc they complain about z, 51% winrate must feel underpowered after 2 years of dominating They complain because it is ridiculous to be more mechanically skilled than your opponent and yet have no real chance of winning unless your opponent messes up. I love you for this post. This is 100% accurate also. I played a game the other day where I outplayed a Protoss completely and still lost. Like someone said earlier they just need a few Archons and to continuously warp in Chargelots and eventually you will overrun the Terran
|
On July 03 2012 01:33 playa wrote: I still don't get how 1-sided the tvp whines are. They flat out win more games every month. Yet, I'm only supposed to hear about how the late game is in favor of the protoss. I've never once in my life played a game where I just magically ended up in the late game; there was no such thing as an early game. So, the question is, if toss has an imbalanced part of the game in their favor, then just how imbalanced are the other stages of the game that you can't avoid? I've never heard anyone say "I'm stronger at every part of the game but the late game, and that game design bothers me."
Then I hear interviews with David Kim where he is talking about analyzing the late game and noticing the stats are a lot more balanced than people are letting on to... (correct me if I'm wrong). Terran players are either imbalanced when it comes to crying, or they are just really good players that earn their > than Toss win percent, every day.
New player and biased, sure, but something doesn't add up for me. I think it's a bs matchup and it's gay that nothing in the stargate is worth making in the mu and there's 10000 god damn things to research and 100000 timing windows to kill you. Meanwhile, being able to stay on tier 1 all game sounds real hard. Reading this gives the idea that you think these statistics have any impact on your level of play("tier 1 all game"?You deserve the sanctimony), they don't, korean terrans can exploit the windows with great agression, foreign terrans have shown multiple times throughout sc2 history( winning a major tournament once a year) that they aren't good enough to do that, all the way down to the lower levels, not because the worse foreign players happened to pick terran, and their counterparts just happen to be awesome, that's retarded, but because it's freaking hard to execute your game plans, whilst death balling and playing to the late game is not hard at all if people don't know how to kill you effectively with early/mid game maneuveurs, anyone can smoothly max in sc2, pretty easy to understand really.
|
On July 03 2012 01:55 one-one-one wrote:Am I the only one in here that is annoyed by the poor level of knowledge about basic statistics? There is a lot of herpeteederp going on here about the interpretation of the presented data. Here is what this all means. It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread. + Show Spoiler +see what I did there? Ok, so people have mentioned the "small" sample size being an issue. There seems to be some consensus that a larger sample is better. But how big does it have to be to give reliable answers? Imo. the creator of these graphs should do a more thorough presentation and also specify how reliable the numbers are. I will take the Korean TvZ numbers as an example. The data from June is based on 114 games. If you do the maths you will realize that there are 58 Terran wins and 56 Zerg wins. + Show Spoiler +58/114 = 0.50877.. 56/114 = 0.49122.. 56+58=114 Now, let us assume that there is an actual imbalance in the sense that over many games one of the races will win x% of them for players above some (high) skill level. Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. Now we want to determine x using only a small sample of games. Imagine that we reversed time and played those 114 games again. It is unlikely that every game has the exact same outcome as before because of random stuff that might happen. + Show Spoiler +To make the problem more clear. Flip a coin twice. With a 50% likelihood you will get either tails-tails or heads-heads. From the sample size of 2 coin flips alone it is then hard to say that the coin-flip game is "balanced". Fortunately this problem is already solved in the world of statistics. We can calculate a so called confidence interval from the data. To do this, go to: http://www.mccallum-layton.co.uk/stats/ConfidenceIntervalCalcProportions.aspx and enter the numbers 114 as sample size and 50.9 as Observed Proportion. Set the confidence interval to 95% and calculate to get a confidence interval of 9.18%. The interpretation of this number is: with a certainty of 95% the number that we seek , x , is in the interval 50.9 ± 9.18 %. Now, this doesn't tell us very much does it ? It could be as bad as good (from a T perspective) as a 60.1% TvZ favor or as bad as a 41.7% disfavor. If we do the calculation with a larger sample size with data from TSL4 Code A qualifiers we get a sample size of 335 games with 139 Terran wins and 196 Zerg wins. The observed proportion is now: 139/335 = 41.5 %. Going back to the site above and entering these numbers gives us a 95% confidence interval of 5.28%. The number x would then lie in the interval 41.5 ± 5.28% , i.e. between 36.2% and 46.78% with a 95% certainty. + Show Spoiler +- But hey! You just proved that the game IS imbalanced. + Show Spoiler +- No N00B, I did not! l2maths !!! The problem is that my assumptions are a bit flawed. It is nice to idealize things to make the maths more clear, but in the real world Starcraft 2 is a constantly developing game. It only takes one game to revolutionize TvZ by abusing some timing or some other innovative play. People study each others games and learn from them. Only if these numbers persist over several months we can begin to talk about some kind of imbalance. And even if the numbers somehow finds their way into the 50±5 % interval that Blizzard wants it doesn't have to mean that the game is any better than today. It has been stressed so many times by clever individuals in this forum that one has to look subjectively on the games. Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ? This means both a balanced and fair game and a nice viewer experience. I'll conceal some kind of balance whine in a spoiler to illustrate my point. Don't click this if you are a sensitive individual!! + Show Spoiler +Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common. Oh, don't forget to check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval
Wow, that is some amazing word smithing you did there. I like how you over complicate basic statistics in an effort to cook the numbers toward proving terran is underpowers. It falls directly in line with your previous post history in the "terran is having a hard time" threads in the past. I also like how you talk down to the readers and tell them they are not qualified to post about the stats unless they UNDERSTAND your findings.
Highlight quotes below:
"Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. " - clearly we cannot assume that anyone in NA is playing to win.
"It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread." - Clearly we have been living our lives wrong all along. Time to leave my well playing job and go back to highschool.
"Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common." - This has a ton to do with win rates.
"Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ?" I don't really know what this means or what it has to do with over all win rates. If a terran loses a game before 17 minutes, does that no count either?
This man has a future in cooking numbers. I work for some pretty large banks and they would love to employee someone like him.
|
Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg.
|
On July 03 2012 02:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 01:55 one-one-one wrote:Am I the only one in here that is annoyed by the poor level of knowledge about basic statistics? There is a lot of herpeteederp going on here about the interpretation of the presented data. Here is what this all means. It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread. + Show Spoiler +see what I did there? Ok, so people have mentioned the "small" sample size being an issue. There seems to be some consensus that a larger sample is better. But how big does it have to be to give reliable answers? Imo. the creator of these graphs should do a more thorough presentation and also specify how reliable the numbers are. I will take the Korean TvZ numbers as an example. The data from June is based on 114 games. If you do the maths you will realize that there are 58 Terran wins and 56 Zerg wins. + Show Spoiler +58/114 = 0.50877.. 56/114 = 0.49122.. 56+58=114 Now, let us assume that there is an actual imbalance in the sense that over many games one of the races will win x% of them for players above some (high) skill level. Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. Now we want to determine x using only a small sample of games. Imagine that we reversed time and played those 114 games again. It is unlikely that every game has the exact same outcome as before because of random stuff that might happen. + Show Spoiler +To make the problem more clear. Flip a coin twice. With a 50% likelihood you will get either tails-tails or heads-heads. From the sample size of 2 coin flips alone it is then hard to say that the coin-flip game is "balanced". Fortunately this problem is already solved in the world of statistics. We can calculate a so called confidence interval from the data. To do this, go to: http://www.mccallum-layton.co.uk/stats/ConfidenceIntervalCalcProportions.aspx and enter the numbers 114 as sample size and 50.9 as Observed Proportion. Set the confidence interval to 95% and calculate to get a confidence interval of 9.18%. The interpretation of this number is: with a certainty of 95% the number that we seek , x , is in the interval 50.9 ± 9.18 %. Now, this doesn't tell us very much does it ? It could be as bad as good (from a T perspective) as a 60.1% TvZ favor or as bad as a 41.7% disfavor. If we do the calculation with a larger sample size with data from TSL4 Code A qualifiers we get a sample size of 335 games with 139 Terran wins and 196 Zerg wins. The observed proportion is now: 139/335 = 41.5 %. Going back to the site above and entering these numbers gives us a 95% confidence interval of 5.28%. The number x would then lie in the interval 41.5 ± 5.28% , i.e. between 36.2% and 46.78% with a 95% certainty. + Show Spoiler +- But hey! You just proved that the game IS imbalanced. + Show Spoiler +- No N00B, I did not! l2maths !!! The problem is that my assumptions are a bit flawed. It is nice to idealize things to make the maths more clear, but in the real world Starcraft 2 is a constantly developing game. It only takes one game to revolutionize TvZ by abusing some timing or some other innovative play. People study each others games and learn from them. Only if these numbers persist over several months we can begin to talk about some kind of imbalance. And even if the numbers somehow finds their way into the 50±5 % interval that Blizzard wants it doesn't have to mean that the game is any better than today. It has been stressed so many times by clever individuals in this forum that one has to look subjectively on the games. Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ? This means both a balanced and fair game and a nice viewer experience. I'll conceal some kind of balance whine in a spoiler to illustrate my point. Don't click this if you are a sensitive individual!! + Show Spoiler +Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common. Oh, don't forget to check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval Wow, that is some amazing word smithing you did there. I like how you over complicate basic statistics in an effort to cook the numbers toward proving terran is underpowers. It falls directly in line with your previous post history in the "terran is having a hard time" threads in the past. I also like how you talk down to the readers and tell them they are not qualified to post about the stats unless they UNDERSTAND your findings. Highlight quotes below:"Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. " - clearly we cannot assume that anyone in NA is playing to win. "It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread." - Clearly we have been living our lives wrong all along. Time to leave my well playing job and go back to highschool. "Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common." - This has a ton to do with win rates."Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ?" I don't really know what this means or what it has to do with over all win rates. If a terran loses a game before 17 minutes, does that no count either?This man has a future in cooking numbers. I work for some pretty large banks and they would love to employee someone like him.
I don't think you understand that many times win rates are used in balance discussions.
|
On July 03 2012 02:13 SniXSniPe wrote: Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg. Because it is a qualifer, so anyone could sign up? I am pretty sure they did not include qualifers for other tournaments either.
|
On July 03 2012 02:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:13 SniXSniPe wrote: Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg. Because it is a qualifer, so anyone could sign up? I am pretty sure they did not include qualifers for other tournaments either.
Some posts above, someobdy claimed that the Code A qualifiers were also neglected, but they do have a limitation on your bnet rank, so shouldn't they at least be included?
|
On July 03 2012 02:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:13 SniXSniPe wrote: Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg. Because it is a qualifer, so anyone could sign up? I am pretty sure they did not include qualifers for other tournaments either.
http://www.teamliquid.net/tournaments/admin/?action=bracket&id=3217
Go through that list, and point out any subpar players for me.
The fact is, every single TSL4 KR qualifier is completely stacked.
|
Kind of expected, outside Korea terrans aren't changing their builds fast enough for the meta game shift but in Korea they adapted pretty quickly and its balanced out.
|
On July 03 2012 02:18 SniXSniPe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:15 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 02:13 SniXSniPe wrote: Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg. Because it is a qualifer, so anyone could sign up? I am pretty sure they did not include qualifers for other tournaments either. http://www.teamliquid.net/tournaments/admin/?action=bracket&id=3217Go through that list, and point out any subpar players for me. The fact is, every single TSL4 KR qualifier is completely stacked.
If they don't include the qualifier for other tournaments, why would they include this one? Just because there are good players does not mean its a tournament.
|
On July 03 2012 02:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 01:55 one-one-one wrote:Am I the only one in here that is annoyed by the poor level of knowledge about basic statistics? There is a lot of herpeteederp going on here about the interpretation of the presented data. Here is what this all means. It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread. + Show Spoiler +see what I did there? Ok, so people have mentioned the "small" sample size being an issue. There seems to be some consensus that a larger sample is better. But how big does it have to be to give reliable answers? Imo. the creator of these graphs should do a more thorough presentation and also specify how reliable the numbers are. I will take the Korean TvZ numbers as an example. The data from June is based on 114 games. If you do the maths you will realize that there are 58 Terran wins and 56 Zerg wins. + Show Spoiler +58/114 = 0.50877.. 56/114 = 0.49122.. 56+58=114 Now, let us assume that there is an actual imbalance in the sense that over many games one of the races will win x% of them for players above some (high) skill level. Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. Now we want to determine x using only a small sample of games. Imagine that we reversed time and played those 114 games again. It is unlikely that every game has the exact same outcome as before because of random stuff that might happen. + Show Spoiler +To make the problem more clear. Flip a coin twice. With a 50% likelihood you will get either tails-tails or heads-heads. From the sample size of 2 coin flips alone it is then hard to say that the coin-flip game is "balanced". Fortunately this problem is already solved in the world of statistics. We can calculate a so called confidence interval from the data. To do this, go to: http://www.mccallum-layton.co.uk/stats/ConfidenceIntervalCalcProportions.aspx and enter the numbers 114 as sample size and 50.9 as Observed Proportion. Set the confidence interval to 95% and calculate to get a confidence interval of 9.18%. The interpretation of this number is: with a certainty of 95% the number that we seek , x , is in the interval 50.9 ± 9.18 %. Now, this doesn't tell us very much does it ? It could be as bad as good (from a T perspective) as a 60.1% TvZ favor or as bad as a 41.7% disfavor. If we do the calculation with a larger sample size with data from TSL4 Code A qualifiers we get a sample size of 335 games with 139 Terran wins and 196 Zerg wins. The observed proportion is now: 139/335 = 41.5 %. Going back to the site above and entering these numbers gives us a 95% confidence interval of 5.28%. The number x would then lie in the interval 41.5 ± 5.28% , i.e. between 36.2% and 46.78% with a 95% certainty. + Show Spoiler +- But hey! You just proved that the game IS imbalanced. + Show Spoiler +- No N00B, I did not! l2maths !!! The problem is that my assumptions are a bit flawed. It is nice to idealize things to make the maths more clear, but in the real world Starcraft 2 is a constantly developing game. It only takes one game to revolutionize TvZ by abusing some timing or some other innovative play. People study each others games and learn from them. Only if these numbers persist over several months we can begin to talk about some kind of imbalance. And even if the numbers somehow finds their way into the 50±5 % interval that Blizzard wants it doesn't have to mean that the game is any better than today. It has been stressed so many times by clever individuals in this forum that one has to look subjectively on the games. Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ? This means both a balanced and fair game and a nice viewer experience. I'll conceal some kind of balance whine in a spoiler to illustrate my point. Don't click this if you are a sensitive individual!! + Show Spoiler +Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common. Oh, don't forget to check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval Highlight quotes below:"Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common." - This has a ton to do with win rates. He actually wasn't discussing win rates, but his opinion on balance. I think you should edit that portion out cause it sounds like your pitch forkin
|
Winrates have nothing to do with current metagame/trends or even balance or even design problems. So if people are honestly looking at this graph and saying "oh, all is fine" think again!
edit: not to mention these statistics conveniently leave out a ton of games @_@ lying with statistics eh?
|
On July 03 2012 02:08 IshinShishi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 01:33 playa wrote: I still don't get how 1-sided the tvp whines are. They flat out win more games every month. Yet, I'm only supposed to hear about how the late game is in favor of the protoss. I've never once in my life played a game where I just magically ended up in the late game; there was no such thing as an early game. So, the question is, if toss has an imbalanced part of the game in their favor, then just how imbalanced are the other stages of the game that you can't avoid? I've never heard anyone say "I'm stronger at every part of the game but the late game, and that game design bothers me."
Then I hear interviews with David Kim where he is talking about analyzing the late game and noticing the stats are a lot more balanced than people are letting on to... (correct me if I'm wrong). Terran players are either imbalanced when it comes to crying, or they are just really good players that earn their > than Toss win percent, every day.
New player and biased, sure, but something doesn't add up for me. I think it's a bs matchup and it's gay that nothing in the stargate is worth making in the mu and there's 10000 god damn things to research and 100000 timing windows to kill you. Meanwhile, being able to stay on tier 1 all game sounds real hard. Reading this gives the idea that you think these statistics have any impact on your level of play("tier 1 all game"?You deserve the sanctimony), they don't, korean terrans can exploit the windows with great agression, foreign terrans have shown multiple times throughout sc2 history( winning a major tournament once a year) that they aren't good enough to do that, all the way down to the lower levels, not because the worse foreign players happened to pick terran, and their counterparts just happen to be awesome, that's retarded, but because it's freaking hard to execute your game plans, whilst death balling and playing to the late game is not hard at all if people don't know how to kill you effectively with early/mid game maneuveurs, anyone can smoothly max in sc2, pretty easy to understand really.
My level of play? Well, I'm in Masters and apparently TvZ is impossible, so the terrans I'm playing are probably good at winning the matchup that the stats seem to show that... they win at. It's not hard to exploit timing windows when every minute offers you a new window to hit. I just don't know what's so hard about hitting timing windows or dropping, when you can press 1 key to bring up all your rax's. You gotta do something in your spare time.
|
On July 03 2012 02:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:18 SniXSniPe wrote:On July 03 2012 02:15 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 02:13 SniXSniPe wrote: Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg. Because it is a qualifer, so anyone could sign up? I am pretty sure they did not include qualifers for other tournaments either. http://www.teamliquid.net/tournaments/admin/?action=bracket&id=3217Go through that list, and point out any subpar players for me. The fact is, every single TSL4 KR qualifier is completely stacked. If they don't include the qualifier for other tournaments, why would they include this one? Just because there are good players does not mean its a tournament.
Because then you will have ignorant individuals claiming the statistics "prove" that match ups like TvZ are just fine, when in reality it is the opposite.
|
These look supriseling balanced. I wonder if the zvt difference is due to the skill gap between Korean terrans and foreign terrans, sample size, or something else? All in all a lot better than i expected to see.
|
On July 03 2012 02:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 01:55 one-one-one wrote:Am I the only one in here that is annoyed by the poor level of knowledge about basic statistics? There is a lot of herpeteederp going on here about the interpretation of the presented data. Here is what this all means. It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread. + Show Spoiler +see what I did there? Ok, so people have mentioned the "small" sample size being an issue. There seems to be some consensus that a larger sample is better. But how big does it have to be to give reliable answers? Imo. the creator of these graphs should do a more thorough presentation and also specify how reliable the numbers are. I will take the Korean TvZ numbers as an example. The data from June is based on 114 games. If you do the maths you will realize that there are 58 Terran wins and 56 Zerg wins. + Show Spoiler +58/114 = 0.50877.. 56/114 = 0.49122.. 56+58=114 Now, let us assume that there is an actual imbalance in the sense that over many games one of the races will win x% of them for players above some (high) skill level. Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. Now we want to determine x using only a small sample of games. Imagine that we reversed time and played those 114 games again. It is unlikely that every game has the exact same outcome as before because of random stuff that might happen. + Show Spoiler +To make the problem more clear. Flip a coin twice. With a 50% likelihood you will get either tails-tails or heads-heads. From the sample size of 2 coin flips alone it is then hard to say that the coin-flip game is "balanced". Fortunately this problem is already solved in the world of statistics. We can calculate a so called confidence interval from the data. To do this, go to: http://www.mccallum-layton.co.uk/stats/ConfidenceIntervalCalcProportions.aspx and enter the numbers 114 as sample size and 50.9 as Observed Proportion. Set the confidence interval to 95% and calculate to get a confidence interval of 9.18%. The interpretation of this number is: with a certainty of 95% the number that we seek , x , is in the interval 50.9 ± 9.18 %. Now, this doesn't tell us very much does it ? It could be as bad as good (from a T perspective) as a 60.1% TvZ favor or as bad as a 41.7% disfavor. If we do the calculation with a larger sample size with data from TSL4 Code A qualifiers we get a sample size of 335 games with 139 Terran wins and 196 Zerg wins. The observed proportion is now: 139/335 = 41.5 %. Going back to the site above and entering these numbers gives us a 95% confidence interval of 5.28%. The number x would then lie in the interval 41.5 ± 5.28% , i.e. between 36.2% and 46.78% with a 95% certainty. + Show Spoiler +- But hey! You just proved that the game IS imbalanced. + Show Spoiler +- No N00B, I did not! l2maths !!! The problem is that my assumptions are a bit flawed. It is nice to idealize things to make the maths more clear, but in the real world Starcraft 2 is a constantly developing game. It only takes one game to revolutionize TvZ by abusing some timing or some other innovative play. People study each others games and learn from them. Only if these numbers persist over several months we can begin to talk about some kind of imbalance. And even if the numbers somehow finds their way into the 50±5 % interval that Blizzard wants it doesn't have to mean that the game is any better than today. It has been stressed so many times by clever individuals in this forum that one has to look subjectively on the games. Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ? This means both a balanced and fair game and a nice viewer experience. I'll conceal some kind of balance whine in a spoiler to illustrate my point. Don't click this if you are a sensitive individual!! + Show Spoiler +Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common. Oh, don't forget to check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval Wow, that is some amazing word smithing you did there. I like how you over complicate basic statistics in an effort to cook the numbers toward proving terran is underpowers. It falls directly in line with your previous post history in the "terran is having a hard time" threads in the past. I also like how you talk down to the readers and tell them they are not qualified to post about the stats unless they UNDERSTAND your findings. Highlight quotes below:"Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. " - clearly we cannot assume that anyone in NA is playing to win. "It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread." - Clearly we have been living our lives wrong all along. Time to leave my well playing job and go back to highschool. "Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common." - This has a ton to do with win rates."Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ?" I don't really know what this means or what it has to do with over all win rates. If a terran loses a game before 17 minutes, does that no count either?This man has a future in cooking numbers. I work for some pretty large banks and they would love to employee someone like him.
I told you not to click that spoiler if you were sensitive , but you just had to didn't you?
It is beyond me how you can interpret the post as me trying to cook numbers? Didn't you read the second last spoiler?
I also explicitly said that some high school mathematics was needed. Said understanding would allow you to understand that my post has nothing to do with "cooking numbers". Clearly you didn't pay attention in high school.
For you employers sake I hope that your job doesn't require statistics.
What is clear is that you try to discredit me. It is a pretty lame attempt though which people who actually took the time to understand my post can see directly.
mods: I know I'm a bit out there on this one, but I was pissed off by him and wanted to defend myself. feel free to delete this post along with his attempt to discredit me if you want.
User was warned for this post
|
Are ~300 games a bit low with the tsl4 qualifier in kr, which are bo3 even in ro1?
Edit: I just read, that normally qualifiers are not taking into consideration. But with 300 games Kr is not really statistic relevant.
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
On July 03 2012 02:22 Jaaaaasper wrote: These look supriseling balanced. I wonder if the zvt difference is due to the skill gap between Korean terrans and foreign terrans, sample size, or something else? All in all a lot better than i expected to see.
If you look at the race matchup statistics, they routinely vacillate between fairly extreme opposite positions from month-to-month, even when there were no intervening balance changes to account for the change. So, I don't think they are very persuasive evidence of imbalance or the lack thereof.
|
On July 03 2012 02:22 SniXSniPe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:20 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 02:18 SniXSniPe wrote:On July 03 2012 02:15 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 02:13 SniXSniPe wrote: Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg. Because it is a qualifer, so anyone could sign up? I am pretty sure they did not include qualifers for other tournaments either. http://www.teamliquid.net/tournaments/admin/?action=bracket&id=3217Go through that list, and point out any subpar players for me. The fact is, every single TSL4 KR qualifier is completely stacked. If they don't include the qualifier for other tournaments, why would they include this one? Just because there are good players does not mean its a tournament. Because then you will have ignorant individuals claiming the statistics "prove" that match ups like TvZ are just fine, when in reality it is the opposite.
That is not how the process works. You can't just pick numbers that prove a specific point. They have to take the same results from the same sources every month. They cannot just add in qualifiers one month because favors a specific result.
|
just because the "balance in korea" looks better doesn't mean the matchup is particularly interesting to watch anymore.
|
On July 03 2012 01:32 Bluerain wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On July 03 2012 02:30 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +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!
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 03 2012 00:54 platonichat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:40 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:32 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 00:28 Roggay wrote:On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too... Find me some professional Terrans (or honest Zergs) who think that TvZ isn't favouring Zerg right now. Besides, didn't you see the updated stats? Terran is at 41% if you factor those in. Considering Zerg was at 39% just last month, that actually isn't too bad at all considering how much whine was going round. edit: I was expecting something like a 25% winrate for Terran to justify all the whine. Nope, turns out that when Terran goes below 45% for the first time in the race's entire history it is enough to justify a forum explosion. Even forgetting about the fact that it was Terran at 39-41% last month, not Zerg, the fact that you expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order to justify the MU being imbalanced shows you have no idea how this stuff works. This reddit post should be required reading for people to talk about these graphs. There is no way any race could get a 25% winrate especially not in the month after a change.
Yeah, ignore the mistake. My apologies.
I didn't say that. I didn't say that I "expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order for the MU to be imbalanced". That is just putting words into my mouth. I said that there was so much whine - to the extent that the MU seemed to be literally impossible - and MKP etc were coming out with "10% winrate in practice" or 20% and the like in interviews. Comparatively, 41% is not bad at all.
|
wow looks like the win rates are pretty close in korea. im happy the game (win-rate wise) is as close to balanced as its been since release. happy times!
|
On July 03 2012 02:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:18 SniXSniPe wrote:On July 03 2012 02:15 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 02:13 SniXSniPe wrote: Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg. Because it is a qualifer, so anyone could sign up? I am pretty sure they did not include qualifers for other tournaments either. http://www.teamliquid.net/tournaments/admin/?action=bracket&id=3217Go through that list, and point out any subpar players for me. The fact is, every single TSL4 KR qualifier is completely stacked. If they don't include the qualifier for other tournaments, why would they include this one? Just because there are good players does not mean its a tournament. They have more good players than ESV, if TLPD takes ESV stats from ro8 and up, why not do the same for Qualifiers? ESV has walkover even in ro8, which is way worse than code A qualifier.
Qualifier is also a big part of the balance. For example, if Terran race only have MKP, MMA, MVP and Zerg has 1000 players and Protoss has 500 players. As long as those 3 Terran keep holding 50% winrate, can we call it balance? Not counting qualifier works the same way. If there're only some Terran qualifying for tournaments against hordes of Zerg and Protoss, I don't think it is balanced. The fact that those Terran managing to qualify shows that they are good enough to hold 50% easily against the other races(minus the fact that they win mirror MU). So in paper and TLPD, Terran doesn't look bad, but it's deeper than that.
|
On July 03 2012 02:24 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:09 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 01:55 one-one-one wrote:Am I the only one in here that is annoyed by the poor level of knowledge about basic statistics? There is a lot of herpeteederp going on here about the interpretation of the presented data. Here is what this all means. It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread. + Show Spoiler +see what I did there? Ok, so people have mentioned the "small" sample size being an issue. There seems to be some consensus that a larger sample is better. But how big does it have to be to give reliable answers? Imo. the creator of these graphs should do a more thorough presentation and also specify how reliable the numbers are. I will take the Korean TvZ numbers as an example. The data from June is based on 114 games. If you do the maths you will realize that there are 58 Terran wins and 56 Zerg wins. + Show Spoiler +58/114 = 0.50877.. 56/114 = 0.49122.. 56+58=114 Now, let us assume that there is an actual imbalance in the sense that over many games one of the races will win x% of them for players above some (high) skill level. Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. Now we want to determine x using only a small sample of games. Imagine that we reversed time and played those 114 games again. It is unlikely that every game has the exact same outcome as before because of random stuff that might happen. + Show Spoiler +To make the problem more clear. Flip a coin twice. With a 50% likelihood you will get either tails-tails or heads-heads. From the sample size of 2 coin flips alone it is then hard to say that the coin-flip game is "balanced". Fortunately this problem is already solved in the world of statistics. We can calculate a so called confidence interval from the data. To do this, go to: http://www.mccallum-layton.co.uk/stats/ConfidenceIntervalCalcProportions.aspx and enter the numbers 114 as sample size and 50.9 as Observed Proportion. Set the confidence interval to 95% and calculate to get a confidence interval of 9.18%. The interpretation of this number is: with a certainty of 95% the number that we seek , x , is in the interval 50.9 ± 9.18 %. Now, this doesn't tell us very much does it ? It could be as bad as good (from a T perspective) as a 60.1% TvZ favor or as bad as a 41.7% disfavor. If we do the calculation with a larger sample size with data from TSL4 Code A qualifiers we get a sample size of 335 games with 139 Terran wins and 196 Zerg wins. The observed proportion is now: 139/335 = 41.5 %. Going back to the site above and entering these numbers gives us a 95% confidence interval of 5.28%. The number x would then lie in the interval 41.5 ± 5.28% , i.e. between 36.2% and 46.78% with a 95% certainty. + Show Spoiler +- But hey! You just proved that the game IS imbalanced. + Show Spoiler +- No N00B, I did not! l2maths !!! The problem is that my assumptions are a bit flawed. It is nice to idealize things to make the maths more clear, but in the real world Starcraft 2 is a constantly developing game. It only takes one game to revolutionize TvZ by abusing some timing or some other innovative play. People study each others games and learn from them. Only if these numbers persist over several months we can begin to talk about some kind of imbalance. And even if the numbers somehow finds their way into the 50±5 % interval that Blizzard wants it doesn't have to mean that the game is any better than today. It has been stressed so many times by clever individuals in this forum that one has to look subjectively on the games. Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ? This means both a balanced and fair game and a nice viewer experience. I'll conceal some kind of balance whine in a spoiler to illustrate my point. Don't click this if you are a sensitive individual!! + Show Spoiler +Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common. Oh, don't forget to check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval Wow, that is some amazing word smithing you did there. I like how you over complicate basic statistics in an effort to cook the numbers toward proving terran is underpowers. It falls directly in line with your previous post history in the "terran is having a hard time" threads in the past. I also like how you talk down to the readers and tell them they are not qualified to post about the stats unless they UNDERSTAND your findings. Highlight quotes below:"Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. " - clearly we cannot assume that anyone in NA is playing to win. "It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread." - Clearly we have been living our lives wrong all along. Time to leave my well playing job and go back to highschool. "Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common." - This has a ton to do with win rates."Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ?" I don't really know what this means or what it has to do with over all win rates. If a terran loses a game before 17 minutes, does that no count either?This man has a future in cooking numbers. I work for some pretty large banks and they would love to employee someone like him. I told you not to click that spoiler if you were sensitive , but you just had to didn't you? It is beyond me how you can interpret the post as me trying to cook numbers? Didn't you read the second last spoiler? I also explicitly said that some high school mathematics was needed. Said understanding would allow you to understand that my post has nothing to do with "cooking numbers". Clearly you didn't pay attention in high school. For you employers sake I hope that your job doesn't require statistics. What is clear is that you try to discredit me. It is a pretty lame attempt though which people who actually took the time to understand my post can see directly. mods: I know I'm a bit out there on this one, but I was pissed off by him and wanted to defend myself. feel free to delete this post along with his attempt to discredit me if you want.
