EPTThis doesn't prove at all widow mines are OP or suggest anything of the sort, it just says they are a crucial component of this day's TvZ strategies, and that zerg haven't developed correct answers yet, all of which we already knew.
TvZ Winrates with Mass Widow Mine - Page 16
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
This doesn't prove at all widow mines are OP or suggest anything of the sort, it just says they are a crucial component of this day's TvZ strategies, and that zerg haven't developed correct answers yet, all of which we already knew. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
Players who try to make a lot of mines and lose will end up having made less mines--because they're dead. | ||
|
Assirra
Belgium4169 Posts
On April 09 2013 08:17 mordk wrote: So widow mines became a standard of Terran play? You mean like Spider Mines?.. Well that's odd, and unexpected.. yeah right This doesn't prove at all widow mines are OP or suggest anything of the sort, it just says they are a crucial component of this day's TvZ strategies, and that zerg haven't developed correct answers yet, all of which we already knew. Well tbh, they are not spider mines but more. They can hit air and have a cooldown so they can hit again with the same mine. Not saying they are OP but compared to spider mines they have way more abilities. | ||
|
petered
United States1817 Posts
On April 08 2013 23:25 dsjoerg wrote: This has been lots of fun and I will be doing more stats posts at some point. To make the next discussion more productive and a little less flaming:
Feel free to PM me if you are looking to do similar analysis and want someone to bounce ideas off of. I don't have the time to be writing my own posts, but it would be fun to take a look at what other sort of information you are looking at. A few questions/thoughts: - Are the resource %'s you are looking at just at the 15minute mark, or over the entire game? Over the entire game would probably be better if available. - I would rearrange your groupings. Based off of number of games, it looks like you need more information in the lower ranges and less information in the upper ranges. Try making groupings in increments of 2.5%, but then group everything over 15% or something like that. this is where things get a bit more subjective. Remember, the point of adjusting ranges isn't to make the data fit what you are trying to say, it is just to give a look that gives you the best information. right now, there are way too many games in the 0 - 5% and not enough in the upper ones. There could be a significant difference between 0-2.5% and 2.5% - 5%. there may not be a better way of looking at it but it is worth a look. Unfortunately you probably don't have enough data at the moment to go down to a 2.5% increment, but I wonder what it looks like. - A linear regression is NOT a good tool for this sort of analysis in my opinion. We aren't really looking to say that mines are better as you get more of them indefinitely. Hence for our purposes, it doesn't really matter if you win more when you put 75% of your resources into mines versus 50%. No one does that anyway. We would prefer to answer questions like, is it better to put 15% of your resources into mines versus 5%. To me, it looks like there is actually a sweet spot between 5% and 15% where terrans are having the most success. It tails off once they start building more than that. This is also why I want to see what happens in the 0 to 2.5% and 2.5% to 5% ranges. That doesn't mean that mines are OP, but it does suggest that putting 5% to 15% of your resources into mines might be the strongest composition for terran at the moment. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
And furthermore, 10 widow mines isn't actually very many. In any reasonable-length game it's entirely possible for a terran to have made 10 mines despite them having relatively little impact compared to the large numbers of other units being used. Imagine how these statistics would look if you substituted 20 marines in for 10 mines. Terrans who made more than 20 marines have a much higher win rate- how about that? If the number was very large this type of analysis might have some bearing. But really there just isn't enough data to tell if the widow mine is actually even good yet. Players need time to learn to deal with it before we can even have a discussion about whether mines are good at all, much less "too good." For all we know players will figure mines out completely and just send solo lings to set them off, or something else will be discovered or become prevalent as a reaction to terrans using mines. I am somewhat sad that they have completely replaced the siege tank wholesale with the widow mine, however. From cost, supply, damage, production, and flexibility standpoints the widow mine is strictly superior to the siege tank. Which remains awful. Its damage has been terrible since it was nerfed to 35 (+15 Armored) in the WoL beta. And now with Swarm Hosts and Tempests not even its range is exceptional, and is now in fact very poor compared to other siege units, despite being one of the most expensive units to obtain in quantity, and also arguably the least mobile unit in the game, and the most inflexible and difficult to position. | ||
|
Giriath
Sweden2412 Posts
