|
opterown
Australia54783 Posts
On April 08 2013 10:42 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +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... 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. 11/11 is actually quite a weak build, it relies on zerg players going for something ridic like hatch gas 17pool or botching their micro (which terrans are also well capable of botching too).
|
Correlation =/= Causation. In addition this is an insignificant amount of data to properly analyse or attempt to derive something meaningful from, your reason included.
|
On April 08 2013 11:00 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 10:57 dsjoerg wrote: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! data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4601a/4601a5532d755d907e09e385cff6346a35f3a2f0" alt="" 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!
So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct, you do realize this right?
You cannot both like this method of statistics and attack it at the same time.
|
On April 08 2013 11:03 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 10:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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... 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. 11/11 is actually quite a weak build, it relies on zerg players going for something ridic like hatch gas 17pool or botching their micro (which terrans are also well capable of botching too). Yeah, it's a weak 50/50% win build.
Come on, 2-rax in whatever form is not a weak build..
* and 10 wm = 4/5 mutas in cost
|
On April 08 2013 10:35 BronzeKnee wrote:I'm shocked that people are just brushing off this as either not statistical significant or trying to discredit it. It isn't a be all, end all argument to buff or nerf anything, it is a simply statistic. Show nested quote +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.
Maybe you should learn something about statistics. You can't just pick data and analyze it by randomly picking a variable and drawing a conclusion based on correlation this is not how statistics work at all.
On April 08 2013 10:42 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +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... 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.
This was true for 2010 and 2011 but after all the terran early game nerfs and the queen buff on top of it terran had the worst early game rushes which was proven statistically.
|
opterown
Australia54783 Posts
On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:00 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:57 dsjoerg wrote: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! data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4601a/4601a5532d755d907e09e385cff6346a35f3a2f0" alt="" 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! So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct. And this also explains why every Zerg build Mutalisks in ZvP. However, the reasoning is pretty simple. In WoL, Storm would eat away at Mutalisk packs, while in HotS a single storm isn't crippling because they can move off and regen. Thus Protoss players are forced more and more into Phoenixes, which is similar to when a Protoss player forces a Zerg into Corrupters, you can switch quickly into ground units and just win. when did i say it was correct? i said: if you claim that widow mines are strong against zerg, i expect a similar claim for zvp. no such claim has come out. the fact that mutas, another tier 2 unit has even a greater differential in stats should be a bigger concern. therefore by following your line of reasoning, we need to nerf mutas before we nerf widow mines :D
i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion
|
On April 08 2013 11:04 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:03 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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... 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. 11/11 is actually quite a weak build, it relies on zerg players going for something ridic like hatch gas 17pool or botching their micro (which terrans are also well capable of botching too). Yeah, it's a weak 50/50% win build. Come on, 2-rax in whatever form is not a weak build..
All I know is that when I wanted the Marine portrait (I play Protoss), I started to 11/11 in all my ZvTs doing unranked in HOTS. And before I knew it I was playing High Masters.
|
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
As a Protoss player I hate mutas, no argument there. However 10 mutas are much more expensive than 10 widow mines; 4x more gas! and 33% more minerals. And, reinforcing that, at the Master level, 10 mutas is achieved less frequently in ZvP than 10 WM in TvZ.
But yes, the rough parallel is that if the player can manage to produce 10 mutas, then yeah the Protoss player is probably in trouble. However I would argue that fact is less significant as 10 mutas are obviously more costly, especially in gas terms, and that objectively the 10-muta benchmark is achieved less often.
|
opterown
Australia54783 Posts
On April 08 2013 11:04 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:03 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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... 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. 11/11 is actually quite a weak build, it relies on zerg players going for something ridic like hatch gas 17pool or botching their micro (which terrans are also well capable of botching too). Yeah, it's a weak 50/50% win build. Come on, 2-rax in whatever form is not a weak build.. * and 10 wm = 4/5 mutas in cost
On April 08 2013 11:06 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:04 m0ck wrote:On April 08 2013 11:03 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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... 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. 11/11 is actually quite a weak build, it relies on zerg players going for something ridic like hatch gas 17pool or botching their micro (which terrans are also well capable of botching too). Yeah, it's a weak 50/50% win build. Come on, 2-rax in whatever form is not a weak build.. All I know is that when I wanted the Marine portrait (I play Protoss), I started to 11/11 in all my ZvTs doing unranked in HOTS. And before I knew it I was playing High Masters. it's a lot lower than 50/50 in pro games. you can make your way to masters with 6pool, too. doesn't mean that build is good.
|
On April 08 2013 11:04 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:03 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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... 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. 11/11 is actually quite a weak build, it relies on zerg players going for something ridic like hatch gas 17pool or botching their micro (which terrans are also well capable of botching too). Yeah, it's a weak 50/50% win build. Come on, 2-rax in whatever form is not a weak build.. * and 10 wm = 4/5 mutas in cost
Well 10 Marines is far less than 10 Widow Mines in terms of cost. And I bet if you take games where less than 10 Marines are built and compare them to games where more than 10 Marines are built, then you'd get pretty drastic results too.
