|
Amusing to see how many people don't get it. Especially the ones who are agreeing based on those graphs. Statistics are the biggest liars indeed. Your choice for the colors intrigue me..
Too bad that a lot of 'm probably don't get it because they don't read the whole article though, even if that's part of the troll.
|
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
On December 05 2012 23:14 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 22:46 EtherealDeath wrote:On December 05 2012 21:04 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 20:52 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 20:22 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 20:08 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 20:01 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 19:44 Wombat_NI wrote:
100% agreed.
'Patchzergs' styles are a manifestation of design problems, but that have merely been put into bigger focus with the Queen patch. Hell, if you want to address that, reverting the Queen patch would do a better job. It mightn't solve everything, but I mean would Zerg suffer to anywhere near the same degree if it was reverted, than Terrans have suffered since it was added? Yes, let's go back to coin-flip bling-wars and roach-busts against hellion and quick 3CCs. So great. Wombat, you have to get a grip. If one zerg is imbalanced, all zergs are imbalanced, and the zerg players you like who aren't winning simply are not good enough. DRG plays infestor and BL too, he just doesn't win with it. If Scarlett & Vortix are patch-zergs, Life, Sniper & Symbol are patch-zergs. That is the biggest problem of this article, the implication of "Korea = master race" and that if foreign players are winning, there's a patch-problem. Never mind that the graphs are meaningless as absolutes (what is the relation between the number of matches played and matches won?). Never mind that the foreign zerg-players were always better than the foreign terrans, even when the patch-terrans were running rampant. Never mind that to this day, zerg is still the least represented race in GSL overall. But then, there is no reason to confront those issues. After all, it's all irony anyways. It's not just balance-whine, it's cowardly balance-whine. Zerg foreigners were always better? Huk, Thorzain, White Ra, without even thinking about it, off the top of my head. If zerg foreigners have improved, all foreigners should improve. Unless they are in completely different teams, drink different water, or something else that would magically make only the zergs better. If you cannot acknowledge the fact that Koreans are better at SC2 (mainly due to Broodwar's effect of progaming in the Korean scene), then you are ignorant of the fact that Korean zergs are still beating foreign zergs. While non-zerg Koreans magically cannot beat zergs, foreign or Korean. Obviously there are more Korean players at the top level. There are more professional players. And there are more Korean players with the mechanics necessary to play at the top level. I never claimed otherwise. It is also true that early in the life of the game, naniwa, thorzain and white-ra had a bigger impact than today. What is characteristic of those players? They are all below or just above ~200 APM players. What has hurt them more than anything is the focus on late-game, which is more APM intensive. They can't keep up. Stephano, Nerchio & Vortix? All 300+ APM. But, when Korean zergs where getting hammered, the foreign zergs still did comparatively better. As for foreign zergs beating Korean zergs: Snute beat Life just this weekend, Stephano beat Life and DRG. Vortix beat revival 3-0 last weekend. Foreign zergs have no problem beating Korean zergs. You realize that Zerg apm is inflated right? 300/60 = 5 actions per second that comes from making tons of units at once due to banked larvae mechanics. Anyway, even if we reject this premise: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=268783Read this thread and find that Zergs always had higher apm than Terran or Toss. These 200 apm players were able to perform despite the apm gap, now they suddently cant? Without a doubt, part of the difference in APM between players is race-dependent. But I don't think it is a coincidence that the most successful players in SC2 overall are almost all fast players (300+ APM) - including MC. Throughout the history of SC2, late-game has become more and more important. Late-game is the most APM-intensive. Thus, the development of the meta-game has favored some rather than others. But picking out individual players is probably not the best way of show-casing it, there are many reasons for why a player succeeds and fails. My bad. Zerg apm is just easier though. The macro mechanic is a huge APM boost, then running around small groups of lings is actually useful and really anyone can do it, and that boosts your apm. Now of course data sets of 1 are meaningless, but from my own experience playing all 3 races, the APM between them is really pointless. It's just a different way of playing. For instance, my main race is protoss. Protoss avg apm: ~190-210 Terran avg apm ~220-240 Zerg avg apm ~250-290 My % redundancy also decreases as apm increases across races, so I have both a higher EAPM and a higher EAPM % as zerg than I do with protoss (redunancy in tryhard zerg towards the top end of the avg, which is 290, is about 30%). The reason I think APM is interesting is that it is one of the few objective criteria we have for judging players. We lack game-statistics! ^^ As I wrote, there is no doubt that part of the difference between players in APM is due to the race they play. But it seems silly to me to ignore a 100+ APM difference between players. It is certainly not the end-all quality for judging players. Fast hands on their own won't do very much at all. But I think slow hands limits the situations in which you can be successful, and puts a very real limit on what you can achieve.
