|
On December 01 2012 04:14 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:08 nottapro wrote:On December 01 2012 04:02 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 03:39 Trumpstyle wrote:
Where does blizzard get there bullshit number that zerg is balance, I really like blizzard but I think they just lying or looking at numbers they like. I just checked grandmaster ladder for korea, america and Europe. I checked top 50 players of best win ratio % and 22 was zerg in korea, 25 in America and Europe. Clearly at least if we look at grandmaster ladder zerg is clearly the best race by pretty big margin. They can't just look at 1 tournament and say yeah it's balanced because it can just be a fluke.
I really think blizzard is either just lying here or half lying using some kind of strange statistic to make the game look more balance than it is.
Edit:
This another post from someone in us.battle.net forum proving that blizzard is lying about statistic that zerg is balance. Someone did math the amount of players in Gm globally. My own math that u can see above is from top 50 Players best win ratio. Either way both math shows Zerg is clearly favored. So Blizzard is lying about zerg is balanced.
ZERG
GM: 0.283%
PROTOSS
GM: 0.203%
TERRAN
GM: 0.175%
Intill blizzard post there numbers how Zerg is balanced we should call them liars. nonononono. Zerg vs teran is 50 vs. 50 on the ladder. That's what matter according to DB. Also that game where MVP owned some foreign patch zergs with raven seeker missile. Clearly that was a sign up zerg not being OP. Trust Dustin Browder, he knows how to interpret statistics because he has a degree in liberal arts, and he designed the collosus, the roach, the maurauder, fungal growth etc. so he is also a very smart guy. Lol exactly, concluding the game is balanced by reading the statistics of a system; "specifically enigineered" to make sure that everyone always maintain a near 50% win / loss ratio through hand selecting their opponents, is a new level of stupid. Please don't tell Dustin Browder that. It will ruin his understanding of the world. On another note.Do anyone remember when back in late beta when tanks dealt like 60 damage to everything (maybe that was slightly more imbalanced than infestors). DB said back then that the matchup (zvt) was 50-50 !!! and indicated that it was probably balanced. He probably does the same thing now, and combine his balance-comments by looking at the GSL. Obviously this is a flawed phiolosophy. They should have developed an expected win rate. One could look at the race distribution and assume that win rates has a normal distribution. Then one would could conclude that the top1% terran should be winning 65% (given the game was balanced) against the top3% zergs. But since the top1% terran only wins 50% of the game against the top3% zergs, the game is imbalanced by 15 percentage point. (though the numbers are invented, I wouldn't be surprised if they are very close to the truth).
did you just invent numbers to try to criticize someone else's unscientific approach to balance? lol
|
On December 01 2012 04:18 orBitual wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:14 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:08 nottapro wrote:On December 01 2012 04:02 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 03:39 Trumpstyle wrote:
Where does blizzard get there bullshit number that zerg is balance, I really like blizzard but I think they just lying or looking at numbers they like. I just checked grandmaster ladder for korea, america and Europe. I checked top 50 players of best win ratio % and 22 was zerg in korea, 25 in America and Europe. Clearly at least if we look at grandmaster ladder zerg is clearly the best race by pretty big margin. They can't just look at 1 tournament and say yeah it's balanced because it can just be a fluke.
I really think blizzard is either just lying here or half lying using some kind of strange statistic to make the game look more balance than it is.
Edit:
This another post from someone in us.battle.net forum proving that blizzard is lying about statistic that zerg is balance. Someone did math the amount of players in Gm globally. My own math that u can see above is from top 50 Players best win ratio. Either way both math shows Zerg is clearly favored. So Blizzard is lying about zerg is balanced.
