|
On July 02 2013 13:56 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 13:51 AxionSteel wrote:On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:55 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
Yeah I'm sorry I misused the word blackmail. It's actually defamation, you are basically implying that the person has skewed the statistics out of personal interest. Before making such accusations though shouldn't you be presenting at least some evidence?
And I won't reply to MasterOfPuppets anylonger, because his argument simply doesn't hold water. "They are at least master and thus relevant to pro level statistics". I'm sorry but I am high master and my level of play is absolutely not relevant to the pro level play, they are world's apart. "At least master" is such a terrible parameter to use to decide wether or not a game is relevant because pro level (even low GM) and masters are worlds apart. The question mark is there for a reason. If the digging that Plansix did is correct, then he indeed does have a Terran bias. That is incredibly important, because he "filtered" the games. He filtered out qualifiers for tournaments, but used the tournament statistics. That is really important. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are. Actually, the parameters used were the same as in every other month. In the first two months they showed Terran as the most winning race, this month they didn't. SAME PARAMETERS 100%. But you missed my point. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.
That could completely explain the statistics. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later. Time to go to work. Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?) Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs. Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =( As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though. Over the history of SC2, Protoss has clearly done the poorest according to that chart, and it means that a Protoss player more often than not loses to Terran and Zerg players of equal skill. That is annoying to me, because I like to win. But we all knew this didn't we... this chart just confirms what all the win rates showed. And the results.
Over the history of BW, Protoss has won the least amount of championship and has no bonjwa. That's protoss for you. I kinda think that Protoss is slightly weaker than other races in both SC2 and BW but the difference is so small that it won't be noticeable in short term but in long term it shows.
|
Protoss had Bisu and Stork in BW. The warp in mechanic completely changed the complexion of protoss from SC1 to SC2. The injects somewhat changed zerg but they still have the mass unit production capabilities they had. But really, comparing SC1 race wins to SC2 race wins is rather odd and not at all useful.
|
Don't think I've ever seen it so balanced... good job Blizzard. Now you just have to work on making some match ups fun to watch.
|
Don't make the mistake of using winrates as an absolute for balance. There's an important factor missing in statistics using winrates: the players. Yes it can be used as one tool to judge balance, but on it's own it's quite meaningless.
|
On July 03 2013 03:47 nkr wrote:
Don't make the mistake of using winrates as an absolute for balance. There's an important factor missing in statistics using winrates: the players. Yes it can be used as one tool to judge balance, but on it's own it's quite meaningless.
If you use a large enough sample size, the performances of individual players become irrelevant, though.
|
On July 01 2013 20:16 Clazziquai10 wrote:
HAH! Finally Terrans are no longer winning more than 50% of non-mirror matchups! In your face, hellbat haters! Looks like it won't be nerfed soon! XD
lol
|
On July 03 2013 02:55 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 13:56 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 AxionSteel wrote:On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:55 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:52 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
The question mark is there for a reason. If the digging that Plansix did is correct, then he indeed does have a Terran bias.
That is incredibly important, because he "filtered" the games. He filtered out qualifiers for tournaments, but used the tournament statistics. That is really important. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.
Actually, the parameters used were the same as in every other month. In the first two months they showed Terran as the most winning race, this month they didn't. SAME PARAMETERS 100%. But you missed my point. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.
That could completely explain the statistics. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later. Time to go to work. Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?) Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs. Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =( As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though. Over the history of SC2, Protoss has clearly done the poorest according to that chart, and it means that a Protoss player more often than not loses to Terran and Zerg players of equal skill. That is annoying to me, because I like to win. But we all knew this didn't we... this chart just confirms what all the win rates showed. And the results. Over the history of BW, Protoss has won the least amount of championship and has no bonjwa. That's protoss for you. I kinda think that Protoss is slightly weaker than other races in both SC2 and BW but the difference is so small that it won't be noticeable in short term but in long term it shows.
But Protoss has always performed quite well in team leagues, and foreign Protoss players are far more successful than foreign Terrans (which basically don't exist).
|
As a protoss player I'm happy with how the game is at the moment. Nothing is broken and everything is fine. I see myself playing with this balance until LotV
|
On July 24 2013 00:59 Rhaegal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 02:55 Wildmoon wrote:On July 02 2013 13:56 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 AxionSteel wrote:On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:55 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
Actually, the parameters used were the same as in every other month. In the first two months they showed Terran as the most winning race, this month they didn't. SAME PARAMETERS 100%.
