|
GOD DAMN IT
TERRAN SO FUKING IMBA STILL
PLESASE NERF THEM
LOL THEY ALL ARE LESS thn 50%
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 25 2013 06:27 Shellshock1122 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 06:16 ImperialFist wrote:
Nice to see these winrates reflect my "studies" of The Korean GM Ladder, I went through through most of the Terrans and all of them had a 40-45% win-rate in TvP, there was only one Terran who had a positive TvP win ratio, he had a magnificent 65% win rate this season, watching his build orders vs P I found out that he must be a God at 11-11.
You can also find some of the toss GMs with sick 70+% win rate PvT.
Must have found Maru's account for the vP
lol, it was one of the higher ranked terran accounts so could be him, remember people talking about maru being very highly ranked on ladder.
|
it is so funny how people are searching for statistics which probably support their opinion that the own race MUST be unbalanced.
if i would like to find facts why terran must be IMBA i could go to sc2earnings.com, take the global top earnings for 2013 (HOTS) and surprise surprise... out of the Top 20 i can find 8 terrans!!!
8 Terrans in the Top 20 of Earnings in 2013??? TERRAN MUST BE IMBA!!!
but i know this is absolutely bullshit! The Game is very balanced and of course there are some gameperiods when a race is slightly better than another race (protoss is imo in the lategame slightly stronger and easier to use than terran, but in supersuperlategame with mass ghosts the advantage for toss turns into a disadvantage)
And there are a lot of other examples of gametimes where a race is slightly better than another... this is cause the gamebalance is asymetric... and this is good!
SC2 was never be better balanced than now!!
sry for my english and good night fellows!
Spica
|
On July 02 2013 14:32 Thrillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 14:24 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 14:15 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 14:06 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:58 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 Thrillz 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 in SC2 compared to the other races, and right now high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level players from other races, than high level Terrans or Zergs do. But evidence show the contrary. Sorry but -11 says nothing to me, and aligulac has admitted that it isn't perfect, (see forgg nearly being #1, Soulkey not even top #10. Not jumping on the hysteria bandwagon, but nice try anyways. You literally just posted nothing. And I just said Aligulac wasn't perfect either. Why are you telling me it isn't? Then why are you drawing a conclusion when you only have a few points from one method on a hypothesis? I personally think it's pretty good right now. Pretty good relative to the past? Sure. Balanced... well you know the answer to that. -11 is the difference between how much worse Protoss players perform compared to Zergs. -48 is the difference between how much worse Protoss players perform compared to Terran. But -22 is how much Protoss players are underperforming. That's it? You can see my skepticism here, one method from an admittedly imperfect method. Even still those numbers don't conclude imba, not to mention I'd rather wait as they seem to be trending upwards. You have not met enough criteria to conclude imba, and thank god Blizzard isn't looking to make big chances, other than those to tweak gameplay. EDIT: Also just read : "However, as ratings catch up to the performances of the players, this chart will tend toward equilibrium, even if balance never changes." Reminds me of the arguments against global warming... "Well there is all this imperfect science that we can poke holes in, and were going to ignore what is actually happening, and conclude nothing is happening. Excellent work everyone!" I mean, there is just no evidence at all that Protoss hasn't performed as well as the other races... ![[image loading]](http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2237/b2y1.png) Anyways, what does the edit have to do with anything? The chart will tend toward equilibrium only if balance, player skill, maps and the metagame never change. In other words if everyone plays exactly how they are playing now, ratings will catch up, so it will no longer be an upset for Sjow to defeat Life, because Sjow will repeat that performance over and over, and he will climb, while Life will fall for the same reason. Then the underdog, who would skew the ratings, is now the favorite and the ratings will no longer be skewed. So the chart does tend toward equilibrium the longer an imbalance isn't fixed. Nothing like global warming, it