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.....
I thought the answer would be of interest to you all.
GGTracker has 961 Masters TvZ HotS 1v1 Ladder replays. 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.
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.
GGTracker has 961 Masters TvZ HotS 1v1 Ladder replays. 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.
Out of curiousity, why did you set the cut off at 10? Did you use a certain build to determine that number? I haven't played or watched much hots yet, so if there is a pretty standard mass widow mine build i feel that should be used as a cutoff.
Still interested that more widow mines is correlated with more wins. But, correlafion doesn't mean causation, especially in an infant metagame.
Pretty big selection bias? Games where T is winning already are much more likely to have 10+ widow mines, as the pushes would not get shut down and so the mines never get mopped up.
A 10% difference is nothing really if you consider any statistical effects.
One thing I would point out is that a player who remembers to make mines consistently throughout a game is probably a higher level player than someone who doesn't. This is reflected in the statistic that 36% of TvZs at Masters level has 10+ widows mines compared to only 22% in Diamond.
At the same time though, the fact that using 10+ widow mines adds almost 10% to your winrate across ALL LEVELS is indicative of how good widow mines at.
On April 08 2013 10:06 BaaL` wrote: Pretty big selection bias? Games where T is winning already are much more likely to have 10+ widow mines, as the pushes would not get shut down and so the mines never get mopped up.
A 10% difference is nothing really if you consider any statistical effects.
Statistical effects doesn't play into this since the data was not sampled from a larger set. You could say that the GM level games does not have enough data points to justify a conclusion, but it's a 10% difference across all levels.
On April 08 2013 10:05 Bippzy wrote: Out of curiousity, why did you set the cut off at 10? Did you use a certain build to determine that number? I haven't played or watched much hots yet, so if there is a pretty standard mass widow mine build i feel that should be used as a cutoff.
Still interested that more widow mines is correlated with more wins. But, correlafion doesn't mean causation, especially in an infant metagame.
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.
On April 08 2013 10:06 BaaL` wrote: Games where T is winning already are much more likely to have 10+ widow mines
These stats are for >10 widow mines produced. They don't all have to be alive at the same time.
That said, I agree that there absolutely must be some selection bias effect here, and correlation is not causation. However I thought the stats were still interesting. In particular, two effects that seem beyond the dread reach of selection bias are:
the relative absence of widow mines in TvP and TvT, and
the increasing presence of widow mines in higher league TvZ
Both of those facts suggest that the players themselves think mass widow mines are useful for TvZ. So it's at least a quantitative statement on the state of the metagame. Perhaps obvious to people who watch high-level TvZ a lot, but it's nice to see stats to back up what people say.
On April 08 2013 10:06 BaaL` wrote: Pretty big selection bias? Games where T is winning already are much more likely to have 10+ widow mines, as the pushes would not get shut down and so the mines never get mopped up.
A 10% difference is nothing really if you consider any statistical effects.
Please, explain the statistical effects that make a 10% difference, really nothing.
On April 08 2013 10:06 BaaL` wrote: Pretty big selection bias? Games where T is winning already are much more likely to have 10+ widow mines, as the pushes would not get shut down and so the mines never get mopped up.
A 10% difference is nothing really if you consider any statistical effects.
Statistical effects doesn't play into this since the data was not sampled from a larger set. You could say that the GM level games does not have enough data points to justify a conclusion, but it's a 10% difference across all levels.
Do you understand statistics? He is not talking about the sample size, he is mentioning that games in which the Terran has 10+ Widow Mines usually means the Terran is already winning.
That's the essence of sampling bias. What if I went to Wings of Liberty, found all the games where the Zerg has 30 Brood Lords and calculated the win rate? It would probably be 95% win rate for the Zerg. This tells us nothing because a Zerg with 30 Brood Lords has already won. Unless the players played "no rush 30 minutes", no Zerg player is able to produce 30 Brood Lords without a significant advantage.
On April 08 2013 10:05 Bippzy wrote: Out of curiousity, why did you set the cut off at 10? Did you use a certain build to determine that number? I haven't played or watched much hots yet, so if there is a pretty standard mass widow mine build i feel that should be used as a cutoff.
Still interested that more widow mines is correlated with more wins. But, correlafion doesn't mean causation, especially in an infant metagame.
Because choosing 10 shows his point wheras 5 or 20 may not. The number you pick makes a big differences in the picture you want to paint. (source: 10 years in pharma research with some very manipulative colleagues)
Protoss in broodwar that get 200 supply carrier/arbiter/obs have ~100% win rate vs terran. Zerg in WOL with 20+ Broodlords and 10+ Infestors have ~80% win rate vs terran.
On April 08 2013 10:06 BaaL` wrote: Pretty big selection bias? Games where T is winning already are much more likely to have 10+ widow mines, as the pushes would not get shut down and so the mines never get mopped up.
A 10% difference is nothing really if you consider any statistical effects.
Statistical effects doesn't play into this since the data was not sampled from a larger set. You could say that the GM level games does not have enough data points to justify a conclusion, but it's a 10% difference across all levels.
Do you understand statistics? He is not talking about the sample size, he is mentioning that games in which the Terran has 10+ Widow Mines usually means the Terran is already winning.
That's the essence of sampling bias. What if I went to Wings of Liberty, found all the games where the Zerg has 30 Brood Lords and calculated the win rate? It would probably be 95% win rate for the Zerg. This tells us nothing because a Zerg with 30 Brood Lords has already won. Unless the players played "no rush 30 minutes", no Zerg player is able to produce 30 Brood Lords without a significant advantage.
Okay first, this isn't about a moment when the Terran has 10+ Widow as BaaL' suggests, it is when Terran produces 10 or more Widow Mines in a game. So the Terran pushes might be "getting shut down" left and right and the Terran may have no more than 1 Widow Mine at a time, but that is irrelevant, it only focuses on production.
In other words, the focus is correctly on whether or not the Terran is committing to Widow Mines. And so there is no "selection bias" as he suggests.
Second, comparing Widow Mines to Brood Lords is silly. 10 Widow Mines cost exactly as much as 10 Roaches, which 750-250. It isn't a lot over a the span of a game, and they can be Reactored. So it isn't like "well he has 10 Widow Mines, thus the game is already won."
So what we see is that people who make a lot of Widow Mines (10+) win 10% more games. That is pretty impressive.
Honestly I'd like to see stats with similar numbers of other tier 2+ units to see if widow mines still stand out or it's a result of economy/game length
On April 08 2013 10:05 Bippzy wrote: Out of curiousity, why did you set the cut off at 10? Did you use a certain build to determine that number? I haven't played or watched much hots yet, so if there is a pretty standard mass widow mine build i feel that should be used as a cutoff.
Still interested that more widow mines is correlated with more wins. But, correlafion doesn't mean causation, especially in an infant metagame.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
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?
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.
- 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.
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.
Interesting stats and I agree, it is pretty bad that a Zerg can end the game really fast before you are able to get 10 widow mines.
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.
Everyone who is pointing out what someone aptly described as "confounding variables" is correct. There's no way for us to understand the real reason why producing 10+ widow mines seems to lead to a 10% higher winrate.
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.
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?
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:
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.
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:
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
- 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 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:
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.
- 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..
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.
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.
- 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.
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:
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
- 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.
- 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..
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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:
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.
- 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.
- 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 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:
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 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:
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.
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:
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.
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 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:
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!
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:
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.
No, you're trying to extrapolate the data when the data is shaky. Here's a better idea of what the data tells us:
"In this particular sample, those Terrans who made more than 10 Widow Mines (for whatever reason, including surviving long enough to do so, facing army compositions which may have been weak against Widow Mines, etc.) won 59% of their games as opposed to Terrans who made less than 10 Widow Mines and won 49% of their games."
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.
No. Post Queen Patch, terrans cheeses like 11/11 were totally useless. MKP is the evidence haha.
Anyway, I think these "statistics" are pretty useless. 10 widow mines in all the game are nothing lol. Even when I play marines/marauders/hellbats, I build like 20 mines in a 30 min games, to defend myself or dropping them early, but clearly they are not the key of my victories. 10 is such a subjective choise... If we look in your statistics in another way, without mine Terrans have 40%, so it would implies that without them, Zerg are OP ? Stupid way of thinking.
i can safely say coming from a zerg player that widow mines are a pain in the fugging arse to deal with, if i were terran id be building plenty of them too.
- 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
Coinflippy sounds a lot like 50/50 to me ^^
Regardless of whether it works or not, it was certainly common enough in GSL all the way to the end (but yeah, other proxy-builds were more popular at times).
8-8-8 is newer and more interesting, but terran will really show their power once they start rediscovering the WoL openings, I reckon.
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:
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!
and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this
so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this
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:
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.
No, you're trying to extrapolate the data when the data is shaky. Here's a better idea of what the data tells us:
"In this particular sample, those Terrans who made more than 10 Widow Mines (for whatever reason, including surviving long enough to do so, facing army compositions which may have been weak against Widow Mines, etc.) won 59% of their games as opposed to Terrans who made less than 10 Widow Mines and won 49% of their games."
What you said is exactly the same as what I said.
You said "in this particular sample" I said: "based on GGtracker statistics" (GGtracker statistics is the sample)
The guy who talked about 6 pools was actually right. If you take into account only games where Terran produced more than 10 widow mines, that's already every game where Terran survived for more than 10 minutes, i.e. not losing to early pools, speedlings all ins, banelings busts, roach all ins, burrow shenanigans and I don't know what else.
I may be wrong on that matter, but at pro level I saw many more Zerg early killing blow attempts (because they don't want to face T in lategame I don't know) than Terran's, who are more comfortable being greedy with triple CCs nowadays, which is a build that kill no one before 12 minutes.
If you compute the overall winrate, you get a mere 52%, which doesn't point at all towards any imbalance.
Edit: What I want to say is that the number of widow mines produced is just a very very bad and shady measure of in game time elapsed. In WoL, if you would have said "Zerg wins 70% of their game if they spread more than 20 creep tumors", that would probably have been true, yet an equally stupid and obscure way to tell that Zerg pwns the lategame.
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.
I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy...
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.
I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy...
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.
What the heck, why not
In Masters TvT, dont make mass marine ?!
I agree with those who say that selection bias is a real thing. However selection bias doesn't negate the observations I made in OP.
GGtrackers is not the kind of sites where people put the replays on ? Considering it, people are more prone to put replay of their victories, as people plays more with WM now, it's logical that the winrate ratio is higher.
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:
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.
No, you're trying to extrapolate the data when the data is shaky. Here's a better idea of what the data tells us:
"In this particular sample, those Terrans who made more than 10 Widow Mines (for whatever reason, including surviving long enough to do so, facing army compositions which may have been weak against Widow Mines, etc.) won 59% of their games as opposed to Terrans who made less than 10 Widow Mines and won 49% of their games."
What you said is exactly the same as what I said.
You said "in this particular sample" I said: "based on GGtracker statistics" (GGtracker statistics is the sample)
You said 59% and 49%, I said 10% higher.
Sigh.
It seems that you don't understand the difference. Let me explain:
You said "When Terrans make 10 Widow Mines..." This is clearly extrapolating it to every other game. Essentially, it's saying whenever any Terran builds 10 Widow Mines, that Terran will achieve a 10% increase in his win rate. What I said is basically that the sample is not representative of the population.
When you extrapolate the data to the population, a 59% to 49% difference is not actually 10% - 10% is merely the average difference in win rate with an error bound applied to it.
Quit arguing over silly stuff ~_~ You both (Bronze + Opter) agree about what the statistics signify (not much), not need to get all into semantics and whatnot.
Anyway, while I do think WM could use a change, I do not think it is severely overpowered. It needs a lot more time before any large changes to it should be made.
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:
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!
and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this
so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this
I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them.
You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics.
Then you backtracked "i'm not attacking those numbers, i'm saying the conclusions that a lot of people are going to make are invalid"
As I stated, the numbers were the statistics, which was the conclusion. Then you say that other people are going to make invalid conclusions, which is exactly what I'm fighting against.
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.
I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy...
hatch first into pool into no gas and a third base, then six queens off three base is pretty greedy :D
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:
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!
and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this
so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this
I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them.
You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack.
no, i never said it was wrong or right, go read the posts. "when did i say it was correct" does not mean "it is wrong"
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:
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!
and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this
so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this
I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them.
You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack.
A 4 year old spends 2 days fingerpainting on the ceiling
I can commend his effort fingerpainting-it doesn't mean the painting is beautiful
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!
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!
and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this
so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this
I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them.
You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack.
A 4 year old spends 2 days fingerpainting on the ceiling
I can commend his effort fingerpainting-it doesn't mean the painting is beautiful
Haha, except when you first say someone elses fingerpainting that is exactly the same is beautiful... you obviously didn't read the whole exchange between us.
but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ.
Well I even disagree with that statement so...
"at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing building of a spawning pool is an important part of TvZ."........yeah doesn't seem so smart. I agree with opterown, you can say the same shit for every goddamn unit in the game.
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:
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.
I want to see these numbers for swarm hosts and then I can know which I should be going in ZvP :p
While it is obvious that the terrans are just ultra-defensive because it happened to be about widow mines and ZvT (guilt?), they are right that this doesn't show anything about balance really. But it is actually interesting to see these kind of statistics against many different units. Rather than having similar rates for "all" tier 2 units, in actuality what you will find I think is that some unit compositions are stronger than others. While it is "obvious," as someone said, that this will be the case, what is interesting is to see statistics on what those compositions are. It is kind of useful information, I think moreso if it had some reasoning behind the units and the quantity chosen. For example, in addition to mutas vs swarm hosts, I'd be fascinated to see numbers on roaches vs zerglings, or ultras vs broodlords.
doesnt really mean anything. games been out a month. more time is needed to develop new builds and strategies to evolve the meta game and deal with new units like the mine.
its at the very least, an interesting statistic for the time being.
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.
I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy...
hatch first into pool into no gas and a third base, then six queens off three base is pretty greedy :D
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!
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!
and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this
so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this
I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them.
You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack.
no, i never said it was wrong or right, go read the posts. "when did i say it was correct" does not mean "it is wrong"
You could have come in here and said "nice stats I commend the effort" like you did with the Mutalisk guy, but you didn't you choose to come in and say:
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
Now what is that? Well, it is an attempt to discredit the person who made the thread by saying "well of course, you could find statistics like that other units, who cares?"
The fact that you could find statistics like that other units has nothing to do with this thread. Those statistics are better left for another thread.
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.
I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy...
hatch first into pool into no gas and a third base, then six queens off three base is pretty greedy :D
On April 08 2013 11:25 BronzeKnee wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:19 opterown wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:14 opterown wrote:
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: [quote] 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!
and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this
so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this
I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them.
You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack.
no, i never said it was wrong or right, go read the posts. "when did i say it was correct" does not mean "it is wrong"
You could have come in here and said "nice stats I commend the effort" like you did with the Mutalisk guy, but you didn't you choose to come in and say:
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
Now what is that? Well, it is an attempt to discredit the person who made the thread by saying "well of course, you could find statistics like that other units, who cares?"
The fact is it true for other units has nothing to do with this thread, or the statistics.
don't put words into my mouth, i said what i have said, and that's apparent to the other posters in this thread, thanks.
that's enough for this conversation, i'm not going to reply anymore
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.
I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy...
hatch first into pool into no gas and a third base, then six queens off three base is pretty greedy :D
On April 08 2013 11:25 BronzeKnee wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:19 opterown wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:14 opterown wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:13 BronzeKnee wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:06 opterown wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote: [quote]
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!
and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this
so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this
I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them.
You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack.
no, i never said it was wrong or right, go read the posts. "when did i say it was correct" does not mean "it is wrong"
You could have come in here and said "nice stats I commend the effort" like you did with the Mutalisk guy, but you didn't you choose to come in and say:
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
Now what is that? Well, it is an attempt to discredit the person who made the thread by saying "well of course, you could find statistics like that other units, who cares?"
The fact is it true for other units has nothing to do with this thread, or the statistics.
don't put words into my mouth, i said what i have said, and that's apparent to the other posters in this thread, thanks.
Well, you could have chose to commend him and say nice stats and give the little smile, but you didn't... and that says what it says too. That statement you gave doesn't foster further discussion, it just discredits what the OP is trying to show by saying other things can be shown in the same light. That is what the statement does.
This doesnt really saying anything. I mean, 10 is a random number in the first place to do a cutoff. Second, you could get this same data by arbitrarily picking random units Terran does or does not make. At best it's simply saying widow mines are an effective unit in the matchup. Just as are marines, marauders, medivacs, etc. It means nothing.
Okay, here's how to improve this analysis and control for some more variables.
1. Early-game shenanigans. We need to control for these. How would we do that? Well, I would recommend finding the minimum time in all of the replays that 10 Widow Mines was achieved. Then, remove any games under this time from the sample. So, if it takes 10:00 to build 10 Widow Mines at the minimum, remove all those 4:30 11/11 games.
2. Already existing advantages. Simply check each game and at the time when 10 Widow Mines were produced, check if the Terran was up in supply by 20 or more. If the Terran was already far ahead in supply, it is likely that Widow Mines did not contribute significantly to the Terran's victory.
3. Check the distribution of Widow Mine usage within Masters. Notice that the proportion of Widow Mine games increases as you move up through the leagues? This may be because Bronze players cannot effectively control Widow Mines, whereas Masters players are proficient with them. Is it possible that such a gradient also exists within Masters (High Masters players use Widow Mines more often than Low Masters players). If so, then see if this is a cause (more skilled players use Widow Mines, leading to higher win rates) or an effect (Widow Mines are OP, so Terrans that use them are ranked higher).
4. Examine why Widow Mines were not used. Maybe the Terran didn't go for Widow Mines because the Zerg had mass Ultralisks and the Terran thought that going Widow Mines would not help at all. In this case, the Terran's subsequent loss does not prove that Widow Mines would have fared any better.
People who are going all "stats don't lie, they're just stats, don't hate on the stats, stats are good for you" kinda piss me off :D Making the thread about that stat in the first place isn't innocent by any means.
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:
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!
Here's a conclusion for you: Widow mines are not OP because Terran winrates aren't ballooning out of control. Master Terrans are winning ~52.5% of their TvZs with that very same data, and the assumption with the game is that everything is "balanced" until proven otherwise. To conclude anything along the lines of "widow mines OP" is to show an inherent bias against Terran, as well as balance in general.
The topic itself is a goddamn farce because of what others have mentioned. It's a limited analysis, based on a very specific statistics, which leaves out a TON of context. Even context which can be provided by the source, GGTracker, is strangely absent, like winrates at other thresholds of widow mines, winrates for other units of Terran at different thresholds, and winrates of other units from other races at various thresholds.
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:
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!
Here's a conclusion for you: Widow mines are not OP because Terran winrates aren't ballooning out of control. Master Terrans are winning ~52.5% of their TvZs with that very same data, and the assumption with the game is that everything is "balanced" until proven otherwise. To conclude anything along the lines of "widow mines OP" is to show an inherent bias against Terran, as well as balance in general.
The topic itself is a goddamn farce because of what others have mentioned. It's a limited analysis, based on a very specific statistics, which leaves out a TON of context. Even context which can be provided by the source, GGTracker, is strangely absent, like winrates at other thresholds of widow mines, winrates for other units of Terran at different thresholds, and winrates of other units from other races at various thresholds.
"...i'm saying the conclusions that a lot of people are going to make are invalid."
You can draw whatever conclusion you want, but what I quoted above is what I was arguing and what I think of your conclusion. The statistic is what it is, and I think Entirety is on the right path.
This statistic shows what could be an issue, and we should look into it more before deciding it is or it isn't. Simply stating it is or isn't a problem is not a valid conclusion, and is the problem is thinking those kind of conclusions are valid.
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.
I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy...
hatch first into pool into no gas and a third base, then six queens off three base is pretty greedy :D
On April 08 2013 11:25 BronzeKnee wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:19 opterown wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:14 opterown wrote:
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: [quote] 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!
and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this
so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this
I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them.
You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack.
no, i never said it was wrong or right, go read the posts. "when did i say it was correct" does not mean "it is wrong"
You could have come in here and said "nice stats I commend the effort" like you did with the Mutalisk guy, but you didn't you choose to come in and say:
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
Now what is that? Well, it is an attempt to discredit the person who made the thread by saying "well of course, you could find statistics like that other units, who cares?"
The fact that you could find statistics like that other units has nothing to do with this thread. Those statistics are better left for another thread.
Bronze, you do realise that you just accused opterown of backtracking and when he shut down your bad logic you went and backtracked yourself to attack his first post?
Also, I get that you were trying to defend the OP here, but you kinda made a complete fool of yourself by berating opterown for dismissing the OP and commending "the Mutalisk guy" because.. + Show Spoiler +
It's probably also true Terran has a higher win rate with >7 SCVs produced in a game vs. <7 SCVs. I chose 7 because I didn't want to choose 10. This doesn't really prove that SCVs are OP though...
These are potentially interesting statistics, although people are right that we shouldn't be too quick to draw conclusions from them. As some others mentioned, it would be valuable to control for games that end very early. And just to have some idea what these numbers even mean, there should be similar analyses for a number of existing units — ones from WoL that most people can agree are probably not imbalanced in HotS. For example, win rates in games with >10 tanks, win rates with >8 infestors, win rates with >6 battlecruisers, etc.
I'd predict games with >10 tanks don't vary that much from the overall winrate, games with <8 infestors are significantly higher, and games with >6 battlecruisers have win rates above 70% (since any game that allows the Terran to safely transition into air Terran is probably a game that Terran was winning).
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.
I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy...
hatch first into pool into no gas and a third base, then six queens off three base is pretty greedy :D
On April 08 2013 11:25 BronzeKnee wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:19 opterown wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:14 opterown wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:13 BronzeKnee wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:06 opterown wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote: [quote]
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!
and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this
so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this
I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them.
You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack.
no, i never said it was wrong or right, go read the posts. "when did i say it was correct" does not mean "it is wrong"
You could have come in here and said "nice stats I commend the effort" like you did with the Mutalisk guy, but you didn't you choose to come in and say:
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
Now what is that? Well, it is an attempt to discredit the person who made the thread by saying "well of course, you could find statistics like that other units, who cares?"
The fact that you could find statistics like that other units has nothing to do with this thread. Those statistics are better left for another thread.
Bronze, you do realise that you just accused opterown of backtracking and when he shut down your bad logic you went and backtracked yourself to attack his first post?
Also, I get that you were trying to defend the OP here, but you kinda made a complete fool of yourself by berating opterown for dismissing the OP and commending "the Mutalisk guy" because.. + Show Spoiler +
OP is "the Mutalisk guy"!
.
The fact the Mutalisk guy is the OP doesn't change anything regarding the conclusions of what was said or done. I could be the Mutalisk guy and the OP, still nothing would have changed.
And I didn't backtrack to attack his first post, re-read the whole chain.
The topic itself is a goddamn farce because of what others have mentioned. It's a limited analysis, based on a very specific statistics, which leaves out a TON of context. Even context which can be provided by the source, GGTracker, is strangely absent, like winrates at other thresholds of widow mines, winrates for other units of Terran at different thresholds, and winrates of other units from other races at various thresholds.
If people are interested in being able to generate these kind of stats for themselves I can add some pages to the GGTracker site to let them do that. I'd probably make it a GGTracker Pro thing because it's pretty punishing on the database at the moment.
OP can you please check if zergs building more than 50 drones have a higher winrate than those who don't? I have a strong feeling that drones might be overpowered and that would prove it! lol some people are so dense, it's unbelievable.
On April 08 2013 12:10 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably also true Terran has a higher win rate with >7 SCVs produced in a game vs. <7 SCVs. I chose 7 because I didn't want to choose 10. This doesn't really prove that SCVs are OP though...
Ok now I want to see the win rates for when zerg makes > 6 drones vs <6 drones
On April 08 2013 12:23 spalding wrote: OP can you please check if zergs building more than 50 drones have a higher winrate than those who don't? I have a strong feeling that drones might be overpowered and that would prove it! lol some people are so dense, it's unbelievable.
But won't the winrates for SCVs and Probes production mirror what Drone production does? In that case, there is no imbalance. All races benefit from producing more workers, and we know this.
Anyway, comparing a combat unit that Terran can choose to make, and workers that are required in large numbers (especially for Zerg that loses a worker each time they create a building) is silly.
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:
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!
except for the fact that Mutas cost more and are higher up the tech tree.
It doesn't have to do with cost, 10 is just the number that would generally be made to determine whether or not you're committing to that playstyle. And just like with the widowmines, it doesn't show anything related to balance because there are too many variables for that. It just shows that these builds have a higher win chance on ladder, which could be attributed to a large number of things.
I think it's important to do this with a wide variety of units to see if this is repeatable or if widow mines and mutas are an isolated case. Try it with units like collossus, medivacs, void rays, or infestors and see what information you get out of it.
next you'll show me some winrates statistics of a zerg that made 50 drones vs one that made 80.
Also balance should not be made at the master level. I am a master player, and I'll tell you most master players are jokingly bad compare to even lower tier pros.
On April 08 2013 12:10 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably also true Terran has a higher win rate with >7 SCVs produced in a game vs. <7 SCVs. I chose 7 because I didn't want to choose 10. This doesn't really prove that SCVs are OP though...
Ok now I want to see the win rates for when zerg makes > 6 drones vs <6 drones
does this mean drones might actually be underpowered?
I think you are off to a pretty good start. Good data analysis really comes down to creative ways of looking at data and I think you had a good initial insight. As others have pointed out, there are simply too many variables at play to make much from your analysis. That doesn't mean you have to ditch your work, though, just means that you have to control for those variables.
Before I continue, let me just say that I am an actuary and I do this sort of analysis for a living, so I am not talking out of my ass (not completely anyway).
Off the top of my head, here are a few suggestions for controlling variables. I have no idea if this data is available on the site you are using, though.
- whenever you are trying to measure effectiveness, you need to be very careful how you measure usage. For example, when determining how good of a scorer a basketball player is, a good analyst will look at shooting percentages rather than points scored. A person who scores 20 points on 15 shots is a heck of a lot better than a person who scores 25 on 30 shots. In our case, using 10 mines made isn't a good metric of how a player is using mines. A much better metric would be either percentage of army resources in mines or percentage of supply. Then we know the difference between a player who produces a couple mines at a time over a long game versus someone building a crapton of mines in a short game.
- Control (as much as possible) for the style of gameplay. Lets say terrans lose 75% of the time they do a proxy rax cheese. Every one of those games will fall under a loss with the less than 10 mines, but it doesn't really tell us much about whether or not mines are OP in a standard macro match. While you can't perfectly control for this kind of thing with stats, you can do things like exclude all games under a certain game length or exclude games with less than a certain threshold of workers to get rid as much as possible the games where mines were never going to have an impact one way or the other. this is more of an open ended one that won't necessarily help but it is a thought.
- As you have already started doing, use the established metric in a number of ways before commenting on what it might mean. If you get weird or unreliable results in other cases, then it will give you new insight into what might be driving the differences you see.
I'm too tired to think of anything else, but I always enjoy more statistics!
I've played against a Zerg who knew I had lots of widow mines and he was obviously tired of sending small packs of lings ahead of his army so he just brought 20 overlords with the speed upgrade with his army, moved them a bit ahead of it, and a-moved his lings, zerglings and ultras.
On April 08 2013 12:10 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably also true Terran has a higher win rate with >7 SCVs produced in a game vs. <7 SCVs. I chose 7 because I didn't want to choose 10. This doesn't really prove that SCVs are OP though...
Ok now I want to see the win rates for when zerg makes > 6 drones vs <6 drones
does this mean drones might actually be underpowered?
I actually want to see what the win rates of 6-pooling are haha
I appreciate the attempt, but as lots of people have mentioned, there are so many factors that go into wins as well as number of widow mines produced throughout a game that any conclusion is likely to be completely confounded :/
Mines are really not impossible to play against. Zerg players need to shut up already about them and just live with it. It's NOWHERE near as good as the shit Terran had to deal with for the last months of WoL.
Sorry to sound a bit harsh, but sometimes I feel players take more time to whine about something rather than finding solutions by playing. ( and not ranting with theorycrafting )
The way it feels like in my games at master level is that I have to work a lot harder than the terran to win and that isn't a balance whine either I have a 60% win rate overall in ZvT. The thing is it either seems like im out playing them heavily or they are just making mines and bio and I get smashed, there is no middle ground or much micro that helps it.
If it were me id either make the radius lower or lower the damage. Personally they are way more effective in TvZ than they are in any other match up (maybe TvT if the terran isn't scanning and focusing correctly) and its because they 1 shot mass lings no matter what upgrades you have and it requires no micro or babysitting at all. Like I understand that they cost minerals and gas but if you look at what they can kill they are incredibly cheap. I mentioned this in the beta but it still holds true, terran don't need 1 more answer to muta but id like to add that they don't need 1 more answer to lings. Lings are already one of the hardest units to make work in the game because hellions and bio being hugely cost effective vs them.
Also the fact that widow mines hit air that makes it slightly annoying because I know they would be balanced otherwise if they changed them to only hit ground. It would make it so terrans would use them more defensively if they were picked off by a small pack of muta.
Its all micro though but ive been trying to work ways that I can actually hold my third vs a bio widow mine push with like 5 or 6 mines and defending drops and ive found very few options that work for both. Most pros are going ling bling muta but ive been seeing on ladder them zoning with the widow mines while taking down a base and then falling back and in that case ling bling muta isn't good at all unless you use overlords to tank. Using overlords just is really annoying because then either you have to have more overlords you need or you get horribly supply blocked and it puts you all in pretty much on defending that 1 base.
I don't take anything away from those stats. The game is still very new and people are still adapting to playing against widow mines. Give it a few more months before you run some stats and try to point at something being OP.
On April 08 2013 13:09 lichter wrote: The only thing that pisses me off about widow mines is the fact that I need hydra range to kill it without losing a unit =/
Or you can use one of your three units that generates free units. Or trigger it with a unit that has more than 125 life, such as a roach or an overlord. Or make a changeling with an Overseer. Or if there's only one or two, kill it with mutas before they blow up.
On April 08 2013 13:27 FlukyS wrote: The way it feels like in my games at master level is that I have to work a lot harder than the terran to win and that isn't a balance whine either I have a 60% win rate overall in ZvT. The thing is it either seems like im out playing them heavily or they are just making mines and bio and I get smashed, there is no middle ground or much micro that helps it.
If it were me id either make the radius lower or lower the damage. Personally they are way more effective in TvZ than they are in any other match up (maybe TvT if the terran isn't scanning and focusing correctly) and its because they 1 shot mass lings no matter what upgrades you have and it requires no micro or babysitting at all. Like I understand that they cost minerals and gas but if you look at what they can kill they are incredibly cheap. I mentioned this in the beta but it still holds true, terran don't need 1 more answer to muta but id like to add that they don't need 1 more answer to lings. Lings are already one of the hardest units to make work in the game because hellions and bio being hugely cost effective vs them.
Also the fact that widow mines hit air that makes it slightly annoying because I know they would be balanced otherwise if they changed them to only hit ground. It would make it so terrans would use them more defensively if they were picked off by a small pack of muta.
Its all micro though but ive been trying to work ways that I can actually hold my third vs a bio widow mine push with like 5 or 6 mines and defending drops and ive found very few options that work for both. Most pros are going ling bling muta but ive been seeing on ladder them zoning with the widow mines while taking down a base and then falling back and in that case ling bling muta isn't good at all unless you use overlords to tank. Using overlords just is really annoying because then either you have to have more overlords you need or you get horribly supply blocked and it puts you all in pretty much on defending that 1 base.
60% win rate, still whines, Zerg.
Guess what? Did you think that players you outplay heavily are losing because they are stuck in WoL mindset and not utilizing the HotS units? Cuz I'm one of them, lol.
Ok, and about holding your third against bio widow mine push. Make static defenses, including the one that can detect. Then voila, widow mine is offensively neutered once detection + spines + units, especially in a counter-attack (controlled properly, let a couple lings run in vanguard to draw out widowmine shots).
On April 08 2013 12:54 Empirimancer wrote: I've played against a Zerg who knew I had lots of widow mines and he was obviously tired of sending small packs of lings ahead of his army so he just brought 20 overlords with the speed upgrade with his army, moved them a bit ahead of it, and a-moved his lings, zerglings and ultras.
I died.
True story.
What? How dare he use ingenuity and a new tactic to win a game! He should be on a forum whining about said strategy he doesn't want to adapt to being OP instead!
As a person who has taken a fair number of university level statistics classes, I also question the methods used here. As others have mentioned, the method used does have an inherent bias to it that basically makes it difficult not to be true. Several great examples why this doesn't work but here is another. It would be like complaining that ultralisks are imbalanced because zergs who make 20+ ultralisks win the game 70% of the time or something similar to that, when if you think about it if a zerg is able to produce that many ultralisks they probably have a lead of some type in most of the games samples. There are just too many gaps in the argument for it to hold any water. 10 widow mines is not exactly a ton in the first place, especially when many terrans use 2-3 per base for defence. Why isn't it more than a larger number, say 20 or 30 produced throughout the game. That would make more sense to me than 10.
On April 08 2013 12:23 spalding wrote: OP can you please check if zergs building more than 50 drones have a higher winrate than those who don't? I have a strong feeling that drones might be overpowered and that would prove it! lol some people are so dense, it's unbelievable.
But won't the winrates for SCVs and Probes production mirror what Drone production does? In that case, there is no imbalance. All races benefit from producing more workers, and we know this.
Anyway, comparing a combat unit that Terran can choose to make, and workers that are required in large numbers (especially for Zerg that loses a worker each time they create a building) is silly.
Err... I am pretty sure he is joking and making fun of the OP for using skewed statistics.
I just hope OP dsjoerg or any other people reading this thread is not discouraged to make interesting threads in future due to negative feedback. Some people don't realize that 1 liner negativity discrediting OP's work does harm to the community by turning away potential posters doing interesting researches. Constructive criticism is fine, though.
On April 08 2013 12:47 petered wrote: A much better metric would be either percentage of army resources in mines
Great idea, thanks!
So here we are looking only at Master level TvZ games that made it to at least the 15:00 mark. And then we measure the resource value of widow mines in their army at that time, compared to the total resource value of their Active Army.
Mostly this data reinforces things that "everybody knows" about widow mines -- they don't suck, they're not necessarily OP, T loves em vs Z, especially at the high level. That 10-15% row is interesting and we should keep an eye on it as more data rolls in. If I were a betting man (and I am!), I'd bet on that row remaining the highest winrate, but for it to move closer to the rest.
On April 08 2013 14:03 Orek wrote: I just hope OP dsjoerg or any other people reading this thread is not discouraged to make interesting threads in future due to negative feedback. Some people don't realize that 1 liner negativity discrediting OP's work does harm to the community by turning away potential posters doing interesting researches. Constructive criticism is fine, though.
Natural selection, baby. (I just hope this 1 liner will turn you off from coddling the community)
On April 08 2013 12:47 petered wrote: A much better metric would be either percentage of army resources in mines
Great idea, thanks!
So here we are looking only at Master level TvZ games that made it to at least the 15:00 mark. And then we measure the resource value of widow mines in their army at that time, compared to the total resource value of their Active Army.
Mostly this data reinforces things that "everybody knows" about widow mines -- they don't suck, they're not necessarily OP, T loves em vs Z, especially at the high level. That 10-15% row is interesting and we should keep an eye on it as more data rolls in. If I were a betting man (and I am!), I'd bet on that row remaining the highest winrate, but for it to move closer to the rest.
How does this show that widow mines don't suck? And what's with the evasive-as-a-slippery-eel language? "They're not necessarily OP". No, your results don't show that widow mines are not necessarily OP either. Why? Read the damn thread.
What you just showed was an exercise in wasting everypony's time.
A quick basic linear regression analysis of Master TvZ Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00, testing Win % as a function of WM%, yields an Rsq = 0.097.
Any of you geniuses arguing for the validity of this kind of nonsense want to guess what that means?
Edit: hint - it means exactly what this entire thread means. Nothing.
The problem with threads of this kind like this is exactly reflected in BronzeKnee's comments of "people can draw their own conclusions" etc. (I'm paraphrasing, before you jump at my throat saying TAHTS NOT WUT I SED). You cannot draw any reasonable conclusion from any of this, and it seems that most lack the mathematical background (or common sense) to understand why. It just starts a whine-fest shitstorm that accomplishes nothing but getting people pissed off over meaningless data.
On April 08 2013 14:22 tenklavir wrote: A quick basic linear regression analysis of Master TvZ Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00, testing Win % as a function of WM%, yields an Rsq = 0.097.
Any of you geniuses arguing for the validity of this kind of nonsense want to guess what that means?
On April 08 2013 14:22 tenklavir wrote: A quick basic linear regression analysis of Master TvZ Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00, testing Win % as a function of WM%, yields an Rsq = 0.097.
Any of you geniuses arguing for the validity of this kind of nonsense want to guess what that means?
Merely 9.7% of the variation in winrate can be attributed to a variation in the % of resources devoted to Widow Mines.
On April 08 2013 14:22 tenklavir wrote: A quick basic linear regression analysis of Master TvZ Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00, testing Win % as a function of WM%, yields an Rsq = 0.097.
Any of you geniuses arguing for the validity of this kind of nonsense want to guess what that means?
Merely 9.7% of the variation in winrate can be attributed to a variation in the % of resources devoted to Widow Mines.
10 seems a perfectly reasonable number to base the comparison of mass widow mines vs opening with some defensive widow mines and having several in an army to strengthen a timing attack Think about hellions produced when asking if a terran will mech or go bio after - most common is 6 into bio but sometimes terrans would go 8 or 10 but aren't committing to factory play
On April 08 2013 14:03 Orek wrote: I just hope OP dsjoerg or any other people reading this thread is not discouraged to make interesting threads in future due to negative feedback. Some people don't realize that 1 liner negativity discrediting OP's work does harm to the community by turning away potential posters doing interesting researches. Constructive criticism is fine, though.
sometimes blunt responses get the point across very well though and from reading this thread it's clear that a lot of people have no clue whatsoever about statistics and if you open a thread to represent this data, one may expect some evidence in the form of math (hint : variance is a huge concern with such a limited sample size and so is selection bias) combined with logic to back up your thoughts/conclusion.
On April 08 2013 14:03 Orek wrote: I just hope OP dsjoerg or any other people reading this thread is not discouraged to make interesting threads in future due to negative feedback. Some people don't realize that 1 liner negativity discrediting OP's work does harm to the community by turning away potential posters doing interesting researches. Constructive criticism is fine, though.
Natural selection, baby. (I just hope this 1 liner will turn you off from coddling the community)
Very convincing when the word comes from a guy whose last thread was closed. I guess you are right. Some bad threads deserve to die. Coddling does harm, too it seems. Maybe OPs have to try harder to bring better contents.
On April 08 2013 14:10 plogamer wrote: How does this show that widow mines don't suck?
If widow mines sucked badly enough, then win% would decrease as WM% increased. They're not so bad that you lose by using them. Even in large quantities like 15% of army strength.
No, your results don't show that widow mines are not necessarily OP either.
I thought of "OP" as some unit that, if you got a lot of it, you would have an EZ win. By that definition, you'd expect people with armies that were 25 and 30% widow mine to have higher win% than they do.
On April 08 2013 14:03 Orek wrote: I just hope OP dsjoerg or any other people reading this thread is not discouraged to make interesting threads in future due to negative feedback. Some people don't realize that 1 liner negativity discrediting OP's work does harm to the community by turning away potential posters doing interesting researches. Constructive criticism is fine, though.
Natural selection, baby. (I just hope this 1 liner will turn you off from coddling the community)
Very convincing when the word comes from a guy whose last thread was closed. I guess you are right. Some bad threads deserve to die. Coddling does harm, too it seems. Maybe OPs have to try harder to bring better contents.
Yep, my thread got closed so I must be defensive and blame everyone but my hilariously lousy post. Or I can be petty and sling personal insults. Nah, I have more fun things to do than go through someone's post history. How lame!
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.
I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy...
hatch first into pool into no gas and a third base, then six queens off three base is pretty greedy :D
On April 08 2013 11:25 BronzeKnee wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:19 opterown wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:14 opterown wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:13 BronzeKnee wrote:
On April 08 2013 11:06 opterown wrote: [quote] 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!
and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this
so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this
I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them.
You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack.
no, i never said it was wrong or right, go read the posts. "when did i say it was correct" does not mean "it is wrong"
You could have come in here and said "nice stats I commend the effort" like you did with the Mutalisk guy, but you didn't you choose to come in and say:
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
Now what is that? Well, it is an attempt to discredit the person who made the thread by saying "well of course, you could find statistics like that other units, who cares?"
The fact that you could find statistics like that other units has nothing to do with this thread. Those statistics are better left for another thread.
Bronze, you do realise that you just accused opterown of backtracking and when he shut down your bad logic you went and backtracked yourself to attack his first post?
Also, I get that you were trying to defend the OP here, but you kinda made a complete fool of yourself by berating opterown for dismissing the OP and commending "the Mutalisk guy" because.. + Show Spoiler +
OP is "the Mutalisk guy"!
.
The fact the Mutalisk guy is the OP doesn't change anything regarding the conclusions of what was said or done. I could be the Mutalisk guy and the OP, still nothing would have changed.
And I didn't backtrack to attack his first post, re-read the whole chain.
Seriously your posting frustrates me to no end, stop trying to change the focus when you are blatantly wrong, I said nothing about the conclusions, I said you look like a fool for attacking someone who was making reasonable arguments.
I read the whole exchange, and what it boiled down to was you were trying to dispute arguments that you claimed opterown made, which he never did, and when he shut you down you instead attacked his first post saying that he was trying to discredit the OP and that he should be more supportive like he was of "Mutalisk guy", which is itself is stupid because this kind of criticism is actually the most beneficial discussion that the OP could hope for, because if his statistics and conclusion are in fact solid then they only become more credible if they can stand up to such criticism.
Discussion is good, but when you get over defensive and start reading into things too much you kind of ruin any chance for a decent discussion.
I could be the Mutalisk guy and the OP
Actually considering how defensive you are being over every little criticism of the OP it wouldn't surprise me if you were.
Don't cut off at ten. IMO do a probit regression with mines measured continuously. It would be interesting if you also included controls for skill differences somehow...
Do you also want to make a thread on TvZ win rates with Mass Marines? Let's look at the statistics on that. Shocking right? Also you never mentioned the METAGAME at any point in this analysis. Players substitute widow mine for tanks due to their AOE. Obviously, more AOE counteracts Ling/Bling/Muta. If you did the exact same thing with tanks in WoL, you'd also come to a conclusion that Tanks are OP in TvZ. Oh and a nice correlation of 10%. That's not enough to infer anything from. Did you take into account player skill, mechanics, etc? What a pointless QQ thread.