But you missed my point. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.
That could completely explain the statistics. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later. Time to go to work. Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?) Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs. Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =( As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though. Over the history of SC2, Protoss has clearly done the poorest according to that chart, and it means that a Protoss player more often than not loses to Terran and Zerg players of equal skill. That is annoying to me, because I like to win. But we all knew this didn't we... this chart just confirms what all the win rates showed. And the results. Over the history of BW, Protoss has won the least amount of championship and has no bonjwa. That's protoss for you. I kinda think that Protoss is slightly weaker than other races in both SC2 and BW but the difference is so small that it won't be noticeable in short term but in long term it shows. But Protoss has always performed quite well in team leagues, and foreign Protoss players are far more successful than foreign Terrans (which basically don't exist).
Thorzain and Demuslim would like to disagree.
|
On July 24 2013 01:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 00:59 Rhaegal wrote:On July 03 2013 02:55 Wildmoon wrote:On July 02 2013 13:56 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 AxionSteel wrote:On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
But you missed my point.
If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.
That could completely explain the statistics. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later.
Time to go to work. Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?) Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs. Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =( As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though. Over the history of SC2, Protoss has clearly done the poorest according to that chart, and it means that a Protoss player more often than not loses to Terran and Zerg players of equal skill. That is annoying to me, because I like to win. But we all knew this didn't we... this chart just confirms what all the win rates showed. And the results. Over the history of BW, Protoss has won the least amount of championship and has no bonjwa. That's protoss for you. I kinda think that Protoss is slightly weaker than other races in both SC2 and BW but the difference is so small that it won't be noticeable in short term but in long term it shows. But Protoss has always performed quite well in team leagues, and foreign Protoss players are far more successful than foreign Terrans (which basically don't exist). Thorzain and Demuslim would like to disagree.
They would like to disagree but their results wouldn't.
|
On July 24 2013 01:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 00:59 Rhaegal wrote:On July 03 2013 02:55 Wildmoon wrote:On July 02 2013 13:56 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 AxionSteel wrote:On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
But you missed my point.
If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.
That could completely explain the statistics. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later.
Time to go to work. Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?) Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs. Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =( As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though. Over the history of SC2, Protoss has clearly done the poorest according to that chart, and it means that a Protoss player more often than not loses to Terran and Zerg players of equal skill. That is annoying to me, because I like to win. But we all knew this didn't we... this chart just confirms what all the win rates showed. And the results. Over the history of BW, Protoss has won the least amount of championship and has no bonjwa. That's protoss for you. I kinda think that Protoss is slightly weaker than other races in both SC2 and BW but the difference is so small that it won't be noticeable in short term but in long term it shows. But Protoss has always performed quite well in team leagues, and foreign Protoss players are far more successful than foreign Terrans (which basically don't exist). Thorzain and Demuslim would like to disagree.
That's two successful foreign Terrans...vs the myriad of successful foreign players of the other two races lol
|
On July 24 2013 01:29 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:24 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2013 00:59 Rhaegal wrote:On July 03 2013 02:55 Wildmoon wrote:On July 02 2013 13:56 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 AxionSteel wrote:On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?) Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs. Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =( As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though. Over the history of SC2, Protoss has clearly done the poorest according to that chart, and it means that a Protoss player more often than not loses to Terran and Zerg players of equal skill. That is annoying to me, because I like to win. But we all knew this didn't we... this chart just confirms what all the win rates showed. And the results. Over the history of BW, Protoss has won the least amount of championship and has no bonjwa. That's protoss for you. I kinda think that Protoss is slightly weaker than other races in both SC2 and BW but the difference is so small that it won't be noticeable in short term but in long term it shows. But Protoss has always performed quite well in team leagues, and foreign Protoss players are far more successful than foreign Terrans (which basically don't exist). Thorzain and Demuslim would like to disagree. They would like to disagree but their results wouldn't.
Hey, Demuslim just qualifed for WCS NA. He hasn't even played in premire league yet. And they are always doing well in whatever league they are in. They haven't won, but there are lists and lists of Korean terrans who haven't won either.