+ Show Spoiler +but his math is on as best as I can tell. At least barring a source error. And all he really did was show that math by itself leaves the balance question ambiguous, especially with small sample sizes over short periods of time. Care to explain what cooking you saw?
|
On July 03 2012 02:32 The_Stampede wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Looking forward to seeing all Terran players turning this thread into another wine and bitch thread.
|
the ZvT graph seems to have corrected itself beautifully. First time in two years where Z has a higher win percentage than T.
|
On July 03 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On July 03 2012 01:51 mrtomjones wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 01:43 EnE wrote: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. THIS!Please lock this thread now lol Evidence must be wrong! It doesn't agree with what I know for a fact! If you listened to certain shows in the last while you would realize that Korean Terrans HAVE adapted quite a bit already. If you want to look at balance you should never look at international too much. Korea also ALWAYS adapts faster than International scenes do. Code A qualifiers shouldn't be included due to the non Pro players in there and the people who just aren't very good playing in it. TSL should probably be included but yah.
"Don't include korean top masters and gm in win rates because you can't use those to represent balance at a high level"
You'll never be a code B player.
|
oh terrans with highest winrates in korea. surprise!
|
On July 03 2012 02:41 DeCoder wrote: the ZvT graph seems to have corrected itself beautifully. First time in two years where Z has a higher win percentage than T.
No, if you read my post on the previous page you will see that the only thing you can say from whose numbers is something along the lines of: With a 95% certainty we can say that the win-rate over many games is between 42 and 60% for Terran.
edit: your interpretation is the one that people tend to make naturally, but if you examine it further the data is inconclusive.
|
On July 03 2012 02:45 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:41 DeCoder wrote: the ZvT graph seems to have corrected itself beautifully. First time in two years where Z has a higher win percentage than T. No, if you read my post on the previous page you will see that the only thing you can say from whose numbers is something along the lines of: With a 95% certainty we can say that the win-rate over many games is between 42 and 60% for Terran. edit: your interpretation is the one that people tend to make naturally, but if you examine it further the data is inconclusive.
Clearly, we can tell that some number was reached and some % of games were won by terrans. It is likely between 25% and 75%. Or maybe it is just 50%.
|
On July 03 2012 02:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:45 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 02:41 DeCoder wrote: the ZvT graph seems to have corrected itself beautifully. First time in two years where Z has a higher win percentage than T. No, if you read my post on the previous page you will see that the only thing you can say from whose numbers is something along the lines of: With a 95% certainty we can say that the win-rate over many games is between 42 and 60% for Terran. edit: your interpretation is the one that people tend to make naturally, but if you examine it further the data is inconclusive. Clearly, we can tell that some number was reached and some % of games were won by terrans. It is likely between 25% and 75%. Or maybe it is just 50%.
maybe. that is not the point. the point is that the data is inconclusive.
now, would you enlighten us and tell me in what way I was cooking numbers?
3 people besides me has already called you out on it.
edit: and it is likely NOT between 25% and 75%. you just cooked those numbers up, lol.
|
|
On July 03 2012 02:33 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:54 platonichat wrote:On July 03 2012 00:40 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:32 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 00:28 Roggay wrote:On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too... Find me some professional Terrans (or honest Zergs) who think that TvZ isn't favouring Zerg right now. Besides, didn't you see the updated stats? Terran is at 41% if you factor those in. Considering Zerg was at 39% just last month, that actually isn't too bad at all considering how much whine was going round. edit: I was expecting something like a 25% winrate for Terran to justify all the whine. Nope, turns out that when Terran goes below 45% for the first time in the race's entire history it is enough to justify a forum explosion. Even forgetting about the fact that it was Terran at 39-41% last month, not Zerg, the fact that you expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order to justify the MU being imbalanced shows you have no idea how this stuff works. This reddit post should be required reading for people to talk about these graphs. There is no way any race could get a 25% winrate especially not in the month after a change. Yeah, ignore the mistake. My apologies. I didn't say that. I didn't say that I "expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order for the MU to be imbalanced". That is just putting words into my mouth. I said that there was so much whine - to the extent that the MU seemed to be literally impossible - and MKP etc were coming out with "10% winrate in practice" or 20% and the like in interviews. Comparatively, 41% is not bad at all. I don't think it will ever reach 25%, no matter how imbalance the MU is. Like anything else, it gets harder and harder to reach higher/lower percent. People will notice that it is not working (GSTL stop sending Terran out), or Terran will fail to qualify for tournaments (qualifier stat doesn't appear on TLPD). So if there're no Terran, there're no stats to count.
Also Korean stats has small size, so one or two games mean so much more. For example, Teaja went 7-2 vs Zerg last month, so Teaja alone contribue 5+% of the winrate. With Korean TvZ 50.9%-49.1%, I'd say Teaja streak make all the difference.
|
On July 03 2012 03:01 canikizu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:33 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:54 platonichat wrote:On July 03 2012 00:40 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:32 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 00:28 Roggay wrote:On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too... Find me some professional Terrans (or honest Zergs) who think that TvZ isn't favouring Zerg right now. Besides, didn't you see the updated stats? Terran is at 41% if you factor those in. Considering Zerg was at 39% just last month, that actually isn't too bad at all considering how much whine was going round. edit: I was expecting something like a 25% winrate for Terran to justify all the whine. Nope, turns out that when Terran goes below 45% for the first time in the race's entire history it is enough to justify a forum explosion. Even forgetting about the fact that it was Terran at 39-41% last month, not Zerg, the fact that you expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order to justify the MU being imbalanced shows you have no idea how this stuff works. This reddit post should be required reading for people to talk about these graphs. There is no way any race could get a 25% winrate especially not in the month after a change. Yeah, ignore the mistake. My apologies. I didn't say that. I didn't say that I "expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order for the MU to be imbalanced". That is just putting words into my mouth. I said that there was so much whine - to the extent that the MU seemed to be literally impossible - and MKP etc were coming out with "10% winrate in practice" or 20% and the like in interviews. Comparatively, 41% is not bad at all. I don't think it will ever reach 25%, no matter how imbalance the MU is. Like anything else, it gets harder and harder to reach higher/lower percent. People will notice that it is not working (GSTL stop sending Terran out), or Terran will fail to qualify for tournaments (qualifier stat doesn't appear on TLPD). So if there're no Terran, there're no stats to count. Also Korean stats has small size, so one or two games mean so much more. For example, Teaja went 7-2 vs Zerg last month, so Teaja alone contribue 5+% of the winrate. With Korean TvZ 50.9%-49.1%, I'd say Teaja streak make all the difference.
I agree with everything you have written, it is all very logical. But what I don't agree with is the thinking that 41% is horrific.
My earlier example was bad (because it was wrong) but I'm fairly sure about this one
Protoss had a <40% winrate in March this year. Nobody thought of Terran as being OP in TvP this year. In fact, most of the whine was from the Terran side, astoundingly. 41% can easily be attributed to fluctuations - I don't think it is, I do think that TvZ is Zerg favoured. But I don't think it is as bad as people are claiming.
|
On July 03 2012 02:57 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:51 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 02:45 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 02:41 DeCoder wrote: the ZvT graph seems to have corrected itself beautifully. First time in two years where Z has a higher win percentage than T. No, if you read my post on the previous page you will see that the only thing you can say from whose numbers is something along the lines of: With a 95% certainty we can say that the win-rate over many games is between 42 and 60% for Terran. edit: your interpretation is the one that people tend to make naturally, but if you examine it further the data is inconclusive. Clearly, we can tell that some number was reached and some % of games were won by terrans. It is likely between 25% and 75%. Or maybe it is just 50%. maybe. that is not the point. the point is that the data is inconclusive. now, would you enlighten us and tell me in what way I was cooking numbers? 3 people besides me has already called you out on it. edit: and it is likely NOT between 25% and 75%. you just cooked those numbers up, lol.
First off, I am at work, so I must make this brief.
The way that you applied the numbers was as if they were being used in a poll, which would later be applied to a larger population. If you said that these number show that Korean ladder as between a 46%-60% win rate for TvZ based on these numbers, your statement would have been very accurate. However, if you take the numbers for what they are, matches played in specific tournaments, there is little mathematical interpretation to be made. It is a set number of matches with a fix population, which will not be applied to a larger population. The numbers only show the number of games won by terran players vs zerg players, but does not attempt to use that data any other purpose than showing how many games were won an lost.
To put it another way, if the Red Sox won 50% of their games, you could not say they won 46-60%. of their games. However, you could say that a team in the America League would likely win 46-60% based on the Red Sox numbers.
I don’t disagree with your math, just how you worded the results. You made is seem as if the numbers were inaccurate, rather than simply a small population. It also left out that the small population is made of some of the best players available.
|
On July 02 2012 22:26 Aocowns wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 22:23 Whole wrote: Seems that Korean Terrans were busy figuring out the new TvZ while International Terrans were complaining about balance. lol yeah, that's what happens when you live in a team house and not a frat house
f'kin lol, kinda true.
Both protoss matchups are pretty much balanced in both Korea and internationally. Seems about right.
|
On July 03 2012 03:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:57 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 02:51 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 02:45 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 02:41 DeCoder wrote: the ZvT graph seems to have corrected itself beautifully. First time in two years where Z has a higher win percentage than T. No, if you read my post on the previous page you will see that the only thing you can say from whose numbers is something along the lines of: With a 95% certainty we can say that the win-rate over many games is between 42 and 60% for Terran. edit: your interpretation is the one that people tend to make naturally, but if you examine it further the data is inconclusive. Clearly, we can tell that some number was reached and some % of games were won by terrans. It is likely between 25% and 75%. Or maybe it is just 50%. maybe. that is not the point. the point is that the data is inconclusive. now, would you enlighten us and tell me in what way I was cooking numbers? 3 people besides me has already called you out on it. edit: and it is likely NOT between 25% and 75%. you just cooked those numbers up, lol. First off, I am at work, so I must make this brief. The way that you applied the numbers was as if they were being used in a poll, which would later be applied to a larger population. If you said that these number show that Korean ladder as between a 46%-60% win rate for TvZ based on these numbers, your statement would have been very accurate. However, if you take the numbers for what they are, matches played in specific tournaments, there is little mathematical interpretation to be made. It is a set number of matches with a fix population, which will not be applied to a larger population. The numbers only show the number of games won by terran players vs zerg players, but does not attempt to use that data any other purpose than showing how many games were won an lost. To put it another way, if the Red Sox won 50% of their games, you could not say they won 46-60%. of their games. However, you could say that a team in the America League would likely win 46-60% based on the Red Sox numbers. I don’t disagree with your math, just how you worded the results. You made is seem as if the numbers were inaccurate, rather than simply a small population. It also left out that the small population is made of some of the best players available.
ok, thanks for elaborating.
but sadly you are wrong.
I never said that I wanted to apply anything to a larger population. or I sort of did, but the main point is that the games played were not completely deterministic. Sc2 is a game of incomplete information and humans act random in the sense that our mechanics and minds act more or less random over a game of starcraft.
view the 114 games as a simulation where each game is a "coin-flip" with a biased coin. call the bias factor x. now determine x by flipping the coin 114 times. 95% of the times you will get a number x between 42% and 60%. for this to work you have to make the assumptions I made. the assumptions are flawed, but the method of just taking 114 games and drawing any conclusions from the actual win percentage.
if you increase the sample size to 335 you get more reliable result under the same assumptions.
how bad the assumptions are is subjective and up for discussion. but it is hard to interpret the numbers better than this. and I clearly declare that you have to work under some assumptions so it is clear that I didn't try to mislead anyone which you claimed.
if there actually was such a number x it would be highly dependant on the map. if you include several maps, the interpretation of this is not clear. huge map-specific imbalanced might be obscured for example.
in the real world things are very complex. games can not even be considered to be independent of each other.
when examining things further I see that the creator of the graphs has actually included confidence intervals in the black and white graphs.
|
On July 03 2012 02:42 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On July 03 2012 03:30 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +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. Pretty much this. It's worth noting that for a long time we Protoss players did nothing but 2base (partially because we had to, but still) and Zerg players did nothing but play like Idra. Over time, Protoss players have gone into a much more varied style. There are 4 or 5 different ways of playing Protoss against Terran now, for example. What about ZvP, though? Everyone seems to bandwagon onto the strat of DRG or Stephano (or, lately, Symbol) because those are the only Zergs that actually innovate and have good mechanics. The rest of them are so inconsistent, but even they are playing the exact same style as everyone else. Just saying, there's so much more variety from Toss and Terran players, just in style. This leads to a lot more top players because they're all top in a different manner. With Zerg, you have a bunch of people trying to be DRG, or Idra, or Stephano, or Nestea, depending on what time frame you're looking at.
|
On July 03 2012 02:27 Lord_J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:22 Jaaaaasper wrote: These look supriseling balanced. I wonder if the zvt difference is due to the skill gap between Korean terrans and foreign terrans, sample size, or something else? All in all a lot better than i expected to see. If you look at the race matchup statistics, they routinely vacillate between fairly extreme opposite positions from month-to-month, even when there were no intervening balance changes to account for the change. So, I don't think they are very persuasive evidence of imbalance or the lack thereof.
except that looking at the korean statistics, terran has been consistently winning throughout the history of sc2 minus a short period in TvP and of course current state of TvZ. given the consistent dominance of korean terrans, we can either assume that:
1. korean terrans are overall better players and/or 2. koreans are more skilled than foreign players and this skill is better utilized by the terran race and/or 3. we cant draw any conclusion because of the small sample size
|
On July 03 2012 03:30 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The shit design in its fundamental is called deathball and "good pathing (pretext of Dustin Browder)".
|
On July 03 2012 02:07 MysteryTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 01:15 sieksdekciw wrote:On July 02 2012 22:29 Tsubbi wrote:On July 02 2012 22:26 Asha` wrote: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. All the korean Terrans complain about TvZ =p but they're just much better players so still win games. oh you! ofc they complain about z, 51% winrate must feel underpowered after 2 years of dominating They complain because it is ridiculous to be more mechanically skilled than your opponent and yet have no real chance of winning unless your opponent messes up. I love you for this post. This is 100% accurate also. I played a game the other day where I outplayed a Protoss completely and still lost. Like someone said earlier they just need a few Archons and to continuously warp in Chargelots and eventually you will overrun the Terran Are you honestly trying to argue that a Terran CAN'T beat a Zerg now dude? Seriously? Want to know why you didn't beat that Protoss? Because you did not outplay him in every way like you claim. Stop thinking you are perfect or mechanically better than your Zerg and Protoss counterparts and start thinking about what you can do better instead. Man.. the whine is ridiculous.
Want to know why Terran whiners are the most disliked? Because for some reason they seem to all think they are better than Protoss and Zerg players. When Protoss or Zerg complain they complain about their units sucking or whatever. Terrans complain about that and then say that they are better than the P's and Z's and can't ever win any games ever even though they are the superior player and never make mistakes... yah......
|
On July 03 2012 03:30 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On July 03 2012 03:42 mrtomjones wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:07 MysteryTerran wrote:On July 03 2012 01:15 sieksdekciw wrote:On July 02 2012 22:29 Tsubbi wrote:On July 02 2012 22:26 Asha` wrote: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. All the korean Terrans complain about TvZ =p but they're just much better players so still win games. oh you! ofc they complain about z, 51% winrate must feel underpowered after 2 years of dominating They complain because it is ridiculous to be more mechanically skilled than your opponent and yet have no real chance of winning unless your opponent messes up. I love you for this post. This is 100% accurate also. I played a game the other day where I outplayed a Protoss completely and still lost. Like someone said earlier they just need a few Archons and to continuously warp in Chargelots and eventually you will overrun the Terran Are you honestly trying to argue that a Terran CAN'T beat a Zerg now dude? Seriously? Want to know why you didn't beat that Protoss? Because you did not outplay him in every way like you claim. Stop thinking you are perfect or mechanically better than your Zerg and Protoss counterparts and start thinking about what you can do better instead. Man.. the whine is ridiculous. Want to know why Terran whiners are the most disliked? Because for some reason they seem to all think they are better than Protoss and Zerg players. When Protoss or Zerg complain they complain about their units sucking or whatever. Terrans complain about that and then say that they are better than the P's and Z's and can't ever win any games ever even though they are the superior player and never make mistakes... yah......
well since korean terrans have always been tearing it up, they use the excuse (somewhat valid i suppose) that as terran, you have to be more skilled (mechanically im guessing) to win than your opponent which is unfair in their eyes.
but then you have to balance according to the highest level for the sake of esports which i think the community generally agrees with. but then u got the masters players saying yeah balance to the highest level but balance for masters too. and ive even heard diamond players suggesting that you balance to diamond which is really hilarious. i guess all this proves is that ppl like to whine about something
|
Brunei Darussalam566 Posts
On July 03 2012 02:39 Integra wrote: Looking forward to seeing all Terran players turning this thread into another wine and bitch thread.
Wine and bitch? Sounds like a delightful evening.
On topic: terran is adapting to the recent zerg buffs, and has gotten better at handling certain protoss builds. This reflects on the MU data, I don't know why so many people are bewildered. ._.
|
Lets translate the old advice from when zerg was complaining about imbalances
"terran needs to be more creative, try using the raven"
|
On July 03 2012 03:01 canikizu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:33 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:54 platonichat wrote:On July 03 2012 00:40 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:32 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 00:28 Roggay wrote:On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too... Find me some professional Terrans (or honest Zergs) who think that TvZ isn't favouring Zerg right now. Besides, didn't you see the updated stats? Terran is at 41% if you factor those in. Considering Zerg was at 39% just last month, that actually isn't too bad at all considering how much whine was going round. edit: I was expecting something like a 25% winrate for Terran to justify all the whine. Nope, turns out that when Terran goes below 45% for the first time in the race's entire history it is enough to justify a forum explosion. Even forgetting about the fact that it was Terran at 39-41% last month, not Zerg, the fact that you expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order to justify the MU being imbalanced shows you have no idea how this stuff works. This reddit post should be required reading for people to talk about these graphs. There is no way any race could get a 25% winrate especially not in the month after a change. Yeah, ignore the mistake. My apologies. I didn't say that. I didn't say that I "expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order for the MU to be imbalanced". That is just putting words into my mouth. I said that there was so much whine - to the extent that the MU seemed to be literally impossible - and MKP etc were coming out with "10% winrate in practice" or 20% and the like in interviews. Comparatively, 41% is not bad at all. I don't think it will ever reach 25%, no matter how imbalance the MU is. Like anything else, it gets harder and harder to reach higher/lower percent. People will notice that it is not working (GSTL stop sending Terran out), or Terran will fail to qualify for tournaments (qualifier stat doesn't appear on TLPD). So if there're no Terran, there're no stats to count. Also Korean stats has small size, so one or two games mean so much more. For example, Teaja went 7-2 vs Zerg last month, so Teaja alone contribue 5+% of the winrate. With Korean TvZ 50.9%-49.1%, I'd say Teaja streak make all the difference.
Well you also have to realize for all of june Symbol went 8-2 zvt as he has been crushing players in general almost no matter the race in GSTL/GSL.
|
Terran strongest. Everything is back to normal ;_;
|
On July 03 2012 03:42 mrtomjones wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:07 MysteryTerran wrote:On July 03 2012 01:15 sieksdekciw wrote:On July 02 2012 22:29 Tsubbi wrote:On July 02 2012 22:26 Asha` wrote: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. All the korean Terrans complain about TvZ =p but they're just much better players so still win games. oh you! ofc they complain about z, 51% winrate must feel underpowered after 2 years of dominating They complain because it is ridiculous to be more mechanically skilled than your opponent and yet have no real chance of winning unless your opponent messes up. I love you for this post. This is 100% accurate also. I played a game the other day where I outplayed a Protoss completely and still lost. Like someone said earlier they just need a few Archons and to continuously warp in Chargelots and eventually you will overrun the Terran Are you honestly trying to argue that a Terran CAN'T beat a Zerg now dude? Seriously? Want to know why you didn't beat that Protoss? Because you did not outplay him in every way like you claim. Stop thinking you are perfect or mechanically better than your Zerg and Protoss counterparts and start thinking about what you can do better instead. Man.. the whine is ridiculous. Want to know why Terran whiners are the most disliked? Because for some reason they seem to all think they are better than Protoss and Zerg players. When Protoss or Zerg complain they complain about their units sucking or whatever. Terrans complain about that and then say that they are better than the P's and Z's and can't ever win any games ever even though they are the superior player and never make mistakes... yah...... nope
back in the day that zerg complained the most (especially idra), they said that terran players sucked. although this was back when I was playing z, and already thought the game was balanced already so /shrug
|
On July 03 2012 03:07 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:01 canikizu wrote:On July 03 2012 02:33 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:54 platonichat wrote:On July 03 2012 00:40 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:32 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 00:28 Roggay wrote:On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too... Find me some professional Terrans (or honest Zergs) who think that TvZ isn't favouring Zerg right now. Besides, didn't you see the updated stats? Terran is at 41% if you factor those in. Considering Zerg was at 39% just last month, that actually isn't too bad at all considering how much whine was going round. edit: I was expecting something like a 25% winrate for Terran to justify all the whine. Nope, turns out that when Terran goes below 45% for the first time in the race's entire history it is enough to justify a forum explosion. Even forgetting about the fact that it was Terran at 39-41% last month, not Zerg, the fact that you expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order to justify the MU being imbalanced shows you have no idea how this stuff works. This reddit post should be required reading for people to talk about these graphs. There is no way any race could get a 25% winrate especially not in the month after a change. Yeah, ignore the mistake. My apologies. I didn't say that. I didn't say that I "expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order for the MU to be imbalanced". That is just putting words into my mouth. I said that there was so much whine - to the extent that the MU seemed to be literally impossible - and MKP etc were coming out with "10% winrate in practice" or 20% and the like in interviews. Comparatively, 41% is not bad at all. I don't think it will ever reach 25%, no matter how imbalance the MU is. Like anything else, it gets harder and harder to reach higher/lower percent. People will notice that it is not working (GSTL stop sending Terran out), or Terran will fail to qualify for tournaments (qualifier stat doesn't appear on TLPD). So if there're no Terran, there're no stats to count. Also Korean stats has small size, so one or two games mean so much more. For example, Teaja went 7-2 vs Zerg last month, so Teaja alone contribue 5+% of the winrate. With Korean TvZ 50.9%-49.1%, I'd say Teaja streak make all the difference. I agree with everything you have written, it is all very logical. But what I don't agree with is the thinking that 41% is horrific. My earlier example was bad (because it was wrong) but I'm fairly sure about this one Protoss had a <40% winrate in March this year. Nobody thought of Terran as being OP in TvP this year. In fact, most of the whine was from the Terran side, astoundingly. 41% can easily be attributed to fluctuations - I don't think it is, I do think that TvZ is Zerg favoured. But I don't think it is as bad as people are claiming.
I think that a lot of players/posters are just whining the vast majority of the time, and I do not play terran, so I do not think I am biased in terran favour here...
But 41% would be very bad. With a large sample size, 41% is low enough to say that there is definitely a balance problem. Look at it this way: you have to play pretty damn well to maintain a 59% win rate on ladder over a large number of games.
However, I do not see 41% on those graphs, I see 45%. It is not fair to compare different data sets on the same graph (TLPD one month and TLPD plus extras the next). In addition, I think you need at least two months (if not 3) of consistant statistics after a patch hits before you can make a good assumption. But if a winrate was to stay below 45% for 3 months in a row then I was consider there to be a balance problem.
|
On July 03 2012 04:38 zhurai wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:42 mrtomjones wrote:On July 03 2012 02:07 MysteryTerran wrote:On July 03 2012 01:15 sieksdekciw wrote:On July 02 2012 22:29 Tsubbi wrote:On July 02 2012 22:26 Asha` wrote: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. All the korean Terrans complain about TvZ =p but they're just much better players so still win games. oh you! ofc they complain about z, 51% winrate must feel underpowered after 2 years of dominating They complain because it is ridiculous to be more mechanically skilled than your opponent and yet have no real chance of winning unless your opponent messes up. I love you for this post. This is 100% accurate also. I played a game the other day where I outplayed a Protoss completely and still lost. Like someone said earlier they just need a few Archons and to continuously warp in Chargelots and eventually you will overrun the Terran Are you honestly trying to argue that a Terran CAN'T beat a Zerg now dude? Seriously? Want to know why you didn't beat that Protoss? Because you did not outplay him in every way like you claim. Stop thinking you are perfect or mechanically better than your Zerg and Protoss counterparts and start thinking about what you can do better instead. Man.. the whine is ridiculous. Want to know why Terran whiners are the most disliked? Because for some reason they seem to all think they are better than Protoss and Zerg players. When Protoss or Zerg complain they complain about their units sucking or whatever. Terrans complain about that and then say that they are better than the P's and Z's and can't ever win any games ever even though they are the superior player and never make mistakes... yah...... nope back in the day that zerg complained the most (especially idra), they said that terran players sucked. although this was back when I was playing z, and already thought the game was balanced already so /shrug Since beta terrans defended their domination saying that terran players are naturaly better than everyone else. That's where it came from and some of them are still using it in their rhetorics.
|
Starcraft 2 is incredibly well balanced.
We are talking 5% differences that are shifting either way With three races, bronze through to Pros playing, 10,000s of games being played and watched, millions of combinations of units/maps/matchups/play styles, and to still come out with balance like this is very impressive.
I have never found another game that has even come close (excluding BW). Love this game and love watching the brilliant strategies people are developing to turn the tide every week/month.
|
Well it looks like Terran were right after all, it was 55.3% which is 0.3% imbalance. Atleast most Terran players look pretty stupid now which is good.
|
On July 03 2012 04:32 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:01 canikizu wrote:On July 03 2012 02:33 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:54 platonichat wrote:On July 03 2012 00:40 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:32 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 00:28 Roggay wrote:On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too... Find me some professional Terrans (or honest Zergs) who think that TvZ isn't favouring Zerg right now. Besides, didn't you see the updated stats? Terran is at 41% if you factor those in. Considering Zerg was at 39% just last month, that actually isn't too bad at all considering how much whine was going round. edit: I was expecting something like a 25% winrate for Terran to justify all the whine. Nope, turns out that when Terran goes below 45% for the first time in the race's entire history it is enough to justify a forum explosion. Even forgetting about the fact that it was Terran at 39-41% last month, not Zerg, the fact that you expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order to justify the MU being imbalanced shows you have no idea how this stuff works. This reddit post should be required reading for people to talk about these graphs. There is no way any race could get a 25% winrate especially not in the month after a change. Yeah, ignore the mistake. My apologies. I didn't say that. I didn't say that I "expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order for the MU to be imbalanced". That is just putting words into my mouth. I said that there was so much whine - to the extent that the MU seemed to be literally impossible - and MKP etc were coming out with "10% winrate in practice" or 20% and the like in interviews. Comparatively, 41% is not bad at all. I don't think it will ever reach 25%, no matter how imbalance the MU is. Like anything else, it gets harder and harder to reach higher/lower percent. People will notice that it is not working (GSTL stop sending Terran out), or Terran will fail to qualify for tournaments (qualifier stat doesn't appear on TLPD). So if there're no Terran, there're no stats to count. Also Korean stats has small size, so one or two games mean so much more. For example, Teaja went 7-2 vs Zerg last month, so Teaja alone contribue 5+% of the winrate. With Korean TvZ 50.9%-49.1%, I'd say Teaja streak make all the difference. Well you also have to realize for all of june Symbol went 8-2 zvt as he has been crushing players in general almost no matter the race in GSTL/GSL. You can count Teaja because statistically, he's the outliner. You can't count Symbol because he's not an outliner within Zerg race. Other players, such as DRG, Moon, Sniper,.... also posted similar results in last month. So while Symbol posted the best result out of all, it's not enough to call him outliner.
|
On July 03 2012 04:46 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 04:38 zhurai wrote:On July 03 2012 03:42 mrtomjones wrote:On July 03 2012 02:07 MysteryTerran wrote:On July 03 2012 01:15 sieksdekciw wrote:On July 02 2012 22:29 Tsubbi wrote:On July 02 2012 22:26 Asha` wrote: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. All the korean Terrans complain about TvZ =p but they're just much better players so still win games. oh you! ofc they complain about z, 51% winrate must feel underpowered after 2 years of dominating They complain because it is ridiculous to be more mechanically skilled than your opponent and yet have no real chance of winning unless your opponent messes up. I love you for this post. This is 100% accurate also. I played a game the other day where I outplayed a Protoss completely and still lost. Like someone said earlier they just need a few Archons and to continuously warp in Chargelots and eventually you will overrun the Terran Are you honestly trying to argue that a Terran CAN'T beat a Zerg now dude? Seriously? Want to know why you didn't beat that Protoss? Because you did not outplay him in every way like you claim. Stop thinking you are perfect or mechanically better than your Zerg and Protoss counterparts and start thinking about what you can do better instead. Man.. the whine is ridiculous. Want to know why Terran whiners are the most disliked? Because for some reason they seem to all think they are better than Protoss and Zerg players. When Protoss or Zerg complain they complain about their units sucking or whatever. Terrans complain about that and then say that they are better than the P's and Z's and can't ever win any games ever even though they are the superior player and never make mistakes... yah...... nope back in the day that zerg complained the most (especially idra), they said that terran players sucked. although this was back when I was playing z, and already thought the game was balanced already so /shrug Since beta terrans defended their domination saying that terran players are naturaly better than everyone else. That's where it came from and some of them are still using it in their rhetorics. They're not naturally better by any means, but there are definitely more top Terrans than top Zergs, and slightly more top Terrans than top Protosses. It's got nothing to do with natural ability; it's just random skewing. A lot of really good players happened to pick Terran.
|
On July 03 2012 04:45 hzflank wrote: However, I do not see 41% on those graphs, I see 45%. It is not fair to compare different data sets on the same graph (TLPD one month and TLPD plus extras the next). In addition, I think you need at least two months (if not 3) of consistant statistics after a patch hits before you can make a good assumption. But if a winrate was to stay below 45% for 3 months in a row then I was consider there to be a balance problem.