I find it interesting as well, both the raw numbers and also why they don't seem to scale equally with regards to each individual race.
From there, you can make hypotheses based on the deeper problems that relationship could potentially illustrate
|
sadly.... some parts from this are true... fungal as a spell is a joke...
|
On December 05 2012 23:05 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 22:04 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 21:39 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 21:19 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 21:04 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 20:52 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 20:22 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 20:08 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 20:01 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 19:44 Wombat_NI wrote:
100% agreed.
'Patchzergs' styles are a manifestation of design problems, but that have merely been put into bigger focus with the Queen patch. Hell, if you want to address that, reverting the Queen patch would do a better job. It mightn't solve everything, but I mean would Zerg suffer to anywhere near the same degree if it was reverted, than Terrans have suffered since it was added? Yes, let's go back to coin-flip bling-wars and roach-busts against hellion and quick 3CCs. So great. Wombat, you have to get a grip. If one zerg is imbalanced, all zergs are imbalanced, and the zerg players you like who aren't winning simply are not good enough. DRG plays infestor and BL too, he just doesn't win with it. If Scarlett & Vortix are patch-zergs, Life, Sniper & Symbol are patch-zergs. That is the biggest problem of this article, the implication of "Korea = master race" and that if foreign players are winning, there's a patch-problem. Never mind that the graphs are meaningless as absolutes (what is the relation between the number of matches played and matches won?). Never mind that the foreign zerg-players were always better than the foreign terrans, even when the patch-terrans were running rampant. Never mind that to this day, zerg is still the least represented race in GSL overall. But then, there is no reason to confront those issues. After all, it's all irony anyways. It's not just balance-whine, it's cowardly balance-whine. Zerg foreigners were always better? Huk, Thorzain, White Ra, without even thinking about it, off the top of my head. If zerg foreigners have improved, all foreigners should improve. Unless they are in completely different teams, drink different water, or something else that would magically make only the zergs better. If you cannot acknowledge the fact that Koreans are better at SC2 (mainly due to Broodwar's effect of progaming in the Korean scene), then you are ignorant of the fact that Korean zergs are still beating foreign zergs. While non-zerg Koreans magically cannot beat zergs, foreign or Korean. Obviously there are more Korean players at the top level. There are more professional players. And there are more Korean players with the mechanics necessary to play at the top level. I never claimed otherwise. It is also true that early in the life of the game, naniwa, thorzain and white-ra had a bigger impact than today. What is characteristic of those players? They are all below or just above ~200 APM players. What has hurt them more than anything is the focus on late-game, which is more APM intensive. They can't keep up. Stephano, Nerchio & Vortix? All 300+ APM. But, when Korean zergs where getting hammered, the foreign zergs still did comparatively better. As for foreign zergs beating Korean zergs: Snute beat Life just this weekend, Stephano beat Life and DRG. Vortix beat revival 3-0 last weekend. Foreign zergs have no problem beating Korean zergs. You realize that Zerg apm is inflated right? 300/60 = 5 actions per second that comes from making tons of units at once due to banked larvae mechanics. Anyway, even if we reject this premise: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=268783Read this thread and find that Zergs always had higher apm than Terran or Toss. These 200 apm players were able to perform despite the apm gap, now they suddently cant? Without a doubt, part of the difference in APM between players is race-dependent. But I don't think it is a coincidence that the most successful players in SC2 overall are almost all fast players (300+ APM) - including MC. Throughout the history of SC2, late-game has become more and more important. Late-game is the most APM-intensive. Thus, the development of the meta-game has favored some rather than others. But picking out individual players is probably not the best way of show-casing it, there are many reasons for why a player succeeds and fails. My bad. Late game appears less APM intensive for Zergs as a matter of fact. Aside from taking advantage of huge production causing inflating, a slow broodlord army is less intensive than a faster ling/bling/muta. Injects of course increase, but not by much. Early 3 hatch means 3 injects. Later bases add 1 inject each. Maybe a macro hatch. Even with 6 bases total, that would just be twice as many apm for injects. I must be missing something, please do enlighten. Well, go watch a replay in-eyes that goes into late-game  The silent/dormant periods don't necessarily have to be more taxing in the late-game, but what usually happens is that the players have better opportunities for challenging the multi-tasking of each-other. Drops, run-bys