On April 08 2013 14:42 dsjoerg wrote: If widow mines sucked badly enough, then win% would decrease as WM% increased. They're not so bad that you lose by using them. Even in large quantities like 15% of army strength.
But that is exactly what happens (win % decreases as WM% increase) using the data that you just posted. The admittedly lousy correlation (Rsq = 0.097) between Win % and WM% is negative (Win % = 60.29 - 0.1429(WM%)). Does this mean we now conclude that the higher % of your army makeup being widow mines means your will lose? What if I left out the Rsq and never mentioned that the correlation was terrible? Would you have believed me? Does it even make sense?
Of course not, and this is exactly what I'm talking about. This entire discussion is worthless and people need to start understanding why you cannot draw any reasonable conclusion from such meaningless data.
On April 08 2013 12:47 petered wrote: A much better metric would be either percentage of army resources in mines
Great idea, thanks!
So here we are looking only at Master level TvZ games that made it to at least the 15:00 mark. And then we measure the resource value of widow mines in their army at that time, compared to the total resource value of their Active Army.
Mostly this data reinforces things that "everybody knows" about widow mines -- they don't suck, they're not necessarily OP, T loves em vs Z, especially at the high level. That 10-15% row is interesting and we should keep an eye on it as more data rolls in. If I were a betting man (and I am!), I'd bet on that row remaining the highest winrate, but for it to move closer to the rest.
Umm.. this doesnt prove widow mines OP or not OP. It just shows that terrans are winning in general (which is fine). You cant just pick a unit at random and say its the cause of increase win rates...
On April 08 2013 12:47 petered wrote: A much better metric would be either percentage of army resources in mines
Great idea, thanks!
So here we are looking only at Master level TvZ games that made it to at least the 15:00 mark. And then we measure the resource value of widow mines in their army at that time, compared to the total resource value of their Active Army.
Mostly this data reinforces things that "everybody knows" about widow mines -- they don't suck, they're not necessarily OP, T loves em vs Z, especially at the high level. That 10-15% row is interesting and we should keep an eye on it as more data rolls in. If I were a betting man (and I am!), I'd bet on that row remaining the highest winrate, but for it to move closer to the rest.
Umm.. this doesnt prove widow mines OP or not OP. It just shows that terrans are winning in general (which is fine). You cant just pick a unit at random and say its the cause of increase win rates...
Is OP going to have a heart attack when he does this exact thing with Marines?
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.....
I thought the answer would be of interest to you all.
GGTracker has 961 Masters TvZ HotS 1v1 Ladder replays. 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.
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.
sample size too small- 59 games at gm level? laughable
sample doesn't represent the community- do you actually know how many different people played those games? out of those 650ish games Idra could have played like 60 games, who has very particular skill characteristics that distinguish him from the other players. statistics don't work that way. this was just an example to prove why it's flawed. a player could build 100000 thousand widow mines if he can't use them well he won't win more games.
sample not homogene- the games are very varied in terms of length, player skill, etc.
we don't actually know if they kill anything at all with those mines, they could be just for muta defense etc. in a significant portion of these games widow mines probably didn't achieve anything at all.
bottom line, what does this little research prove? that in the sample players who build more than 10 widow mines, they won more games. in that sample and nowhere else.
does it prove that widow mines make you win more? NO
On April 08 2013 14:53 tenklavir wrote: But that is exactly what happens (win % decreases as WM% increase) using the data that you just posted.
Overall win% is 58%. The win% at the high end is not significantly different from that.
Regarding the regression, did you do a weighted regression? There are many more observations at the low end, a weighted regression should be used to take that into account. Excel won't do it for me, and I don't appear to have the right python modules installed on my laptop here
On April 08 2013 14:53 tenklavir wrote: But that is exactly what happens (win % decreases as WM% increase) using the data that you just posted.
Overall win% is 58%. The win% at the high end is not significantly different from that.
Regarding the regression, did you do a weighted regression? There are many more observations at the low end, a weighted regression should be used to take that into account. Excel won't do it for me, and I don't appear to have the right python modules installed on my laptop here
I confused as to why you are even interested in a weighted regression when the data you posted is so lousy to begin with? Especially when in the same breath you post
If widow mines sucked badly enough, then win% would decrease as WM% increased.
Just let this die. You know the data means nothing and a WLS will change very little in your favor.
On April 08 2013 12:47 petered wrote: A much better metric would be either percentage of army resources in mines
Great idea, thanks!
So here we are looking only at Master level TvZ games that made it to at least the 15:00 mark. And then we measure the resource value of widow mines in their army at that time, compared to the total resource value of their Active Army.
Mostly this data reinforces things that "everybody knows" about widow mines -- they don't suck, they're not necessarily OP, T loves em vs Z, especially at the high level. That 10-15% row is interesting and we should keep an eye on it as more data rolls in. If I were a betting man (and I am!), I'd bet on that row remaining the highest winrate, but for it to move closer to the rest.
I think you should put this data OP, it is revealing.
I am pretty sure we can do this with ravens and difference after 10 ravens will be much higher(RAVEN OP?) P.S:I am not being sarcastic, i would like to see if this is the case.
I never build any widow mines in TvZ and have a 67% winratio in the matchup (EU mid master). Is Terran now generally OP? I would really be careful with such stats.
Nice work dsjoerg, for showing what can be done with GGtracker. Interesting stuff, and the thread is a pretty fun read too.
For me the next big one to test is the siege tank in all three MUs ^^ (don't use the 15 minute marker though, as there are siege timings at the 10 minute mark, the 160 push, and then there's the ''get rid of sieges, broods are out'' after the 20 minute mark).
On April 08 2013 16:12 TeeTS wrote: I never build any widow mines in TvZ and have a 67% winratio in the matchup (EU mid master). Is Terran now generally OP? I would really be careful with such stats.
I don't think that Terran is overpowered. I would say that Zerg got used to the passive playstyle too much, and don't know how to deal with the new stuff. I am pretty sure that even if Blizzard doesn't do anything, we will see different games in next few months.
On April 08 2013 16:23 DidYuhim wrote: Of all the TvZ's where Zerg got more than 2 Zerglings, they win ~50%.
Zerglings OP. Nerf pls.
That Logic is quite flawed, even though I know you were sarcastic, you could at least try.
i wish moderation was a bit harder on shit replies to an op who put effort into trying something new with ggtracker which can be used to research interesting stats
Did you think that maybe when Terran players get ahead, they experiment more with Widow Mines? I know that I tend to play around with new HotS units a lot more when I feel that I'm sufficiently ahead.
On April 08 2013 16:12 TeeTS wrote: I never build any widow mines in TvZ and have a 67% winratio in the matchup (EU mid master). Is Terran now generally OP? I would really be careful with such stats.
well, that's why we want to use bigger sample sizes than "1". However flawed they may be, the OP uses the best he can to achieve that.
On April 08 2013 12:47 petered wrote: A much better metric would be either percentage of army resources in mines
Great idea, thanks!
So here we are looking only at Master level TvZ games that made it to at least the 15:00 mark. And then we measure the resource value of widow mines in their army at that time, compared to the total resource value of their Active Army.
Mostly this data reinforces things that "everybody knows" about widow mines -- they don't suck, they're not necessarily OP, T loves em vs Z, especially at the high level. That 10-15% row is interesting and we should keep an eye on it as more data rolls in. If I were a betting man (and I am!), I'd bet on that row remaining the highest winrate, but for it to move closer to the rest.
I think you should put this data OP, it is revealing.
On April 08 2013 14:22 tenklavir wrote: A quick basic linear regression analysis of Master TvZ Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00, testing Win % as a function of WM%, yields an Rsq = 0.097.
Any of you geniuses arguing for the validity of this kind of nonsense want to guess what that means?
Merely 9.7% of the variation in winrate can be attributed to a variation in the % of resources devoted to Widow Mines.
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:
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!
and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this
so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this
I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them.
You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics.
Then you backtracked "i'm not attacking those numbers, i'm saying the conclusions that a lot of people are going to make are invalid"
As I stated, the numbers were the statistics, which was the conclusion. Then you say that other people are going to make invalid conclusions, which is exactly what I'm fighting against.
Your ignorance about statistics is unbelievable. It's not just a question of interpretation of numbers but also how to present them and how to generate them. You can lie with numbers and they are not unquestionable facts which just need to to interpreted correctly. In this case clearly the numbers themselves are flawed because of how they were generated and not just the interpretation.
Even IF we we start to treat this data as statistically viable (quite a long shot) you still have to include the natural noise in the form of sqrt(N), where N ist your sample size. So in 300 games you have a base noise of roughly 17 which coverts to 6% variance in winrates. With your 100 sample size it is even 10% variance in winrates (on a basis of 60 it could be 50, or 70 within assumable gaussian distribution ). So, someone stop this thread please .
On April 08 2013 12:47 petered wrote: A much better metric would be either percentage of army resources in mines
Great idea, thanks!
So here we are looking only at Master level TvZ games that made it to at least the 15:00 mark. And then we measure the resource value of widow mines in their army at that time, compared to the total resource value of their Active Army.
Mostly this data reinforces things that "everybody knows" about widow mines -- they don't suck, they're not necessarily OP, T loves em vs Z, especially at the high level. That 10-15% row is interesting and we should keep an eye on it as more data rolls in. If I were a betting man (and I am!), I'd bet on that row remaining the highest winrate, but for it to move closer to the rest.
I think you should put this data OP, it is revealing.
What's most interesting is that, ignoring how many widow mines they're making, Master level Terrans are winning nearly 58% of the games that go beyond 15 minutes.
On April 08 2013 21:47 monkybone wrote: This doesn't prove anything. It's basically showing that the widow mine is useful and that Zergs have not yet fully adapted to play against them.
Well with widow mines and medivac drops all over your base I think I adapted pretty well.....gg and tap out. In my opinion widow mine and medivac boost is to rewarding. I always die when it gets to the point that terrans can drop like 2 places and siege your base entrance
On April 08 2013 12:47 petered wrote: A much better metric would be either percentage of army resources in mines
Great idea, thanks!
So here we are looking only at Master level TvZ games that made it to at least the 15:00 mark. And then we measure the resource value of widow mines in their army at that time, compared to the total resource value of their Active Army.
Mostly this data reinforces things that "everybody knows" about widow mines -- they don't suck, they're not necessarily OP, T loves em vs Z, especially at the high level. That 10-15% row is interesting and we should keep an eye on it as more data rolls in. If I were a betting man (and I am!), I'd bet on that row remaining the highest winrate, but for it to move closer to the rest.
I think you should put this data OP, it is revealing.
What's most interesting is that regardless of how many widow mines they're making, Terrans are winning more than 50% of the games that go beyond 15 minutes.
haha yes it is time david kim takes some action and see those numbers rise to like 60%.....poor terrans
On April 08 2013 22:06 Blezza wrote: 616/961 x 49% + 345/961 x 59% = 52.59%
TvZ WR in masters HoTS = 52.59% in favour of terran
which is actually not that bad considering that 45-55 is pretty balanced
On faction winning 10% more games than the other is hardly balanced
The idea is that temporary swings of that much can occur without imbalance (a new strategy becoming popular, or an old one getting countered in a new or improved way). If it were 45-55 in favour of the same race consistently over a long period, that could be something worth investigating.
And now please the WoL winrates of TvZ when Zerg made Infestors...80%? Mediocre foreign Zergs were winning against top Korean Terrans left and right...
the problem is not mines being so strong, the problem is their counter units on the Z part just suck or come way too late.
this is especially true for hydras which should just get buffed since they literally suck in all MUs. roach hydra is viable in no MU because hydras still suck (and except being a bit faster they are literally 100% the same bad unit). give hydras 6 base range and instead of grooved spines another upgrade that: gives them 7 range or 20 more hp or a special ability, whatever. that would finally make hydras a unit that might not be completely wasted supply or money in midgame and make roach hydra more viable.
On April 08 2013 22:26 Aquila- wrote: And now please the WoL winrates of TvZ when Zerg made Infestors...80%? Mediocre foreign Zergs were winning against top Korean Terrans left and right...
wow so people still argue "you were OP earlier now its our time again".,.especially after 2 rax without depot or 5 rax reaper letting T be OP the first year of WoL.
please stop arguing like that...it makes you look very stupid ^^
On April 08 2013 22:26 Aquila- wrote: And now please the WoL winrates of TvZ when Zerg made Infestors...80%? Mediocre foreign Zergs were winning against top Korean Terrans left and right...
That is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, learn to stop being so ignorant.
On April 08 2013 10:06 BaaL` wrote: Pretty big selection bias? Games where T is winning already are much more likely to have 10+ widow mines, as the pushes would not get shut down and so the mines never get mopped up.
A 10% difference is nothing really if you consider any statistical effects.
if i take a sample of 10,000,000 coin flips and it comes out 51.1%/48.9% then statistically that's a HUGE deal(P<0.00000001 to reject the null that the coin is fair). the sample size is directly related to how big of a deal the deviance from expectation is.
On April 08 2013 21:47 monkybone wrote: This doesn't prove anything. It's basically showing that the widow mine is useful and that Zergs have not yet fully adapted to play against them.
Wrong. It shows that I (random bnet user at plat) don't use enough widow mines in TvZ!
That isn't surprising. Widow mines are good units, but also new and different from what Zergs are used to playing against. It'd be weird if widow mine usage wasn't helping Terrans win games. Still, if there's one new thing in HotS I'd definitely peg as not needing a nerf, it'd be the widow mine. It's definitely something that will get weaker as players adjust and learn more.
The thread is literally pointless...it's like me saying the games where terran builds less then 10 marines winrate is 40% and where terran builds more then 10 marines win rate is...well you get it... were your players going bio mine , were they going mech mine were they going pure mine??? all these things matter, attack timings etc etc
you can't really tell anything about the success of the unit or lack thereof by shear stats like this. Besides we already know 1 mine can shot down 30+ lings so if you incorporate a good timing you can end the game with a bio push +2 mines...
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.
I agree that the thread isn't really proving anything, but you cannot compare 10WM and the impact on a game with 10 ultras or 8 bcs or anything else that cost much more/harder to get/ harder to transition to, honestly, if T plays MMM+Mine, 10 mines isnt s big investment, neither does it take much time to produce...
- 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.
Gooby pls, Come on how is that even an argument...
This post isnt worth a lot without more statistics to back it up but I think we all can agree that by watching GM/pro zerg streaming, WM seems to be a problem which needs adressing in some way (unless we're all freaking stupid and some Korean zerg comes up with an easy way to deal with them)
I want to know the statistic of matches where Terrans did less than 137 marines. lol wt? The zergs are really good crying, not this exp, not this exp ...
On April 08 2013 23:03 megid wrote: I want to know the statistic of matches where Terrans did less than 137 marines. lol wt? The zergs are really good crying, not this exp, not this exp ...
huehuehuehueheuheu gibe moni plos or I repart.
I cant wait for next round of GSL to see how the Koreans zergs will deal with T atm
This thread seems to be just another balance-rant.
Widow mine is good offensive(push,drop,proxy) and defensive(def push ,drop) unit all game long so dont use it for composition is stupid . Still compare to many things that zerg have to activate mine like overlord , one ling ,roach. And late game ultralisk some times just run true mine field with no shame and kill all mines for cost 2-3 ultra . I dont think is need to be balanced . Rather something with medivacs. Longer cd or energy cost speed burst.
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:
Would you be willing to review a stats post in advance? There were several insightful / valid / intelligent comments. "Peer review" will help ensure that the post is better thought out before wide circulation. If so, please PM me.
Are there other stats you'd like to see? I can run custom queries for you and you can write your own post based on them. There's a lot of info in GGTracker (my site). PM me...
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:
Would you be willing to review a stats post in advance? There were several insightful / valid / intelligent comments. "Peer review" will help ensure that the post is better thought out before wide circulation. If so, please PM me.
Are there other stats you'd like to see? I can run custom queries for you and you can write your own post based on them. There's a lot of info in GGTracker (my site). PM me...
Please don't do any more of these so-called "stats posts". Cherrypicking a single random variable and attempting to correlate it with winrate flies in the face of basic statistics and common sense. More troubling is that you post all of this "data" with no statistical analysis of any kind and no conclusion, because hopefully you understand that no analysis or conclusion can be drawn from such a poorly sampled, cherrypicked data set.
What would be even more interesting is : In tvz, which builds and compositions do they play and which one favors the other. Maybe u could get some nice standard strategies out of them.
For example : Which Zerg strategy wins most against a terran playing MMMM on Master and GM level? But my guess is that this information is not hidden in the statistics?
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?
He's not reaching - accounting for confounding variables such as these is critically important when you're trying to determine whether or not there's actually a relationship between two variables in a dataset. If you were to try to publish a paper where all you did was calculate the correlation between, say, instances of piracy and global average temperatures to claim that there was a meaningful relationship between the two things, you'd be laughed out of the academic community. Anyone with even a basic grasp of the proper usage of statistics knows this.
Not attempting to find and control for confounding factors is silly and usually caused by ignorance (or, less-frequently, ill intentions). It's a straightforward process which requires very little time and effort.
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:
Would you be willing to review a stats post in advance? There were several insightful / valid / intelligent comments. "Peer review" will help ensure that the post is better thought out before wide circulation. If so, please PM me.
Are there other stats you'd like to see? I can run custom queries for you and you can write your own post based on them. There's a lot of info in GGTracker (my site). PM me...
Please don't do any more of these so-called "stats posts". Cherrypicking a single random variable and attempting to correlate it with winrate flies in the face of basic statistics and common sense. More troubling is that you post all of this "data" with no statistical analysis of any kind and no conclusion, because hopefully you understand that no analysis or conclusion can be drawn from such a poorly sampled, cherrypicked data set.
Well, this is overly-harsh IMO. The OP clearly has energy and interest that can be productively directed at improving SC2 discourse; all he needs is a little advice and training on how to make these sorts of inquiries more rigorous. No need to try to shut him up forever, hah.
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:
Would you be willing to review a stats post in advance? There were several insightful / valid / intelligent comments. "Peer review" will help ensure that the post is better thought out before wide circulation. If so, please PM me.
Are there other stats you'd like to see? I can run custom queries for you and you can write your own post based on them. There's a lot of info in GGTracker (my site). PM me...
Please don't do any more of these so-called "stats posts". Cherrypicking a single random variable and attempting to correlate it with winrate flies in the face of basic statistics and common sense. More troubling is that you post all of this "data" with no statistical analysis of any kind and no conclusion, because hopefully you understand that no analysis or conclusion can be drawn from such a poorly sampled, cherrypicked data set.
He posts it because it is interesting and it should lead to a discussion, and that we what we do on a forum, discuss things.
Anyway, I'd love to see a lot more data without conclusions. Then we can work out the data and add in more data to understand balance. As I mentioned before, people on TL seems to have an affliction to data, and my hunch is that much of criticism they give is connected with their own personal experience. In this specific case those people who rely on Widow Mines a lot, are trying to discredit and/flame the OP with one liners because they don't want the Widow Mine nerfed.
BaaL (5th post in this thread) is the clearest example of this. Look at this link posted in the OP: Masters 1v1 Ladder TvZs with at least 10 widow mines at 15 minutes . And guess who's name pops up in many of these games? BaaL's! So there is a conflict of interest, and much of criticism may be because of that. It certainly isn't the OP's fault that people can't look at data objectively.
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:
Would you be willing to review a stats post in advance? There were several insightful / valid / intelligent comments. "Peer review" will help ensure that the post is better thought out before wide circulation. If so, please PM me.
Are there other stats you'd like to see? I can run custom queries for you and you can write your own post based on them. There's a lot of info in GGTracker (my site). PM me...
Please don't do any more of these so-called "stats posts". Cherrypicking a single random variable and attempting to correlate it with winrate flies in the face of basic statistics and common sense. More troubling is that you post all of this "data" with no statistical analysis of any kind and no conclusion, because hopefully you understand that no analysis or conclusion can be drawn from such a poorly sampled, cherrypicked data set.
He posts it because it is interesting and it should lead to a discussion, and that we what we do on a forum, discuss things.
Anyway, I'd love to see a lot more data without conclusions. Then we can work out the data and add in more data to understand balance. As I mentioned before, people on TL seems to have an affliction to data, and my hunch is that it is connected to their own personal experience. Those people who rely on Widow Mines a lot, are trying to discredit and/flame the OP with one liners because they don't want the Widow Mine nerfed.
BaaL (5th post in this thread) is the clearest example of this. Look at this link (posted in the OP Masters 1v1 Ladder TvZs with at least 10 widow mines at 15 minutes . And guess who's name pops up in many of these games? BaaL's! So there is a conflict of interest, and much of criticism may be because of that.
It certainly isn't the OP's fault that people can look at data objectively.
No, you're right. It isn't. It's probably Thomas Bayes' fault. He's to blame.
On April 08 2013 10:05 Bippzy wrote: Out of curiousity, why did you set the cut off at 10?
10 is as high as I can count.
Pro tip: use your toes and double those math skills.
Technically, you can count up to 2^10 on ten fingers, by using your fingers to represent numbers in base 2. An easier way to count over ten on your fingers is counting the segments of your index to little finger (use your thumb to point at the current segment). That's 12 for each hand. And if you're really pro, you can use a mix of the two above to count to 3^8.
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:
Would you be willing to review a stats post in advance? There were several insightful / valid / intelligent comments. "Peer review" will help ensure that the post is better thought out before wide circulation. If so, please PM me.
Are there other stats you'd like to see? I can run custom queries for you and you can write your own post based on them. There's a lot of info in GGTracker (my site). PM me...
Please don't do any more of these so-called "stats posts". Cherrypicking a single random variable and attempting to correlate it with winrate flies in the face of basic statistics and common sense. More troubling is that you post all of this "data" with no statistical analysis of any kind and no conclusion, because hopefully you understand that no analysis or conclusion can be drawn from such a poorly sampled, cherrypicked data set.
He posts it because it is interesting and it should lead to a discussion, and that we what we do on a forum, discuss things.
Anyway, I'd love to see a lot more data without conclusions. Then we can work out the data and add in more data to understand balance. As I mentioned before, people on TL seems to have an affliction to data, and my hunch is that it is connected to their own personal experience. Those people who rely on Widow Mines a lot, are trying to discredit and/flame the OP with one liners because they don't want the Widow Mine nerfed.
BaaL (5th post in this thread) is the clearest example of this. Look at this link (posted in the OP Masters 1v1 Ladder TvZs with at least 10 widow mines at 15 minutes . And guess who's name pops up in many of these games? BaaL's! So there is a conflict of interest, and much of criticism may be because of that.
It certainly isn't the OP's fault that people can look at data objectively.
No, you're right. It isn't. It's probably Thomas Bayes' fault. He's to blame.
Thanks for catching my mistake. And just as physics existed before humans were around to name it, the ability to look at data objectively was too. So blame it on the big bang or God or whatever.
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:
Would you be willing to review a stats post in advance? There were several insightful / valid / intelligent comments. "Peer review" will help ensure that the post is better thought out before wide circulation. If so, please PM me.
Are there other stats you'd like to see? I can run custom queries for you and you can write your own post based on them. There's a lot of info in GGTracker (my site). PM me...
Please don't do any more of these so-called "stats posts". Cherrypicking a single random variable and attempting to correlate it with winrate flies in the face of basic statistics and common sense. More troubling is that you post all of this "data" with no statistical analysis of any kind and no conclusion, because hopefully you understand that no analysis or conclusion can be drawn from such a poorly sampled, cherrypicked data set.
He posts it because it is interesting and it should lead to a discussion, and that we what we do on a forum, discuss things.
Anyway, I'd love to see a lot more data without conclusions. Then we can work out the data and add in more data to understand balance. As I mentioned before, people on TL seems to have an affliction to data, and my hunch is that it is connected to their own personal experience. Those people who rely on Widow Mines a lot, are trying to discredit and/flame the OP with one liners because they don't want the Widow Mine nerfed.
BaaL (5th post in this thread) is the clearest example of this. Look at this link posted in the OP Masters 1v1 Ladder TvZs with at least 10 widow mines at 15 minutes . And guess who's name pops up in many of these games? BaaL's! So there is a conflict of interest, and much of criticism may be because of that. It certainly isn't the OP's fault that people can look at data objectively.
No no no, there is no meaningful discussion that can be had based on the "statistics" posted here. I keep using quotes because they are garbage and anyone that has taken even high school stat understands why.
You, BronzeKnee, appear particularly ignorant to any kind of analysis. For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097. From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. What else could you possibly want to discuss from that?
I also take particular exception to
Anyway, I'd love to see a lot more data without conclusions. Then we can work out the data and add in more data to understand balance. As I mentioned before, people on TL seems to have an affliction to data, and my hunch is that it is connected to their own personal experience.
Data without meaningful analysis lets people who don't know any better draw faulty conclusions and stir shit up for no reason. It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: Data without meaningful analysis lets people who don't know any better draw faulty conclusions
Yes, which is why I'm suggesting a peer review process.
This brouhaha started when someone on Reddit asked a question and I, curse my soul, answered it.
Requiring that nobody post/publish anything until they've rigorously analyzed it needlessly limits the number of people who can interact with the data to only those who have pre-publication access (currently only me).
I hope there is a way for the community to share and discuss stats, even those that haven't yet been published in the New England Journal of Starcraft Analysis, and thereby learn from them, improve them, and perhaps even establish some standards for how these things should be done.
For example, I liked the actuary's suggestion of looking at % army resource value, and I think that clarified the picture considerably.
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
On April 09 2013 01:25 dsjoerg wrote: Requiring that nobody post/publish anything until they've rigorously analyzed it needlessly limits the number of people who can interact with the data to only those who have pre-publication access (currently only me).
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, this I don't really agree with at all, at least in the context of a public forum in which it is well-known that the vast majority of members are largely statistics-illiterate. In a situation like this, I think it's a really good idea for people who are statistics-literate to know not to publish any findings until they've made at least a basic attempt at controlling for confounding variables. Otherwise, you are knowingly running the (almost-certain) risk of the general public taking your preliminary, untested results as more-certain than they really are, and that seems pretty inexcusable to me. It undermines the entire field of statistics when people do things like this.
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
It's garbage because of sample size, noise, attempts to correlate random variables on arbitrarily chosen parameters...shall I continue?
Odd that you want to call people out when you conveniently ignored my questions, so I'll try again:
For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097. From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. What else could you possibly want to discuss from that?
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
It's garbage because of sample size, noise, attempts to correlate random variables on arbitrarily chosen parameters...shall I continue?
Odd that you want to call people out when you conveniently ignored my questions, so I'll try again:
For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097. From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. What else could you possibly want to discuss from that?
Adding the chart to the OP made what you just described above clear to everyone. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ (which your data did not show), though we don't know if it is statistically significant yet! That is why it should be added to the OP.
Now what I find odd is that you conveniently ignored my entire post.
I mean, heck, the OP doesn't really even qualify its proposed findings (other than saying it doesn't prove anything, which is true of everything that has ever happened in reality). It'd be a really good move to put in a little blurb stating the potential pitfalls of this sort of analysis IMO.
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
It's garbage because of sample size, noise, attempts to correlate random variables on arbitrarily chosen parameters...shall I continue?
Odd that you want to call people out when you conveniently ignored my questions, so I'll try again:
For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097. From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. What else could you possibly want to discuss from that?
Adding the chart to the OP made what you just described above clear to everyone. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP.
No it doesn't. None of the very-basic correlation analysis I posted was added to the OP which would immediately tell anyone looking at it why it's all bunk.
I can't tell if you're intentionally being dense or you truly lack the mathematical background to understand what is being discussed here.
It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP
On what basis are you concluding this? Please point to the exact metric and parameters you are using to make this claim.
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
It's garbage because of sample size, noise, attempts to correlate random variables on arbitrarily chosen parameters...shall I continue?
Odd that you want to call people out when you conveniently ignored my questions, so I'll try again:
For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097. From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. What else could you possibly want to discuss from that?
Adding the chart to the OP made what you just described above clear to everyone. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP.
No it doesn't. None of the very-basic correlation analysis I posted was added to the OP which would immediately tell anyone looking at it why it's all bunk.
I can't tell if you're intentionally being dense or you truly lack the mathematical background to understand what is being discussed here.
It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP
On what basis are you concluding this? Please point to the exact metric and parameters you are using to make this claim.
So you said: "For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097."
What your saying (correct me if I am wrong) is you found that that "WM% has no effect on Win rate" (in your own words). And the chart basically shows that (though there is some deviation, but I haven't calculated whether or not it is a significant difference).
So you're asking me what the chart reveals that your calculation didn't. And I answered that (chart says T wins more than Z).
Then you just ask on what basis am I concluding that T wins more than Z. That is based on the chart which again, says T wins more than Z.
Is the chart wrong? No, based on his statistics that he collected that is what the chart says. But let us discuss it and why his data might be skewed if it is or how we can explain said winrate and show that it isn't an issue. This is a discussion forum after all! Do you have anything useful to add?
I'd like to see data based on Medivac usage, especially those who use afterburners (though I'm not sure he can get data based on afterburner usage).
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
It's garbage because of sample size, noise, attempts to correlate random variables on arbitrarily chosen parameters...shall I continue?
Odd that you want to call people out when you conveniently ignored my questions, so I'll try again:
For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097. From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. What else could you possibly want to discuss from that?
Adding the chart to the OP made what you just described above clear to everyone. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP.
No it doesn't. None of the very-basic correlation analysis I posted was added to the OP which would immediately tell anyone looking at it why it's all bunk.
I can't tell if you're intentionally being dense or you truly lack the mathematical background to understand what is being discussed here.
It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP
On what basis are you concluding this? Please point to the exact metric and parameters you are using to make this claim.
So you said: "For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097."
What your saying (correct me if I am wrong) is you found that that WM% has no effect on Win rate. And the chart basically shows that (though there is some deviation, but I haven't calculated whether or not it is a significant difference).
So you're asking me what the chart reveals that your calculation didn't. And I answered that (T wins more than Z).
Then you just ask on what basis am I concluding that T wins more than Z. That is based on the chart.
Well, let's be more specific. When you say "T wins more than Z", what do you really mean? Are you saying that:
Terran players, when playing against Zerg players, win more than 50% of the time across the entire population of SC2 players?
The above statement, for only the top N% of players with regards to skill*?
A Terran player, when playing Zerg player of equal skill*, will win more than 50% of the time?
* note that skill in SC2 is still very much ill-defined, so it's going to be very tough for you to claim that this sort of conclusion is supported by any extant evidence
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
It's garbage because of sample size, noise, attempts to correlate random variables on arbitrarily chosen parameters...shall I continue?
Odd that you want to call people out when you conveniently ignored my questions, so I'll try again:
For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097. From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. What else could you possibly want to discuss from that?
Adding the chart to the OP made what you just described above clear to everyone. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP.
No it doesn't. None of the very-basic correlation analysis I posted was added to the OP which would immediately tell anyone looking at it why it's all bunk.
I can't tell if you're intentionally being dense or you truly lack the mathematical background to understand what is being discussed here.
It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP
On what basis are you concluding this? Please point to the exact metric and parameters you are using to make this claim.
So you said: "For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097."
What your saying (correct me if I am wrong) is you found that that WM% has no effect on Win rate. And the chart basically shows that (though there is some deviation, but I haven't calculated whether or not it is a significant difference).
So you're asking me what the chart reveals that your calculation didn't. And I answered that (T wins more than Z).
Then you just ask on what basis am I concluding that T wins more than Z. That is based on the chart.
Well, let's be more specific. When you say "T wins more than Z", what do you really mean? Are you saying that:
Terran players, when playing against Zerg players, win more than 50% of the time across the entire population of SC2 players?
The above statement, for only the top N% of players with regards to skill*?
A Terran player, when playing Zerg player of equal skill*, will win more than 50% of the time?
* note that skill in SC2 is still very much ill-defined, so it's going to be very tough for you to claim that this sort of conclusion is supported by any extant evidence
Let's us be really clear. I didn't say anything, the chart said it. I am just repeating it. If I wasn't on this forum right now, it would still say exactly the same thing. It is independent of me.
This isn't you versus me or him or whatever, this is us trying to understand the data and the game.
Now the chart didn't answer any of the questions you asked, but maybe we can get some answers, because it would sure be useful. Just make sure there isn't any bias here in the questions you are asking. We aren't trying to show everything is or isn't balanced, we are trying to find out if things are balanced or not.
Now compare this with a different analysis of, say, 15, 20 and 25+ widow mines to see if the winrate continues up the trend. By your assertion, the win rate should be higher as more widow mines are built.
I'm kind of confused. The first one shows 961 TvZ games in master's league with ( 616/961 x 0.49 + 345/961 x 0.59 ) = 52.6% winrate, while the second one shows 736 games and 425 wins = 57.7% winrate. Are these two different sets of data, or were some games excluded from the second sample?
This may be a bit OT but I would be very interested on the PvZ winrate for protoss presented in terms of # of void rays (or even air units in general) that are made. Could show a trend that Zerg really lacks anti-air if the winrate is high enough.
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
It's garbage because of sample size, noise, attempts to correlate random variables on arbitrarily chosen parameters...shall I continue?
Odd that you want to call people out when you conveniently ignored my questions, so I'll try again:
For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097. From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. What else could you possibly want to discuss from that?
Adding the chart to the OP made what you just described above clear to everyone. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP.
No it doesn't. None of the very-basic correlation analysis I posted was added to the OP which would immediately tell anyone looking at it why it's all bunk.
I can't tell if you're intentionally being dense or you truly lack the mathematical background to understand what is being discussed here.
It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP
On what basis are you concluding this? Please point to the exact metric and parameters you are using to make this claim.
So you said: "For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097."
What your saying (correct me if I am wrong) is you found that that WM% has no effect on Win rate. And the chart basically shows that (though there is some deviation, but I haven't calculated whether or not it is a significant difference).
So you're asking me what the chart reveals that your calculation didn't. And I answered that (T wins more than Z).
Then you just ask on what basis am I concluding that T wins more than Z. That is based on the chart.
Well, let's be more specific. When you say "T wins more than Z", what do you really mean? Are you saying that:
Terran players, when playing against Zerg players, win more than 50% of the time across the entire population of SC2 players?
The above statement, for only the top N% of players with regards to skill*?
A Terran player, when playing Zerg player of equal skill*, will win more than 50% of the time?
* note that skill in SC2 is still very much ill-defined, so it's going to be very tough for you to claim that this sort of conclusion is supported by any extant evidence
Let's us be really clear. I didn't say anything, the chart said it. I am just repeating it. If I wasn't on this forum right now, it would still say exactly the same thing. It is independent of me.
This isn't you versus me or him or whatever, this is us trying to understand the data and the game.
Now the chart didn't answer any of the questions you asked, but maybe we can get some answers, because it would sure be useful. Just make sure there isn't any bias here in the questions you are asking. We aren't trying to show everything is or isn't balanced, we are trying to find out if things are balanced or not.
The problem with this is that the chart doesn't say that T wins more against Z. It says that these games happened, not that they're representative of (or generalize-able to) any larger superset of games between players. So you see, what you're specifically claiming when you say "T wins more than Z" is really important, because it's clearly a more general statement than what the chart indicates!
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
It's garbage because of sample size, noise, attempts to correlate random variables on arbitrarily chosen parameters...shall I continue?
Odd that you want to call people out when you conveniently ignored my questions, so I'll try again:
For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097. From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. What else could you possibly want to discuss from that?
Adding the chart to the OP made what you just described above clear to everyone. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP.
No it doesn't. None of the very-basic correlation analysis I posted was added to the OP which would immediately tell anyone looking at it why it's all bunk.
I can't tell if you're intentionally being dense or you truly lack the mathematical background to understand what is being discussed here.
It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP
On what basis are you concluding this? Please point to the exact metric and parameters you are using to make this claim.
So you said: "For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097."
What your saying (correct me if I am wrong) is you found that that WM% has no effect on Win rate. And the chart basically shows that (though there is some deviation, but I haven't calculated whether or not it is a significant difference).
So you're asking me what the chart reveals that your calculation didn't. And I answered that (T wins more than Z).
Then you just ask on what basis am I concluding that T wins more than Z. That is based on the chart.
Well, let's be more specific. When you say "T wins more than Z", what do you really mean? Are you saying that:
Terran players, when playing against Zerg players, win more than 50% of the time across the entire population of SC2 players?
The above statement, for only the top N% of players with regards to skill*?
A Terran player, when playing Zerg player of equal skill*, will win more than 50% of the time?
* note that skill in SC2 is still very much ill-defined, so it's going to be very tough for you to claim that this sort of conclusion is supported by any extant evidence
Let's us be really clear. I didn't say anything, the chart said it. I am just repeating it. If I wasn't on this forum right now, it would still say exactly the same thing. It is independent of me.
This isn't you versus me or him or whatever, this is us trying to understand the data and the game.
Now the chart didn't answer any of the questions you asked, but maybe we can get some answers, because it would sure be useful. Just make sure there isn't any bias here in the questions you are asking. We aren't trying to show everything is or isn't balanced, we are trying to find out if things are balanced or not.
i quoted this post because it contains the graph, i'm not saying anything in relation to quoted post.
When looking at the graph, there are a number of things that cross my mind. 1. sample sizes go down fast with rising widow mine usage. The effects of this have to be taken into account (larger uncertainty of the data point.) 2. How is the widow mine percentage defined? Is it via overall recources? Or supply? When the rest of the army is only marines, this doesn't have an effect, but when medivacs and a somewhat larger amount of marauders come into play, it might be worth it having a clear view on this. 3. Hots is about a month old. I think it isn't a strange thought that many experiments took place right after launch, more so than now. If the date is accumulated over the course of hots from release onward, i would be interested to see the change in composition over the course of the month. If for example (might not be real, but w/e) mass widow mines would be shut down hard by a trick, developed only a week ago, i feel this will taint the percentages in the graph.
Maybe these have been addressed already.
When i look at the graph itself (only percentages), i'd say the conclusion that more widow mines lead to a higher win rate is quite weak, seeing the lowest 3 rates are at in the 15%-35% range. I haven't calculated anything, but i think this graph alone won't be enough to prove such a statement.
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
It's garbage because of sample size, noise, attempts to correlate random variables on arbitrarily chosen parameters...shall I continue?
Odd that you want to call people out when you conveniently ignored my questions, so I'll try again:
For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097. From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. What else could you possibly want to discuss from that?
Adding the chart to the OP made what you just described above clear to everyone. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP.
No it doesn't. None of the very-basic correlation analysis I posted was added to the OP which would immediately tell anyone looking at it why it's all bunk.
I can't tell if you're intentionally being dense or you truly lack the mathematical background to understand what is being discussed here.
It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP
On what basis are you concluding this? Please point to the exact metric and parameters you are using to make this claim.
So you said: "For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097."
What your saying (correct me if I am wrong) is you found that that WM% has no effect on Win rate. And the chart basically shows that (though there is some deviation, but I haven't calculated whether or not it is a significant difference).
So you're asking me what the chart reveals that your calculation didn't. And I answered that (T wins more than Z).
Then you just ask on what basis am I concluding that T wins more than Z. That is based on the chart.
Well, let's be more specific. When you say "T wins more than Z", what do you really mean? Are you saying that:
Terran players, when playing against Zerg players, win more than 50% of the time across the entire population of SC2 players?
The above statement, for only the top N% of players with regards to skill*?
A Terran player, when playing Zerg player of equal skill*, will win more than 50% of the time?
* note that skill in SC2 is still very much ill-defined, so it's going to be very tough for you to claim that this sort of conclusion is supported by any extant evidence
Let's us be really clear. I didn't say anything, the chart said it. I am just repeating it. If I wasn't on this forum right now, it would still say exactly the same thing. It is independent of me.
This isn't you versus me or him or whatever, this is us trying to understand the data and the game.
Now the chart didn't answer any of the questions you asked, but maybe we can get some answers, because it would sure be useful. Just make sure there isn't any bias here in the questions you are asking. We aren't trying to show everything is or isn't balanced, we are trying to find out if things are balanced or not.
Looking at that chart, I see absolutely no correlation that would suggest that Widow Mine is imbalanced. Your data is all over the place and generally hovers in the mid-50 % winrate, which is perfectly fine.
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:
Would you be willing to review a stats post in advance? There were several insightful / valid / intelligent comments. "Peer review" will help ensure that the post is better thought out before wide circulation. If so, please PM me.
Are there other stats you'd like to see? I can run custom queries for you and you can write your own post based on them. There's a lot of info in GGTracker (my site). PM me...
Could you break the data down a little further based on what strategies zerg have employed? For example, could you determine the win rates, in games where a T builds 10 or more mines, and the zerg player builds, says, 6 to 10 swarm hosts? 10 - 20 swarm hosts? I'm curious to know whether swarm hosts are an answer to mine usage. I saw a GSTL game where a small number of SHs were used to trigger mines, etc. The zerg player lost but it seemed like it might be an efficient way to deal with the mines. Also I'd be curious to see how effective mines are v. roach hydra viper compositions.
bleh these stats posts are riddled with incompetent statistics people. Drawing much conclusions from these data is horrible though, such correlations have very little value for determining problems. Winrates itself can be really useful, almost anything else should be avoided by non-experts really, you can't really say anything useful about causation with these sort of data gathering. Not even mentioning all the forms of bias which can't be excluded with this sort of data gathering.
So, now do this for vipers, tempests, void rays, and oracles in early game TvP openings please
OP obviously had an agenda, regardless of how good/bad/accurate the statistics are.
I think we all invite him to do a similar statistical analysis for vipers, and oracles from the other races.
See, the thing is, it's easy to lie with statistics, especially when you only show one perspective.
The only thing people should take from this is that all of the new units have had an impact on the game, which was quite obvious and it's quite unnecessary to present an entire set of statistical data to make such a common sense statement.
What people should not take from this thread? "Widow mine is OP." As I said, any math majors or people willing to put time into such statistics such as this, go ahead and do one for the viper, for the oracle, the new DT, and the myriad of other new units. You'll probably find a similar set of conclusions that "the new units have impacted their respective races win percentages."
I love looking at statistical data, what I do not love is when there is an agenda behind it. It's quite obvious this thread is capitalizing on all of the recent "T OP" hysteria.
On April 09 2013 02:31 eecs4ever wrote: Im pretty sure if you ran the stats for any many other units, you would see a similar %
for example, try games where T makes 10+ medivacs vs T makes less than 10 medivacs. I bet it shows 10+ medivacs will have a higher win %.
or 10+ tanks, or 10+ ravens, or 10+ BCs
Not necessarily. In WOL the longer the game went the worse it was for Terran, so making more than 10 medivacs probably did not mean Terran was more likely to win, probably just the opposite. Now, Terran late game, at least against Z, is a bit improved because of how efficient WMs are against most Z compositions in addition to buffed ravens so perhaps Terran win rates have improved in the late game. You still have to look at the data.