The problem in this case is that you'll have three months of shitty balance in the game before you can make a judgement based on statistics, which is a result of making a big change that's completely unecessary and which will degrade an already balanced matchup, both in balance and fun.
|
Seems like the Ravens have started to immigrate back to Korea for the summer season.
|
Lmao @ ZvT winrates.
That's disgustingly skewed in Zerg favor.
|
On July 03 2012 04:52 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 04:45 hzflank wrote: However, I do not see 41% on those graphs, I see 45%. It is not fair to compare different data sets on the same graph (TLPD one month and TLPD plus extras the next). In addition, I think you need at least two months (if not 3) of consistant statistics after a patch hits before you can make a good assumption. But if a winrate was to stay below 45% for 3 months in a row then I was consider there to be a balance problem. The problem in this case is that you'll have three months of shitty balance in the game before you can make a judgement based on statistics, compared to making a big change that's completely unecessary to an already balanced matchup
I don't disagree. But if you want an ideal solution then you would need a large number of good amateurs to beta test balance patches before they went live. If you just make a balance change based on a couple of thousand games of data then you might as well ignore that data when making your balance decisions.
Another thing to consider: Assume Zerg is now overpowered versus Terran. Is that because queen range was buffed or because zerg players started to make more queens?
|
On July 03 2012 04:52 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 04:45 hzflank wrote: However, I do not see 41% on those graphs, I see 45%. It is not fair to compare different data sets on the same graph (TLPD one month and TLPD plus extras the next). In addition, I think you need at least two months (if not 3) of consistant statistics after a patch hits before you can make a good assumption. But if a winrate was to stay below 45% for 3 months in a row then I was consider there to be a balance problem. The problem in this case is that you'll have three months of shitty balance in the game before you can make a judgement based on statistics, which is a result of making a big change that's completely unecessary and which will degrade an already balanced matchup, both in balance and fun. People also don't seem to understand that tiny sample sizes like this make it very rare for there to ever be 3 consecutive months of the same low winrate. Bet your ass that the second Terran's winrate increases even half a percent, Zergs will say "see! the metagame is figuring itself out!" You're never going to get 45%, 45%, and 45% 3 months in row because it's too unlikely even if that really is the chance of winning against a Zerg player.
|
On July 03 2012 04:55 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 04:52 Dalavita wrote:On July 03 2012 04:45 hzflank wrote: However, I do not see 41% on those graphs, I see 45%. It is not fair to compare different data sets on the same graph (TLPD one month and TLPD plus extras the next). In addition, I think you need at least two months (if not 3) of consistant statistics after a patch hits before you can make a good assumption. But if a winrate was to stay below 45% for 3 months in a row then I was consider there to be a balance problem. The problem in this case is that you'll have three months of shitty balance in the game before you can make a judgement based on statistics, compared to making a big change that's completely unecessary to an already balanced matchup I don't disagree. But if you want an ideal solution then you would need a large number of good amateurs to beta test balance patches before they went live. If you just make a balance change based on a couple of thousand games of data then you might as well ignore that data when making your balance decisions. Another thing to consider: Assume Zerg is now overpowered versus Terran. Is that because queen range was buffed or because zerg players started to make more queens?
To your question; both.
However, they started to add more queens simply because they were stronger.
|
On July 03 2012 04:53 DemigodcelpH wrote: Lmao @ ZvT winrates.
That's disgustingly skewed in Zerg favor.
If sarcastic, very bad attempt since most would read this as serious.
If not sarcastic, very bad reading abilities and no knowledge of understanding what makes a statistic "skewed" or "imbalanced". That graph is damn near where it should be for win-rates.
*Side-note* Agree with the "get-rid-of-Terran-egos" posts I see here. You're all not awesome perfect players or you'd be where MKP is not on lolbnetladder.
|
On July 03 2012 04:59 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 04:53 DemigodcelpH wrote: Lmao @ ZvT winrates.
That's disgustingly skewed in Zerg favor. If sarcastic, very bad attempt since most would read this as serious. If not sarcastic, very bad reading abilities and no knowledge of understanding what makes a statistic "skewed" or "imbalanced". That graph is damn near where it should be for win-rates. *Side-note* Agree with the "get-rid-of-Terran-egos" posts I see here. You're all not awesome perfect players or you'd be where MKP is not on lolbnetladder. Did you miss the part where someone showed that if you include TSL4 KR qual stats, Terran dips to 41%?
|
On July 03 2012 02:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:22 SniXSniPe wrote:On July 03 2012 02:20 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 02:18 SniXSniPe wrote:On July 03 2012 02:15 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 02:13 SniXSniPe wrote: Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg. Because it is a qualifer, so anyone could sign up? I am pretty sure they did not include qualifers for other tournaments either. http://www.teamliquid.net/tournaments/admin/?action=bracket&id=3217Go through that list, and point out any subpar players for me. The fact is, every single TSL4 KR qualifier is completely stacked. If they don't include the qualifier for other tournaments, why would they include this one? Just because there are good players does not mean its a tournament. Because then you will have ignorant individuals claiming the statistics "prove" that match ups like TvZ are just fine, when in reality it is the opposite. That is not how the process works. You can't just pick numbers that prove a specific point. They have to take the same results from the same sources every month. They cannot just add in qualifiers one month because favors a specific result.
Same sources would mean same players, not same qualifiers which means that adding additional tournaments (high lvl only such as different qualifiers) can only be better for determining real numbers because there's more games played.
|
I'd be interested in seeing what some of the win rates are at different phases of the game, I'd bet that Zerg probably wins the majority of games that are over 20 minutes given how powerful and accessible its late game army is compared to the other two races. I don't want to say that Zerg is necessarily imbalanced, but I think the other races (especially Terran) are definitely struggling in late game situations vs Zerg.
|
On July 03 2012 00:41 Charon1979 wrote: This Thread is very interesting...
last month:
"look how imbalanced it is in Korea!" "The sample is too small and doesnt include all..." "Doesnt matter! Zerg imba!" "Look at the international graph, it got a bigger sample size and is pretty balanced" "International doesnt matter!"
This month:
"wtf Korea balanced... you must have made this up!" "its the same like every month..." "no you made it up and besides the sample size is too small and doesnt cover all tournaments!" "but last month you said...." "Shut up! Just look at international!" "but last month..." "Doesnt matter, zerg imba!"
So true rofl
|
On July 03 2012 00:09 Falconblade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:07 mec wrote:On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote:On July 02 2012 23:53 IshinShishi wrote: I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing. Good on you for being skeptical, but these are indeed legit. =P You can always check my twitter for the originals. Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference: June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Could you make a graph with those games included? I'm just curious how it looks Would be TvZ in Korea 139 - 196. Which is 41.5% T to 58.5% Z The graph is based on only TLPD data and doesn't even take in all the data available...
I think 41.5 percent win rate for all the games in korea is much more telling then the graph data shown in OP.
|
On July 03 2012 03:50 Bluerain wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Funny how Protoss was OP flavor of the month a little while back when TvP has been T-favored in May and June. And even now, with the sheer amount of whining about Zerg, it turns out that ZvT is actually fairly close. I don't understand how people can balance whine when their race is at an above 50% winrate in every matchup at the top level. When you do that, there's only one thing for certain: you look entitled as fuck.
|
On July 03 2012 05:15 HolyArrow wrote: Funny how Protoss was OP flavor of the month a little while back when TvP has been T-favored in May and June. And even now, with the sheer amount of whining about Zerg, it turns out that ZvT is actually fairly close. I don't understand how people can balance whine when their race is at an above 50% winrate in every matchup at the top level. When you do that, there's only one thing for certain: you look entitled as fuck. Read the thread, not just the biased OP, thanks.
|
On July 03 2012 05:10 Femari wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Oh sweet Jesus... so we have come to this now.
|
On July 03 2012 04:50 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 04:46 Tuczniak wrote:On July 03 2012 04:38 zhurai wrote:On July 03 2012 03:42 mrtomjones wrote:On July 03 2012 02:07 MysteryTerran wrote:On July 03 2012 01:15 sieksdekciw wrote:On July 02 2012 22:29 Tsubbi wrote:On July 02 2012 22:26 Asha` wrote: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. All the korean Terrans complain about TvZ =p but they're just much better players so still win games. oh you! ofc they complain about z, 51% winrate must feel underpowered after 2 years of dominating They complain because it is ridiculous to be more mechanically skilled than your opponent and yet have no real chance of winning unless your opponent messes up. I love you for this post. This is 100% accurate also. I played a game the other day where I outplayed a Protoss completely and still lost. Like someone said earlier they just need a few Archons and to continuously warp in Chargelots and eventually you will overrun the Terran Are you honestly trying to argue that a Terran CAN'T beat a Zerg now dude? Seriously? Want to know why you didn't beat that Protoss? Because you did not outplay him in every way like you claim. Stop thinking you are perfect or mechanically better than your Zerg and Protoss counterparts and start thinking about what you can do better instead. Man.. the whine is ridiculous. Want to know why Terran whiners are the most disliked? Because for some reason they seem to all think they are better than Protoss and Zerg players. When Protoss or Zerg complain they complain about their units sucking or whatever. Terrans complain about that and then say that they are better than the P's and Z's and can't ever win any games ever even though they are the superior player and never make mistakes... yah...... nope back in the day that zerg complained the most (especially idra), they said that terran players sucked. although this was back when I was playing z, and already thought the game was balanced already so /shrug Since beta terrans defended their domination saying that terran players are naturaly better than everyone else. That's where it came from and some of them are still using it in their rhetorics. They're not naturally better by any means, but there are definitely more top Terrans than top Zergs, and slightly more top Terrans than top Protosses. It's got nothing to do with natural ability; it's just random skewing. A lot of really good players happened to pick Terran. Yes, you are right. But if you consider only top players it's in fact the same thing. I said they have said "generally terrans are better players" and you said "generally better players play terran". Just observation. And i don't argue if it's true or not. Just that it's the same statement.
|
On July 03 2012 05:17 IshinShishi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 05:15 HolyArrow wrote: Funny how Protoss was OP flavor of the month a little while back when TvP has been T-favored in May and June. And even now, with the sheer amount of whining about Zerg, it turns out that ZvT is actually fairly close. I don't understand how people can balance whine when their race is at an above 50% winrate in every matchup at the top level. When you do that, there's only one thing for certain: you look entitled as fuck. Read the thread, not just the biased OP, thanks.
Reading the thread, a few pages ago 'The stats in Korea are too small of a sample'
Now its all about TvZ in korea, rofl you guys make me laugh.
|
On July 03 2012 05:18 SeaSwift 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. Oh sweet Jesus... so we have come to this now.
Of course. That's the only path people can take if they don't want to deny the validity of the graphs.
The progression of thought is this:
If the Terran players are actually winning slightly over 50% of their games despite cries of imbalance, then there are 2 choices: The game is balanced and people need to stop whining, or Terran players are just amazingly better and more innovative than Zerg or Protoss players to overcome so much imbalance. I guess, for some people, sheer arrogance is an acceptable alternative to just admitting that any race needs time to innovate after a patch buffs other races/nerfs them.
|
On July 03 2012 04:46 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 04:38 zhurai wrote:On July 03 2012 03:42 mrtomjones wrote:On July 03 2012 02:07 MysteryTerran wrote:On July 03 2012 01:15 sieksdekciw wrote:On July 02 2012 22:29 Tsubbi wrote:On July 02 2012 22:26 Asha` wrote: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. All the korean Terrans complain about TvZ =p but they're just much better players so still win games. oh you! ofc they complain about z, 51% winrate must feel underpowered after 2 years of dominating They complain because it is ridiculous to be more mechanically skilled than your opponent and yet have no real chance of winning unless your opponent messes up. I love you for this post. This is 100% accurate also. I played a game the other day where I outplayed a Protoss completely and still lost. Like someone said earlier they just need a few Archons and to continuously warp in Chargelots and eventually you will overrun the Terran Are you honestly trying to argue that a Terran CAN'T beat a Zerg now dude? Seriously? Want to know why you didn't beat that Protoss? Because you did not outplay him in every way like you claim. Stop thinking you are perfect or mechanically better than your Zerg and Protoss counterparts and start thinking about what you can do better instead. Man.. the whine is ridiculous. Want to know why Terran whiners are the most disliked? Because for some reason they seem to all think they are better than Protoss and Zerg players. When Protoss or Zerg complain they complain about their units sucking or whatever. Terrans complain about that and then say that they are better than the P's and Z's and can't ever win any games ever even though they are the superior player and never make mistakes... yah...... nope back in the day that zerg complained the most (especially idra), they said that terran players sucked. although this was back when I was playing z, and already thought the game was balanced already so /shrug Since beta terrans defended their domination saying that terran players are naturaly better than everyone else. That's where it came from and some of them are still using it in their rhetorics.
Because it was pointed out the only reason why shitty Terrans won was because of the maps. The second the map pool changed all of a sudden all of the shitty Terran players went out the window. Very quickly.
|
On July 03 2012 05:15 HolyArrow wrote: Funny how Protoss was OP flavor of the month a little while back when TvP has been T-favored in May and June. And even now, with the sheer amount of whining about Zerg, it turns out that ZvT is actually fairly close. I don't understand how people can balance whine when their race is at an above 50% winrate in every matchup at the top level. When you do that, there's only one thing for certain: you look entitled as fuck.
The reason you don't understand anything is because you lack reading comprehension skills. Try again.
|
On July 03 2012 04:49 Blezza wrote: Well it looks like Terran were right after all, it was 55.3% which is 0.3% imbalance. Atleast most Terran players look pretty stupid now which is good. Nice math 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.
So yeah, the only one made look stupid here would be you.
|
Funny how these graphs normally feel how I do about each matchup as a protoss player doing ok in PvZs and have been having more trouble in PvT
|
On July 03 2012 05:10 Femari wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The amount of builds Terran has is purely because of the versatility of the race, not because the players are more creative. The ability to defend from almost anything with bunkers is part of the reason why Terran has so many options (not saying bunkers are OP, I play Terran). Protoss and Zerg have very few builds that can consistently work, unlike Terran, they're pigeonholed into doing one of a very select amount of things if they want any chance at winning.
|
On July 03 2012 04:49 canikizu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 04:32 blade55555 wrote:On July 03 2012 03:01 canikizu wrote:On July 03 2012 02:33 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:54 platonichat wrote:On July 03 2012 00:40 SeaSwift wrote:On July 03 2012 00:32 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 00:28 Roggay wrote:On July 03 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote: Incomplete set of data. Everyone who plays this game regularly knows that TvZ is utterly Zerg favoured, and that PvZ is utterly Zerg favoured if the Toss doesn't all-in. You don't need a graph to show this. Just look at the way you must play the game. Everyone who read TL regularly knows that you are a whiner too... Find me some professional Terrans (or honest Zergs) who think that TvZ isn't favouring Zerg right now. Besides, didn't you see the updated stats? Terran is at 41% if you factor those in. Considering Zerg was at 39% just last month, that actually isn't too bad at all considering how much whine was going round. edit: I was expecting something like a 25% winrate for Terran to justify all the whine. Nope, turns out that when Terran goes below 45% for the first time in the race's entire history it is enough to justify a forum explosion. Even forgetting about the fact that it was Terran at 39-41% last month, not Zerg, the fact that you expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order to justify the MU being imbalanced shows you have no idea how this stuff works. This reddit post should be required reading for people to talk about these graphs. There is no way any race could get a 25% winrate especially not in the month after a change. Yeah, ignore the mistake. My apologies. I didn't say that. I didn't say that I "expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order for the MU to be imbalanced". That is just putting words into my mouth. I said that there was so much whine - to the extent that the MU seemed to be literally impossible - and MKP etc were coming out with "10% winrate in practice" or 20% and the like in interviews. Comparatively, 41% is not bad at all. I don't think it will ever reach 25%, no matter how imbalance the MU is. Like anything else, it gets harder and harder to reach higher/lower percent. People will notice that it is not working (GSTL stop sending Terran out), or Terran will fail to qualify for tournaments (qualifier stat doesn't appear on TLPD). So if there're no Terran, there're no stats to count. Also Korean stats has small size, so one or two games mean so much more. For example, Teaja went 7-2 vs Zerg last month, so Teaja alone contribue 5+% of the winrate. With Korean TvZ 50.9%-49.1%, I'd say Teaja streak make all the difference. Well you also have to realize for all of june Symbol went 8-2 zvt as he has been crushing players in general almost no matter the race in GSTL/GSL. You can count Teaja because statistically, he's the outliner. You can't count Symbol because he's not an outliner within Zerg race. Other players, such as DRG, Moon, Sniper,.... also posted similar results in last month. So while Symbol posted the best result out of all, it's not enough to call him outliner.
canikizu:
I am having a hard time interpreting the error bars in the BW graphs. How do you calculate these and which parameters do you use ?
From what I could extract from your tweets you perform a test of the hypothesis that the winrate is 50% in a matchup and then somehow measure the significance of the result. I'd like to see your calculations.
|
On July 03 2012 05:23 Blezza wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 05:17 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 05:15 HolyArrow wrote: Funny how Protoss was OP flavor of the month a little while back when TvP has been T-favored in May and June. And even now, with the sheer amount of whining about Zerg, it turns out that ZvT is actually fairly close. I don't understand how people can balance whine when their race is at an above 50% winrate in every matchup at the top level. When you do that, there's only one thing for certain: you look entitled as fuck. Read the thread, not just the biased OP, thanks. Reading the thread, a few pages ago 'The stats in Korea are too small of a sample' Now its all about TvZ in korea, rofl you guys make me laugh. Both valid, 100 games is a lot worse than 340, you guys talk about people whining, this desperate try of denial doesn't seem much better at all.
I am also still waiting for the TvP results including all the pertinent tournaments.
|
On July 03 2012 05:25 ErAsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 04:49 Blezza wrote: Well it looks like Terran were right after all, it was 55.3% which is 0.3% imbalance. Atleast most Terran players look pretty stupid now which is good. Nice math 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. So yeah, the only one made look stupid here would be you.
Well Browder said that anything within 55% is a balanced MU and therefore they will patch it if it goes above that.
See the problem you have is that you say dumb stuff without knowing anything, and as if anyone on this planet is dumb enough to make such an error in maths. Seriously man.
|
On July 03 2012 05:24 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 05:15 HolyArrow wrote: Funny how Protoss was OP flavor of the month a little while back when TvP has been T-favored in May and June. And even now, with the sheer amount of whining about Zerg, it turns out that ZvT is actually fairly close. I don't understand how people can balance whine when their race is at an above 50% winrate in every matchup at the top level. When you do that, there's only one thing for certain: you look entitled as fuck. The reason you don't understand anything is because you lack reading comprehension skills. Try again.
I wish I could give you a reward for what's probably the most generic, overused "rebuttal" ever uttered on the internet xD
But seriously, I'm not interested in arguing with you. I will say that the powers that be do indeed take into account stats like these, so we can go back and forth at each other all you want, but in the end, I'm glad these stats are out because they probably have an impact on the decisions of the balance team
|
I wonder what terran players would be saying if their race was historically as weak on average as protoss... And saying things like "But terrans are more skilled in general" is just hilarious, it's completely subjective and cannot be proven.
|
On July 03 2012 05:31 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 05:24 Dalavita wrote:On July 03 2012 05:15 HolyArrow wrote: Funny how Protoss was OP flavor of the month a little while back when TvP has been T-favored in May and June. And even now, with the sheer amount of whining about Zerg, it turns out that ZvT is actually fairly close. I don't understand how people can balance whine when their race is at an above 50% winrate in every matchup at the top level. When you do that, there's only one thing for certain: you look entitled as fuck. The reason you don't understand anything is because you lack reading comprehension skills. Try again. I wish I could give you a reward for what's probably the most generic, overused "rebuttal" ever uttered on the internet xD But seriously, I'm not interested in arguing with you. I will say that the powers that be do indeed take into account stats like these, so we can go back and forth at each other all you want, but in the end, I'm glad these stats are out because they probably have an impact on the decisions of the balance team
No, you literally lack reading comprehension. If you had bothered even reading past the first two posts you would have seen that these initial statistics do not include all tournaments and qualifiers, and an updated winloss ratio was at 41% - 59% TvZ in Korea. I don't give much value to winratios when trying to deduce balance, but regardless. You need to l2read.
|
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.
|
On July 03 2012 05:39 Sakkreth wrote: I wonder what terran players would be saying if their race was historically as weak on average as protoss... And saying things like "But terrans are more skilled in general" is just hilarious, it's completely subjective and cannot be proven.
Protoss has gotten the short end of the stick throughout the history of sc2 judging by theses graphs, and even now as seen by the TvP winrates, but Protoss are a proud warrior race, so there is not much crying and whining.
|
On July 03 2012 05:51 -TesteR- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 05:39 Sakkreth wrote: I wonder what terran players would be saying if their race was historically as weak on average as protoss... And saying things like "But terrans are more skilled in general" is just hilarious, it's completely subjective and cannot be proven. Protoss has gotten the short end of the stick throughout the history of sc2 judging by theses graphs, and even now as seen by the TvP winrates, but Protoss are a proud warrior race, so there is not much crying and whining.
They're the only race so far to even have a fanclub for crying.
Just saying
|
On July 03 2012 05:52 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 05:51 -TesteR- wrote:On July 03 2012 05:39 Sakkreth wrote: I wonder what terran players would be saying if their race was historically as weak on average as protoss... And saying things like "But terrans are more skilled in general" is just hilarious, it's completely subjective and cannot be proven. Protoss has gotten the short end of the stick throughout the history of sc2 judging by theses graphs, and even now as seen by the TvP winrates, but Protoss are a proud warrior race, so there is not much crying and whining. They're the only race so far to even have a fanclub for crying. Just saying
The Sad Zealot was a dark time indeed, 30% win rates are about the only thing that can break a Protoss spirit.
|
On July 03 2012 05:52 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 05:51 -TesteR- wrote:On July 03 2012 05:39 Sakkreth wrote: I wonder what terran players would be saying if their race was historically as weak on average as protoss... And saying things like "But terrans are more skilled in general" is just hilarious, it's completely subjective and cannot be proven. Protoss has gotten the short end of the stick throughout the history of sc2 judging by theses graphs, and even now as seen by the TvP winrates, but Protoss are a proud warrior race, so there is not much crying and whining. They're the only race so far to even have a fanclub for crying. Just saying
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=339852
|
On July 03 2012 05:47 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 05:31 HolyArrow wrote:On July 03 2012 05:24 Dalavita wrote:On July 03 2012 05:15 HolyArrow wrote: Funny how Protoss was OP flavor of the month a little while back when TvP has been T-favored in May and June. And even now, with the sheer amount of whining about Zerg, it turns out that ZvT is actually fairly close. I don't understand how people can balance whine when their race is at an above 50% winrate in every matchup at the top level. When you do that, there's only one thing for certain: you look entitled as fuck. The reason you don't understand anything is because you lack reading comprehension skills. Try again. I wish I could give you a reward for what's probably the most generic, overused "rebuttal" ever uttered on the internet xD But seriously, I'm not interested in arguing with you. I will say that the powers that be do indeed take into account stats like these, so we can go back and forth at each other all you want, but in the end, I'm glad these stats are out because they probably have an impact on the decisions of the balance team No, you literally lack reading comprehension. If you had bothered even reading past the first two posts you would have seen that these initial statistics do not include all tournaments and qualifiers, and an updated winloss ratio was at 41% - 59% TvZ in Korea. I don't give much value to winratios when trying to deduce balance, but regardless. You need to l2read.
Even with the updated stats, my point still stands in respect to PvT. Protoss has even been buffed slightly with the observer build time, yet look at how things are now. Anyway, if the stats are actually different, then OP has a responsibility to edit his post to reflect them. Not everyone has time to read the thread to see of the OP is actually true, these threads have become a regular thing so many people assume that the OP is credible.
|
On July 03 2012 05:59 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 05:52 Dalavita wrote:On July 03 2012 05:51 -TesteR- wrote:On July 03 2012 05:39 Sakkreth wrote: I wonder what terran players would be saying if their race was historically as weak on average as protoss... And saying things like "But terrans are more skilled in general" is just hilarious, it's completely subjective and cannot be proven. Protoss has gotten the short end of the stick throughout the history of sc2 judging by theses graphs, and even now as seen by the TvP winrates, but Protoss are a proud warrior race, so there is not much crying and whining. They're the only race so far to even have a fanclub for crying. Just saying http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=339852
Looks like terrans have the "fan club for crying" thing well under control as well. Everyone needs a thread to vent about the their losses in SC2. After all, we didn't keep playing this game because it was easy.
|
Actually rather surprised by these. Always interesting to see the fluctuations month by month
|
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.
|
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 .
|
On July 03 2012 06:17 aHaTsc wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
ZvP was to be expected. Next month we'll see if the winrate stabilizes.
|
On July 03 2012 06:21 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On July 03 2012 06:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +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 wanted to see the win rates so badly after seeing the june one, thanks a lot!
|
On July 03 2012 05:25 ErAsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 04:49 Blezza wrote: Well it looks like Terran were right after all, it was 55.3% which is 0.3% imbalance. Atleast most Terran players look pretty stupid now which is good. Nice math 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. So yeah, the only one made look stupid here would be you.
Blizzard will probably never have 50/50 balance, anything around 45-55% I remember they said is more than good. I think the game is fairly balanced right now actually.
|
On July 03 2012 05:59 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 05:52 Dalavita wrote:On July 03 2012 05:51 -TesteR- wrote:On July 03 2012 05:39 Sakkreth wrote: I wonder what terran players would be saying if their race was historically as weak on average as protoss... And saying things like "But terrans are more skilled in general" is just hilarious, it's completely subjective and cannot be proven. Protoss has gotten the short end of the stick throughout the history of sc2 judging by theses graphs, and even now as seen by the TvP winrates, but Protoss are a proud warrior race, so there is not much crying and whining. They're the only race so far to even have a fanclub for crying. Just saying http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=339852
Infested terrans trying to sow disarray.
|
On July 03 2012 06:28 Shiori 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. 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.
|
how many games are actually played for these ratings. cant really judge balance based on just a few games.
|
On July 03 2012 05:10 Femari wrote:Show nested quote +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. Even as a Terran player I can't quite agree with you there. Terran has more builds than the other races because we have a tech tree that's a little bit easier to jump up in a lot of cases, and a lot of our earlier units are good in small numbers as compared to those of Z/P.
That being said, I do think Terran has been the most innovative race at high levels if for no other reason than so much of our stuff has gotten nerfed that we've had to tweak or entirely change strategies based on the various patches.
As for the graphs, it's disappointing how misleading the data is, and even more disappointing that anyone thinks the current TvZ meta is acceptable. The best matchup in the game has become pretty boring to watch because of the ease with which Zerg can force macro games and get quick hive tech. Once the hive tech is out, siege tanks have no power and it becomes deathball vs bio/vikings just like TvP. And TvP sucks. TvT is the only good matchup left, and it's no coincidence it's the only one where tanks are strong and have to be respected.
|
On July 03 2012 06:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
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.
|
On July 03 2012 06:21 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +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.
only blizzards winrates "adjusted by skill"
but you can look at sc2 ranks to see how the players are distributed per race and league, and that shows that terrans are underrepresented everywhere except bronze and silver, so unless fewer good players pick terran for whatever reason, it would mean terran is UP, now even at the international prolevel, and even in korea with the exception of korean god tier.
|
For once whe had chance to have significant amount of data for Korean graph with all these qualifiers to different tournaments. Its a shame that these games arent included.
|
On July 03 2012 05:10 Femari wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Your arrogance is laughable.