ZERG
GM: 0.283%
PROTOSS
GM: 0.203%
TERRAN
GM: 0.175%
Intill blizzard post there numbers how Zerg is balanced we should call them liars. nonononono. Zerg vs teran is 50 vs. 50 on the ladder. That's what matter according to DB. Also that game where MVP owned some foreign patch zergs with raven seeker missile. Clearly that was a sign up zerg not being OP. Trust Dustin Browder, he knows how to interpret statistics because he has a degree in liberal arts, and he designed the collosus, the roach, the maurauder, fungal growth etc. so he is also a very smart guy. Lol exactly, concluding the game is balanced by reading the statistics of a system; "specifically enigineered" to make sure that everyone always maintain a near 50% win / loss ratio through hand selecting their opponents, is a new level of stupid. Please don't tell Dustin Browder that. It will ruin his understanding of the world. On another note.Do anyone remember when back in late beta when tanks dealt like 60 damage to everything (maybe that was slightly more imbalanced than infestors). DB said back then that the matchup (zvt) was 50-50 !!! and indicated that it was probably balanced. He probably does the same thing now, and combine his balance-comments by looking at the GSL. Obviously this is a flawed phiolosophy. They should have developed an expected win rate. One could look at the race distribution and assume that win rates has a normal distribution. Then one would could conclude that the top1% terran should be winning 65% (given the game was balanced) against the top3% zergs. But since the top1% terran only wins 50% of the game against the top3% zergs, the game is imbalanced by 15 percentage point. (though the numbers are invented, I wouldn't be surprised if they are very close to the truth). did you just invent numbers to try to criticize someone else's unscientific approach to balance? lol
Great you missed the entire point. Go look at Sc2ranks. Terran is the most played race, yet the least present in any league but bronze.
Clearly its not fair that a superior terran player goes 50-50 vs an inferior zerg player. The exact numbers isn't relevant to my point.
|
This is a post from a very frustrated person, so hopefully it won't be too incoherent but...
Blizzard has a unit that:
1. cloaks
2. does AOE Damage
3. Stuns/freezes all units, massive, air, etc
4. Reveals cloak
5. Spawns free units that do tremendous dps and only cost energy
6. Defends well
7. Harasses well
8. Costs 2 supply (you can make a ton of them)
9. Can take control of any enemy unit.
and they decide the best fix is to mess around with how much hp the free units have. The Infestor has so much utility - nerf one or two of these things that makes the Infestor such an all around unit and they might have a reasonable solution.
Personally though, what I'd love to see them do is split the unit into two units in HoTS. It's the swiss army knife of spell casters - you could easily make it into a harass, cloak, spawns infested terran unit and a waddles around above ground, defensive fungaling unit. This way the player has to balance what's in his army and Zerg keeps all of the same abilities, it's just more expensive and difficult to get to an army of 40+ fungals and a billion ITs.
|
On December 01 2012 04:19 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:18 orBitual wrote:On December 01 2012 04:14 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:08 nottapro wrote:On December 01 2012 04:02 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 03:39 Trumpstyle wrote:
Where does blizzard get there bullshit number that zerg is balance, I really like blizzard but I think they just lying or looking at numbers they like. I just checked grandmaster ladder for korea, america and Europe. I checked top 50 players of best win ratio % and 22 was zerg in korea, 25 in America and Europe. Clearly at least if we look at grandmaster ladder zerg is clearly the best race by pretty big margin. They can't just look at 1 tournament and say yeah it's balanced because it can just be a fluke.
I really think blizzard is either just lying here or half lying using some kind of strange statistic to make the game look more balance than it is.
Edit:
This another post from someone in us.battle.net forum proving that blizzard is lying about statistic that zerg is balance. Someone did math the amount of players in Gm globally. My own math that u can see above is from top 50 Players best win ratio. Either way both math shows Zerg is clearly favored. So Blizzard is lying about zerg is balanced.
ZERG
GM: 0.283%
PROTOSS
GM: 0.203%
TERRAN
GM: 0.175%
Intill blizzard post there numbers how Zerg is balanced we should call them liars. nonononono. Zerg vs teran is 50 vs. 50 on the ladder. That's what matter according to DB. Also that game where MVP owned some foreign patch zergs with raven seeker missile. Clearly that was a sign up zerg not being OP. Trust Dustin Browder, he knows how to interpret statistics because he has a degree in liberal arts, and he designed the collosus, the roach, the maurauder, fungal growth etc. so he is also a very smart guy. Lol exactly, concluding the game is balanced by reading the statistics of a system; "specifically enigineered" to make sure that everyone always maintain a near 50% win / loss ratio through hand selecting their opponents, is a new level of stupid. Please don't tell Dustin Browder that. It will ruin his understanding of the world. On another note.Do anyone remember when back in late beta when tanks dealt like 60 damage to everything (maybe that was slightly more imbalanced than infestors). DB said back then that the matchup (zvt) was 50-50 !!! and indicated that it was probably balanced. He probably does the same thing now, and combine his balance-comments by looking at the GSL. Obviously this is a flawed phiolosophy. They should have developed an expected win rate. One could look at the race distribution and assume that win rates has a normal distribution. Then one would could conclude that the top1% terran should be winning 65% (given the game was balanced) against the top3% zergs. But since the top1% terran only wins 50% of the game against the top3% zergs, the game is imbalanced by 15 percentage point. (though the numbers are invented, I wouldn't be surprised if they are very close to the truth). did you just invent numbers to try to criticize someone else's unscientific approach to balance? lol Great you missed the entire point. Go look at Sc2ranks. Terran is the most played race, yet the least present in any league but bronze. Clearly its not fair that a superior terran player goes 50-50 vs an inferior zerg player. The exact numbers isn't relevant to my point.