On April 09 2013 08:13 Faust852 wrote: Actually, in a late game scenario, A terran should better get 10 tanks instead of widowmines. Widow mines are crap against ultralisk while tanks deal with them pretty well. I do think hellbat are way better than mine in TvZ, except for covering some key locations I'm not at all convinced widow mines are worse against ultralisks than siege tanks are. Four widow mine hits will instantly kill a full health fully upgraded ultralisk, and because of their low cost and supply the MMM supply count and even its upgrades may be higher than what you could get with MMM+tanks. On April 09 2013 08:08 Thieving Magpie wrote: You don't seem to understand a very important feature of Tank's range which is to force pressure. 10-14 widow mines are great at holding back an advance but it doesn't allow you to push for pressure the way 20 tanks does. Now--this doesn't mean tanks are better than mines. This means Tanks have a very different use than mines. One that mines can't do--but is currently unnecessary with today's metagame. Widow mines allow the MMM army to push because the zerg army can't easily engage it. Also 20 tanks is a late-game army, whereas you can easily add 8-10 widow mines to your mid-game MMMM army and relentlessly push. On April 09 2013 08:27 ledarsi wrote: Thieving Magpie's point immediately jumped out at me. On top of the statistical issues mentioned earlier in the thread. And furthermore, 10 widow mines isn't actually very many. In any reasonable-length game it's entirely possible for a terran to have made 10 mines despite them having relatively little impact compared to the large numbers of other units being used. Imagine how these statistics would look if you substituted 20 marines in for 10 mines. Terrans who made more than 20 marines have a much higher win rate- how about that? If the number was very large this type of analysis might have some bearing. But really there just isn't enough data to tell if the widow mine is actually even good yet. Players need time to learn to deal with it before we can even have a discussion about whether mines are good at all, much less "too good." For all we know players will figure mines out completely and just send solo lings to set them off, or something else will be discovered or become prevalent as a reaction to terrans using mines. I am somewhat sad that they have completely replaced the siege tank wholesale with the widow mine, however. From cost, supply, damage, production, and flexibility standpoints the widow mine is strictly superior to the siege tank. Which remains awful. Its damage has been terrible since it was nerfed to 35 (+15 Armored) in the WoL beta. And now with Swarm Hosts and Tempests not even its range is exceptional, and is now in fact very poor compared to other siege units, despite being one of the most expensive units to obtain in quantity, and also arguably the least mobile unit in the game, and the most inflexible and difficult to position. I remain puzzled that a unit that everyone seems to agree is far superior to the siege tank which was also far improved in HotS (no siege research required is big) is somehow perhaps not even good? You'd think the WoL siege tank was absolutely terrible, and yet terran were still able to win TvZ using it. There's really no disputing that the widow mine is awesome in TvZ. If and how imbalanced it is will be revealed only when zerg players start to properly deal with them as good as can be—and no, sending in single or even small packs of zerglings or infested terrans is not the answer because terran players will learn to defend against cute things like that with their bio army within a week. I think zerg has available good late-game counters against MMMM with infestors and vipers to shut down the terran army and use the widow mine splash against it. The only problem is getting there when the terran player is capable of building a decent MMMM army in the mid-game—proper use of ling/bling/muta or just ling/muta to delay and harass the terran and defend drops until the zeg player is able to get infestors and vipers will be the key to beating terran in the HotS meta-game. | ||
|
Killcycle
United States170 Posts
Unfortunately, there's too much bias introduced for me to take it seriously. Plus, widow mine targeting is already terribad.  | ||
|
HeyImFinn
United States250 Posts
| ||
|
Giriath
Sweden2412 Posts
On April 09 2013 08:52 IAmMajiC wrote: I might be the only one, but I really don't like using mines in the lategame. They're at their best in the mid-game before the zerg player has an infestor/viper/ultralisk composition which can counter MMMM, but they're the most viable splash damge unit terran has in TvZ. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