Also it's very easy to make 10 widow mines. You can do so in a normal rax-expand build at around the 12-13 minute mark. It is not easy at all to make 10 ravens or 10 bcs. If you look at those statistics you're comparing Terran in the ultra late game to all other games. The two are not comparable.
W/r/t the statistics the OP posted, I would like to see the same stats but have them further broken down by the length of games -- e.g., in games over 15 minutes: players who made >10 WM won 5X% of the time v players who made <10 WMs won 4X% of the time.
Edit: In response to the balance complains and balance defenses that are sprinkled throughout this forum, I note that the OP's data means almost nothing since balance is defined by the best players in the world. This data needs to be collected and analyzed for the GSL, proleague and for the top foreign tounaments, and these tournaments have just barely gotten underway. GM is generally too large a class of players to draw any balance conclusions from unless the data scream imbalance (e.g., in the beginning phases of WOL, there were periods where 19 of the top 20 players on KR GM server were T as measured by win rates; HoTS appears to be far better balanced.). Also the game needs to be played for at least a few more months before anyone can conclude that any composition is OP or any unit needs nerfing.
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
It's garbage because of sample size, noise, attempts to correlate random variables on arbitrarily chosen parameters...shall I continue?
Odd that you want to call people out when you conveniently ignored my questions, so I'll try again:
For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097. From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. What else could you possibly want to discuss from that?
Adding the chart to the OP made what you just described above clear to everyone. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP.
No it doesn't. None of the very-basic correlation analysis I posted was added to the OP which would immediately tell anyone looking at it why it's all bunk.
I can't tell if you're intentionally being dense or you truly lack the mathematical background to understand what is being discussed here.
It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP
On what basis are you concluding this? Please point to the exact metric and parameters you are using to make this claim.
So you said: "For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097."
What your saying (correct me if I am wrong) is you found that that WM% has no effect on Win rate. And the chart basically shows that (though there is some deviation, but I haven't calculated whether or not it is a significant difference).
So you're asking me what the chart reveals that your calculation didn't. And I answered that (T wins more than Z).
Then you just ask on what basis am I concluding that T wins more than Z. That is based on the chart.
Well, let's be more specific. When you say "T wins more than Z", what do you really mean? Are you saying that:
Terran players, when playing against Zerg players, win more than 50% of the time across the entire population of SC2 players?
The above statement, for only the top N% of players with regards to skill*?
A Terran player, when playing Zerg player of equal skill*, will win more than 50% of the time?
* note that skill in SC2 is still very much ill-defined, so it's going to be very tough for you to claim that this sort of conclusion is supported by any extant evidence
Let's us be really clear. I didn't say anything, the chart said it. I am just repeating it. If I wasn't on this forum right now, it would still say exactly the same thing. It is independent of me.
This isn't you versus me or him or whatever, this is us trying to understand the data and the game.
Now the chart didn't answer any of the questions you asked, but maybe we can get some answers, because it would sure be useful. Just make sure there isn't any bias here in the questions you are asking. We aren't trying to show everything is or isn't balanced, we are trying to find out if things are balanced or not.
The problem with this is that the chart doesn't say that T wins more against Z. It says that these games happened, not that they're representative of (or generalize-able to) any larger superset of games between players. So you see, what you're specifically claiming when you say "T wins more than Z" is really important, because it's clearly a more general statement than what the chart indicates!
Alright, you're right, I left room for error in what I said. I should have said that T wins more than Z according the statistics collected from GGtracker . Naturally we know that GGtracker statistics are not representative of all SC2 game, but that should be a given.
Nor it is a reason to simply dismiss GGtracker statistics as wrong though! They should be explained. It is probably safe to assume that GGtracker statistics themselves have no agenda if they are being report correctly. Finally, it is important to note that there is very few examples of statistics that are representative of all cases for anything.
So with the error cleared up, can we finally move toward explaing the GGtracker statistics properly?
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
It's garbage because of sample size, noise, attempts to correlate random variables on arbitrarily chosen parameters...shall I continue?
Odd that you want to call people out when you conveniently ignored my questions, so I'll try again:
For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097. From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. What else could you possibly want to discuss from that?
Adding the chart to the OP made what you just described above clear to everyone. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP.
No it doesn't. None of the very-basic correlation analysis I posted was added to the OP which would immediately tell anyone looking at it why it's all bunk.
I can't tell if you're intentionally being dense or you truly lack the mathematical background to understand what is being discussed here.
It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP
On what basis are you concluding this? Please point to the exact metric and parameters you are using to make this claim.
So you said: "For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097."
What your saying (correct me if I am wrong) is you found that that WM% has no effect on Win rate. And the chart basically shows that (though there is some deviation, but I haven't calculated whether or not it is a significant difference).
So you're asking me what the chart reveals that your calculation didn't. And I answered that (T wins more than Z).
Then you just ask on what basis am I concluding that T wins more than Z. That is based on the chart.
Well, let's be more specific. When you say "T wins more than Z", what do you really mean? Are you saying that:
Terran players, when playing against Zerg players, win more than 50% of the time across the entire population of SC2 players?
The above statement, for only the top N% of players with regards to skill*?
A Terran player, when playing Zerg player of equal skill*, will win more than 50% of the time?
* note that skill in SC2 is still very much ill-defined, so it's going to be very tough for you to claim that this sort of conclusion is supported by any extant evidence
Let's us be really clear. I didn't say anything, the chart said it. I am just repeating it. If I wasn't on this forum right now, it would still say exactly the same thing. It is independent of me.
This isn't you versus me or him or whatever, this is us trying to understand the data and the game.
Now the chart didn't answer any of the questions you asked, but maybe we can get some answers, because it would sure be useful. Just make sure there isn't any bias here in the questions you are asking. We aren't trying to show everything is or isn't balanced, we are trying to find out if things are balanced or not.
Looking at that chart, I see absolutely no correlation that would suggest that Widow Mine is imbalanced. Your data is all over the place and generally hovers in the mid-50 % winrate, which is perfectly fine.
And that is exactly what I was saying. But that it does state is that Zerg wins more than Terran in games from GGtracker. That warrants a discussion in my opinion.
On April 09 2013 02:47 avilo wrote: So, now do this for vipers, tempests, void rays, and oracles in early game TvP openings please
Oh look the Opterown discussion all over again! Again so if we decide to do this for Tempests, Vipers and Void Rays, suddenly then the data becomes okay? But if we don't, the data is somehow skewed?
Guess what, the data doesn't change either way. Those other things are unrelated. Should we collect data for those? Sure.
I think I will write something up about how what we decide to test is subjective, but the testing process if done correctly, is always objective. That applies here.
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
By the definition you quoted I could write a statement about why Ultras are overpowered(not my opinion just an example) and fill it with rage and bad arguments and it would still be considered data. Would this statement be a good point to start a discussion from? Of course not and neither is the "data" in the OP it's biased and not true to statistical standards it's just random data which is invaluable for proper analysis.
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
By the definition you quoted I could write a statement about why Ultras are overpowered(not my opinion just an example) and fill it with rage and bad arguments and it would still be considered data. Would this statement be a good point to start a discussion from? Of course not and neither is the "data" in the OP it's biased and not true to statistical standards it's just random data which is invaluable for proper analysis.
Okay, so let me fix the definition... and then all my arguments stand... which has nothing to do with whether or not the OP is biased or true to statistical standards. Find an actual problem with the statistics instead of a problem with the semantics. So why is the data invaluable for proper analysis? How can we improve it? Seems to me like you guys aren't interested in that, you're interested in protecting Widow Mines (Avilo...)
I'll find a better definition later, I have to go to work.
you should do that for infestor , templar , collosus , dt , tank , broodlord .
im sure if you got more of one realy strong unit you win more game !! if you got only 1 collus vs 10 im sure you win more game , same for infestor , broodlord and so on ....
EDIT: Here are winrates for Master 1v1 Ladder TvZ, grouped by what % of the Terran's Active Army resources were devoted to Widow Mines at 15:00
Hmm dont disproove these winrates your whole asumption? Looking at these winrates i cant see anny advantage in making more widdow mines, the results look rather random with the 2 highest winrates even at a low percentage of resources spend on wm.
On April 09 2013 02:47 avilo wrote: So, now do this for vipers, tempests, void rays, and oracles in early game TvP openings please
OP obviously had an agenda, regardless of how good/bad/accurate the statistics are.
I think we all invite him to do a similar statistical analysis for vipers, and oracles from the other races.
See, the thing is, it's easy to lie with statistics, especially when you only show one perspective.
The only thing people should take from this is that all of the new units have had an impact on the game, which was quite obvious and it's quite unnecessary to present an entire set of statistical data to make such a common sense statement.
What people should not take from this thread? "Widow mine is OP." As I said, any math majors or people willing to put time into such statistics such as this, go ahead and do one for the viper, for the oracle, the new DT, and the myriad of other new units. You'll probably find a similar set of conclusions that "the new units have impacted their respective races win percentages."
I love looking at statistical data, what I do not love is when there is an agenda behind it. It's quite obvious this thread is capitalizing on all of the recent "T OP" hysteria.
While I agree with you, you were one of the vocal leaders of the "Z OP" hysteria. Forever.
I dont really understand people saying these stats mean nothing. I know mines are great, D Kim said in an interview they would nerf them, just don't know how at the moment, and statistics prove that too.
You could just as easily have done research into games where Terran opens rax fe into hellions compared to terran who go rax fe > more raxes and find that terran using hellions as an opening vs z would be doing statistically better, it doesn't mean anything except that hellions fare better than marines as an opening against the average masters player.
Regardless of how these stats are made and interpreted, can we even take the ladder as a good showcase of the current state of balance ? GM players practice on battlenet, they try stuff, they do not compete.
On April 09 2013 02:59 BronzeKnee wrote: Oh look the Opterown discussion all over again! Again so if we decide to do this for Tempests, Vipers and Void Rays, suddenly then the data becomes okay? But if we don't, the data is somehow skewed?
I really think the criteria picked is flawed on another level of meaning. You basically throw away the timestamps, therefore 2 mines build every 5 minutes in a long game is equal to massing those in early stages of the game which just leads to fundamental flaws in the logic used to make a conclusion.
Even more so about the "Masters TvZ Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00", you should be able to see that the highest winrates are related to the 5-15%[60-65%] with a peak at 30%, which is most likely caused by the surprize more than anything.
Moreover, the topic name is vastly different from the content inside. Which makes me think about the real purpose behind making it in the first place.
On April 09 2013 02:47 avilo wrote: So, now do this for vipers, tempests, void rays, and oracles in early game TvP openings please
OP obviously had an agenda, regardless of how good/bad/accurate the statistics are.
I think we all invite him to do a similar statistical analysis for vipers, and oracles from the other races.
See, the thing is, it's easy to lie with statistics, especially when you only show one perspective.
The only thing people should take from this is that all of the new units have had an impact on the game, which was quite obvious and it's quite unnecessary to present an entire set of statistical data to make such a common sense statement.
What people should not take from this thread? "Widow mine is OP." As I said, any math majors or people willing to put time into such statistics such as this, go ahead and do one for the viper, for the oracle, the new DT, and the myriad of other new units. You'll probably find a similar set of conclusions that "the new units have impacted their respective races win percentages."
I love looking at statistical data, what I do not love is when there is an agenda behind it. It's quite obvious this thread is capitalizing on all of the recent "T OP" hysteria.
While I agree with you, you were one of the vocal leaders of the "Z OP" hysteria. Forever.
Pretty sure he still is, he did it throughout all of WoL even when zerg was doing god awful and terran was still dominating he said zerg OP and I highly doubt he's done doing that in hots.
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining.
Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data.
This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is.
The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time.
By the definition you quoted I could write a statement about why Ultras are overpowered(not my opinion just an example) and fill it with rage and bad arguments and it would still be considered data. Would this statement be a good point to start a discussion from? Of course not and neither is the "data" in the OP it's biased and not true to statistical standards it's just random data which is invaluable for proper analysis.
Okay, so let me fix the definition... and then all my arguments stand... which has nothing to do with whether or not the OP is biased or true to statistical standards. Find an actual problem with the statistics instead of a problem with the semantics. So why is the data invaluable for proper analysis? How can we improve it? Seems to me like you guys aren't interested in that, you're interested in protecting Widow Mines (Avilo...)
I'll find a better definition later, I have to go to work.
There already were enough people in this thread telling you why there is a problem with the data from a perspective of statistical analysis but you keep ignoring that. I am not emphasizing on semantics I am trying to point out the flaws in your line of thinking. There is nothing wrong with the definition from my point actually it's just that data is not always valuable for discussion or analysis.
On April 09 2013 03:50 Cheerio wrote: I dont really understand people saying these stats mean nothing. I know mines are great, D Kim said in an interview they would nerf them, just don't know how at the moment, and statistics prove that too.
Fundamentally, this analysis is a simple correlation between two variables: percentage composition of widow mines in army and winrate for Terran players. There are several critical problems with the analysis performed on the data in this thread.
First, there is exactly zero attempt made at finding confounding variables; that is, variables that correlate with both of the variables being investigated. For instance, incidents of software piracy over time correlates with global average temperature over time, but this doesn't mean that software piracy is meaningfully related to global warming. There are confounding variables here - technological development, population, etc - that each influence both of these things and cause them to appear related upon first glance.
Second, the sample sizes presented in this thread are small, and as a result there are doubts with regards to the representativeness of the dataset and to what degree we can generalize the findings from this dataset to larger sets that we're actually interested in, like all professional players. These need to be addressed, and can be done so by simply acquiring more data.
There are further methodological issues that others have brought up, but these are the two biggest problems with trying to conclude anything meaningful about the general state of game balance from the analysis performed in this thread.
On April 08 2013 09:59 dsjoerg wrote: 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.
What a carefully worded political statement. You should work for Fox News. The OP is simple correlation causation and does nothing but harm the discussion because astute readers will determine the OP is ridiculous, and less discerning readers will jump to unnecessary conclusions. You could have made the exact same thread with swarm hosts, void rays, marines, whatever. People need to realize that just because something is in a chart doesn't mean it has any sort of legitimacy.
You lost all claims of being unbiased and not having an agenda by failing to truncate the original quote to this:
I'd be interested to see winrates vs T once there are large numbers of widow mines out
instead, you included this
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.....
Thanks for including a random redditor's completely unsubstantiated statements. Care to NAME these top 8 zergs losing to mediocre terrans every time?
Guys, you missed a brilliant suggestion. Clearly, the problem isn't in the unit itself but the timing. We see that more than 10 mines AT THE 15 MINUTE MARK leads to better win rates. So, just as with hellbats and marines and bunkers, we need to change the TIMING at which they are available.
To easily achieve a later timing, we change when their production can be built. As WMs are built from the factory, we just add the simple constraint that the factory requires an armory.
On April 08 2013 11:24 Faust852 wrote: GGtrackers is not the kind of sites where people put the replays on ? Considering it, people are more prone to put replay of their victories, as people plays more with WM now, it's logical that the winrate ratio is higher.
Generally, you run the uploader app which uploads all replays -- if you want to remove the losses, you need to go and delete them manually (which defeats the point, as ggtracker helps you analyse trends over time).
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.....
Thanks for including a random redditor's completely unsubstantiated statements. Care to NAME these top 8 zergs losing to mediocre terrans every time?
Hi - I'm the "unsubstantiated redditor", and my observations were based on watching streams over the weekend.
How does Stephano/TLO/Kane sound to you (Kane is not pro, but Top8 on NA and usually wins way more than he loses), TLO and Stephano you may have heard of.
As I said in reddit: The 10% percent is a perception of mine, and I'm seeing Stephano/TLO/Kane/etc find it very hard to beat Terrans at all, losing to lower-ranked players, and also getting hammered by players of equal level e.g. see Stephano vs Demuslim (where you would hope to see 50/50 over several matches, but Stephano won maybe 1 match out of 8).
If you wish to attack someone about bias in the question, direct it at me (who asked the question) as opposed to the OP, who put in a lot of effort to answer the question (as originally asked by me in the reddit post).
As for saying "let's look at vipers / marines / barracks / drones" sure, go ahead, you will then have an analysis on that unit, which says nothing per se about the analysis with WMs, so doesn't seem to add much to the discussion at hand.
The hardcore statistical analysis to do here is to take all games, with unit compositions at all times (looks kinda doable if you look at the graphs in ggtracker) and then run predictive models over the dataset (glm or similar) to see if there are significant variables.
For extra points, take into account how active the player was with a unit (broadly, how often it was given a command to move/attack) to get a feel for how focused the player was on actually using the unit.
don't know if this has been added or if it's completely irrelevant, but might the increased win-rate not be a result of just not knowing how to deal with it properly yet? 10% sounds much but does it imply OP-nes? I find these numbers kinda saying nothing without being able to compare them to let's say the win rates of no supply depot barracks or some other things that were nerved.
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.....
Thanks for including a random redditor's completely unsubstantiated statements. Care to NAME these top 8 zergs losing to mediocre terrans every time?
Hi - I'm the "unsubstantiated redditor", and my observations were based on watching streams over the weekend.
How does Stephano/TLO/Kane sound to you (Kane is not pro, but Top8 on NA and usually wins way more than he loses), TLO and Stephano you may have heard of.
As I said in reddit: The 10% percent is a perception of mine, and I'm seeing Stephano/TLO/Kane/etc find it very hard to beat Terrans at all, losing to lower-ranked players, and also getting hammered by players of equal level e.g. see Stephano vs Demuslim (where you would hope to see 50/50 over several matches, but Stephano won maybe 1 match out of 8).
Stephano got huge problem vs a Finnish Terran called Fuzer. Fuzer is actually a very funny guy and is drunk 24/7 but that he can actually be 50% vs Stephano is almost insane and he is properly drunk.
On another note do Tanks even exist anymore? I haven't seen a tank in a TvZ match since Hots came out
On April 08 2013 10:05 Bippzy wrote: Still interested that more widow mines is correlated with more wins. But, correlafion doesn't mean causation, especially in an infant metagame.
While that is something I might normally say as well, I'd say that it does not apply here. It seems pretty clear cut that over all levels of play widow mines are having a direct impact on terran win rates. I don't see what other causative agent could cause the win that also correlates with getting many widow mines; the argument that only better players use them is ruled out. The only causation that isn't there is that they're OP; with a young game and unexplored strategies it can't be said that they're overpowered.
The bigger factor is statistical significance and accurate representation. There may not be enough games here to come to a proper conclusion, or at least not enough games of the proper circumstances.
Despite this, I'd say they are OP anyway, but that's just my own pessimistic personal opinion. Aside from that I'm not much a fan of the unit. It's more-or-less terrany and fills a niche role unlike the swarm host, but just like the swarm host it's a low-skill/no-skill burrowing unit that kills stuff for free (although unlike the swarm host it's much more unstoppable in some ways)
On April 09 2013 05:26 Benjamin99 wrote: On another note do Tanks even exist anymore? I haven't seen a tank in a TvZ match since Hots came out
Personally I've seen lots of tank use with both bio and mech; they are the best unit possible to defend and synergize with widow mines too. In my opinion tanks are the most crucial unit for terran; Personally I feel as if I'd win countless more games if I never faced a tank.
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.....
Thanks for including a random redditor's completely unsubstantiated statements. Care to NAME these top 8 zergs losing to mediocre terrans every time?
Hi - I'm the "unsubstantiated redditor", and my observations were based on watching streams over the weekend.
How does Stephano/TLO/Kane sound to you (Kane is not pro, but Top8 on NA and usually wins way more than he loses), TLO and Stephano you may have heard of.
As I said in reddit: The 10% percent is a perception of mine, and I'm seeing Stephano/TLO/Kane/etc find it very hard to beat Terrans at all, losing to lower-ranked players, and also getting hammered by players of equal level e.g. see Stephano vs Demuslim (where you would hope to see 50/50 over several matches, but Stephano won maybe 1 match out of 8).
Stephano got huge problem vs a Finnish Terran called Fuzer. Fuzer is actually a very funny guy and is drunk 24/7 but that he can actually be 50% vs Stephano is almost insane and he is properly drunk.
On another note do Tanks even exist anymore? I haven't seen a tank in a TvZ match since Hots came out
They got a huge buff in HotS
They now cost 2 supply and have more than triple the damage but have a longer attack cooldown and shorter range.
On April 08 2013 10:05 Bippzy wrote: Still interested that more widow mines is correlated with more wins. But, correlafion doesn't mean causation, especially in an infant metagame.
While that is something I might normally say as well, I'd say that it does not apply here. It seems pretty clear cut that over all levels of play widow mines are having a direct impact on terran winrates. I don't see what other causative agent could cause the win that also correlates with getting many widow mines; the argument that only better players use them is ruled out. The only causation that isn't there is that they're OP; with a young game and unexplored strategies it can't be said that they're overpowered.
Despite this, I'd say they are OP anyway, but that's just my own pessimistic personal opinion. Aside from that I'm not much a fan of the unit. It's more-or-less terrany and fills a niche role unlike the swarm host, but just like the swarm host it's a low-kill/no-skill burrowing unit that kills stuff for free (although unlike the swarmhost it's much more unstoppable in some ways)
I still can't figure out how a 5 range unit with a cooldown longer than a stalker warp-in can be *more* game changing that Medivac boost....
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.....
Thanks for including a random redditor's completely unsubstantiated statements. Care to NAME these top 8 zergs losing to mediocre terrans every time?
Hi - I'm the "unsubstantiated redditor", and my observations were based on watching streams over the weekend.
How does Stephano/TLO/Kane sound to you (Kane is not pro, but Top8 on NA and usually wins way more than he loses), TLO and Stephano you may have heard of.
As I said in reddit: The 10% percent is a perception of mine, and I'm seeing Stephano/TLO/Kane/etc find it very hard to beat Terrans at all, losing to lower-ranked players, and also getting hammered by players of equal level e.g. see Stephano vs Demuslim (where you would hope to see 50/50 over several matches, but Stephano won maybe 1 match out of 8).
Is Kane really the new reference of godlike NA Zerg play? Dammit, NA server, stahp.
No but seriously, we should stop trying to evaluate balance by looking at the NA server... If you compare it to KR, at the same position, you have Fuzer on NA and Squirtle on KR. That should tell you how serious of a business that server is...
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.....
Thanks for including a random redditor's completely unsubstantiated statements. Care to NAME these top 8 zergs losing to mediocre terrans every time?
Hi - I'm the "unsubstantiated redditor", and my observations were based on watching streams over the weekend.
How does Stephano/TLO/Kane sound to you (Kane is not pro, but Top8 on NA and usually wins way more than he loses), TLO and Stephano you may have heard of.
As I said in reddit: The 10% percent is a perception of mine, and I'm seeing Stephano/TLO/Kane/etc find it very hard to beat Terrans at all, losing to lower-ranked players, and also getting hammered by players of equal level e.g. see Stephano vs Demuslim (where you would hope to see 50/50 over several matches, but Stephano won maybe 1 match out of 8).
Stephano got huge problem vs a Finnish Terran called Fuzer. Fuzer is actually a very funny guy and is drunk 24/7 but that he can actually be 50% vs Stephano is almost insane and he is properly drunk.
On another note do Tanks even exist anymore? I haven't seen a tank in a TvZ match since Hots came out
They got a huge buff in HotS
They now cost 2 supply and have more than triple the damage but have a longer attack cooldown and shorter range.
On April 09 2013 05:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: I still can't figure out how a 5 range unit with a cooldown longer than a stalker warp-in can be *more* game changing that Medivac boost....
They're similar to a baneling... - Except it's cloaked/burrowed - has 5 range instead of ~0 - deals over 6x damage to the main target, and up to double damage on splash targets - doesn't self-destruct - can attack air - they have 3 times more health - they're faster (than one without speed upgrade)
ALL of that for only 25 more minerals. less than 33% more cost.
Those are huge advantages. Sure they have a large disadvantage of taking a bit of time to attack or to activate, but that's not unlike the difficulty a baneling has (except the baneling will even die); even just using the unit defensively is enough.
Could you imagine if any other race had widow mines? How would you like to pit range 5 marines against this range 5 super baneling?
On April 09 2013 05:37 JonIrenicus wrote: I wonder why topics like this one don't get closed.
I could do the same analysis for every unit out there.
yeah you could, but what would your results be?
Aside from showing sub-50% winrates when not using a certain unit (like siege tank or marine), i have doubts you will find much cases of increased win-rate like this.
On April 09 2013 05:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: I still can't figure out how a 5 range unit with a cooldown longer than a stalker warp-in can be *more* game changing that Medivac boost....
[...] How would you like to pit range 5 marines against this range 5 super baneling?
It actually happens about 33% of the time when you play Terran... We Terran players use something we usually call "micro", I don't know what you do yourself or how you call it.
On April 09 2013 05:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: I still can't figure out how a 5 range unit with a cooldown longer than a stalker warp-in can be *more* game changing that Medivac boost....
They're similar to a baneling... - Except it's cloaked/burrowed - has 5 range instead of ~0 - deals over 6x damage to the main target, and up to double damage on splash targets - doesn't self-destruct - can attack air - they have 3 times more health - they're faster (than one without speed upgrade)
ALL of that for only 25 more minerals. less than 33% more cost.
Those are huge advantages. Sure they have a large disadvantage of taking a bit of time to attack or to activate, but that's not unlike the difficulty a baneling has (except the baneling will even die); even just using the unit defensively is enough.
Could you imagine if any other race had widow mines? How would you like to pit range 5 marines against this range 5 super baneling?
Banelings are lower tech, more mobile, destroys buildings, chases after targets, are more immediate when used in drops, takes up less supply, etc....
You're right, there are HUGE differences between banelings and widowmines. But I think those differences are working as intended.
This could all be so easily solved if widow mines would just die after their first attack. There's absolutely NO reason why they need more than one charge when they're already so cheap in the first place.
On April 09 2013 06:00 Maesy wrote: This could all be so easily solved if widow mines would just die after their first attack. There's absolutely NO reason why they need more than one charge when they're already so cheap in the first place.
They might be too weak vs zerg (or anyone?) then since zerglings always lead armies due to speed, and overlords have more than 125 health. That said, if their range was increased (to like 7) and auto-attack turned off (unless the player wanted them wasted on small units), it could be useful as a kamikaze unit maybe
On April 09 2013 02:47 avilo wrote: The only thing people should take from this is that all of the new units have had an impact on the game, which was quite obvious and it's quite unnecessary to present an entire set of statistical data to make such a common sense statement.
I would not go make assumptions for people on what is obvious and what is not. Many people would rather follow facts and data than just look at subjective games.Heck, some people might not even watch games much. The data is a useful indicator to see that widow mines, like marines, are a critical component in the terran army.
Statistics like that would help prove that units like scouts or dark archons were not effective enough in BW instead of people just subjectively looking at the unit's stats or the amount of success it's seemingly had in professional/observed games.
On April 09 2013 02:47 avilo wrote: So, now do this for vipers, tempests, void rays, and oracles in early game TvP openings please
OP obviously had an agenda, regardless of how good/bad/accurate the statistics are.
I think we all invite him to do a similar statistical analysis for vipers, and oracles from the other races.
See, the thing is, it's easy to lie with statistics, especially when you only show one perspective.
The only thing people should take from this is that all of the new units have had an impact on the game, which was quite obvious and it's quite unnecessary to present an entire set of statistical data to make such a common sense statement.
What people should not take from this thread? "Widow mine is OP." As I said, any math majors or people willing to put time into such statistics such as this, go ahead and do one for the viper, for the oracle, the new DT, and the myriad of other new units. You'll probably find a similar set of conclusions that "the new units have impacted their respective races win percentages."
I love looking at statistical data, what I do not love is when there is an agenda behind it. It's quite obvious this thread is capitalizing on all of the recent "T OP" hysteria.
While I agree with you, you were one of the vocal leaders of the "Z OP" hysteria. Forever.
I was indeed...back when roaches were 1 supply during the wings of liberty beta.Beta.Beta.
There should be a sticky with introductory study design/statistics or something so that these kind of threads aren't taken seriously. You can make these kind of garbage 'studies' say anything you want about anything when you cherry pick values. The OP tells us literally nothing useful.
Still interested that more widow mines is correlated with more wins.
Rsq of 0.097 means no correlation. I repeat - there is no correlation between increasing %WM of army and win rate. None. Zero. One has nothing to do with the other.
I had written this and had to step away. Not surprised to see this devolve into the balance-whining thread for which it always seemed destined.
Why would masters replays (especially since you include eu/na server) be any indicator of balance? The mine takes skill to play against, so of course players who are meh at the game are more likely to loose to more of something that is hard to play against. Besides the fact that I see no reason why you would ever balance the game around anything besides pro level, not masters...
Widow mines are useful in holding off early agression. You can plant one in each mineral field with a couple turrets to defend vs mutas. After that, they become quite bad.
Go watch QXC vs Stephano and see how broken mines are. QXC basically only build mines in early and mid game and raven BC in l8t game and shit loads of mines. 75/25 and beat everything the zerg got.
Its a complete joke. You can watch the match at the Stephano stream ill like to hear anyone defending the widow mine after that
On April 09 2013 06:49 Benjamin99 wrote: Go watch QXC vs Stephano and see how broken mines are. QXC basically only build in early and mid game and raven BC in l8t and shitloads of mines. 75/25 and beat everything the zerg got.
Its a complete joke. You can watch the match at the Stephano stream
I saw that game. He did the same thing to Idra yesterday. I can't believe that works? He beat idra off of 2 base (against idra's 4/5) building nothing but widow mines. Really changed my opinion on their being balanced.
On April 09 2013 06:49 Benjamin99 wrote: Go watch QXC vs Stephano and see how broken mines are. QXC basically only build in early and mid game and raven BC in l8t and shitloads of mines. 75/25 and beat everything the zerg got.
Its a complete joke. You can watch the match at the Stephano stream
I saw that game. He did the same thing to Idra yesterday. I can't believe that works? He beat idra off of 2 base (against idra's 4/5) building nothing but widow mines. Really changed my opinion on their being balanced.
Its so broken I got no idea how this didn't get fixed in beta. Dont blizzard got like a Q&A department this is unbelievable it made it true the final Hots build
On April 09 2013 06:49 Benjamin99 wrote: Go watch QXC vs Stephano and see how broken mines are. QXC basically only build mines in early and mid game and raven BC in l8t game and shit loads of mines. 75/25 and beat everything the zerg got.
Its a complete joke. You can watch the match at the Stephano stream ill like to hear anyone defending the widow mine after that
Hmm... I watched the Flash v Life game and Life ran his army face first into mines and 3-4 mines would only kill about 2-8 lings and nothing else.
On April 09 2013 06:49 Benjamin99 wrote: Go watch QXC vs Stephano and see how broken mines are. QXC basically only build mines in early and mid game and raven BC in l8t game and shit loads of mines. 75/25 and beat everything the zerg got.
Its a complete joke. You can watch the match at the Stephano stream ill like to hear anyone defending the widow mine after that
Hmm... I watched the Flash v Life game and Life ran his army face first into mines and 3-4 mines would only kill about 2-8 lings and nothing else.
On April 09 2013 06:52 Addicted2Dreaming wrote: lol you really think stats pertaining to master plays should bear any weight on anything?
Yes. Just like stats of just GM should bear weight. Any league bears weight. Game balance should be approached as a whole. It makes for a bad product if only 800 people in the world out of, oh, I don't know, say a million, can deal with with something. You don't sell many games that way. If LoL/DOTA 2 are any indication, games have to be balanced at all levels.
Widow mines are extremely easy to execute. There's no difference in widow mine execution between a master and a grand master. The only difference is in how well a zerg deals with them.
On April 09 2013 06:49 Benjamin99 wrote: Go watch QXC vs Stephano and see how broken mines are. QXC basically only build mines in early and mid game and raven BC in l8t game and shit loads of mines. 75/25 and beat everything the zerg got.
Its a complete joke. You can watch the match at the Stephano stream ill like to hear anyone defending the widow mine after that
Hmm... I watched the Flash v Life game and Life ran his army face first into mines and 3-4 mines would only kill about 2-8 lings and nothing else.
Sounds like player execution to me.
Hahaha
Its my favorite part of anecdotal evidence Everyone's got a competing one
On April 09 2013 06:52 Addicted2Dreaming wrote: lol you really think stats pertaining to master plays should bear any weight on anything?
you realize masters are the top 2% of the player base? compared to pros most masters players aren't good at all but seen on a global level just being in masters league makes you very good at starcraft. top. two. percent.
On April 09 2013 06:52 Addicted2Dreaming wrote: lol you really think stats pertaining to master plays should bear any weight on anything?
you realize masters are the top 2% of the player base? compared to pros most masters players aren't good at all but seen on a global level just being in masters league makes you very good at starcraft. top. two. percent.
I have to agree. If we want to argue statistics... grandmaster and masters should probably be excluded for being a minority. Of course, no one cares about that fact.
The problem is you are trying to imply causation from an observational study, and you are not accounting for lurking variables. What if better players know they need to make more widow mines, so then they do and they are better so they win. You should randomly assign some different players builds and see there winrates. With an experiment like that, you could in fact imply causation.
On April 09 2013 07:03 NerrZ wrote: The problem is you are trying to imply causation from an observational study, and you are not accounting for lurking variables. What if better players know they need to make more widow mines, so then they do and they are better so they win. You should randomly assign some different players builds and see there winrates. With an experiment like that, you could in fact imply causation.
That's just a mistake in his phrasing. Don't crucify the man for a small slip up.
He's just correlating more than 10 widow mines with a higher win rate. He shows that point, especially since he gathered data across all leagues.
TL;DR. 10 widow mines or more correlates with an increased win rate of ~10%.
On April 08 2013 09:59 dsjoerg wrote: Someone on Reddit asked:
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.....
I thought the answer would be of interest to you all.
GGTracker has 961 Masters TvZ HotS 1v1 Ladder replays. 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.
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.
sample size too small- 59 games at gm level? laughable
sample doesn't represent the community- do you actually know how many different people played those games? out of those 650ish games Idra could have played like 60 games, who has very particular skill characteristics that distinguish him from the other players. statistics don't work that way. this was just an example to prove why it's flawed. a player could build 100000 thousand widow mines if he can't use them well he won't win more games.
sample not homogene- the games are very varied in terms of length, player skill, etc.
we don't actually know if they kill anything at all with those mines, they could be just for muta defense etc. in a significant portion of these games widow mines probably didn't achieve anything at all.
bottom line, what does this little research prove? that in the sample players who build more than 10 widow mines, they won more games. in that sample and nowhere else.
does it prove that widow mines make you win more? NO
exactly
the OP doesn't really prove anything.. and the sample is extremely small -,,-
On April 08 2013 09:59 dsjoerg wrote: Someone on Reddit asked:
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.....
I thought the answer would be of interest to you all.
GGTracker has 961 Masters TvZ HotS 1v1 Ladder replays. 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.
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.
sample size too small- 59 games at gm level? laughable
sample doesn't represent the community- do you actually know how many different people played those games? out of those 650ish games Idra could have played like 60 games, who has very particular skill characteristics that distinguish him from the other players. statistics don't work that way. this was just an example to prove why it's flawed. a player could build 100000 thousand widow mines if he can't use them well he won't win more games.
sample not homogene- the games are very varied in terms of length, player skill, etc.
we don't actually know if they kill anything at all with those mines, they could be just for muta defense etc. in a significant portion of these games widow mines probably didn't achieve anything at all.
bottom line, what does this little research prove? that in the sample players who build more than 10 widow mines, they won more games. in that sample and nowhere else.
does it prove that widow mines make you win more? NO
exactly
the OP doesn't really prove anything.. and the sample is extremely small -,,-
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but his sample sizes aren't that small. Also he's not showing proof. I can confidently tell you as a physicist that no 'study' ever shows 'proof'. They only ever show correlation. In my field the sample sizes run as small as 12 for PUBLISHED and PEER reviewed papers.He did show data for all leagues. That is important information to know.
Give some credit to the OP for demonstrating his point. Maybe his methods weren't the best and we should re-investigate, but it is interesting information.
On April 08 2013 09:59 dsjoerg wrote: Someone on Reddit asked:
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.....
I thought the answer would be of interest to you all.
GGTracker has 961 Masters TvZ HotS 1v1 Ladder replays. 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.
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.
sample size too small- 59 games at gm level? laughable
sample doesn't represent the community- do you actually know how many different people played those games? out of those 650ish games Idra could have played like 60 games, who has very particular skill characteristics that distinguish him from the other players. statistics don't work that way. this was just an example to prove why it's flawed. a player could build 100000 thousand widow mines if he can't use them well he won't win more games.
sample not homogene- the games are very varied in terms of length, player skill, etc.
we don't actually know if they kill anything at all with those mines, they could be just for muta defense etc. in a significant portion of these games widow mines probably didn't achieve anything at all.
bottom line, what does this little research prove? that in the sample players who build more than 10 widow mines, they won more games. in that sample and nowhere else.
does it prove that widow mines make you win more? NO
exactly
the OP doesn't really prove anything.. and the sample is extremely small -,,-
That's inaccurate--he proves there is correlation which is the first step in making any hypothesis. Proving the hypothesis will require actual evidence but he isn't technically inaccurate.
For example.
I've seen the sun rising every morning since I was a child. Correlation => the sun rises each morning.
After (arbitrary length of time) study, I find out that the earth rotates on an axis and the sun remains stationary.
Correlation is proven false => sun does not rise, the earth spins.
Without the false correlation => there would never have been a study to prove it wrong.
I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though! A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army.
The siege tank's one advantage I can think of is its much better range which can zone out the enemy, but I think it's preferable to be able to kill the zerg army rather than keep it away until it decides to get in your face and kill yours.
On April 09 2013 07:37 Giriath wrote: I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though! A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army.
This is a really great point. I am really sad personally that siege tanks are becoming a relic in TvZ. They are a classic unit that's pretty enjoyable to watch. You do have to admit that the widow mine seems like more 'bang' for your buck. Forgive the pun.
Mutalisks in ZvP are not a good unit to analyze like this because they are used to finish off a Protoss that opened on robo tech, either trying to take a third or 2-base allin. When Protoss does an immortal/sentry allin and fails, or you break a third base with roaches or swarm hosts, you transition to mutas to finish him off so he can't just go for colossi and still have a chance at winning. The mutas are made to secure a game you've already won, not to win the game itself.
On April 09 2013 07:37 Giriath wrote: I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though! A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army.
Actually... what made Siege Tanks good was long range+attack overlaps.
2-3 Siege Tanks are terrible. 20 siege tanks are a menace.
The opposite is true for Widowmines.
What made tanks strong is that their long range after reaching critical mass allowed them to wipe out an large enough chunk of the enemy force before they could engage. Their damage, however, was too low and was something always criticized.
"That's inaccurate--he proves there is correlation which is the first step in making any hypothesis. Proving the hypothesis will require actual evidence but he isn't technically inaccurate."
No he doesnt lol, there are these stats ay the end of his post wich show there is not even a correlation. (at least not a statistically relevant one, and the correlation you could find (ignoring sample seize and all) would show that your winrate improves slightly the less % resources you spend on mines lol)
I think its just to early to have these kind of balance questions, i think it makes alot of sense that t would have the higher winrate so shortly after expo release vs z because most z play a highly reactionary style and this style is vulnerable till they figure out all the various timing attacks/all ins of the other races. Since T has a huge toolkit in tvz it would make sense that z needs time to figure out ho to safely take the game into late game. Also if i would like to see some stats about terran win rates when 10+ultras are produced since i think that if z get into late game right now with their super powerful ultras t is in deep trouble, its just right now we dont see many games were z stabilizes on big enough econ to mass ultras and saftley push. Also you have to remember that most z for the past year have mostly practiced turtle hive styles in tvz wich relyed on the fact that infestor bl was op so they need time to adapt.
On April 09 2013 07:50 Rassy wrote: "That's inaccurate--he proves there is correlation which is the first step in making any hypothesis. Proving the hypothesis will require actual evidence but he isn't technically inaccurate."
No he doesnt lol, there are these stats ay the end of his post wich show there is not even a correlation. (at least not a statistically relevant one, and the correlation you could find (ignoring sample seize and all) would show that your winrate improves slightly the less % resources you spend on mines lol)
Don't mistake me for someone who wants widowmines nerfed--I love them myself (I am a terran player after all)
His last stat showed widow mine usage at the 15:00 min mark.
His others showed window mine presence.
Both are good ways to show correlation as a stepping point to start experimentation. Experiments have been started on less grounds than that.
He still doesn't prove anything--and extensive testing will show that widow mines are balanced (I'm assuming). But there *is* a correlation; but a correlation and $4 can get me a starbucks coffee so that's not really that impressive.
On April 09 2013 07:37 Giriath wrote: I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though! A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army.
Actually... what made Siege Tanks good was long range+attack overlaps.
2-3 Siege Tanks are terrible. 20 siege tanks are a menace.
The opposite is true for Widowmines.
What made tanks strong is that their long range after reaching critical mass allowed them to wipe out an large enough chunk of the enemy force before they could engage. Their damage, however, was too low and was something always criticized.
Yeah I edited the range thing in, but that doesn't make them viable in TvZ because mines will still more effectively kill off the engaging zerg army, including any mutas the zerg would have gotten to combat 20 siege tanks.
And you don't need 20 widowmines to better achieve what 20 siege tanks could do, even at their lower cost, supply and production time—10-14 will do to steadily retreat your MMM over if the zerg decides to engage.
As more terran players get the timings of this tactic down—not allowing the zerg to kill off any mines in the army before they've done maximum damage and even targeting key units of the zerg composition whilst they retreat their MMM—we will see zergs get utterly annihilated.
Using zerglings and infested terrans to trigger mines is cute and all, but it doesn't work if the terran player properly defends their mines. The annihilation may reverse however once more zerg players understand that infestor fungal is still quite good after all, ensnaring the MMM on the mines and making them trigger on them.
They won't be able to do this unless they're able to get to hive and get vipers and or ultras though, because lings and blings will probably melt to a mid-game stimmed MMM before they and the mines are able to do decent damage.
Maybe vipers will become the first T3 tech choice, allowing lings and blings to close and decimate a fungaled MMM sitting on a minefield.
The meta-game seems to all add up inevitably settle into what we had in HoTS: zerg are tested in the early and mid-game and get a good advantage if they're able to make it to T3 with an economy to sustain it. Only instead of MMM+tanks into MMM+tanks/vikings against ling/bling/muta into ling/bling+BL/infestors/corruptors we will see MMMM perhaps into MMMM+ghosts and/or ravens against ling/bling/muta into ling/bling/muta+infestors/vipers/ultralisks.