DT expand, DT opener, DT drop all-in/expand, blink stalker/obs all-in, blink stalker all-in, four gate, three gate aggressive, three gate robo, three gate expand, two gate robo expand, one gate robo expand, voidray all-in, phoenix into expand, phoenix + DT v 1/1/1, one gate expand and the dozen variations based on gas timings/unit composition/food the nexus is placed, sentry/immortal bust, six gate, seven gate, double forge gateway units (+/- immortals) into 3 base, 2 base colossus all-in, colossus + forge, single/double forge quick storm, chargelot archon single or double forge, quick three base into 8/9 gate aggression, 2/2 chargelot/archon 2 base timing, quick 3 base into 7 gate/twilight/forge, 6 gate twilight/forge into third, 6 gate blink stalker + obs into third base, so on and so on. That's just PvT.
"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.
|
On July 03 2012 05:31 Blezza wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 05:25 ErAsc2 wrote:On July 03 2012 04:49 Blezza wrote: Well it looks like Terran were right after all, it was 55.3% which is 0.3% imbalance. Atleast most Terran players look pretty stupid now which is good. Nice math 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. So yeah, the only one made look stupid here would be you. Well Browder said that anything within 55% is a balanced MU and therefore they will patch it if it goes above that. See the problem you have is that you say dumb stuff without knowing anything, and as if anyone on this planet is dumb enough to make such an error in maths. Seriously man.
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?
|
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%
|
In any time series trend one cannot simply change the methodology to include or exclude tournament results month over month. The danger in these consumer built statistics charts is that methodology is not consistent and it is misleading if the data is not correct. I don't know whether these charts are accurate or not but I can tell you that one cannot change assumptions unless those assumptions are applied over the entire trend accurately.
So it is useless for either side (zerg or terran) to apply what-if scenarios and then make claims on balance. If whoever is creating these graphs would like to reach out to ensure accuracy or the soundness of their methodology I'm happy to help. I manage analytic's for major corporations (you know them very well) in 40 countries worldwide so I can probably help settle this issue.
|
On July 02 2012 22:26 Aocowns wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 22:23 Whole wrote: Seems that Korean Terrans were busy figuring out the new TvZ while International Terrans were complaining about balance. lol yeah, that's what happens when you live in a team house and not a frat house
Yeah you actually play the game for 10 hours a day or more depending on how strict the team is.
|
On July 03 2012 07:18 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +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.
word
User was warned for this post
|
I like how TvZ in Korea goes from 35% to even in the course of the month. Guess they did figure it out after all. Still not looking good for terrans outside of korea and I'm assuming that terrans are incorporating a lot of all ins to get these close stats. Will continue watching through next month.
|
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 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:Show nested quote +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.
That's not the real number either. 58,5 includes only TSL4 and GSL qualifiers (not counting amateurs and teamless Korean which in itself is a pretty big bias). Adding to those the MLG Korea qualifier and OSL qualifier (which was actually played in july) you get 241/537= 44.87% winrate for Terran with a steady improvement across the month.
|
Best part of this thread is people trying to argue that you should include qualifiers that have never been included before.
One of the most important part of comparing data across a time line is consistency. Without consistency, said data is completely useless. If we cherry pick certain tournaments we could probably force some pretty stupid numbers that have nothing to do with balance at all. The parameters for what is included have been set, and they need to remain the same. The less interaction with the games chosen the less possibility for people to cherry pick and skew results one way or another.
If that angers you, than go figure out the win rate for the last few months of all the tournaments you want included. Fuck it, do a day by day chart for each month that way we can see the trends for how terrans are slowly figuring out how to win or zerg figuring out how to be even more. Maybe do it on a per tournament basis. And include how you ignored certain tournaments where Terran did decent, because I'm sure your biased enough where you'll ignore those because they don't count, even though other certain things do.
|
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.
because internationally, the terrans don't have as skilled players as the terrans in korea, I thought this was a largely known fact that hasn't been argued against since artosis brought it up years ago on GSL. And instead of blaming the high winrate of zergs in may due to high skill, everyone automatically assumed "balance patch broke everything" and it might turn out that it was never the case, but a simple "now I need to reinvent my self because the old terran doesnt work with the new queen buff" and look at where we are now, an almost 50/50 win rate TvZ in KOREA.
As mentioned on STOG, it's not surprising to see a dip in win rates after a balance patch, because this ALWAYS happens. Protoss was on a big losing streak after losing KA. Zerg went on a good win streak with Idra winning MLG after the roach range buff to 4. After infestors were buffed the same thing happened. The thing is that all these terran nerfs have accumulated to so many tears that they refuse to see the game as balanced and more as broken. But I continue to believe that, if koreans can turn things around, then so can the rest of us. Internationally, win rates have historically been all over the place, because it's international, and there are huge, huge gaps in skill level.
With that said, looks like blizzard was right all along, they've been monitoring the balance very closely, even more so since the queen buff and looks like it's paying off.
oh and suddenly PvT isn't imba anymore? how did that happen? metagame? or maybe heads taken out of asses? even internationally the terrans have seemed to fix the problem with PvT even though the last thing to effect the matchup was an observer buff and if I recall correctly... a lot of people QQ'd about that as well, saying how it kills banshee openings... oh well, looks like shit got figured out
|
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 07:18 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +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. /thread
User was warned for this post
|
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..
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 07:30 Silentness wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 22:26 Aocowns wrote:On July 02 2012 22:23 Whole wrote: Seems that Korean Terrans were busy figuring out the new TvZ while International Terrans were complaining about balance. lol yeah, that's what happens when you live in a team house and not a frat house Yeah you actually play the game for 10 hours a day or more depending on how strict the team is.
...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.
|
Has there really only been ~100 games sample sizes for KR in the TLPD win rates all this time? Because honestly, that's just too few games. Individual preformances can easily swing the win rate in favor of one race for one month.
It's quite a big problem, and one of the main reasons that win rates shouldn't be an indication of balance. When you're talking about the international stats, people will say that it's not the highest level of play. But for the highest level of play, many people only look at stats like GSL, which is simply not enough games to indicate how the balance of the game is.
However, I feel like all major tournaments and qualifiers for major tournament should be added to the KR stats. IMO they can't be taken seriously at all as it is now.
|
On July 03 2012 08:19 marcesr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 07:30 Silentness wrote:On July 02 2012 22:26 Aocowns wrote:On July 02 2012 22:23 Whole wrote: Seems that Korean Terrans were busy figuring out the new TvZ while International Terrans were complaining about balance. lol yeah, that's what happens when you live in a team house and not a frat house Yeah you actually play the game for 10 hours a day or more depending on how strict the team is. ...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. Lots of data was left out. Anyone with a brain can look at tournament results since the queen buff and see that Zergs are ending up on top more often than not and Terrans are getting killed out there.
|
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. Show nested quote +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.
Nothing was cherry picked. TLPD does not exist for the purpose of these graphs. All the graph maker does is put data from TLPD into a graph. If you want TLPD to include more data then perhaps you should offer to help maintain TLPD.
|
On July 03 2012 08:13 emc wrote:Show nested quote +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.. 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.
so u think stephano murder every terran internationally? u sure? i mean. a single player can make an upset. the stats are based on 117 korean pro games and 996 international pros. the skill gap might be different but by how much? dont u think 117 games vs nearly 1000 is a far bigger number? thats my opinion.
edit. lol my bad its not 117 games. but 114
|
It would be really cool to see a comprehensive graph that showed avg game length win for a certain race in a certain matchup. It would be cool to have a little summary from someone knowledgeable after each month that highlighted the popular playstyle, and and give an opinion on the win rates, and give other various explanations.
|
Korean terrans are just too damn good.
|
That takes data from May as well. In June the rate for TvZ was 17W/21L or 44.7% win rate in a sample of 38 games. May's data however was far more disturbing (taking data from patch 1.4.3(1) and 1.4.3 (2): 8W/20L or 28.6% win rate in a sample of 28 games.
So really, in the GSL between the months of may and June there has been a marked improvement in Terran win rates.
|
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%
i dont think the game is balanced, protoss is still OP
|
On July 03 2012 07:19 Gobe wrote: 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.
|
We see that the international scene is slow to adapt, we already knew that.
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.
|
Oops this messed up was trying to fix OP -,-
|
Siggghhh this is failing ROFL. Anyways im fixing the OP to include the Code a qualifiers and tsl ^^
|
In GSL Terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of June. Also
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.
|
So these statistics are not correct is what I'm guessing?
|
16926 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)
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On July 03 2012 10:41 cskalias.pbe wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
On July 03 2012 10:48 Ace.Xile wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On July 03 2012 11:06 PotatoJunior wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 10:48 Ace.Xile wrote: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. 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.
|
On July 03 2012 11:06 PotatoJunior wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 10:48 Ace.Xile wrote: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. 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.
|
On July 03 2012 11:15 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 11:06 PotatoJunior wrote:On July 03 2012 10:48 Ace.Xile wrote: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. 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.
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.
|
Pro players have intentionally not done hellion runbys because they are not the right idea. By sacking all your hellions (short of getting 20+ drone kills), is not worth it. You lose all map control and scouting, the zerg can respond by doing whatever they want. If you go for quick hellions and lose them early you will not hold a roach baneling allin; if you dont see it coming in some other way well before. Hellions are not for supposed getting suicide kills, and any competent zerg wont lose enough drones to make it a cost effective trade for the terran, hellions are for map control and (were) for denying creep.
|
On July 03 2012 06:51 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 05:31 Blezza wrote:On July 03 2012 05:25 ErAsc2 wrote:On July 03 2012 04:49 Blezza wrote: Well it looks like Terran were right after all, it was 55.3% which is 0.3% imbalance. Atleast most Terran players look pretty stupid now which is good. Nice math 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. So yeah, the only one made look stupid here would be you. Well Browder said that anything within 55% is a balanced MU and therefore they will patch it if it goes above that. See the problem you have is that you say dumb stuff without knowing anything, and as if anyone on this planet is dumb enough to make such an error in maths. Seriously man. 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.
|
On July 03 2012 09:28 DemigodcelpH wrote:In GSL Terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of June. Also Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
Okay I'm curious, people keep talking about how ineffective Hellions are, and that makes sense because the queen buff was pretty much to counter hellions.
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.
|
So now OP has been update with incorrect information? I guess it's true what they say about lies told often enough.
|
On July 03 2012 11:40 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 09:28 DemigodcelpH wrote:In GSL Terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of June. Also 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. 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.
And they got buffed because of it. You are really biased, lol.
|
On July 03 2012 12:09 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 11:40 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 09:28 DemigodcelpH wrote:In GSL Terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of June. Also 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. 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. And they got buffed because of it. You are really biased, lol.
still waiting on morrow to win a major since his race switch, should be easy right? after spending so much time with zerg and enjoying the free handouts blizzard gives us, should be a free win, no?
|
Man... the Korea win rates just jump around like crazy in general even in all the matchups. Particularly this ZvT difference from the last month is just absolutely crazy. I guess it shows that the sample size is insufficient to get good stats.
[quote] I think if they revert ghost snipe change it would make really interesting end games. Imagine a max zerg army and an army of ghosts and fungals/emp/snipes were being thrown everywhere would make a really great viewing experience[quote]No... it'd be more like 2-3 fungals then 10 dead/energyless infestors and 10+ dead brood lords. Infestors can't really deal with ghosts, especially when there's siege tanks to pick them off. There's a reason the snipe change was done. Well zerg in general can't deal with ghosts due to the power of snipe. At least with protoss ball of death zerg can mass corruptors and/or broodlords, and throw some fungals. Against terran, siege tanks (or even ghosts) pick off banelings and infestors, while ghosts will deal with every other unit fine due to snipe. Siege tank and marauders would clean up any ultralisks or roaches that ghosts couldn't handle (which they could if they're at full energy)
Even ignoring that, snipe itself is a poor skill in my opinion (along with corruption and 250mm cannons), that I don't even think really needs to be in the game, let alone buffed. Basic skills with direct non-strategic effects don't really help the game in my opinion.
|
On July 03 2012 12:16 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 12:09 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 11:40 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 09:28 DemigodcelpH wrote:In GSL Terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of June. Also 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. 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. And they got buffed because of it. You are really biased, lol. still waiting on morrow to win a major since his race switch, should be easy right? after spending so much time with zerg and enjoying the free handouts blizzard gives us, should be a free win, no?
...?
There are players a lot better than Morrow at these tournaments, lol. I have no idea why you would pick some random example of a race switcher and use that to conclusively say anything, or even to point in some direction.
|
Sadly a lot of the terran wins have been all-ins... and the stats posted show it is still very off of what the OP says.
Also, the bias has been obvious since Blizzard nerfed units for being "too versatile" while the infestor remains a counter to almost everything.
|
On July 03 2012 11:58 Drascus wrote: Okay I'm curious, people keep talking about how ineffective Hellions are, and that makes sense because the queen buff was pretty much to counter hellions.
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.
I'm no high level player...but it seems obvious to me. If you are just making a few Marauders for Queens they are not going to do anything as they are not cost effective against lings. So you get surrounded quickly and lost your expensive (esp early game) Marauders. Not to mention they offer little mobility and map control.
|
On July 02 2012 23:21 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I always enjoy when people quote Korean Terrans on balance... I wonder why they're so upset, after 2 years of complete Terran dominance in which GomTV was GOMTVT it's no surprise that when the Zergs have a fighting chance, the games auto imbalanced. They're playing this game for money, they couldn't give a shit about whether they're biased or not, the more it favours them the more they can win.
So let us please stop quoting professional Korean Terran players going "it's so hard". Good, that's the idea of the game.
7 terran gsl titles against 5 zerg.
|
So terran is roughly 44% to 56%? Is this enough to complain about? Considering the amount of terran all-ins, and a couple zerg playing like crap; it may be. No point in really claiming one way or another, agree to disagree.
|
On July 03 2012 13:10 kinglemon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 23:21 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I always enjoy when people quote Korean Terrans on balance... I wonder why they're so upset, after 2 years of complete Terran dominance in which GomTV was GOMTVT it's no surprise that when the Zergs have a fighting chance, the games auto imbalanced. They're playing this game for money, they couldn't give a shit about whether they're biased or not, the more it favours them the more they can win.
So let us please stop quoting professional Korean Terran players going "it's so hard". Good, that's the idea of the game. 7 terran gsl titles against 5 zerg.
I don't see how this is an arguing point, Terran has 32 top finishes, zerg 10, toss 14, terran has more than the other two combined lol.
|
I feel like I'm becoming a Hegelian. Everything is cyclical. The economy. Politics.
Now TLPD winrates. Woe is me!
|
funny no one mentioning about Terran's domination in TvP both Korea and foreign after the whole drama the previous months that Terrans can't win against Protoss. And they aren't doing that bad either against Z, at least not in Korea. Foreign Terran whiners (i repeat, only those whiners, not the brave Terrans) are really the scum of SC2, only knows how to whine and not to try.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I'm guessing the T and Z winrates are mixed up.
|
Vatican City State732 Posts
I'm stilll hoping for a reverting of the queen buff. And I'm a Z. It just makes for boring games. Hellions may have been a bit strong for their costs before, but they made for some excitement. Now its just get 6 queens and a 3rd and drone like a madman. It's not even fun to watch. I much preferred the old TvZ
|
On July 03 2012 14:10 pOnarreT wrote:funny no one mentioning about Terran's domination in TvP both Korea and foreign after the whole drama the previous months that Terrans can't win against Protoss. And they aren't doing that bad either against Z, at least not in Korea. Foreign Terran whiners (i repeat, only those whiners, not the brave Terrans) are really the scum of SC2, only knows how to whine and not to try. + Show Spoiler +
Yes i think the more pressing issue is the imbalance shown in PvT being so terran favoured.
|
On July 03 2012 14:29 -TesteR- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 14:10 pOnarreT wrote:funny no one mentioning about Terran's domination in TvP both Korea and foreign after the whole drama the previous months that Terrans can't win against Protoss. And they aren't doing that bad either against Z, at least not in Korea. Foreign Terran whiners (i repeat, only those whiners, not the brave Terrans) are really the scum of SC2, only knows how to whine and not to try. + Show Spoiler + Yes i think the more pressing issue is the imbalance shown in PvT being so terran favoured. This, PvT is pretty bad atm. They either have to buff Protoss or nerf Terran some more, and given the trend that Terran is starting to win more and more against Zerg they should Nerf Terran some more, since they will be on par with Zerg pretty soon anyway and prolly have a higher win % shortly after that.
|
On July 03 2012 15:20 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 14:29 -TesteR- wrote:On July 03 2012 14:10 pOnarreT wrote:funny no one mentioning about Terran's domination in TvP both Korea and foreign after the whole drama the previous months that Terrans can't win against Protoss. And they aren't doing that bad either against Z, at least not in Korea. Foreign Terran whiners (i repeat, only those whiners, not the brave Terrans) are really the scum of SC2, only knows how to whine and not to try. + Show Spoiler + Yes i think the more pressing issue is the imbalance shown in PvT being so terran favoured. This, PvT is pretty bad atm. They either have to buff Protoss or nerf Terran some more, and given the trend that Terran is starting to win more and more against Zerg they should Nerf Terran some more, since they will be on par with Zerg pretty soon anyway and prolly have a higher win % shortly after that. Yep, because Flash taking games off Stork and Bisu, or people like Maru, Jjaki taking games off Arthur, Mentalist, or MKP who has the best TvP went all-kill StarTale and score 6-3 TvP and didn't lose to any Protoss but MC this month (on international database, he went 11-5 losing only to Alicia and demolish JYP 5-2 in IPL fightclub), clearly means TvP is in Terran favor.
|
queen costing larva or slows larva production when in the making would probably make the game more balanced. Makes no sense why a unit capable of deflecting all early and early mid game aggression, air or ground, out of all ins should not even cost larva. unit way overbuffed
|
On July 03 2012 15:20 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 14:29 -TesteR- wrote:On July 03 2012 14:10 pOnarreT wrote:funny no one mentioning about Terran's domination in TvP both Korea and foreign after the whole drama the previous months that Terrans can't win against Protoss. And they aren't doing that bad either against Z, at least not in Korea. Foreign Terran whiners (i repeat, only those whiners, not the brave Terrans) are really the scum of SC2, only knows how to whine and not to try. + Show Spoiler + Yes i think the more pressing issue is the imbalance shown in PvT being so terran favoured. This, PvT is pretty bad atm. They either have to buff Protoss or nerf Terran some more, and given the trend that Terran is starting to win more and more against Zerg they should Nerf Terran some more, since they will be on par with Zerg pretty soon anyway and prolly have a higher win % shortly after that.
It's actually funny. I really do think that the hypothesis that many terrans had (balance) inflated ranks and prestige has some merit. Still we can't forget this is during a period where MKP was a beast and the toss stars seem to be doing a bit meh for a little bit. Nothing of merit is going to change before HoTS and the HoTS changes while good still might not be the "right" fixes to add proper elasticity to some of the matchups.
|
On July 03 2012 15:20 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 14:29 -TesteR- wrote:On July 03 2012 14:10 pOnarreT wrote:funny no one mentioning about Terran's domination in TvP both Korea and foreign after the whole drama the previous months that Terrans can't win against Protoss. And they aren't doing that bad either against Z, at least not in Korea. Foreign Terran whiners (i repeat, only those whiners, not the brave Terrans) are really the scum of SC2, only knows how to whine and not to try. + Show Spoiler + Yes i think the more pressing issue is the imbalance shown in PvT being so terran favoured. This, PvT is pretty bad atm. They either have to buff Protoss or nerf Terran some more, and given the trend that Terran is starting to win more and more against Zerg they should Nerf Terran some more, since they will be on par with Zerg pretty soon anyway and prolly have a higher win % shortly after that.
You can't really base anything off the Korean stats, since the sample is way too small, look at the OP update on TvZ, what appeared to be terran favored is actually a 41/59% in Zergs favor, since ~200 games from the TSL and Code A qualifiers were left out.
Same things for TvP, just as a example, if you remove MKP it goes back to TvP 52%/48%. The sample size is so small that the games of one player can make it shift from problematic to completely fine. The International graph has a much more relevant sample size and shows perfectly fine balance in TvP.
|
On July 03 2012 15:20 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 14:29 -TesteR- wrote:On July 03 2012 14:10 pOnarreT wrote:funny no one mentioning about Terran's domination in TvP both Korea and foreign after the whole drama the previous months that Terrans can't win against Protoss. And they aren't doing that bad either against Z, at least not in Korea. Foreign Terran whiners (i repeat, only those whiners, not the brave Terrans) are really the scum of SC2, only knows how to whine and not to try. + Show Spoiler + Yes i think the more pressing issue is the imbalance shown in PvT being so terran favoured. This, PvT is pretty bad atm. They either have to buff Protoss or nerf Terran some more, and given the trend that Terran is starting to win more and more against Zerg they should Nerf Terran some more, since they will be on par with Zerg pretty soon anyway and prolly have a higher win % shortly after that.
Nah, I don't think they need to buff Toss or nerf Terran. I think Terran just needs to have patience and not whine all the time. All the whining during the previous months and still they have a better win rate presently against P.
|
The KR numbers just keep getting more balanced. Even the international TvZ numbers are no where near the disparity in foreigner ZvT is no where near as bad as I would have expected from the continuous discussion its received.
|
On July 03 2012 12:16 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 12:09 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 11:40 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 09:28 DemigodcelpH wrote:In GSL Terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of June. Also 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. 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. And they got buffed because of it. You are really biased, lol. still waiting on morrow to win a major since his race switch, should be easy right? after spending so much time with zerg and enjoying the free handouts blizzard gives us, should be a free win, no?
He cant since he still plays TvZ
|
On July 03 2012 16:56 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 12:16 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 12:09 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 11:40 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 09:28 DemigodcelpH wrote:In GSL Terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of June. Also 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. 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. And they got buffed because of it. You are really biased, lol. still waiting on morrow to win a major since his race switch, should be easy right? after spending so much time with zerg and enjoying the free handouts blizzard gives us, should be a free win, no? He cant since he still plays TvZ
So he choose TvZ because his chances to win are smaller with T? Interesting.... i should burn my money in order to grow it. Sounds like a solid plan to me.
|
On July 03 2012 17:08 Charon1979 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 16:56 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 12:16 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 12:09 Shiori wrote:On July 03 2012 11:40 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 09:28 DemigodcelpH wrote:In GSL Terran got 35% winrate vs zerg in the month of June. Also 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. 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. And they got buffed because of it. You are really biased, lol. still waiting on morrow to win a major since his race switch, should be easy right? after spending so much time with zerg and enjoying the free handouts blizzard gives us, should be a free win, no? He cant since he still plays TvZ So he choose TvZ because his chances to win are smaller with T? Interesting.... i should burn my money in order to grow it. Sounds like a solid plan to me. He chose to play TvZ because he felt ZvZ is too luck based.
|
So a luck based MU (which it isnt) is worse than an "unwinnable" MU? Seems legit
|
On July 03 2012 17:14 Charon1979 wrote: So a luck based MU (which it isnt) is worse than an "unwinnable" MU? Seems legit
How do you know Morrow thinks TvZ is unwinnable? My answer was sarcastic to stupid question btw.
|
I do feel like Zerg probably has an advantage over every race ATM(larva inject needs to be nerfed), but if you are going to include code A qualfiiers/TSL qualifiers/OSL qualfiers, and you want to remove teamless/amateur koreans from these results, then you have to do this every single month for every MU and not just the months that match your desired result.
|
Well as a viewer I dont think TvZ is working as of now. Seems the main argument from Zerg is that Terrans are stupid and can not adept to the game. Okay there might be a solution out there, a bit like X-files, but that kind of argument does obviously not work in the long run. Cause you can keep saying that for 100 years and you will always be right that there might exist a solution. The only real question is how long time we let this continue. After 2 months I see very little that indicated that Terrans are about to solve this. If anything Zerg looks like they are becoming increasingly strong with there new style.
Up until recently I actually thought that early bio pressure might be a solution against 6 queen opening Zerg. Then I watched Coca play against Heart in EG Master tournament, well let just say that Coca proved me wrong. Heart pushed with about 6 marines and 3 marauders, Coca used 4 Queens only and had about 3-4 transfuses saved up. Lost one queen, Heart lost everything. Thanks for the gift Heart, you can leave now if you like.
To just go greedy is also a very questionable solution. First Zerg has an easy time scouting with the new overlord change, if Zerg get a sniff of what Terran does when he goes directly into 3 base.. well the Terran is in major trouble like the Zikt-Demuslim game. Even if this does not occur and both Terran and Zerg goes into late game it is very hard for Terran. If the Terran goes into full macro mode there is very little stopping the creep from going everywhere. Seen several TvZ matches where the creep covers more the 50% of the available expansions around the 13-15 min mark. So far I have never seen a Terran win from this point against 6 queen build. Not sure what they win rate is for Zerg from that point but it got be pretty ridicules.
Idra suggested for Terran to be defensive at this point but I find that quite questionable. Saw Cloud try that against Haypro in TSL4 qualifier on metropolis. Well sure he was defensive on 5 base, got a nice 200 mech army to. To bad there was creep EVERYWHERE and Haypro had the remaining 7-9 bases. Complete map control, add 50 spore/spinecrawlers into the mix. Cloud did not stand a chance. Could not move anywhere, finally tried to deny one of Haypros bases. Fought one creep, lost about 50 supply. GG.
On top of this has Zerg an advantaged late game from the beginning all the way back since the snipe nerf. Terran need to keep a constant look on what Zerg is doing which can quickly go from one tech to another. If they miss it and produce the wrong counter unit for only 2-3 minutes they are in a really bad spot. If they mix it up and Zerg goes to one of the extremes they are also most likely dead. This is specially the case after an even trade fight, terrans better find out what Zerg is producing pretty damn quick. I am surprised that it is only so recently that we have seen Zerg switch between tech more frequently in late game, seems like an obvious choice once you get a large economy to back it up.
Additionally I think it is funny that so few are even mentioning the overlord speed change, that is a quite substantial buff, it is just that it is so over shadowed by the queen range issue that is not even discussed x)
Course there are some options, Terran does obviously still win TvZ sometimes. Morrow did something interesting against some Terran where he put 2 offensive bunkers between the natural and third on Antiga Shipyard (to prevent the third from being taken + no drone could move out) against 6 queen opening. He actually lost that match eventually but that was among the more interesting "kind" of working solutions I have seen so far. Would love to hear what Morrow think about TvZ by the way ^^ The mass ghost/nuke drops which MMA did against Stephano in IPL4 is another option, seen very few games with that tactic though. Not exactly a hard counter tactic, imho.
If I was playing terran I would be quite lost now, If had SC2 for a living on top of that I would probably have a nervous breakdown soon.
No if you feel for commenting this I would love if the letters GSL was not part of that message ^^. Yes Terran did pretty well, in one round of one tournament. I dont think there ever has been so many players pointing out how fantastic one race did in the round of 32 in a tournament before this round of GSL.
|
On July 03 2012 17:14 Charon1979 wrote: So a luck based MU (which it isnt) is worse than an "unwinnable" MU? Seems legit That was well over a year ago, things change and often.
|
i think i have an idea that could show more accurate winrates
1) make a table showing all the TvZ games, terran names on left, zerg names on right. then a Z or T next to it indicating terran or zerg win
2) then in a second table list all the names of Z and T players. each player starts with 200 points. do a instant calculation with the first table every time a player beat another player he takes 10 of his points.
3) do calculations in number 2 and it means the player who won more than he lost will have more points, and many players will have less points if they loss too much.
4) i guess an easier way to do it is just take each players wins and losses in TvZ and if they have 10 more wins they get +100 points or if they have 5 more losses than wins they get -50 points. This should create the same final calculations as number 2 either way you do it
5) now in the second table you should have a list of all players with a point score next to their name showing some kind of skill point rating
6) next you can go BACK to the first table, and fill in all the TvZ games with the players skill point ratings next to their names
7) next you can take all the games that are played between people with relatively equal skill level (such as maybe all games between players that have skill ratings within 40 points of eachother) and find the TvZ winrate in those games where players were within 40 skill points of eachother. this 40 skill point amount would create a range of 80 skill points (40 below and above a player) to where his TvZ games actually count towards the winrate
this is just an idea off the top of my head. theres gotta be some better way to represent these winrates to show skill of players
actually, come to think of it, an even EASIER way to do what i described above is to simply go into the MASTER LEAGUE of each server and count the winrates in the master league of each player in TvZ. however sadly i think this is almost impossible because you cannot click someones name and get their TvZ winrate, you only get their overall winrate.
because the master league represents the top 2% of players, it should always mean that represents a pool of players that are equal in relative skill like my 7 stage idea. So all you need to do is just go into the master league, and somehow find each players winrates, average them out, and boom, youve got a great statistic
EDIT: however i think this may be impossible because like i said, you cant do this with each terrans winrate. no. you need each terrans TVZ winrate. and the ladder doesnt let you look at someones tvz winrate.
some might say master league balance doesnt represent top level balance, however these are the top2% of players and id think there must be some extension of the balance from masters into the pro level maybe not completely mirroring it but its gotta at least give some good clues on the real situation
|
Do you know why the Koreans still have a decent TvZ winrate? Because they are mroe aggressive and allin harder and more often.
|
OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from.
|
On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from.
Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure.
|
Seriously don't know how TvZ looks like that in Korea...
|
On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from. Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure. And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point.
|
June is nothing. Wait till July as zergs are just leaning how to abuse queen openings. I expect protoss to crash and burn along with terran as they start doing roach max drops ala symbol.
|
|
On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from. Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure. And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point.
Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data.
|
And it wont be counted in next month graph like it didnt happen. We had few days ago huge OSL qualifier with every Korean pro participating, wont be counted either.
|
On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from. Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure. And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph.
|
On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from. Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure. And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph.
Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games?
|
Just to pull a protoss:
And still Hero won. Just shows that toss is even more imba!
|
On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from. Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure. And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are.
|
On July 03 2012 17:22 ABear wrote: I do feel like Zerg probably has an advantage over every race ATM(larva inject needs to be nerfed), but if you are going to include code A qualfiiers/TSL qualifiers/OSL qualfiers, and you want to remove teamless/amateur koreans from these results, then you have to do this every single month for every MU and not just the months that match your desired result.
I don't think you want to do that, since GSL code S has been unnaturally favorable statistics wise for terrans over the course of SC2s life, and if you went back and edited in all high level qualifiers and tournaments that didn't have random ladder players in it, it would devalue the code S stats and you'd more than likely see terran drop a couple of percentages every month and months that might have seemed imbalanced now seem a lot more balanced.
I agree that all high level relevant tournamnets should be included in the data. It's more of a logistics issue at this stage. The graphs only use TLPD data.
|
On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from. Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure. And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are.
Why remove international graph? Its only one you can draw conclusion from. I didnt know that tournament/qulifier rule existed. Code A is qulifier to Code S so it seems like there is not such a rule btw.
|
On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from. Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure. And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are.
Those qualifiers are tournaments.
|
On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from. Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure. And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. Then why were they never accounted before but suddenly people are screaming they should? a qualifier is not a tournament, it is a qualifier to get in the tournament.
|
On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from. Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure. And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments.
yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you.
|
On July 03 2012 21:11 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from. Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure. And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. Then why were they never accounted before but suddenly people are screaming they should? a qualifier is not a tournament, it is a qualifier to get in the tournament.
Because it's relevant data and that the sample size is too small otherwise. These games have a big competitive meaning, so it's not like the players are fucking around like in ladder and the competition is way harder that actual tournaments that are already included in the graph.
Those games should have been accounted from the start. Following your logic we shouldnt even use code A games since it's only a qualifier for Code S.
|
On July 03 2012 21:11 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from. Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure. And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. Then why were they never accounted before but suddenly people are screaming they should? a qualifier is not a tournament, it is a qualifier to get in the tournament.
They were never accounted before because TLPD isn't perfect and what it does and doesn't include is a bit weird. It lists the OSL qualifier, but not the Code A qualifer, for example.
A qualifier is a tournament to get into another tournament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament
Really, do you think that the Code A qualifier isn't a tournament?
The Korean sample size is already pretty low, we don't need to be pointlessly omitting high level games because it's "just a qualifier".
|
On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from. Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure. And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you.
Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow...
Just do your research before posting please.
|
Any attempt to try to adjust the dataset when one doesn't find the expected result is outright attrocious. People do this over and over again in these threads. Of course it is wrong to include TSL4 qualifier results when the TLPD data shows a near 50/50 win ratio to try to get "better" results. It is completely wrong to use statistics in that way. So just stop this discussion already.
The TLPD statistics for june in Korea is flawed. The dataset for june is way too small to be statistically significant when the winratios are close to 50/50.
So both sides are wrong. In fact, there should be no "sides" in this discussion. You can't prove any statistical significant "imbalance" OR "balance" from these numbers. The only thing you can say is that terran won 50.9% = 58 of 114 games and that zerg won 49.1%=56 out of 114 games.
If we step out of the constraint that we have to use TLPD data only and add the data suggested in the OP we get a sample size of 335 games. As it turns out, 335 games is a way better sample size to work with. Now if, and that is a big IF, we assume that those 335 games can be expected to display the current state of TvZ in a complete way and then analyze the numbers - what happens then ?
I take the liberty to link back to one of my previous posts in this thread where I did just that.
But bare in mind that the assumptions that win rates will tell anything about balance is very questionable.
|
On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 17:49 Stiluz wrote: OP's own analysis about qualifiers is methodologically extremely flawed. If you want to count qualifiers to compare winrates with previous months, you have to go back and include tournament qualifying rounds for every single month. As another post mentioned, you can't cherry pick when to include and discuss winrates from qualifiers, you have to be consistant about where your data comes from. Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure. And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please.
virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal.
|
On July 03 2012 23:17 one-one-one wrote:Any attempt to try to adjust the dataset when one doesn't find the expected result is outright attrocious. People do this over and over again in these threads. Of course it is wrong to include TSL4 qualifier results when the TLPD data shows a near 50/50 win ratio to try to get "better" results. It is completely wrong to use statistics in that way. So just stop this discussion already. The TLPD statistics for june in Korea is flawed. The dataset for june is way too small to be statistically significant when the winratios are close to 50/50. So both sides are wrong. In fact, there should be no "sides" in this discussion. You can't prove any statistical significant "imbalance" OR "balance" from these numbers. The only thing you can say is that terran won 50.9% = 58 of 114 games and that zerg won 49.1%=56 out of 114 games. If we step out of the constraint that we have to use TLPD data only and add the data suggested in the OP we get a sample size of 335 games. As it turns out, 335 games is a way better sample size to work with. Now if, and that is a big IF, we assume that those 335 games can be expected to display the current state of TvZ in a complete way and then analyze the numbers - what happens then ? I take the liberty to link back to one of my previous posts in this thread where I did just that. But bare in mind that the assumptions that win rates will tell anything about balance is very questionable. Nah, we shouldn't care about previous graphs, bigger sample with the same players playing in a similar system is always better, code A qualifiers is one of the hardest tournaments in the world(if anything code A and S are the tournaments that fall into a completely different category given how much preparation for a specific opponent is important), period. I didn't even feel like arguing about this because it's downright asinine to even think about denying this bigger sample.
|
On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote: [quote]
Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure.
And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments.
|
On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote: [quote] And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments.
Isn't Code B a ladder rank ? If it is then probably anyone that is gm in EU/NA can get into code B.
|
On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote: [quote]
Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure.
And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal.
Point is to have more data to reduce random elements like palyers skill. Right know we have Korean graph with 20% of games actual played in Korea. At this point its better drop Korean graph altogether to reduce confusion.
|
On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote: [quote] And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments.
Participation Requirements:
- Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license)
These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV
|
On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote: [quote]
Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data.
It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did.
|
On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote: [quote] It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did.
Huh? Let me explain to you what he meant:
first guy claims:
On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:09 keglu wrote: [quote]
Or we can start now so for once we can have singifcant amount of data to jugde anything (500 games instead of 100). Who cares about previous data, you can't draw any conlusion on winrates changing over 10-20% each month. Also TSL, OSL qualifiers werent played before, MLG im not sure.
And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal.
and then you start raging:
On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote: [quote] And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments.
and then a third guy posts the official requirements of the code A qualifiers:
On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote: [quote]
Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data.
It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV
|
On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote: [quote] It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did.
There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers.
|
On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote: [quote]
Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games?
Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers.
How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all.
|
I dont get why some people belive code s,a,b consists of godly koreans. In reality skill wise its the same. i've personally beat forgg(ex S)[and im just random eu casual that plays like 1day of the week] and if u watch their streams u'll see they lose a lot.[when playing eu ladder or some daily inet cups]
|
On July 04 2012 00:07 Powerstrike wrote: I dont get why some people belive code s,a,b consists of godly koreans. In reality skill wise its the same. i've personally beat forgg(ex S) and if u watch their streams u'll see they lose a lot. ladder != tournament play. Ladder is practicing new builds, learning new meta, and testing endurance. Tournament is mind game and throwing everything you got. Just because you beat forgg on ladder after he played for 10 hours straight or trying new B/O does not mean you'll even take a game off of him in a tournament settings
what you're implying just don't hold up to results. If it did we'd be looking at more foreigners in GSL right now
|
On July 03 2012 23:54 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote: [quote]
Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games?
Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. Huh? Let me explain to you what he meant: first guy claims: Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:18 Assirra wrote: [quote] And neither can you change the rules of something in the middle of series, your whole series is broken that way. Who knows what would have happened if the code A qualifiers for instance always got counted. It's kinda silly that people want to include qualifiers that were never included just to proof their point. Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data. It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. and then you start raging: Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:34 keglu wrote: [quote]
Again i dont care about series, i care about current state of the game and having reliable data. Till know i never took Korean graph seriously because of sample size so let it be. We have chance to have reliable graph in future if we add all this data.
It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. and then a third guy posts the official requirements of the code A qualifiers: Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote:On July 03 2012 18:43 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 18:40 Assirra wrote: [quote] It does not matter what you care about...a graph without consistency is not a graph at all. What you want is raw stats, not a graph. Ok lets have consistent graph showing nothing, let it be. Also to clarify: its ok to add new tournamet - proleague to graph but not ok to add new TSL/OSL qualifiers with better players and much more games? Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV Let me explain what you missed, he is trying to devalue the tournament by mentioning irrelevant shit, GSL could allow dogs for all I care, we do not have weak players playing, look into the preliminaries brackets, tons of known players being eliminated in the first rounds, those requirements are meaningless in the grand scheme of things and I still want confirmation on this because if I was a bronzie living in korea I'd want to play some games vs progamers, I'm sure other people think alike, why do we have none?Even if we had, exclude the matches between players below mid masters, search for the ranks in sc2 ranks, I'm in favor of searching for every match between top koreans in every tournament, I'm sure it will represent the current state much better than a graph based on 100 games.
|
Seems that allthough it's a rather small sample size – the game is fairly balanced based solely on these numbers. However, terrans seem to be really dominant in the TvP matchup. I found this surprising based on the shere amount of complaints from terran players lately.
|
On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote:On July 03 2012 19:18 Assirra wrote: [quote] Well if that is the case why not just remove international graphics completely? I mean, its clearly all about the better players so. You cannot adjust the rules as you see fit, cause then this whole graph would be worthless. This is about tournaments, not qualifiers, doesn't matter how good the qualifiers are. Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all.
Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics?
That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant.
|
On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote: [quote]
Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant.
Yeah, but those games were not included in the TLPD statistics. And that is a fact.
The rest is just you people trying to argue each other to death which games that should have been included and which shouldn't. It is a pointless discussion.
|
On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote: [quote]
Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant. Weed them out then, only games between players in pro teams above mid masters, besides, it's not like using the MLG showmatches is any better than random ladder matches.
|
On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote: [quote]
Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant.
How is this different from say, MLG where anyone can sign up for the Open Bracket?
|
On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 20:59 MrSalamandra wrote: [quote]
Those qualifiers are tournaments. yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you. Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant. You can just count exclude amateur or teamless players just like the op though. Or you can start counting from ro16, ro8 like ESV. TLPD only count ESV ro8 and up because as long as you have a team, you can sign up and people don't show up all the time. There's week that the number of Terran sign up is more than Protoss and Zerg combined, and people don't even show up after that.
|
If a lab rat has been getting free food for 20 months by pushing a button and getting a mild shock, don't be surprised if the rat persists in getting shocked for 2 months after the free food has been cut off.
|
On July 04 2012 00:44 shockaslim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote: [quote]
yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you.
Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant. How is this different from say, MLG where anyone can sign up for the Open Bracket?
That is a good questions. I think it depends on what you want to the data to represent or the information you are intrested in. If you are only looking for data on professional players, playing in important matches, then removing the open bracket wouldn't be a bad idea. It might give you a good snap shot of how each race was doing based at that moment.
The graphs we are looking at in this specific thread are attemtping to show the win rates over the span of a year. It makes sense for them only to take the same data, from the same sources every month to get a picture of how the match ups changed over the course of a year. Adding in qualifiers would taint the data for that specific month. They want to keep the amount of data consistent over the 12 month period, or as consistent as possible(clearly, nothing is perfect)
This does not mean you can't make a different graph with that data included. In fact, it may be more intresting to look at both sets against each other and try to figure out why they are different. Why did so many terrans get mauled by zergs in the TSL4 qualifier? Are they the same terrans that did ok in the main touranments? If they are different, what did the terrans that did well against zergs do differently? If they are the same players, WFT happened in the TSL4 qualifier? Was it the maps?
Arguing about if the data should be included or not doesn't really do anything. Trying to figure out why it is different is more interesting and people are far more liking to find something useful.
|
On July 04 2012 00:44 shockaslim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote:On July 03 2012 21:14 emc wrote: [quote]
yes, a tournament to a much larger tournament where every player is a super star. The qualifiers is weeding out the bad players from the good, if we haven't counted qualifiers in the past, why should we now? The qualifiers are like College football, everyone is pretty good but there is only 1 or 2 people on each football team who could be NFL potential, but in the major tournament, everyone is a super star. Qualifiers shouldn't be counted because there is too large of a skill gap, a qualifier could consist of bronze to GM players for all we know. Make your own graph if you feel so bad about it, instead of letting other people do everything for you.
Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow... Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant. How is this different from say, MLG where anyone can sign up for the Open Bracket?
MLG takes place in ONLY 3 days, Code A qualifiers take over a week, maybe 2. Then the actual tournament of GSL for instance, takes several months, so players can know weeks in advance who they play and study them. If both players have an equal chance at studying each other, then surely GSL is the hardest possible tournament because of the amount of preparation, not even mentioning the caliber of players which we all know are fantastic.
My point is, MLG is an endurance test, Code A qualifiers are not, you only have to win 4 matches to make it into Code A, that is NOTHING compared to the grueling task of getting through open brackets. Endurance wise, MLG is a lot tougher, but it could be argued that Code A qualifiers are certainly more challenging. I think there is definitely LESS skill in the MLG open brackets for several rounds until the pros start to finally face each other, but that's hundreds of worthless games until the pros start playing each other.
But if it were up to me, I wouldn't include the MLG open bracket because it's basically a qualifier, a bunch of players mixed in from bronze to GM to Code S level, the place you really don't want to take balance from.
Honestly I don't think the guy who makes the TLPD cares all that much about international win rates because it seems he pretty much just uses every tournament possible where korea is a lot more exclusive.
but hey, if you are one of those nit pickers that wants to see "true" balance, then create your own damn graph already... sheesh.
|
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?).
Should credit @SC2Statistics, which has done all the hard work compiling these in readable form (AND included statistical error). The sheer fact that you didn't credit him in the OP for all the work he does, freely posting to his twitter, reflects very badly on you.
Now that that's been said, looks like Korea remains ahead on the metagame curve. They boast a 4.4% less difference from a 50-50 split on winrates compared to International (5.3% up/down compared to 0.9%). Very hopeful that things will resolve themselves in time (if there still remains plenty of time before HOTS launch).
|
On July 04 2012 10:13 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 00:44 shockaslim wrote:On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:On July 03 2012 21:31 keglu wrote: [quote]
Its like completly you have no idea what are you talking about. Korean weekly and proleague are tournaments with only superstars and TSL/ OSL/MLG qaulifiers are full of bad players. Wow...
Just do your research before posting please. virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant. How is this different from say, MLG where anyone can sign up for the Open Bracket? MLG takes place in ONLY 3 days, Code A qualifiers take over a week, maybe 2. Then the actual tournament of GSL for instance, takes several months, so players can know weeks in advance who they play and study them. If both players have an equal chance at studying each other, then surely GSL is the hardest possible tournament because of the amount of preparation, not even mentioning the caliber of players which we all know are fantastic. My point is, MLG is an endurance test, Code A qualifiers are not, you only have to win 4 matches to make it into Code A, that is NOTHING compared to the grueling task of getting through open brackets. Endurance wise, MLG is a lot tougher, but it could be argued that Code A qualifiers are certainly more challenging. I think there is definitely LESS skill in the MLG open brackets for several rounds until the pros start to finally face each other, but that's hundreds of worthless games until the pros start playing each other. But if it were up to me, I wouldn't include the MLG open bracket because it's basically a qualifier, a bunch of players mixed in from bronze to GM to Code S level, the place you really don't want to take balance from. Honestly I don't think the guy who makes the TLPD cares all that much about international win rates because it seems he pretty much just uses every tournament possible where korea is a lot more exclusive. but hey, if you are one of those nit pickers that wants to see "true" balance, then create your own damn graph already... sheesh.
But if you were interested in balance, then the GSL is actually one of the poorest places to look. Why? Because of two things: sample size, and study opportunities. The first part is self-explanatory, but the second bears some reflection. Even if some matchup is insanely imbalanced, given enough time, one player might be able to study the play of another specific player to the point where they locate a timing that works against them. This isn't possible in an average game and it does little to comment on the balance of a matchup. You need to understand that when MKP plays DRG in the GSL it's about MKP vs DRG more than it is about T vs Z. On the other hand, when MKP and DRG play at MLG, it's still about MKP vs DRG, sure, but it's also about well-executed, but non-tailored, Terran vs well-executed, but non-tailored, Zerg.
This is a massive difference, because in many respects it means high skill qualifiers like TSL4KR are actually more useful indicators of balance. Why? Because, firstly, they're a larger sample size, and because, secondly, they evaluate players playing neutrally against each other. Yes, there are certainly some weak players who sign up for TSL qualifiers, but they are a small number. They're not enough to actually mean anything, especially since the saturation of pro players is so, so high. It's inconceivable that a whole bunch of mid Diamond players would somehow work their way up the bracket. You might have one outlier, but with the sample size being larger, that matters less. Hell, you could even manually eliminate for players that aren't at least Korean B-Teamers.
It's why I laughed at people who said 0 Zergs in the Ro8 GSL means anything. It doesn't, and it didn't. It just means that the players who played against Zerg that particular time around happened to prepare better/execute their strategies better/get inside their opponent's heads. It might also mean that the Zerg players underprepared or just didn't play their best (which is basically what happened, IMO). It says nothing about the state of PvZ or TvZ because it's not consistent and only exists in one extremely tiny (size-wise) tournament.
The reason Terrans are right to be concerned about TvZ is because Zerg is doing well in every neutral tournament. This means GSTL, TSL4KR, and so on. These are tournaments that you can't prepare for except in a general way. You can't develop a strategy designed specifically to steal you a win against DRG. You have to practice your general matchups in such a way that you'd be capable of facing anyone. This means you play more safely and don't tend to mindgame to the same degree, because you simply don't know your opponent's style as well as you might in the GSL.
It's that simple. GSTL matters. TSL4KR matters. GSL Code A/S matter only when a consistent, prolonged trend is observed, because only after several seasons can individuality be eliminated by group selection.
|
On July 04 2012 10:42 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 10:13 emc wrote:On July 04 2012 00:44 shockaslim wrote:On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote: [quote]
virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant. How is this different from say, MLG where anyone can sign up for the Open Bracket? MLG takes place in ONLY 3 days, Code A qualifiers take over a week, maybe 2. Then the actual tournament of GSL for instance, takes several months, so players can know weeks in advance who they play and study them. If both players have an equal chance at studying each other, then surely GSL is the hardest possible tournament because of the amount of preparation, not even mentioning the caliber of players which we all know are fantastic. My point is, MLG is an endurance test, Code A qualifiers are not, you only have to win 4 matches to make it into Code A, that is NOTHING compared to the grueling task of getting through open brackets. Endurance wise, MLG is a lot tougher, but it could be argued that Code A qualifiers are certainly more challenging. I think there is definitely LESS skill in the MLG open brackets for several rounds until the pros start to finally face each other, but that's hundreds of worthless games until the pros start playing each other. But if it were up to me, I wouldn't include the MLG open bracket because it's basically a qualifier, a bunch of players mixed in from bronze to GM to Code S level, the place you really don't want to take balance from. Honestly I don't think the guy who makes the TLPD cares all that much about international win rates because it seems he pretty much just uses every tournament possible where korea is a lot more exclusive. but hey, if you are one of those nit pickers that wants to see "true" balance, then create your own damn graph already... sheesh. But if you were interested in balance, then the GSL is actually one of the poorest places to look. Why? Because of two things: sample size, and study opportunities. The first part is self-explanatory, but the second bears some reflection. Even if some matchup is insanely imbalanced, given enough time, one player might be able to study the play of another specific player to the point where they locate a timing that works against them. This isn't possible in an average game and it does little to comment on the balance of a matchup. You need to understand that when MKP plays DRG in the GSL it's about MKP vs DRG more than it is about T vs Z. On the other hand, when MKP and DRG play at MLG, it's still about MKP vs DRG, sure, but it's also about well-executed, but non-tailored, Terran vs well-executed, but non-tailored, Zerg. This is a massive difference, because in many respects it means high skill qualifiers like TSL4KR are actually more useful indicators of balance. Why? Because, firstly, they're a larger sample size, and because, secondly, they evaluate players playing neutrally against each other. Yes, there are certainly some weak players who sign up for TSL qualifiers, but they are a small number. They're not enough to actually mean anything, especially since the saturation of pro players is so, so high. It's inconceivable that a whole bunch of mid Diamond players would somehow work their way up the bracket. You might have one outlier, but with the sample size being larger, that matters less. Hell, you could even manually eliminate for players that aren't at least Korean B-Teamers. It's why I laughed at people who said 0 Zergs in the Ro8 GSL means anything. It doesn't, and it didn't. It just means that the players who played against Zerg that particular time around happened to prepare better/execute their strategies better/get inside their opponent's heads. It might also mean that the Zerg players underprepared or just didn't play their best (which is basically what happened, IMO). It says nothing about the state of PvZ or TvZ because it's not consistent and only exists in one extremely tiny (size-wise) tournament. The reason Terrans are right to be concerned about TvZ is because Zerg is doing well in every neutral tournament. This means GSTL, TSL4KR, and so on. These are tournaments that you can't prepare for except in a general way. You can't develop a strategy designed specifically to steal you a win against DRG. You have to practice your general matchups in such a way that you'd be capable of facing anyone. This means you play more safely and don't tend to mindgame to the same degree, because you simply don't know your opponent's style as well as you might in the GSL. It's that simple. GSTL matters. TSL4KR matters. GSL Code A/S matter only when a consistent, prolonged trend is observed, because only after several seasons can individuality be eliminated by group selection.
which is why I don't take winrates or stats very seriously. When terran was winning a lot, I was just happy to watch FD and Nestea take it home in those early days, I didn't really care that zergs were all struggling. I like being the under dog, and now that zerg is considered the strong race, it makes me want to play terran, the race I used to play at master level. Sure, I will admit I was a bit relieved to see the stats even out a bit, but even I know that the sample size will never be up to standards, the player pool will be nit picked, someone will always find a flaw somewhere, and that's inevitable in a game like this, where the game isn't won by stats, it's won through intuition, skill and sometimes luck. Oh and knowing your opponent is a perfectly valid way to play the game, it's why a player like Savior is considered one of the best in BW because he constantly switched his style as people were constantly studying him. I think if anything, the more a player has to prepare, the better the match (usually).
and actually.. a large amount of the games played, are the FIRST rounds, there is a lot of randoms who enter tournaments on the first round so I can't agree with you on the point that qualifiers should be taken more seriously over GSL, that is just rediculous. I will give way and say that a tournament like the MLG championship sunday (not the open brackets) is a good indicator of balance, and last MLG we had a VERY even distribution in the championship bracket.
|
On July 04 2012 11:21 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 10:42 Shiori wrote:On July 04 2012 10:13 emc wrote:On July 04 2012 00:44 shockaslim wrote:On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote: [quote] Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant. How is this different from say, MLG where anyone can sign up for the Open Bracket? MLG takes place in ONLY 3 days, Code A qualifiers take over a week, maybe 2. Then the actual tournament of GSL for instance, takes several months, so players can know weeks in advance who they play and study them. If both players have an equal chance at studying each other, then surely GSL is the hardest possible tournament because of the amount of preparation, not even mentioning the caliber of players which we all know are fantastic. My point is, MLG is an endurance test, Code A qualifiers are not, you only have to win 4 matches to make it into Code A, that is NOTHING compared to the grueling task of getting through open brackets. Endurance wise, MLG is a lot tougher, but it could be argued that Code A qualifiers are certainly more challenging. I think there is definitely LESS skill in the MLG open brackets for several rounds until the pros start to finally face each other, but that's hundreds of worthless games until the pros start playing each other. But if it were up to me, I wouldn't include the MLG open bracket because it's basically a qualifier, a bunch of players mixed in from bronze to GM to Code S level, the place you really don't want to take balance from. Honestly I don't think the guy who makes the TLPD cares all that much about international win rates because it seems he pretty much just uses every tournament possible where korea is a lot more exclusive. but hey, if you are one of those nit pickers that wants to see "true" balance, then create your own damn graph already... sheesh. But if you were interested in balance, then the GSL is actually one of the poorest places to look. Why? Because of two things: sample size, and study opportunities. The first part is self-explanatory, but the second bears some reflection. Even if some matchup is insanely imbalanced, given enough time, one player might be able to study the play of another specific player to the point where they locate a timing that works against them. This isn't possible in an average game and it does little to comment on the balance of a matchup. You need to understand that when MKP plays DRG in the GSL it's about MKP vs DRG more than it is about T vs Z. On the other hand, when MKP and DRG play at MLG, it's still about MKP vs DRG, sure, but it's also about well-executed, but non-tailored, Terran vs well-executed, but non-tailored, Zerg. This is a massive difference, because in many respects it means high skill qualifiers like TSL4KR are actually more useful indicators of balance. Why? Because, firstly, they're a larger sample size, and because, secondly, they evaluate players playing neutrally against each other. Yes, there are certainly some weak players who sign up for TSL qualifiers, but they are a small number. They're not enough to actually mean anything, especially since the saturation of pro players is so, so high. It's inconceivable that a whole bunch of mid Diamond players would somehow work their way up the bracket. You might have one outlier, but with the sample size being larger, that matters less. Hell, you could even manually eliminate for players that aren't at least Korean B-Teamers. It's why I laughed at people who said 0 Zergs in the Ro8 GSL means anything. It doesn't, and it didn't. It just means that the players who played against Zerg that particular time around happened to prepare better/execute their strategies better/get inside their opponent's heads. It might also mean that the Zerg players underprepared or just didn't play their best (which is basically what happened, IMO). It says nothing about the state of PvZ or TvZ because it's not consistent and only exists in one extremely tiny (size-wise) tournament. The reason Terrans are right to be concerned about TvZ is because Zerg is doing well in every neutral tournament. This means GSTL, TSL4KR, and so on. These are tournaments that you can't prepare for except in a general way. You can't develop a strategy designed specifically to steal you a win against DRG. You have to practice your general matchups in such a way that you'd be capable of facing anyone. This means you play more safely and don't tend to mindgame to the same degree, because you simply don't know your opponent's style as well as you might in the GSL. It's that simple. GSTL matters. TSL4KR matters. GSL Code A/S matter only when a consistent, prolonged trend is observed, because only after several seasons can individuality be eliminated by group selection. and actually.. a large amount of the games played, are the FIRST rounds, there is a lot of randoms who enter tournaments on the first round so I can't agree with you on the point that qualifiers should be taken more seriously over GSL, that is just rediculous. I will give way and say that a tournament like the MLG championship sunday (not the open brackets) is a good indicator of balance, and last MLG we had a VERY even distribution in the championship bracket.
But the open bracket first round is composed of an entirely random sampling of players. The only players who progress are the players that are actually good, which means that they end up playing more games. Whether or not there are noobs in the first round doesn't favour any one race, which means taking all the high-level qualifiers together should eliminate all outliers.
|
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.
International Terrans "We hate Korean Terran comrades. They are killing the hope for Terran buff."
|
On July 04 2012 12:57 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +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. International Terrans "We hate Korean Terran comrades. They are killing the hope for Terran buff."
koreans play for glory, international terrans play for money
|
On July 04 2012 13:14 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 12:57 Orek wrote: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. International Terrans "We hate Korean Terran comrades. They are killing the hope for Terran buff." koreans play for glory, international terrans play for money then why do so many Koreans leave for foreign teams? Why did MVP say he wants to win X amount of money in a year?
Don't kid yourself, they play for money too.
|
On July 04 2012 13:14 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 12:57 Orek wrote: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. International Terrans "We hate Korean Terran comrades. They are killing the hope for Terran buff." koreans play for glory, international terrans play for money Mvp originally said that he started playing StarCraft 2 for the money.
Also, all pro players play for money. It's their job, stop saying that players playing for money is a "bad thing" or "hurting e-Sports."
|
My opinion; Balance by winrates seems fine, Viewer experience has never been worse (tvz and pvz being macrofest for 15 minutes into deathball attack - tvp still race vs time)
Glad ZvZ and PvP are getting better by the day?
|
Wow, balance is becoming pretty good! (winrate wise)
As usual korean is more extreme (not as balanced), but it's not as different from the international as it usually is. TvP is at 54%, that's acceptable, ZvT is like 51% (how?), PvZ is like the same.
|
June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24
Knew those stats were rigged. I've always been amazed by the stupidity of people being convinced by graphs alone, without checking the integrity of the data behind them.
Anyone can create graphs on Excel or R, name them however they want, and upload them on the WEB.