and counter-attacks are far more common later in the game - if the players have the speed to make them happen. I do watch pro player streams. Supporting revival as I type this right now. Drops happen mid-game from what I see, before BL/infestor, with roach drops against mech etc. Run-bys and counter attacks also happen mid-game more often than lategame before the BL/infestor deathball. If those are the reasons why lategame zerg is more apm intensive, then we are looking at very different games. I did see a game where Life was brilliantly multitasking and taking apart my cutie Scarlett with roaches taking out tons and tons of drones. But alas, Scarlett has the wisdom of making twice as many infestors where as Life has a more balanced composition of Broods/corruptors/infestors. Fungal + infested Terran ftw. Life barely scrapped a win as a result. A clear example of why your argument about APM and multitasking actually is not in favour of foreign zergs. Stephano being exception of course, that crazy French. /edit Ultimately, you are assuming that APM = multitasking. It could just be spam. I watch enough games and follow SC2 enough that I know foreign zergs don't do nearly as much drops, run-bys and counterattacks in the lategame as you claim. A couple of things. No, I'm not assuming that APM = multi-tasking, but it seems silly to me to presume that they are unrelated. Again: The most successful players in SC2 have been fast players/high APM players. I don't agree that drops, multi-pronged attacks et al happens more in the mid-game, but there's an issue of definition. One of the ways in which terran players win against BLs, and why BLs are vulnerable on the larger maps, is the potential for run-bys and drops that expose the weakness of the slow speed of BLs/forces the zerg-player to split up his army. And before you say "Oh, like that is so hard to deal with?", just remember how the best players in world have died to that scenario over and over again. There are more things to do and your attention have more places to go in the late-game. So, maybe you miss the red dot on the mini-map. The drop lands. And it cascades from there. Yes, Life quite clearly did better multi-tasking than Scarlett in that game. So did DRG in the game where they both went mutas and Scarlett won. But unless your multi-tasking puts you in a winning position, your multi-tasking is not successful. These players don't play to look good and lose, they play to win. And the Koreans do that better than anyone. I think you're showing a Korean bias. Life is very good at early harass, but he very often uses that advantage to go infestor->BLs (though sometimes he builds 7-8-9 mutas on his way there). What happened when he got behind against Stephano? Mass infestor. In any case, I think we have differing views about the quality of some different players, but it's very subjective and we probably won't agree. To me, Ret is a good example of a slowish zerg player who falters in the late-game (~230 APM). How many times have seen ret die after BLs are out?
A) Zerg mechanics tends to inflate APM, bears repeating.
B) APM is not everything. The most successful players in SC2 may have high APM, but there are also plenty of not-so-successful players with high APM. You are mistaking correlation for causation.
C) Top tier players, especially zergs with amazing map vision thanks to creep + overlords, do not miss a red dot. If they do, its far and few in between and often dealt with handily by reacting fast enough to save drones and bring in lings.
D) The idea that multi-tasking that doesn't put you into a winning position is not a "successful" multitasking is BS. Life was ahead on broodlord and corruptor count and with a huge bank thanks to his harass. He was in a position that should by all means be winnable, if not for infestors.
E) I'm not saying Koreans don't abuse infestors. Leenock is prime example. My point is that your arguments about APM is bullocks when it comes to explaining foreign Zerg performance.
F) Ret was known for playing crazy greedy when it was hard for Zergs to do it. Now all Zergs play that style, and do it better than him.
Ps. The bold is what really irks me about your thinking. You say yourself that APM is a sign of good player because you need it to do multi-tasking. Then we have a case of more multitasking vs less multitasking, and you blame the player with more multitasking for not being "successful".
|
I agree with VER with almost everything, i think the game isn`t balanced, but to be honest i dont really care alot about that. The more important thing is that its freaking booring to play and also pretty booring to watch. About a year ago I remember watching pro players games and being so amazed of their skills. I also played alot because it was so much fun to try to get better and to play as well as pro players.
But now about year later maybe partly due to my improvement, I dont like to play sc2 anymore. TvZ was my favorite match up untill few months ago I started facing alot of infestors, i mean ALOT. I still kept winning TvZ, but sometimes I lost due to one big fungal when I wasnt watching. Also the fact that I lost almost every lategame situation with bio really frustrated me. I found the answer against ultralisks with better unit composition, but against GGlord infestor i just couldnt win if I wouldnt be able to out multitask my opponent completely (which rarely happens). And it just doesnt feel fun to not to be able to find a viable answer on something.