On April 09 2013 07:37 Giriath wrote: I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though! A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army.
Actually... what made Siege Tanks good was long range+attack overlaps.
2-3 Siege Tanks are terrible. 20 siege tanks are a menace.
The opposite is true for Widowmines.
What made tanks strong is that their long range after reaching critical mass allowed them to wipe out an large enough chunk of the enemy force before they could engage. Their damage, however, was too low and was something always criticized.
Yeah I edited the range thing in, but that doesn't make them viable in TvZ because mines will still more effectively kill off the engaging zerg army, including any mutas the zerg would have gotten to combat 20 siege tanks.
And you don't need 20 widowmines to better achieve what 20 siege tanks could do, even at their lower cost, supply and production time—10-14 will do to steadily retreat your MMM over if the zerg decides to engage.
As more terran players get the timings of this tactic down—not allowing the zerg to kill off any mines in the army before they've done maximum damage and even targeting key units of the zerg composition whilst they retreat their MMM—we will see zergs get utterly annihilated.
Using zerglings and infested terrans to trigger mines is cute and all, but it doesn't work if the terran player properly defends their mines. The annihilation may reverse however once more zerg players understand that infestor fungal is still quite good after all, ensnaring the MMM on the mines and making them trigger on them.
They won't be able to do this unless they're able to get to hive and get vipers and or ultras though, because lings and blings will probably melt to a mid-game stimmed MMM before they and the mines are able to do decent damage.
Maybe vipers will become the first T3 tech choice, allowing lings and blings to close and decimate a fungaled MMM sitting on a minefield.
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.
On April 09 2013 07:37 Giriath wrote: I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though! A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army.
The siege tank's one advantage I can think of is its much better range which can zone out the enemy, but I think it's preferable to be able to kill the zerg army rather than keep it away until it decides to get in your face and kill yours.
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
Widow mines are an interesting new unit that everyone is using. Players are still learning to adjust to all of the new tactics and strategies.
Why is this any more useful than say looking at win rates for terrans that get more than, lets say, 20 marines. Or if you want to stick with things that are new, how about zergs that get more than 10 swarm hosts or protoss that get more than 10 void rays. I do not see this providing any actually useful insight.
It is a new unit, there are plenty of ways to deal with them, just give it time.
Good widow mine usage shuts down zergs' main strengths, mobility and map control.
Of course higher widow mine count is going to correlate with higher win %, higher count means higher chance terran has map control, and any zerg player knows that if a terran gets map control off you its pretty much gg.
Even though I am a terran player now and do enjoy using mines, I don't agree with their implementation as it means that zerg has to be much more careful with their armies so I see much less multi pronged attacks etc which was the entire appeal of ZvT for me.
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.
Players who try to make a lot of mines and wins will end up having made a lot of mines Players who try to make a lot of mines and lose will end up having made less mines--because they're dead.
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.
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:
Would you be willing to review a stats post in advance? There were several insightful / valid / intelligent comments. "Peer review" will help ensure that the post is better thought out before wide circulation. If so, please PM me.
Are there other stats you'd like to see? I can run custom queries for you and you can write your own post based on them. There's a lot of info in GGTracker (my site). PM me...
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.
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.
On April 09 2013 07:37 Giriath wrote: I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though! A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army.
The siege tank's one advantage I can think of is its much better range which can zone out the enemy, but I think it's preferable to be able to kill the zerg army rather than keep it away until it decides to get in your face and kill yours.
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 07:37 Giriath wrote: I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though! A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army.
Actually... what made Siege Tanks good was long range+attack overlaps.
2-3 Siege Tanks are terrible. 20 siege tanks are a menace.
The opposite is true for Widowmines.
What made tanks strong is that their long range after reaching critical mass allowed them to wipe out an large enough chunk of the enemy force before they could engage. Their damage, however, was too low and was something always criticized.
Yeah I edited the range thing in, but that doesn't make them viable in TvZ because mines will still more effectively kill off the engaging zerg army, including any mutas the zerg would have gotten to combat 20 siege tanks.
And you don't need 20 widowmines to better achieve what 20 siege tanks could do, even at their lower cost, supply and production time—10-14 will do to steadily retreat your MMM over if the zerg decides to engage.
As more terran players get the timings of this tactic down—not allowing the zerg to kill off any mines in the army before they've done maximum damage and even targeting key units of the zerg composition whilst they retreat their MMM—we will see zergs get utterly annihilated.
Using zerglings and infested terrans to trigger mines is cute and all, but it doesn't work if the terran player properly defends their mines. The annihilation may reverse however once more zerg players understand that infestor fungal is still quite good after all, ensnaring the MMM on the mines and making them trigger on them.
They won't be able to do this unless they're able to get to hive and get vipers and or ultras though, because lings and blings will probably melt to a mid-game stimmed MMM before they and the mines are able to do decent damage.
Maybe vipers will become the first T3 tech choice, allowing lings and blings to close and decimate a fungaled MMM sitting on a minefield.
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.
This is an inherently flawed analysis; we can't be sure that the production of > 10 widow mines reflects simply a change in widow mine quantity and use, or (more likely), and entirely different playstyle or type of player. Also, the increased usage of widow mines implies a strategy or playstyle less similar to WoL, in a time that a large quantity of players are still very much infantile in their intimate* understanding of HotS.
Unfortunately, there's too much bias introduced for me to take it seriously. Plus, widow mine targeting is already terribad.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
I love watching it, anything is better then the NR20 of TvZ in WOL.
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.
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.
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.
On April 09 2013 07:37 Giriath wrote: I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though! A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army.
The siege tank's one advantage I can think of is its much better range which can zone out the enemy, but I think it's preferable to be able to kill the zerg army rather than keep it away until it decides to get in your face and kill yours.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
On April 08 2013 10:06 BaaL` wrote: Pretty big selection bias? Games where T is winning already are much more likely to have 10+ widow mines, as the pushes would not get shut down and so the mines never get mopped up.
A 10% difference is nothing really if you consider any statistical effects.
I thought so too. If the terran is winning, why not make more mines? I would, and I'm a zerg player :D
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.
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.
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.
Nope, terrans will still be attacking even if the zerg turtles.
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.
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.
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.
Hm maybe in wol it would work.. but they can still attack if we turtle in hots =D
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
Yes. 10 is such an arbitrary number. This is such an arbitrary analysis. Now go get winrates for ZvT where Zerg builds more than 10 Ultralisks. There was no ZvX winrate thread in WoL when Zergs built more than 10 Infestors...
Furthermore, I play Master/GM Zergs and there is still a lot of sloppy play in unnecessarily losing units to WMs. Similar to when T isn't watching their army and loses everything to banes.
I think it's also important to note that "less then 10 widow mines" also includes games where Terran didn't make a single one, but in fact the Widow Mine is a very important unit in TvZ now and it's not a problem that they are losing when not making a single widow mine. (also cheeses are included in this where no widow mine gets produced) Imagine a statistic "more than 10 marines" ofc the result would be even more extreme because it's even more of a pivotal unit. That doesn't mean at all it's imba.
On April 08 2013 10:06 BaaL` wrote: Games where T is winning already are much more likely to have 10+ widow mines
These stats are for >10 widow mines produced. They don't all have to be alive at the same time.
That said, I agree that there absolutely must be some selection bias effect here, and correlation is not causation. However I thought the stats were still interesting. In particular, two effects that seem beyond the dread reach of selection bias are:
the relative absence of widow mines in TvP and TvT, and
the increasing presence of widow mines in higher league TvZ
Both of those facts suggest that the players themselves think mass widow mines are useful for TvZ. So it's at least a quantitative statement on the state of the metagame. Perhaps obvious to people who watch high-level TvZ a lot, but it's nice to see stats to back up what people say.
Mines are supposed to be core units as per designers written intentions in beta. They are supposed to be viable enmass like marines but in most cases they aren't right now. And if in a future meta it turns out they are viable to mass it just fulfills the designers vision of the unit.
On April 08 2013 10:05 Bippzy wrote: Out of curiousity, why did you set the cut off at 10? Did you use a certain build to determine that number? I haven't played or watched much hots yet, so if there is a pretty standard mass widow mine build i feel that should be used as a cutoff.
Still interested that more widow mines is correlated with more wins. But, correlafion doesn't mean causation, especially in an infant metagame.
Because choosing 10 shows his point wheras 5 or 20 may not. The number you pick makes a big differences in the picture you want to paint. (source: 10 years in pharma research with some very manipulative colleagues)
Protoss in broodwar that get 200 supply carrier/arbiter/obs have ~100% win rate vs terran. Zerg in WOL with 20+ Broodlords and 10+ Infestors have ~80% win rate vs terran.
Great point. I dont know if OP had any malicious intent with picking that number but I mech at a masters level vs Z and I normally never have 10 mines before the 15 minute mark or near max supply unless I scout early vipers.That is a pretty long time for a zerg to kill a terran and it happens often.
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:
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.
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 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:
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.
Oh don't try to hide behind that argument. You were (under that handle) making threads left and right in beta forums complaining about widow mines in TvP. Are you trying act as a fair minded individual with no stake or opinion on the mine now? Have you changed your stance since beta and early release?
On April 08 2013 09:59 dsjoerg wrote: Someone on Reddit asked:
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.....
I thought the answer would be of interest to you all.
GGTracker has 961 Masters TvZ HotS 1v1 Ladder replays. 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.
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.
sample size too small- 59 games at gm level? laughable
sample doesn't represent the community- do you actually know how many different people played those games? out of those 650ish games Idra could have played like 60 games, who has very particular skill characteristics that distinguish him from the other players. statistics don't work that way. this was just an example to prove why it's flawed. a player could build 100000 thousand widow mines if he can't use them well he won't win more games.
sample not homogene- the games are very varied in terms of length, player skill, etc.
we don't actually know if they kill anything at all with those mines, they could be just for muta defense etc. in a significant portion of these games widow mines probably didn't achieve anything at all.
bottom line, what does this little research prove? that in the sample players who build more than 10 widow mines, they won more games. in that sample and nowhere else.
does it prove that widow mines make you win more? NO
exactly
the OP doesn't really prove anything.. and the sample is extremely small -,,-
That's inaccurate--he proves there is correlation which is the first step in making any hypothesis. Proving the hypothesis will require actual evidence but he isn't technically inaccurate.
For example.
I've seen the sun rising every morning since I was a child. Correlation => the sun rises each morning.
After (arbitrary length of time) study, I find out that the earth rotates on an axis and the sun remains stationary.
Correlation is proven false => sun does not rise, the earth spins.
Without the false correlation => there would never have been a study to prove it wrong.
A better analogy to this situation might be:
I've noticed a statistical correlation between the sun rising later and people I see in the street wearing coats => people putting on coats causes the sun to rise later.
Or maybe not. That's the point. All the OP demonstrates is that there's a way to partition the data in GGTracker such that TvZ win rates correlate slightly with widow mine usage. We've already seen a different way of partitioning the same data show no correlation.
The OP also shows a (stronger) correlation where better players (in progressively higher leagues) use more widow mines. Since I'm pretty sure I wouldn't suddenly be in GM if I started making a fuckton of widow mines, we should consider the possibility that better players tending to use more widow mines is partly or wholly responsible for the correlation between widow mines and win rates.
Some readers seem to think that ok, maybe this correlation isn't conclusive, but it's indicative of something and that maybe if we refined how we analysed the data we would get a better fit. Well, do you think if we refined our analysis of coat-wearing - factoring in patterns of length and style and colours and number of buttons on different days of the week, whatever strengthened the correlation - do you think we would ever prove that putting on the right colour and style of coat would affect when the sun rose?
On April 08 2013 09:59 dsjoerg wrote: Someone on Reddit asked:
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.....
I thought the answer would be of interest to you all.
GGTracker has 961 Masters TvZ HotS 1v1 Ladder replays. 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.
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.
sample size too small- 59 games at gm level? laughable
sample doesn't represent the community- do you actually know how many different people played those games? out of those 650ish games Idra could have played like 60 games, who has very particular skill characteristics that distinguish him from the other players. statistics don't work that way. this was just an example to prove why it's flawed. a player could build 100000 thousand widow mines if he can't use them well he won't win more games.
sample not homogene- the games are very varied in terms of length, player skill, etc.
we don't actually know if they kill anything at all with those mines, they could be just for muta defense etc. in a significant portion of these games widow mines probably didn't achieve anything at all.
bottom line, what does this little research prove? that in the sample players who build more than 10 widow mines, they won more games. in that sample and nowhere else.
does it prove that widow mines make you win more? NO
exactly
the OP doesn't really prove anything.. and the sample is extremely small -,,-
That's inaccurate--he proves there is correlation which is the first step in making any hypothesis. Proving the hypothesis will require actual evidence but he isn't technically inaccurate.
For example.
I've seen the sun rising every morning since I was a child. Correlation => the sun rises each morning.
After (arbitrary length of time) study, I find out that the earth rotates on an axis and the sun remains stationary.
Correlation is proven false => sun does not rise, the earth spins.
Without the false correlation => there would never have been a study to prove it wrong.
A better analogy to this situation might be:
I've noticed a statistical correlation between the sun rising later and people I see in the street wearing coats => people putting on coats causes the sun to rise later.
Or maybe not. That's the point. All the OP demonstrates is that there's a way to partition the data in GGTracker such that TvZ win rates correlate slightly with widow mine usage. We've already seen a different way of partitioning the same data show no correlation.
The OP also shows a (stronger) correlation where better players (in progressively higher leagues) use more widow mines. Since I'm pretty sure I wouldn't suddenly be in GM if I started making a fuckton of widow mines, we should consider the possibility that better players tending to use more widow mines is partly or wholly responsible for the correlation between widow mines and win rates.
Some readers seem to think that ok, maybe this correlation isn't conclusive, but it's indicative of something and that maybe if we refined how we analysed the data we would get a better fit. Well, do you think if we refined our analysis of coat-wearing - factoring in patterns of length and style and colours and number of buttons on different days of the week, whatever strengthened the correlation - do you think we would ever prove that putting on the right colour and style of coat would affect when the sun rose?
Lol
Yes, that would be a more "accurate" example than mine
On April 09 2013 06:52 Addicted2Dreaming wrote: lol you really think stats pertaining to master plays should bear any weight on anything?
you realize masters are the top 2% of the player base? compared to pros most masters players aren't good at all but seen on a global level just being in masters league makes you very good at starcraft. top. two. percent.
dude ive been top master for the past 3 seasons. ive played thousands of games against players comprising the higher end of the master spectrum. pretty sure im capable of gauging their skill levels and effectively weighing them against those of the korean pros and some foreigners like stephano, scarlett, etc. 'very good' and 'top 2%' are about just as useful as being bronze and dont come so much as even remotely close to cutting it. trust me, in every game i play there is plenty of room for improvement and optimization with respect to both parties.
These are not very good statistics at all and certainly not to draw conclusions from. The number may be artificially higher due to the fact of the player being more ahead and thus building more widow mines. This is just not indicative of anything.
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate.
Hey, look, you just drew a conclusion from the data. That's pretty cool. That's the point of sharing stats.
Since some of the feedback is that this is because Terrans make more WM's when they're ahead, what about looking at games where the Terran collects fewer resources than the Zerg but produces 10+ WMs? Or games where the Terran's army value is lower than the Zerg but produces 10+WMs?
Not that any of this data is conclusive, or indicative of actual game balance for some of the reasons you've stated, but it's still an interesting discussion.
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate.
Hey, look, you just drew a conclusion from the data. That's pretty cool. That's the point of sharing stats.
Since some of the feedback is that this is because Terrans make more WM's when they're ahead, what about looking at games where the Terran collects fewer resources than the Zerg but produces 10+ WMs? Or games where the Terran's army value is lower than the Zerg but produces 10+WMs?
Not that any of this data is conclusive, or indicative of actual game balance for some of the reasons you've stated, but it's still an interesting discussion.
It would be more accurate to simply write a action report for 100+ TvZ matches and do a write up on how effective or ineffective WM are in each of them with how and why it was efficient/inefficient. Then have about 100 people each doing 100 write ups and have that be a small sampling of a regional area. Collect about 100 regions and do a study of all the write ups and see the overall effect of WM in the TvZ matchup.
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.....
Thanks for including a random redditor's completely unsubstantiated statements. Care to NAME these top 8 zergs losing to mediocre terrans every time?
Hi - I'm the "unsubstantiated redditor", and my observations were based on watching streams over the weekend.
How does Stephano/TLO/Kane sound to you (Kane is not pro, but Top8 on NA and usually wins way more than he loses), TLO and Stephano you may have heard of.
As I said in reddit: The 10% percent is a perception of mine, and I'm seeing Stephano/TLO/Kane/etc find it very hard to beat Terrans at all, losing to lower-ranked players, and also getting hammered by players of equal level e.g. see Stephano vs Demuslim (where you would hope to see 50/50 over several matches, but Stephano won maybe 1 match out of 8).
Those aren't top zergs. If stephano and TLO can't deal with mass widow mines on the NA ladder, then maybe they should watch what's been going on in Korea. Scarlett beat MVP, she deactivated widow mines with infested terrans. GSL group A Roro vs Bomber game two, Bomber made a lot of mines and but was never able to handle Roro's macro/micro. MLG finals Life vs Flash speaks for itself. GSL group C ST.Curious vs MKP, curious beat marine marauder medivac mine with simple ling bling muta, twice in a row. For whatever reasons, none of these korean terrans are just sitting back on a reactored factory and making mass widow mines. Perhaps because they know better than to throw their games away against zergs that know what they're doing. All this talk about scrubs beating pros is nonsense. Regardless of what Stephano's record was in 2011-2012, he's still unproven in HoTs and hasn't won anything yet, so it's a bit much blind fanboyism to expect that he should be untouchable in an expansion with new units and strategies.
can we have the same statistics please with games of 5+ colossi or 5+ ultras and see the winrate differences with 5 or lower? Point is: it will look the same. you could do the same with marines and would get the same or most other core army units for that matter so i dont really see that the mines are in a direct relation to wins earned.
Maybe players aren't experienced enough vs WM yet? I just watched Curious dismantle MKP and one of the tricks he used was putting an overseer in his control group with his mutas. He just flew around and picked off mines while poking and trying to get some damage in on MKP's economy. Surely there are many other effective strategies vs WM yet to be discovered.
On April 09 2013 23:17 mau5mat wrote: Terrible statistical testing
OK, this thread has had enough of the "this is not significant" BS. Let us pull back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the steel wool of enlightenment.
data: 0.6 * 345 and 345 number of successes = 207, number of trials = 345, p-value = 0.0001203 alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is greater than 0.5 95 percent confidence interval: 0.5546467 1.0000000 sample estimates: probability of success 0.6
So, given the sample, the probability that there is actually a 50% winrate if more than 10 widow mines have been produced @ 10 minutes is 0.000123 (translation: really fuckin' small). There is a 95% probability that the winrate is between 0.5546 and 1.000.
Note, this does not say that the widow mine production caused the win, but it pretty definitely shows that in games where the WMs were produced in these volumes, the winrate was very likely higher than 55%.
I have a question about the QXC widow mine stuff, based on some of the posts here. So apparently it's really good in TVZ to do what QXC does, based on his games vs Idra + Stephano, in which he crushes them. My question is if it is simply an amazing strat, and not the result of some other factors at play, then why did I not see this strat employed in high level games, such as GSL quals and other Korean pro games? Do the Terrans at that level simply know less than QXC, or is QXC's success only possible vs. players like Idra + Stephano?
Excuse my ignorance, I'm just kinda lost. Should probably start watching more HOTS in general.
On April 12 2013 08:24 FallDownMarigold wrote: I have a question about the QXC widow mine stuff, based on some of the posts here. So apparently it's really good in TVZ to do what QXC does, based on his games vs Idra + Stephano, in which he crushes them. My question is if it is simply an amazing strat, and not the result of some other factors at play, then why did I not see this strat employed in high level games, such as GSL quals and other Korean pro games? Do the Terrans at that level simply know less than QXC, or is QXC's success only possible vs. players like Idra + Stephano?
Excuse my ignorance, I'm just kinda lost. Should probably start watching more HOTS in general.
If its possible against Stephano is possible against anyone Stephano is one of the very best zergs on the planet and has been for a long time. But the thing with Stephano it might work 1 time only. He is very good at coming up with strategies against tactics like this but we will see
On April 12 2013 08:24 FallDownMarigold wrote: I have a question about the QXC widow mine stuff, based on some of the posts here. So apparently it's really good in TVZ to do what QXC does, based on his games vs Idra + Stephano, in which he crushes them. My question is if it is simply an amazing strat, and not the result of some other factors at play, then why did I not see this strat employed in high level games, such as GSL quals and other Korean pro games? Do the Terrans at that level simply know less than QXC, or is QXC's success only possible vs. players like Idra + Stephano?
Excuse my ignorance, I'm just kinda lost. Should probably start watching more HOTS in general.
If its possible against Stephano is possible against anyone Stephano is one of the very best zergs on the planet and has been for a long time. But the thing with Stephano it might work 1 time only. He is very good at coming up with strategies against tactics like this but we will see
To be honest, the only thing I took away from that qxc/Stephano game, is that Stephano plays with 5 hotkeys, and will send his whole army back and forth in a clump all over the map to kill 8 window mines.
Also: "I don't really need to be aggressive much more". Turns out letting your opponent macro without any pressure or harassment is a bad idea?
A lot of it is the same situation as it always is. People watching someone play against a strategy they have never seen before, in the way that the strategy is designed to exploit, and then freaking out about it.
You don't see it a lot in high level games because it's new. It's POSSIBLE you don't see it because it's actually really terrible if the player you are using it against knows about it. It's POSSIBLE that all it would have taken to beat it was for Stephano to park his army outside of qxc's base and never let the mines or a CC out. There is no way of knowing yet.
Zergs are really good at dealing with widow mines right now in the GSL. Still, if a player isn't careful they can suddenly lose their whole army in one second.
I don't particularly mind strong abilities in the game. They allow players to come back from a deficit, something we don't see too often in SC2. I personally wish there were more OP abilities in the game overall, which would make a much more dynamic, back-and-forth battle for the spectator.
On April 12 2013 08:24 FallDownMarigold wrote: I have a question about the QXC widow mine stuff, based on some of the posts here. So apparently it's really good in TVZ to do what QXC does, based on his games vs Idra + Stephano, in which he crushes them. My question is if it is simply an amazing strat, and not the result of some other factors at play, then why did I not see this strat employed in high level games, such as GSL quals and other Korean pro games? Do the Terrans at that level simply know less than QXC, or is QXC's success only possible vs. players like Idra + Stephano?
Excuse my ignorance, I'm just kinda lost. Should probably start watching more HOTS in general.
If its possible against Stephano is possible against anyone Stephano is one of the very best zergs on the planet and has been for a long time. But the thing with Stephano it might work 1 time only. He is very good at coming up with strategies against tactics like this but we will see
Stephano hasn't won anything in months, and when he was dominant KESPA players hadn't doubled the amount of code S caliber koreans yet. Furthermore, he chose to live out his current life of playing the same 5 players on the NA ladder every day instead of training in Korea. Like that other guy said, he doesn't even feel the need to use more than 5 control groups. Look instead at all the GSL groups that play this week. Real top zergs are doing just fine against top terrans.
True vs Fantasy Curious vs Marine King Prime Roro vs Bomber
and in GSTL Scarlett vs MVP
All these games feature widow mine and medivac turbo use yet the terrans are still defeated. The standards for micro have changed, and creative players like true have innovated by reviving use of burrowed banelings and nydus worms. It's too early to cry OP when so many new strategies are still developing.
We should wait for more numbers. I have looked win/loss ratio's on anguliac website. T seems favored against Z (55%) and P (58%). So yeah, they do seem a bit overpowered. My guess is it is not the mines, but the speedvac. Mines in tvp are not used so much as against Z, still winrates favor terrans.
If those percentages are correct : Leave mine as it is, change speedvac. Mines are not a gamechanger.
this sounds like a QQ thread to me. And to the OP, can I ask what race you play? I agree with some posters saying that this thread maybe a fear mongering thread and a little biased.
Based on watching GSL and SPL, widow mines are strong although as long as you are prepared, its easy to counter by just sending in a zergling and make sure you always have an overseer.
Widow mines are strong and yet the terran performance in GSL or SPL, it's a little disappointing actually.
And so what yeah whats the point of Widow mines being effective against zerg? is the OP saying it should not be effective?
On April 12 2013 09:30 lowercase wrote: Zergs are really good at dealing with widow mines right now in the GSL. Still, if a player isn't careful they can suddenly lose their whole army in one second.
I don't particularly mind strong abilities in the game. They allow players to come back from a deficit, something we don't see too often in SC2. I personally wish there were more OP abilities in the game overall, which would make a much more dynamic, back-and-forth battle for the spectator.
Hey great points. Same here I agree with you that OP abilities are great in the game overall. And I noticed too that zergs in GSL are good at dealing with widow mines.
Fantasy destroyed by True. Life destroyed Flash.
I just wish people stop complaining or hint about abilities being too strong or too weak. LETS JUST PLAY THE FREAKIN GAME!
The most important fact that a lot of the lowest common denominator player base seems to forget is that there is actually a very wide realm between a unit being "too weak" and "too strong." They mistakenly believe every unit walks this razor's edge between underpowered and overpowered. In fact, there is a huge gap between those two possibilities.
The key to avoiding a unit being underpowered is to make the unit useful. If there is another unit available which is strictly better, the unit will never be used. And the key to avoiding a unit being overpowered is to make the opponent able to mitigate the unit through counterplay. Its actual effectiveness is not actually that important. If mines are better then they will be used more frequently, and consequently being skilled at mine counterplay becomes relatively more significant for the opponent.
The widow mine is an excellently designed unit in this regard. It can be useful, but the opponent can mitigate it through counterplay. Even if you buffed or nerfed mines significantly they would still fall within those parameters, but it would change how often and in what capacity mines would be used.
However a unit like the Marauder is a completely different animal. Its behavior is entirely determined by its stats, with no real counterplay possible except to have your own stat-based units to fight them. If the enemy has 50 marauders, there isn't really counterplay except to already have (or swiftly acquire) units to counter them. If you gave a Marauder a bunch more HP and damage, the result would be obviously overpowered since an A-move with a group would not be counterable by the opponent. 50 mines are a completely different matter; you can split units, micro detection and a ranged unit to chip away at them, etc. There are widely different possible outcomes for the same battle. Marauders... not so much. This is why a lot of players hate Marauders, hate Thors, hate Immortals and Colossi, hate Roaches and Infestors, and want back many Brood War units which resulted in vastly less deterministic battles. Deterministic battles are controlled by numbers and composition, both of which force players to keep their forces together to maximize their absolute strength, and act against skilled micro and multitasking of many small groups across the map.
The mine is a well-designed unit in terms of creating non-deterministic battles based on positional play. But honestly this should be the Siege Tank's province. Compare the tank and the mine. For all practical purposes, the mine is a strictly superior unit at the same roles as the tank. It can protect marines from banelings, it deals more damage to Protoss armies more quickly. It can stop the enemy from attacking into a position far more effectively. It costs less, it deals more damage with more splash, it burrows, it sieges quicker, it can be reactored, and it hits air units. Because mines don't make the game unwinnable for zerg and protoss (counterplay possible) then we can infer tanks are underpowered. At any point when you would get tanks, you should get mines instead, and this should be changed.
On April 13 2013 20:33 ishmoks wrote: this sounds like a QQ thread to me. And to the OP, can I ask what race you play?
I play Protoss, gold league. I have no preconceived notion about widow mine or anything else. I want Starcraft to be as awesome as possible. I expect there is some optimal army % of widow mines for T to have vs Z, and I'm interested to know what their win% will be when have that %. I find the 65% winrate interesting, but I agree with those who point out there's not enough data to draw any drastic conclusions from that.
My points, and my only points, were those I made in my original post, in my followups, and here. I am serious about getting peer review before making future stat posts, which one person has been kind enough to volunteer for so far. There are a few hundred thousand replays in GGTracker, and I'm sure the aggregated stats there have interesting things to tell us. I've done statistics professionally for automated trading for several years so I know what I'm doing with stats.
I concede that my handling of the widow mine stats was too casual; someone asked a question and I just answered it without preparing a doctoral defense level intellectual infrastructure around it, nor do I do randomized double-blind studies. I'll definitely be more careful in the future with stats, and again would love to get some folks lined up for pre-publication review so that the community discussion is as constructive as possible.
Also, I'd be happy to expose data and tools to others if they are interested.
On April 09 2013 23:17 mau5mat wrote: Terrible statistical testing
OK, this thread has had enough of the "this is not significant" BS. Let us pull back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the steel wool of enlightenment.
data: 0.6 * 345 and 345 number of successes = 207, number of trials = 345, p-value = 0.0001203 alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is greater than 0.5 95 percent confidence interval: 0.5546467 1.0000000 sample estimates: probability of success 0.6
So, given the sample, the probability that there is actually a 50% winrate if more than 10 widow mines have been produced @ 10 minutes is 0.000123 (translation: really fuckin' small). There is a 95% probability that the winrate is between 0.5546 and 1.000.
Note, this does not say that the widow mine production caused the win, but it pretty definitely shows that in games where the WMs were produced in these volumes, the winrate was very likely higher than 55%.
You sound pretty confident here, so it's really bizarre to me that you seem to have forgotten that a simple binomial test assumes random sampling - which is violated if there's significant selection bias at work. It also doesn't rule out the possibility of confounding factors, both of which are the primary objections to the analysis performed in this thread.
I think you'd be well-served by qualifying your statements more fully in the future. It's tempting to throw yourself out there and pretend to be super confident in your conclusions -- and I totally understand that sometimes you may "have" to do so to be taken seriously -- but you do yourself and the entire field of statistics a disservice by understating your potential errors.
On April 09 2013 23:17 mau5mat wrote: Terrible statistical testing
OK, this thread has had enough of the "this is not significant" BS. Let us pull back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the steel wool of enlightenment.
data: 0.6 * 345 and 345 number of successes = 207, number of trials = 345, p-value = 0.0001203 alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is greater than 0.5 95 percent confidence interval: 0.5546467 1.0000000 sample estimates: probability of success 0.6
So, given the sample, the probability that there is actually a 50% winrate if more than 10 widow mines have been produced @ 10 minutes is 0.000123 (translation: really fuckin' small). There is a 95% probability that the winrate is between 0.5546 and 1.000.
Note, this does not say that the widow mine production caused the win, but it pretty definitely shows that in games where the WMs were produced in these volumes, the winrate was very likely higher than 55%.
You sound pretty confident here, so it's really bizarre to me that you seem to have forgotten that a simple binomial test assumes random sampling - which is violated if there's significant selection bias at work. It also doesn't rule out the possibility of confounding factors, both of which are the primary objections to the analysis performed in this thread.
I think you'd be well-served by qualifying your statements more fully in the future. It's tempting to throw yourself out there and pretend to be super confident in your conclusions -- and I totally understand that sometimes you may "have" to do so to be taken seriously -- but you do yourself and the entire field of statistics a disservice by understating your potential errors.
Thanks for the reasoned insight. Given the size of the sample and the way ggtracker works (primarily auto-uploading), I would think the selection bias would be low, however that could be wrong. Further data analysis could test this hypothesis, and that was obviously not done.
Confounding factors (in my understanding) are only relevant if you are trying to show cause, which I'm explicitly not doing. These winrates could be produced because every one of these games had banshees (or speedvacs, or lagged zergs), it would not change the facts as stated above ("in games where the WMs were produced in these volumes, the winrate was very likely higher than 55%.").
On April 12 2013 09:30 lowercase wrote: Zergs are really good at dealing with widow mines right now in the GSL. Still, if a player isn't careful they can suddenly lose their whole army in one second.
I don't particularly mind strong abilities in the game. They allow players to come back from a deficit, something we don't see too often in SC2. I personally wish there were more OP abilities in the game overall, which would make a much more dynamic, back-and-forth battle for the spectator.
/\ This
Part of what made BW so great was that so many things were "OP". Old Psi Storm was insane, one big reaver shot in a mineral line could change the game. Lurkers could wipe out an entire Marine and Medic force in seconds. All of these required significant effort to counter and play against, which made games more exciting, and games could change dramatically in a moment (and not because of an anti climatic death ball engagement but because of lethal force applied at the right moment).
If widow mines are "OP" that's not a bad thing. Making the game more challenging and dynamic and making comebacks possible is good for everyone. What is needed is not a nerf to these mechanics but ways for other players to micro against them.
Something nobody has addressed is that when you bring up the argument that BW had OP things, you have to note that ALL of them were manned skill-shot abilities as were the dodging splits necessary to micro against them. Mines are not a skill shot. They are automated killing machines available incredibly quick with no fixed answer. They're just plain far too powerful for their cost and mobility. There's no downside, no "catch" to them.
I think one of the biggest problems of mines is the fact, that they don't do overkill when you don't command them to. This allows terrans to bring a lot of widow mines to a fight, burrow all of them at the same place and watch magic happen.
If you want to break a siege tank line as Zerg, you can throw one IT egg to tank the tank shots, since ALL tanks will fire at it, resulting in an overkill and a short period of time in which Zerg can push forward.
Against widow mines, Zerg can't do such a thing. Throwing one IT egg will trigger one mine, that's it. Bringing in 10 zerglings will trigger 10 mines, but 10 zerglings will die instantly against bio/mech support behind the mines.
You just can't avoid the mines if they lie in a path you have to take to get to your enemy. Either you try kill the mines with hydras/fungals, possibly resulting in high losses of resources/energy, or you can't fight, that's it.
Widow mines remind me of spider mines in the sense that you can pick them off from a distance. In TvP, the terran player would lay a ton of spider mines out and then the protoss will clean them up with goons+observer. I figure eventually zerg players will start using hydras+overseer to pick them off. Keep in mind that widow mines take up 2 supply and once they fire once, need time to recharge unlike spider mines. Do I think widow mines are OP? Maybe a bit and to a degree, I still prefer the siege tanks to deal with units. The fact that I don't have to wait a whole minute for it to fire again and that a widow mine can be triggered by anything as long as that unit isn't killed before the mine is triggered, means that it's deadweight supply after the initial firing if the opponent is attentive enough to pick it off as it recharges. In terms of the OP, well, I think a lot more stats are needed. I could care less about NA GM level lol. Take a look at GSL and PL games, look at # of mines made, compile that and let's see what they say. Either way, as mentioned, I would prefer if there were some OP units in the game like BW. Nothing like seeing mass tanks sieging up at once, storm drops, reaver drops, plagues going down on MnM etc... and watch the opposing player deal with it well
On April 08 2013 10:06 BaaL` wrote: Pretty big selection bias? Games where T is winning already are much more likely to have 10+ widow mines, as the pushes would not get shut down and so the mines never get mopped up.
A 10% difference is nothing really if you consider any statistical effects.
Statistical effects doesn't play into this since the data was not sampled from a larger set. You could say that the GM level games does not have enough data points to justify a conclusion, but it's a 10% difference across all levels.
Do you understand statistics? He is not talking about the sample size, he is mentioning that games in which the Terran has 10+ Widow Mines usually means the Terran is already winning.
That's the essence of sampling bias. What if I went to Wings of Liberty, found all the games where the Zerg has 30 Brood Lords and calculated the win rate? It would probably be 95% win rate for the Zerg. This tells us nothing because a Zerg with 30 Brood Lords has already won. Unless the players played "no rush 30 minutes", no Zerg player is able to produce 30 Brood Lords without a significant advantage.
Okay first, this isn't about a moment when the Terran has 10+ Widow as BaaL' suggests, it is when Terran produces 10 or more Widow Mines in a game. So the Terran pushes might be "getting shut down" left and right and the Terran may have no more than 1 Widow Mine at a time, but that is irrelevant, it only focuses on production.
In other words, the focus is correctly on whether or not the Terran is committing to Widow Mines. And so there is no "selection bias" as he suggests.
Second, comparing Widow Mines to Brood Lords is silly. 10 Widow Mines cost exactly as much as 10 Roaches, which 750-250. It isn't a lot over a the span of a game, and they can be Reactored. So it isn't like "well he has 10 Widow Mines, thus the game is already won."
So what we see is that people who make a lot of Widow Mines (10+) win 10% more games. That is pretty impressive.
There is still selection bias.
For example... someone making 10 Widow Mines in a 1 hour game... not as much as someone making 10 Widow Mines in a 20 minutes game. Having high win rate with 10 mines+ could suggest that TvZ is favoured in Terran's direction in long games as opposed to shorter ones (just saying it's a possibility, not that it is actual).
I think there are two problems with the widow mine. The first being the fact that it is a no skill, very strong unit, much like the infestor in WOL. The widow mine is guarenteed damage. There is absolutely no reason not to make them in t v z.Terrans can place them in random spots on the map, forget about them and and the they will do damage to a pack of lings that euns by them They completely shut down ling runbys and do so extremly cost efficiently, for 75 mins and 25 gas, your third is protected form both lings and mutas. They also shut down all forms of zerg aggresion in the early game. Zerg has to macro, which makes gamplay stale, when everygame is a no rush 20.
For the viewer I find the game extremely boring to watch when widow mines come into play. FYI I play zerg, and I used to love the art of t vs z specifically muta ling bane vs marine tank. The marine splits, the ling flanks, mutas focusing tanks, tanks focusing blings. Then infestors happened and we lost that. And now its widow mines, where you can make insane amount of them, and be safe and they decimate everything. It just seems to have lost the greatness that it once was.
On April 09 2013 23:17 mau5mat wrote: Terrible statistical testing
OK, this thread has had enough of the "this is not significant" BS. Let us pull back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the steel wool of enlightenment.
data: 0.6 * 345 and 345 number of successes = 207, number of trials = 345, p-value = 0.0001203 alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is greater than 0.5 95 percent confidence interval: 0.5546467 1.0000000 sample estimates: probability of success 0.6
So, given the sample, the probability that there is actually a 50% winrate if more than 10 widow mines have been produced @ 10 minutes is 0.000123 (translation: really fuckin' small). There is a 95% probability that the winrate is between 0.5546 and 1.000.
Note, this does not say that the widow mine production caused the win, but it pretty definitely shows that in games where the WMs were produced in these volumes, the winrate was very likely higher than 55%.
You sound pretty confident here, so it's really bizarre to me that you seem to have forgotten that a simple binomial test assumes random sampling - which is violated if there's significant selection bias at work. It also doesn't rule out the possibility of confounding factors, both of which are the primary objections to the analysis performed in this thread.
I think you'd be well-served by qualifying your statements more fully in the future. It's tempting to throw yourself out there and pretend to be super confident in your conclusions -- and I totally understand that sometimes you may "have" to do so to be taken seriously -- but you do yourself and the entire field of statistics a disservice by understating your potential errors.
Thanks for the reasoned insight. Given the size of the sample and the way ggtracker works (primarily auto-uploading), I would think the selection bias would be low, however that could be wrong. Further data analysis could test this hypothesis, and that was obviously not done.
Confounding factors (in my understanding) are only relevant if you are trying to show cause, which I'm explicitly not doing. These winrates could be produced because every one of these games had banshees (or speedvacs, or lagged zergs), it would not change the facts as stated above ("in games where the WMs were produced in these volumes, the winrate was very likely higher than 55%.").
With regards to selection bias, I do think that:
the population of masters players who have gone to the trouble of setting up auto-uploading to GGTracker is unlikely to be representative of masters players as a whole (though to what extent and in what direction this effect might lie I don't pretend to know),
for players who haven't uploaded all of their replays, the games that were important or interesting enough to merit the trouble of uploading to GGTracker are unlikely to be representative of your typical masters game. Knowing the proportion of replays that fall into this category would be useful.
So I take issue with the assertion that the numbers presented show that "in [presumably all masters] games where the WMs were produced in these volumes, the winrate was very likely higher than 55%". If you instead want to restrict the claim to just this set of games, obviously that's true.
I brought up confounding factors because the OP presents the relationship between the two as specifically meaningful in a significant way, although it does state that it doesn't prove anything. And I think we ought to be interested primarily in "meaningful" relationships; that is, if you're implying that there being a spurious relationship between the two doesn't detract from the importance of the analysis performed here, I think you're probably (nearly) alone in that sentiment. So I do believe that the (in my opinion likely) possibility that there are confounding variables at work here is a problem if you want to say that the analysis performed is particularly meaningful. But that's just my opinion of what "meaningful" is!
You're spending all your time trying to justify the validity of your sample set and ignoring all posts that give you examples of top Korean players dealing with widow mines with finesse.
On April 15 2013 08:54 sCCrooked wrote: Something nobody has addressed is that when you bring up the argument that BW had OP things, you have to note that ALL of them were manned skill-shot abilities as were the dodging splits necessary to micro against them. Mines are not a skill shot. They are automated killing machines available incredibly quick with no fixed answer. They're just plain far too powerful for their cost and mobility. There's no downside, no "catch" to them.
See, this post is a great example of why "balance" debate in general has been largely a shitfest (I don't intend this as a dig against you, SCCrooked).
People naturally use these terms -- "OP", "skill", "quick", "too powerful" -- without bothering to really talk about what they mean. I mean, hell, what does overpowered mean here? What criteria are necessary and/or sufficient for a unit or building to be overpowered? Clearly if the unit impacts the game such that the entire metagame collapses into a Nash equilibrium where you have to play this race and your army has to be composed entirely of this one unit, then that's an "overpowered" unit. But that's sort of a trivial definition, and nothing in the game falls under this at the moment. Can you elaborate on this?
It's also clearly false that there's "no downside" to using widow mines. On a fundamental level, the opportunity costs involved -- having to build factories, having widow mines occupying your factories' queues, having widow mines occupying supply, not being able to spend the money you used on widow mines to build other units or expand -- clearly prevent you from executing other strategies. More than that, a strategy containing widow mines clearly doesn't dominate strategies not containing widow mines; there are units against which the widow mine is totally ineffective, and where you really ought to be building other units as a Terran player. It's self-evident, then, that the cost-benefit analysis isn't black-and-white here; there is a very real tradeoff you're making by pursuing widow mines, and that alone should give you pause.
On April 15 2013 08:54 sCCrooked wrote: Something nobody has addressed is that when you bring up the argument that BW had OP things, you have to note that ALL of them were manned skill-shot abilities as were the dodging splits necessary to micro against them. Mines are not a skill shot. They are automated killing machines available incredibly quick with no fixed answer. They're just plain far too powerful for their cost and mobility. There's no downside, no "catch" to them.
Mines can actually be targeted to deal more damage when they being triggered by units inside the range and doing so can result in a better shot when good opponents are properly countering them. You clearly have not been watching high level play as the best players are dealing with mines just fine.
On April 15 2013 09:13 Nimelrian wrote: I think one of the biggest problems of mines is the fact, that they don't do overkill when you don't command them to. This allows terrans to bring a lot of widow mines to a fight, burrow all of them at the same place and watch magic happen.