Ok, I went over to sc2ranks.com and I didn't see a list of superior terran players and inferior zerg players so I could compare their records. Can you give a direct link? Or... is this just another one of your unscientific things?
|
On December 01 2012 04:23 orBitual wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:19 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:18 orBitual wrote:On December 01 2012 04:14 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:08 nottapro wrote:On December 01 2012 04:02 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 03:39 Trumpstyle wrote:
Where does blizzard get there bullshit number that zerg is balance, I really like blizzard but I think they just lying or looking at numbers they like. I just checked grandmaster ladder for korea, america and Europe. I checked top 50 players of best win ratio % and 22 was zerg in korea, 25 in America and Europe. Clearly at least if we look at grandmaster ladder zerg is clearly the best race by pretty big margin. They can't just look at 1 tournament and say yeah it's balanced because it can just be a fluke.
I really think blizzard is either just lying here or half lying using some kind of strange statistic to make the game look more balance than it is.
Edit:
This another post from someone in us.battle.net forum proving that blizzard is lying about statistic that zerg is balance. Someone did math the amount of players in Gm globally. My own math that u can see above is from top 50 Players best win ratio. Either way both math shows Zerg is clearly favored. So Blizzard is lying about zerg is balanced.
ZERG
GM: 0.283%
PROTOSS
GM: 0.203%
TERRAN
GM: 0.175%
Intill blizzard post there numbers how Zerg is balanced we should call them liars. nonononono. Zerg vs teran is 50 vs. 50 on the ladder. That's what matter according to DB. Also that game where MVP owned some foreign patch zergs with raven seeker missile. Clearly that was a sign up zerg not being OP. Trust Dustin Browder, he knows how to interpret statistics because he has a degree in liberal arts, and he designed the collosus, the roach, the maurauder, fungal growth etc. so he is also a very smart guy. Lol exactly, concluding the game is balanced by reading the statistics of a system; "specifically enigineered" to make sure that everyone always maintain a near 50% win / loss ratio through hand selecting their opponents, is a new level of stupid. Please don't tell Dustin Browder that. It will ruin his understanding of the world. On another note.Do anyone remember when back in late beta when tanks dealt like 60 damage to everything (maybe that was slightly more imbalanced than infestors). DB said back then that the matchup (zvt) was 50-50 !!! and indicated that it was probably balanced. He probably does the same thing now, and combine his balance-comments by looking at the GSL. Obviously this is a flawed phiolosophy. They should have developed an expected win rate. One could look at the race distribution and assume that win rates has a normal distribution. Then one would could conclude that the top1% terran should be winning 65% (given the game was balanced) against the top3% zergs. But since the top1% terran only wins 50% of the game against the top3% zergs, the game is imbalanced by 15 percentage point. (though the numbers are invented, I wouldn't be surprised if they are very close to the truth). did you just invent numbers to try to criticize someone else's unscientific approach to balance? lol Great you missed the entire point. Go look at Sc2ranks. Terran is the most played race, yet the least present in any league but bronze. Clearly its not fair that a superior terran player goes 50-50 vs an inferior zerg player. The exact numbers isn't relevant to my point. Ok, I went over to sc2ranks.com and I didn't see a list of superior terran players and inferior zerg players so I could compare their records. Can you give a direct link? Or... is this just another one of your unscientific things?
Wait what? YOu still don't get it? I already explained that one could look at ladder distributions and make an estimated win/rate based on an assumption of normal distribution. I wrote that in my first post. This is definitely an improved way of balancing, and one could look at other metrics as well (than just ladder distribution).