has mountains of support from multiple sources and data points, whereas you have a few, thus far one, and even that one doesn't say imba. Also why do I care about balance of the past? How does past balance affect current balance? How does WoL balance affect us now? The chart tends to equilibrium, regardless of balance, so how does that conclude it's imbalance, it merely states that protoss is underperforming with respect to their ratings. This isn't too surprising given the trend it's following in HotS. A race could very well be imbalance, but if they are not performing to their expect level, there will be a period of "underperformance" until going back to equilibrium. This isn't making sense to me: "So the chart does tend toward equilibrium the longer an imbalance isn't fixed" but you're using it to conclude imbalance in the first place aren't you?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vVgU2Yy.jpg?1)
|
On July 25 2013 07:03 sparklyresidue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 14:32 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 14:24 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 14:15 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 14:06 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:58 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 Thrillz 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 in SC2 compared to the other races, and right now high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level players from other races, than high level Terrans or Zergs do. But evidence show the contrary. Sorry but -11 says nothing to me, and aligulac has admitted that it isn't perfect, (see forgg nearly being #1, Soulkey not even top #10. Not jumping on the hysteria bandwagon, but nice try anyways. You literally just posted nothing. And I just said Aligulac wasn't perfect either. Why are you telling me it isn't? Then why are you drawing a conclusion when you only have a few points from one method on a hypothesis? I personally think it's pretty good right now. Pretty good relative to the past? Sure. Balanced... well you know the answer to that. -11 is the difference between how much worse Protoss players perform compared to Zergs. -48 is the difference between how much worse Protoss players perform compared to Terran. But -22 is how much Protoss players are underperforming. That's it? You can see my skepticism here, one method from an admittedly imperfect method. Even still those numbers don't conclude imba, not to mention I'd rather wait as they seem to be trending upwards. You have not met enough criteria to conclude imba, and thank god Blizzard isn't looking to make big chances, other than those to tweak gameplay. EDIT: Also just read : "However, as ratings catch up to the performances of the players, this chart will tend toward equilibrium, even if balance never changes." Reminds me of the arguments against global warming... "Well there is all this imperfect science that we can poke holes in, and were going to ignore what is actually happening, and conclude nothing is happening. Excellent work everyone!" I mean, there is just no evidence at all that Protoss hasn't performed as well as the other races... Anyways, what does the edit have to do with anything? The chart will tend toward equilibrium only if balance, player skill, maps and the metagame never change. In other words if everyone plays exactly how they are playing now, ratings will catch up, so it will no longer be an upset for Sjow to defeat Life, because Sjow will repeat that performance over and over, and he will climb, while Life will fall for the same reason. Then the underdog, who would skew the ratings, is now the favorite and the ratings will no longer be skewed. So the chart does tend toward equilibrium the longer an imbalance isn't fixed. Nothing like global warming, it has mountains of support from multiple sources and data points, whereas you have a few, thus far one, and even that one doesn't say imba. Also why do I care about balance of the past? How does past balance affect current balance? How does WoL balance affect us now? The chart tends to equilibrium, regardless of balance, so how does that conclude it's imbalance, it merely states that protoss is underperforming with respect to their ratings. This isn't too surprising given the trend it's following in HotS. A race could very well be imbalance, but if they are not performing to their expect level, there will be a period of "underperformance" until going back to equilibrium. This isn't making sense to me: "So the chart does tend toward equilibrium the longer an imbalance isn't fixed" but you're using it to conclude imbalance in the first place aren't you?
I'm sorry what exactly are you trying to say with this screencap?