You cannot compare costs in such a way.
|
On April 08 2013 10:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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.
No my point is still valid , if he is posting on T having 200/200 and less then 10 WM compared to a T with 200/200 with more then 10 WM and the win rates and maybe the ones under 200/200. You have to take the factor that higher level Z kill the WM better so they need to be replaced.
|
This was true for 2010 and 2011 but after all the terran early game nerfs and the queen buff on top of it terran had the worst early game rushes which was proven statistically.
is this a troll post?
Zerg has by far the worst early game cheeses, from 2010 to 2013, I don't see how this is even arguable, protoss doesn't have much either, I think terran has had best early game shenanigans throughout all the patches.
|
opterown
Australia54783 Posts
On April 08 2013 11:10 sibs wrote:Show nested quote +This was true for 2010 and 2011 but after all the terran early game nerfs and the queen buff on top of it terran had the worst early game rushes which was proven statistically. is this a troll post? Zerg has by far the worst early game cheeses, from 2010 to 2013, I don't see how this is even arguable, protoss doesn't have much either, I think terran has had best early game shenanigans throughout all the patches. i dno, post-patch, any combination of 2-base roach, ling, bane pressure against greedy terrans does a heck of a lot more damage than terran all-ins against greedy zergs who defend with 6 queens.
|
On April 08 2013 11:07 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:04 m0ck wrote:On April 08 2013 11:03 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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... 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. 11/11 is actually quite a weak build, it relies on zerg players going for something ridic like hatch gas 17pool or botching their micro (which terrans are also well capable of botching too). Yeah, it's a weak 50/50% win build. Come on, 2-rax in whatever form is not a weak build.. * and 10 wm = 4/5 mutas in cost it's a lot lower than 50/50 in pro games Well, I would disagree, but we can't really find an answer to that.
11/11 can be used against all three races, it has been successfully employed from the beta and to the very end of WoL, it has been used to decide the very highest level of matches & it will continue to be used in HotS (at least vs Z). If the effectiveness dropped in WoL (and that is up for debate) I would argue that it was due to how often T would use it during the Z>T era.
*along with nerfs to buildtime
|
On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:00 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:57 dsjoerg wrote: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! data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4601a/4601a5532d755d907e09e385cff6346a35f3a2f0" alt="" 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! So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct, you do realize this right? You cannot both like this method of statistics and attack it at the same time. My god you're thick. The implication is that it tells us it's strong, not broken. Well no shit Sherlock. There's nothing staggering about any of these spreads, just stating what is best in the metagame.
|
On April 08 2013 11:08 Entirety wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:04 m0ck wrote:On April 08 2013 11:03 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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... 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. 11/11 is actually quite a weak build, it relies on zerg players going for something ridic like hatch gas 17pool or botching their micro (which terrans are also well capable of botching too). Yeah, it's a weak 50/50% win build. Come on, 2-rax in whatever form is not a weak build.. * and 10 wm = 4/5 mutas in cost Well 10 Marines is far less than 10 Widow Mines in terms of cost. And I bet if you take games where less than 10 Marines are built and compare them to games where more than 10 Marines are built, then you'd get pretty drastic results too. You cannot compare costs in such a way. I'm arguing against the arbitrary "10 of everything!".
Cost is a much more reasonable line of comparison.
|
opterown
Australia54783 Posts
On April 08 2013 11:11 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:07 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:04 m0ck wrote:On April 08 2013 11:03 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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... 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. 11/11 is actually quite a weak build, it relies on zerg players going for something ridic like hatch gas 17pool or botching their micro (which terrans are also well capable of botching too). Yeah, it's a weak 50/50% win build. Come on, 2-rax in whatever form is not a weak build.. * and 10 wm = 4/5 mutas in cost it's a lot lower than 50/50 in pro games Well, I would disagree, but we can't really find an answer to that. 11/11 can be used against all three races, it has been successfully employed from the beta and to the very end of WoL, it has been used to decide the very highest level of matches & it will continue to be used in HotS (at least vs Z). If the effectiveness dropped in WoL (and that is up for debate) I would argue that it was due to how often T would use it during the Z>T era. 11/11 almost never works in TvT, and only really works in TvP when the protoss derps a lot. it's used at the highest level since it's such a high pressure environment and micro mistakes make it more coinflippy. i'm fairly sure the 8/8/8 is a more common and better build these days anyway
|
On April 08 2013 11:06 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:00 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:57 dsjoerg wrote: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! data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4601a/4601a5532d755d907e09e385cff6346a35f3a2f0" alt="" 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! So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct. And this also explains why every Zerg build Mutalisks in ZvP. However, the reasoning is pretty simple. In WoL, Storm would eat away at Mutalisk packs, while in HotS a single storm isn't crippling because they can move off and regen. Thus Protoss players are forced more and more into Phoenixes, which is similar to when a Protoss player forces a Zerg into Corrupters, you can switch quickly into ground units and just win. when did i say it was correct? i said: if you claim that widow mines are strong against zerg, i expect a similar claim for zvp. no such claim has come out. the fact that mutas, another tier 2 unit has even a greater differential in stats should be a bigger concern. therefore by following your line of reasoning, we need to nerf mutas before we nerf widow mines :D i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion
I'm going try and explain this as simply as possible.