On July 24 2013 01:29 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:24 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2013 00:59 Rhaegal wrote:On July 03 2013 02:55 Wildmoon wrote:On July 02 2013 13:56 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 AxionSteel wrote:On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?) Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs. Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =( As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though. Over the history of SC2, Protoss has clearly done the poorest according to that chart, and it means that a Protoss player more often than not loses to Terran and Zerg players of equal skill. That is annoying to me, because I like to win. But we all knew this didn't we... this chart just confirms what all the win rates showed. And the results. Over the history of BW, Protoss has won the least amount of championship and has no bonjwa. That's protoss for you. I kinda think that Protoss is slightly weaker than other races in both SC2 and BW but the difference is so small that it won't be noticeable in short term but in long term it shows. But Protoss has always performed quite well in team leagues, and foreign Protoss players are far more successful than foreign Terrans (which basically don't exist). Thorzain and Demuslim would like to disagree. That's two successful foreign Terrans...vs the myriad of successful foreign players of the other two races lol
I listed two off the top of my head, there are more in EU who have done well.
|
protoss so good cuz of PL / bo1 format
|
On July 24 2013 01:33 xsnac wrote:
protoss so good cuz of PL / bo1 format
dat cheese...and low econ forcefielding
|
On July 24 2013 01:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:29 rd wrote:On July 24 2013 01:24 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2013 00:59 Rhaegal wrote:On July 03 2013 02:55 Wildmoon wrote:On July 02 2013 13:56 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 AxionSteel wrote:On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:[quote] Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this: [quote] And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs. Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =( As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though. Over the history of SC2, Protoss has clearly done the poorest according to that chart, and it means that a Protoss player more often than not loses to Terran and Zerg players of equal skill. That is annoying to me, because I like to win. But we all knew this didn't we... this chart just confirms what all the win rates showed. And the results. Over the history of BW, Protoss has won the least amount of championship and has no bonjwa. That's protoss for you. I kinda think that Protoss is slightly weaker than other races in both SC2 and BW but the difference is so small that it won't be noticeable in short term but in long term it shows. But Protoss has always performed quite well in team leagues, and foreign Protoss players are far more successful than foreign Terrans (which basically don't exist). Thorzain and Demuslim would like to disagree. They would like to disagree but their results wouldn't. Hey, Demuslim just qualifed for WCS NA. He hasn't even played in premire league yet. And they are always doing well in whatever league they are in. They haven't won, but there are lists and lists of Korean terrans who haven't won either. Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:29 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On July 24 2013 01:24 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2013 00:59 Rhaegal wrote:On July 03 2013 02:55 Wildmoon wrote:On July 02 2013 13:56 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 AxionSteel wrote:On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:[quote] Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this: [quote] And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs. Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =( As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though. Over the history of SC2, Protoss has clearly done the poorest according to that chart, and it means that a Protoss player more often than not loses to Terran and Zerg players of equal skill. That is annoying to me, because I like to win. But we all knew this didn't we... this chart just confirms what all the win rates showed. And the results. Over the history of BW, Protoss has won the least amount of championship and has no bonjwa. That's protoss for you. I kinda think that Protoss is slightly weaker than other races in both SC2 and BW but the difference is so small that it won't be noticeable in short term but in long term it shows. But Protoss has always performed quite well in team leagues, and foreign Protoss players are far more successful than foreign Terrans (which basically don't exist). Thorzain and Demuslim would like to disagree. That's two successful foreign Terrans...vs the myriad of successful foreign players of the other two races lol I listed two off the top of my head, there are more in EU who have done well.
Doing well is different from posting results, and success is inherent in results. It's an uphill battle trying to argue foreign terrans are at the very least -as- successful as foreign protoss when for every Thorzain and Demuslim you can just throw in one Naniwa.
|
On July 24 2013 01:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 00:59 Rhaegal wrote:On July 03 2013 02:55 Wildmoon wrote:On July 02 2013 13:56 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 AxionSteel wrote:On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
But you missed my point.
If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.
That could completely explain the statistics. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later.