As I said again, you can get the numbers from sc2ranks, and you can see that the top x% terrans plays against the top (x+b) % zergs where b is a positive number.
|
This thread is beyond hilarious. I have never seen such a tremendous array of whining over balance testing that ISN'T EVEN LIVE.
|
On December 01 2012 04:26 RampancyTW wrote:
This thread is beyond hilarious. I have never seen such a tremendous array of whining over balance testing that ISN'T EVEN LIVE.
So we're not allowed to say their proposed changes are abysmal?
|
On December 01 2012 04:26 RampancyTW wrote:
This thread is beyond hilarious. I have never seen such a tremendous array of whining over balance testing that ISN'T EVEN LIVE.
i'm glad you are laughing, at least 33% of the fan base is
|
If you want some numbers.
The average terran master player is at top 4.32% of his race. For zerg that is 6.26%.
The average terran GM is at top 0.17% of his race. For zerg that is 0.31%.
So is the average terran player worse than the average zerg? Possibly. Let's just assume that there are roughly 25000 (which is close to 25% of all terran players in bronze) terran players in bronze who absolutely suck and almost never play and jsut remove them from the equation.
The results for terran is now; 4.96% vs 6.26%. and 0.2% vs 0.31%
Still clear signs of superior terran players facing inferior zerg players.
Blizzard definitely needs to use the ladder distribution and combine it with other metrics (e.g. they could also use metrics such as solo games played, teamgames played, as active players probably are better than non-active players to help determine the "estimated skill level").
Regardless of what they do, it is almost avoidable that terran through an adjusted balance metrics will heavily underpowered.
|
On December 01 2012 04:26 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:23 orBitual wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:18 orBitual wrote:On December 01 2012 04:14 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:08 nottapro wrote:On December 01 2012 04:02 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 03:39 Trumpstyle wrote:
Where does blizzard get there bullshit number that zerg is balance, I really like blizzard but I think they just lying or looking at numbers they like. I just checked grandmaster ladder for korea, america and Europe. I checked top 50 players of best win ratio % and 22 was zerg in korea, 25 in America and Europe. Clearly at least if we look at grandmaster ladder zerg is clearly the best race by pretty big margin. They can't just look at 1 tournament and say yeah it's balanced because it can just be a fluke.
I really think blizzard is either just lying here or half lying using some kind of strange statistic to make the game look more balance than it is.
Edit:
This another post from someone in us.battle.net forum proving that blizzard is lying about statistic that zerg is balance. Someone did math the amount of players in Gm globally. My own math that u can see above is from top 50 Players best win ratio. Either way both math shows Zerg is clearly favored. So Blizzard is lying about zerg is balanced.
ZERG
GM: 0.283%
PROTOSS
GM: 0.203%
TERRAN
GM: 0.175%
Intill blizzard post there numbers how Zerg is balanced we should call them liars. nonononono. Zerg vs teran is 50 vs. 50 on the ladder. That's what matter according to DB. Also that game where MVP owned some foreign patch zergs with raven seeker missile. Clearly that was a sign up zerg not being OP. Trust Dustin Browder, he knows how to interpret statistics because he has a degree in liberal arts, and he designed the collosus, the roach, the maurauder, fungal growth etc. so he is also a very smart guy. Lol exactly, concluding the game is balanced by reading the statistics of a system; "specifically enigineered" to make sure that everyone always maintain a near 50% win / loss ratio through hand selecting their opponents, is a new level of stupid. Please don't tell Dustin Browder that. It will ruin his understanding of the world. On another note.Do anyone remember when back in late beta when tanks dealt like 60 damage to everything (maybe that was slightly more imbalanced than infestors). DB said back then that the matchup (zvt) was 50-50 !!! and indicated that it was probably balanced. He probably does the same thing now, and combine his balance-comments by looking at the GSL. Obviously this is a flawed phiolosophy. They should have developed an expected win rate. One could look at the race distribution and assume that win rates has a normal distribution. Then one would could conclude that the top1% terran should be winning 65% (given the game was balanced) against the top3% zergs. But since the top1% terran only wins 50% of the game against the top3% zergs, the game is imbalanced by 15 percentage point. (though the numbers are invented, I wouldn't be surprised if they are very close to the truth). did you just invent numbers to try to criticize someone else's unscientific approach to balance? lol Great you missed the entire point. Go look at Sc2ranks. Terran is the most played race, yet the least present in any league but bronze. Clearly its not fair that a superior terran player goes 50-50 vs an inferior zerg player. The exact numbers isn't relevant to my point. Ok, I went over to sc2ranks.com and I didn't see a list of superior terran players and inferior zerg players so I could compare their records. Can you give a direct link? Or... is this just another one of your unscientific things? Wait what? YOu still don't get it? I already explained that one could look at ladder distributions and make an estimated win/rate based on an assumption of normal distribution. I wrote that in my first post. This is definitely an improved way of balancing, and one could look at other metrics as well (than just ladder distribution). As I said again, you can get the numbers from sc2ranks, and you can see that the top x% terrans plays against the top (x+b) % zergs where b is a positive number.