About a month ago I tried playing protoss about a week, because it felt really easy for me and i had offraced quite alot earlier too. It was fun for few days, but then massing deathball just started to get so boring that I decided to stop playing sc2 completely and just keep playing dota 2. I still watch starcraft 2 tournaments and I hope in the future I can enjoy playing it again, but I dont see hots making a difference. Currently I just think that dota 2 is alot better game than sc2, even tought half an year ago I praised to my friends how fucking good game sc2 is as a casual game and as an esports game. Hopefully in the future sc2 will be as fun as it used to be for me.
|
What a complete trash post.
Sure fungal is too strong and broodlord/infestor as a combination is boring and should be weakened. Completely agree with you there.
However the rest is just using false arguments and conclusions piggybacking on this first claim.
Like those pictures where you can see a korean god is playing if it's ling/bling but not when it's infestor/bl, as if only koreans topzergs are able to kill stuff with ling/bling earlier...
Even worse some silly argument that blizzard is having a conspiracy to make the 'white' man, the foreigner win more...
|
On December 05 2012 23:14 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 22:46 EtherealDeath wrote:On December 05 2012 21:04 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 20:52 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 20:22 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 20:08 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 20:01 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 19:44 Wombat_NI wrote:
100% agreed.
'Patchzergs' styles are a manifestation of design problems, but that have merely been put into bigger focus with the Queen patch. Hell, if you want to address that, reverting the Queen patch would do a better job. It mightn't solve everything, but I mean would Zerg suffer to anywhere near the same degree if it was reverted, than Terrans have suffered since it was added? Yes, let's go back to coin-flip bling-wars and roach-busts against hellion and quick 3CCs. So great. Wombat, you have to get a grip. If one zerg is imbalanced, all zergs are imbalanced, and the zerg players you like who aren't winning simply are not good enough. DRG plays infestor and BL too, he just doesn't win with it. If Scarlett & Vortix are patch-zergs, Life, Sniper & Symbol are patch-zergs. That is the biggest problem of this article, the implication of "Korea = master race" and that if foreign players are winning, there's a patch-problem. Never mind that the graphs are meaningless as absolutes (what is the relation between the number of matches played and matches won?). Never mind that the foreign zerg-players were always better than the foreign terrans, even when the patch-terrans were running rampant. Never mind that to this day, zerg is still the least represented race in GSL overall. But then, there is no reason to confront those issues. After all, it's all irony anyways. It's not just balance-whine, it's cowardly balance-whine. Zerg foreigners were always better? Huk, Thorzain, White Ra, without even thinking about it, off the top of my head. If zerg foreigners have improved, all foreigners should improve. Unless they are in completely different teams, drink different water, or something else that would magically make only the zergs better. If you cannot acknowledge the fact that Koreans are better at SC2 (mainly due to Broodwar's effect of progaming in the Korean scene), then you are ignorant of the fact that Korean zergs are still beating foreign zergs. While non-zerg Koreans magically cannot beat zergs, foreign or Korean. Obviously there are more Korean players at the top level. There are more professional players. And there are more Korean players with the mechanics necessary to play at the top level. I never claimed otherwise. It is also true that early in the life of the game, naniwa, thorzain and white-ra had a bigger impact than today. What is characteristic of those players? They are all below or just above ~200 APM players. What has hurt them more than anything is the focus on late-game, which is more APM intensive. They can't keep up. Stephano, Nerchio & Vortix? All 300+ APM. But, when Korean zergs where getting hammered, the foreign zergs still did comparatively better. As for foreign zergs beating Korean zergs: Snute beat Life just this weekend, Stephano beat Life and DRG. Vortix beat revival 3-0 last weekend. Foreign zergs have no problem beating Korean zergs. You realize that Zerg apm is inflated right? 300/60 = 5 actions per second that comes from making tons of units at once due to banked larvae mechanics. Anyway, even if we reject this premise: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=268783Read this thread and find that Zergs always had higher apm than Terran or Toss. These 200 apm players were able to perform despite the apm gap, now they suddently cant? Without a doubt, part of the difference in APM between players is race-dependent. But I don't think it is a coincidence that the most successful players in SC2 overall are almost all fast players (300+ APM) - including MC. Throughout the history of SC2, late-game has become more and more important. Late-game is the most APM-intensive. Thus, the development of the meta-game has favored some rather than others. But picking out individual players is probably not the best way of show-casing it, there are many reasons for why a player succeeds and fails. My bad. Zerg apm is just easier though. The macro mechanic is a huge APM boost, then running around small groups of lings is actually useful and really anyone can do it, and that boosts your apm. Now of course data sets of 1 are meaningless, but from my own experience playing all 3 races, the APM between them is really pointless. It's just a different way of playing. For instance, my main race is protoss. Protoss avg apm: ~190-210 Terran avg apm ~220-240 Zerg avg apm ~250-290 My % redundancy also decreases as apm increases across races, so I have both a higher EAPM and a higher EAPM % as zerg than I do with protoss (redunancy in tryhard zerg towards the top end of the avg, which is 290, is about 30%). The reason I think APM is interesting is that it is one of the few objective criteria we have for judging players. We lack game-statistics! ^^ As I wrote, there is no doubt that part of the difference between players in APM is due to the race they play. But it seems silly to me to ignore a 100+ APM difference between players. It is certainly not the end-all quality for judging players. Fast hands on their own won't do very much at all. But I think slow hands limits the situations in which you can be successful, and puts a very real limit on what you can achieve.