If you want to break a siege tank line as Zerg, you can throw one IT egg to tank the tank shots, since ALL tanks will fire at it, resulting in an overkill and a short period of time in which Zerg can push forward.
Against widow mines, Zerg can't do such a thing. Throwing one IT egg will trigger one mine, that's it. Bringing in 10 zerglings will trigger 10 mines, but 10 zerglings will die instantly against bio/mech support behind the mines.
You just can't avoid the mines if they lie in a path you have to take to get to your enemy. Either you try kill the mines with hydras/fungals, possibly resulting in high losses of resources/energy, or you can't fight, that's it.
Actually you can fight it, you just aren't thinking about it. You even said a great way to counter them in your post which is infested terran eggs. Watch some high level play and you'll see many top zergs now using single or very few swarm hosts to counter and waste mine shots along with spitting many eggs where they know mines are planted to waste them as well. Not sure if you are referring to BW about the tanks wasting shots but they don't do that in sc2 either.
On April 15 2013 10:06 408xParadox wrote: I think there are two problems with the widow mine. The first being the fact that it is a no skill, very strong unit, much like the infestor in WOL. The widow mine is guarenteed damage. There is absolutely no reason not to make them in t v z.Terrans can place them in random spots on the map, forget about them and and the they will do damage to a pack of lings that euns by them They completely shut down ling runbys and do so extremly cost efficiently, for 75 mins and 25 gas, your third is protected form both lings and mutas. They also shut down all forms of zerg aggresion in the early game. Zerg has to macro, which makes gamplay stale, when everygame is a no rush 20.
For the viewer I find the game extremely boring to watch when widow mines come into play. FYI I play zerg, and I used to love the art of t vs z specifically muta ling bane vs marine tank. The marine splits, the ling flanks, mutas focusing tanks, tanks focusing blings. Then infestors happened and we lost that. And now its widow mines, where you can make insane amount of them, and be safe and they decimate everything. It just seems to have lost the greatness that it once was.
Again, it is not a "no skill" unit, the mine shot can be targeted by the terran player. Mine play can be countered very easily and it is also not "guaranteed damage", just lol. Ever think of running 1 of those lings from the pack ahead of them to waste the shot? or use some of the ideas posted above. Terrans can not place them randomly on the map, that would be such a waste and a single mine does not protect your third from lings and mutas. You need to go watch some games and see that no rush 20 you speak of with no zerg early aggression. If you seriously believe all of your own statements I'm just astonished.
I don't see how any of the stats gathered in this thread mean anything when the balance isn't focused around the highest levels of play where strategies are still being developed and even the best players are still learning how to adapt and deal with new and odd compositions.
On April 15 2013 09:13 Nimelrian wrote: I think one of the biggest problems of mines is the fact, that they don't do overkill when you don't command them to. This allows terrans to bring a lot of widow mines to a fight, burrow all of them at the same place and watch magic happen.
If you want to break a siege tank line as Zerg, you can throw one IT egg to tank the tank shots, since ALL tanks will fire at it, resulting in an overkill and a short period of time in which Zerg can push forward.
Against widow mines, Zerg can't do such a thing. Throwing one IT egg will trigger one mine, that's it. Bringing in 10 zerglings will trigger 10 mines, but 10 zerglings will die instantly against bio/mech support behind the mines.
You just can't avoid the mines if they lie in a path you have to take to get to your enemy. Either you try kill the mines with hydras/fungals, possibly resulting in high losses of resources/energy, or you can't fight, that's it.
That's not true, Mines DO overkill. And they are not that cool in some scenario where they kill your own marines.
On April 15 2013 09:13 Nimelrian wrote: I think one of the biggest problems of mines is the fact, that they don't do overkill when you don't command them to. This allows terrans to bring a lot of widow mines to a fight, burrow all of them at the same place and watch magic happen.
If you want to break a siege tank line as Zerg, you can throw one IT egg to tank the tank shots, since ALL tanks will fire at it, resulting in an overkill and a short period of time in which Zerg can push forward.
Against widow mines, Zerg can't do such a thing. Throwing one IT egg will trigger one mine, that's it. Bringing in 10 zerglings will trigger 10 mines, but 10 zerglings will die instantly against bio/mech support behind the mines.
You just can't avoid the mines if they lie in a path you have to take to get to your enemy. Either you try kill the mines with hydras/fungals, possibly resulting in high losses of resources/energy, or you can't fight, that's it.
That's not true, Mines DO overkill. And they are not that cool in some scenario where they kill your own marines.
They don't overkill against a single unit. They'll fire as many shots at a unit as it takes to kill it, but the splash can overkill. Tanks work the same way. If you throw a single IT egg (70 health), it will be shot at by 2 tanks. Mines literally work the same way.
This isn't a dig at foreign/non-Korean Z players, but most of them just got lazy because of the fact that they had free reign to take 3 hatches with impunity in WOL through mass Queen builds, and had Infestors that basically had no counterplay to them. Now that HOTS has come along and evened the odds significantly (Widow Mines/Reapers early in the game stop alot of the nonsensical creep spread and incredibly greedy 3rd hatches, and Infestors are severely nerfed from what they once were in WOL), you see that most of the Z's that relied heavily on Infestor play/absurdly greedy 3 hatch play in WOL are suffering big time, because they basically have not had to deal with any kind of early aggression before, which is clearly not the case anymore in HOTS.
The combination of widow mines/reapers/battle helions/etc. force Z players to make units instead of drones now, which is a good thing for TvZ. The current incarnation of HOTS TvZ is far more entertaining, and far more skill based than WOL. There are some legitimate complaints regarding Medivac turbo boost (although I feel the Muta buff is enough for this), but overall the match-up is in a good spot right now. Just Z players need to adapt instead of playing like this is WOL and trying to take 3rd hatches without thinking.
Widow Mines in particular are a good unit. You can counter play them. There's nothing wrong with them at all. It's just that Z players are too used to not being touched for the first 7-10 minutes except by like 4 Helions and a Banshee. Now, if a Z players too greedy, the T player can punish you big time with widow mines.
I have an 81% winrate vs. zergs in masters and I only ever build four safety widow mines after my six hellions. I find mines are too unreliable, luck based, rely on zerg not being able to micro etc.
There is no proof of anything only one month into the game though.
On April 15 2013 10:06 408xParadox wrote: I think there are two problems with the widow mine. The first being the fact that it is a no skill, very strong unit, much like the infestor in WOL. The widow mine is guaranteed damage. There is absolutely no reason not to make them in t v z.Terrans can place them in random spots on the map, forget about them and and the they will do damage to a pack of lings that euns by them They completely shut down ling runbys and do so extremely cost efficiently, for 75 mins and 25 gas, your third is protected form both lings and mutas. They also shut down all forms of zerg aggression in the early game. Zerg has to macro, which makes gameplay stale, when every game is a no rush 20.
For the viewer I find the game extremely boring to watch when widow mines come into play. FYI I play zerg, and I used to love the art of t vs z specifically muta ling bane vs marine tank. The marine splits, the ling flanks, mutas focusing tanks, tanks focusing blings. Then infestors happened and we lost that. And now its widow mines, where you can make insane amount of them, and be safe and they decimate everything. It just seems to have lost the greatness that it once was.
There are so many things which misrepresent what's actually happening. First, widow mines are not and cannot be no skill/strong. First of all, they are positional units, i.e., you have to choose where to burrow them. If you choose a poor location, they do not do damage. In fact, as they do friendly fire damage, poor positioning can end up killing your own workers or army. Furthermore, as they must be deployed before they do damage, they have a chance of getting killed before they deploy. I never bought into the infestors=no skill, but the difference is striking: immobilization to cast, no instant cast spell (in fact, complex targeting mechanism), tiny range, cooldown versus energy guarantees no double-cast.
Secondly, we do not see that gameplay is NR20 at the moment. In fact, mines allows for a number of dynamic situations where zergs try to micro against mine-based defenses while going into the mid-game. The mid-game was skipped entirely during the 3 queen time, but now there are ling, bling, muta or SH or roach, hydra mid-games which play an important part. Furthermore, vipers play a more mid-game oriented role as they come out earlier, stretching it out even more. If you look at LRs, everybody seems to enjoy TvZ a lot more now. A great example why is probably Fantasy versus True, set 3. If you haven't seen it, go see it now.
As for the final point, after you gave that clearly skewed depiction, you do not need to add ''FYI, I play zerg''. We know.
On April 12 2013 07:17 SC2Frozen wrote: OK, this thread has had enough of the "this is not significant" BS. Let us pull back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the steel wool of enlightenment. <snip> Note, this does not say that the widow mine production caused the win, but it pretty definitely shows that in games where the WMs were produced in these volumes, the winrate was very likely higher than 55%.
Most of the posters saying this data isn't significant were speaking to the lack of control for confounding factors.
For instance, the same data shows Terran masters players are winning almost 58% of games that go beyond 15 minutes, and that there is no discernible correlation between widow mines as a proportion of the army at 15 minutes and win-rates.
So far as I can tell from the OP, the stats are not for ">10 wm vs <10wm @10 mins", they are for ">10 wm vs <10wm" period. So how much of the correlation can be attributed to Terrans winning more in longer games, and rather unsurprisingly making more units in longer games?
On April 15 2013 10:32 Snoodles wrote: You're spending all your time trying to justify the validity of your sample set and ignoring all posts that give you examples of top Korean players dealing with widow mines with finesse.
What I've mainly seen from Koreans (GSL, Korean ladder etc) is "survive until tier 3 and throw ultras at the problem", not what I would really be calling "finesse", but to each his own I suppose. There's been some experimentation with ITs, with SHs and with running single units ahead of the group, all of which are Masters+ level micro, and even getting to Tier 3 when Terran wanders 10 WMs into your base is a challenge at lower levels.
Put another way, and has been stated before: if Zerg has fantastic micro, then WMs are not too much of an issue. However the increase in skill/micro required from Terran to be able to make a big impact with them (not get full value -- that requires good micro as well) is much much lower, so the unit is essentially abusive.
Best thing about WMs is we now also have the term "patch terran"
On April 15 2013 10:32 Snoodles wrote: You're spending all your time trying to justify the validity of your sample set and ignoring all posts that give you examples of top Korean players dealing with widow mines with finesse.
What I've mainly seen from Koreans (GSL, Korean ladder etc) is "survive until tier 3 and throw ultras at the problem", not what I would really be calling "finesse", but to each his own I suppose. There's been some experimentation with ITs, with SHs and with running single units ahead of the group, all of which are Masters+ level micro, and even getting to Tier 3 when Terran wanders 10 WMs into your base is a challenge at lower levels.
Put another way, and has been stated before: if Zerg has fantastic micro, then WMs are not too much of an issue. However the increase in skill/micro required from Terran to be able to make a big impact with them (not get full value -- that requires good micro as well) is much much lower, so the unit is essentially abusive.
Best thing about WMs is we now also have the term "patch terran"
Widow Mines are not bullet proof like Infestors were in WOL. In WOL, you basically could not lose Infestors if you had good vision of the map unless you were just completely stupid. See end of WOL's cycle where Z's would basically never lose Infestors and rack up 40+ kills on them.
Widow Mines are much easier to counter. There's plenty of counter play options, it just requires Z players to do more than hit an auto win battle button if the spell lands. Now Z players have to actually split (something Terran and to a lesser degree P players have been doing for a long time), have to bait, engage in better spots, etc. Even if the Widow Mine is slightly OP (which I don't agree with at all), it adds a much more dynamic feel to the game, and as such should remain the way it is. Maelstrom in BW for example was overpowered as hell against Z late game if used correctly, but could easily screw you over if you miscast it onto your Zealots. Same thing with Widow Mines. They can appear almost too effective when used properly, but when misused they are a total waste of resources/supply room.
On April 15 2013 10:32 Snoodles wrote: You're spending all your time trying to justify the validity of your sample set and ignoring all posts that give you examples of top Korean players dealing with widow mines with finesse.
What I've mainly seen from Koreans (GSL, Korean ladder etc) is "survive until tier 3 and throw ultras at the problem", not what I would really be calling "finesse", but to each his own I suppose. There's been some experimentation with ITs, with SHs and with running single units ahead of the group, all of which are Masters+ level micro, and even getting to Tier 3 when Terran wanders 10 WMs into your base is a challenge at lower levels.
Put another way, and has been stated before: if Zerg has fantastic micro, then WMs are not too much of an issue. However the increase in skill/micro required from Terran to be able to make a big impact with them (not get full value -- that requires good micro as well) is much much lower, so the unit is essentially abusive.
Best thing about WMs is we now also have the term "patch terran"
If "requires better micro from the other player to make a big impact with this" is sufficient in your eyes for a unit to be abusive, then every unit is abusive. I don't think it makes sense to evaluate whether or not a unit is abusive on the basis of its intrinsic properties; you have to evaluate each unit based on the larger context of all the units and abilities in the game.
For instance, it's much easier to cast a storm on someone else's army and do tons of damage than it is to split and dodge those storms. Same goes for infestors and fungal. Same goes for HSM. Same goes for colossus lasers. Same goes for tank shots. Same goes for EMP. And so on and so forth. Each of these things, when looked at alone, requires better micro on the receiving player's end than the casting player's. That doesn't make them abusive; the fact that each of the other races has abilities of its own levels the playing field out.
EDIT: In fact, I'd argue that the degree of control that you're afforded with these other abilities - you can specifically choose where and when to cast a storm - makes them more potent than the Widow Mine's ability in a lot of game-critical situations. If your Widow Mines burrow and decide to shoot single zerglings, you're pretty much SOL unless you want to have all of your mines retarget and then overkill one guy, which can be even worse.
Since zergs are still learning to deal with mines, these statistics dont mean much. If you're dealing with mass mine burrowing in front of you, infestors will shut it down. If they've built 16 widow mines that's 32 food invested in widow mines. Just play defensive, get infestors, and tech to broods. You will be ahead in army composition.
On April 12 2013 07:17 SC2Frozen wrote: OK, this thread has had enough of the "this is not significant" BS. Let us pull back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the steel wool of enlightenment. <snip> Note, this does not say that the widow mine production caused the win, but it pretty definitely shows that in games where the WMs were produced in these volumes, the winrate was very likely higher than 55%.
Most of the posters saying this data isn't significant were speaking to the lack of control for confounding factors.
For instance, the same data shows Terran masters players are winning almost 58% of games that go beyond 15 minutes, and that there is no discernible correlation between widow mines as a proportion of the army at 15 minutes and win-rates.
So far as I can tell from the OP, the stats are not for ">10 wm vs <10wm @10 mins", they are for ">10 wm vs <10wm" period. So how much of the correlation can be attributed to Terrans winning more in longer games, and rather unsurprisingly making more units in longer games?
This is what most people are missing, out of those games with 10 or more Widow Mines which ones are late game, mid game, etc. This stats don't actually tell you anything about widow mines' effectiveness, using the same sample I could pull out something like "players that build 10+ medivacs have higher winning percentage, therefore, you can clearly see that medivacs are pretty powerful", the fact that two variables seem to move "in the same direction" doesn't mean there's a correlation between the two. Time should be a much bigger factor than mines.
On April 12 2013 07:17 SC2Frozen wrote: OK, this thread has had enough of the "this is not significant" BS. Let us pull back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the steel wool of enlightenment. <snip> Note, this does not say that the widow mine production caused the win, but it pretty definitely shows that in games where the WMs were produced in these volumes, the winrate was very likely higher than 55%.
Most of the posters saying this data isn't significant were speaking to the lack of control for confounding factors.
For instance, the same data shows Terran masters players are winning almost 58% of games that go beyond 15 minutes, and that there is no discernible correlation between widow mines as a proportion of the army at 15 minutes and win-rates.
So far as I can tell from the OP, the stats are not for ">10 wm vs <10wm @10 mins", they are for ">10 wm vs <10wm" period. So how much of the correlation can be attributed to Terrans winning more in longer games, and rather unsurprisingly making more units in longer games?
This is what most people are missing, out of those games with 10 or more Widow Mines which ones are late game, mid game, etc. This stats don't actually tell you anything about widow mines' effectiveness, using the same sample I could pull out something like "players that build 10+ medivacs have higher winning percentage, therefore, you can clearly see that medivacs are pretty powerful", the fact that two variables seem to move "in the same direction" doesn't mean there's a correlation between the two. Time should be a much bigger factor than mines.
It's not terribly difficult to figure out, you run a probit model of # of widow mines on wins while controlling for things such as length of game, map, etc. The problem is that everything in the game is path dependent. The ability to make widow mines is part of what has happened in the game previously.
I think what you can say with the data available here is that there does appear to be a correlation between widow mines and terran win percentages.
Need to test one way widow mine correlation with future winning i.e. widow mine creation at time t correlated with winning at time t+t' but not the other way around.
I wonder how long it will take before we get threads about the battlehellion. I use 0 mines in tvz, but I use helllbats, and almost every game I get "imba" comments..
On April 16 2013 23:02 Snowbear wrote: I wonder how long it will take before we get threads about the battlehellion. I use 0 mines in tvz, but I use helllbats, and almost every game I get "imba" comments..
As a terran who also use hellbat comp (like demuslim), I also think hellbats are totally broken for their cost ^^. Much more than WM ^^
I like how the vast majority of people defending widow mines and equivocating the meaning of "balance" just happen to be Terran... I've been watching the past two seasons of GSL. And all the successful Terrans have a pretty obvious trend: Medivac afterburners, hellbats, widow mines.
The widow mine's just a cheap, fast-producing, expendable, cloaked, mini-seige tank that attacks air. It's too cost-effective and useful in too many scenarios (people argue it's a defensive unit but that's bs. Flash and other T's this season in GSL showed that WM really are just mini-siege tanks). The worst part is that it doesn't reward T's for doing anything positive. You just start burrowing them all over, then kite with marines for a cost-effective battle.
On April 22 2013 21:05 kamicom wrote: I like how the vast majority of people defending widow mines and equivocating the meaning of "balance" just happen to be Terran... I've been watching the past two seasons of GSL. And all the successful Terrans have a pretty obvious trend: Medivac afterburners, hellbats, widow mines.
The widow mine's just a cheap, fast-producing, expendable, cloaked, mini-seige tank that attacks air. It's too cost-effective and useful in too many scenarios (people argue it's a defensive unit but that's bs. Flash and other T's this season in GSL showed that WM really are just mini-siege tanks). The worst part is that it doesn't reward T's for doing anything positive. You just start burrowing them all over, then kite with marines for a cost-effective battle.
Yep, because terran needs such a unit.
Ever wondered why every terran was almost always going mech in the last months of WoL (even top Koreans players)? because playing bio was just too hard because of banelings/infest and the result was a win/rate ratio of 42% for TvZ for 6 months.
Now with mines, things are even, real micro are required from terran (split, kite, multitask) and from zerg (split zerglings, flank correctly, respond to multi-drops).
Thanks to widow-mine, we now can clearly distinguish real zergs (life, symbol, soO for exemple) from all the patchzergs that flourished during the last 6 months of WoL.
Of course, we see a lot of whinning from zergs in every league, and especially masters, since they are not used to having to micro thus lose more than they did before HotS
On April 22 2013 21:05 kamicom wrote: I like how the vast majority of people defending widow mines and equivocating the meaning of "balance" just happen to be Terran... I've been watching the past two seasons of GSL. And all the successful Terrans have a pretty obvious trend: Medivac afterburners, hellbats, widow mines.
The widow mine's just a cheap, fast-producing, expendable, cloaked, mini-seige tank that attacks air. It's too cost-effective and useful in too many scenarios (people argue it's a defensive unit but that's bs. Flash and other T's this season in GSL showed that WM really are just mini-siege tanks). The worst part is that it doesn't reward T's for doing anything positive. You just start burrowing them all over, then kite with marines for a cost-effective battle.
Yep, because terran needs such a unit.
Ever wondered why every terran was almost always going mech in the last months of WoL (even top Koreans players)? because playing bio was just too hard because of banelings/infest and the result was a win/rate ratio of 42% for TvZ for 6 months.
Now with mines, things are even, real micro are required from terran (split, kite, multitask) and from zerg (split zerglings, flank correctly, respond to multi-drops).
Thanks to widow-mine, we now can clearly distinguish real zergs (life, symbol, soO for exemple) from all the patchzergs that flourished during the last 6 months of WoL.
Of course, we see a lot of whinning from zergs in every league, and especially masters, since they are not used to having to micro thus lose more than they did before HotS
so now its 60% winrate for T and you call things even? wow ^^
mines are just way too easy to use, produce, cost-effective, fast and hit both air and ground with both single target and splash damage. basically you are stupid if you dont build mines imo since there is pretty much not a single downside vs Z.
same thing goes for afterburners. not a single downside to using it. just a huge straight up buff which in combination with the also insanely costeffective hellbat makes for terrible and very easy to play strats.
T went from the hardest to play to the easiest to play and hardest to play against race in HOTS. slight nerfs or better: downsides for afterburners, mines and hellbats are needed. and before all T start whining about nerfs: i said SLIGHT nerfs!
or even better: dont nerf T but buff P/Z! more OP things, more fun ^^
First, I call things even in terms of micro required by both races. Not saying the match-up is balanced, and I would say I wish blizzard nerfed the hellbat which is a stupid 1a unit that can be used as a mineral dump in case of bad macro
Second, the ratio is 54.1% right now according to http://aligulac.com/reports/ and we are expecting it to rise to 56_57% for april. But this is month 1. TvZ has been zerg favoured for 6 months straight up in WoL before every one recognised a nerf to infestors was needed. Same things for HotS, blizzard must wait at least 1 more month (or at least the end of WCS) before taking actions. If terran must be nerfed, so be it. But right now, people are just complaigning over something relatively new.
Third, talented zergs such as life, symbol and soO have shown fighting widow mine and afterburners is not something impossible to achieve, they do great right now against terran and they are leading the way for zergs. I wouldn't be surprised zergs catch-up terran in the following months without any nerfs to terran.
Finally, are you saying bio-mine is the easiest thing to play? i recommend you try it yourself before making such ridiculous statement
On April 22 2013 21:05 kamicom wrote: I like how the vast majority of people defending widow mines and equivocating the meaning of "balance" just happen to be Terran... I've been watching the past two seasons of GSL. And all the successful Terrans have a pretty obvious trend: Medivac afterburners, hellbats, widow mines.
The widow mine's just a cheap, fast-producing, expendable, cloaked, mini-seige tank that attacks air. It's too cost-effective and useful in too many scenarios (people argue it's a defensive unit but that's bs. Flash and other T's this season in GSL showed that WM really are just mini-siege tanks). The worst part is that it doesn't reward T's for doing anything positive. You just start burrowing them all over, then kite with marines for a cost-effective battle.
I like how the vast majority of people moaning about Widow Mines just happen to be Zerg...
Keep fooling yourself thinking Mines takes zero skill to work correctly when there are countless examples of Mines underperforming or even backfiring.
On April 22 2013 21:26 VieuxSinge wrote: Ever wondered why every terran was almost always going mech in the last months of WoL (even top Koreans players)?
? Mech was never the most used composition among top Korean Terrans. Even though players like Mvp frequently (or nearly exclusively at some times) used mech, Marines/Tanks remained standard.
On April 22 2013 21:37 Decendos wrote: so now its 60% winrate for T and you call things even? wow ^^
mines are just way too easy to use, produce, cost-effective, fast and hit both air and ground with both single target and splash damage. basically you are stupid if you dont build mines imo since there is pretty much not a single downside vs Z.
same thing goes for afterburners. not a single downside to using it. just a huge straight up buff which in combination with the also insanely costeffective hellbat makes for terrible and very easy to play strats.
T went from the hardest to play to the easiest to play and hardest to play against race in HOTS. slight nerfs or better: downsides for afterburners, mines and hellbats are needed. and before all T start whining about nerfs: i said SLIGHT nerfs!
or even better: dont nerf T but buff P/Z! more OP things, more fun ^^
It's quite hilarious how Medivacs and Mines are essentially freewin buttons when lazy/biased Zergs talk about them, then you watch Code S and you see TvZ is 18-15 in maps there. Where is the Mine/Medivac apocalypse?
On April 22 2013 21:46 VieuxSinge wrote: First, I call things even in terms of micro required by both races. Not saying the match-up is balanced, and I would say I wish blizzard nerfed the hellbat which is a stupid 1a unit that can be used as a mineral dump in case of bad macro
Second, the ratio is 54.1% right now according to http://aligulac.com/reports/ and we are expecting it to rise to 56_57% for april. But this is month 1. TvZ has been zerg favoured for 6 months straight up in WoL before every one recognised a nerf to infestors was needed. Same things for HotS, blizzard must wait at least 1 more month (or at least the end of WCS) before taking actions. If terran must be nerfed, so be it. But right now, people are just complaigning over something relatively new.
Third, talented zergs such as life, symbol and soO have shown fighting widow mine and afterburners is not something impossible to achieve, they do great right now against terran and they are leading the way for zergs. I wouldn't be surprised zergs catch-up terran in the following months without any nerfs to terran.
Finally, are you saying bio-mine is the easiest thing to play? i recommend you try it yourself before making such ridiculous statement
i played it (only dia level with T). but basically its more about watching pros play and thinking. MMM in WoL was WAY harder for T. right now you can basically burrow mines and everytime Z attacks into you you just stim everything and run back. now thats 1000x easier than having to split everything. obv. top pro T still will split so MMMM gets even more effective with splitting.
same goes for drops. there is absolutely no downside for afterburners and obv it is much easier dropping now. abusing cliffs, speeding away even from mutas, medivacs survive much longer etc.
reapers are much more viable now. after opening reaper you can 100% scout roach warren if you sac the reaper at the right time.
mines are awesome vs all ins
free siege mode is awesome vs all ins.
hellbat drops are insanely cost efficient.
so yeah then i say T in WoL is >>>> harder to play than T in HOTS i am 100% right about that. not even talking about balance here but being way safer in early and midgame (talking TvZ only atm) while being able to pressure much better and having a better standing army while infestor being nerfed hard makes T way easier to play (easier /= easy!).
On April 22 2013 21:46 VieuxSinge wrote: First, I call things even in terms of micro required by both races. Not saying the match-up is balanced, and I would say I wish blizzard nerfed the hellbat which is a stupid 1a unit that can be used as a mineral dump in case of bad macro
Second, the ratio is 54.1% right now according to http://aligulac.com/reports/ and we are expecting it to rise to 56_57% for april. But this is month 1. TvZ has been zerg favoured for 6 months straight up in WoL before every one recognised a nerf to infestors was needed. Same things for HotS, blizzard must wait at least 1 more month (or at least the end of WCS) before taking actions. If terran must be nerfed, so be it. But right now, people are just complaigning over something relatively new.
Third, talented zergs such as life, symbol and soO have shown fighting widow mine and afterburners is not something impossible to achieve, they do great right now against terran and they are leading the way for zergs. I wouldn't be surprised zergs catch-up terran in the following months without any nerfs to terran.
Finally, are you saying bio-mine is the easiest thing to play? i recommend you try it yourself before making such ridiculous statement
i played it (only dia level with T). but basically its more about watching pros play and thinking. MMM in WoL was WAY harder for T. right now you can basically burrow mines and everytime Z attacks into you you just stim everything and run back. now thats 1000x easier than having to split everything. obv. top pro T still will split so MMMM gets even more effective with splitting.
same goes for drops. there is absolutely no downside for afterburners and obv it is much easier dropping now. abusing cliffs, speeding away even from mutas, medivacs survive much longer etc.
reapers are much more viable now. after opening reaper you can 100% scout roach warren if you sac the reaper at the right time.
mines are awesome vs all ins
free siege mode is awesome vs all ins.
hellbat drops are insanely cost efficient.
so yeah then i say T in WoL is >>>> harder to play than T in HOTS i am 100% right about that. not even talking about balance here but being way safer in early and midgame (talking TvZ only atm) while being able to pressure much better and having a better standing army while infestor being nerfed hard makes T way easier to play (easier /= easy!).
Likewise Zerg was way too easy to defend until tier 3 in WoL. That's the point.
On April 22 2013 21:05 kamicom wrote: I like how the vast majority of people defending widow mines and equivocating the meaning of "balance" just happen to be Terran... I've been watching the past two seasons of GSL. And all the successful Terrans have a pretty obvious trend: Medivac afterburners, hellbats, widow mines.
The widow mine's just a cheap, fast-producing, expendable, cloaked, mini-seige tank that attacks air. It's too cost-effective and useful in too many scenarios (people argue it's a defensive unit but that's bs. Flash and other T's this season in GSL showed that WM really are just mini-siege tanks). The worst part is that it doesn't reward T's for doing anything positive. You just start burrowing them all over, then kite with marines for a cost-effective battle.
Yep, because terran needs such a unit.
Ever wondered why every terran was almost always going mech in the last months of WoL (even top Koreans players)? because playing bio was just too hard because of banelings/infest and the result was a win/rate ratio of 42% for TvZ for 6 months.
Now with mines, things are even, real micro are required from terran (split, kite, multitask) and from zerg (split zerglings, flank correctly, respond to multi-drops).
Thanks to widow-mine, we now can clearly distinguish real zergs (life, symbol, soO for exemple) from all the patchzergs that flourished during the last 6 months of WoL.
Of course, we see a lot of whinning from zergs in every league, and especially masters, since they are not used to having to micro thus lose more than they did before HotS
Lol. TvZ was fine until the ghost nerf made infestors impossible to deal with, didn't really have anything to do with a micro discrepancy between bio and muta / ling / bling. Nice generalizing tho
As a P mines aren´t that bad although i think it's quite ridicilous that such an early unit requires detection since it can be placed in mineral lines which spider mines never could(workers were "floating" units in BW so mines didnt initiate on them) i think afterburners however is complete bullshit. If i scout a drop, bait them halfway into my base, they should not be able to get out for free, something which currently happens due to AB. Hell they might even fly around and go for my natural and drop there, something they can do since the damn things is much faster then all of my units. AB is a crutch for bad drop play it needs a downside or should simply be removed.
I noticed that when I go to sleep early, 59% of the time the next day happens to be sunny. However, if I go to bed really late, the weather often times (51%) is kinda rainy or cold. Do you think I should go to sleep early every day, because weather will be better than?
But hey, srsly: I'm a zerg, and I don't really feel like Widowmines are a huge problem. Mine drops are no problems for me, since I'm able to react pretty fast and have spores in my bases anyway, and I generally try to get the mines to shoot my opponents marines with zerglings.
On April 12 2013 07:17 SC2Frozen wrote: OK, this thread has had enough of the "this is not significant" BS. Let us pull back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the steel wool of enlightenment. <snip> Note, this does not say that the widow mine production caused the win, but it pretty definitely shows that in games where the WMs were produced in these volumes, the winrate was very likely higher than 55%.
Most of the posters saying this data isn't significant were speaking to the lack of control for confounding factors.
For instance, the same data shows Terran masters players are winning almost 58% of games that go beyond 15 minutes, and that there is no discernible correlation between widow mines as a proportion of the army at 15 minutes and win-rates.
So far as I can tell from the OP, the stats are not for ">10 wm vs <10wm @10 mins", they are for ">10 wm vs <10wm" period. So how much of the correlation can be attributed to Terrans winning more in longer games, and rather unsurprisingly making more units in longer games?
This is what most people are missing, out of those games with 10 or more Widow Mines which ones are late game, mid game, etc. This stats don't actually tell you anything about widow mines' effectiveness, using the same sample I could pull out something like "players that build 10+ medivacs have higher winning percentage, therefore, you can clearly see that medivacs are pretty powerful", the fact that two variables seem to move "in the same direction" doesn't mean there's a correlation between the two. Time should be a much bigger factor than mines.
It's not terribly difficult to figure out, you run a probit model of # of widow mines on wins while controlling for things such as length of game, map, etc. The problem is that everything in the game is path dependent. The ability to make widow mines is part of what has happened in the game previously.
I think what you can say with the data available here is that there does appear to be a correlation between widow mines and terran win percentages.
Yes, you can say that but that in return doesn't actually say anything.
On April 22 2013 21:05 kamicom wrote: I like how the vast majority of people defending widow mines and equivocating the meaning of "balance" just happen to be Terran... I've been watching the past two seasons of GSL. And all the successful Terrans have a pretty obvious trend: Medivac afterburners, hellbats, widow mines.
The widow mine's just a cheap, fast-producing, expendable, cloaked, mini-seige tank that attacks air. It's too cost-effective and useful in too many scenarios (people argue it's a defensive unit but that's bs. Flash and other T's this season in GSL showed that WM really are just mini-siege tanks). The worst part is that it doesn't reward T's for doing anything positive. You just start burrowing them all over, then kite with marines for a cost-effective battle.
You haven't been watching enough or paying any attention then. All the bold is completely wrong too.
T went from the hardest to play to the easiest to play and hardest to play against race in HOTS. slight nerfs or better: downsides for afterburners, mines and hellbats are needed. and before all T start whining about nerfs: i said SLIGHT nerfs
Go play T before you make such an ignorant statement.
To reiterate: I don't see how any of the stats gathered in this thread mean anything when the balance isn't focused around the highest levels of play where strategies are still being developed and even the best players are still learning how to adapt and deal with new and odd compositions.
Why hasn't this thread been closed/locked yet? It means nothing and its clearly whining.
The problem is that the zerg player cannot A move his arm and hug the terran army, Everyone say that Terran is easy, but all I see is a lot of zerg players on ladder playing greed as hell and complaining about balance.
I dunno. I'm watching ForGG using mass mines in every game of the Acer Teamstory cup vs. Acer, and honestly I'm gettin' real tired of their shit. Mobile stealth siege tanks that hit air? K. Can just leave 'em around sorta wherever and accidentally get tons of kills? K.
The microless kills are really what do it, though.
On April 23 2013 00:39 Crownlol wrote: I dunno. I'm watching ForGG using mass mines in every game of the Acer Teamstory cup vs. Acer, and honestly I'm gettin' real tired of their shit. Mobile stealth siege tanks that hit air? K. Can just leave 'em around sorta wherever and accidentally get tons of kills? K.
The microless kills are really what do it, though.
Listing the strengths of a unit while conveniently omitting its weaknesses is a sure way to make everything look imbalanced.
what i really find so entertaining about widowmine vs zerg is following Pattern: Terran moves out on creep. Zerg has vision. sees the mines burrowing. Send in some lings. As soon the terrans widowmine go off on a few lings and are ON COOLDOWN, the zerg retreats with his whole army vs a terran on creep with widowmines on 40 seconds cd? It is so hillarious to watch the stupid zerg players, its like a cow running into electric fence, getting shocked, retreating, and running in again.
Or another thing, yesterday, wcs qualifier, zvt, dont know who, but some top notch korean zerg, Roach / ling push on day break, between natural and established third. Natural is save with bunkers, several mines. Zerg could easily take out 3rd. but what does he do? runs into the minefield covered by 2 bunkers and mmm. Terran looses like nearly everything, Zerg crushes the two bunkers and waits ON THE MINEFIELD for reinforcement, until the mines get ready again.Why doesnt he take out the 3rd? why doesnt he get an oversser? why is he camping the Minefield? Bam all roach explode. I dont know how stupid high lvl zergs really are, but what they show is so brutally bad micro and decisionmaking, that they would be stuck in silver forever if played terran in wol. I wonder if Zerg really has been so easy that u could get away with this level of play in wol.
On April 22 2013 21:46 VieuxSinge wrote: First, I call things even in terms of micro required by both races. Not saying the match-up is balanced, and I would say I wish blizzard nerfed the hellbat which is a stupid 1a unit that can be used as a mineral dump in case of bad macro
Second, the ratio is 54.1% right now according to http://aligulac.com/reports/ and we are expecting it to rise to 56_57% for april. But this is month 1. TvZ has been zerg favoured for 6 months straight up in WoL before every one recognised a nerf to infestors was needed. Same things for HotS, blizzard must wait at least 1 more month (or at least the end of WCS) before taking actions. If terran must be nerfed, so be it. But right now, people are just complaigning over something relatively new.
Third, talented zergs such as life, symbol and soO have shown fighting widow mine and afterburners is not something impossible to achieve, they do great right now against terran and they are leading the way for zergs. I wouldn't be surprised zergs catch-up terran in the following months without any nerfs to terran.
Finally, are you saying bio-mine is the easiest thing to play? i recommend you try it yourself before making such ridiculous statement
On April 22 2013 22:42 unkkz wrote: As a P mines aren´t that bad although i think it's quite ridicilous that such an early unit requires detection since it can be placed in mineral lines which spider mines never could(workers were "floating" units in BW so mines didnt initiate on them) i think afterburners however is complete bullshit. If i scout a drop, bait them halfway into my base, they should not be able to get out for free, something which currently happens due to AB. Hell they might even fly around and go for my natural and drop there, something they can do since the damn things is much faster then all of my units. AB is a crutch for bad drop play it needs a downside or should simply be removed.
On April 23 2013 00:53 DifuntO wrote: Zerg has to actually micro now and look at all the reactions.It's pretty funny.
What i see from WCS Korea is that the best player almost always wins in TvZ.
They have to micro, make good flanks, have good map awarness, make counter attacks, be more aggressive... In other words, they have to play zerg style....and not toss style.
If u zergs want to win in WoL turtle style, just switch to protoss.
all the T here should go play some Z. hf playing vs reaper into helion into mine into MMM every single game and not be able to do anything even knowing exactly T does it 100% of the time. they seriously finally need to patch...there is literally 0 fun to play Z since 6 or even 7 months now...thats by far enough time to finally patch things.
On April 23 2013 00:53 DifuntO wrote: Zerg has to actually micro now and look at all the reactions.It's pretty funny.
What i see from WCS Korea is that the best player almost always wins in TvZ.
They have to micro, make good flanks, have good map awarness, make counter attacks, be more aggressive... In other words, they have to play zerg style....and not toss style.
If u zergs want to win in WoL turtle style, just switch to protoss.
be more aggressive...WRONG! zerg needs to defend even more and cant be aggressive...thats whats so insanely stupid right now. reaper scouts everything, WM and/or free siege tanks defends every aggression. all Z does is defend. watch any TvZ pro stream/tournament. T got more to pressure AND more to defend while Z got...nothing early game...mutabuff but sick infestor nerf midgame....and yeah hf surviving til hive where Z actually got new viable things. oh and since you need to dronescout on 9 or 10 now or BO loss to 888 reaper you will have 50 min = 1 drone less in the early game just because 888 reaper exists. another very big thing early game where every drone matters. there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: all the T here should go play some Z. hf playing vs reaper into helion into mine into MMM every single game and not be able to do anything even knowing exactly T does it 100% of the time. they seriously finally need to patch...there is literally 0 fun to play Z since 6 or even 7 months now...thats by far enough time to finally patch things.
Game is out for one month and 10 days → you add the Lings of Liberty period to argue that "there is literally 0 fun to play Z since 6 or even 7 months now" and that the game should thus be patched? Good job combining two different games and adding apples to oranges to obtain a fake extended period.
be more aggressive...WRONG! zerg needs to defend even more and cant be aggressive...thats whats so insanely stupid right now. reaper scouts everything, WM and/or free siege tanks defends every aggression. all Z does is defend. watch any TvZ pro stream/tournament. T got more to pressure AND more to defend while Z got...nothing early game...mutabuff but sick infestor nerf midgame....and yeah hf surviving til hive where Z actually got new viable things. ^^
DRG uses agressive play and only narrowly falls short because he ends up being 1/1 against 3/3 bio in the Bel'shir Vestige game against YoDa. Curious wins MarineKing using constant midgame lings/banes/mutas agression. Against FanTaSy on Whirlwind, TRUE goes for no less than seven Baneling busts in a row. In the Akilon Wastes game, he uses an agressive 2-bases Speedroaches Nydus attack. Symbol kills KeeN with the same trick on Red City. Shine uses a 3-bases Speedroaches attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige, deals huge damage with his Mutalisk fleet throughout the following game on Star Station. Soulkey scouts Maru going CC rax CC and reactively punishes him with a Baneling bust on Whirlwind. Soulkey goes for a Roach/Zerglings attack against Maru on the Red City game of the second series and kills 16 SCVs with that.
But what do all those Korean Zergs know, since Decendos, the Zerg Master, has already decided that "Zerg can't be agressive"?
oh and since you need to dronescout on 9 or 10 now or BO loss to 888 reaper
You don't need to drone scout that early not to lose against 8-8-8, stop talking nonsense...
On April 23 2013 00:53 DifuntO wrote: Zerg has to actually micro now and look at all the reactions.It's pretty funny.
What i see from WCS Korea is that the best player almost always wins in TvZ.
They have to micro, make good flanks, have good map awarness, make counter attacks, be more aggressive... In other words, they have to play zerg style....and not toss style.
If u zergs want to win in WoL turtle style, just switch to protoss.
Yeah its hilarious, zergs actually have to micro now instead of 1-a click and make simple flanks. I keep making great counter points on how they can combat mines or go watch some of the best players, but mr. master league and lower knows best right?
I'll keep saying it until they read it. I don't see how any of the stats gathered in this thread mean anything when the balance isn't focused around the highest levels of play where strategies are still being developed and even the best players are still learning how to adapt and deal with new and odd compositions.
This thread and people trying to defend the fact they don't want to learn something new disgust me.
You can also hold off the 888 without drone scouting but drone scouting is actually not that bad since it allows you to go 3 hatch before pool against CC first as well.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: oh and since you need to dronescout on 9 or 10 now or BO loss to 888 reaper you will have 50 min = 1 drone less in the early game just because 888 reaper exists
I've seen 8-8-8 zero times in the GSL so far. Are the Terran players just being nice to their Zerg opponents?
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: oh and since you need to dronescout on 9 or 10 now or BO loss to 888 reaper you will have 50 min = 1 drone less in the early game just because 888 reaper exists
I've seen 8-8-8 zero times in the GSL so far. Are the Terran players just being nice to their Zerg opponents?
Bomber vs RorO, Star Station. ~Even game. Maru vs Bboong, Star Station. Awful defence, freewin for Maru. Maru vs Soulkey, Akilon Wastes. Awful defence, freewin for Maru.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: oh and since you need to dronescout on 9 or 10 now or BO loss to 888 reaper you will have 50 min = 1 drone less in the early game just because 888 reaper exists
I've seen 8-8-8 zero times in the GSL so far. Are the Terran players just being nice to their Zerg opponents?
Maru used is versus BboongBboong just 4 days ago, I think that's that only time I've seen it. Don't say things that aren't true.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: oh and since you need to dronescout on 9 or 10 now or BO loss to 888 reaper you will have 50 min = 1 drone less in the early game just because 888 reaper exists
I've seen 8-8-8 zero times in the GSL so far. Are the Terran players just being nice to their Zerg opponents?