Nah, you have yet to prove that a superior terran player goes 50-50 vs an inferior zerg player, which is what your argument is based on. The only thing I can think (now that you have backed away from that argument) is that you are assuming is that ladder distribution should follow a normal distribution in proportion to population, which is not a given.
|
On December 01 2012 04:45 orBitual wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:26 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:23 orBitual wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:18 orBitual wrote:On December 01 2012 04:14 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:08 nottapro wrote:On December 01 2012 04:02 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 03:39 Trumpstyle wrote:
Where does blizzard get there bullshit number that zerg is balance, I really like blizzard but I think they just lying or looking at numbers they like. I just checked grandmaster ladder for korea, america and Europe. I checked top 50 players of best win ratio % and 22 was zerg in korea, 25 in America and Europe. Clearly at least if we look at grandmaster ladder zerg is clearly the best race by pretty big margin. They can't just look at 1 tournament and say yeah it's balanced because it can just be a fluke.
I really think blizzard is either just lying here or half lying using some kind of strange statistic to make the game look more balance than it is.
Edit:
This another post from someone in us.battle.net forum proving that blizzard is lying about statistic that zerg is balance. Someone did math the amount of players in Gm globally. My own math that u can see above is from top 50 Players best win ratio. Either way both math shows Zerg is clearly favored. So Blizzard is lying about zerg is balanced.
ZERG
GM: 0.283%
PROTOSS
GM: 0.203%
TERRAN
GM: 0.175%
Intill blizzard post there numbers how Zerg is balanced we should call them liars. nonononono. Zerg vs teran is 50 vs. 50 on the ladder. That's what matter according to DB. Also that game where MVP owned some foreign patch zergs with raven seeker missile. Clearly that was a sign up zerg not being OP. Trust Dustin Browder, he knows how to interpret statistics because he has a degree in liberal arts, and he designed the collosus, the roach, the maurauder, fungal growth etc. so he is also a very smart guy. Lol exactly, concluding the game is balanced by reading the statistics of a system; "specifically enigineered" to make sure that everyone always maintain a near 50% win / loss ratio through hand selecting their opponents, is a new level of stupid. Please don't tell Dustin Browder that. It will ruin his understanding of the world. On another note.Do anyone remember when back in late beta when tanks dealt like 60 damage to everything (maybe that was slightly more imbalanced than infestors). DB said back then that the matchup (zvt) was 50-50 !!! and indicated that it was probably balanced. He probably does the same thing now, and combine his balance-comments by looking at the GSL. Obviously this is a flawed phiolosophy. They should have developed an expected win rate. One could look at the race distribution and assume that win rates has a normal distribution. Then one would could conclude that the top1% terran should be winning 65% (given the game was balanced) against the top3% zergs. But since the top1% terran only wins 50% of the game against the top3% zergs, the game is imbalanced by 15 percentage point. (though the numbers are invented, I wouldn't be surprised if they are very close to the truth). did you just invent numbers to try to criticize someone else's unscientific approach to balance? lol Great you missed the entire point. Go look at Sc2ranks. Terran is the most played race, yet the least present in any league but bronze. Clearly its not fair that a superior terran player goes 50-50 vs an inferior zerg player. The exact numbers isn't relevant to my point. Ok, I went over to sc2ranks.com and I didn't see a list of superior terran players and inferior zerg players so I could compare their records. Can you give a direct link? Or... is this just another one of your unscientific things? Wait what? YOu still don't get it? I already explained that one could look at ladder distributions and make an estimated win/rate based on an assumption of normal distribution. I wrote that in my first post. This is definitely an improved way of balancing, and one could look at other metrics as well (than just ladder distribution). As I said again, you can get the numbers from sc2ranks, and you can see that the top x% terrans plays against the top (x+b) % zergs where b is a positive number. Nah, you have yet to prove that a superior terran player goes 50-50 vs an inferior zerg player, which is what your argument is based on. The only thing I can think (now that you have backed away from that argument) is that you are assuming is that ladder distributio n should follow a normal distribution in proportion to population, which is not a given.