|
On July 25 2013 07:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 07:03 sparklyresidue wrote:On July 02 2013 14:32 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 14:24 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 14:15 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 14:06 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:58 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
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 in SC2 compared to the other races, and right now high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level players from other races, than high level Terrans or Zergs do. But evidence show the contrary. Sorry but -11 says nothing to me, and aligulac has admitted that it isn't perfect, (see forgg nearly being #1, Soulkey not even top #10. Not jumping on the hysteria bandwagon, but nice try anyways. You literally just posted nothing. And I just said Aligulac wasn't perfect either. Why are you telling me it isn't? Then why are you drawing a conclusion when you only have a few points from one method on a hypothesis? I personally think it's pretty good right now. Pretty good relative to the past? Sure. Balanced... well you know the answer to that. -11 is the difference between how much worse Protoss players perform compared to Zergs. -48 is the difference between how much worse Protoss players perform compared to Terran. But -22 is how much Protoss players are underperforming. That's it? You can see my skepticism here, one method from an admittedly imperfect method. Even still those numbers don't conclude imba, not to mention I'd rather wait as they seem to be trending upwards. You have not met enough criteria to conclude imba, and thank god Blizzard isn't looking to make big chances, other than those to tweak gameplay. EDIT: Also just read : "However, as ratings catch up to the performances of the players, this chart will tend toward equilibrium, even if balance never changes." Reminds me of the arguments against global warming... "Well there is all this imperfect science that we can poke holes in, and were going to ignore what is actually happening, and conclude nothing is happening. Excellent work everyone!" I mean, there is just no evidence at all that Protoss hasn't performed as well as the other races... Anyways, what does the edit have to do with anything? The chart will tend toward equilibrium only if balance, player skill, maps and the metagame never change. In other words if everyone plays exactly how they are playing now, ratings will catch up, so it will no longer be an upset for Sjow to defeat Life, because Sjow will repeat that performance over and over, and he will climb, while Life will fall for the same reason. Then the underdog, who would skew the ratings, is now the favorite and the ratings will no longer be skewed. So the chart does tend toward equilibrium the longer an imbalance isn't fixed. Nothing like global warming, it has mountains of support from multiple sources and data points, whereas you have a few, thus far one, and even that one doesn't say imba. Also why do I care about balance of the past? How does past balance affect current balance? How does WoL balance affect us now? The chart tends to equilibrium, regardless of balance, so how does that conclude it's imbalance, it merely states that protoss is underperforming with respect to their ratings. This isn't too surprising given the trend it's following in HotS. A race could very well be imbalance, but if they are not performing to their expect level, there will be a period of "underperformance" until going back to equilibrium. This isn't making sense to me: "So the chart does tend toward equilibrium the longer an imbalance isn't fixed" but you're using it to conclude imbalance in the first place aren't you? I'm sorry what exactly are you trying to say with this screencap?
Uh, he's trying to say that terran is imba in hots because protoss was weak in a couple of OSLs, I think. It makes sense, somewhere deep down.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 25 2013 07:47 neptunusfisk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 07:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 25 2013 07:03 sparklyresidue wrote:On July 02 2013 14:32 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 14:24 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 14:15 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 14:06 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:58 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:54 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:51 Thrillz wrote:
[quote]