Maru used is versus BboongBboong just 4 days ago, I think that's that only time I've seen it. Don't say things that aren't true.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: all the T here should go play some Z. hf playing vs reaper into helion into mine into MMM every single game and not be able to do anything even knowing exactly T does it 100% of the time. they seriously finally need to patch...there is literally 0 fun to play Z since 6 or even 7 months now...thats by far enough time to finally patch things.
Game is out for one month and 10 days → you add the Lings of Liberty period to argue that "there is literally 0 fun to play Z since 6 or even 7 months now" and that the game should thus be patched? Good job combining two different games and adding apples to oranges to obtain a fake extended period.
be more aggressive...WRONG! zerg needs to defend even more and cant be aggressive...thats whats so insanely stupid right now. reaper scouts everything, WM and/or free siege tanks defends every aggression. all Z does is defend. watch any TvZ pro stream/tournament. T got more to pressure AND more to defend while Z got...nothing early game...mutabuff but sick infestor nerf midgame....and yeah hf surviving til hive where Z actually got new viable things. ^^
DRG uses agressive play and only narrowly falls short because he ends up being 1/1 against 3/3 bio in the Bel'shir Vestige game against YoDa. Curious wins MarineKing using constant midgame lings/banes/mutas agression. Against FanTaSy on Whirlwind, TRUE goes for no less than seven Baneling busts in a row. In the Akilon Wastes game, he uses an agressive 2-bases Speedroaches Nydus attack. Symbol kills KeeN with the same trick on Red City. Shine uses a 3-bases Speedroaches attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige, deals huge damage with his Mutalisk fleet throughout the following game on Star Station. Soulkey scouts Maru going CC rax CC and reactively punishes him with a Baneling bust on Whirlwind. Soulkey goes for a Roach/Zerglings attack against Maru on the Red City game of the second series and kills 16 SCVs with that.
But what do all those Korean Zergs know, since Decendos, the Zerg Master, has already decided that "Zerg can't be agressive"?
oh and since you need to dronescout on 9 or 10 now or BO loss to 888 reaper
You don't need to drone scout that early not to lose against 8-8-8, stop talking nonsense...
- its 6 or 7 months now since beta started. yeah somethings changed but most is a lot longer in the game as it is than only the 6 weeks since release
- so basically you post "aggression" from lairtech then i was talking about VIABLE (= you arent all in) hatchtech aggression being impossible vs reaper into helion into mine. the other games were hatchtech aggression did damage was vs gasless openings which are 100% like WoL and have the same viability than in WoL since Z early game hasnt changed at all (well ovispeed and burrow seem OP rofl) and T plays the same with gasless openings.
so yeah hf defending your race. an objective discussion isnt possible it seems. there will be a small build time nerf to reaper and small nerfs to mines, hellbats and speedvacs. nothing big but small things will happen and thats a good thing since even T players like demuslim say for example hellbats are way too cost efficient etc. hf "discussing" some more lol.
there will be a small build time nerf to reaper and small nerfs to mines, hellbats and speedvacs. nothing big but small things will happen and thats a good thing since even T players like demuslim say for example hellbats are way too cost efficient etc. hf "discussing" some more lol.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: all the T here should go play some Z. hf playing vs reaper into helion into mine into MMM every single game and not be able to do anything even knowing exactly T does it 100% of the time. they seriously finally need to patch...there is literally 0 fun to play Z since 6 or even 7 months now...thats by far enough time to finally patch things.
Game is out for one month and 10 days → you add the Lings of Liberty period to argue that "there is literally 0 fun to play Z since 6 or even 7 months now" and that the game should thus be patched? Good job combining two different games and adding apples to oranges to obtain a fake extended period.
be more aggressive...WRONG! zerg needs to defend even more and cant be aggressive...thats whats so insanely stupid right now. reaper scouts everything, WM and/or free siege tanks defends every aggression. all Z does is defend. watch any TvZ pro stream/tournament. T got more to pressure AND more to defend while Z got...nothing early game...mutabuff but sick infestor nerf midgame....and yeah hf surviving til hive where Z actually got new viable things. ^^
DRG uses agressive play and only narrowly falls short because he ends up being 1/1 against 3/3 bio in the Bel'shir Vestige game against YoDa. Curious wins MarineKing using constant midgame lings/banes/mutas agression. Against FanTaSy on Whirlwind, TRUE goes for no less than seven Baneling busts in a row. In the Akilon Wastes game, he uses an agressive 2-bases Speedroaches Nydus attack. Symbol kills KeeN with the same trick on Red City. Shine uses a 3-bases Speedroaches attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige, deals huge damage with his Mutalisk fleet throughout the following game on Star Station. Soulkey scouts Maru going CC rax CC and reactively punishes him with a Baneling bust on Whirlwind. Soulkey goes for a Roach/Zerglings attack against Maru on the Red City game of the second series and kills 16 SCVs with that.
But what do all those Korean Zergs know, since Decendos, the Zerg Master, has already decided that "Zerg can't be agressive"?
oh and since you need to dronescout on 9 or 10 now or BO loss to 888 reaper
You don't need to drone scout that early not to lose against 8-8-8, stop talking nonsense...
- its 6 or 7 months now since beta started. yeah somethings changed but most is a lot longer in the game as it is than only the 6 weeks since release
- so basically you post "aggression" from lairtech then i was talking about VIABLE (= you arent all in) hatchtech aggression being impossible vs reaper into helion into mine. the other games were hatchtech aggression did damage was vs gasless openings which are 100% like WoL and have the same viability than in WoL since Z early game hasnt changed at all (well ovispeed and burrow seem OP rofl) and T plays the same with gasless openings.
so yeah hf defending your race. an objective discussion isnt possible it seems. there will be a small build time nerf to reaper and small nerfs to mines, hellbats and speedvacs. nothing big but small things will happen and thats a good thing since even T players like demuslim say for example hellbats are way too cost efficient etc. hf "discussing" some more lol.
Did you just say that TheDwf, the walking talking database of every pro-game strategy in memory, is someone you cannot have an OBJECTIVE discussion with? You're bonkers. How about you provide example games of the half-baked theorycrafted examples you 'discuss'.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: all the T here should go play some Z. hf playing vs reaper into helion into mine into MMM every single game and not be able to do anything even knowing exactly T does it 100% of the time. they seriously finally need to patch...there is literally 0 fun to play Z since 6 or even 7 months now...thats by far enough time to finally patch things.
Game is out for one month and 10 days → you add the Lings of Liberty period to argue that "there is literally 0 fun to play Z since 6 or even 7 months now" and that the game should thus be patched? Good job combining two different games and adding apples to oranges to obtain a fake extended period.
be more aggressive...WRONG! zerg needs to defend even more and cant be aggressive...thats whats so insanely stupid right now. reaper scouts everything, WM and/or free siege tanks defends every aggression. all Z does is defend. watch any TvZ pro stream/tournament. T got more to pressure AND more to defend while Z got...nothing early game...mutabuff but sick infestor nerf midgame....and yeah hf surviving til hive where Z actually got new viable things. ^^
DRG uses agressive play and only narrowly falls short because he ends up being 1/1 against 3/3 bio in the Bel'shir Vestige game against YoDa. Curious wins MarineKing using constant midgame lings/banes/mutas agression. Against FanTaSy on Whirlwind, TRUE goes for no less than seven Baneling busts in a row. In the Akilon Wastes game, he uses an agressive 2-bases Speedroaches Nydus attack. Symbol kills KeeN with the same trick on Red City. Shine uses a 3-bases Speedroaches attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige, deals huge damage with his Mutalisk fleet throughout the following game on Star Station. Soulkey scouts Maru going CC rax CC and reactively punishes him with a Baneling bust on Whirlwind. Soulkey goes for a Roach/Zerglings attack against Maru on the Red City game of the second series and kills 16 SCVs with that.
But what do all those Korean Zergs know, since Decendos, the Zerg Master, has already decided that "Zerg can't be agressive"?
oh and since you need to dronescout on 9 or 10 now or BO loss to 888 reaper
You don't need to drone scout that early not to lose against 8-8-8, stop talking nonsense...
- its 6 or 7 months now since beta started. yeah somethings changed but most is a lot longer in the game as it is than only the 6 weeks since release
- so basically you post "aggression" from lairtech then i was talking about VIABLE (= you arent all in) hatchtech aggression being impossible vs reaper into helion into mine. the other games were hatchtech aggression did damage was vs gasless openings which are 100% like WoL and have the same viability than in WoL since Z early game hasnt changed at all (well ovispeed and burrow seem OP rofl) and T plays the same with gasless openings.
so yeah hf defending your race. an objective discussion isnt possible it seems. there will be a small build time nerf to reaper and small nerfs to mines, hellbats and speedvacs. nothing big but small things will happen and thats a good thing since even T players like demuslim say for example hellbats are way too cost efficient etc. hf "discussing" some more lol.
Did you just say that TheDwf, the walking talking database of every pro-game strategy in memory, is someone you cannot have an OBJECTIVE discussion with? You're bonkers. How about you provide example games of the half-baked theorycrafted examples you 'discuss'.
no not him. he just misunderstood me and thought i meant all aggression while i was talking about hatchtech aggression vs reaper into helion into mine which i yet have to see.
objective discussion was more to most other guys which are defending every single aspect of T while even pros like demuslim say different...
On April 22 2013 21:05 kamicom wrote: I like how the vast majority of people defending widow mines and equivocating the meaning of "balance" just happen to be Terran... I've been watching the past two seasons of GSL. And all the successful Terrans have a pretty obvious trend: Medivac afterburners, hellbats, widow mines.
The widow mine's just a cheap, fast-producing, expendable, cloaked, mini-seige tank that attacks air. It's too cost-effective and useful in too many scenarios (people argue it's a defensive unit but that's bs. Flash and other T's this season in GSL showed that WM really are just mini-siege tanks). The worst part is that it doesn't reward T's for doing anything positive. You just start burrowing them all over, then kite with marines for a cost-effective battle.
Yep, because terran needs such a unit.
Ever wondered why every terran was almost always going mech in the last months of WoL (even top Koreans players)? because playing bio was just too hard because of banelings/infest and the result was a win/rate ratio of 42% for TvZ for 6 months.
Now with mines, things are even, real micro are required from terran (split, kite, multitask) and from zerg (split zerglings, flank correctly, respond to multi-drops).
Thanks to widow-mine, we now can clearly distinguish real zergs (life, symbol, soO for exemple) from all the patchzergs that flourished during the last 6 months of WoL.
Of course, we see a lot of whinning from zergs in every league, and especially masters, since they are not used to having to micro thus lose more than they did before HotS
Actually, It really doesn't matter what you typed here. Because none of the facts you contributed has relevance on the imbalancy of Widow Mine. Widow Mine will definitely get patch because majority of the zerg player complains about the unit and Blizzard will definitely do something before all the zerg quits. While Terran is the least likely unit to get play among 3 of the races, so Widow Mine will get patch.
"Yep, because terran needs such a unit." No Terran doesn't need Widow Mine, your race is designed to split your armies and dropping. Having Hellbats and Ignite burner is a gift from Blizzard.
In my honest opinion, Ignite burner, free siege tank, hell bat, widow mine is not nesscary in HOTS but for the sake of new expansion, Blizzard has to create new units for the sake of your boring and garbage race.
42% in TVZ against infestors and banelings is not imbalance.Terran is a shitty race and to be honest having 42% win rate is quite amazing. Terran just needs to learn how to play, but majority of them doesn't know how to deal with them, Terran is designed to micro harder than any other race to overcome their opponent. If you cannot adapt to be the true Terran, quit the race.
I think Blizzard needs to nerf Reaper, bunker, planetary fortress, tanks, hellions, banshee, widow mine, hell bats, medivac and Ravens. Reapers should cost 100 gas to prevent early scouting and harass. Bunker should cost 150 minerals build. Planetary Fortress is too strong. It should do 20 dps. Tanks should have no siege tank and less hp. Hellions should have the speed of marines. Banshee should've no cloak, widow mine should cost 200/100, hell bats should cost 50 gas. Medivac should heap 1 hp per second. Ravens should have no purpose other than detecting units.
On April 23 2013 04:05 Decendos wrote: - its 6 or 7 months now since beta started. yeah somethings changed but most is a lot longer in the game as it is than only the 6 weeks since release
Yeah, you can totally compare the current Oracles with the Entomb variant, and those Warhounds pushes are still super scary.
- so basically you post "aggression" from lairtech then i was talking about VIABLE (= you arent all in) hatchtech aggression being impossible vs reaper into helion into mine.
So? 2-bases timings are extinct for nearly a year in TvZ, why should you be entitled to have valid ones?
so yeah hf defending your race. an objective discussion isnt possible it seems.
Yes, I will defend my race against the senseless diatribes of uninformed people who don't even know their own race and refuse to adapt, and yet keep complaining despite having poor knowledge about the game.
and thats a good thing since even T players like demuslim say for example hellbats are way too cost efficient etc.
So? Is DeMusliM the ultimate judge about balance, including the units of his own race?
On April 23 2013 04:05 Decendos wrote: - its 6 or 7 months now since beta started. yeah somethings changed but most is a lot longer in the game as it is than only the 6 weeks since release
Yeah, you can totally compare the current Oracles with the Entomb variant, and those Warhounds pushes are still super scary.
- so basically you post "aggression" from lairtech then i was talking about VIABLE (= you arent all in) hatchtech aggression being impossible vs reaper into helion into mine.
So? 2-bases timings are extinct for nearly a year in TvZ, why should you be entitled to have valid ones?
so yeah hf defending your race. an objective discussion isnt possible it seems.
Yes, I will defend my race against the senseless diatribes of uninformed people who don't even know their own race and refuse to adapt, and yet keep complaining despite having poor knowledge about the game.
and thats a good thing since even T players like demuslim say for example hellbats are way too cost efficient etc.
So? Is DeMusliM the ultimate judge about balance, including the units of his own race?
so you are this "obejctive guy"? lol.
ZvT HOTS mutas, mines etc. are there since 3-5 months now. and why are you talking about oracles than we are talking ZvT?
2 base timings arent extinct. roach ling or roach ling bling aggression was viable in WoL. they arent in HOTS while T got a shitload of new timings and aggression. but well there is hope, maybe blizz will realize that burrow is 100% useless with the high cost and long time it takes and will buff it.
maybe they wont and they just nerf reaper build time a bit and also nerf speedvacs and WM. hellbats arent a problem imo, its hellbat drops which speedvacs are the problem, not the bats.
so we will see how blizz decides to nerf T or buff Z/P but be prepared that patches will come and are needed.
oh and btw there are also buffs needed for T...basically buff tank damage while increasing siege time would make them not OP but much stronger and would make mech more viable. also buffs to other underused units like oracles, hydras and SHs or things like nydus, ovidrop, autoturrets etc. would be very nice. really hope blizz makes more stuff viable.
On April 23 2013 04:05 Decendos wrote: - its 6 or 7 months now since beta started. yeah somethings changed but most is a lot longer in the game as it is than only the 6 weeks since release
Yeah, you can totally compare the current Oracles with the Entomb variant, and those Warhounds pushes are still super scary.
- so basically you post "aggression" from lairtech then i was talking about VIABLE (= you arent all in) hatchtech aggression being impossible vs reaper into helion into mine.
So? 2-bases timings are extinct for nearly a year in TvZ, why should you be entitled to have valid ones?
so yeah hf defending your race. an objective discussion isnt possible it seems.
Yes, I will defend my race against the senseless diatribes of uninformed people who don't even know their own race and refuse to adapt, and yet keep complaining despite having poor knowledge about the game.
and thats a good thing since even T players like demuslim say for example hellbats are way too cost efficient etc.
So? Is DeMusliM the ultimate judge about balance, including the units of his own race?
so you are this "obejctive guy"? lol.
ZvT HOTS mutas, mines etc. are there since 3-5 months now. and why are you talking about oracles than we are talking ZvT?
2 base timings arent extinct. roach ling or roach ling bling aggression was viable in WoL. they arent in HOTS while T got a shitload of new timings and aggression. but well there is hope, maybe blizz will realize that burrow is 100% useless with the high cost and long time it takes and will buff it.
maybe they wont and they just nerf reaper build time a bit and also nerf speedvacs and WM. hellbats arent a problem imo, its hellbat drops which speedvacs are the problem, not the bats.
so we will see how blizz decides to nerf T or buff Z/P but be prepared that patches will come and are needed.
oh and btw there are also buffs needed for T...basically buff tank damage while increasing siege time would make them not OP but much stronger and would make mech more viable. also buffs to other underused units like oracles, hydras and SHs or things like nydus, ovidrop, autoturrets etc. would be very nice. really hope blizz makes more stuff viable.
It's not even true. If you scout the Terran going for 3 CC you can still punish him with roaches or a bane bust.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
so yeah hf defending your race. an objective discussion isnt possible it seems. there will be a small build time nerf to reaper and small nerfs to mines, hellbats and speedvacs. nothing big but small things will happen and thats a good thing since even T players like demuslim say for example hellbats are way too cost efficient etc. hf "discussing" some more lol.
You just want your freewin times back, that's all. Go take a look at your tvz wol winrates, I'm sure they are minimum 70%, if not more...
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
On April 23 2013 04:05 Decendos wrote: - its 6 or 7 months now since beta started. yeah somethings changed but most is a lot longer in the game as it is than only the 6 weeks since release
Yeah, you can totally compare the current Oracles with the Entomb variant, and those Warhounds pushes are still super scary.
- so basically you post "aggression" from lairtech then i was talking about VIABLE (= you arent all in) hatchtech aggression being impossible vs reaper into helion into mine.
So? 2-bases timings are extinct for nearly a year in TvZ, why should you be entitled to have valid ones?
so yeah hf defending your race. an objective discussion isnt possible it seems.
Yes, I will defend my race against the senseless diatribes of uninformed people who don't even know their own race and refuse to adapt, and yet keep complaining despite having poor knowledge about the game.
and thats a good thing since even T players like demuslim say for example hellbats are way too cost efficient etc.
So? Is DeMusliM the ultimate judge about balance, including the units of his own race?
so you are this "obejctive guy"? lol.
ZvT HOTS mutas, mines etc. are there since 3-5 months now. and why are you talking about oracles than we are talking ZvT?
2 base timings arent extinct. roach ling or roach ling bling aggression was viable in WoL. they arent in HOTS while T got a shitload of new timings and aggression. but well there is hope, maybe blizz will realize that burrow is 100% useless with the high cost and long time it takes and will buff it.
maybe they wont and they just nerf reaper build time a bit and also nerf speedvacs and WM. hellbats arent a problem imo, its hellbat drops which speedvacs are the problem, not the bats.
so we will see how blizz decides to nerf T or buff Z/P but be prepared that patches will come and are needed.
oh and btw there are also buffs needed for T...basically buff tank damage while increasing siege time would make them not OP but much stronger and would make mech more viable. also buffs to other underused units like oracles, hydras and SHs or things like nydus, ovidrop, autoturrets etc. would be very nice. really hope blizz makes more stuff viable.
It's not even true. If you scout the Terran going for 3 CC you can still punish him with roaches or a bane bust.
Not really terrans are really good at defending all ins when going 3 CC. Doesn't mean they never die or something and when they do it's when they have no information that it's coming. If a terran has even the slightest inkling it's coming they won't take much damage/die unless they didn't prepare enough or they saw it way to late.
Weirdly, I have a 63% ZvP, 64% ZvT and like 34% ZvZ. I'm not sure what this says about the game though. Probably indicates that I'm weak to all-ins. In WoL, I was much closer to 50% with all 3 matchups.
Being bad at a match-up will cause you to have higher win %s for other match-ups (especially in the short term) as you'll play inferior players of those races due to losses incurred from your bad match-up. That's why you have 60%+ on match-ups other than ZvZ.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
You were one of those guys who were saying that "tvz is all fine" (wol) when it wasn't! You don't agree? Let's take a look at some of your posts back then:
On July 24 2012 16:40 Decendos wrote: and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote: + 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
So decendos, why don't you follow your own advice and stop whining about TvZ, just give it time, it will get better, and on top level zergs do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
You were one of those guys who were saying that "tvz is all fine" (wol) when it wasn't! You don't agree? Let's take a look at some of your posts back then:
On July 24 2012 16:40 Decendos wrote: and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote: + 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
So decendos, why don't you follow your own advice and stop whining about TvZ, just give it time, it will get better, and on top level zergs do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
The game is out for 1 month and 10 days...
that was 6 weeks after queen patch, where no one could know that it will turn out to be broken. and as you see i did not once say anything later on and said "TvZ is fine right now". HOTS on the other hand is the way it is around 4-5 months now. there were slight changes but dont say game is out 6 weeks...even top pros started playing 2 months before release and not much was changed since then. end of beta was 9 out of 10 T in top 10 GM i think...and i like blizzard said back then they want to wait for the tournaments after release. now i think they will wait for GSL to finish and then patch things. so just wait.
just hf with your free wins right now. there will be patches. i am out of here since no T even remotely was talking about "yeah maybe mines are actually too strong...". so there is not even a discussion here just "shut up l2p". wont waste my time with that. gg hf abusing
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
You were one of those guys who were saying that "tvz is all fine" (wol) when it wasn't! You don't agree? Let's take a look at some of your posts back then:
On July 24 2012 16:40 Decendos wrote: and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote: + 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
So decendos, why don't you follow your own advice and stop whining about TvZ, just give it time, it will get better, and on top level zergs do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
The game is out for 1 month and 10 days...
that was 6 weeks after queen patch, where no one could know that it will turn out to be broken. and as you see i did not once say anything later on and said "TvZ is fine right now". HOTS on the other hand is the way it is around 4-5 months now. there were slight changes but dont say game is out 6 weeks...even top pros started playing 2 months before release and not much was changed since then.
just hf with your free wins right now. there will be patches. i am out of here since no T even remotely was talking about "yeah maybe mines are actually too strong...". so there is not even a discussion here just "shut up l2p". wont waste my time with that. gg hf abusing
No. Hots is out for 1 month and 10 days, not a single day longer. Beta = TEST version. 1 month and you are going nuts. But the TvZ problem lasted 6 months or more, and that was all fine right?
TvZ winrates were a mess during those times. Meanwhile it is now around 52%, so not that bad imo.
It took zergs more then a year to discover infestors. Stephano had to show it to you guys for months. At the end stephano was eating code S terrans with roach hydra, and without hot's that would've been the new way to play. But now, in hots, you suddenly expect that zergs have it all figured out after a month? Suddenly it's all the fault of the widow mine. It's not the fault of you having to learn how to micro. Nono, it's the fault of the mine!
How long before zergs realise that roach hydra timings would destroy most of these mine players? Around the 11 minute mark, very few mines are out. With good micro, you can roll over the terran. It was possible in wol when terrans had SIEGETANKS, so why wouldn't it against terrans with MINES?
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
You were one of those guys who were saying that "tvz is all fine" (wol) when it wasn't! You don't agree? Let's take a look at some of your posts back then:
On July 24 2012 16:40 Decendos wrote: and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote: + 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
So decendos, why don't you follow your own advice and stop whining about TvZ, just give it time, it will get better, and on top level zergs do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
The game is out for 1 month and 10 days...
that was 6 weeks after queen patch, where no one could know that it will turn out to be broken. and as you see i did not once say anything later on and said "TvZ is fine right now". HOTS on the other hand is the way it is around 4-5 months now. there were slight changes but dont say game is out 6 weeks...even top pros started playing 2 months before release and not much was changed since then.
just hf with your free wins right now. there will be patches. i am out of here since no T even remotely was talking about "yeah maybe mines are actually too strong...". so there is not even a discussion here just "shut up l2p". wont waste my time with that. gg hf abusing
No. Hots is out for 1 month and 10 days, not a single day longer. Beta = TEST version. 1 month and you are going nuts. But the TvZ problem lasted 6 months or more, and that was all fine right?
TvZ winrates were a mess during those times. Meanwhile it is now around 52%, so not that bad imo.
It took zergs more then a year to discover infestors. Stephano had to show it to you guys for months. At the end stephano was eating code S terrans with roach hydra, and without hot's that would've been the new way to play. But now, in hots, you suddenly expect that zergs have it all figured out after a month? Suddenly it's all the fault of the widow mine. It's not the fault of you having to learn how to micro. Nono, it's the fault of the mine!
How long before zergs realise that roach hydra timings would destroy most of these mine players? Around the 11 minute mark, very few mines are out. With good micro, you can roll over the terran. It was possible in wol when terrans had SIEGETANKS, so why wouldn't it against terrans with MINES?
Why do so many people revert to the (stupid, irrational) argument that because TvZ used to favor Zerg, it's okay that it might favor Terran now? Never understood that. It's people like you that cause problems in the Middle East to persist for generations. I'm totally serious.
On April 23 2013 05:17 Decendos wrote: ZvT HOTS mutas, mines etc. are there since 3-5 months now. and why are you talking about oracles than we are talking ZvT?
Because there has been numerous patches during beta, and many of them drastically changed the game, so you can't say the beta as a whole and the game now are the same thing.
2 base timings arent extinct. roach ling or roach ling bling aggression was viable in WoL.
Yes, I was talking about the Terran side.
they arent in HOTS while T got a shitload of new timings and aggression. but well there is hope, maybe blizz will realize that burrow is 100% useless with the high cost and long time it takes and will buff it.
I don't understand this "rarely used = need a buff" mentality. If Burrow is not useful for early agression, then where is the problem exactly?...
maybe they wont and they just nerf reaper build time a bit and also nerf speedvacs and WM. hellbats arent a problem imo, its hellbat drops which speedvacs are the problem, not the bats.
Hellbat drops are very easy to defend with one Spine and one Spore per mineral line. Once Hellbats are dropped you can just run Drones around the Hatchery, Hellbats can't catch them since they have 2.25 ms while Drones have 2.81.
so we will see how blizz decides to nerf T or buff Z/P but be prepared that patches will come and are needed.
There is no evidence to support that, but of course I am already prepared for questionable patches because some people just prefer to complain rather than trying to adapt and improve their play. Sad mentality, but nothing exactly new; weren't we granted a fascinating half-year at the end of WoL because of this?
On April 23 2013 05:31 Emzeeshady wrote: You equate not being able to defend with awful defence. It is funny how often I hear you criticizing pro play yet you have accomplished nothing at this game.
My sincere apologies. You need to be a chef to judge any meal, pro players never make any mistake and cancelling gas + letting your Spine die in front of the Bunker is a marvelous defence to hold 8-8-8!
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
You were one of those guys who were saying that "tvz is all fine" (wol) when it wasn't! You don't agree? Let's take a look at some of your posts back then:
On July 24 2012 16:40 Decendos wrote: and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote: + 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
So decendos, why don't you follow your own advice and stop whining about TvZ, just give it time, it will get better, and on top level zergs do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
The game is out for 1 month and 10 days...
that was 6 weeks after queen patch, where no one could know that it will turn out to be broken. and as you see i did not once say anything later on and said "TvZ is fine right now". HOTS on the other hand is the way it is around 4-5 months now. there were slight changes but dont say game is out 6 weeks...even top pros started playing 2 months before release and not much was changed since then.
just hf with your free wins right now. there will be patches. i am out of here since no T even remotely was talking about "yeah maybe mines are actually too strong...". so there is not even a discussion here just "shut up l2p". wont waste my time with that. gg hf abusing
No. Hots is out for 1 month and 10 days, not a single day longer. Beta = TEST version. 1 month and you are going nuts. But the TvZ problem lasted 6 months or more, and that was all fine right?
TvZ winrates were a mess during those times. Meanwhile it is now around 52%, so not that bad imo.
It took zergs more then a year to discover infestors. Stephano had to show it to you guys for months. At the end stephano was eating code S terrans with roach hydra, and without hot's that would've been the new way to play. But now, in hots, you suddenly expect that zergs have it all figured out after a month? Suddenly it's all the fault of the widow mine. It's not the fault of you having to learn how to micro. Nono, it's the fault of the mine!
How long before zergs realise that roach hydra timings would destroy most of these mine players? Around the 11 minute mark, very few mines are out. With good micro, you can roll over the terran. It was possible in wol when terrans had SIEGETANKS, so why wouldn't it against terrans with MINES?
Why do so many people revert to the (stupid, irrational) argument that because TvZ used to favor Zerg, it's okay that it might favor Terran now? Never understood that. It's people like you that cause problems in the Middle East to persist for generations. I'm totally serious.
What I'm saying is that most zergs agreed that the wol tvz days were totally fine. Now we are in a more balanced situation as we were in wol, and suddenly the game is broken and in terrans favour. And seriously, your middle east comment...
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
You were one of those guys who were saying that "tvz is all fine" (wol) when it wasn't! You don't agree? Let's take a look at some of your posts back then:
On July 24 2012 16:40 Decendos wrote: and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote: + 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
So decendos, why don't you follow your own advice and stop whining about TvZ, just give it time, it will get better, and on top level zergs do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
The game is out for 1 month and 10 days...
that was 6 weeks after queen patch, where no one could know that it will turn out to be broken. and as you see i did not once say anything later on and said "TvZ is fine right now". HOTS on the other hand is the way it is around 4-5 months now. there were slight changes but dont say game is out 6 weeks...even top pros started playing 2 months before release and not much was changed since then.
just hf with your free wins right now. there will be patches. i am out of here since no T even remotely was talking about "yeah maybe mines are actually too strong...". so there is not even a discussion here just "shut up l2p". wont waste my time with that. gg hf abusing
No. Hots is out for 1 month and 10 days, not a single day longer. Beta = TEST version. 1 month and you are going nuts. But the TvZ problem lasted 6 months or more, and that was all fine right?
TvZ winrates were a mess during those times. Meanwhile it is now around 52%, so not that bad imo.
It took zergs more then a year to discover infestors. Stephano had to show it to you guys for months. At the end stephano was eating code S terrans with roach hydra, and without hot's that would've been the new way to play. But now, in hots, you suddenly expect that zergs have it all figured out after a month? Suddenly it's all the fault of the widow mine. It's not the fault of you having to learn how to micro. Nono, it's the fault of the mine!
How long before zergs realise that roach hydra timings would destroy most of these mine players? Around the 11 minute mark, very few mines are out. With good micro, you can roll over the terran. It was possible in wol when terrans had SIEGETANKS, so why wouldn't it against terrans with MINES?
Why do so many people revert to the (stupid, irrational) argument that because TvZ used to favor Zerg, it's okay that it might favor Terran now? Never understood that. It's people like you that cause problems in the Middle East to persist for generations. I'm totally serious.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
You were one of those guys who were saying that "tvz is all fine" (wol) when it wasn't! You don't agree? Let's take a look at some of your posts back then:
On July 24 2012 16:40 Decendos wrote: and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote: + 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
So decendos, why don't you follow your own advice and stop whining about TvZ, just give it time, it will get better, and on top level zergs do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
The game is out for 1 month and 10 days...
that was 6 weeks after queen patch, where no one could know that it will turn out to be broken. and as you see i did not once say anything later on and said "TvZ is fine right now". HOTS on the other hand is the way it is around 4-5 months now. there were slight changes but dont say game is out 6 weeks...even top pros started playing 2 months before release and not much was changed since then.
just hf with your free wins right now. there will be patches. i am out of here since no T even remotely was talking about "yeah maybe mines are actually too strong...". so there is not even a discussion here just "shut up l2p". wont waste my time with that. gg hf abusing
No. Hots is out for 1 month and 10 days, not a single day longer. Beta = TEST version. 1 month and you are going nuts. But the TvZ problem lasted 6 months or more, and that was all fine right?
TvZ winrates were a mess during those times. Meanwhile it is now around 52%, so not that bad imo.
It took zergs more then a year to discover infestors. Stephano had to show it to you guys for months. At the end stephano was eating code S terrans with roach hydra, and without hot's that would've been the new way to play. But now, in hots, you suddenly expect that zergs have it all figured out after a month? Suddenly it's all the fault of the widow mine. It's not the fault of you having to learn how to micro. Nono, it's the fault of the mine!
How long before zergs realise that roach hydra timings would destroy most of these mine players? Around the 11 minute mark, very few mines are out. With good micro, you can roll over the terran. It was possible in wol when terrans had SIEGETANKS, so why wouldn't it against terrans with MINES?
Why do so many people revert to the (stupid, irrational) argument that because TvZ used to favor Zerg, it's okay that it might favor Terran now? Never understood that. It's people like you that cause problems in the Middle East to persist for generations. I'm totally serious.
Because 52% is better than 60%?
Maybe I'm being too adventurous and making an assumption, but if it was 60/40 I think people would still say the same stuff, just as many Zerg users did in WoL... maybe I'm jaded, but I don't think Terran users are any more morally sound than Zerg users.
I honestly think mines in TvZ are great, and I'll admit that I play T (although have huge zerg sympathies from 1000s of games in WoL (mostly in the first 18 months). Hellbats seem a bit too strong in certain situations though. Specifically hellbat drops in all matches are a little much and we haven't even seen people who really understand how to micro the hellbats yet (how to target the cone for optimal damage).
I want it to stay, I think it's exciting, but it just needs to be a little more balanced out. I think the idea of a unit that can keep the opp in their base with them just flying in the air is awesome, but I feel like there are some timing issues that feel a little strong. Only "suggestion" (I'm totally unqualified) I have is maybe take away a little bit of medivac life, but add a relatively fast armory upgrade for the medivac to add the life back. Maybe start with 25 less life, but have the upgrade add 40 life so they're stronger for late-game harass, but weaker for early game when the damage is too crippling. It still punishes players who can't defend their mineral lines and rewards players who can micro their medivacs really well. I don't like that you can just kind of suicide the medivacs right now because hellbats can do so much damage.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
You were one of those guys who were saying that "tvz is all fine" (wol) when it wasn't! You don't agree? Let's take a look at some of your posts back then:
On July 24 2012 16:40 Decendos wrote: and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote: + 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
So decendos, why don't you follow your own advice and stop whining about TvZ, just give it time, it will get better, and on top level zergs do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
The game is out for 1 month and 10 days...
that was 6 weeks after queen patch, where no one could know that it will turn out to be broken. and as you see i did not once say anything later on and said "TvZ is fine right now". HOTS on the other hand is the way it is around 4-5 months now. there were slight changes but dont say game is out 6 weeks...even top pros started playing 2 months before release and not much was changed since then.
just hf with your free wins right now. there will be patches. i am out of here since no T even remotely was talking about "yeah maybe mines are actually too strong...". so there is not even a discussion here just "shut up l2p". wont waste my time with that. gg hf abusing
No. Hots is out for 1 month and 10 days, not a single day longer. Beta = TEST version. 1 month and you are going nuts. But the TvZ problem lasted 6 months or more, and that was all fine right?
TvZ winrates were a mess during those times. Meanwhile it is now around 52%, so not that bad imo.
It took zergs more then a year to discover infestors. Stephano had to show it to you guys for months. At the end stephano was eating code S terrans with roach hydra, and without hot's that would've been the new way to play. But now, in hots, you suddenly expect that zergs have it all figured out after a month? Suddenly it's all the fault of the widow mine. It's not the fault of you having to learn how to micro. Nono, it's the fault of the mine!
How long before zergs realise that roach hydra timings would destroy most of these mine players? Around the 11 minute mark, very few mines are out. With good micro, you can roll over the terran. It was possible in wol when terrans had SIEGETANKS, so why wouldn't it against terrans with MINES?
Why do so many people revert to the (stupid, irrational) argument that because TvZ used to favor Zerg, it's okay that it might favor Terran now? Never understood that. It's people like you that cause problems in the Middle East to persist for generations. I'm totally serious.
Because 52% is better than 60%?
Maybe I'm being too adventurous and making an assumption, but if it was 60/40 I think people would still say the same stuff, just as many Zerg users did in WoL... maybe I'm jaded, but I don't think Terran users are any more morally sound than Zerg users.
That I'll agree with it. There will always be people who will side with their stance no matter what and it has nothing to do with moral fiber.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
You were one of those guys who were saying that "tvz is all fine" (wol) when it wasn't! You don't agree? Let's take a look at some of your posts back then:
On July 24 2012 16:40 Decendos wrote: and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote: + 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
So decendos, why don't you follow your own advice and stop whining about TvZ, just give it time, it will get better, and on top level zergs do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
The game is out for 1 month and 10 days...
that was 6 weeks after queen patch, where no one could know that it will turn out to be broken. and as you see i did not once say anything later on and said "TvZ is fine right now". HOTS on the other hand is the way it is around 4-5 months now. there were slight changes but dont say game is out 6 weeks...even top pros started playing 2 months before release and not much was changed since then.
just hf with your free wins right now. there will be patches. i am out of here since no T even remotely was talking about "yeah maybe mines are actually too strong...". so there is not even a discussion here just "shut up l2p". wont waste my time with that. gg hf abusing
No. Hots is out for 1 month and 10 days, not a single day longer. Beta = TEST version. 1 month and you are going nuts. But the TvZ problem lasted 6 months or more, and that was all fine right?
TvZ winrates were a mess during those times. Meanwhile it is now around 52%, so not that bad imo.
It took zergs more then a year to discover infestors. Stephano had to show it to you guys for months. At the end stephano was eating code S terrans with roach hydra, and without hot's that would've been the new way to play. But now, in hots, you suddenly expect that zergs have it all figured out after a month? Suddenly it's all the fault of the widow mine. It's not the fault of you having to learn how to micro. Nono, it's the fault of the mine!
How long before zergs realise that roach hydra timings would destroy most of these mine players? Around the 11 minute mark, very few mines are out. With good micro, you can roll over the terran. It was possible in wol when terrans had SIEGETANKS, so why wouldn't it against terrans with MINES?
Why do so many people revert to the (stupid, irrational) argument that because TvZ used to favor Zerg, it's okay that it might favor Terran now? Never understood that. It's people like you that cause problems in the Middle East to persist for generations. I'm totally serious.
What I'm saying is that most zergs agreed that the wol tvz days were totally fine. Now we are in a more balanced situation as we were in wol, and suddenly the game is broken and in terrans favour. And seriously, your middle east comment...
No where does he state, or even imply, that iimbalance is OK because TvZ use to favor zerg. He is simply saying that right now the win-rates are acceptable and that zerg players should give it time before they cry to nerfs.
And I sincerely hope the Middle East comment is a joke
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
You were one of those guys who were saying that "tvz is all fine" (wol) when it wasn't! You don't agree? Let's take a look at some of your posts back then:
On July 24 2012 16:40 Decendos wrote: and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote: + 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
So decendos, why don't you follow your own advice and stop whining about TvZ, just give it time, it will get better, and on top level zergs do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
The game is out for 1 month and 10 days...
that was 6 weeks after queen patch, where no one could know that it will turn out to be broken. and as you see i did not once say anything later on and said "TvZ is fine right now". HOTS on the other hand is the way it is around 4-5 months now. there were slight changes but dont say game is out 6 weeks...even top pros started playing 2 months before release and not much was changed since then.
just hf with your free wins right now. there will be patches. i am out of here since no T even remotely was talking about "yeah maybe mines are actually too strong...". so there is not even a discussion here just "shut up l2p". wont waste my time with that. gg hf abusing
No. Hots is out for 1 month and 10 days, not a single day longer. Beta = TEST version. 1 month and you are going nuts. But the TvZ problem lasted 6 months or more, and that was all fine right?
TvZ winrates were a mess during those times. Meanwhile it is now around 52%, so not that bad imo.
It took zergs more then a year to discover infestors. Stephano had to show it to you guys for months. At the end stephano was eating code S terrans with roach hydra, and without hot's that would've been the new way to play. But now, in hots, you suddenly expect that zergs have it all figured out after a month? Suddenly it's all the fault of the widow mine. It's not the fault of you having to learn how to micro. Nono, it's the fault of the mine!
How long before zergs realise that roach hydra timings would destroy most of these mine players? Around the 11 minute mark, very few mines are out. With good micro, you can roll over the terran. It was possible in wol when terrans had SIEGETANKS, so why wouldn't it against terrans with MINES?
Why do so many people revert to the (stupid, irrational) argument that because TvZ used to favor Zerg, it's okay that it might favor Terran now? Never understood that. It's people like you that cause problems in the Middle East to persist for generations. I'm totally serious.
Because 52% is better than 60%?
Maybe I'm being too adventurous and making an assumption, but if it was 60/40 I think people would still say the same stuff, just as many Zerg users did in WoL... maybe I'm jaded, but I don't think Terran users are any more morally sound than Zerg users.
I think there were enough Zergs that admitted that TvZ was bullshit. Of course a lot of people won't admit it and that goes either way since it really has nothing to do with what race you play but also that a lot of complainers really just aren't good enough at the game to make proper judgments. We all have mindset issues that are hard to overcome so it's hard to stay unbiased. But honestly as a terran player I think it's a fair thing to say that TvZ right now is in a much better shape balance wise than it has been for about ten months before HOTS. So right now I think we should give it more time still.
On April 23 2013 07:39 Emzeeshady wrote: My point is that you have no clue why progamers do what they do when you are not even close to their level.
Obviously I don't know everything and I am far from being Code A/S level, but being GM for the sixth season in a row and occasionally winning some EU pros, I daresay I have enough knowledge to analyze games to a certain extent, especially when it comes to something as straightforward as defending a 8-8-8. I can even understand why they make such or such mistake.
But I must say your double standard is quite hilarious. You claim I am clueless about what happens in pro games, like most of the people, yet somehow you still "know" TvZ is imbalanced? How so? Even statistics can't help you if you go this way, because you have not enough game knowledge to determine what causes the winrates. Yet we still see you complaining TvZ is not balanced. Why?
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
You were one of those guys who were saying that "tvz is all fine" (wol) when it wasn't! You don't agree? Let's take a look at some of your posts back then:
On July 24 2012 16:40 Decendos wrote: and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote: + 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
So decendos, why don't you follow your own advice and stop whining about TvZ, just give it time, it will get better, and on top level zergs do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
The game is out for 1 month and 10 days...
that was 6 weeks after queen patch, where no one could know that it will turn out to be broken. and as you see i did not once say anything later on and said "TvZ is fine right now". HOTS on the other hand is the way it is around 4-5 months now. there were slight changes but dont say game is out 6 weeks...even top pros started playing 2 months before release and not much was changed since then.
just hf with your free wins right now. there will be patches. i am out of here since no T even remotely was talking about "yeah maybe mines are actually too strong...". so there is not even a discussion here just "shut up l2p". wont waste my time with that. gg hf abusing
No. Hots is out for 1 month and 10 days, not a single day longer. Beta = TEST version. 1 month and you are going nuts. But the TvZ problem lasted 6 months or more, and that was all fine right?
TvZ winrates were a mess during those times. Meanwhile it is now around 52%, so not that bad imo.