Don't think you understand statistics. It doesn't matter how it is distributed actually (for my point to be valid - just look at the above posts). But one needs to know the distribution to quantiy the estimated win rate.
The important assumption is that zerg players in average aren't heavily superior to terran players. In the above post I suggested ways that Blizzard could take average skill level into account, but no matter what, it can't completely justifiy the skewed distirbutions that we see ladder season after ladder season. I think any statistics-guy by looking at these numbers would conclude that terran is undervalued with a very high probability. I believe one has to be a zerg player to argue that these numbers are justified.
|
I like the egg change. Takes 1 storm now to kill hatching infested terrans and you even have time to place them.(Storm 4 secs,hatch time 5 sec)
|
On November 30 2012 11:23 Kieds wrote:
Thanks god they reverted that change.
The psionic change wasn't that bad. But against protoss it made the match up really difficult since so many of their units are psionic. With the immortal sentry push/all-in it made it nearly impossible to stop it on the test map. They should have just changed some of the unit types to non-psionic even though it might mess with the lore a little bit. I think infested terran should just cost more energy so you can't spam so many of them.
|
On December 01 2012 04:53 Bam Lee wrote:
I like the egg change. Takes 1 storm now to kill hatching infested terrans and you even have time to place them.(Storm 4 secs,hatch time 5 sec)
No. They reheal and after a storm they have 1 hp left.
|
Except that zerg units regen 1 hp the first time they go below max health, and then at a regular interval afterwards. The eggs survive with minimal health, and the IT from critically wounded eggs still start with max health.
|
On December 01 2012 04:55 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:53 Bam Lee wrote:
I like the egg change. Takes 1 storm now to kill hatching infested terrans and you even have time to place them.(Storm 4 secs,hatch time 5 sec) No. They reheal and after a storm they have 1 hp left.
Do you know the number at which it regenerates? i didnt find anything regarding that. If you are right then it will need stacked storms still  well still a lot easier to kill them with storm
edit: nvm somebody just posted didnt know it counts for eggs too
|
I am quiet interested in seeing what blizzard does. Nerfing investor too much then the collosus + voidray death ball become unstoppable again. Since the reason infestor + broodlord became so popular today started with zerging figuring out that infestor broodlord defeat the collosus voidray death ball. Nerfing fungal too much wil skewer zerg to oblivion due to late game and mid game. Nerfing too little and there is no fix.
|
On December 01 2012 04:49 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:45 orBitual wrote:On December 01 2012 04:26 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:23 orBitual wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:18 orBitual wrote:On December 01 2012 04:14 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:08 nottapro wrote:On December 01 2012 04:02 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 03:39 Trumpstyle wrote:
Where does blizzard get there bullshit number that zerg is balance, I really like blizzard but I think they just lying or looking at numbers they like. I just checked grandmaster ladder for korea, america and Europe. I checked top 50 players of best win ratio % and 22 was zerg in korea, 25 in America and Europe. Clearly at least if we look at grandmaster ladder zerg is clearly the best race by pretty big margin. They can't just look at 1 tournament and say yeah it's balanced because it can just be a fluke.
I really think blizzard is either just lying here or half lying using some kind of strange statistic to make the game look more balance than it is.
Edit:
This another post from someone in us.battle.net forum proving that blizzard is lying about statistic that zerg is balance. Someone did math the amount of players in Gm globally. My own math that u can see above is from top 50 Players best win ratio. Either way both math shows Zerg is clearly favored. So Blizzard is lying about zerg is balanced.