Real stats are therefore : 41.5% TvZ 58.5%
|
On July 02 2012 22:29 mEtRoSG wrote: fake? no way terran has had so many wins against zerg ive only seen zerg wins in gsl gstl etc
Yeah I'm not sure what happened to the giant loss record that Terrans were having. 29-32 doesn't make sense.
|
On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote: Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference:
June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24
if u do the math, u get a TvZ winrate of 139-196,
this gives u a 41.5% to 58.5% ratio. over 5% difference
|
On July 09 2012 03:41 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Knew those stats were rigged. I've always been amazed by the stupidity of people being convinced by graphs alone, without checking the integrity of the data behind them. Anyone can create graphs on Excel or R, name them however they want, and upload them on the WEB. Real stats are therefore : 41.5% TvZ 58.5%
How are the stats rigged? The win rates haven't included qualifiers before so they weren't counted this time either. It's not a big conspiracy against terrans, you know. I remember reading that explanaiton like a week ago in this thread, funny that there's still posts about this stuff.
|
On July 02 2012 22:29 Gentso wrote: Foreigners can't typically create extremely solid styles on their own like the hellion opener. Only person who's been effective at something like that is Stephano. So when the game gets changed they have to wait for Koreans to figure everything out first.
Is this incredibly wrong. Sky terran which was popular for a bit was a foreigner thing. The HuK 20 nexus which is still used is a foreigner thing, IechOic's opening was incredibly popular till some nerfs hit. 5Rax Reaper was a foreigner thing I believe. Yes the Koreans create many styles, but there are many styles created by foreigners too.
BTW: those are just a few, there are many more styles that have been created by foreigners.
|
On July 09 2012 04:31 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 22:29 Gentso wrote: Foreigners can't typically create extremely solid styles on their own like the hellion opener. Only person who's been effective at something like that is Stephano. So when the game gets changed they have to wait for Koreans to figure everything out first. Is this incredibly wrong. Sky terran which was popular for a bit was a foreigner thing. The HuK 20 nexus which is still used is a foreigner thing, IechOic's opening was incredibly popular till some nerfs hit. 5Rax Reaper was a foreigner thing I believe. Yes the Koreans create many styles, but there are many styles created by foreigners too. BTW: those are just a few, there are many more styles that have been created by foreigners.
DEFINITELY. I would even argue you could attribute double forge pvt to the foreigner scene, as guys like Axslav and Nony were doing it while koreans were still doing 2 base colossi openers every time. Koreans are not omnipotent creative beings and foreigners functionally retarded. PvP phoenix builds also got popular in the non korean metagame months before koreans ever started using them.
|
On July 09 2012 04:36 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 04:31 docvoc wrote:On July 02 2012 22:29 Gentso wrote: Foreigners can't typically create extremely solid styles on their own like the hellion opener. Only person who's been effective at something like that is Stephano. So when the game gets changed they have to wait for Koreans to figure everything out first. Is this incredibly wrong. Sky terran which was popular for a bit was a foreigner thing. The HuK 20 nexus which is still used is a foreigner thing, IechOic's opening was incredibly popular till some nerfs hit. 5Rax Reaper was a foreigner thing I believe. Yes the Koreans create many styles, but there are many styles created by foreigners too. BTW: those are just a few, there are many more styles that have been created by foreigners. DEFINITELY. I would even argue you could attribute double forge pvt to the foreigner scene, as guys like Axslav and Nony were doing it while koreans were still doing 2 base colossi openers every time. Koreans are not omnipotent creative beings and foreigners functionally retarded. PvP phoenix builds also got popular in the non korean metagame months before koreans ever started using them.
i wish to call dibs on the expo - hellion - banshee opener, if possible
but seriously, yeah, the thing that makes koreans korean is their practice regimen, discipline and drive to actually own regardless of anything else, not their uncanny genes for starcraft creativity
|
On July 09 2012 03:41 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Knew those stats were rigged. I've always been amazed by the stupidity of people being convinced by graphs alone, without checking the integrity of the data behind them. Anyone can create graphs on Excel or R, name them however they want, and upload them on the WEB. Real stats are therefore : 41.5% TvZ 58.5%
only 17 percents difference? i guess terrans are closing out the gap. I was expecting way bigger difference judging by terran slumping really hard on international events.
|
On July 09 2012 03:41 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Knew those stats were rigged. I've always been amazed by the stupidity of people being convinced by graphs alone, without checking the integrity of the data behind them. Anyone can create graphs on Excel or R, name them however they want, and upload them on the WEB. Real stats are therefore : 41.5% TvZ 58.5%
Wow! You have discovered Team Liquid's secret anti-Terran agenda! I suspect these graphs were also created in Roswell.
|
On July 09 2012 04:13 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 03:41 SiroKO wrote:June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Knew those stats were rigged. I've always been amazed by the stupidity of people being convinced by graphs alone, without checking the integrity of the data behind them. Anyone can create graphs on Excel or R, name them however they want, and upload them on the WEB. Real stats are therefore : 41.5% TvZ 58.5% How are the stats rigged? The win rates haven't included qualifiers before so they weren't counted this time either. It's not a big conspiracy against terrans, you know. I remember reading that explanaiton like a week ago in this thread, funny that there's still posts about this stuff.
I think it is highly plausible that the international qualifiers for TSL were included whereas the Korean ones were not. I say this because the Korean TSL qualifiers are strangely in the international TLPD.
|
On July 09 2012 05:19 shockaslim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 04:13 karpo wrote:On July 09 2012 03:41 SiroKO wrote:June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Knew those stats were rigged. I've always been amazed by the stupidity of people being convinced by graphs alone, without checking the integrity of the data behind them. Anyone can create graphs on Excel or R, name them however they want, and upload them on the WEB. Real stats are therefore : 41.5% TvZ 58.5% How are the stats rigged? The win rates haven't included qualifiers before so they weren't counted this time either. It's not a big conspiracy against terrans, you know. I remember reading that explanaiton like a week ago in this thread, funny that there's still posts about this stuff. I think it is highly plausible that the international qualifiers for TSL were included whereas the Korean ones were not. I say this because the Korean TSL qualifiers are strangely in the international TLPD.
Then it still isn't rigged, right?
|
On July 09 2012 04:41 n0ise wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 04:36 Drowsy wrote:On July 09 2012 04:31 docvoc wrote:On July 02 2012 22:29 Gentso wrote: Foreigners can't typically create extremely solid styles on their own like the hellion opener. Only person who's been effective at something like that is Stephano. So when the game gets changed they have to wait for Koreans to figure everything out first. Is this incredibly wrong. Sky terran which was popular for a bit was a foreigner thing. The HuK 20 nexus which is still used is a foreigner thing, IechOic's opening was incredibly popular till some nerfs hit. 5Rax Reaper was a foreigner thing I believe. Yes the Koreans create many styles, but there are many styles created by foreigners too. BTW: those are just a few, there are many more styles that have been created by foreigners. DEFINITELY. I would even argue you could attribute double forge pvt to the foreigner scene, as guys like Axslav and Nony were doing it while koreans were still doing 2 base colossi openers every time. Koreans are not omnipotent creative beings and foreigners functionally retarded. PvP phoenix builds also got popular in the non korean metagame months before koreans ever started using them. i wish to call dibs on the expo - hellion - banshee opener, if possible but seriously, yeah, the thing that makes koreans korean is their practice regimen, discipline and drive to actually own regardless of anything else, not their uncanny genes for starcraft creativity No one has "uncanny genes for starcraft creativity". Lets be honest, more legitimate and popular builds have come out of Korea than anywhere else.
Im all for supporting foreigners, but I don't see any difference in "creativity" between Koreans and foreigners (unless youre talking about shitty builds that are funny to watch). And its a little funny to me that we compare Korea to the rest of the World and say they aren't creative when the rest of the world has like 100 times more people to be thinking up of ideas.
|
United States2186 Posts
On July 09 2012 05:04 dde wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 03:41 SiroKO wrote:June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Knew those stats were rigged. I've always been amazed by the stupidity of people being convinced by graphs alone, without checking the integrity of the data behind them. Anyone can create graphs on Excel or R, name them however they want, and upload them on the WEB. Real stats are therefore : 41.5% TvZ 58.5% only 17 percents difference? i guess terrans are closing out the gap. I was expecting way bigger difference judging by terran slumping really hard on international events.
Keep in mind a huge chunk of T wins come from winning coinflips which Zergs voluntarily enter or do old 2 base builds. If you tally the "real" games this would look much more lopsided.
|
was watching Thorzain here today, crushing top zergs left and right on korean ladder :p
|
On July 09 2012 05:26 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 05:19 shockaslim wrote:On July 09 2012 04:13 karpo wrote:On July 09 2012 03:41 SiroKO wrote:June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Knew those stats were rigged. I've always been amazed by the stupidity of people being convinced by graphs alone, without checking the integrity of the data behind them. Anyone can create graphs on Excel or R, name them however they want, and upload them on the WEB. Real stats are therefore : 41.5% TvZ 58.5% How are the stats rigged? The win rates haven't included qualifiers before so they weren't counted this time either. It's not a big conspiracy against terrans, you know. I remember reading that explanaiton like a week ago in this thread, funny that there's still posts about this stuff. I think it is highly plausible that the international qualifiers for TSL were included whereas the Korean ones were not. I say this because the Korean TSL qualifiers are strangely in the international TLPD. Then it still isn't rigged, right?
Well, when you take korean qualifiers that are in the international TLPD and apply them as international stats......it does really mess things up.
|
On July 09 2012 05:44 Cinim wrote: was watching Thorzain here today, crushing top zergs left and right on korean ladder :p
REALLY ?! That proves and explains so much ! + Show Spoiler +
|
TLPD stats are not really great for judging balance as they mostly come from tournaments with some selection procedure introducing a bias. GSL for example has a huge selection procedure before getting into code A or code S. If the game was unbalanced you would still expect on average 50-50 win rates in the GSL because the qualification before the tournament would simply allow more players of the stronger race in it. In other words match percentages go to 50-50 just because the stronger race has a higher representation in the tournament and thus weaker players on average than a weak race.
Of course there is some lag though as qualification often happens long before a tournament so a patch can take place in between, in which case the results more show a SHIFT in balance then actual balance itself. For example if terran is doing badly in GSL now it doesn't mean that terran is too weak, it simply means that terran is weaker now then before and thus they are performing badly which eventually will be corrected by fewer terrans staying in code S/A.
Results corrected for skill (which has the difficulty of measuring skill reliably) or just results from matches where no real prior qualification was is the most reliable information. Stratified tournaments where each race is equally present by default are also more reliable. It seems however that TLPD data is mostly from tournaments with some selection procedure beforehand so you can never judge balance from those properly.. It's virtually impossible to remove the bias caused by the selection procedure from the results, ie. you can't do a fair analysis on these stats.
|
On July 09 2012 05:04 dde wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 03:41 SiroKO wrote:June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Knew those stats were rigged. I've always been amazed by the stupidity of people being convinced by graphs alone, without checking the integrity of the data behind them. Anyone can create graphs on Excel or R, name them however they want, and upload them on the WEB. Real stats are therefore : 41.5% TvZ 58.5% only 17 percents difference? i guess terrans are closing out the gap. I was expecting way bigger difference judging by terran slumping really hard on international events.
Those numbers are for individual games though. If a player only has a 41.5% chance to win a single game, they have a ~37% chance in a Bo3 and a ~34% chance in a Bo5. When you're dealing with big tournaments and lots of 'best of x' rounds, even a small shift in per-game win rates can result in extremely lopsided results. Just look at some of the GSLs from last year where the later rounds were almost entirely Terran players despite the matchup stats showing Terran winning at best 55% of games.
|
On July 09 2012 03:05 Toastie.NL wrote: My opinion; Balance by winrates seems fine, Viewer experience has never been worse (tvz and pvz being macrofest for 15 minutes into deathball attack - tvp still race vs time)
Glad ZvZ and PvP are getting better by the day?
Yeah, I'm feeling the same thing.
I just peeked into HSC results, + Show Spoiler + and I do not even feel like watching those games. I tend to skip more and more of the GSL too.
Well, I hope HotS mixes things up, because I'm drifting towards "SC2 has to go".
|
Win rates can be very deceiving. You have to get a HUGE sample size in order to discount all ins, cheese, and failed allins and failed cheese. If your sample size is too small, these types of things make up too large a part of the stats. Many rush games are coin flips or depend on defender making 1 tiny mistake and loosing. They are unreliable and inconsistent in terms of balance. What needs to be really looked at is the long term trends of many thousands of games.
My impression of korea is that many of the terrans have held on, by reverting to cheese. I've seen a lot of it lately on streams, vs protoss and zerg. So that messes with the stats quite a bit. (if it's as common throughout the pro scene as what I've been seeing lately)
|
On July 09 2012 06:16 Huragius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 05:44 Cinim wrote: was watching Thorzain here today, crushing top zergs left and right on korean ladder :p REALLY ?! That proves and explains so much ! + Show Spoiler + It proves your whining doesn't pay off as much as Thorzains practice.
|
On July 09 2012 06:55 BandonBanshee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 06:16 Huragius wrote:On July 09 2012 05:44 Cinim wrote: was watching Thorzain here today, crushing top zergs left and right on korean ladder :p REALLY ?! That proves and explains so much ! + Show Spoiler + It proves your whining doesn't pay off as much as Thorzains practice. I like how it's only ever Zergs who cherrypick Terran streams that they problem don't even understand and quickly assert that TvZ has been solved, all the while ignoring the greater Terran populace who have been struggling to deal with Zerg lategame even since before the patch hit.
|
zvz was getting a pretty good match up, but is going to take a huge slump because everyone discovered ultra's are just shit op in zvz.
|
Other than international TvZ, the winrates look pretty balanced. I know i've been raging on TL about the TvZ match up but perhaps we must learn something from Koreans? Watching at code A looks pretty bad actually, so could the code S players win simply because of insane micro and macro?
|
On July 09 2012 06:56 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 06:55 BandonBanshee wrote:On July 09 2012 06:16 Huragius wrote:On July 09 2012 05:44 Cinim wrote: was watching Thorzain here today, crushing top zergs left and right on korean ladder :p REALLY ?! That proves and explains so much ! + Show Spoiler + It proves your whining doesn't pay off as much as Thorzains practice. I like how it's only ever Zergs who cherrypick Terran streams that they problem don't even understand and quickly assert that TvZ has been solved, all the while ignoring the greater Terran populace who have been struggling to deal with Zerg lategame even since before the patch hit. And i like how people claimed zerg was fine back when there were 2 in round 16 code S and 0 in round 8. But i guess the others just played better right.
|
On July 09 2012 06:16 Huragius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 05:44 Cinim wrote: was watching Thorzain here today, crushing top zergs left and right on korean ladder :p REALLY ?! That proves and explains so much ! + Show Spoiler +
pretty sure he had a new account and was playing like low to mid masters zergs too
|
On July 09 2012 06:48 Reborn8u wrote: Win rates can be very deceiving. You have to get a HUGE sample size in order to account for all ins, cheese, and failed allins and failed cheese. If your sample size is too small, these types of things make up too large a part of the stats. Many rush games are coin flips or depend on defender making 1 tiny mistake and loosing. They are unreliable and inconsistent in terms of balance. What needs to be really looked at is the long term trends of many thousands of games.
My impression of korea is that many of the terrans have held on, by reverting to cheese. I've seen a lot of it lately on streams, vs protoss and zerg. So that messes with the stats quite a bit. (if it's as common throughout the pro scene as what I've been seeing lately)
Fixed your post. While sample sizes are of course critical, your understanding of why is a bit off.
|
who called in the fleet?
I think Terrans need to adapt to this new style. MarineKing is doing interesting things and is near a breakthrough, I think all his build is missing is BCs.
|
On July 04 2012 14:04 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 13:14 emc wrote:On July 04 2012 12:57 Orek wrote: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. International Terrans "We hate Korean Terran comrades. They are killing the hope for Terran buff." koreans play for glory, international terrans play for money then why do so many Koreans leave for foreign teams? Why did MVP say he wants to win X amount of money in a year? Don't kid yourself, they play for money too.
He's talking less about ethnicity and more about the team/place they are in...
so once they join a foreign/international team, they're not one of those "koreans" anymore
|
On July 09 2012 07:34 BerkmanZ wrote:who called in the fleet? I think Terrans need to adapt to this new style. MarineKing is doing interesting things and is near a breakthrough, I think all his build is missing is BCs. no, mkp is whining that he have 10% winrate tvz.
|
On July 09 2012 06:55 BandonBanshee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 06:16 Huragius wrote:On July 09 2012 05:44 Cinim wrote: was watching Thorzain here today, crushing top zergs left and right on korean ladder :p REALLY ?! That proves and explains so much ! + Show Spoiler + It proves your whining doesn't pay off as much as Thorzains practice.
it's funny because thorzain complains about balance too.
also preemtively: "BUT MVP WON GSL TRAIN MORE COMPLAIN LESS LIKE HIM HERP DERP" mvp also complained about balance. i honestly think you are hard pressed to find a terran who doesn't complain about balance these days...
|
On July 09 2012 19:21 Dephy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 07:34 BerkmanZ wrote:who called in the fleet? I think Terrans need to adapt to this new style. MarineKing is doing interesting things and is near a breakthrough, I think all his build is missing is BCs. no, mkp is whining that he have 10% winrate tvz.
Well to be fair, Koreans whine about balance a lot. It does not make their whine superior or more valid than other whine.
|
On July 09 2012 07:19 Silencioseu wrote: Other than international TvZ, the winrates look pretty balanced. I know i've been raging on TL about the TvZ match up but perhaps we must learn something from Koreans? Watching at code A looks pretty bad actually, so could the code S players win simply because of insane micro and macro?
Code S terran player's micro is obviously a massive part as to why they can still win in t v z, but more importantly (especially these days) it's their cheeses and timing attacks. If you want to play vs zerg "straight up", well you can't sorry. You can't compete with a zerg economy so instead you need to be extremely tricky and kill lots of drones.
|
Jesus christ how is there even a debate... tvz clearly favours z right now, pretty much the same retarded debate from both sides as was seen in early sc2 when the situation was reverse. There used to be these hilariously bad terrans finding excuse after excuse as to why terrans won everything and ladder was a piece of cake for terrible terrans. Roaches had 3 range tanks did 70 damage and maps were pocket sized(and don't even get me started on the fucking mass reaper strat), it's hilarious how people could still defend that situation as anything but ridiculous and i feel it's the same thing now only the opposite.
|
On July 09 2012 19:47 nttea wrote: Jesus christ how is there even a debate... tvz clearly favours z right now, pretty much the same retarded debate from both sides as was seen in early sc2 when the situation was reverse. There used to be these hilariously bad terrans finding excuse after excuse as to why terrans won everything and ladder was a piece of cake for terrible terrans. Roaches had 3 range tanks did 70 damage and maps were pocket sized(and don't even get me started on the fucking mass reaper strat), it's hilarious how people could still defend that situation as anything but ridiculous and i feel it's the same thing now only the opposite.
Because this is politics. Nothing is wrong with that. Terran players are republican, and Zerg players are democrat, for example. We don't have millions of voters, though. The only voter here is David Kim from Blizzard. Terran won the election in July 2010 when the game came out. Zerg won the last election held in May 2012.
What do you do when you win the last election? You try to remain in power and win the next election again. How? By convincing the voter that the current situation is good and fair.
What do you do when you lose the last election. You try to win the next election. How? By blaming the current situation and showing the evidence how unfair it is.
Both sides think they are right, and the other party is missint the point. Both sides think they are being fair, and the other party is being unfair. Having heard both side's claims, the voter will decide which to vote for the next election.
"We just need 50-50 fair game." is as good as politicians saying "We should create a fair society." That is, when the term "fair" cannot be clearly defined, it means nothing. If it is 40-60 only in Code S, and 50-50 everywhere else, do you call it fair? OR If it is 50-50 only in Code S, and 40-60 everywhere else, is that the fair situation? Then, there comes the logic, "Only top players with insane skill can compete with race X. Race X is harder than the other one." As such, nothing can be truly fair for everybody.
Politics never ends. The enemy of justice is not evil, but another justice.
|
Blizzard likes asymmetric balance like they have stated many times (t strong early game, p late game etc). Terran was OP for so long time, it's now time for Z to be OP, especially when HOTS (z expansion) is coming. They want to create story lines like MMA/MVP/MKP to be slumping and DRG or someone else being the new number one. But when they eventually buff Terran MVP/MMA/MKP rises to his old glory and wins again. What they didnt consider is that games became a lot less entertaining with the new metagame.
|
On July 04 2012 10:42 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 10:13 emc wrote:On July 04 2012 00:44 shockaslim wrote:On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote: [quote]
virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant. How is this different from say, MLG where anyone can sign up for the Open Bracket? MLG takes place in ONLY 3 days, Code A qualifiers take over a week, maybe 2. Then the actual tournament of GSL for instance, takes several months, so players can know weeks in advance who they play and study them. If both players have an equal chance at studying each other, then surely GSL is the hardest possible tournament because of the amount of preparation, not even mentioning the caliber of players which we all know are fantastic. My point is, MLG is an endurance test, Code A qualifiers are not, you only have to win 4 matches to make it into Code A, that is NOTHING compared to the grueling task of getting through open brackets. Endurance wise, MLG is a lot tougher, but it could be argued that Code A qualifiers are certainly more challenging. I think there is definitely LESS skill in the MLG open brackets for several rounds until the pros start to finally face each other, but that's hundreds of worthless games until the pros start playing each other. But if it were up to me, I wouldn't include the MLG open bracket because it's basically a qualifier, a bunch of players mixed in from bronze to GM to Code S level, the place you really don't want to take balance from. Honestly I don't think the guy who makes the TLPD cares all that much about international win rates because it seems he pretty much just uses every tournament possible where korea is a lot more exclusive. but hey, if you are one of those nit pickers that wants to see "true" balance, then create your own damn graph already... sheesh. But if you were interested in balance, then the GSL is actually one of the poorest places to look. Why? Because of two things: sample size, and study opportunities. The first part is self-explanatory, but the second bears some reflection. Even if some matchup is insanely imbalanced, given enough time, one player might be able to study the play of another specific player to the point where they locate a timing that works against them. This isn't possible in an average game and it does little to comment on the balance of a matchup. You need to understand that when MKP plays DRG in the GSL it's about MKP vs DRG more than it is about T vs Z. On the other hand, when MKP and DRG play at MLG, it's still about MKP vs DRG, sure, but it's also about well-executed, but non-tailored, Terran vs well-executed, but non-tailored, Zerg. This is a massive difference, because in many respects it means high skill qualifiers like TSL4KR are actually more useful indicators of balance. Why? Because, firstly, they're a larger sample size, and because, secondly, they evaluate players playing neutrally against each other. Yes, there are certainly some weak players who sign up for TSL qualifiers, but they are a small number. They're not enough to actually mean anything, especially since the saturation of pro players is so, so high. It's inconceivable that a whole bunch of mid Diamond players would somehow work their way up the bracket. You might have one outlier, but with the sample size being larger, that matters less. Hell, you could even manually eliminate for players that aren't at least Korean B-Teamers. It's why I laughed at people who said 0 Zergs in the Ro8 GSL means anything. It doesn't, and it didn't. It just means that the players who played against Zerg that particular time around happened to prepare better/execute their strategies better/get inside their opponent's heads. It might also mean that the Zerg players underprepared or just didn't play their best (which is basically what happened, IMO). It says nothing about the state of PvZ or TvZ because it's not consistent and only exists in one extremely tiny (size-wise) tournament. The reason Terrans are right to be concerned about TvZ is because Zerg is doing well in every neutral tournament. This means GSTL, TSL4KR, and so on. These are tournaments that you can't prepare for except in a general way. You can't develop a strategy designed specifically to steal you a win against DRG. You have to practice your general matchups in such a way that you'd be capable of facing anyone. This means you play more safely and don't tend to mindgame to the same degree, because you simply don't know your opponent's style as well as you might in the GSL. It's that simple. GSTL matters. TSL4KR matters. GSL Code A/S matter only when a consistent, prolonged trend is observed, because only after several seasons can individuality be eliminated by group selection.
would u still want to balance for "neutral" tournaments instead of "preparation" tournaments when the race(s) u play are doing better in neutral tournaments rather than prep tournaments? if yes, why do u think its more important to balance for neutral rather than prep? preparation tournaments offer more prestige and prize money, arent they more important? is it because the number of neutral tournaments are greater? is it cus u want to balance ladder? if you want to just balance the largest number of games then ur saying u wanna balance diamond and below which is laughable.
and to repeat what emc said, "knowing your opponent is a perfectly valid way to play the game." it's why ppl lose to one strat wonders on the ladder the first time and beat them the second time around. if i wanted to be facetious, id say "hey lets go by the shiori method of looking at statistics and exclude all statistics where a person was given time to prepare for the opponent or better yet lets also exclude stats of players that played people theyve played before cus they they know the other guys style and are able to play to it. lets only include stats of players where its their first time playing vs each other."
cus if u do that and want to look at "true" balance whutever the f that means, then what, u wanna exclude stats from build order losses or mindgames? cus i mean thats not really true balance right?
|
On July 10 2012 01:29 Bluerain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 10:42 Shiori wrote:On July 04 2012 10:13 emc wrote:On July 04 2012 00:44 shockaslim wrote:On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote: [quote] Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant. How is this different from say, MLG where anyone can sign up for the Open Bracket? MLG takes place in ONLY 3 days, Code A qualifiers take over a week, maybe 2. Then the actual tournament of GSL for instance, takes several months, so players can know weeks in advance who they play and study them. If both players have an equal chance at studying each other, then surely GSL is the hardest possible tournament because of the amount of preparation, not even mentioning the caliber of players which we all know are fantastic. My point is, MLG is an endurance test, Code A qualifiers are not, you only have to win 4 matches to make it into Code A, that is NOTHING compared to the grueling task of getting through open brackets. Endurance wise, MLG is a lot tougher, but it could be argued that Code A qualifiers are certainly more challenging. I think there is definitely LESS skill in the MLG open brackets for several rounds until the pros start to finally face each other, but that's hundreds of worthless games until the pros start playing each other. But if it were up to me, I wouldn't include the MLG open bracket because it's basically a qualifier, a bunch of players mixed in from bronze to GM to Code S level, the place you really don't want to take balance from. Honestly I don't think the guy who makes the TLPD cares all that much about international win rates because it seems he pretty much just uses every tournament possible where korea is a lot more exclusive. but hey, if you are one of those nit pickers that wants to see "true" balance, then create your own damn graph already... sheesh. But if you were interested in balance, then the GSL is actually one of the poorest places to look. Why? Because of two things: sample size, and study opportunities. The first part is self-explanatory, but the second bears some reflection. Even if some matchup is insanely imbalanced, given enough time, one player might be able to study the play of another specific player to the point where they locate a timing that works against them. This isn't possible in an average game and it does little to comment on the balance of a matchup. You need to understand that when MKP plays DRG in the GSL it's about MKP vs DRG more than it is about T vs Z. On the other hand, when MKP and DRG play at MLG, it's still about MKP vs DRG, sure, but it's also about well-executed, but non-tailored, Terran vs well-executed, but non-tailored, Zerg. This is a massive difference, because in many respects it means high skill qualifiers like TSL4KR are actually more useful indicators of balance. Why? Because, firstly, they're a larger sample size, and because, secondly, they evaluate players playing neutrally against each other. Yes, there are certainly some weak players who sign up for TSL qualifiers, but they are a small number. They're not enough to actually mean anything, especially since the saturation of pro players is so, so high. It's inconceivable that a whole bunch of mid Diamond players would somehow work their way up the bracket. You might have one outlier, but with the sample size being larger, that matters less. Hell, you could even manually eliminate for players that aren't at least Korean B-Teamers. It's why I laughed at people who said 0 Zergs in the Ro8 GSL means anything. It doesn't, and it didn't. It just means that the players who played against Zerg that particular time around happened to prepare better/execute their strategies better/get inside their opponent's heads. It might also mean that the Zerg players underprepared or just didn't play their best (which is basically what happened, IMO). It says nothing about the state of PvZ or TvZ because it's not consistent and only exists in one extremely tiny (size-wise) tournament. The reason Terrans are right to be concerned about TvZ is because Zerg is doing well in every neutral tournament. This means GSTL, TSL4KR, and so on. These are tournaments that you can't prepare for except in a general way. You can't develop a strategy designed specifically to steal you a win against DRG. You have to practice your general matchups in such a way that you'd be capable of facing anyone. This means you play more safely and don't tend to mindgame to the same degree, because you simply don't know your opponent's style as well as you might in the GSL. It's that simple. GSTL matters. TSL4KR matters. GSL Code A/S matter only when a consistent, prolonged trend is observed, because only after several seasons can individuality be eliminated by group selection. would u still want to balance for "neutral" tournaments instead of "preparation" tournaments when the race(s) u play are doing better in neutral tournaments rather than prep tournaments? if yes, why do u think its more important to balance for neutral rather than prep? preparation tournaments offer more prestige and prize money, arent they more important? is it because the number of neutral tournaments are greater? is it cus u want to balance ladder? if you want to just balance the largest number of games then ur saying u wanna balance diamond and below which is laughable. and to repeat what emc said, "knowing your opponent is a perfectly valid way to play the game." it's why ppl lose to one strat wonders on the ladder the first time and beat them the second time around. if i wanted to be facetious, id say "hey lets go by the shiori method of looking at statistics and exclude all statistics where a person was given time to prepare for the opponent or better yet lets also exclude stats of players that played people theyve played before cus they they know the other guys style and are able to play to it. lets only include stats of players where its their first time playing vs each other." cus if u do that and want to look at "true" balance whutever the f that means, then what, u wanna exclude stats from build order losses or mindgames? cus i mean thats not really true balance right? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Read my post against and try again.
|
On July 09 2012 22:02 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 19:47 nttea wrote: Jesus christ how is there even a debate... tvz clearly favours z right now, pretty much the same retarded debate from both sides as was seen in early sc2 when the situation was reverse. There used to be these hilariously bad terrans finding excuse after excuse as to why terrans won everything and ladder was a piece of cake for terrible terrans. Roaches had 3 range tanks did 70 damage and maps were pocket sized(and don't even get me started on the fucking mass reaper strat), it's hilarious how people could still defend that situation as anything but ridiculous and i feel it's the same thing now only the opposite. Because this is politics. Nothing is wrong with that.
