EPTTvZ Winrates with Mass Widow Mine - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Wafflelisk
Canada1061 Posts
| ||
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On April 08 2013 10:09 KiLL_ORdeR wrote: I think most builds that don't use mass widow mines will have 2 or 3 widow mines in each base, and maybe 1 for each counter attack route. After that I would assume Terrans would switch the factory to a tech lab and produce tanks, but I have yet to see a pro game where this happens since tanks aren't really viable anymore in TvZ. I have a feeling it's actually the medivac's boost that is causing Terran to have a higher winrate. Games where Terran has less than 10 widow mines probably mean that they are playing at a disadvantage, either economically or in terms of unit comp since well used vipers pretty much rape tanks. I don't think you actually know how widow mines are being used in those games... They are effectively being used during pushes much more than solitary defense. Think of how tanks were built and deployed, setting up when the army was found or in a more defensive position when pushing creep, and not primarily to sit at expansions or counter attack routes. The difference is the deployment/retreat time and range. Further, this doesn't really show anything at this point. There could be a huge number of reasons they show higher winrates, including their relatively low usage along with their at least modest power in the matchup, and how likely a game is to go to the mid game. Honestly, this thread sounds a lot more like fearmongering than accurate analysis, lobbying for Terran nerfs rather than provide an honest ground for discussion. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5220 Posts
On April 08 2013 10:31 aksfjh wrote: Further, this doesn't really show anything at this point. Saying it shows nothing is ignorant. The only thing this shows is that when Terrans make more then 10 Widow Mines, they win more games. That is all it shows, nothing more, nothing less. | ||
|
Entirety
1423 Posts
- People who make more Widow Mines are probably more knowledgeable about Heart of the Swarm and may win more games due to this. They win because they transitioned to Heart of the Swarm better, not because of the Widow Mines . - People who make more Widow Mines, which are "harder units to use" (arguably), may be better simply because you have to have a certain level of skill to utilize Widow Mines effectively. - People who make more Widow Mines may make them against certain compositions in which Widow Mines are favorable. For example, let's assume no one normally makes Hellbats against Zerg. However, when Zerg goes for mass ling, the Terran goes for 10+ Hellbats. In games where Terrans go 10+ Hellbats, they have 100% win rate vs. Zerg. Does that mean Hellbats make TvZ imba? No, because when Zergs deal with Hellbats effectively (by not going mass ling), then Terran doesn't make Hellbats. - People who make more Widow Mines had the time/resources to do so. When a Terran dies to 6pool, that is added to the category of "did not produce 10 Widow Mines" and lowers the win rate. Just the fact that the Terran even produced 10 Widow Mines means that the Terran survived really early game cheese. - People who make more Widow Mines might have gone Mech, and this may be more indicative of Mech being a problem rather than Widow Mines specifically. I could list some more examples, but those are just some ways that these results can be interpreted. | ||
|
Greenwizard
48 Posts
When you compare these things is like ... win rates if the zerg has 10+ ultras or less , win rates if the terran has 8+ bcs after min 15. You compare the winrate of a race on the fact if he has a bigger or smaller army at a point in game, of the bigger army has a bigger win rate. It's retarded and stupid excuse to blame mines. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5220 Posts
On April 08 2013 10:38 Entirety wrote: - People who make more Widow Mines had the time/resources to do so. When a Terran dies to 6pool, that is added to the category of "did not produce 10 Widow Mines" and lowers the win rate. Just the fact that the Terran even produced 10 Widow Mines means that the Terran survived really early game cheese. 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. | ||
|
Defenestrator
400 Posts
On April 08 2013 10:38 Entirety wrote: There are confounding variables too. - People who make more Widow Mines are probably more knowledgeable about Heart of the Swarm and may win more games due to this. They win because they transitioned to Heart of the Swarm better, not because of the Widow Mines . - People who make more Widow Mines, which are "harder units to use" (arguably), may be better simply because you have to have a certain level of skill to utilize Widow Mines effectively. - People who make more Widow Mines may make them against certain compositions in which Widow Mines are favorable. For example, let's assume no one normally makes Hellbats against Zerg. However, when Zerg goes for mass ling, the Terran goes for 10+ Hellbats. In games where Terrans go 10+ Hellbats, they have 100% win rate vs. Zerg. Does that mean Hellbats make TvZ imba? No, because when Zergs deal with Hellbats effectively (by not going mass ling), then Terran doesn't make Hellbats. - People who make more Widow Mines had the time/resources to do so. When a Terran dies to 6pool, that is added to the category of "did not produce 10 Widow Mines" and lowers the win rate. Just the fact that the Terran even produced 10 Widow Mines means that the Terran survived really early game cheese. - People who make more Widow Mines might have gone Mech, and this may be more indicative of Mech being a problem rather than Widow Mines specifically. I could list some more examples, but those are just some ways that these results can be interpreted. Your arguments are reaching, at best. How about the most obvious explanation: that T players who base their strategy around widow mines win more in TvZ than those who don't? To me, the main message from the data provided is that if you're losing in TvZ and you're not making widow mines, then maybe you should start. It's too early IMO to delve too deep into balance anyway at this point; widow mines are a pretty strange/novel unit, and I don't think people have had enough time to figure them out. Also, to critics: care to suggest a better way of measuring this? | ||