It took zergs more then a year to discover infestors. Stephano had to show it to you guys for months. At the end stephano was eating code S terrans with roach hydra, and without hot's that would've been the new way to play. But now, in hots, you suddenly expect that zergs have it all figured out after a month? Suddenly it's all the fault of the widow mine. It's not the fault of you having to learn how to micro. Nono, it's the fault of the mine!
How long before zergs realise that roach hydra timings would destroy most of these mine players? Around the 11 minute mark, very few mines are out. With good micro, you can roll over the terran. It was possible in wol when terrans had SIEGETANKS, so why wouldn't it against terrans with MINES?
Why do so many people revert to the (stupid, irrational) argument that because TvZ used to favor Zerg, it's okay that it might favor Terran now? Never understood that. It's people like you that cause problems in the Middle East to persist for generations. I'm totally serious.
If you look at the numbers in that sheet it's mainly one event that skews the numbers in terrans favor and that is WCS EU qualifiers. If you consider that the best European Zergs and Protoss players were already invited (there were only 3 European Terrans invited) then it's not far fetched that terran is going to have a higher winrate in this event.
Edit: Actually looking further into those stats I'm not sure how those numbers are even calculated. There wasn't a single TvZ in the EPS playoffs yet there are listed some stats for TvZ.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
You were one of those guys who were saying that "tvz is all fine" (wol) when it wasn't! You don't agree? Let's take a look at some of your posts back then:
On July 24 2012 16:40 Decendos wrote: and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote: + 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
So decendos, why don't you follow your own advice and stop whining about TvZ, just give it time, it will get better, and on top level zergs do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
The game is out for 1 month and 10 days...
that was 6 weeks after queen patch, where no one could know that it will turn out to be broken. and as you see i did not once say anything later on and said "TvZ is fine right now". HOTS on the other hand is the way it is around 4-5 months now. there were slight changes but dont say game is out 6 weeks...even top pros started playing 2 months before release and not much was changed since then.
just hf with your free wins right now. there will be patches. i am out of here since no T even remotely was talking about "yeah maybe mines are actually too strong...". so there is not even a discussion here just "shut up l2p". wont waste my time with that. gg hf abusing
No. Hots is out for 1 month and 10 days, not a single day longer. Beta = TEST version. 1 month and you are going nuts. But the TvZ problem lasted 6 months or more, and that was all fine right?
TvZ winrates were a mess during those times. Meanwhile it is now around 52%, so not that bad imo.
It took zergs more then a year to discover infestors. Stephano had to show it to you guys for months. At the end stephano was eating code S terrans with roach hydra, and without hot's that would've been the new way to play. But now, in hots, you suddenly expect that zergs have it all figured out after a month? Suddenly it's all the fault of the widow mine. It's not the fault of you having to learn how to micro. Nono, it's the fault of the mine!
How long before zergs realise that roach hydra timings would destroy most of these mine players? Around the 11 minute mark, very few mines are out. With good micro, you can roll over the terran. It was possible in wol when terrans had SIEGETANKS, so why wouldn't it against terrans with MINES?
Why do so many people revert to the (stupid, irrational) argument that because TvZ used to favor Zerg, it's okay that it might favor Terran now? Never understood that. It's people like you that cause problems in the Middle East to persist for generations. I'm totally serious.
If you look at the numbers in that sheet it's mainly one event that skews the numbers in terrans favor and that is WCS EU qualifiers. If you consider that the best European Zergs and Protoss players were already invited (there were only 3 European Terrans invited) then it's not far fetched that terran is going to have a higher winrate in this event.
Edit: Actually looking further into those stats I'm not sure how those numbers are even calculated. There wasn't a single TvZ in the EPS playoffs yet there are listed some stats for TvZ.
On April 23 2013 07:39 Emzeeshady wrote: My point is that you have no clue why progamers do what they do when you are not even close to their level.
Obviously I don't know everything and I am far from being Code A/S level, but being GM for the sixth season in a row and occasionally winning some EU pros, I daresay I have enough knowledge to analyze games to a certain extent, especially when it comes to something as straightforward as defending a 8-8-8. I can even understand why they make such or such mistake.
But I must say your double standard is quite hilarious. You claim I am clueless about what happens in pro games, like most of the people, yet somehow you still "know" TvZ is imbalanced? How so? Even statistics can't help you if you go this way, because you have not enough game knowledge to determine what causes the winrates. Yet we still see you complaining TvZ is not balanced. Why?
Comparing WoL to HotS it's almost a must that TvZ is imbalanced, yet when I see or play it it doesn't feel that bad: Assuming the game goes quite standard, ie MMMM against muta/ling/bling etc. the notable changes are:
For terran: + gains widowmine, so good it's made instead of tanks despite tanks having free siege now + medivac speed boost + reaper openings slightly better + mech/air armor combined + raven buffed
For zerg: + muta's better + ultralisk buffed quite a bit - infestor nerfed
If it was slightly in favor of zerg in HotS it definately must be at least slightly in favor of terran now just considering how much more they improved. Of course there were plenty of other changes like hydra's, vipers, hellbats and swarmhosts but they don't really see have much use in the new 'standard' TvZ. Especially prehive zerg is just screwed. You can easily go as far as saying that the infestor nerf outweighs the muta buff while terran only got buffs midgame. Ultralisks lategame make up quite a bit because they are far better but I think if the terrans play MMMM aggressively well you can't really make it to lategame without being far behind. Even when getting there the classic broodlords aren't even that scary anymore since terran can easily have decently upgraded vikings and ravens to counter that.
I think in a month or so widowmines and/or medivacs will have to be nerfed. Widowmines probably some sort of radius nerf with perhaps slightly higher splash damage in return, making it worse at kill packs of banes/lings but just as good or even better against P/T. Medivacs obviously will have their speed nerfed a little bit soon, I don't see it that staying at all
On April 23 2013 07:39 Emzeeshady wrote: My point is that you have no clue why progamers do what they do when you are not even close to their level.
Obviously I don't know everything and I am far from being Code A/S level, but being GM for the sixth season in a row and occasionally winning some EU pros, I daresay I have enough knowledge to analyze games to a certain extent, especially when it comes to something as straightforward as defending a 8-8-8. I can even understand why they make such or such mistake.
But I must say your double standard is quite hilarious. You claim I am clueless about what happens in pro games, like most of the people, yet somehow you still "know" TvZ is imbalanced? How so? Even statistics can't help you if you go this way, because you have not enough game knowledge to determine what causes the winrates. Yet we still see you complaining TvZ is not balanced. Why?
Comparing WoL to HotS it's almost a must that TvZ is imbalanced, yet when I see or play it it doesn't feel that bad: Assuming the game goes quite standard, ie MMMM against muta/ling/bling etc. the notable changes are:
For terran: + gains widowmine, so good it's made instead of tanks despite tanks having free siege now + medivac speed boost + reaper openings slightly better + mech/air armor combined + raven buffed
For zerg: + muta's better + ultralisk buffed quite a bit - infestor nerfed
If it was slightly in favor of zerg in HotS it definately must be at least slightly in favor of terran now just considering how much more they improved. Of course there were plenty of other changes like hydra's, vipers, hellbats and swarmhosts but they don't really see have much use in the new 'standard' TvZ. Especially prehive zerg is just screwed. You can easily go as far as saying that the infestor nerf outweighs the muta buff while terran only got buffs midgame. Ultralisks lategame make up quite a bit because they are far better but I think if the terrans play MMMM aggressively well you can't really make it to lategame without being far behind. Even when getting there the classic broodlords aren't even that scary anymore since terran can easily have decently upgraded vikings and ravens to counter that.
I think in a month or so widowmines and/or medivacs will have to be nerfed. Widowmines probably some sort of radius nerf with perhaps slightly higher splash damage in return, making it worse at kill packs of banes/lings but just as good or even better against P/T. Medivacs obviously will have their speed nerfed a little bit soon, I don't see it that staying at all
My problem with this mindset is that watching GSL matches the Widow Mines hits less than 5-6 zerglings half the time. Players like Life, Symbol, Curious, Roro, etc... make the widowmine look absolutely awesome and about as effective as the WoL Siege Tanks at best.
I thought this was the type of stuff people wanted? Units that split the bad players from the good players.
On April 23 2013 07:39 Emzeeshady wrote: My point is that you have no clue why progamers do what they do when you are not even close to their level.
Obviously I don't know everything and I am far from being Code A/S level, but being GM for the sixth season in a row and occasionally winning some EU pros, I daresay I have enough knowledge to analyze games to a certain extent, especially when it comes to something as straightforward as defending a 8-8-8. I can even understand why they make such or such mistake.
But I must say your double standard is quite hilarious. You claim I am clueless about what happens in pro games, like most of the people, yet somehow you still "know" TvZ is imbalanced? How so? Even statistics can't help you if you go this way, because you have not enough game knowledge to determine what causes the winrates. Yet we still see you complaining TvZ is not balanced. Why?
Comparing WoL to HotS it's almost a must that TvZ is imbalanced, yet when I see or play it it doesn't feel that bad: Assuming the game goes quite standard, ie MMMM against muta/ling/bling etc. the notable changes are:
For terran: + gains widowmine, so good it's made instead of tanks despite tanks having free siege now + medivac speed boost + reaper openings slightly better + mech/air armor combined + raven buffed
For zerg: + muta's better + ultralisk buffed quite a bit - infestor nerfed
If it was slightly in favor of zerg in HotS it definately must be at least slightly in favor of terran now just considering how much more they improved. Of course there were plenty of other changes like hydra's, vipers, hellbats and swarmhosts but they don't really see have much use in the new 'standard' TvZ. Especially prehive zerg is just screwed. You can easily go as far as saying that the infestor nerf outweighs the muta buff while terran only got buffs midgame. Ultralisks lategame make up quite a bit because they are far better but I think if the terrans play MMMM aggressively well you can't really make it to lategame without being far behind. Even when getting there the classic broodlords aren't even that scary anymore since terran can easily have decently upgraded vikings and ravens to counter that.
I think in a month or so widowmines and/or medivacs will have to be nerfed. Widowmines probably some sort of radius nerf with perhaps slightly higher splash damage in return, making it worse at kill packs of banes/lings but just as good or even better against P/T. Medivacs obviously will have their speed nerfed a little bit soon, I don't see it that staying at all
U want to know why tanks are never used anymore? because vipers make them absolutely useless
On April 23 2013 07:39 Emzeeshady wrote: My point is that you have no clue why progamers do what they do when you are not even close to their level.
Obviously I don't know everything and I am far from being Code A/S level, but being GM for the sixth season in a row and occasionally winning some EU pros, I daresay I have enough knowledge to analyze games to a certain extent, especially when it comes to something as straightforward as defending a 8-8-8. I can even understand why they make such or such mistake.
But I must say your double standard is quite hilarious. You claim I am clueless about what happens in pro games, like most of the people, yet somehow you still "know" TvZ is imbalanced? How so? Even statistics can't help you if you go this way, because you have not enough game knowledge to determine what causes the winrates. Yet we still see you complaining TvZ is not balanced. Why?
Statistics are hard proof. I may not know what extent they mean to balance in the scheme of things but imo statistics are still better sources then amateur game knowledge.
Thedwf has near-encycolopedic knowledge of the pro games played in every major tournament and is a GM-level player, while you just make appeals to some (irrelevant) post made by Ret and some cherry-picked statistics (i.e. not the 18-15 tvz map score cited contra by thedwf), and you claim that your statistics are better sources speaking towards game balance than the reasoned, and expert, opinion of thedwf.
On April 23 2013 01:48 Decendos wrote: there is just so many stuff T got to kill Z economy while T also got stuff to be even more safe vs aggression that Z is just fucked right now and whats even worse: it is absolutely no fun to play. never being able to do pressure or attack...all you do is defend defend defend and try not do die...yay so much fun.
Oh sounds like the last year of WOL,where zerg could hold every agression with queens, and where zergs could do some deadly allins. I'm sure you were one of those guys saying that it was all fine back then, right?
i am one of those guys who thought BL infestor is boring as fuck and therefore played HOTS beta and no more WoL since 7 or 8 months now. so yeah guess you have to fight another guy for that. thats why i am one of the guys that likes to put on aggression but cant in HOTS since roach hydra sucks in every MU, nydus, burrow movement roaches and ovidrop are still very bad, roach ling (bling) hatchtech aggression also fails now in HOTS so everything Z can do if you want to be aggressive is go muta into ultra. so yeah....i am one of those Z that has fun attacking...which sadly is only possible by doing lairtech all ins or teching to hive...once again. believe me it would be awesome if Z would get a better early and midgame and a worse or more expensive/later available etc. hivetech.
You were one of those guys who were saying that "tvz is all fine" (wol) when it wasn't! You don't agree? Let's take a look at some of your posts back then:
On July 24 2012 16:40 Decendos wrote: and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote: + 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
So decendos, why don't you follow your own advice and stop whining about TvZ, just give it time, it will get better, and on top level zergs do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
The game is out for 1 month and 10 days...
that was 6 weeks after queen patch, where no one could know that it will turn out to be broken. and as you see i did not once say anything later on and said "TvZ is fine right now". HOTS on the other hand is the way it is around 4-5 months now. there were slight changes but dont say game is out 6 weeks...even top pros started playing 2 months before release and not much was changed since then.
just hf with your free wins right now. there will be patches. i am out of here since no T even remotely was talking about "yeah maybe mines are actually too strong...". so there is not even a discussion here just "shut up l2p". wont waste my time with that. gg hf abusing
No. Hots is out for 1 month and 10 days, not a single day longer. Beta = TEST version. 1 month and you are going nuts. But the TvZ problem lasted 6 months or more, and that was all fine right?
TvZ winrates were a mess during those times. Meanwhile it is now around 52%, so not that bad imo.
It took zergs more then a year to discover infestors. Stephano had to show it to you guys for months. At the end stephano was eating code S terrans with roach hydra, and without hot's that would've been the new way to play. But now, in hots, you suddenly expect that zergs have it all figured out after a month? Suddenly it's all the fault of the widow mine. It's not the fault of you having to learn how to micro. Nono, it's the fault of the mine!
How long before zergs realise that roach hydra timings would destroy most of these mine players? Around the 11 minute mark, very few mines are out. With good micro, you can roll over the terran. It was possible in wol when terrans had SIEGETANKS, so why wouldn't it against terrans with MINES?
Why do so many people revert to the (stupid, irrational) argument that because TvZ used to favor Zerg, it's okay that it might favor Terran now? Never understood that. It's people like you that cause problems in the Middle East to persist for generations. I'm totally serious.
What I'm saying is that most zergs agreed that the wol tvz days were totally fine. Now we are in a more balanced situation as we were in wol, and suddenly the game is broken and in terrans favour. And seriously, your middle east comment...
No where does he state, or even imply, that iimbalance is OK because TvZ use to favor zerg. He is simply saying that right now the win-rates are acceptable and that zerg players should give it time before they cry to nerfs.
And I sincerely hope the Middle East comment is a joke
Yeah I try not to let politics and starcraft actually mix ^_^
On April 23 2013 07:39 Emzeeshady wrote: My point is that you have no clue why progamers do what they do when you are not even close to their level.
Obviously I don't know everything and I am far from being Code A/S level, but being GM for the sixth season in a row and occasionally winning some EU pros, I daresay I have enough knowledge to analyze games to a certain extent, especially when it comes to something as straightforward as defending a 8-8-8. I can even understand why they make such or such mistake.
But I must say your double standard is quite hilarious. You claim I am clueless about what happens in pro games, like most of the people, yet somehow you still "know" TvZ is imbalanced? How so? Even statistics can't help you if you go this way, because you have not enough game knowledge to determine what causes the winrates. Yet we still see you complaining TvZ is not balanced. Why?
Statistics are hard proof. I may not know what extent they mean to balance in the scheme of things but imo statistics are still better sources then amateur game knowledge.
Thedwf has near-encycolopedic knowledge of the pro games played in every major tournament and is a GM-level player, while you just make appeals to some (irrelevant) post made by Ret and some cherry-picked statistics (i.e. not the 18-15 tvz map score cited contra by thedwf), and you claim that your statistics are better sources speaking towards game balance than the reasoned, and expert, opinion of thedwf.
On April 23 2013 07:39 Emzeeshady wrote: My point is that you have no clue why progamers do what they do when you are not even close to their level.
Obviously I don't know everything and I am far from being Code A/S level, but being GM for the sixth season in a row and occasionally winning some EU pros, I daresay I have enough knowledge to analyze games to a certain extent, especially when it comes to something as straightforward as defending a 8-8-8. I can even understand why they make such or such mistake.
But I must say your double standard is quite hilarious. You claim I am clueless about what happens in pro games, like most of the people, yet somehow you still "know" TvZ is imbalanced? How so? Even statistics can't help you if you go this way, because you have not enough game knowledge to determine what causes the winrates. Yet we still see you complaining TvZ is not balanced. Why?
Statistics are hard proof. I may not know what extent they mean to balance in the scheme of things but imo statistics are still better sources then amateur game knowledge.
Thedwf has near-encycolopedic knowledge of the pro games played in every major tournament and is a GM-level player, while you just make appeals to some (irrelevant) post made by Ret and some cherry-picked statistics (i.e. not the 18-15 tvz map score cited contra by thedwf), and you claim that your statistics are better sources speaking towards game balance than the reasoned, and expert, opinion of thedwf.
Srs?
What race does this idol of yours play?
What race does Emzeeshady play? What race do you play? I guess the only balance comments that are legitimate are those that go against the race the commenter habitually plays. How does that question advance the discussion? Thedwf's comments stand on their own merits apart from the race that he plays.
Not to mention that Emzeeshady's comments are made tangential to discussions about how two zergs who faced the 8-8-8 mustered objectively bad defenses in response to it, yet he is using those games (and others like it) in his knowledge- and skill-blind use of statistics to determine game balance.
The changes seem completely irrelevant to TvZ. I don't really understand how making burrow any different will really change any early aggression in the match up. I'm probably wrong, but I just can't see why any change would effect any aggression Zerg can do.
Usually you'll have a small pack of roaches arrive when burrow completes or is about to finish. Reduce the cost, and you might be able to get an extra roach out. Reducing the research time and what? It's either finished a lot sooner than you can attack on most maps, or just in time? Honestly, all I can see it doing is making reaper opening almost essential to get good scouting off.
On April 23 2013 14:06 haffy wrote: The changes seem completely irrelevant to TvZ. I don't really understand how making burrow any different will really change any early aggression in the match up. I'm probably wrong, but I just can't see why any change would effect any aggression Zerg can do.
Usually you'll have a small pack of roaches arrive when burrow completes or is about to finish. Reduce the cost, and you might be able to get an extra roach out. Reducing the research time and what? It's either finished a lot sooner than you can attack on most maps, or just in time? Honestly, all I can see it doing is making reaper opening almost essential to get good scouting off.
If they reduce the cost/duration of the burrow research, then zerg will (in theory) be able to set banelings traps in key locations in order to deal with the first push of a terran playing bio-mine. This of course is theorycrafting but would be awesome!
On April 23 2013 12:42 Snoodles wrote: I feel like the announced balance testing is relevant. No plans to nerf terran. Instead, they want to give zerg and protoss buffs. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/8704740456
awesome and very good approach to buff P/Z instead of nerfing T. sadly like 10 things are missing right there and i dont get why they wont just finally make hydras a useful unit before hive but well at least they finally start doing stuff
On April 23 2013 08:58 Markwerf wrote: Of course there were plenty of other changes like hydra's, vipers, hellbats and swarmhosts but they don't really see have much use in the new 'standard' TvZ. Especially prehive zerg is just screwed. You can easily go as far as saying that the infestor nerf outweighs the muta buff while terran only got buffs midgame. Ultralisks lategame make up quite a bit because they are far better but I think if the terrans play MMMM aggressively well you can't really make it to lategame without being far behind. Even when getting there the classic broodlords aren't even that scary anymore since terran can easily have decently upgraded vikings and ravens to counter that.
And that is exactly my problem. How long did it take for zergs to use the infestor style??? More then a year, and all thanks to stephano showing it. How long have we heard that "hydra's are not viable in tvz", but later we saw stephano destroying top code S terrans with it. How long have we heard that "ultralisks are not good enough", while stephano just owned every terran with them?
How long before we see good roach + hydra usage (terrans make mines now instead of tanks, so it's even better around the 11 minute mark)?
How long before we see more blinding cloud abuse?
How long before we see smart swarmhosts usage?
All not viable? No? You mean not viable like roach hydra in wol, right? Or do you mean not viable like ultralisks in wol?
Stephano, please man, show them now and don't wait too long...
On April 23 2013 05:31 Emzeeshady wrote: You equate not being able to defend with awful defence. It is funny how often I hear you criticizing pro play yet you have accomplished nothing at this game.
My sincere apologies. You need to be a chef to judge any meal, pro players never make any mistake and cancelling gas + letting your Spine die in front of the Bunker is a marvelous defence to hold 8-8-8!
Yah sorry, Starcraft and cooking are incredibly different things.
My point is that you have no clue why progamers do what they do when you are not even close to their level. Liquid Ret made a great post about people criticizing progamers when they have no clue what is going on. Unless it is an obvious mistake like not splitting marines, missing a force field or clumping Mutalisks then you have no place saying anything about it(you can but chances are you will be wrong like you are most of the time).
In cooking even if you are not well trained in how to make food you have your own taste buds that taste for you. Any idiot can tell when something tastes disgusting. When someone who doesn't watch Starcraft or is bad at it sees a strategy mistake they probably have no clue what is going on (like you).
Calling one of the last terrans constantly contributing to strategy discussions on TL names does you no credit. TheDwf can go toe-to-toe or better with the level of players included in that April spreadsheet as it includes WCS EU. It's not even your actual claims that gets under my skin, it's the way you discuss them. Instead of ad hominems and attacking people, present your stats clearly.
The problem with the current balance discussion, which Blizz fortunately agrees with, is that everything is still in flux. We are finding out about new builds and tricks on a daily basis. And even if this stops soon, we just don't have enough high-level games. GSL has TvZ 18-15 at the moment so when Last plays Life, if there's a 2-0, the stats go from 55% to 57% and if Life wins, it goes from 55% to 51%. In this situation of a very limited number of games, the statistics are basically irrelevant.
As for Liquid'Ret and others. The foreign Z are clearly doing much worse than the Korean Z. Whatever the reason, innovation is currently entirely in Korea so we need to wait even longer for foreigners to catch up.
On April 23 2013 08:58 Markwerf wrote: Especially prehive zerg is just screwed.
How so? Zerg winning pre-Hive is absolutely not unheard of, and all the games in which Zerg won at Hive means Zerg did survive the Lair period just fine.
On April 23 2013 09:12 Emzeeshady wrote: Statistics are hard proof.
No. Not at all. Not only statistics are easily manipulated to make them tell whatever you want, but on top of that once you have said TvZ is 59% on your glorious 59 games sample size (so please note I am being indulgent even lending an ear to this; all I need to do is laugh at your sample size and you would have absolutely nothing to reply) you have said essentially nothing. Or rather, you have just made numerous assumptions without bringing the slightest evidence for any of them:
You have assumed that in your 59 games, the names involved from each side were always of equal skill. Of course this is false: just because the games happened at the highest level doesn't mean both players are strictly or even roughly identical skill-wise. Or maybe Flash and Bboong are to be considered even simply on the basis they played at Code S?
You have assumed that both Terrans and Zergs have equal rates of development regarding the strategies of their respective races. It happens a lot that a race "discovers" something, and it takes time (i. e. weeks, months) for the other race to fully understand the necessary tweaks to be made (in builds, or micro, or game plans, etc.). And I am not even only talking about something like "microing against Mines," I am also talking about builds. You don't play the same way against a 65 SCVs dual reactor fact 3-bases heavy agression style with a very late fourth as you would against a Terran going 70-75 SCVs, lab on second fact and a 13'30 fourth. Where is your evidence that Zergs have already found all the adjustments? If we even assume there is a gap, where is your proof that Zergs don't have any room left for innovation to overcome this gap? It took weeks, perhaps even months for Protoss to find the answers to the Roach max style—assuming something is wrong, where is your proof a similar thing is not happening here? Maybe you want a link to the thread about defending Roach max? Guess we would find many, many complaints about the Roach. "How can this thing be balanced? It only costs 75/25." (Sounds familiar?) Nerf, nerf, blah, blah, blah. The result at the end of the WoL? Roach max vs P was naturally extinct, with no balance changes (except the maps). But maybe Blizzard should have patched Roaches and make them cost 100/25 or removed 20 hit points just because Protoss faced a temporary difficulty before finding the appropriate builds?
You have assumed that all games are meaningful to determine balance. When HyuN kills 0 SCV with his Roach/Speedlings attack against Bogus on the Akilon Wastes game, he loses not because "Terran is imbalanced," but because his disguised all-in failed badly. Still, you will aggregate his "loss because of a failed all-in" with "losses in an even game" then claim that your 59 games sample size is a "hard proof". When DRG loses 24 drones to YoDa's Hellion drop on Whirlwind, the rest of the game is a formality. When Bboong cancels his gas against Maru's 8-8-8, his odds at winning the game instantly fall to 0%. Still, you will use his blunder to say Terran dominates Zerg, but of course you can see this is not legitimate. It's like saying "look, RorO won against Bomber on Akilon Wastes, Zergs are fine," then you watch the game and you see Bomber destroyed his own OC. If your sample is a tree, you just have to prune some of the branchs because some blunders or situations make them meaningless to determine balance.
You also have to consider maps. Then you have to look at the actual content of the games, which thus supposes some game knowledge to enlighten why A or B lost... And from my biased amateur perspective, I can tell you that many Zerg losses are perfectly inconclusive about TvZ balance. When TRUE fails a Baneling bust against FanTaSy on Star Station, when HyuN blindly drones to 76 whereas GuMiho goes for a 2-base all-in, when HyuN goes for a 3-bases 46 drones Roaches/Banelings all-in against GuMiho and ends up facing Marines/Tanks behind a wall, when HyuN loses 10 Drones to a 4 Hellions raid from Bogus on Bel'shir Vestige, when Bboong loses 17 Drones to a 4 → 6 Hellions raid from Flash on Whirlwind, what can we say about balance? Nothing. Notice how with all of those examples and the 3 from my last bullet point above, I have listed nearly half of the Terran wins in Code S... The same thing can be said about the other side, by the way. When Terran loses because he doesn't have full sight in his base and a Nydus Worm thus goes up unnoticed, you cannot make any comment about balance.
So if I am clueless about what happens in pro games, fine; but then it means you're even less authorized to make comments about balance, not only because you know less about the game but also because your statistics knowledge seem very limited if you think you can draw any conclusion from a sample size in which a single series can make so much difference in percentages (see Ghanburighan's example).
Stephano, please man, show them now and don't wait too long...
I really want to see stephano dominating again, but he hasn't won anything in months, spent the last few weeks only playing the NA ladder every day, and just doesn't seem to be up to his innovative self. Instead he's just complaining about balance on twitter.
Stephano as actually better off studying for his degree, by the time Zerg work out how to defeat all the bullshit timings and all ins from HOTS and LOTV he could then return in 4 years and start again or go on to a real life profession.
He has the money to do that now and he did say he was only interested in the money
On April 23 2013 21:53 Topdoller wrote: Stephano as actually better off studying for his degree, by the time Zerg work out how to defeat all the bullshit timings and all ins from HOTS and LOTV he could then return in 4 years and start again or go on to a real life profession.
He has the money to do that now and he did say he was only interested in the money
I see this a lot, and if that's his attitude then his comments on balance don't really matter since he's not really into the game anymore and it shows. Meanwhile, GSL is now 6 Terran 7 Zerg and 3 protoss, and those 7 zerg actually know how to beat terran.
On April 23 2013 21:53 Topdoller wrote: Stephano as actually better off studying for his degree, by the time Zerg work out how to defeat all the bullshit timings and all ins from HOTS and LOTV he could then return in 4 years and start again or go on to a real life profession.
He has the money to do that now and he did say he was only interested in the money
I see this a lot, and if that's his attitude then his comments on balance don't really matter since he's not really into the game anymore and it shows. Meanwhile, GSL is now 6 Terran 6 Zerg and 3 protoss, and those 6 zerg actually know how to beat terran.
Actually, that makes up 6+6+3=15 players for the round of 16... It's actually 7 Z, one more Z advanced today.
There should be a limit to the amount of times widow mines can detonate, I reckon. Like, three-four times and then they're gone. Wouldn't make too much of a difference during pushes and/or harassment but it would surely make them less insanely cost effective in longer games!
On April 23 2013 08:58 Markwerf wrote: Especially prehive zerg is just screwed.
How so? Zerg winning pre-Hive is absolutely not unheard of, and all the games in which Zerg won at Hive means Zerg did survive the Lair period just fine.
On April 23 2013 09:12 Emzeeshady wrote: Statistics are hard proof.
No. Not at all. Not only statistics are easily manipulated to make them tell whatever you want, but on top of that once you have said TvZ is 59% on your glorious 59 games sample size (so please note I am being indulgent even lending an ear to this; all I need to do is laugh at your sample size and you would have absolutely nothing to reply) you have said essentially nothing. Or rather, you have just made numerous assumptions without bringing the slightest evidence for any of them:
You have assumed that in your 59 games, the names involved from each side were always of equal skill. Of course this is false: just because the games happened at the highest level doesn't mean both players are strictly or even roughly identical skill-wise. Or maybe Flash and Bboong are to be considered even simply on the basis they played at Code S?
You have assumed that both Terrans and Zergs have equal rates of development regarding the strategies of their respective races. It happens a lot that a race "discovers" something, and it takes time (i. e. weeks, months) for the other race to fully understand the necessary tweaks to be made (in builds, or micro, or game plans, etc.). And I am not even only talking about something like "microing against Mines," I am also talking about builds. You don't play the same way against a 65 SCVs dual reactor fact 3-bases heavy agression style with a very late fourth as you would against a Terran going 70-75 SCVs, lab on second fact and a 13'30 fourth. Where is your evidence that Zergs have already found all the adjustments? If we even assume there is a gap, where is your proof that Zergs don't have any room left for innovation to overcome this gap? It took weeks, perhaps even months for Protoss to find the answers to the Roach max style—assuming something is wrong, where is your proof a similar thing is not happening here? Maybe you want a link to the thread about defending Roach max? Guess we would find many, many complaints about the Roach. "How can this thing be balanced? It only costs 75/25." (Sounds familiar?) Nerf, nerf, blah, blah, blah. The result at the end of the WoL? Roach max vs P was naturally extinct, with no balance changes (except the maps). But maybe Blizzard should have patched Roaches and make them cost 100/25 or removed 20 hit points just because Protoss faced a temporary difficulty before finding the appropriate builds?
You have assumed that all games are meaningful to determine balance. When HyuN kills 0 SCV with his Roach/Speedlings attack against Bogus on the Akilon Wastes game, he loses not because "Terran is imbalanced," but because his disguised all-in failed badly. Still, you will aggregate his "loss because of a failed all-in" with "losses in an even game" then claim that your 59 games sample size is a "hard proof". When DRG loses 24 drones to YoDa's Hellion drop on Whirlwind, the rest of the game is a formality. When Bboong cancels his gas against Maru's 8-8-8, his odds at winning the game instantly fall to 0%. Still, you will use his blunder to say Terran dominates Zerg, but of course you can see this is not legitimate. It's like saying "look, RorO won against Bomber on Akilon Wastes, Zergs are fine," then you watch the game and you see Bomber destroyed his own OC. If your sample is a tree, you just have to prune some of the branchs because some blunders or situations make them meaningless to determine balance.
You also have to consider maps. Then you have to look at the actual content of the games, which thus supposes some game knowledge to enlighten why A or B lost... And from my biased amateur perspective, I can tell you that many Zerg losses are perfectly inconclusive about TvZ balance. When TRUE fails a Baneling bust against FanTaSy on Star Station, when HyuN blindly drones to 76 whereas GuMiho goes for a 2-base all-in, when HyuN goes for a 3-bases 46 drones Roaches/Banelings all-in against GuMiho and ends up facing Marines/Tanks behind a wall, when HyuN loses 10 Drones to a 4 Hellions raid from Bogus on Bel'shir Vestige, when Bboong loses 17 Drones to a 4 → 6 Hellions raid from Flash on Whirlwind, what can we say about balance? Nothing. Notice how with all of those examples and the 3 from my last bullet point above, I have listed nearly half of the Terran wins in Code S... The same thing can be said about the other side, by the way. When Terran loses because he doesn't have full sight in his base and a Nydus Worm thus goes up unnoticed, you cannot make any comment about balance.
So if I am clueless about what happens in pro games, fine; but then it means you're even less authorized to make comments about balance, not only because you know less about the game but also because your statistics knowledge seem very limited if you think you can draw any conclusion from a sample size in which a single series can make so much difference in percentages (see Ghanburighan's example).
Ok, I am not going to read all this because I have nowhere near enough time but it seems like the gist of what yo are saying is " you can't take statistics as proof of balance because what happened in those games may not indicate balance (like all ins or mistakes)". I agree with you to a certain extent but as viewers who don't know exactly what is going on in these games we have to assume that there is an equal amount of games negligible for balance on either side. Obviously this allows for possible error and that is why we can't take stats like these as conclusive evidence. In my opinion however this doesn't mean they are not relevant and can't be used as a guide of what state the matchup is most likely in. If statistics mean nothing then how did we know that Zerg was imbalanced in ZvT in wings?
As far as sample size goes I already linked to a page with much more games. This is the condensed version with only Korean tournaments of the highest level in response to those who said we shouldn't count foreigner games. I can draw a conclusion from these stats though and it is right now Korean Terrans beat Korean Zergs about 57% of the time in televised matches.
Statistics don't mean nothing. They just mean more or less depending on the methodology by which they were calculated. More rigorous methodology -> more meaningful statistics. In this case, the statistic has a very small sample size (I believe ~50 games is usually the absolute minimum in statistics for drawing any meaningful conclusions?), and there's absolutely no controlling for obvious sources of error, e.g. human mistakes that say nothing about balance. If MMA destroys his own command center and IdrA leaves the game prematurely, for example, that game should not be taken into account in balance statistics.
On April 23 2013 08:58 Markwerf wrote: Especially prehive zerg is just screwed.
How so? Zerg winning pre-Hive is absolutely not unheard of, and all the games in which Zerg won at Hive means Zerg did survive the Lair period just fine.
On April 23 2013 09:12 Emzeeshady wrote: Statistics are hard proof.
No. Not at all. Not only statistics are easily manipulated to make them tell whatever you want, but on top of that once you have said TvZ is 59% on your glorious 59 games sample size (so please note I am being indulgent even lending an ear to this; all I need to do is laugh at your sample size and you would have absolutely nothing to reply) you have said essentially nothing. Or rather, you have just made numerous assumptions without bringing the slightest evidence for any of them:
You have assumed that in your 59 games, the names involved from each side were always of equal skill. Of course this is false: just because the games happened at the highest level doesn't mean both players are strictly or even roughly identical skill-wise. Or maybe Flash and Bboong are to be considered even simply on the basis they played at Code S?
You have assumed that both Terrans and Zergs have equal rates of development regarding the strategies of their respective races. It happens a lot that a race "discovers" something, and it takes time (i. e. weeks, months) for the other race to fully understand the necessary tweaks to be made (in builds, or micro, or game plans, etc.). And I am not even only talking about something like "microing against Mines," I am also talking about builds. You don't play the same way against a 65 SCVs dual reactor fact 3-bases heavy agression style with a very late fourth as you would against a Terran going 70-75 SCVs, lab on second fact and a 13'30 fourth. Where is your evidence that Zergs have already found all the adjustments? If we even assume there is a gap, where is your proof that Zergs don't have any room left for innovation to overcome this gap? It took weeks, perhaps even months for Protoss to find the answers to the Roach max style—assuming something is wrong, where is your proof a similar thing is not happening here? Maybe you want a link to the thread about defending Roach max? Guess we would find many, many complaints about the Roach. "How can this thing be balanced? It only costs 75/25." (Sounds familiar?) Nerf, nerf, blah, blah, blah. The result at the end of the WoL? Roach max vs P was naturally extinct, with no balance changes (except the maps). But maybe Blizzard should have patched Roaches and make them cost 100/25 or removed 20 hit points just because Protoss faced a temporary difficulty before finding the appropriate builds?
You have assumed that all games are meaningful to determine balance. When HyuN kills 0 SCV with his Roach/Speedlings attack against Bogus on the Akilon Wastes game, he loses not because "Terran is imbalanced," but because his disguised all-in failed badly. Still, you will aggregate his "loss because of a failed all-in" with "losses in an even game" then claim that your 59 games sample size is a "hard proof". When DRG loses 24 drones to YoDa's Hellion drop on Whirlwind, the rest of the game is a formality. When Bboong cancels his gas against Maru's 8-8-8, his odds at winning the game instantly fall to 0%. Still, you will use his blunder to say Terran dominates Zerg, but of course you can see this is not legitimate. It's like saying "look, RorO won against Bomber on Akilon Wastes, Zergs are fine," then you watch the game and you see Bomber destroyed his own OC. If your sample is a tree, you just have to prune some of the branchs because some blunders or situations make them meaningless to determine balance.
You also have to consider maps. Then you have to look at the actual content of the games, which thus supposes some game knowledge to enlighten why A or B lost... And from my biased amateur perspective, I can tell you that many Zerg losses are perfectly inconclusive about TvZ balance. When TRUE fails a Baneling bust against FanTaSy on Star Station, when HyuN blindly drones to 76 whereas GuMiho goes for a 2-base all-in, when HyuN goes for a 3-bases 46 drones Roaches/Banelings all-in against GuMiho and ends up facing Marines/Tanks behind a wall, when HyuN loses 10 Drones to a 4 Hellions raid from Bogus on Bel'shir Vestige, when Bboong loses 17 Drones to a 4 → 6 Hellions raid from Flash on Whirlwind, what can we say about balance? Nothing. Notice how with all of those examples and the 3 from my last bullet point above, I have listed nearly half of the Terran wins in Code S... The same thing can be said about the other side, by the way. When Terran loses because he doesn't have full sight in his base and a Nydus Worm thus goes up unnoticed, you cannot make any comment about balance.
So if I am clueless about what happens in pro games, fine; but then it means you're even less authorized to make comments about balance, not only because you know less about the game but also because your statistics knowledge seem very limited if you think you can draw any conclusion from a sample size in which a single series can make so much difference in percentages (see Ghanburighan's example).
Ok, I am not going to read all this because I have nowhere near enough time but it seems like the gist of what yo are saying is " you can't take statistics as proof of balance because what happened in those games may not indicate balance (like all ins or mistakes)". I agree with you to a certain extent but as viewers who don't know exactly what is going on in these games we have to assume that there is an equal amount of games negligible for balance on either side. Obviously this allows for possible error and that is why we can't take stats like these as conclusive evidence. In my opinion however this doesn't mean they are not relevant and can't be used as a guide of what state the matchup is most likely in. If statistics mean nothing then how did we know that Zerg was imbalanced in ZvT in wings?
As far as sample size goes I already linked to a page with much more games. This is the condensed version with only Korean tournaments of the highest level in response to those who said we shouldn't count foreigner games. I can draw a conclusion from these stats though and it is right now Korean Terrans beat Korean Zergs about 57% of the time in televised matches.
If you are not going to read what people respond to you, why are you here discussing it. Go post a blog, or tweet about it. This is meant to be a discussion, not Emzeeshady's monologue hour.
On April 23 2013 08:58 Markwerf wrote: Especially prehive zerg is just screwed.
How so? Zerg winning pre-Hive is absolutely not unheard of, and all the games in which Zerg won at Hive means Zerg did survive the Lair period just fine.
On April 23 2013 09:12 Emzeeshady wrote: Statistics are hard proof.
No. Not at all. Not only statistics are easily manipulated to make them tell whatever you want, but on top of that once you have said TvZ is 59% on your glorious 59 games sample size (so please note I am being indulgent even lending an ear to this; all I need to do is laugh at your sample size and you would have absolutely nothing to reply) you have said essentially nothing. Or rather, you have just made numerous assumptions without bringing the slightest evidence for any of them:
You have assumed that in your 59 games, the names involved from each side were always of equal skill. Of course this is false: just because the games happened at the highest level doesn't mean both players are strictly or even roughly identical skill-wise. Or maybe Flash and Bboong are to be considered even simply on the basis they played at Code S?
You have assumed that both Terrans and Zergs have equal rates of development regarding the strategies of their respective races. It happens a lot that a race "discovers" something, and it takes time (i. e. weeks, months) for the other race to fully understand the necessary tweaks to be made (in builds, or micro, or game plans, etc.). And I am not even only talking about something like "microing against Mines," I am also talking about builds. You don't play the same way against a 65 SCVs dual reactor fact 3-bases heavy agression style with a very late fourth as you would against a Terran going 70-75 SCVs, lab on second fact and a 13'30 fourth. Where is your evidence that Zergs have already found all the adjustments? If we even assume there is a gap, where is your proof that Zergs don't have any room left for innovation to overcome this gap? It took weeks, perhaps even months for Protoss to find the answers to the Roach max style—assuming something is wrong, where is your proof a similar thing is not happening here? Maybe you want a link to the thread about defending Roach max? Guess we would find many, many complaints about the Roach. "How can this thing be balanced? It only costs 75/25." (Sounds familiar?) Nerf, nerf, blah, blah, blah. The result at the end of the WoL? Roach max vs P was naturally extinct, with no balance changes (except the maps). But maybe Blizzard should have patched Roaches and make them cost 100/25 or removed 20 hit points just because Protoss faced a temporary difficulty before finding the appropriate builds?
You have assumed that all games are meaningful to determine balance. When HyuN kills 0 SCV with his Roach/Speedlings attack against Bogus on the Akilon Wastes game, he loses not because "Terran is imbalanced," but because his disguised all-in failed badly. Still, you will aggregate his "loss because of a failed all-in" with "losses in an even game" then claim that your 59 games sample size is a "hard proof". When DRG loses 24 drones to YoDa's Hellion drop on Whirlwind, the rest of the game is a formality. When Bboong cancels his gas against Maru's 8-8-8, his odds at winning the game instantly fall to 0%. Still, you will use his blunder to say Terran dominates Zerg, but of course you can see this is not legitimate. It's like saying "look, RorO won against Bomber on Akilon Wastes, Zergs are fine," then you watch the game and you see Bomber destroyed his own OC. If your sample is a tree, you just have to prune some of the branchs because some blunders or situations make them meaningless to determine balance.