Time to go to work. Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?) Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs. Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =( As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though. Over the history of SC2, Protoss has clearly done the poorest according to that chart, and it means that a Protoss player more often than not loses to Terran and Zerg players of equal skill. That is annoying to me, because I like to win. But we all knew this didn't we... this chart just confirms what all the win rates showed. And the results. Over the history of BW, Protoss has won the least amount of championship and has no bonjwa. That's protoss for you. I kinda think that Protoss is slightly weaker than other races in both SC2 and BW but the difference is so small that it won't be noticeable in short term but in long term it shows. But Protoss has always performed quite well in team leagues, and foreign Protoss players are far more successful than foreign Terrans (which basically don't exist). Thorzain and Demuslim would like to disagree.
Thorzain hasn't been successful for sometime now and I can't think of a significant win/finish for Demuslim. The only two non-Korean Terrans with a good finish(recently) has been Lucifron and Happy(WCS EU).
|
On July 24 2013 01:37 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 01:31 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2013 01:29 rd wrote:On July 24 2013 01:24 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2013 00:59 Rhaegal wrote:On July 03 2013 02:55 Wildmoon wrote:On July 02 2013 13:56 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 AxionSteel wrote:On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:
[quote]
That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs. Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =( As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though. Over the history of SC2, Protoss has clearly done the poorest according to that chart, and it means that a Protoss player more often than not loses to Terran and Zerg players of equal skill. That is annoying to me, because I like to win. But we all knew this didn't we... this chart just confirms what all the win rates showed. And the results. Over the history of BW, Protoss has won the least amount of championship and has no bonjwa. That's protoss for you. I kinda think that Protoss is slightly weaker than other races in both SC2 and BW but the difference is so small that it won't be noticeable in short term but in long term it shows. But Protoss has always performed quite well in team leagues, and foreign Protoss players are far more successful than foreign Terrans (which basically don't exist). Thorzain and Demuslim would like to disagree. They would like to disagree but their results wouldn't. Hey, Demuslim just qualifed for WCS NA. He hasn't even played in premire league yet. And they are always doing well in whatever league they are in. They haven't won, but there are lists and lists of Korean terrans who haven't won either. On July 24 2013 01:29 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On July 24 2013 01:24 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2013 00:59 Rhaegal wrote:On July 03 2013 02:55 Wildmoon wrote:On July 02 2013 13:56 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 AxionSteel wrote:On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:
[quote]
That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs. Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =( As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though. Over the history of SC2, Protoss has clearly done the poorest according to that chart, and it means that a Protoss player more often than not loses to Terran and Zerg players of equal skill. That is annoying to me, because I like to win. But we all knew this didn't we... this chart just confirms what all the win rates showed. And the results. Over the history of BW, Protoss has won the least amount of championship and has no bonjwa. That's protoss for you. I kinda think that Protoss is slightly weaker than other races in both SC2 and BW but the difference is so small that it won't be noticeable in short term but in long term it shows. But Protoss has always performed quite well in team leagues, and foreign Protoss players are far more successful than foreign Terrans (which basically don't exist). Thorzain and Demuslim would like to disagree. That's two successful foreign Terrans...vs the myriad of successful foreign players of the other two races lol I listed two off the top of my head, there are more in EU who have done well. Doing well is different from posting results, and success is inherent in results. It's an uphill battle trying to argue foreign terrans are at the very least -as- successful as foreign protoss when for every Thorzain and Demuslim you can just throw in one Naniwa.
I am just responding that they exist. The post in question that I responded to was that "foreign Terrans (which basically don't exist)." They do exist, but none of them have made a run like Stephano or Naniwa. But that has nothing to do with the race, since Korean terrans win just fine.
|
wol terran soon ? How long you guys think it will take to get terran in the same state that in wol ?
I'm guessing 4-5 more nerf .
|
Lucifron is the only Terran outside of korea, that is posting some results these days, while several Zerg and Protoss players do well and compete against proven korean opponents.
So if there is some imbalance in terran, it seems you can only abuse it, if you're really exceptionally good.
|
On July 24 2013 02:14 quebecman77 wrote:
wol terran soon ? How long you guys think it will take to get terran in the same state that in wol ?
I'm guessing 4-5 more nerf .
lol you're an optimist. Hopefully the game won't be nerfed much more, I'd rather see race buffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
