|
Northern Ireland27206 Posts
On December 04 2012 12:01 c0sm0naut wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 11:08 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 04 2012 10:41 c0sm0naut wrote:
I think that one month should go by and we should look at rates as a community WITH blizzard
if the rates still show zerg at around 55-60% in both matchups, infestors should take a large nerf. I dont mean something like reducing the HP of the eggs, because that only limits their usefulness in one way. they should completely remove one of it's utilities, or at least make the infestors less suited for a role than another unit of zerg. For example, I think changing infestors burrow movement to be as easily detectable as a ghost, DT, or banshee would be a good move because it would make mutalisks a more viable harassment option in some circumstances. Other ideas from me would be, taking armor off of the morphing infested terran completely in combination with the HP nerf to 80, Making fungal growth unable to stun air units (this is i think the change that would have the greatest effect on the metagame), decreasing the radius of fungal growth to 1.5 and nerfing the damage to 35. Each of these changes alone would have a huge impact probably enough to where we wouldn't need to change anything about T or P in the meantime (maybe considering changing the way interceptors and fungal growth works as well) Exactly why you have to have a proper discussion with Blizzard and the idea that balanced 50/50 winrates don't necessarily make the game fun I mean we disagree with Infestors I think, but the approach has some validity I believe. It's the timings that Zerg units come out, that are only made possible by Zerg design that really brings the issue into focus. I mean I consider Infestors as 'feeling' like a High Templar, that you can spam from the midgame and with less downside for overmaking them and a more versatile unit. the infestor differs from the HT in that ghost is a viable counter for HT and can be zoned out with fungals before landing EMP. infestors also serve more roles being completely honest. there is a point at which, i can have like 20 ghosts with full energy and HT dont do shit, but i cant think of any ghost count that reliably lets me do that, especially one that is feasible to get to nowdays considering hive tech is coming at 16 min at the latest and zergs aren't sitting on 200/200 armies, they're trading them because they can remake faster with banked resources from an earlier (on average) third base. this is exactly why i think they need to be changed in at least one way pretty significantly. it needs to lose the catch all feel it has
Exactly man. I mean we differ in our own interpretation but, the actual reasoning behind it is to eliminate drawback-free play that isn't based on some kind of information, read or metagaming. For example, when Terrans had more effective pressure, you could still cut corners as a Zerg, but doing so blindly all the time was a calculated risk/reward kind of thing.
I mean, it's why Terrans struggle in the lategame too, but for the opposite reason. They can get counters that are both quite difficult to set up the infrastructure for, and rely on getting good compositional information.
The Terran transition to it's super army is bad/hard for almost the same reasons that building loads of infestors is relatively easy/good.
|
This win rates are so missleading.
Are ok, but many of those numbers come from matches with big skill disparity.
Winrates graphics from MLG, GSL and IPL5 from Ro16 and above would be really insightful.
|
On December 04 2012 12:17 Belha wrote:
This win rates are so missleading.
Are ok, but many of those numbers come from matches with big skill disparity.
Winrates graphics from MLG, GSL and IPL5 from Ro16 and above would be really insightful.
That many games is easy to count.
Zerg - terran
mlg 12-5
gsl 14-15
ipl 9-10
totall 35 - 30
46% tvz winrate
|
3 Comments:
1. If you don't have a method of accounting for skill bias, you shouldn't post tabulations like this. I'm not saying the numbers are wrong, but there is no way to tell if they are close to correct.
2. The TvZ win rate pie chart is almost certainly biased since many of the events are international. We know there aren't many elite foreign T players and we know the Korean teams have been sending their best Zs all around the international circuit. This means every time these two groups play you can expect to tally another win for Z in ZvT. If your numbers don't account for this type of situation, I can't be convinced they are meaningful from a balance perspective.
3. To anyone questioning Blizzard's stance on match-up win rates, I'm 99.9% certain they have better data and analysis than what is presented in the original post.
|
On December 04 2012 12:32 KissMeRed wrote:
2. The TvZ win rate pie chart is almost certainly biased since many of the events are international. We know there aren't many elite foreign T players and we know the Korean teams have been sending their best Zs all around the international circuit. This means every time these two groups play you can expect to tally another win for Z in ZvT. If your numbers don't account for this type of situation, I can't be convinced they are meaningful from a balance perspective.