ZERG
GM: 0.283%
PROTOSS
GM: 0.203%
TERRAN
GM: 0.175%
Intill blizzard post there numbers how Zerg is balanced we should call them liars. nonononono. Zerg vs teran is 50 vs. 50 on the ladder. That's what matter according to DB. Also that game where MVP owned some foreign patch zergs with raven seeker missile. Clearly that was a sign up zerg not being OP. Trust Dustin Browder, he knows how to interpret statistics because he has a degree in liberal arts, and he designed the collosus, the roach, the maurauder, fungal growth etc. so he is also a very smart guy. Lol exactly, concluding the game is balanced by reading the statistics of a system; "specifically enigineered" to make sure that everyone always maintain a near 50% win / loss ratio through hand selecting their opponents, is a new level of stupid. Please don't tell Dustin Browder that. It will ruin his understanding of the world. On another note.Do anyone remember when back in late beta when tanks dealt like 60 damage to everything (maybe that was slightly more imbalanced than infestors). DB said back then that the matchup (zvt) was 50-50 !!! and indicated that it was probably balanced. He probably does the same thing now, and combine his balance-comments by looking at the GSL. Obviously this is a flawed phiolosophy. They should have developed an expected win rate. One could look at the race distribution and assume that win rates has a normal distribution. Then one would could conclude that the top1% terran should be winning 65% (given the game was balanced) against the top3% zergs. But since the top1% terran only wins 50% of the game against the top3% zergs, the game is imbalanced by 15 percentage point. (though the numbers are invented, I wouldn't be surprised if they are very close to the truth). did you just invent numbers to try to criticize someone else's unscientific approach to balance? lol Great you missed the entire point. Go look at Sc2ranks. Terran is the most played race, yet the least present in any league but bronze. Clearly its not fair that a superior terran player goes 50-50 vs an inferior zerg player. The exact numbers isn't relevant to my point. Ok, I went over to sc2ranks.com and I didn't see a list of superior terran players and inferior zerg players so I could compare their records. Can you give a direct link? Or... is this just another one of your unscientific things? Wait what? YOu still don't get it? I already explained that one could look at ladder distributions and make an estimated win/rate based on an assumption of normal distribution. I wrote that in my first post. This is definitely an improved way of balancing, and one could look at other metrics as well (than just ladder distribution). As I said again, you can get the numbers from sc2ranks, and you can see that the top x% terrans plays against the top (x+b) % zergs where b is a positive number. Nah, you have yet to prove that a superior terran player goes 50-50 vs an inferior zerg player, which is what your argument is based on. The only thing I can think (now that you have backed away from that argument) is that you are assuming is that ladder distributio n should follow a normal distribution in proportion to population, which is not a given. Don't think you understand statistics. It doesn't matter how it is distributed actually (for my point to be valid - just look at the above posts). But one needs to know the distribution to quantiy the estimated win rate. The important assumption is that zerg players in average aren't heavily superior to terran players. In the above post I suggested ways that Blizzard could take average skill level into account, but no matter what, it can't completely justifiy the skewed distirbutions that we see ladder season after ladder season. I think any statistics-guy by looking at these numbers would conclude that terran is undervalued with a very high probability. I believe one has to be a zerg player to argue that these numbers are justified.
Don't delude yourself, you haven't used any complicated statistics. You arbitrarily pick numbers to support your conclusion, and I can do the same using your own resources.
From the world playerbase, active players in the last 30 days. If you exclude bronze, 4.5% of the Terran population is in GM and 4.8% of the Zerg population is in GM. 9.3% of the Terran population is in Master's and 8.3% of the Zerg population is in Master's. Seems close to me.
*Note: this isn't statistics, just arithmetic.
|
The only statistics that matter imo would be statistics at the very top level of play. I don't care how many players of race X or race Y are in Masters or GM, that's irrelevant to how balanced the game actually is. At the very top level though you'll get rid of factors like matchmaking and severely reduce the variable level of skill between player to get a more accurate representation of how well-balanced your game is.
I have a limited view but most of the tournament results I have seen recently suggest that P and Z are outperforming T. Not quite as much as some people think but from what I've seen it's there.
Where the Psionic change was probably too large of a change I feel this current one is too small. It doesn't address the core issue that players can still mass Infestors and hold their own because it's too much of a catch all unit.
Nerf Fungal, Nerf Infested Terran, buff the Hydralisk. Players shall rejoice.
|
On December 01 2012 04:58 orBitual wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:49 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:45 orBitual wrote:On December 01 2012 04:26 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:23 orBitual wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:18 orBitual wrote:On December 01 2012 04:14 Hider wrote:On December 01 2012 04:08 nottapro wrote:On December 01 2012 04:02 Hider wrote:
[quote]
nonononono. Zerg vs teran is 50 vs. 50 on the ladder. That's what matter according to DB.