On April 09 2013 08:49 Giriath wrote: I remain puzzled that a unit that everyone seems to agree is far superior to the siege tank which was also far improved in HotS (no siege research required is big) is somehow perhaps not even good? You'd think the WoL siege tank was absolutely terrible, and yet terran were still able to win TvZ using it. The tank was absolutely terrible in WoL. TvZ was not won using tanks. TvZ was won using marines, with the tank as the best way to counter banelings; the only unit zerg has that can actually stop mass marine effectively. Even Infestors will eventually run out of energy, but each Baneling is only 1/2 of a supply. TvZ in WoL was a huge number of marines, and as few tanks as you could get away with to target fire banelings. Once the banelings are removed from the equation, the tanks can hang. And the tank remains terrible in HotS. Only now the Widow Mine is a vastly superior option for the purpose of killing banelings, and it is no surprise terrans have immediately and en masse abandoned the expensive and clunky piece of garbage that is the SCII siege tank for the new and very efficient widow mine. Cheaper, inflicts kills with large single target damage, deals more splash with larger radius, is able to hit air units, burrows, and only 3 (1 with upgrade) seconds siege time. Free siege mode makes the first tank you build much better. But it changes nothing with respect to having multiple tanks, when the 100 gas and quick research time was functionally irrelevant to playing a longer game. The purpose of the siege tech research in BW was to delay when sieged tanks could be used due to their high range and stopping power. They sort of have neither in SCII, but are nevertheless more expensive in gas and supply. | ||
|
nak0z
12 Posts
http://drop.sc/321046 My opponent has 58% win rate in TVP, 33% in TVT, 67% in TVZ by abusing widow mine. Terran uses it offensively and you are !@#$ed, you are forced to engage and hope for terran miss micro their units and hope for a bingo. I wonder what is Blizzard thinking and why do they even have to carefully observe the abusive unit in higher level game play, QXC literately mass widow mine with 2 base and beat Idra with 5 base. Stephano loses to QXC non stop widow mine harass while massing up battlecruisers. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Hexxed
United States202 Posts
On April 09 2013 12:38 nak0z wrote: Here is a great replay of how imbalance the widow mine is, it is extremely difficult to harass terran at the mid game due to widow mine placement, 1 widow mine and you are fcked. http://drop.sc/321046 My opponent has 58% win rate in TVP, 33% in TVT, 67% in TVZ by abusing widow mine. Terran uses it offensively and you are !@#$ed, you are forced to engage and hope for terran miss micro their units and hope for a bingo. I wonder what is Blizzard thinking and why do they even have to carefully observe the abusive unit in higher level game play, QXC literately mass widow mine with 2 base and beat Idra with 5 base. Stephano loses to QXC non stop widow mine harass while massing up battlecruisers. It's really boring to watch too. I've started turning off the stream whenever Idra/Stephano hit QXC. | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
I am really hoping there are mirror threads of this thread made analyzing oracles/vipers and such and win percentages. This thread has just become a hysteria thread and served it's agenda of attempting to get the community in a fervor to get something nerfed that's not actually a problem. This thread is quite sad really. | ||
|
Hexxed
United States202 Posts
On April 09 2013 13:51 avilo wrote: lol i just watched that game of stephano vs qxc on whirlwind. What was stephano doing exactly that game? He built random hydra/roach and walked around in a circle in the center of the map chasing widow mines for half an hour. Not the best example of "widow mine OP" that anyone can come up with. I am really hoping there are mirror threads of this thread made analyzing oracles/vipers and such and win percentages. This thread has just become a hysteria thread and served it's agenda of attempting to get the community in a fervor to get something nerfed that's not actually a problem. This thread is quite sad really. And recalling your WoL play... I am not surprised you are in defense of widow mines :o) | ||
|
FancyCaTSC2
56 Posts
I'm T myself btw. | ||
|
Lukeeze[zR]
Switzerland6838 Posts
On April 09 2013 14:20 FancyCaTSC2 wrote: I think a major problem with the window mine is the effort Terran has to put into using mines versus the effort the opponent has to put into it to counter them. Maybe they should only be able to burrow while they are capable of releasing their charge, which means they get unborrowed after shooting and terran has to micro them back and is forced to constantly check if he can/has to reburrow them. I'm T myself btw. Mines also provide map control, if they auto-unburrow after a shot, you lose vision. And your opponent could counter them without detection: just send waves of free units like locusts, watch the mines shot and unborrow, and profit. That's not how you're supposed to fight cloaked units. | ||
|
Creem
Sweden254 Posts
On April 08 2013 10:42 BronzeKnee wrote: Yes, because Terrans in Masters league die to 6 pools all the time... I clearly remember Idra destroying aLive with 6 Pools... If anything what you said raises the win rate! 11/11 is still pretty strong too... if anything I'd argue that if short games favor a high winrate for Terran, and this has been shown statistically many times in WOL. What about the inevitable roach push following early game harass with helions? Surely that breaks a lot of terran players. In general, as a terran player, I agree with mines being quite strong atm. But that can partly be derived from the fact that players are still figuring out how to deal with them. As Life showed it's possible to use mines to your advantage by exploding them into the terran's fragile bioarmy. | ||