If there is less good non-korean terrans then they won't be making it far enough to play the korean zergs where as korean terrans play many games vs non-korean zergs.
Korean terran vs non korean zerg @ ipl5 10-11
Non korean terran vs korean zerg @ ipl5 0-2
|
On December 04 2012 12:46 xPabt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 12:32 KissMeRed wrote:
2. The TvZ win rate pie chart is almost certainly biased since many of the events are international. We know there aren't many elite foreign T players and we know the Korean teams have been sending their best Zs all around the international circuit. This means every time these two groups play you can expect to tally another win for Z in ZvT. If your numbers don't account for this type of situation, I can't be convinced they are meaningful from a balance perspective.
If there is less good non-korean terrans then they won't be making it far enough to play the korean zergs where as korean terrans play many games vs non-korean zergs. Korean terran vs non korean zerg @ ipl5 10-11 Non korean terran vs korean zerg @ ipl5 0-2
Now someone should do this for every tournament in the original post. Also tabulate KoreanT v KoreanZ. Then look at the win rate in each category. If Non Korean T v Korean Z has a low win percentage, and the others are 'closer' to 50-50 like above, then we know why the match-up looks so terrible for T.
|
On December 04 2012 13:36 KissMeRed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 12:46 xPabt wrote:On December 04 2012 12:32 KissMeRed wrote:
2. The TvZ win rate pie chart is almost certainly biased since many of the events are international. We know there aren't many elite foreign T players and we know the Korean teams have been sending their best Zs all around the international circuit. This means every time these two groups play you can expect to tally another win for Z in ZvT. If your numbers don't account for this type of situation, I can't be convinced they are meaningful from a balance perspective.
If there is less good non-korean terrans then they won't be making it far enough to play the korean zergs where as korean terrans play many games vs non-korean zergs. Korean terran vs non korean zerg @ ipl5 10-11 Non korean terran vs korean zerg @ ipl5 0-2 Now someone should do this for every tournament in the original post. Also tabulate KoreanT v KoreanZ. Then look at the win rate in each category. If Non Korean T v Korean Z has a low win percentage, and the others are 'closer' to 50-50 like above, then we know why the match-up looks so terrible for T.
You misread my post.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27206 Posts
How do you propose we improve (assuming top level Protoss players) like in terms of potential strategies we haven't figured out that are viable, or the flaws in top Protoss players that they can iron out. Identify, bar issues like mentality where actual top Korean Protosses are actually sub-par.
Considering asymmetric balance, we have strengths, but our strengths are in the unpredictable. Hitting a Zerg with a timing he didn't expect, or a slightly different composition. It's why a Protoss will use a radically different build to the previous game, sometimes for the entirety of a BoX series. Yeah we can win games for sure, that's not what we're complaining about.
Terrans should just 'play better' too by that rationale. The problems are the same, limited options, it's just more mechanically demanding to overcome them as Terran.
Both these races have to play 'reactively' or use allin builds, against the Zerg race which has the best ability to reactively respond. I mean reactive in the sense that apart from timings, Protoss has to react to what the Zerg is doing, and their compositions more often than not. Terran has to do this too, especially in terms of their transition and reads vs say, Ultra/BL.
Protoss and Terran players can not respond as quickly to a moveout they spot that's compositionally surprising, in the same way Zerg can. Neither race can techswitch as fast either, Protoss are limited by gas costs after a point, Terran's switches are just quite slow to do even with the resources.
We're expected to play a matchup entirely to the Zerg's overall gameplan and stopping them getting there, but if our plan to do so is spotted or pre-empted, we're trying to employ a surprise-based strategy vs the race that is the BEST at reacting to that. This wouldn't be an issue at all if the Zerg had to be especially greedy to get to the lategame, especially against Terran, however they don't even have to cut huge corners to do this to the extent it opens visible or predictable holes that somebody can exploit. Yeah you can exploit the holes, they are there but it's very hard to know what or when they are, and risky to predicate a pushout on a read that might be wrong.
It's retarded, at that level. Protoss can win for sure though, not arguing that at all. Perhaps we can improve as a race, even the top guys, but I mean, where is that improvement going to come from?
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27206 Posts
I agree with some of your points man. In fact I agree with everything you say in terms of the specifics.