Zergs almost always have more apm because they spam control groups more and have less "stuff" to actually do. When you have to build supply depots, monitor your rax, CC, etc you will have less apm than spamming 1-2-3-1-2-3. I always have less APM when I play terran compare to when I play zerg, and when i watch replays of me playing TvZ the zerg always has more APM.
|
|
|
On December 06 2012 00:52 Fjodorov wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 23:14 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 22:46 EtherealDeath wrote:On December 05 2012 21:04 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 20:52 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 20:22 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 20:08 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 20:01 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 19:44 Wombat_NI wrote:
100% agreed.
'Patchzergs' styles are a manifestation of design problems, but that have merely been put into bigger focus with the Queen patch. Hell, if you want to address that, reverting the Queen patch would do a better job. It mightn't solve everything, but I mean would Zerg suffer to anywhere near the same degree if it was reverted, than Terrans have suffered since it was added? Yes, let's go back to coin-flip bling-wars and roach-busts against hellion and quick 3CCs. So great. Wombat, you have to get a grip. If one zerg is imbalanced, all zergs are imbalanced, and the zerg players you like who aren't winning simply are not good enough. DRG plays infestor and BL too, he just doesn't win with it. If Scarlett & Vortix are patch-zergs, Life, Sniper & Symbol are patch-zergs. That is the biggest problem of this article, the implication of "Korea = master race" and that if foreign players are winning, there's a patch-problem. Never mind that the graphs are meaningless as absolutes (what is the relation between the number of matches played and matches won?). Never mind that the foreign zerg-players were always better than the foreign terrans, even when the patch-terrans were running rampant. Never mind that to this day, zerg is still the least represented race in GSL overall. But then, there is no reason to confront those issues. After all, it's all irony anyways. It's not just balance-whine, it's cowardly balance-whine. Zerg foreigners were always better? Huk, Thorzain, White Ra, without even thinking about it, off the top of my head. If zerg foreigners have improved, all foreigners should improve. Unless they are in completely different teams, drink different water, or something else that would magically make only the zergs better. If you cannot acknowledge the fact that Koreans are better at SC2 (mainly due to Broodwar's effect of progaming in the Korean scene), then you are ignorant of the fact that Korean zergs are still beating foreign zergs. While non-zerg Koreans magically cannot beat zergs, foreign or Korean. Obviously there are more Korean players at the top level. There are more professional players. And there are more Korean players with the mechanics necessary to play at the top level. I never claimed otherwise. It is also true that early in the life of the game, naniwa, thorzain and white-ra had a bigger impact than today. What is characteristic of those players? They are all below or just above ~200 APM players. What has hurt them more than anything is the focus on late-game, which is more APM intensive. They can't keep up. Stephano, Nerchio & Vortix? All 300+ APM. But, when Korean zergs where getting hammered, the foreign zergs still did comparatively better. As for foreign zergs beating Korean zergs: Snute beat Life just this weekend, Stephano beat Life and DRG. Vortix beat revival 3-0 last weekend. Foreign zergs have no problem beating Korean zergs. You realize that Zerg apm is inflated right? 300/60 = 5 actions per second that comes from making tons of units at once due to banked larvae mechanics. Anyway, even if we reject this premise: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=268783Read this thread and find that Zergs always had higher apm than Terran or Toss. These 200 apm players were able to perform despite the apm gap, now they suddently cant? Without a doubt, part of the difference in APM between players is race-dependent. But I don't think it is a coincidence that the most successful players in SC2 overall are almost all fast players (300+ APM) - including MC. Throughout the history of SC2, late-game has become more and more important. Late-game is the most APM-intensive. Thus, the development of the meta-game has favored some rather than others. But picking out individual players is probably not the best way of show-casing it, there are many reasons for why a player succeeds and fails. My bad. Zerg apm is just easier though. The macro mechanic is a huge APM boost, then running around small groups of lings is actually useful and really anyone can do it, and that boosts your apm. Now of course data sets of 1 are meaningless, but from my own experience playing all 3 races, the APM between them is really