|
ninjamyst
United States1903 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5220 Posts
On April 08 2013 10:41 Greenwizard wrote: Ok this is totaly stupid if you really think about it. If the terran has more then 10 wm means he probably has a big army too ( it's min 15 + ), means he is probably winning in macro or is at the same level , less chance for him to be loseing. If the terran has less then 10 wm means he has a smaller army or (has less wm) and we can conclude that his army is small and maybe behind. When you compare these things is like ... win rates if the zerg has 10+ ultras or less , win rates if the terran has 8+ bcs after min 15. You compare the winrate of a race on the fact if he has a bigger or smaller army at a point in game, of the bigger army has a bigger win rate. It's retarded and stupid excuse to blame mines. Hey buddy, re-read this: In 616 of those, the Terran produces 10 or fewer widow mines, and wins 49% of the time. In the other 345 games, the Terran produces more than 10 widow mines, and wins 59% of the time. He doesn't have to have all 10 Mines at once. He just has to produce 10 or more throughout the game. And as I said before, comparing the number of Widow Mines to expensive tier 3 units at any point of the game is ridiculous. Widow Mines cost as much as a Roach for god sakes, and can be Reactored. Finally, as I've been saying, no one said anything about blaming Mines, the OP just noted a statistic. | ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 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... Are you joking? 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. Or ling/baneling or baneling/roach all ins, which were shown to be highly effective at the end of WoL. Hell, 7rr cane still be an effective all in. | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
That terran can win if they make widow mines? :S | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
Jokes aside, there can't be any conclusion with those stats, because some Zergs deny the existence of Infestors some Terrans still use Tanks post Hive, some Zergs don't use Vipers if they face Widow mines or Tanks, even if the means for this are given. Just want to say that no one really has any idea how to play right now. I bet 50% of Masters still doesn't know how to targetfire with a Widow Mine and lose to people copying Life's early bust style. | ||
|
paladin8
United States44 Posts
However, if we frame the discussion in a different way, we might be able to say something useful. For example, if we apply the same statistic to another unit (e.g. tanks), we can compare the resulting winrates. So does producing 10+ widow mines lead to a higher winrate or does producing 4+ tanks lead to a higher winrate? This comparison still has many potential pitfalls, but it would at least be more fair than the one presented. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5220 Posts
On April 08 2013 10:52 FeyFey wrote: ...there can't be any conclusion with those stats... I bet 50% of Masters still doesn't know how to targetfire with a Widow Mine and lose because of people copying Life's early bust style. Sweet. So let's replace actual statistics that you don't like and talk about statistics that you made up and bet on. Whenever anyone comes out with a statistical argument on TL, it is like that person is arguing the world is round and the year is 1633. Ignorance abounds. The best part for me is, that BaaL' argues against this statistic hard (5th post on first page), yet he is actually featured in many of the replays on GGtracker and builds a lot of Widow Mines! Talk about conflict on interests... could it be that BaaL' is simply trying to protect the Widow Mine from a nerf because he relies so heavily on it? | ||
|
dsjoerg
United States384 Posts
On April 08 2013 10:48 Emzeeshady wrote: Also, we already knew Widow Mines are really good vs Zerg. This isn't all that informative. Well there ya go. OP is either wrong or obvious. Or both!  In other news, here's the >10 mutas stats: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SZR9gQa.png) Most surprising to me here is Master ZvT, where >10 mutas doesn't seem to make much of a winrate difference. To the naysayers, would it be of any use to restrict the analysis to armies over a certain size and at a certain time? I can retrieve TvZ games where T's army size was at least ABC, and then we can split it by <10 WM and >10 WM. I have no stake in the outcome here btw, I play Protoss Just trying to learn the game from a numerical perspective, so as to avoid arguments that ultimately boil down to an Appeal to Authority. | ||
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On April 08 2013 10:57 dsjoerg wrote: Well there ya go. OP is either wrong or obvious. Or both! In other news, here's the >10 mutas stats: well with the muta analysis, have we not reached a similar conclusion for ZvP? 49% with less than 10 mutas, 63% with more than 10 mutas for master level. the GM level is even greater (but with less sample size, of course). so we should also discuss how mutas are very strong in ZvP, stronger than widow mines are in TvZ nice stats, btw :D commend you on that! | ||
|
m0ck
4194 Posts
10 Mutas 1000/1000 Those are not equivalent. | ||
| ||