It's a terrible matchup, even when it's 50/50. I was playing vs a practice partner, and losing every game near enough. I went on TL to look up Parting's Immortal/Sentry build, practiced it a few times, and raped him.
I'm not any better at Starcraft for doing that, or more skillful for knowing that one build. I DID on the other hand, 'balance' the practice games with my Zerg friend. However, even though it benefitted me in this instance, it didn't feel good/left me feeling somewhat hollow.
The only ways I hear suggested for Protoss players to improve aren't things like 'macro better MC' or 'damn HerO's micro is bad, he could fix that', it's always 'He should hit that timing better'
Also, the reason Zergs build so many spines to be safe is partly because they are just skipping the midgame entirely. They're rushing to Hive and neglecting Lair aggression, so it's not that Zerg are inherently weak at this stage, but that Zerg playstyles at the minute kind of create that weak period.
|
Great work, just confirming what we already know as far as TvZ.
|
Terran obviously not doing well  (
|
On December 03 2012 22:08 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 22:06 opterown wrote:
surprised that zvp is so close, must be all those parting foreigner stomps haha
thanks for the work! Mid-game imba vs late-game imba make for a balanced match-up, it would seem. But here comes the explanations for why protoss is actually weak versus zerg, despite the results.
Wait, so do you believe that it is a legitimately balanced matchup then?
|
Hmm its still funny that people in this thread say TvP is fine overall. Its fine if you have top 10 mechanics in the world, but otherwise protoss has a ridiculous win ratio advantage. Like the OP already stated, about 30% of the TvP wins are from less than 5 different players, while in other matchups the wins are pretty evenly scattered..
|
Northern Ireland27206 Posts
Basically yeah it's hard, but when you have those mechanical chops it's pretty fair?
|
On December 04 2012 12:46 xPabt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 12:32 KissMeRed wrote:
2. The TvZ win rate pie chart is almost certainly biased since many of the events are international. We know there aren't many elite foreign T players and we know the Korean teams have been sending their best Zs all around the international circuit. This means every time these two groups play you can expect to tally another win for Z in ZvT. If your numbers don't account for this type of situation, I can't be convinced they are meaningful from a balance perspective.
If there is less good non-korean terrans then they won't be making it far enough to play the korean zergs where as korean terrans play many games vs non-korean zergs. Korean terran vs non korean zerg @ ipl5 10-11 Non korean terran vs korean zerg @ ipl5 0-2
You should take into account non korean terrans vs anyone. Non koreans terran are just bad compared to foreign/korean protosses and zergs.
Last mlg : foreign terran versus other foreigners : 0-2
Last IPL : foreign terran versus other foreigners : 0-7
Now I can see why there is only a 40% winning ratio for terrans.
|
On December 08 2012 11:37 Tapppi wrote:
Hmm its still funny that people in this thread say TvP is fine overall. Its fine if you have top 10 mechanics in the world, but otherwise protoss has a ridiculous win ratio advantage. Like the OP already stated, about 30% of the TvP wins are from less than 5 different players, while in other matchups the wins are pretty evenly scattered..
Please, show me some actual winrates and facts posted by a guy who doesnt have a Terran based agenda. Why would you post stats and then attempt to discredit them unless you were incredibly biased. There hasn't been a shred of evidence in the past four months to support claims that TvP is Protoss favored. Yet you keep saying so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|
On December 08 2012 12:12 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2012 11:37 Tapppi wrote:
Hmm its still funny that people in this thread say TvP is fine overall. Its fine if you have top 10 mechanics in the world, but otherwise protoss has a ridiculous win ratio advantage. Like the OP already stated, about 30% of the TvP wins are from less than 5 different players, while in other matchups the wins are pretty evenly scattered.. Please, show me some actual winrates and facts posted by a guy who doesnt have a Terran based agenda. Why would you post stats and then attempt to discredit them unless you were incredibly biased. There hasn't been a shred of evidence in the past four months to support claims that TvP is Protoss favored. Yet you keep saying so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
It's still a lot more unforgiving to play from the Terran side simply because you have no choice but to field a much squishier army that remakes slower, but in general it's at least manageable as long as Protoss doesn't have a large bank. Certainly easier than TvZ.
|
Confirmation of what everyone has been saying about zerg lately. Hopefully infestor nerf will change it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