pointless. It's just a different way of playing. For instance, my main race is protoss. Protoss avg apm: ~190-210 Terran avg apm ~220-240 Zerg avg apm ~250-290 My % redundancy also decreases as apm increases across races, so I have both a higher EAPM and a higher EAPM % as zerg than I do with protoss (redunancy in tryhard zerg towards the top end of the avg, which is 290, is about 30%). The reason I think APM is interesting is that it is one of the few objective criteria we have for judging players. We lack game-statistics! ^^ As I wrote, there is no doubt that part of the difference between players in APM is due to the race they play. But it seems silly to me to ignore a 100+ APM difference between players. It is certainly not the end-all quality for judging players. Fast hands on their own won't do very much at all. But I think slow hands limits the situations in which you can be successful, and puts a very real limit on what you can achieve. Zergs almost always have more apm because they spam control groups more and have less "stuff" to actually do. When you have to build supply depots, monitor your rax, CC, etc you will have less apm than spamming 1-2-3-1-2-3. I always have less APM when I play terran compare to when I play zerg, and when i watch replays of me playing TvZ the zerg always has more APM.
I approve of this troll post.
|
On December 06 2012 00:52 Markwerf wrote:
What a complete trash post.
Sure fungal is too strong and broodlord/infestor as a combination is boring and should be weakened. Completely agree with you there.
However the rest is just using false arguments and conclusions piggybacking on this first claim.
Like those pictures where you can see a korean god is playing if it's ling/bling but not when it's infestor/bl, as if only koreans topzergs are able to kill stuff with ling/bling earlier...
Even worse some silly argument that blizzard is having a conspiracy to make the 'white' man, the foreigner win more...
Sigh. Read the whole article (again), read the tread. Do you really think he's serious about this conspiracy?
|
On December 06 2012 00:58 monkybone wrote:
The races work differently. They do different actions, at different frequencies. Some actions require more time and thought, and some require less. Therefore you cannot compare APM of two players from different races to determine their "quickness" in the game. The races works too differently.
As it happens Zerg requires more APM than Terran and Protoss. That doesn't mean you have to be the "quicker" player. You just do different things which happens to give you a higher APM. Building three overlords is just objectively quicker than building three supply depots.
How fast you are as a player is a very objective measure of skill. However some spam their APM more than others. So a direct comparison between two players (of equal races) does not necessarily give the right picture of their difference in quickness.
However if you were to take the average APM of a large group, then you can determine their average level of quickness. So in order to compare the quickness of foreigners with koreans, you will have to take a sample of the best koreans of each race, and compare them to an equal number of foreigner players of the same race.
Just as scarlett, stephano and vortix have higher APM than their foreigner Terran and Protoss counterparts, so will DRG, Sniper and Life have more APM than the best Korean terrans.
This isn't necessarily true, Taeja has higher average APM than Life, who trounced Taeja in GSL. Too much APM discussion though, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Haha, I see a "Trollbeads" ad in the right sidebar. Targeted ads ftw.
|
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
On December 06 2012 00:58 monkybone wrote:
The races work differently. They do different actions, at different frequencies. Some actions require more time and thought, and some require less. Therefore you cannot compare APM of two players from different races to determine their "quickness" in the game. The races works too differently.
As it happens Zerg requires more APM than Terran and Protoss. That doesn't mean you have to be the "quicker" player. You just do different things which happens to give you a higher APM. Building three overlords is just objectively quicker than building three supply depots.
How fast you are as a player is a very objective measure of skill. However some spam their APM more than others. So a direct comparison between two players (of equal races) does not necessarily give the right picture of their difference in quickness.
However if you were to take the average APM of a large group, then you can determine their average level of quickness. So in order to compare the quickness of foreigners with koreans, you will have to take a sample of the best koreans of each race, and compare them to an equal number of foreigner players of the same race.
Just as scarlett, stephano and vortix have higher APM than their foreigner Terran and Protoss counterparts, so will DRG, Sniper and Life have more APM than the best Korean terrans.