Also that game where MVP owned some foreign patch zergs with raven seeker missile. Clearly that was a sign up zerg not being OP.
Trust Dustin Browder, he knows how to interpret statistics because he has a degree in liberal arts, and he designed the collosus, the roach, the maurauder, fungal growth etc. so he is also a very smart guy. Lol exactly, concluding the game is balanced by reading the statistics of a system; "specifically enigineered" to make sure that everyone always maintain a near 50% win / loss ratio through hand selecting their opponents, is a new level of stupid. Please don't tell Dustin Browder that. It will ruin his understanding of the world. On another note.Do anyone remember when back in late beta when tanks dealt like 60 damage to everything (maybe that was slightly more imbalanced than infestors). DB said back then that the matchup (zvt) was 50-50 !!! and indicated that it was probably balanced. He probably does the same thing now, and combine his balance-comments by looking at the GSL. Obviously this is a flawed phiolosophy. They should have developed an expected win rate. One could look at the race distribution and assume that win rates has a normal distribution. Then one would could conclude that the top1% terran should be winning 65% (given the game was balanced) against the top3% zergs. But since the top1% terran only wins 50% of the game against the top3% zergs, the game is imbalanced by 15 percentage point. (though the numbers are invented, I wouldn't be surprised if they are very close to the truth). did you just invent numbers to try to criticize someone else's unscientific approach to balance? lol Great you missed the entire point. Go look at Sc2ranks. Terran is the most played race, yet the least present in any league but bronze. Clearly its not fair that a superior terran player goes 50-50 vs an inferior zerg player. The exact numbers isn't relevant to my point. Ok, I went over to sc2ranks.com and I didn't see a list of superior terran players and inferior zerg players so I could compare their records. Can you give a direct link? Or... is this just another one of your unscientific things? Wait what? YOu still don't get it? I already explained that one could look at ladder distributions and make an estimated win/rate based on an assumption of normal distribution. I wrote that in my first post. This is definitely an improved way of balancing, and one could look at other metrics as well (than just ladder distribution). As I said again, you can get the numbers from sc2ranks, and you can see that the top x% terrans plays against the top (x+b) % zergs where b is a positive number. Nah, you have yet to prove that a superior terran player goes 50-50 vs an inferior zerg player, which is what your argument is based on. The only thing I can think (now that you have backed away from that argument) is that you are assuming is that ladder distributio n should follow a normal distribution in proportion to population, which is not a given. Don't think you understand statistics. It doesn't matter how it is distributed actually (for my point to be valid - just look at the above posts). But one needs to know the distribution to quantiy the estimated win rate. The important assumption is that zerg players in average aren't heavily superior to terran players. In the above post I suggested ways that Blizzard could take average skill level into account, but no matter what, it can't completely justifiy the skewed distirbutions that we see ladder season after ladder season. I think any statistics-guy by looking at these numbers would conclude that terran is undervalued with a very high probability. I believe one has to be a zerg player to argue that these numbers are justified. Don't delude yourself, you haven't used any complicated statistics. You arbitrarily pick numbers to support your conclusion, and I can do the same using your own resources. From the world playerbase, active players in the last 30 days. If you exclude bronze, 4.5% of the Terran population is in GM and 4.8% of the Zerg population is in GM. 9.3% of the Terran population is in Master's and 8.3% of the Zerg population is in Master's. Seems close to me. *Note: this isn't statistics, just arithmetic.
You are a master of missing the point (intentionally or just ignorant?). Sure this is basic statistics, but I just argued that you didn't understand the premise my assumption was build on due to lack of understnad game understnading.
Also removing bronze completely is absolutely retarded. This is a hopelessly biased error because what is happening is that in an imbalanced world: low gm terran players gets into high master. Low masters --> Diamond low diamond into plat.. etc.. (you really never considered that there is a lot of terrans in bronze because the race might be UP?).
So in the end there are lot of terran players who deserves to be in silver but is in bronze. Removing bronze is terrible solution. So I think I end our discussiong here as you are clearly a biased zerg player + you have little understanding of statistics/can't interpret numbers objectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