Reading the OP, we find that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics. That is the analysis and the conclusion.
Though the OP states "Of course this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP, but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ" It basically says nothing.
So now you state:
On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote: i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats
And then someone states such statistics. You commend the work and effort. By commending the work and effort, you are basically saying "hey look you did a good job collecting statistics" and that is opposed to doing a bad job, in which the statistics are basically wrong.
Thus, since the analysis and conclusion were based entirely on the collection of statistics and he makes no inference on whether or not Widow Mines are OP, and then you commend the very same process of statistical collection, you have agreed to the conclusion of the OP which is: "that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics."
On April 08 2013 11:12 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:00 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:57 dsjoerg wrote: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! data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4601a/4601a5532d755d907e09e385cff6346a35f3a2f0" alt="" 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! So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct, you do realize this right? You cannot both like this method of statistics and attack it at the same time. My god you're thick. The implication is that it tells us it's strong, not broken. Well no shit Sherlock. There's nothing staggering about any of these spreads, just stating what is best in the metagame.
And when did I ever say that it is was broken?
It is just a statistic. People come in here with an agenda like BaaL' and try to discredit what is obvious. That is what I'm fighting against.
|
opterown
Australia54783 Posts
On April 08 2013 11:13 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:06 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:00 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:57 dsjoerg wrote: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! data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4601a/4601a5532d755d907e09e385cff6346a35f3a2f0" alt="" 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! So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct. And this also explains why every Zerg build Mutalisks in ZvP. However, the reasoning is pretty simple. In WoL, Storm would eat away at Mutalisk packs, while in HotS a single storm isn't crippling because they can move off and regen. Thus Protoss players are forced more and more into Phoenixes, which is similar to when a Protoss player forces a Zerg into Corrupters, you can switch quickly into ground units and just win. when did i say it was correct? i said: if you claim that widow mines are strong against zerg, i expect a similar claim for zvp. no such claim has come out. the fact that mutas, another tier 2 unit has even a greater differential in stats should be a bigger concern. therefore by following your line of reasoning, we need to nerf mutas before we nerf widow mines :D i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion I'm going try and explain this as simply as possible. Reading the OP, we find that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics. That is the analysis and the conclusion. Though the OP states "Of course this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP, but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ" It basically says nothing. So now you state: Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote: i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats And then someone states such statistics. You commend the work and effort. By commending the work and effort, you are basically saying "hey look you did a good job collecting statistics" and that is opposed to doing a bad job, in which the statistics are basically wrong. Thus, since the analysis and conclusion were based entirely on the collection of statistics and he makes no inference on whether or not Widow Mines are OP, and then you commend the very same process of statistical collection, you have agreed to the conclusion of the OP which is: "that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics." cool, so you get some winrates. i'm not attacking those numbers, i'm saying the conclusions that a lot of people are going to make are invalid. in fact, the wording "this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP" somewhat suggests indeed that. indeed, the fact that the analysis stems from "I'd be interested to see winrates vs T once there are large numbers of widow mines out. Watching GM streams, it feels like the rate is around 10%, and the mines are allowing (relatively) mediocre players to beat Top8 Zergs nearly every time....." shows that this analysis was meant to show that widow mines are disproportionately strong
|
On April 08 2013 11:14 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:06 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:00 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:57 dsjoerg wrote: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! data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4601a/4601a5532d755d907e09e385cff6346a35f3a2f0" alt="" 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! So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct. And this also explains why every Zerg build Mutalisks in ZvP. However, the reasoning is pretty simple. In WoL, Storm would eat away at Mutalisk packs, while in HotS a single storm isn't crippling because they can move off and regen. Thus Protoss players are forced more and more into Phoenixes, which is similar to when a Protoss player forces a Zerg into Corrupters, you can switch quickly into ground units and just win. when did i say it was correct? i said: if you claim that widow mines are strong against zerg, i expect a similar claim for zvp. no such claim has come out. the fact that mutas, another tier 2 unit has even a greater differential in stats should be a bigger concern. therefore by following your line of reasoning, we need to nerf mutas before we nerf widow mines :D i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion I'm going try and explain this as simply as possible. Reading the OP, we find that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics. That is the analysis and the conclusion. Though the OP states "Of course this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP, but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ" It basically says nothing. So now you state: On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote: i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats And then someone states such statistics. You commend the work and effort. By commending the work and effort, you are basically saying "hey look you did a good job collecting statistics" and that is opposed to doing a bad job, in which the statistics are basically wrong. Thus, since the analysis and conclusion were based entirely on the collection of statistics and he makes no inference on whether or not Widow Mines are OP, and then you commend the very same process of statistical collection, you have agreed to the conclusion of the OP which is: "that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics." cool, so you get some winrates. i'm not attacking those numbers, i'm saying the conclusions that a lot of people are going to make are invalid.
EXACTLY! Thank you!
But remember this, those conclusions that argue that Widow Mines are not overpowered now have to be independent of the statistic presented! Otherwise they are invalid!
|
|
|
|