Consider it in a simplistic way
Protoss - Benefit least from high APM, visibly. Pro players can do well with extremely low APM compared to other races, but the top pros who have this high APM, don't benefit.
Zerg- Naturally higher 'APM inflation' in terms of having lots of things to do and generally producing more units. Benefit from having higher APM in terms of improving every aspect of their play, from hitting every inject to spreading creep.
Terran- High APM necessity to play the race at a high level, increases the benefit of having high APM and scales very high in terms of the rewards of high apm
You can disprove these basic hypotheses for sure, but it at least draws some kind of context into the seemingly irreconcilable 'if high APM = good player, why does the highest APM not = best player' dilemma
|
On December 06 2012 01:42 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 00:58 monkybone wrote:
The races work differently. They do different actions, at different frequencies. Some actions require more time and thought, and some require less. Therefore you cannot compare APM of two players from different races to determine their "quickness" in the game. The races works too differently.
As it happens Zerg requires more APM than Terran and Protoss. That doesn't mean you have to be the "quicker" player. You just do different things which happens to give you a higher APM. Building three overlords is just objectively quicker than building three supply depots.
How fast you are as a player is a very objective measure of skill. However some spam their APM more than others. So a direct comparison between two players (of equal races) does not necessarily give the right picture of their difference in quickness.
However if you were to take the average APM of a large group, then you can determine their average level of quickness. So in order to compare the quickness of foreigners with koreans, you will have to take a sample of the best koreans of each race, and compare them to an equal number of foreigner players of the same race.
Just as scarlett, stephano and vortix have higher APM than their foreigner Terran and Protoss counterparts, so will DRG, Sniper and Life have more APM than the best Korean terrans. Consider it in a simplistic way Protoss - Benefit least from high APM, visibly. Pro players can do well with extremely low APM compared to other races, but the top pros who have this high APM, don't benefit. Zerg- Naturally higher 'APM inflation' in terms of having lots of things to do and generally producing more units. Benefit from having higher APM in terms of improving every aspect of their play, from hitting every inject to spreading creep. Terran- High APM necessity to play the race at a high level, increases the benefit of having high APM and scales very high in terms of the rewards of high apm You can disprove these basic hypotheses for sure, but it at least draws some kind of context into the seemingly irreconcilable 'if high APM = good player, why does the highest APM not = best player' dilemma
I would say the benefit of high APM Zerg is greatly diminished at a very reachable point. While we don't always see perfect injects from beginning to end, hardly does the "lost" larva manifest into a loss as long as a certain level of obtainable perfection is achieved. Especially as we shift away from the old 2 base Zerg defense/timings, which relied heavily on 2 queens and 2 hatches, meaning larva availability was a HUGE constraint on production.
These days, with super fast thirds and possibly double the number of queens, larva management and creep spread has become much more trivial. Also, the brute nature of queens and roaches, and lack of mutalisk use, have made the race less micro intensive in the early through mid game, along with the classic anti-micro of BLs. It feels as if this has made a great deal of Zerg APM a choice over a requirement, compared to Terran (and PvP Protoss).
|
I enjoyed the post OP. A conspiracy of my type.
However, as far as the details go, I cannot do anything but agree. It's sad to me that the results of the ghost nerf and queen change were predictable as hell, but Blizzard still went ahead with it, and now we're in the shit state of SC2, with the former epic matchup TvZ forever ruined. Add to this the travesty that was Cataclysm, the SCAM that was Diablo 3, and I have lost all faith in Blizzard and I don't ever see myself playing any of their games.
Shame, I was so looking forward to SC2.
|
I agree with some of the points made in this post, but calling it a "white people patch" reeks of racism. In your tin hat theory Blizzard could have patched any race, say Protoss, so foriegn Protoss players could win more games.
|
On December 06 2012 00:39 Juustokalle wrote:
I agree with VER with almost everything, i think the game isn`t balanced, but to be honest i dont really care alot about that. The more important thing is that its freaking booring to play and also pretty booring to watch. About a year ago I remember watching pro players games and being so amazed of their skills. I also played alot because it was so much fun to try to get better and to play as well as pro players.
But now about year later maybe partly due to my improvement, I dont like to play sc2 anymore. TvZ was my favorite match up untill few months ago I started facing alot of infestors, i mean ALOT. I still kept winning TvZ, but sometimes I lost due to one big fungal when I wasnt watching. Also the fact that I lost almost every lategame situation with bio really frustrated me. I found the answer against ultralisks with better unit composition, but against GGlord infestor i just couldnt win if I wouldnt be able to out multitask my opponent completely (which rarely happens). And it just doesnt feel fun to not to be able to find a viable answer on something.