You also have to consider maps. Then you have to look at the actual content of the games, which thus supposes some game knowledge to enlighten why A or B lost... And from my biased amateur perspective, I can tell you that many Zerg losses are perfectly inconclusive about TvZ balance. When TRUE fails a Baneling bust against FanTaSy on Star Station, when HyuN blindly drones to 76 whereas GuMiho goes for a 2-base all-in, when HyuN goes for a 3-bases 46 drones Roaches/Banelings all-in against GuMiho and ends up facing Marines/Tanks behind a wall, when HyuN loses 10 Drones to a 4 Hellions raid from Bogus on Bel'shir Vestige, when Bboong loses 17 Drones to a 4 → 6 Hellions raid from Flash on Whirlwind, what can we say about balance? Nothing. Notice how with all of those examples and the 3 from my last bullet point above, I have listed nearly half of the Terran wins in Code S... The same thing can be said about the other side, by the way. When Terran loses because he doesn't have full sight in his base and a Nydus Worm thus goes up unnoticed, you cannot make any comment about balance.
So if I am clueless about what happens in pro games, fine; but then it means you're even less authorized to make comments about balance, not only because you know less about the game but also because your statistics knowledge seem very limited if you think you can draw any conclusion from a sample size in which a single series can make so much difference in percentages (see Ghanburighan's example).
Ok, I am not going to read all this because I have nowhere near enough time but it seems like the gist of what yo are saying is " you can't take statistics as proof of balance because what happened in those games may not indicate balance (like all ins or mistakes)". I agree with you to a certain extent but as viewers who don't know exactly what is going on in these games we have to assume that there is an equal amount of games negligible for balance on either side. Obviously this allows for possible error and that is why we can't take stats like these as conclusive evidence. In my opinion however this doesn't mean they are not relevant and can't be used as a guide of what state the matchup is most likely in. If statistics mean nothing then how did we know that Zerg was imbalanced in ZvT in wings?
As far as sample size goes I already linked to a page with much more games. This is the condensed version with only Korean tournaments of the highest level in response to those who said we shouldn't count foreigner games. I can draw a conclusion from these stats though and it is right now Korean Terrans beat Korean Zergs about 57% of the time in televised matches.
If you are not going to read what people respond to you, why are you here discussing it. Go post a blog, or tweet about it. This is meant to be a discussion, not Emzeeshady's monologue hour.
I read most of it, just not every example. Please don't be over dramatic.
It's not being overly dramatic if you blatantly and unabashedly strawman a post. Instead of engaging with what has been responded, you engage with your own (much milder) iteration of it.
What you missed was the primary argument, which is that the current examples are horribly corrupted. There have been some terrible games, now included in your statistics, which should have been removed. The post also outlined which mistakes they were, and unless you engage with this and argue why we still don't understand them, your point fails to convince that out of ignorance we have to use statistics blindly instead.
The second point is map balance. Proleague is played on very wonky maps which directly affect balance. You cannot just pile GSL, GSTL and Proleague together because they are played on different maps, and thus different strategies and races have advantages. Once again, you didn't read this nor responded to it.
Now, I don't actually know what this 57% is. It could be your GSL, Proleague, GSTL statistics which was 59% less than 24h ago. Which goes to the third point which you are ignoring: we don't have enough games for any kind of statistics. Even if we accept every terrible game, if there are several percentage points of change in a few hours, before I wake up tomorrow, Z can be ahead for all I know.
Furthermore, we already pointed out that the statistics you cited included WCS EU and WCS NA. In fact, that was one of the main reasons why they are Z<T. Once again, you ignored this and keep on claiming that you're talking about Korean statistics.
There are too many holes in your argumentation, if you can even call it that.
" I agree with you to a certain extent but as viewers who don't know exactly what is going on in these games we have to assume that there is an equal amount of games negligible for balance on either side. Obviously this allows for possible error and that is why we can't take stats like these as conclusive evidence. In my opinion however this doesn't mean they are not relevant and can't be used as a guide of what state the matchup is most likely in. "
One of the comedy gold nuggets in your post.
You don't listen to anyone closely enough to try and understand them before responding to 1/3 of their points with utter garbage. Then you say you have no time but are actively responding, when you could have respected the person you are replying to enough to spend that time examining his post instead of just repeating your flawed logic and saying that its ok that your logic is flawed, so that statistic is still a good indicator of where the matchup is right now. Wow.
On April 23 2013 08:58 Markwerf wrote: Of course there were plenty of other changes like hydra's, vipers, hellbats and swarmhosts but they don't really see have much use in the new 'standard' TvZ. Especially prehive zerg is just screwed. You can easily go as far as saying that the infestor nerf outweighs the muta buff while terran only got buffs midgame. Ultralisks lategame make up quite a bit because they are far better but I think if the terrans play MMMM aggressively well you can't really make it to lategame without being far behind. Even when getting there the classic broodlords aren't even that scary anymore since terran can easily have decently upgraded vikings and ravens to counter that.
And that is exactly my problem. How long did it take for zergs to use the infestor style??? More then a year, and all thanks to stephano showing it. How long have we heard that "hydra's are not viable in tvz", but later we saw stephano destroying top code S terrans with it. How long have we heard that "ultralisks are not good enough", while stephano just owned every terran with them?
How long before we see good roach + hydra usage (terrans make mines now instead of tanks, so it's even better around the 11 minute mark)?
How long before we see more blinding cloud abuse?
How long before we see smart swarmhosts usage?
All not viable? No? You mean not viable like roach hydra in wol, right? Or do you mean not viable like ultralisks in wol?
Stephano, please man, show them now and don't wait too long...
Quit being delusional.
Infestors were buffed both directly and indirectly before they actually became useful.
Remember when people complained about MMM at the start of WoL and Protosses HATED Marauders? Now they're eh.
Give people time, and Widow Mines won't be as amazing. A slight nerf maybe, but that's all. Players are getting much better at dealing with Widow Mines and pulling off singular units to set them off instead of rushing in.
On April 24 2013 09:12 RyLai wrote: Players are getting much better at dealing with Widow Mines and pulling off singular units to set them off instead of rushing in.
On April 24 2013 09:12 RyLai wrote: Remember when people complained about MMM at the start of WoL and Protosses HATED Marauders? Now they're eh.
Give people time, and Widow Mines won't be as amazing. A slight nerf maybe, but that's all. Players are getting much better at dealing with Widow Mines and pulling off singular units to set them off instead of rushing in.
Obviously the Stalker buff and the marauder nerf fixed that.
Right?
I mean--marauders no longer auto kill stalker heavy compositions--there must have been a nerf? Right?
Because I refuse to believe that players simply adapted--that's ludicrous.
On April 24 2013 09:12 RyLai wrote: Remember when people complained about MMM at the start of WoL and Protosses HATED Marauders? Now they're eh.
Give people time, and Widow Mines won't be as amazing. A slight nerf maybe, but that's all. Players are getting much better at dealing with Widow Mines and pulling off singular units to set them off instead of rushing in.
Obviously the Stalker buff and the marauder nerf fixed that.
Right?
I mean--marauders no longer auto kill stalker heavy compositions--there must have been a nerf? Right?
Because I refuse to believe that players simply adapted--that's ludicrous.
I'd argue a lot of players don't adapt, but races tend to as a whole.
On April 24 2013 09:12 RyLai wrote: Remember when people complained about MMM at the start of WoL and Protosses HATED Marauders? Now they're eh.
Give people time, and Widow Mines won't be as amazing. A slight nerf maybe, but that's all. Players are getting much better at dealing with Widow Mines and pulling off singular units to set them off instead of rushing in.
Obviously the Stalker buff and the marauder nerf fixed that.
Right?
I mean--marauders no longer auto kill stalker heavy compositions--there must have been a nerf? Right?
Because I refuse to believe that players simply adapted--that's ludicrous.
I'd argue a lot of players don't adapt, but races tend to as a whole.
I have no arguments against and I definitely have been guilty of it (never going 1rax expand until pros started doing it, for example)
IMO as zerg, make 3 or 4 infestors (which doesn't really cost much) and sent infested terrans to soak widow mine shots (or fungal), just like people used to do vs tanks, and the rest is easy. As toss, idk but air seems quite good vs terran mech-mine play, and if terran goes bio-mine then colossi will melt all.
people are still complaining about widow mines? They were awesome at the start because everyone just ran in to them, but now there pretty meh. They are mostly used in tvz but more and more players are mixing in hellbats instead of widow mines now.
On April 25 2013 13:33 EleanorRIgby wrote: people are still complaining about widow mines? They were awesome at the start because everyone just ran in to them, but now there pretty meh. They are mostly used in tvz but more and more players are mixing in hellbats instead of widow mines now.
Oh stop with that observing empirical data and using it to construct your opinions BS, this is a community forum not a lab!
Players are getting much better at dealing with Widow Mines and pulling off singular units to set them off instead of rushing in.
You could say that, but I also think you could argue that a lot of Terran players have yet to figure out how to position their widow mines. I mean, one zergling shouldn't really be enough to trigger the mine to go off, and watching one mine kill half of the Terran army because of friendly fire pains a little bit as well.
My biggest fear for TvZ is that once the Terran gets enough mines out, and good upgrades on their bio (plus maybe a Raven or two), they will be able to trade too cost efficiently with whatever a Zerg can throw at them. Of course, you can just "fucking baneling bust them", as JP would say, but I think that once the Terran players get their builds and scouting figured out, they will know enough about how to position themselves (and maybe even get a siege tank).
But the Zerg is able to be aggressive and kill off the mines so they don't get a critical number, similar to lowering the tank count. ie. Life's 3 base bust, which is almost impossible to hold with BioMine and can keep reinforcing after picking off mines.
On April 25 2013 13:33 EleanorRIgby wrote: people are still complaining about widow mines? They were awesome at the start because everyone just ran in to them, but now there pretty meh. They are mostly used in tvz but more and more players are mixing in hellbats instead of widow mines now.
Oh stop with that observing empirical data and using it to construct your opinions BS, this is a community forum not a lab!
On April 25 2013 13:33 EleanorRIgby wrote: people are still complaining about widow mines? They were awesome at the start because everyone just ran in to them, but now there pretty meh. They are mostly used in tvz but more and more players are mixing in hellbats instead of widow mines now.
Oh stop with that observing empirical data and using it to construct your opinions BS, this is a community forum not a lab!
You think too highly of your own arguments.
Life, Roro, Curious, and Symbol can do it--I don't see the problem. It's easy enough to solve with micro--why complain that you have to work harder?
On April 23 2013 08:58 Markwerf wrote: Of course there were plenty of other changes like hydra's, vipers, hellbats and swarmhosts but they don't really see have much use in the new 'standard' TvZ. Especially prehive zerg is just screwed. You can easily go as far as saying that the infestor nerf outweighs the muta buff while terran only got buffs midgame. Ultralisks lategame make up quite a bit because they are far better but I think if the terrans play MMMM aggressively well you can't really make it to lategame without being far behind. Even when getting there the classic broodlords aren't even that scary anymore since terran can easily have decently upgraded vikings and ravens to counter that.
And that is exactly my problem. How long did it take for zergs to use the infestor style??? More then a year, and all thanks to stephano showing it. How long have we heard that "hydra's are not viable in tvz", but later we saw stephano destroying top code S terrans with it. How long have we heard that "ultralisks are not good enough", while stephano just owned every terran with them?
How long before we see good roach + hydra usage (terrans make mines now instead of tanks, so it's even better around the 11 minute mark)?
How long before we see more blinding cloud abuse?
How long before we see smart swarmhosts usage?
All not viable? No? You mean not viable like roach hydra in wol, right? Or do you mean not viable like ultralisks in wol?
Stephano, please man, show them now and don't wait too long...
Quit being delusional.
Infestors were buffed both directly and indirectly before they actually became useful.
They were actually useful before though, the idea Blizzard has with buffing something just to encourage people to use it has some truth to it. It was also not until after the fungal changes that people realized how powerful infested terrans were, which were even nerfed because of how much they were used. People used to think the infested terran was a crap spell before the fungal change.
On April 23 2013 08:58 Markwerf wrote: Of course there were plenty of other changes like hydra's, vipers, hellbats and swarmhosts but they don't really see have much use in the new 'standard' TvZ. Especially prehive zerg is just screwed. You can easily go as far as saying that the infestor nerf outweighs the muta buff while terran only got buffs midgame. Ultralisks lategame make up quite a bit because they are far better but I think if the terrans play MMMM aggressively well you can't really make it to lategame without being far behind. Even when getting there the classic broodlords aren't even that scary anymore since terran can easily have decently upgraded vikings and ravens to counter that.
And that is exactly my problem. How long did it take for zergs to use the infestor style??? More then a year, and all thanks to stephano showing it. How long have we heard that "hydra's are not viable in tvz", but later we saw stephano destroying top code S terrans with it. How long have we heard that "ultralisks are not good enough", while stephano just owned every terran with them?
How long before we see good roach + hydra usage (terrans make mines now instead of tanks, so it's even better around the 11 minute mark)?
How long before we see more blinding cloud abuse?
How long before we see smart swarmhosts usage?
All not viable? No? You mean not viable like roach hydra in wol, right? Or do you mean not viable like ultralisks in wol?
Stephano, please man, show them now and don't wait too long...
Quit being delusional.
Infestors were buffed both directly and indirectly before they actually became useful.
They were actually useful before though, the idea Blizzard has with buffing something just to encourage people to use it has some truth to it. It was also not until after the fungal changes that people realized how powerful infested terrans were, which were even nerfed because of how much they were used. People used to think the infested terran was a crap spell before the fungal change.
4 second root vs 8 second root
The "buff" people talked about was actually a nerf to the part of fungal that people called OP...
On April 26 2013 03:28 Thieving Magpie wrote: 4 second root vs 8 second root
The "buff" people talked about was actually a nerf to the part of fungal that people called OP...
But this also turned out to be more of a buff than Blizzard expected, because it still did the same amount of damage over half the time. This turned infestors from "tickle monsters" who could lock down armies for a while but couldn't actually kill them, into the AOE-damage dealing monsters we saw at the end of WOL.
The widow mine is good, yes. But we need even more data before we can say anything about it yet, and even longer before we change anything. A month of data is not long enough to construct an argument.
My main disappointment right now is tanks. I miss my well placed tank lines, though using tank lines to shell a base protected by a token force of marines/hellbats and a few widow mines is way more cost effective than it looks.
Today I met a couple of terrans who were previously platinum and mid diamond as highest league ever, they were all now top masters.
one of them had 80% win in TvZ and about 20-30% win in TvT/TvP (His win in TvT might have been higher Im not sure).
Its amazing how most of these Terrans have been practicing TvZ for so long and are now TvZ specialists / gm-level TvZ. Unfortunately TvT and TvP seem to require different mechanics and fundamental skills and thats prob why theyre lacking in those matchups :/
Also, Im pretty sure theyve been practicing the wrong way because these guys more often than not have REALLY bad multitasking/macro skills, but hey it doesnt matter since theyre winning anyway :D
If anyone of you reading this know such a T, please ask him about his tactics etc, Im genuinly curious as how theyve been able to practice and develop one particular matchup in that way
On April 25 2013 13:33 EleanorRIgby wrote: people are still complaining about widow mines? They were awesome at the start because everyone just ran in to them, but now there pretty meh. They are mostly used in tvz but more and more players are mixing in hellbats instead of widow mines now.
The problem is that not everyone has so much APM that mines don't do damage no more. Sometimes my overseer gets sniped, and I just dont see it.
I just got smashed hard by a terran (in ZvT ofc, both high dia). It was on Star station in close position. He kept pushing toward me with MMM&Mines, the problem beeing that he always left mines burrowed after a push, so that they killed the drones I was transfering or the units that were coming out for reinforcement. I think it would be fair if mines would do friendly fire on themselves...
On April 26 2013 04:57 NEEDZMOAR wrote: Today I met a couple of terrans who were previously platinum and mid diamond as highest league ever, they were all now top masters.
one of them had 80% win in TvZ and about 20-30% win in TvT/TvP (His win in TvT might have been higher Im not sure).
Its amazing how most of these Terrans have been practicing TvZ for so long and are now TvZ specialists / gm-level TvZ. Unfortunately TvT and TvP seem to require different mechanics and fundamental skills and thats prob why theyre lacking in those matchups :/
Also, Im pretty sure theyve been practicing the wrong way because these guys more often than not have REALLY bad multitasking/macro skills, but hey it doesnt matter since theyre winning anyway :D
If anyone of you reading this know such a T, please ask him about his tactics etc, Im genuinly curious as how theyve been able to practice and develop one particular matchup in that way
Absolute bull shit, I don't believe this for even a second. Masters players will win over diamonds and platinums with sheer mechanics alone. Also its highly unlikely a player can consistently lose 2/3 matchups and still maintain masters. Stop throwing fuel onto the fire for this retarded zerg whine.
I see this as great for Terran players to watch their replays and see how many mines they are using. Could increase win rates for smart Terrans, shows data to me not OP or UP BUT the 'sweet spot' where mines have highest power is around 10-15, more than that is a waste and less than that is foolish. That's what I take away from this most.
On April 26 2013 05:08 Saumure wrote: The problem is that not everyone has so much APM that mines don't do damage no more. Sometimes my overseer gets sniped, and I just dont see it.
Then get better. It's not like you're physically uncapable of doing it. I can do half-assed marine splits fine. Sending single units to get widow mines isn't very hard.
On April 26 2013 05:08 Saumure wrote: The problem is that not everyone has so much APM that mines don't do damage no more. Sometimes my overseer gets sniped, and I just dont see it.
Then get better. It's not like you're physically uncapable of doing it. I can do half-assed marine splits fine. Sending single units to get widow mines isn't very hard.
How hard it is does not matter--both are doable. One being harder or easier is not relevant to the discussion.
I would argue that making workers is a better and more important skill than either of those two--but require much less manual dexterity. So please, stop the "isn't very hard" quips.
yeah there is literally no way to play macro game ZvT right now. all you can do ist mass ling bling all ins and hope T fucks up or do really gimmicky stuff like symbols roach nydus all ins etc.
basicall you get 3 bases, get lair and do a lairtech all in. if you macro you will lose vs much lesser opponents. mass mines are okay while mass infestors were broken...yeah right. nice double moral. oh and i HATE mass infestors in wol. havent even played the game sinece 7-8 months.
its just really bad to introduce a unit that has no counter and ALWAYS will do damage. there is literally no way for zerg to kill mines without losing something. and since mines are dirtcheap, the mine needs to kill 4 lings and has paid for itself....
people will laugh about how broken this unit was in some months. once T know the all in timings and how to scout for them (which are like 90% of all high level wins = all in from Z) there will be no way for Z to win since you cant trade with mines in a closely cost efficient way. really hope they dont wait too long. mines are the way they are for 3-5 months now...its time blizzard.
On April 26 2013 07:00 Decendos wrote: yeah there is literally no way to play macro game ZvT right now. all you can do ist mass ling bling all ins and hope T fucks up or do really gimmicky stuff like symbols roach nydus all ins etc.
basicall you get 3 bases, get lair and do a lairtech all in. if you macro you will lose vs much lesser opponents. mass mines are okay while mass infestors were broken...yeah right. nice double moral. oh and i HATE mass infestors in wol. havent even played the game sinece 7-8 months.
its just really bad to introduce a unit that has no counter and ALWAYS will do damage. there is literally no way for zerg to kill mines without losing something. and since mines are dirtcheap, the mine needs to kill 4 lings and has paid for itself....
people will laugh about how broken this unit was in some months. once T know the all in timings and how to scout for them (which are like 90% of all high level wins = all in from Z) there will be no way for Z to win since you cant trade with mines in a closely cost efficient way. really hope they dont wait too long. mines are the way they are for 3-5 months now...its time blizzard.
You don't play for 7-8 months and then whine that mines are OP?
Brilliant analysis!
I can't believe that zerg gets 3 or more bases, applies heavy pressure, and then has to defend terran counterpressure until hive tech where terran then has to turtle like this is somehow some back and forth match where the aggressor and the defender bounces around as initiative shifts.
Terran has to multitask to beat zerg and zerg loses if they can't keep up with moving units around the map? For shame!
On April 26 2013 07:00 Decendos wrote: yeah there is literally no way to play macro game ZvT right now. all you can do ist mass ling bling all ins and hope T fucks up or do really gimmicky stuff like symbols roach nydus all ins etc.
Out of the 17 Zerg wins against Terran in Code S (in which, during the darkest times of the Mine/Medivac Apocalypse, Zergs have to endure an abysmal 17:18 ratio in maps won/lost), 11 were macro games. Maybe you would know this if your "complaining:trying to adapt" ratio was inferior to 100:1.
its just really bad to introduce a unit that has no counter and ALWAYS will do damage. there is literally no way for zerg to kill mines without losing something. and since mines are dirtcheap, the mine needs to kill 4 lings and has paid for itself....
You live in fairylands if you think Terran is interested in trading one Mine against 4 Zerglings. I mean, don't tell me that your thought process is actually "One Mine costs 75/25, 75 + 25 = 100, 4 Zerglings cost 100/0, so things are equal". Please tell me this is something else...
On April 26 2013 07:00 Decendos wrote: yeah there is literally no way to play macro game ZvT right now. all you can do ist mass ling bling all ins and hope T fucks up or do really gimmicky stuff like symbols roach nydus all ins etc.
basicall you get 3 bases, get lair and do a lairtech all in. if you macro you will lose vs much lesser opponents. mass mines are okay while mass infestors were broken...yeah right. nice double moral. oh and i HATE mass infestors in wol. havent even played the game sinece 7-8 months.
its just really bad to introduce a unit that has no counter and ALWAYS will do damage. there is literally no way for zerg to kill mines without losing something. and since mines are dirtcheap, the mine needs to kill 4 lings and has paid for itself....
people will laugh about how broken this unit was in some months. once T know the all in timings and how to scout for them (which are like 90% of all high level wins = all in from Z) there will be no way for Z to win since you cant trade with mines in a closely cost efficient way. really hope they dont wait too long. mines are the way they are for 3-5 months now...its time blizzard.
You don't play for 7-8 months and then whine that mines are OP?
Brilliant analysis!
I can't believe that zerg gets 3 or more bases, applies heavy pressure, and then has to defend terran counterpressure until hive tech where terran then has to turtle like this is somehow some back and forth match where the aggressor and the defender bounces around as initiative shifts.
Terran has to multitask to beat zerg and zerg loses if they can't keep up with moving units around the map? For shame!
i havent played wol since 7-8 months. i played all of hots beta and hots...nice try...
mines are just horribly broken. they are way too cost efficient. if you manage to see its not that way...yeah well you are ultra biased.
btw no counter argument to why its okay to have 10-20 mines but 10-20 infestors was broken while both are supposed to be support units.
oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
On April 26 2013 04:57 NEEDZMOAR wrote: Today I met a couple of terrans who were previously platinum and mid diamond as highest league ever, they were all now top masters.
one of them had 80% win in TvZ and about 20-30% win in TvT/TvP (His win in TvT might have been higher Im not sure).
Its amazing how most of these Terrans have been practicing TvZ for so long and are now TvZ specialists / gm-level TvZ. Unfortunately TvT and TvP seem to require different mechanics and fundamental skills and thats prob why theyre lacking in those matchups :/
Also, Im pretty sure theyve been practicing the wrong way because these guys more often than not have REALLY bad multitasking/macro skills, but hey it doesnt matter since theyre winning anyway :D
If anyone of you reading this know such a T, please ask him about his tactics etc, Im genuinly curious as how theyve been able to practice and develop one particular matchup in that way
Absolute bull shit, I don't believe this for even a second. Masters players will win over diamonds and platinums with sheer mechanics alone. Also its highly unlikely a player can consistently lose 2/3 matchups and still maintain masters. Stop throwing fuel onto the fire for this retarded zerg whine.
yeah Id call bullshit as well, then hots-T happend. 2/3 matchups thats why I said I wasnt sure about the TvT because it just doesnt make sense.
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game.
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game.
not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on.
I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so.
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game.
not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on.
I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so.
Im still waiting for your examples, mate.
You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate.
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game.
not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on.
I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so.
Im still waiting for your examples, mate.
You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate.
Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games.
Do you even watch GSL?
Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to...
I think the main problem with widow mines is that it's much easier for terran to make mines than for zerg to deal with them.
You need an overseer neither too far away nor too much in the front. Losing overseers gets expensive quickly and is likely to supply block you. The only zerg ground unit that can just kill mines with superior range is the hydralisk, and you don't really want to build those against terran. That means you will almost always take damage from a mine. Sending single zerglings can be a good trade, but it doesn't work if there's support to kill them before they can set off the mines. If you run your army into a mine unsuspectingly, the result is devastating. The psychological factor is hard to evaluate, but the presence of mines makes the zerg frustrated and paranoid. Widow mines don't take damage from their own splash damage and you can't safely engage them with air either, which just leaves no really good way of cleaning up mines efficiently.
They just give a lot of utility and potentially high reward, annoy the zerg to no end and force mistakes, all for a low investment in both resources and apm.
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game.
not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on.
I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so.
Im still waiting for your examples, mate.
You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate.
Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games.
Do you even watch GSL?
Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to...
Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy.
On April 26 2013 21:35 NEEDZMOAR wrote: not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling
Reading posts would be a nice way to start, because I have already stated I discounted those attacks. Skipping Tanks is not a mistake against 3-bases Baneling busts by the way, you can defend those attacks with 4M (Last vs Life, Akilon Wastes, MLG; Polt vs Life, Akilon Wastes, MLG; YoDa vs Lucky, Akilon Wastes, GSTL). Tanks are only mandatory against hardcore Roaches attacks.
I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so.
I don't see why a macro game implies equal skill from both sides, or even an equal position in the game. For instance, on Star Station MarineKing played from behind the whole game against Curious due to his horrible 2 rax reapers expand build order, but it was still a macro game. I don't know if it's the case but assuming Curious is a better player than MarineKing, it changes nothing to the nature of the game.
Im still waiting for your examples, mate.
You can deduce them from the criteria I gave to Decendos, I discounted all games in which Zerg won with an all-in so the rest fits.
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game.
not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on.
I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so.
Im still waiting for your examples, mate.
You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate.
Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games.
Do you even watch GSL?
Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to...
Maybe we shouldn't be playing this "macro game", since it's generally very boring. We saw too much of it in late WoL, and I can do with some change.
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game.
not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on.
I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so.
Im still waiting for your examples, mate.
You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate.
Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games.
Do you even watch GSL?
Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to...
Maybe we shouldn't be playing this "macro game", since it's generally very boring. We saw too much of it in late WoL, and I can do with some change.
By Macro game, he probably means that both get three bases and doesn't move out till BL. Because these back and forth games where Terran or Zerg attack, gets stopped, get counterattacked, defends, and counters back constantly throughout for nonstop action is apparently boring to him.
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game.
not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on.
I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so.
Im still waiting for your examples, mate.
You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate.
Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games.
Do you even watch GSL?
Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to...
Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy.
Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won.
Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf.
On April 26 2013 22:52 NEEDZMOAR wrote: Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won.
Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf.
Are you trolling me?
I think you don't understand very well what is an "all-in". I guess you're the kind of player who thinks every attack before the 15' mark is an "all-in".
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game.
not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on.
I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so.
Im still waiting for your examples, mate.
You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate.
Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games.
Do you even watch GSL?
Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to...
Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy.
Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won.
Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf.
I don't think I have ever read anything as ridiculous as this. Seriously dude, are you for real? You think macro game is basically people getting 3 bases and then attacking with one big clash or something?
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game.
not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on.
I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so.
Im still waiting for your examples, mate.
You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate.
Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games.
Do you even watch GSL?
Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to...
Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy.
Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won.
Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf.
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game.
not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on.
I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so.
Im still waiting for your examples, mate.
You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate.
Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games.
Do you even watch GSL?
Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to...
Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy.
Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won.
Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf.
Needlessly antagonistic, check! Do enlighten me as to what I missed in the previous post.
Second, those do not sound like games I watched all. Do elaborate on those ''all-in's'' that you claim happened.
Third, you are using weasel words. Previously we were talking about macro games, now you changed it to standard games. So which is it? And what do you consider standard games? Is it really the WoL tech to BL infestor because I hope you do not.
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game.
not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on.
I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so.
Im still waiting for your examples, mate.
You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate.
Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games.
Do you even watch GSL?
Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to...
Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy.
Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won.
Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf.
Needlessly antagonistic, check! Do enlighten me as to what I missed in the previous post.
Second, those do not sound like games I watched all. Do elaborate on those ''all-in's'' that you claim happened.
Third, you are using weasel words. Previously we were talking about macro games, now you changed it to standard games. So which is it? And what do you consider standard games? Is it really the WoL tech to BL infestor because I hope you do not.
In the second game, bomber never built a third OC. He kept a non-stop stream of units to roro's base until his main dried up and he couldn't secure the third with his main OC. He was definitely all-in.
On April 27 2013 07:45 convention wrote: In the second game, bomber never built a third OC. He kept a non-stop stream of units to roro's base until his main dried up and he couldn't secure the third with his main OC. He was definitely all-in.
? Second game was Star Station and Bomber did have a third OC. I assume you meant he had no fourth?
On April 26 2013 21:48 Scorch wrote: I think the main problem with widow mines is that it's much easier for terran to make mines than for zerg to deal with them.
You need an overseer neither too far away nor too much in the front. Losing overseers gets expensive quickly and is likely to supply block you. The only zerg ground unit that can just kill mines with superior range is the hydralisk, and you don't really want to build those against terran. That means you will almost always take damage from a mine. Sending single zerglings can be a good trade, but it doesn't work if there's support to kill them before they can set off the mines. If you run your army into a mine unsuspectingly, the result is devastating. The psychological factor is hard to evaluate, but the presence of mines makes the zerg frustrated and paranoid. Widow mines don't take damage from their own splash damage and you can't safely engage them with air either, which just leaves no really good way of cleaning up mines efficiently.
They just give a lot of utility and potentially high reward, annoy the zerg to no end and force mistakes, all for a low investment in both resources and apm.
i agree with many things you said here, but then again, sc2 is a not a game where lazyness gets rewarded.
it might be frustrating facing an oh so annoying terran who uses bio mine the right way - but its doable, be it with roach/hydra or even muta ling/bane
most wol-terrans did not complain that playing against fungal/banelings/broodlords was too hard to control - it was almost undoable even with perfect micro things have turned and zerg is forced to engage more carefully, nowadays zerg has to control his army well to stay costeffective
i disagree on the apm and resource investment point, playing bio mine needs an insane amount of apm and multitasking, while failing at micro often results in heavy losses aswell
overall i think that tvz is in a good spot right now, its more fragile than ever, the only difference is that zerg can lose his stuff to a few mines as fast as a terran to a bad marine split, a baneling bomb or a chain fungal
Zerg here- ZvT is in a pretty good spot. Widow mines are a great addition to this matchup, it makes it so much more interesting. Yes. they are a pain to deal with but good micro can deal with them in general. Only thing that seems a tad OP to me is those early bio-mine pushes where you basically can't engage
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game...
As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary.
Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing.
If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no.
I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game.
not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on.
I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so.
Im still waiting for your examples, mate.
You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate.
Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games.
Do you even watch GSL?
Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to...
Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy.
Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won.
Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf.
Needlessly antagonistic, check! Do enlighten me as to what I missed in the previous post.
Second, those do not sound like games I watched all. Do elaborate on those ''all-in's'' that you claim happened.
Third, you are using weasel words. Previously we were talking about macro games, now you changed it to standard games. So which is it? And what do you consider standard games? Is it really the WoL tech to BL infestor because I hope you do not.
Was there an open expansion somewhere on the map? Then it obviously was an all-in
So this thread has turned into a "what's considered an all in" discussion. Don't we already have that...buried within the forum somewhere?
Mines are, imo, a backwards move and a "easy way out" solution for tvz. I think it's a retarded unit design and doesn't make the matchup any better. Terran can base their whole play style based on reliance of one unit, and a couple misclicks could result in the end of the game for either player. We've seen it happen. Zerg's swarmish style play just becomes worthless as now it's more about obtaining key quality units as quickly as possible. Overrunning the terran with aggressive swarm style play isn't possible anymore. Mines are good balance wise, but they eliminate a lot of "fun" in the game. I think they can still be worked on in the matchup, and maybe the statistics do say something at the moment, but give it time and things could change.
On June 16 2013 15:49 scph wrote: Mines are, imo, a backwards move and a "easy way out" solution for tvz. I think it's a retarded unit design and doesn't make the matchup any better. Terran can base their whole play style based on reliance of one unit, and a couple misclicks could result in the end of the game for either player. We've seen it happen. Zerg's swarmish style play just becomes worthless as now it's more about obtaining key quality units as quickly as possible. Overrunning the terran with aggressive swarm style play isn't possible anymore. Mines are good balance wise, but they eliminate a lot of "fun" in the game. I think they can still be worked on in the matchup, and maybe the statistics do say something at the moment, but give it time and things could change.
This is sooo true, but since the majority of people are too fixated upon "numerical balancing of winrates" instead of "looking if the game and unit is fun" it is pretty much a lost cause. It is harder to argue around a missing synergy of a unit than it is to whine about 60% winrate ... too many people equate "fun" with "winning" ... just to feel better than someone else (which doesnt matter). "Now look at ME!"
On June 16 2013 15:49 scph wrote: Mines are, imo, a backwards move and a "easy way out" solution for tvz. I think it's a retarded unit design and doesn't make the matchup any better. Terran can base their whole play style based on reliance of one unit, and a couple misclicks could result in the end of the game for either player. We've seen it happen. Zerg's swarmish style play just becomes worthless as now it's more about obtaining key quality units as quickly as possible. Overrunning the terran with aggressive swarm style play isn't possible anymore. Mines are good balance wise, but they eliminate a lot of "fun" in the game. I think they can still be worked on in the matchup, and maybe the statistics do say something at the moment, but give it time and things could change.
This is sooo true, but since the majority of people are too fixated upon "numerical balancing of winrates" instead of "looking if the game and unit is fun" it is pretty much a lost cause. It is harder to argue around a missing synergy of a unit than it is to whine about 60% winrate ... too many people equate "fun" with "winning" ... just to feel better than someone else (which doesnt matter). "Now look at ME!"
Mines are fun for terrans and also spectators, just not fun if you're Zerg and you A move you whole army into mines. Is it fun for Terran to lose their whole army to a few banelings, or fungals? High tier tvz involves constant aggression and trading of units, mines are fine in the matchup - if u want to QQ about something just cos you keep losing, then just QQ about hellbats like everyone else.
all i can say as a dia and plat player in EU and NA that when the T goes mass widow i find it very hard to win if they drop as well. You simply cant build the economy up and get the ranged units out like hydras and broods to clear them. With reasonable control for my league the problems start top exist when i have to split armies to defend bases against really really efficient trades for the T, mass widow mine play when this is happening is absurd.
I do have my methods and have beat it only a couple of times but if they drop you and keep up the harass, people of my leagues do not have the control/ap[m/decision making to beat it.looking through my reps of over 300 the T's ive played this and last season ive lost 80% of all games where i deemed it to be widow mine play. i played one a few minutes ago which i won but he didnt expand to his 3rd properly and when i was up it wasnt up for long but i did like seeing over 16 mules . . it practically got him back into the game! when he did this however i had about 24 mutas anyway 1/1 and his opening was a bit odd with banshees. But those mines had me from 200 to 100 a couple of times before i could over power him. But god damn those drops and those terran units are really really good. 2 HB, 2 vacs, marines in each base(4) cleared my bases in seconds i was surprise he could keep it up off essentailly 2 base(he could of had more for mules but even still). . with a couple of WM sneakily burried, its so easy to shift click the drop and then the burrow while they can ctrl click the marines and get them into little chokes . . .hard stuff . . i hate WM
edit: to comment on the win rate thing . . . you made me check my history!
of all the T games i played this season ive won 70% where ive flat out gone bane roach all in . . of the macro games ive lost this season (THIS SEASON) again 80% of all games marked WmPlay ive lost, the 5 i won were against the silly being matched with a lower league. WIN RATES do not take into account the method in which you win of course. If Z looks like its winning against terran there needs to be a side not for ALL games, do the roachbane you win DARE to go macro against this and its just way too ineffient. It was kinda like toss was in WOl; all games won were through all ins mostly with very few going to late game
On June 16 2013 15:49 scph wrote: Mines are, imo, a backwards move and a "easy way out" solution for tvz. I think it's a retarded unit design and doesn't make the matchup any better. Terran can base their whole play style based on reliance of one unit, and a couple misclicks could result in the end of the game for either player. We've seen it happen. Zerg's swarmish style play just becomes worthless as now it's more about obtaining key quality units as quickly as possible. Overrunning the terran with aggressive swarm style play isn't possible anymore. Mines are good balance wise, but they eliminate a lot of "fun" in the game. I think they can still be worked on in the matchup, and maybe the statistics do say something at the moment, but give it time and things could change.
This is sooo true, but since the majority of people are too fixated upon "numerical balancing of winrates" instead of "looking if the game and unit is fun" it is pretty much a lost cause. It is harder to argue around a missing synergy of a unit than it is to whine about 60% winrate ... too many people equate "fun" with "winning" ... just to feel better than someone else (which doesnt matter). "Now look at ME!"
Mines are fun for terrans and also spectators, just not fun if you're Zerg and you A move you whole army into mines. Is it fun for Terran to lose their whole army to a few banelings, or fungals? High tier tvz involves constant aggression and trading of units, mines are fine in the matchup - if u want to QQ about something just cos you keep losing, then just QQ about hellbats like everyone else.
They arent fun to watch ... especially if you compare them to the Spider Mines from BW, which had their "comical movement" as well.
Your "counter questions" do not change anything about the Widow Mines being stupid, because countering "stupid stuff" with "equally stupid stuff" is not a good way to balance the game. As scph said ... it is retarded unit design ... if you dont know why here is a hint: the mines do not synergize with any army unit and they still cost supply. Spider Mines didnt synergize, BUT they were one-shot and did not require supply.
Try to stop thinking with winrates and "this is successful" when you judge a unit to be "good or bad design" and more about "does this make sense" or "does this feel right" ...
Every time I read a post in those thread I actually read "dude I can't win with a moving and pressing F anymore, what the f?" or "hey he has a unit that kills my stuff". Widow mines ARE fun to play with and watch, they ARE fun to play against (I love splitting lings to avoid big shots), TvZ is the best matchup to watch if Z doesn't go roach bane durp. If you can't micro and die to giant mines shots, then you are bad. Maybe you were part of those people saying "don't nerf infestors, give time to terran to adapt to BL/infestors, it's fine" 1 year after the queen buff? Mines are far from being as powerful as old fungal. It's not because Innovation stomps zerg and YOU lose on the ladder that the unit is op. Especially given that at lower progaming tiers (low KR/EU), the matchup barely ever seems one sided for T.
To the diamond guy above, pretty sure your problem isn't mines. I leveled my account on NA to offrace as Z, and in diamond people are terrible at dropping and macroing. If you die to drops, your macro is also terrible so you should work on that. You don't need ranged units to counter mines. You need overlord speed and actual micro, as terran needs micro to play against banes. You also need decent creep spread, which you should have in diamond. Also, saying "lol when I roach all in I win and when I macro I loose" is an awful argument, as roach all in are easy to do/hard to defend, especially for diamond people. I understand it was more like to explain the winrates being okay because of mass all ins, but when you watch like EU pro games widow mines doesn't seem to be a problem at all (WCS EU I.E.). About drops, it actually takes action and attention to do what you say, and it takes about equal if not less to defend it. It's not that hard to keep 10 lings and 2/3 banes at each base to defend drops when you won't absolutely need them to attack in diamond, as well as having good ovie spread to see them coming and catch them with mutas and/or go back with lings to defend.
To mr balance above also, so what is good unit design? Units that, matched for equal cost and supply, would come out with equal amounts of damage dealt to each other? A world where starcraft would be marines vs zergling fights all the time, yay? no comebacks ever, best macro wins! What do you mean by not synergize with other army units? Do colossi synergize? Roaches? Corruptors? Mines provide AOE to bio and allow bio play to have space control. How is that not synergy? Or rather how is that less than most units in the game? Pro forum game designers ftl
TL;DR : Tired to see WoL BL/infestor heroes bitching about mines when it's in my opinion a very good addition to the game, forcing micro and agressive play from both side when paired with bio, and when their usefulness ranges from great to meh depending on micro.
On June 16 2013 15:49 scph wrote: Mines are, imo, a backwards move and a "easy way out" solution for tvz. I think it's a retarded unit design and doesn't make the matchup any better. Terran can base their whole play style based on reliance of one unit, and a couple misclicks could result in the end of the game for either player. We've seen it happen. Zerg's swarmish style play just becomes worthless as now it's more about obtaining key quality units as quickly as possible. Overrunning the terran with aggressive swarm style play isn't possible anymore. Mines are good balance wise, but they eliminate a lot of "fun" in the game. I think they can still be worked on in the matchup, and maybe the statistics do say something at the moment, but give it time and things could change.
This is sooo true, but since the majority of people are too fixated upon "numerical balancing of winrates" instead of "looking if the game and unit is fun" it is pretty much a lost cause. It is harder to argue around a missing synergy of a unit than it is to whine about 60% winrate ... too many people equate "fun" with "winning" ... just to feel better than someone else (which doesnt matter). "Now look at ME!"
Mines are fun for terrans and also spectators, just not fun if you're Zerg and you A move you whole army into mines. Is it fun for Terran to lose their whole army to a few banelings, or fungals? High tier tvz involves constant aggression and trading of units, mines are fine in the matchup - if u want to QQ about something just cos you keep losing, then just QQ about hellbats like everyone else.
They arent fun to watch ... especially if you compare them to the Spider Mines from BW, which had their "comical movement" as well.
Your "counter questions" do not change anything about the Widow Mines being stupid, because countering "stupid stuff" with "equally stupid stuff" is not a good way to balance the game. As scph said ... it is retarded unit design ... if you dont know why here is a hint: the mines do not synergize with any army unit and they still cost supply. Spider Mines didnt synergize, BUT they were one-shot and did not require supply.
Try to stop thinking with winrates and "this is successful" when you judge a unit to be "good or bad design" and more about "does this make sense" or "does this feel right" ...
They are quite fun to watch for me, they can by neutralize by good micro, the can be turned againts their, they pretty interesting for me , at least more interesting that majority of a-move units in this game So dont state your opinions as they are facts.
On June 16 2013 19:36 Rabiator wrote: They arent fun to watch ... especially if you compare them to the Spider Mines from BW, which had their "comical movement" as well.
On June 16 2013 20:41 yOngKIN wrote: 49/51 is not that significant. But yeah, mines are super pesky.
euh that's like what something like 94% consistency? 94% seems pretty consistent to me. But hey i might just be 'my bias' speaking right now, or wait is it yours?
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JIgXeQb.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8Y75XGl.png)
.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SZR9gQa.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tUnq4OV.png)