|
Hypemeup
Sweden2783 Posts
On April 09 2013 13:40 Hexxed wrote: It's really boring to watch too. I've started turning off the stream whenever Idra/Stephano hit QXC. I love watching it, anything is better then the NR20 of TvZ in WOL. | ||
|
Hexxed
United States202 Posts
On April 09 2013 15:18 Hypemeup wrote: I love watching it, anything is better then the NR20 of TvZ in WOL. It may become that again very quickly. If the best thing a zerg can do is NOT move out of his base it's going to become a NR scenario. The game has only been out a month. At the moment I see a lot of zergs just going through the permutations of "what do I do about this?" so far nothing is really clicking. If the trend keeps up it's going to become a turtle fest for zerg. | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On April 09 2013 08:49 Giriath wrote: I'm not at all convinced widow mines are worse against ultralisks than siege tanks are. Four widow mine hits will instantly kill a full health fully upgraded ultralisk, and because of their low cost and supply the MMM supply count and even its upgrades may be higher than what you could get with MMM+tanks. While 99.8% of the ulralisk's health is close enough, it's still kinda misleading to say only 4 is needed to kill an ultralisk. Aside from that and much more importantly: It seems you do not know (or forgot) that widow mines won't target the same unit when another widow mine is already targetting it. So unless the ultralisk(s) stay in the radius of the widow mines for prolonged periods of time, it/they will each take only 125 damage and the rest of the mines won't shoot. Also, the supply cost of 4 widow mines is 8, which is higher than ultralisk, which is also may be a problem. Siege tanks will absolutely dominate ultralisks both cost-wise and supply-wise; I don't know why ultralisks weren't changed in HotS; seems like a terrible choice (did they explain it anywhere?) On April 09 2013 09:05 ledarsi wrote: I totally disagree. Second only to the crux marines, I think tanks are one of the most important units for terran. Personally tanks are the hardest unit for me to deal with and if terrans didn't use them, I'd feel like I could win so many games against terran. Widow mines are really strong and might cancel out that feeling, but it would very certainly be my feeling if terran had neither.The tank was absolutely terrible in WoL. TvZ was not won using tanks. TvZ was won using marines, with the tank as the best way to counter banelings; the only unit zerg has that can actually stop mass marine effectively. Even Infestors will eventually run out of energy, but each Baneling is only 1/2 of a supply. TvZ in WoL was a huge number of marines, and as few tanks as you could get away with to target fire banelings. Once the banelings are removed from the equation, the tanks can hang. And the tank remains terrible in HotS. Only now the Widow Mine is a vastly superior option for the purpose of killing banelings, and it is no surprise terrans have immediately and en masse abandoned the expensive and clunky piece of garbage that is the SCII siege tank for the new and very efficient widow mine. Cheaper, inflicts kills with large single target damage, deals more splash with larger radius, is able to hit air units, burrows, and only 3 (1 with upgrade) seconds siege time. Free siege mode makes the first tank you build much better. But it changes nothing with respect to having multiple tanks, when the 100 gas and quick research time was functionally irrelevant to playing a longer game. The purpose of the siege tech research in BW was to delay when sieged tanks could be used due to their high range and stopping power. They sort of have neither in SCII, but are nevertheless more expensive in gas and supply. I could see one saying that with the advent of vipers tanks are less effective, but —just like broodlords— vipers fall to vikings easily, so I wouldn't even say it's much of an issue compared to WoL. On April 09 2013 08:17 mordk wrote: This doesn't prove at all widow mines are OP or suggest anything of the sort, it just says they are a crucial component of this day's TvZ strategies, and that zerg haven't developed correct answers yet, all of which we already knew. While I agree with what you're saying in general, the 2nd part of the sentence is an assumption that's not necessarily true. Not only have zergs not necessarily not developed correct answers, but if there was no answer for such hypothetical problems, they would in fact be OP. Anyway, the main thing I wanted to say, is that while most people probably have a somewhat uniform definition of OP, it's a subjective and particularly unqualified descriptor — i.e. OP in what way? Much of what I'd call OP is something that is just mathematically superior to all other options and hence are used en every game in an optimal developed metagame, like the marine. It's not necessarily something that's making the race have a higher win-rate than other races (make a race OP), but rather something that's OP for that race, like the discussion people are having "why use siege tanks when I can use widow mines?". When there's not overall equal usage of the units (accounting for difficulty of tech acquisition and such) one could say that the imbalance is due to overpoweredness of units within that race. | ||
| ||