About a month ago I tried playing protoss about a week, because it felt really easy for me and i had offraced quite alot earlier too. It was fun for few days, but then massing deathball just started to get so boring that I decided to stop playing sc2 completely and just keep playing dota 2. I still watch starcraft 2 tournaments and I hope in the future I can enjoy playing it again, but I dont see hots making a difference. Currently I just think that dota 2 is alot better game than sc2, even tought half an year ago I praised to my friends how fucking good game sc2 is as a casual game and as an esports game. Hopefully in the future sc2 will be as fun as it used to be for me.
We need to make a thread that compiles this idea of a post, I must have read at least 200+ of these on Teamliquid(myself included as a masters Terran) Every single master Terran here is in the same boat. Its pretty ridiculous. I cant remember the last time I saw a Terran player say "O well TvZ is fine guys! its very exciting in its current state." The bigger problem is that once all the casuals Terrans quit thats what is causing even more rage on the ladder because everybody knows how wonderful PvZ is 
It feels like P and Z are having a bad time to, but it feels like at least a 5:1 ratio of posts like this, you dont see Z players saying stuff like this nearly as often. Generally as a Terran the game is just 10x more frustrating, you play your heart out then make 1 small mistake that costs you the whole game. Or you play your as hard as you can, only to get turtled into late game and then you just lose. So many of us have quit because it is simply not fun to play Terran
|
On December 06 2012 02:22 imaROBOT wrote:
I agree with some of the points made in this post, but calling it a "white people patch" reeks of racism. In your tin hat theory Blizzard could have patched any race, say Protoss, so foriegn Protoss players could win more games.
But foreign protosses were doing the best of the 3 already. Naniwa, Huk(still always a foreigner) come to mind
|
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
On December 06 2012 02:28 XXXSmOke wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 00:39 Juustokalle wrote:
I agree with VER with almost everything, i think the game isn`t balanced, but to be honest i dont really care alot about that. The more important thing is that its freaking booring to play and also pretty booring to watch. About a year ago I remember watching pro players games and being so amazed of their skills. I also played alot because it was so much fun to try to get better and to play as well as pro players.
But now about year later maybe partly due to my improvement, I dont like to play sc2 anymore. TvZ was my favorite match up untill few months ago I started facing alot of infestors, i mean ALOT. I still kept winning TvZ, but sometimes I lost due to one big fungal when I wasnt watching. Also the fact that I lost almost every lategame situation with bio really frustrated me. I found the answer against ultralisks with better unit composition, but against GGlord infestor i just couldnt win if I wouldnt be able to out multitask my opponent completely (which rarely happens). And it just doesnt feel fun to not to be able to find a viable answer on something.
About a month ago I tried playing protoss about a week, because it felt really easy for me and i had offraced quite alot earlier too. It was fun for few days, but then massing deathball just started to get so boring that I decided to stop playing sc2 completely and just keep playing dota 2. I still watch starcraft 2 tournaments and I hope in the future I can enjoy playing it again, but I dont see hots making a difference. Currently I just think that dota 2 is alot better game than sc2, even tought half an year ago I praised to my friends how fucking good game sc2 is as a casual game and as an esports game. Hopefully in the future sc2 will be as fun as it used to be for me. We need to make a thread that compiles this idea of a post, I must have read at least 200+ of these on Teamliquid(myself included as a masters Terran) Every single master Terran here is in the same boat. Its pretty ridiculous. I cant remember the last time I saw a Terran player say "O well TvZ is fine guys! its very exciting in its current state." The bigger problem is that once all the casuals Terrans quit thats what is causing even more rage on the ladder because everybody knows how wonderful PvZ is It feels like P and Z are having a bad time to, but it feels like at least a 5:1 ratio of posts like this, you dont see Z players saying stuff like this nearly as often. Generally as a Terran the game is just 10x more frustrating, you play your heart out then make 1 small mistake that costs you the whole game. Or you play your as hard as you can, only to get turtled into late game and then you just lose. So many of us have quit because it is simply not fun to play Terran
I'm trying to do this, compiling ideas and frustrations in a clear and coherent fashion.
TvZ frustration is something that fits in there, and is a good illustrative example.
I can PM you or link you or whatever to the relevant links if you so desire so you can decided whether I'm right in the approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