I think the rest of your post explained why there IS something wrong with this. If everyone acts like a blind racial fanboy, no actual balance discussion is possible, just like how most of politics is two sides screaming past one another with no attempt at real compromise.
|
On July 09 2012 22:56 Jarree wrote: Blizzard likes asymmetric balance like they have stated many times (t strong early game, p late game etc). Terran was OP for so long time, it's now time for Z to be OP, especially when HOTS (z expansion) is coming. They want to create story lines like MMA/MVP/MKP to be slumping and DRG or someone else being the new number one. But when they eventually buff Terran MVP/MMA/MKP rises to his old glory and wins again. What they didnt consider is that games became a lot less entertaining with the new metagame.
lol we can only hope that isn't how they look at balancing the game. I do believe they knew changing queens the way they did would make zerg way over the top broken though.
|
On July 10 2012 01:29 Bluerain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 10:42 Shiori wrote:On July 04 2012 10:13 emc wrote:On July 04 2012 00:44 shockaslim wrote:On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote: [quote] Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant. How is this different from say, MLG where anyone can sign up for the Open Bracket? MLG takes place in ONLY 3 days, Code A qualifiers take over a week, maybe 2. Then the actual tournament of GSL for instance, takes several months, so players can know weeks in advance who they play and study them. If both players have an equal chance at studying each other, then surely GSL is the hardest possible tournament because of the amount of preparation, not even mentioning the caliber of players which we all know are fantastic. My point is, MLG is an endurance test, Code A qualifiers are not, you only have to win 4 matches to make it into Code A, that is NOTHING compared to the grueling task of getting through open brackets. Endurance wise, MLG is a lot tougher, but it could be argued that Code A qualifiers are certainly more challenging. I think there is definitely LESS skill in the MLG open brackets for several rounds until the pros start to finally face each other, but that's hundreds of worthless games until the pros start playing each other. But if it were up to me, I wouldn't include the MLG open bracket because it's basically a qualifier, a bunch of players mixed in from bronze to GM to Code S level, the place you really don't want to take balance from. Honestly I don't think the guy who makes the TLPD cares all that much about international win rates because it seems he pretty much just uses every tournament possible where korea is a lot more exclusive. but hey, if you are one of those nit pickers that wants to see "true" balance, then create your own damn graph already... sheesh. But if you were interested in balance, then the GSL is actually one of the poorest places to look. Why? Because of two things: sample size, and study opportunities. The first part is self-explanatory, but the second bears some reflection. Even if some matchup is insanely imbalanced, given enough time, one player might be able to study the play of another specific player to the point where they locate a timing that works against them. This isn't possible in an average game and it does little to comment on the balance of a matchup. You need to understand that when MKP plays DRG in the GSL it's about MKP vs DRG more than it is about T vs Z. On the other hand, when MKP and DRG play at MLG, it's still about MKP vs DRG, sure, but it's also about well-executed, but non-tailored, Terran vs well-executed, but non-tailored, Zerg. This is a massive difference, because in many respects it means high skill qualifiers like TSL4KR are actually more useful indicators of balance. Why? Because, firstly, they're a larger sample size, and because, secondly, they evaluate players playing neutrally against each other. Yes, there are certainly some weak players who sign up for TSL qualifiers, but they are a small number. They're not enough to actually mean anything, especially since the saturation of pro players is so, so high. It's inconceivable that a whole bunch of mid Diamond players would somehow work their way up the bracket. You might have one outlier, but with the sample size being larger, that matters less. Hell, you could even manually eliminate for players that aren't at least Korean B-Teamers. It's why I laughed at people who said 0 Zergs in the Ro8 GSL means anything. It doesn't, and it didn't. It just means that the players who played against Zerg that particular time around happened to prepare better/execute their strategies better/get inside their opponent's heads. It might also mean that the Zerg players underprepared or just didn't play their best (which is basically what happened, IMO). It says nothing about the state of PvZ or TvZ because it's not consistent and only exists in one extremely tiny (size-wise) tournament. The reason Terrans are right to be concerned about TvZ is because Zerg is doing well in every neutral tournament. This means GSTL, TSL4KR, and so on. These are tournaments that you can't prepare for except in a general way. You can't develop a strategy designed specifically to steal you a win against DRG. You have to practice your general matchups in such a way that you'd be capable of facing anyone. This means you play more safely and don't tend to mindgame to the same degree, because you simply don't know your opponent's style as well as you might in the GSL. It's that simple. GSTL matters. TSL4KR matters. GSL Code A/S matter only when a consistent, prolonged trend is observed, because only after several seasons can individuality be eliminated by group selection. would u still want to balance for "neutral" tournaments instead of "preparation" tournaments when the race(s) u play are doing better in neutral tournaments rather than prep tournaments? if yes, why do u think its more important to balance for neutral rather than prep? preparation tournaments offer more prestige and prize money, arent they more important? is it because the number of neutral tournaments are greater? is it cus u want to balance ladder? if you want to just balance the largest number of games then ur saying u wanna balance diamond and below which is laughable. and to repeat what emc said, "knowing your opponent is a perfectly valid way to play the game." it's why ppl lose to one strat wonders on the ladder the first time and beat them the second time around. if i wanted to be facetious, id say "hey lets go by the shiori method of looking at statistics and exclude all statistics where a person was given time to prepare for the opponent or better yet lets also exclude stats of players that played people theyve played before cus they they know the other guys style and are able to play to it. lets only include stats of players where its their first time playing vs each other." cus if u do that and want to look at "true" balance whutever the f that means, then what, u wanna exclude stats from build order losses or mindgames? cus i mean thats not really true balance right?
Prep tournaments like GSL has more prestige cause of the players, not necessarily of the format. Read the post again.
|
May be balanced in % but Z v anything is becoming worst matchup in the game. Whether 3CC Terran passivity or FFE Protoss passivity every game not much happening but mining first 10 min. That shit is boring to me. I loved back when zealots where 28 seconds, WG was fast, queen was weaker and 11-11s and good BFH. Action from 4 min in.
Its not really balanced though if you watch the games. Once zergs larva mechanic takes over because T cant pressure and force gas speed or roaches as much without being an all in - Terran is usually dead unles they exhibit far superior play. And that's just mid game. Late game? Forgetaboutit. Takes miracle plays. Similar goes for Protoss but at least they have hard hitting durable units so can slow Zerg down and force gas speed/roach and block hatches and late game they have mothership gimmick to deal with totally ridiculous BL/infestor. So more balanced than TvZ and more fun to watch at this point.
|
On July 10 2012 06:55 tdt wrote: May be balanced in % but Z v anything is becoming worst matchup in the game. Whether 3CC Terran passivity or FFE Protoss passivity every game not much happening but mining first 10 min. That shit is boring to me. I loved back when zealots where 28 seconds, WG was fast, queen was weaker and 11-11s and good BFH. Action from 4 min in.
Its not really balanced though if you watch the games. Once zergs larva mechanic takes over because T cant pressure and force gas speed or roaches as much without being an all in - Terran is usually dead unles they exhibit far superior play. And that's just mid game. Late game? Forgetaboutit. Takes miracle plays. Similar goes for Protoss but at least they have hard hitting durable units so can slow Zerg down and force gas speed/roach and block hatches and late game they have mothership gimmick to deal with totally ridiculous BL/infestor. So more balanced than TvZ and more fun to watch at this point.
I can see where you're coming from, but how would you balance that out for zerg? There's a reason warpgate and proxyrax got nerfed.
|
On July 10 2012 07:04 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 06:55 tdt wrote: May be balanced in % but Z v anything is becoming worst matchup in the game. Whether 3CC Terran passivity or FFE Protoss passivity every game not much happening but mining first 10 min. That shit is boring to me. I loved back when zealots where 28 seconds, WG was fast, queen was weaker and 11-11s and good BFH. Action from 4 min in.
Its not really balanced though if you watch the games. Once zergs larva mechanic takes over because T cant pressure and force gas speed or roaches as much without being an all in - Terran is usually dead unles they exhibit far superior play. And that's just mid game. Late game? Forgetaboutit. Takes miracle plays. Similar goes for Protoss but at least they have hard hitting durable units so can slow Zerg down and force gas speed/roach and block hatches and late game they have mothership gimmick to deal with totally ridiculous BL/infestor. So more balanced than TvZ and more fun to watch at this point.
I can see where you're coming from, but how would you balance that out for zerg? There's a reason warpgate and proxyrax got nerfed. And there's almost a consensus that there was no reason to buff queens in the first place either. You might be able to revert some of the past early game nerfs of the other races with the queen being more powerful and better scouting overlords.
|
Zerg doing a bit better....? What exactly is OPs definition of a bit? lol...
I can't wait for blizzard's new patch. It'll make terran OP again, zerg will be broken, toss will stay stale and boring as hell, and then the next patch will be vice versa. It's a fucking joke.
I have my receipt from 2 years ago. Can I still get my money back?
Edit: I win all my masters tvp and almost all my masters tvt... yet 0% win rate tvz against master/diamond lol... I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious?
It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Like.. that changed the entire dynamic of sc2. Not just TvZ. Every fucking MU is mining for 10 minutes and then an attempt to push out and see if zerg has 40 lings instead of 75.
Even when I turn off QQ... This game is still very boring because what 'sc2 joe' wants to watch a sc game with nothing happening until 10 minutes in. I love Tastetossis but I can't hear them talk for 10 minutes every zerg MU. It's lame.
So on ladder, on the TL streams here, and even in GSL it's a passive game until you have a good 2-3 base economy. And I'm sorry, but even then how many times have we seen (even up to GM) a decent fungal and instant GG. Seriously. Instant gg. The guys who don't, play so fucking good just to catch up all game and then late game gg. It's painful to watch. And even more so playing.
|
On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious?
Glad you're not balancing this game...
On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen?
Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player..
|
On July 10 2012 09:12 bakedace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious? Glad you're not balancing this game... Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player..
And I'm glad you are not balancing this game either.
|
On July 10 2012 09:26 Huragius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 09:12 bakedace wrote:On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious? Glad you're not balancing this game... On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player.. And I'm glad you are not balancing this game either. You know, 2 rax is still viable. And they hit before queens come out. Its the new korea meta game and the one that contributed to the 51% lead. Maybe its time NA terrans stop qqing and actually playing?
|
Why do all zerg quote hellion run-bys? I'm sorry but if you ever died to a single reactor factory making hellions, that isn't balance, you just kinda suck. Sure you can lose to it, once or twice. You see he has hellions, and then you don't prepare at all and then cry? That is like saying a 2 raxx is overpowered because it can just win a game out right. It is a coin flip, and if you scout it, it is instant gg. That makes scouting broken. I see your logic.
|
I've lost to Zergling runbys on more than 1 occasion because I messed up my wall. Can we nerf Speedlings now?
|
The Korea TvZ numbers really shocked me. So I went through just the current GSL's numbers so far. Keep in mind that many of these games will be included in July results. TvZ is right now 28-47. 37% win rate for Terran, 63% win rate for Zerg. In other words, even more imbalanced than the June International results.
I'm pretty sure that even Blizzard has admitted that a 20% gap in a matchup indicates a balance issue. Of course this is only one tournament (albeit with a large sample size and the highest skilled players in the world), but still.
GSL Code A+S TVZ Nestea v STC 2-0 SuHoSin v MVP 1-2 Sniper v Supernova 1-2 YuGiOh v MKP 1-2 Symbol v MKP 2-0 DRG v Maru 2-1 Violet v Maru 2-1 Leenock v Ryung 0-2 Leenock v Taeja 0-2 Violet v MVP 2-0 Symbol v MKP 2-1 DRG v Ryung 2-1 Nestea v Supernova 2-0 Nestea v Supernova 2-1 Monster v Jjakji 0-2 YuGiOh v Harrier 2-0 Freaky v Bomber 1-2 Losira v Hack 1-2 Total: 25-21
GSTL TVZ Life v TL 1-0 Life v Slayers 1-0 Symbol v Fnatic 1-0 Losira v TSL 1-0 Symbol v IM 3-0 Moon v IM 1-0 Byul v IM 1-0 Annyeong v Fnatic 1-0 Moon v Prime 2-0 BBong v TSL 0-1 Sniper v Fnatic 2-0 Coca v Prime 3-0 KingKong v HoSeo 0-1 Curious v HoSeo 0-1 Ragnarok v FXO 0-1 Shine v FXO 1-0 Hyun v HoSeo 1-1 Symbol v HoSeo 0-1 Revival v HoSeo 1-0 Lucky v Startale 1-1 Leenock vs Startale 1-0 Total: 22-7
Grand Total: 47-28. 63% Z v 37% T.
|
On July 10 2012 10:19 RoboBob wrote: The Korea TvZ numbers really shocked me. So I went through just the current GSL's numbers so far. Keep in mind that many of these games will be included in July results. TvZ is right now 29-48. 38% win rate for Terran, 62% win rate for Zerg. I'm pretty sure that even Blizzard has admitted that a 20% gap in a matchup indicates a balance issue. Of course this is only one tournament (albeit with a large sample size and the highest skilled players in the world), but still.
GSL Code A+S TVZ Nestea v STC 2-0 SuHoSin v MVP 1-2 Sniper v Supernova 1-2 YuGiOh v MKP 1-2 Symbol v MKP 2-0 DRG v Maru 2-1 Violet v Maru 2-1 Leenock v Ryung 0-2 Leenock v Taeja 0-2 Violet v MVP 2-0 Symbol v MKP 2-1 DRG v Ryung 2-1 Nestea v Supernova 2-0 Nestea v Supernova 2-1 Monster v Jjakji 0-2 YuGiOh v Harrier 2-0 Freaky v Bomber 1-2 Losira v Hack 1-2 Total: 25-21
GSTL TVZ Life v TL 1-0 Life v Slayers 1-0 Symbol v Fnatic 1-0 Losira v TSL 1-0 Symbol v IM 3-0 Moon v IM 1-0 Byul v IM 1-0 Annyeong v Fnatic 1-0 Moon v Prime 2-0 BBong v TSL 0-1 Sniper v Fnatic 2-0 Coca v Prime 3-0 KingKong v HoSeo 0-1 Curious v HoSeo 0-1 Ragnarok v FXO 0-1 Shine v FXO 1-0 Jjakji v TSL 1-1 Hyun v HoSeo 1-1 Symbol v HoSeo 0-1 Revival v HoSeo 1-0 Lucky v Startale 1-1 Leenock vs Startale 1-0 Total: 23-8
Grand Total: 48-29. 62% Z v 38% T. Thanks for posting this. Half the Zergs on here are acting like the matchup is solved because they saw someone 2rax on Ohana.
|
c'mon guys, you guys have it all wrong!!! the good players happen to play zerg, just like good players happened to play terran back in the day, as the experts(forumers) have said already regarding imbalance.
|
On July 10 2012 09:12 bakedace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious? Glad you're not balancing this game... Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player.. Lol, way to go reaching bud.
Cheese doesn't mean win. If you go hatch first and I go 11/11 I should be able to do some good damage. Not anymore. Any follow up is insta-denied by a queen that can shoot half way across the map.
And your hellion comment is completely irrelevant, which is why I said you are just reaching.
Like I said, why increase queen range? Changed all MU, and zerg can basically power drone without worry. Even get a fast 3rd - what, 5 marine picks off a queen maybe 2-3 drones, then the timing window is over, and then you've set yourself up for a hard-core roach bane attack.
|
On July 02 2012 22:30 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 22:29 mEtRoSG wrote: fake? no way terran has had so many wins against zerg ive only seen zerg wins in gsl gstl etc Nah, Korean terrans are actually doing ok against zergs, they have found ways to beat them before 14 minutes.
Yep if Terran can win before 15 min...match up is balanced.../s
|
On July 10 2012 10:19 RoboBob wrote: The Korea TvZ numbers really shocked me. So I went through just the current GSL's numbers so far. Keep in mind that many of these games will be included in July results. TvZ is right now 28-47. 37% win rate for Terran, 63% win rate for Zerg. In other words, even more imbalanced than the June International results.
I'm pretty sure that even Blizzard has admitted that a 20% gap in a matchup indicates a balance issue. Of course this is only one tournament (albeit with a large sample size and the highest skilled players in the world), but still.
GSL Code A+S TVZ Nestea v STC 2-0 SuHoSin v MVP 1-2 Sniper v Supernova 1-2 YuGiOh v MKP 1-2 Symbol v MKP 2-0 DRG v Maru 2-1 Violet v Maru 2-1 Leenock v Ryung 0-2 Leenock v Taeja 0-2 Violet v MVP 2-0 Symbol v MKP 2-1 DRG v Ryung 2-1 Nestea v Supernova 2-0 Nestea v Supernova 2-1 Monster v Jjakji 0-2 YuGiOh v Harrier 2-0 Freaky v Bomber 1-2 Losira v Hack 1-2 Total: 25-21
GSTL TVZ Life v TL 1-0 Life v Slayers 1-0 Symbol v Fnatic 1-0 Losira v TSL 1-0 Symbol v IM 3-0 Moon v IM 1-0 Byul v IM 1-0 Annyeong v Fnatic 1-0 Moon v Prime 2-0 BBong v TSL 0-1 Sniper v Fnatic 2-0 Coca v Prime 3-0 KingKong v HoSeo 0-1 Curious v HoSeo 0-1 Ragnarok v FXO 0-1 Shine v FXO 1-0 Hyun v HoSeo 1-1 Symbol v HoSeo 0-1 Revival v HoSeo 1-0 Lucky v Startale 1-1 Leenock vs Startale 1-0 Total: 22-7
Grand Total: 47-28. 63% Z v 37% T.
It also becomes pretty obvious if you look at top 10 terran and zerg korean ELO. Most terrans are 3/7 - 4/6 in their last 10 TvZ and most zergs are 6/4 - 7/3 in their last 10 ZvTs. It is not a huge sample size. But considering the top terrans where mainly top TvZ players, it is obvious that the nerf had a HUGE impact. Whether this can be countered by new builds is still not conclusive but given the current trend, it doesn't look good. It seems instead of terrans being able to find a new build, zergs are getting more accustom to getting max eco while remaining safe and getting a huge eco lead (plus creep) in the mid game. Maybe maps need to be tweaked to make the 3rd harder to take? It seems there is no way to punish a quick 3rd. So terrans now go 3 CCs which let's the zerg take a fourth. And 4 base zerg means BL/Corr/Infestor army.
|
On July 10 2012 12:11 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 10:19 RoboBob wrote: The Korea TvZ numbers really shocked me. So I went through just the current GSL's numbers so far. Keep in mind that many of these games will be included in July results. TvZ is right now 28-47. 37% win rate for Terran, 63% win rate for Zerg. In other words, even more imbalanced than the June International results.
I'm pretty sure that even Blizzard has admitted that a 20% gap in a matchup indicates a balance issue. Of course this is only one tournament (albeit with a large sample size and the highest skilled players in the world), but still.
GSL Code A+S TVZ Nestea v STC 2-0 SuHoSin v MVP 1-2 Sniper v Supernova 1-2 YuGiOh v MKP 1-2 Symbol v MKP 2-0 DRG v Maru 2-1 Violet v Maru 2-1 Leenock v Ryung 0-2 Leenock v Taeja 0-2 Violet v MVP 2-0 Symbol v MKP 2-1 DRG v Ryung 2-1 Nestea v Supernova 2-0 Nestea v Supernova 2-1 Monster v Jjakji 0-2 YuGiOh v Harrier 2-0 Freaky v Bomber 1-2 Losira v Hack 1-2 Total: 25-21
GSTL TVZ Life v TL 1-0 Life v Slayers 1-0 Symbol v Fnatic 1-0 Losira v TSL 1-0 Symbol v IM 3-0 Moon v IM 1-0 Byul v IM 1-0 Annyeong v Fnatic 1-0 Moon v Prime 2-0 BBong v TSL 0-1 Sniper v Fnatic 2-0 Coca v Prime 3-0 KingKong v HoSeo 0-1 Curious v HoSeo 0-1 Ragnarok v FXO 0-1 Shine v FXO 1-0 Hyun v HoSeo 1-1 Symbol v HoSeo 0-1 Revival v HoSeo 1-0 Lucky v Startale 1-1 Leenock vs Startale 1-0 Total: 22-7
Grand Total: 47-28. 63% Z v 37% T. It also becomes pretty obvious if you look at top 10 terran and zerg korean ELO. Most terrans are 3/7 - 4/6 in their last 10 TvZ and most zergs are 6/4 - 7/3 in their last 10 ZvTs. It is not a huge sample size. But considering the top terrans where mainly top TvZ players, it is obvious that the nerf had a HUGE impact. Whether this can be countered by new builds is still not conclusive but given the current trend, it doesn't look good. It seems instead of terrans being able to find a new build, zergs are getting more accustom to getting max eco while remaining safe and getting a huge eco lead (plus creep) in the mid game. Maybe maps need to be tweaked to make the 3rd harder to take? It seems there is no way to punish a quick 3rd. So terrans now go 3 CCs which let's the zerg take a fourth. And 4 base zerg means BL/Corr/Infestor army. And a game that is essentially boring for the first 15 minutes while the viewers wait for both sides get the economy needed to support harassment or a full on assault on the other player.
|
On July 10 2012 09:39 ImNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 09:26 Huragius wrote:On July 10 2012 09:12 bakedace wrote:On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious? Glad you're not balancing this game... On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player.. And I'm glad you are not balancing this game either. You know, 2 rax is still viable. And they hit before queens come out. Its the new korea meta game and the one that contributed to the 51% lead. Maybe its time NA terrans stop qqing and actually playing?
so terran should be forced to 2rax... every... single... game.... sounds legit.
|
On July 10 2012 09:39 ImNightmare wrote: You know, 2 rax is still viable. And they hit before queens come out. Its the new korea meta game and the one that contributed to the 51% lead. Maybe its time NA terrans stop qqing and actually playing?
But you must realize, that whenever something rushy like 2 rax becomes at all reliable, it will get nerfed. That's how the patch game works. If players got really good and all figured out some clever rax timing, SCV timing, positioning, or some kind of maneuver, that turned it from a coin flip into a reliable drone killer, Barracks would soon take 70 seconds to build, or something. It's not sustainable in game and it will never be sustainable in the metagame.
There have to be reliable late game options.
|
On July 10 2012 13:45 Digamma wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 09:39 ImNightmare wrote:On July 10 2012 09:26 Huragius wrote:On July 10 2012 09:12 bakedace wrote:On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious? Glad you're not balancing this game... On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player.. And I'm glad you are not balancing this game either. You know, 2 rax is still viable. And they hit before queens come out. Its the new korea meta game and the one that contributed to the 51% lead. Maybe its time NA terrans stop qqing and actually playing? so terran should be forced to 2rax... every... single... game.... sounds legit.
Kind of like protoss is forced to FFE every.... single.... game..?
|
|
On July 10 2012 14:02 -TesteR- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 13:45 Digamma wrote:On July 10 2012 09:39 ImNightmare wrote:On July 10 2012 09:26 Huragius wrote:On July 10 2012 09:12 bakedace wrote:On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious? Glad you're not balancing this game... On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player.. And I'm glad you are not balancing this game either. You know, 2 rax is still viable. And they hit before queens come out. Its the new korea meta game and the one that contributed to the 51% lead. Maybe its time NA terrans stop qqing and actually playing? so terran should be forced to 2rax... every... single... game.... sounds legit. Kind of like protoss is forced to FFE every.... single.... game..?
Are you actually comparing 2 rax with FFE ? My mind is blown away with these posts. And no, 2 rax is not a solid strategy, especially now. With current maps, fast overlords and 5 range queens 2 rax only does enough damage when zerg just fucks up. And a strategy which relies on opponent's mistakes is always a bad strategy.
|
On July 10 2012 14:25 Huragius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 14:02 -TesteR- wrote:On July 10 2012 13:45 Digamma wrote:On July 10 2012 09:39 ImNightmare wrote:On July 10 2012 09:26 Huragius wrote:On July 10 2012 09:12 bakedace wrote:On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious? Glad you're not balancing this game... On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player.. And I'm glad you are not balancing this game either. You know, 2 rax is still viable. And they hit before queens come out. Its the new korea meta game and the one that contributed to the 51% lead. Maybe its time NA terrans stop qqing and actually playing? so terran should be forced to 2rax... every... single... game.... sounds legit. Kind of like protoss is forced to FFE every.... single.... game..? Are you actually comparing 2 rax with FFE ? My mind is blown away with these posts. And no, 2 rax is not a solid strategy, especially now. With current maps, fast overlords and 5 range queens 2 rax only does enough damage when zerg just fucks up. And a strategy, which relies on opponent's mistakes is always a bad strategy. I'm not sure, most pro Terrans I've watched in either TSL4 Qualifiers or on stream are going 12/12 or 12/13 rax now. Taeja used it every other map during his run, as did beasty and SeleCT. And with the ridiculous amounts of zergs that i'm facing right now that are blindly going 16 hatch 17 pool, it seems like a pretty viable option.
|
On July 10 2012 13:45 Digamma wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 09:39 ImNightmare wrote:On July 10 2012 09:26 Huragius wrote:On July 10 2012 09:12 bakedace wrote:On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious? Glad you're not balancing this game... On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player.. And I'm glad you are not balancing this game either. You know, 2 rax is still viable. And they hit before queens come out. Its the new korea meta game and the one that contributed to the 51% lead. Maybe its time NA terrans stop qqing and actually playing? so terran should be forced to 2rax... every... single... game.... sounds legit.
Select actually does this. He proxies them every time too.
|
|
On July 10 2012 12:11 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 10:19 RoboBob wrote: The Korea TvZ numbers really shocked me. So I went through just the current GSL's numbers so far. Keep in mind that many of these games will be included in July results. TvZ is right now 28-47. 37% win rate for Terran, 63% win rate for Zerg. In other words, even more imbalanced than the June International results.
I'm pretty sure that even Blizzard has admitted that a 20% gap in a matchup indicates a balance issue. Of course this is only one tournament (albeit with a large sample size and the highest skilled players in the world), but still.
GSL Code A+S TVZ Nestea v STC 2-0 SuHoSin v MVP 1-2 Sniper v Supernova 1-2 YuGiOh v MKP 1-2 Symbol v MKP 2-0 DRG v Maru 2-1 Violet v Maru 2-1 Leenock v Ryung 0-2 Leenock v Taeja 0-2 Violet v MVP 2-0 Symbol v MKP 2-1 DRG v Ryung 2-1 Nestea v Supernova 2-0 Nestea v Supernova 2-1 Monster v Jjakji 0-2 YuGiOh v Harrier 2-0 Freaky v Bomber 1-2 Losira v Hack 1-2 Total: 25-21
GSTL TVZ Life v TL 1-0 Life v Slayers 1-0 Symbol v Fnatic 1-0 Losira v TSL 1-0 Symbol v IM 3-0 Moon v IM 1-0 Byul v IM 1-0 Annyeong v Fnatic 1-0 Moon v Prime 2-0 BBong v TSL 0-1 Sniper v Fnatic 2-0 Coca v Prime 3-0 KingKong v HoSeo 0-1 Curious v HoSeo 0-1 Ragnarok v FXO 0-1 Shine v FXO 1-0 Hyun v HoSeo 1-1 Symbol v HoSeo 0-1 Revival v HoSeo 1-0 Lucky v Startale 1-1 Leenock vs Startale 1-0 Total: 22-7
Grand Total: 47-28. 63% Z v 37% T. It also becomes pretty obvious if you look at top 10 terran and zerg korean ELO. Most terrans are 3/7 - 4/6 in their last 10 TvZ and most zergs are 6/4 - 7/3 in their last 10 ZvTs. It is not a huge sample size. But considering the top terrans where mainly top TvZ players, it is obvious that the nerf had a HUGE impact. Whether this can be countered by new builds is still not conclusive but given the current trend, it doesn't look good. It seems instead of terrans being able to find a new build, zergs are getting more accustom to getting max eco while remaining safe and getting a huge eco lead (plus creep) in the mid game. Maybe maps need to be tweaked to make the 3rd harder to take? It seems there is no way to punish a quick 3rd. So terrans now go 3 CCs which let's the zerg take a fourth. And 4 base zerg means BL/Corr/Infestor army.
I think maps could be tweaked a bit. Cloud Kingdom comes to mind and other maps where Zergs can place overlords for semi-permanent scouting with impunity. Now with ol speed, they can basically scout your base freely (and always count your gas at both bases), as well as have this semi-permanent scouting at key locations.
The intel from this is huge because if you are going for a crisp timing attack, the Zerg can easily scout your attack and pump out a bunch of units and morph banelings. The whole concept of Zerg is the tough choice of having to drone or make units. That tension is what creates the Zerg race.
Now Zergs can do whatever they want for the most part because they can scout everything you do (if they are half decent players) and react accordingly. It seems to me that Zergs should never lose if they play fairly well. If the necessary condition of scouting and producing units/drones based on that scouting is fulfilled, I think Terran is hard pressed to win the game. And those necessary conditions are very easy to fulfill.
|
Who cares about this stats? Terran has dropped under 19% in EU Grandmaster. And this was predictable since patch 1.4. Its not possible to play terran anymore.
|
On July 10 2012 14:54 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 12:11 vthree wrote:On July 10 2012 10:19 RoboBob wrote: The Korea TvZ numbers really shocked me. So I went through just the current GSL's numbers so far. Keep in mind that many of these games will be included in July results. TvZ is right now 28-47. 37% win rate for Terran, 63% win rate for Zerg. In other words, even more imbalanced than the June International results.
I'm pretty sure that even Blizzard has admitted that a 20% gap in a matchup indicates a balance issue. Of course this is only one tournament (albeit with a large sample size and the highest skilled players in the world), but still.
GSL Code A+S TVZ Nestea v STC 2-0 SuHoSin v MVP 1-2 Sniper v Supernova 1-2 YuGiOh v MKP 1-2 Symbol v MKP 2-0 DRG v Maru 2-1 Violet v Maru 2-1 Leenock v Ryung 0-2 Leenock v Taeja 0-2 Violet v MVP 2-0 Symbol v MKP 2-1 DRG v Ryung 2-1 Nestea v Supernova 2-0 Nestea v Supernova 2-1 Monster v Jjakji 0-2 YuGiOh v Harrier 2-0 Freaky v Bomber 1-2 Losira v Hack 1-2 Total: 25-21
GSTL TVZ Life v TL 1-0 Life v Slayers 1-0 Symbol v Fnatic 1-0 Losira v TSL 1-0 Symbol v IM 3-0 Moon v IM 1-0 Byul v IM 1-0 Annyeong v Fnatic 1-0 Moon v Prime 2-0 BBong v TSL 0-1 Sniper v Fnatic 2-0 Coca v Prime 3-0 KingKong v HoSeo 0-1 Curious v HoSeo 0-1 Ragnarok v FXO 0-1 Shine v FXO 1-0 Hyun v HoSeo 1-1 Symbol v HoSeo 0-1 Revival v HoSeo 1-0 Lucky v Startale 1-1 Leenock vs Startale 1-0 Total: 22-7
Grand Total: 47-28. 63% Z v 37% T. It also becomes pretty obvious if you look at top 10 terran and zerg korean ELO. Most terrans are 3/7 - 4/6 in their last 10 TvZ and most zergs are 6/4 - 7/3 in their last 10 ZvTs. It is not a huge sample size. But considering the top terrans where mainly top TvZ players, it is obvious that the nerf had a HUGE impact. Whether this can be countered by new builds is still not conclusive but given the current trend, it doesn't look good. It seems instead of terrans being able to find a new build, zergs are getting more accustom to getting max eco while remaining safe and getting a huge eco lead (plus creep) in the mid game. Maybe maps need to be tweaked to make the 3rd harder to take? It seems there is no way to punish a quick 3rd. So terrans now go 3 CCs which let's the zerg take a fourth. And 4 base zerg means BL/Corr/Infestor army. I think maps could be tweaked a bit. Cloud Kingdom comes to mind and other maps where Zergs can place overlords for semi-permanent scouting with impunity. Now with ol speed, they can basically scout your base freely (and always count your gas at both bases), as well as have this semi-permanent scouting at key locations. The intel from this is huge because if you are going for a crisp timing attack, the Zerg can easily scout your attack and pump out a bunch of units and morph banelings. The whole concept of Zerg is the tough choice of having to drone or make units. That tension is what creates the Zerg race. Now Zergs can do whatever they want for the most part because they can scout everything you do (if they are half decent players) and react accordingly. It seems to me that Zergs should never lose if they play fairly well. If the necessary condition of scouting and producing units/drones based on that scouting is fulfilled, I think Terran is hard pressed to win the game. And those necessary conditions are very easy to fulfill.
This.
Map like cloud kingdom are good if you just minus the perma overlord placement map hack it could be good. But wow is it hard to TvZ now. Seeing how terran are 2 raxing every game is rather silly imo. It like the evolution of the metagame instead of moving forward, it just took a big leap back. i was hoping that the trend of terran going bio at MLG would become the new standard but it seems it wasnt too stable.
|
Funny thing is in their quest to balance early game (sure, balance meaning make it hard as hell to finish games early) Blizzard exposed the other flaws, zerg gets to endgame really fast and while getting there can punish P/T that try and cheat their way to endgame.
To be fair I think all 3 endgame armies seem quite capable of destroying each other. The difference seems to be in the balance of safety/speed while getting there.
|
On July 11 2012 04:16 Atrimex wrote: Who cares about this stats? Terran has dropped under 19% in EU Grandmaster. And this was predictable since patch 1.4. Its not possible to play terran anymore.
No no no, give it 5-6 months, raven strategies have not been explored enough yet...
Blizzards balancing team not only fucked up majorly with their last patch, they also are reluctant to admit it. Personally i ve stopped playing altogether and i really don't care about that, what i do care about is the various touranments that i have been paying to watch and have all turned into borefests for me. ZvT was a great mu to watch, they turned it to utter crap and in addition to that they also prevented too many TvTs from happening (the best mirror mu). I guess i won't be paying to watch any more tourneys until this crap gets fixed
|
On July 11 2012 04:42 nvrs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 04:16 Atrimex wrote: Who cares about this stats? Terran has dropped under 19% in EU Grandmaster. And this was predictable since patch 1.4. Its not possible to play terran anymore. No no no, give it 5-6 months, raven strategies have not been explored enough yet... Blizzards balancing team not only fucked up majorly with their last patch, they also are reluctant to admit it. Personally i ve stopped playing altogether and i really don't care about that, what i do care about is the various touranments that i have been paying to watch and have all turned into borefests for me. ZvT was a great mu to watch, they turned it to utter crap and in addition to that they also prevented too many TvTs from happening (the best mirror mu). I guess i won't be paying to watch any more tourneys until this crap gets fixed
This guy gets it. The best thing you can do to pressure Blizzard is to stop paying for things that benefit Blizzard because you think the game balance is horrible. If everybody complained, yet paid for everything as before, why in the world would Blizzard take it seriously. They are not volunteers.
|
On July 11 2012 04:42 nvrs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 04:16 Atrimex wrote: Who cares about this stats? Terran has dropped under 19% in EU Grandmaster. And this was predictable since patch 1.4. Its not possible to play terran anymore. No no no, give it 5-6 months, raven strategies have not been explored enough yet... Blizzards balancing team not only fucked up majorly with their last patch, they also are reluctant to admit it. Personally i ve stopped playing altogether and i really don't care about that, what i do care about is the various touranments that i have been paying to watch and have all turned into borefests for me. ZvT was a great mu to watch, they turned it to utter crap and in addition to that they also prevented too many TvTs from happening (the best mirror mu). I guess i won't be paying to watch any more tourneys until this crap gets fixed
stop it, blizzard has already said that TvZ has been on their "balance radar" since the last patch. everything else (TvZ being a good MU before and "how has more marines" being the best mirror) is also just your personal opinion.
|
On July 10 2012 14:30 Whatson wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 14:25 Huragius wrote:On July 10 2012 14:02 -TesteR- wrote:On July 10 2012 13:45 Digamma wrote:On July 10 2012 09:39 ImNightmare wrote:On July 10 2012 09:26 Huragius wrote:On July 10 2012 09:12 bakedace wrote:On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious? Glad you're not balancing this game... On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player.. And I'm glad you are not balancing this game either. You know, 2 rax is still viable. And they hit before queens come out. Its the new korea meta game and the one that contributed to the 51% lead. Maybe its time NA terrans stop qqing and actually playing? so terran should be forced to 2rax... every... single... game.... sounds legit. Kind of like protoss is forced to FFE every.... single.... game..? Are you actually comparing 2 rax with FFE ? My mind is blown away with these posts. And no, 2 rax is not a solid strategy, especially now. With current maps, fast overlords and 5 range queens 2 rax only does enough damage when zerg just fucks up. And a strategy, which relies on opponent's mistakes is always a bad strategy. I'm not sure, most pro Terrans I've watched in either TSL4 Qualifiers or on stream are going 12/12 or 12/13 rax now. Taeja used it every other map during his run, as did beasty and SeleCT. And with the ridiculous amounts of zergs that i'm facing right now that are blindly going 16 hatch 17 pool, it seems like a pretty viable option. Can someone post a solid replay with one of the above doing this? I would love to get the timings down. I have no problem going one build every game if it's not a coin-flip like 11/11 rax. Yes, that makes it boring, but at least it's not a joke.
On July 11 2012 05:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 04:42 nvrs wrote:On July 11 2012 04:16 Atrimex wrote: Who cares about this stats? Terran has dropped under 19% in EU Grandmaster. And this was predictable since patch 1.4. Its not possible to play terran anymore. No no no, give it 5-6 months, raven strategies have not been explored enough yet... Blizzards balancing team not only fucked up majorly with their last patch, they also are reluctant to admit it. Personally i ve stopped playing altogether and i really don't care about that, what i do care about is the various touranments that i have been paying to watch and have all turned into borefests for me. ZvT was a great mu to watch, they turned it to utter crap and in addition to that they also prevented too many TvTs from happening (the best mirror mu). I guess i won't be paying to watch any more tourneys until this crap gets fixed stop it, blizzard has already said that TvZ has been on their "balance radar" since the last patch. everything else (TvZ being a good MU before and "how has more marines" being the best mirror) is also just your personal opinion. He isn't allowed to post his opinion? Lol.
|
forced into 2rax.. its not like zerg never been holding off 2rax b4..
|
On July 11 2012 05:15 MrRicewife wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 05:09 Big J wrote:On July 11 2012 04:42 nvrs wrote:On July 11 2012 04:16 Atrimex wrote: Who cares about this stats? Terran has dropped under 19% in EU Grandmaster. And this was predictable since patch 1.4. Its not possible to play terran anymore. No no no, give it 5-6 months, raven strategies have not been explored enough yet... Blizzards balancing team not only fucked up majorly with their last patch, they also are reluctant to admit it. Personally i ve stopped playing altogether and i really don't care about that, what i do care about is the various touranments that i have been paying to watch and have all turned into borefests for me. ZvT was a great mu to watch, they turned it to utter crap and in addition to that they also prevented too many TvTs from happening (the best mirror mu). I guess i won't be paying to watch any more tourneys until this crap gets fixed stop it, blizzard has already said that TvZ has been on their "balance radar" since the last patch. everything else (TvZ being a good MU before and "how has more marines" being the best mirror) is also just your personal opinion. He isn't allowed to post his opinion? Lol.
He didn't state it as opinion, and it's not like he intented it to be an opinion. He just wants people to know that Terran is a "better race" and everyone should be happy to only see TvTs
|
On July 11 2012 05:27 boomudead1 wrote: forced into 2rax.. its not like zerg never been holding off 2rax b4..
BBB was the best Terran player ever, just everyone else was a year and half behind to realize it!
|
In my honest opinion i think they should revert the ghost nerf. Blizzards arguments for the nerf used to be: counters tier 3 unit, makes terran play passive. If i look at the queen in combination with the infestor all i can think about is: Both serve passive roles, both work vs most units (queen as support, infestor as the end all be all). They serve bigger roles than the ghost ever did (and they require less babysitting). This would sque (skew?) the balance back to 50-50 ish, at least I think.
|
On July 11 2012 04:26 SheaR619 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 14:54 zmansman17 wrote:On July 10 2012 12:11 vthree wrote:On July 10 2012 10:19 RoboBob wrote: The Korea TvZ numbers really shocked me. So I went through just the current GSL's numbers so far. Keep in mind that many of these games will be included in July results. TvZ is right now 28-47. 37% win rate for Terran, 63% win rate for Zerg. In other words, even more imbalanced than the June International results.
I'm pretty sure that even Blizzard has admitted that a 20% gap in a matchup indicates a balance issue. Of course this is only one tournament (albeit with a large sample size and the highest skilled players in the world), but still.
GSL Code A+S TVZ Nestea v STC 2-0 SuHoSin v MVP 1-2 Sniper v Supernova 1-2 YuGiOh v MKP 1-2 Symbol v MKP 2-0 DRG v Maru 2-1 Violet v Maru 2-1 Leenock v Ryung 0-2 Leenock v Taeja 0-2 Violet v MVP 2-0 Symbol v MKP 2-1 DRG v Ryung 2-1 Nestea v Supernova 2-0 Nestea v Supernova 2-1 Monster v Jjakji 0-2 YuGiOh v Harrier 2-0 Freaky v Bomber 1-2 Losira v Hack 1-2 Total: 25-21
GSTL TVZ Life v TL 1-0 Life v Slayers 1-0 Symbol v Fnatic 1-0 Losira v TSL 1-0 Symbol v IM 3-0 Moon v IM 1-0 Byul v IM 1-0 Annyeong v Fnatic 1-0 Moon v Prime 2-0 BBong v TSL 0-1 Sniper v Fnatic 2-0 Coca v Prime 3-0 KingKong v HoSeo 0-1 Curious v HoSeo 0-1 Ragnarok v FXO 0-1 Shine v FXO 1-0 Hyun v HoSeo 1-1 Symbol v HoSeo 0-1 Revival v HoSeo 1-0 Lucky v Startale 1-1 Leenock vs Startale 1-0 Total: 22-7
Grand Total: 47-28. 63% Z v 37% T. It also becomes pretty obvious if you look at top 10 terran and zerg korean ELO. Most terrans are 3/7 - 4/6 in their last 10 TvZ and most zergs are 6/4 - 7/3 in their last 10 ZvTs. It is not a huge sample size. But considering the top terrans where mainly top TvZ players, it is obvious that the nerf had a HUGE impact. Whether this can be countered by new builds is still not conclusive but given the current trend, it doesn't look good. It seems instead of terrans being able to find a new build, zergs are getting more accustom to getting max eco while remaining safe and getting a huge eco lead (plus creep) in the mid game. Maybe maps need to be tweaked to make the 3rd harder to take? It seems there is no way to punish a quick 3rd. So terrans now go 3 CCs which let's the zerg take a fourth. And 4 base zerg means BL/Corr/Infestor army. I think maps could be tweaked a bit. Cloud Kingdom comes to mind and other maps where Zergs can place overlords for semi-permanent scouting with impunity. Now with ol speed, they can basically scout your base freely (and always count your gas at both bases), as well as have this semi-permanent scouting at key locations. The intel from this is huge because if you are going for a crisp timing attack, the Zerg can easily scout your attack and pump out a bunch of units and morph banelings. The whole concept of Zerg is the tough choice of having to drone or make units. That tension is what creates the Zerg race. Now Zergs can do whatever they want for the most part because they can scout everything you do (if they are half decent players) and react accordingly. It seems to me that Zergs should never lose if they play fairly well. If the necessary condition of scouting and producing units/drones based on that scouting is fulfilled, I think Terran is hard pressed to win the game. And those necessary conditions are very easy to fulfill. This. Map like cloud kingdom are good if you just minus the perma overlord placement map hack it could be good. But wow is it hard to TvZ now. Seeing how terran are 2 raxing every game is rather silly imo. It like the evolution of the metagame instead of moving forward, it just took a big leap back. i was hoping that the trend of terran going bio at MLG would become the new standard but it seems it wasnt too stable.
Yeah I feel like TvZ has taken a Giant leap backwards. It really is just a big 11/11 rax fest or some variant. I used to win games against great players with macro games. Now I lose most of my TvZ, but if I win it's with cheese. It's really sad.
|
On July 11 2012 05:56 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 04:26 SheaR619 wrote:On July 10 2012 14:54 zmansman17 wrote:On July 10 2012 12:11 vthree wrote:On July 10 2012 10:19 RoboBob wrote: The Korea TvZ numbers really shocked me. So I went through just the current GSL's numbers so far. Keep in mind that many of these games will be included in July results. TvZ is right now 28-47. 37% win rate for Terran, 63% win rate for Zerg. In other words, even more imbalanced than the June International results.
I'm pretty sure that even Blizzard has admitted that a 20% gap in a matchup indicates a balance issue. Of course this is only one tournament (albeit with a large sample size and the highest skilled players in the world), but still.
GSL Code A+S TVZ Nestea v STC 2-0 SuHoSin v MVP 1-2 Sniper v Supernova 1-2 YuGiOh v MKP 1-2 Symbol v MKP 2-0 DRG v Maru 2-1 Violet v Maru 2-1 Leenock v Ryung 0-2 Leenock v Taeja 0-2 Violet v MVP 2-0 Symbol v MKP 2-1 DRG v Ryung 2-1 Nestea v Supernova 2-0 Nestea v Supernova 2-1 Monster v Jjakji 0-2 YuGiOh v Harrier 2-0 Freaky v Bomber 1-2 Losira v Hack 1-2 Total: 25-21
GSTL TVZ Life v TL 1-0 Life v Slayers 1-0 Symbol v Fnatic 1-0 Losira v TSL 1-0 Symbol v IM 3-0 Moon v IM 1-0 Byul v IM 1-0 Annyeong v Fnatic 1-0 Moon v Prime 2-0 BBong v TSL 0-1 Sniper v Fnatic 2-0 Coca v Prime 3-0 KingKong v HoSeo 0-1 Curious v HoSeo 0-1 Ragnarok v FXO 0-1 Shine v FXO 1-0 Hyun v HoSeo 1-1 Symbol v HoSeo 0-1 Revival v HoSeo 1-0 Lucky v Startale 1-1 Leenock vs Startale 1-0 Total: 22-7
Grand Total: 47-28. 63% Z v 37% T. It also becomes pretty obvious if you look at top 10 terran and zerg korean ELO. Most terrans are 3/7 - 4/6 in their last 10 TvZ and most zergs are 6/4 - 7/3 in their last 10 ZvTs. It is not a huge sample size. But considering the top terrans where mainly top TvZ players, it is obvious that the nerf had a HUGE impact. Whether this can be countered by new builds is still not conclusive but given the current trend, it doesn't look good. It seems instead of terrans being able to find a new build, zergs are getting more accustom to getting max eco while remaining safe and getting a huge eco lead (plus creep) in the mid game. Maybe maps need to be tweaked to make the 3rd harder to take? It seems there is no way to punish a quick 3rd. So terrans now go 3 CCs which let's the zerg take a fourth. And 4 base zerg means BL/Corr/Infestor army. I think maps could be tweaked a bit. Cloud Kingdom comes to mind and other maps where Zergs can place overlords for semi-permanent scouting with impunity. Now with ol speed, they can basically scout your base freely (and always count your gas at both bases), as well as have this semi-permanent scouting at key locations. The intel from this is huge because if you are going for a crisp timing attack, the Zerg can easily scout your attack and pump out a bunch of units and morph banelings. The whole concept of Zerg is the tough choice of having to drone or make units. That tension is what creates the Zerg race. Now Zergs can do whatever they want for the most part because they can scout everything you do (if they are half decent players) and react accordingly. It seems to me that Zergs should never lose if they play fairly well. If the necessary condition of scouting and producing units/drones based on that scouting is fulfilled, I think Terran is hard pressed to win the game. And those necessary conditions are very easy to fulfill. This. Map like cloud kingdom are good if you just minus the perma overlord placement map hack it could be good. But wow is it hard to TvZ now. Seeing how terran are 2 raxing every game is rather silly imo. It like the evolution of the metagame instead of moving forward, it just took a big leap back. i was hoping that the trend of terran going bio at MLG would become the new standard but it seems it wasnt too stable. Yeah I feel like TvZ has taken a Giant leap backwards. It really is just a big 11/11 rax fest or some variant. I used to win games against great players with macro games. Now I lose most of my TvZ, but if I win it's with cheese. It's really sad.
Without sounding to much like QQ, I strongly disagree. Its not possible to chesse zerg anymore, queens are to good at holding off early aggresion with a spine or to and zerg know exactly how to react to different stragegies.
|
On July 11 2012 06:13 Phays wrote: Without sounding to much like QQ, I strongly disagree. Its not possible to chesse zerg anymore, queens are to good at holding off early aggresion with a spine or to and zerg know exactly how to react to different stragegies.
Well, that's not quite right. The reason 11/11 has become so popular again is that it hits before the 4-6 queen strategy happens, so it's basically just as good as it used to be (without considering the followups). It's one of the few rushes that isn't much affected by the queen range buff and new metagame.
|
On July 11 2012 05:43 Yngvi wrote: In my honest opinion i think they should revert the ghost nerf. Blizzards arguments for the nerf used to be: counters tier 3 unit, makes terran play passive. If i look at the queen in combination with the infestor all i can think about is: Both serve passive roles, both work vs most units (queen as support, infestor as the end all be all). They serve bigger roles than the ghost ever did (and they require less babysitting). This would sque (skew?) the balance back to 50-50 ish, at least I think.
I don't think this would be a suited answer. Ghost vs zerg was just really too good before the patch, coupled with tanks ghosts could deal with any zerg composition. I remember Empirehappy rush for ghost/tank every single game, it was just horrible to watch. The fact is, whatever people says, terran is still competitive in lategale versus zerg if he got a suffisent economy. Even the best zerg in the world can't win if the terran have more economy that the zerg. The real problem here lies down to the early/midgame, where it seems zerg have it easy to get really ahead in economy.
|
On July 11 2012 07:43 kubiks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 05:43 Yngvi wrote: In my honest opinion i think they should revert the ghost nerf. Blizzards arguments for the nerf used to be: counters tier 3 unit, makes terran play passive. If i look at the queen in combination with the infestor all i can think about is: Both serve passive roles, both work vs most units (queen as support, infestor as the end all be all). They serve bigger roles than the ghost ever did (and they require less babysitting). This would sque (skew?) the balance back to 50-50 ish, at least I think.
I don't think this would be a suited answer. Ghost vs zerg was just really too good before the patch, coupled with tanks ghosts could deal with any zerg composition. I remember Empirehappy rush for ghost/tank every single game, it was just horrible to watch. The fact is, whatever people says, terran is still competitive in lategale versus zerg if he got a suffisent economy. Even the best zerg in the world can't win if the terran have more economy that the zerg. The real problem here lies down to the early/midgame, where it seems zerg have it easy to get really ahead in economy.
and bl infestor or ultra infestor, or infestor anything, cant deal with any terran composition? biased oppinion is biased.
|
On July 11 2012 05:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 04:42 nvrs wrote:On July 11 2012 04:16 Atrimex wrote: Who cares about this stats? Terran has dropped under 19% in EU Grandmaster. And this was predictable since patch 1.4. Its not possible to play terran anymore. No no no, give it 5-6 months, raven strategies have not been explored enough yet... Blizzards balancing team not only fucked up majorly with their last patch, they also are reluctant to admit it. Personally i ve stopped playing altogether and i really don't care about that, what i do care about is the various touranments that i have been paying to watch and have all turned into borefests for me. ZvT was a great mu to watch, they turned it to utter crap and in addition to that they also prevented too many TvTs from happening (the best mirror mu). I guess i won't be paying to watch any more tourneys until this crap gets fixed stop it, blizzard has already said that TvZ has been on their "balance radar" since the last patch. everything else (TvZ being a good MU before and "how has more marines" being the best mirror) is also just your personal opinion.
Well they are surely taking their time with watching that "radar", maybe the swarm is stealth or something but my radar is full of a single huge freaking signal which is Z. Judging by the latest tourney results, the numbers have never been so horrible in the past, even in the period when Terran was clearly overpowered. Now about TvT being the best mu and TvZ being in a great state before the latest patch are my personal opinion but it also happens to be the personal opinion of many many SC2 players as well. It's a matter of taste i guess, but i won't be paying any more for watching this crap.
p.s. the premise that T is by design the race with the higher skill ceiling and higher skill/reward ratio was been debated to death in these forums and i tend to agree with it. To support this claim one could start by saying the obvious, it requires more micro and their backbone units perfomance is muliplied by the proper application of it, a statement which is not true to the same extent for the other races backbone units. I can't force anyone to agree with the above common place though.
|
|
I play terran and have since sc2 first came out, and every time I hear about blizzard and terran being on there balance radar it has me worried. In the history of sc2 T has only ever been buffed twice and it was BC's and the thor, sooo sure playing T is super hard right now but last patch we didn't get nerfed, so its like we got buffed last patch so why all the QQ
|
On July 11 2012 06:13 Phays wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 05:56 zmansman17 wrote:On July 11 2012 04:26 SheaR619 wrote:On July 10 2012 14:54 zmansman17 wrote:On July 10 2012 12:11 vthree wrote:On July 10 2012 10:19 RoboBob wrote: The Korea TvZ numbers really shocked me. So I went through just the current GSL's numbers so far. Keep in mind that many of these games will be included in July results. TvZ is right now 28-47. 37% win rate for Terran, 63% win rate for Zerg. In other words, even more imbalanced than the June International results.
I'm pretty sure that even Blizzard has admitted that a 20% gap in a matchup indicates a balance issue. Of course this is only one tournament (albeit with a large sample size and the highest skilled players in the world), but still.
GSL Code A+S TVZ Nestea v STC 2-0 SuHoSin v MVP 1-2 Sniper v Supernova 1-2 YuGiOh v MKP 1-2 Symbol v MKP 2-0 DRG v Maru 2-1 Violet v Maru 2-1 Leenock v Ryung 0-2 Leenock v Taeja 0-2 Violet v MVP 2-0 Symbol v MKP 2-1 DRG v Ryung 2-1 Nestea v Supernova 2-0 Nestea v Supernova 2-1 Monster v Jjakji 0-2 YuGiOh v Harrier 2-0 Freaky v Bomber 1-2 Losira v Hack 1-2 Total: 25-21
GSTL TVZ Life v TL 1-0 Life v Slayers 1-0 Symbol v Fnatic 1-0 Losira v TSL 1-0 Symbol v IM 3-0 Moon v IM 1-0 Byul v IM 1-0 Annyeong v Fnatic 1-0 Moon v Prime 2-0 BBong v TSL 0-1 Sniper v Fnatic 2-0 Coca v Prime 3-0 KingKong v HoSeo 0-1 Curious v HoSeo 0-1 Ragnarok v FXO 0-1 Shine v FXO 1-0 Hyun v HoSeo 1-1 Symbol v HoSeo 0-1 Revival v HoSeo 1-0 Lucky v Startale 1-1 Leenock vs Startale 1-0 Total: 22-7
Grand Total: 47-28. 63% Z v 37% T. It also becomes pretty obvious if you look at top 10 terran and zerg korean ELO. Most terrans are 3/7 - 4/6 in their last 10 TvZ and most zergs are 6/4 - 7/3 in their last 10 ZvTs. It is not a huge sample size. But considering the top terrans where mainly top TvZ players, it is obvious that the nerf had a HUGE impact. Whether this can be countered by new builds is still not conclusive but given the current trend, it doesn't look good. It seems instead of terrans being able to find a new build, zergs are getting more accustom to getting max eco while remaining safe and getting a huge eco lead (plus creep) in the mid game. Maybe maps need to be tweaked to make the 3rd harder to take? It seems there is no way to punish a quick 3rd. So terrans now go 3 CCs which let's the zerg take a fourth. And 4 base zerg means BL/Corr/Infestor army. I think maps could be tweaked a bit. Cloud Kingdom comes to mind and other maps where Zergs can place overlords for semi-permanent scouting with impunity. Now with ol speed, they can basically scout your base freely (and always count your gas at both bases), as well as have this semi-permanent scouting at key locations. The intel from this is huge because if you are going for a crisp timing attack, the Zerg can easily scout your attack and pump out a bunch of units and morph banelings. The whole concept of Zerg is the tough choice of having to drone or make units. That tension is what creates the Zerg race. Now Zergs can do whatever they want for the most part because they can scout everything you do (if they are half decent players) and react accordingly. It seems to me that Zergs should never lose if they play fairly well. If the necessary condition of scouting and producing units/drones based on that scouting is fulfilled, I think Terran is hard pressed to win the game. And those necessary conditions are very easy to fulfill. This. Map like cloud kingdom are good if you just minus the perma overlord placement map hack it could be good. But wow is it hard to TvZ now. Seeing how terran are 2 raxing every game is rather silly imo. It like the evolution of the metagame instead of moving forward, it just took a big leap back. i was hoping that the trend of terran going bio at MLG would become the new standard but it seems it wasnt too stable. Yeah I feel like TvZ has taken a Giant leap backwards. It really is just a big 11/11 rax fest or some variant. I used to win games against great players with macro games. Now I lose most of my TvZ, but if I win it's with cheese. It's really sad. Without sounding to much like QQ, I strongly disagree. Its not possible to chesse zerg anymore, queens are to good at holding off early aggresion with a spine or to and zerg know exactly how to react to different stragegies.
I'm not saying that 11/11 rax or any cheeses are good builds. My win rates may be low. And the builds rely on Zergs making huge mistakes. But when you consider the alternative..
|
|
|
|