But evidence show the contrary. Sorry but -11 says nothing to me, and aligulac has admitted that it isn't perfect, (see forgg nearly being #1, Soulkey not even top #10. Not jumping on the hysteria bandwagon, but nice try anyways. You literally just posted nothing. And I just said Aligulac wasn't perfect either. Why are you telling me it isn't? Then why are you drawing a conclusion when you only have a few points from one method on a hypothesis? I personally think it's pretty good right now. Pretty good relative to the past? Sure. Balanced... well you know the answer to that. -11 is the difference between how much worse Protoss players perform compared to Zergs. -48 is the difference between how much worse Protoss players perform compared to Terran. But -22 is how much Protoss players are underperforming. That's it? You can see my skepticism here, one method from an admittedly imperfect method. Even still those numbers don't conclude imba, not to mention I'd rather wait as they seem to be trending upwards. You have not met enough criteria to conclude imba, and thank god Blizzard isn't looking to make big chances, other than those to tweak gameplay. EDIT: Also just read : "However, as ratings catch up to the performances of the players, this chart will tend toward equilibrium, even if balance never changes." Reminds me of the arguments against global warming... "Well there is all this imperfect science that we can poke holes in, and were going to ignore what is actually happening, and conclude nothing is happening. Excellent work everyone!" I mean, there is just no evidence at all that Protoss hasn't performed as well as the other races... Anyways, what does the edit have to do with anything? The chart will tend toward equilibrium only if balance, player skill, maps and the metagame never change. In other words if everyone plays exactly how they are playing now, ratings will catch up, so it will no longer be an upset for Sjow to defeat Life, because Sjow will repeat that performance over and over, and he will climb, while Life will fall for the same reason. Then the underdog, who would skew the ratings, is now the favorite and the ratings will no longer be skewed. So the chart does tend toward equilibrium the longer an imbalance isn't fixed. Nothing like global warming, it has mountains of support from multiple sources and data points, whereas you have a few, thus far one, and even that one doesn't say imba. Also why do I care about balance of the past? How does past balance affect current balance? How does WoL balance affect us now? The chart tends to equilibrium, regardless of balance, so how does that conclude it's imbalance, it merely states that protoss is underperforming with respect to their ratings. This isn't too surprising given the trend it's following in HotS. A race could very well be imbalance, but if they are not performing to their expect level, there will be a period of "underperformance" until going back to equilibrium. This isn't making sense to me: "So the chart does tend toward equilibrium the longer an imbalance isn't fixed" but you're using it to conclude imbalance in the first place aren't you? I'm sorry what exactly are you trying to say with this screencap? Uh, he's trying to say that terran is imba in hots because protoss was weak in a couple of OSLs, I think. It makes sense, somewhere deep down. + Show Spoiler +
My point is that though Zerg was kinda weak in regards to OSL championships for a while, but it isn't because the game was imbalanced. Just a warning to anyone who puts too much stock in statistics over a short period of time.
|
Why can't everybody just get along T_T
|
can we finally admit protoss is the god race atm?
|
Overall the game seems balanced. But I'd bet if someone were to take the same amount of games, exclude cheesy/nonstandard games, and divide the game by times around/under 15mins, games around 15-30 mins, and games 30mins +, that there would a pretty big discrepancy in win ratios.
|
yeh but i think you would just see races like zerg look worse because atm, zerg then terran then protoss are in order for "easiest race to cheese atm"
i dont think it would change THAT much but im confident protoss would be WAY ahead in standard macro game wins
|
On July 25 2013 08:43 Gr33n wrote:
can we finally admit protoss is the god race atm?
you spelled Zerg wrong
|
On July 25 2013 08:55 Gr33n wrote:
yeh but i think you would just see races like zerg look worse because atm, zerg then terran then protoss are in order for "easiest race to cheese atm"
i dont think it would change THAT much but im confident protoss would be WAY ahead in standard macro game wins
The definition of cheese would have to defined as any rush under 20 supply and games that only happen once every 25 games or so. So any timing attacks, mass hellion attacks, 1base void rays, cloaked banshee rushes, sneaky hellbat drops, etc that happen frequently enough should be counted towards the win rate. 6pools, 11/11 rax, proxy 2gate, 1base BC, things of that nature, should not be counted. Think of it as a Q-test.
Personally, I dont have the time to look at individual games and catagorize each game by time (i dont think anyone does), but if i were to venture a guess, I'd guess that the win ratios for Terran would be around 60% for total games around 15 mins and under, and about 40% for total games past 15 mins. Probably even lower for games 30 mins+. Zerg would probably peak at games 30 mins+ and have a low in games 15min and under. Toss would probably peak at games between 15-30 mins.
What I would be interested in, however, are not the actual win ratios, but how far apart the win ratios are from each other at the different times. The wider the gap between the early, mid, and late game, the more imbalance there is in the matchup. Summing up all the individual games and calling it "almost 50-50" is not a good indicator of balance when the game is inherently imbalanced at certain points in the game.
|
How r we (protoss) not getting destroyed? this is weird
|
no one is doing 1 base BC because that isnt a real cheese. i define cheese as anything that deviates from macro or sacrifices macro for massive eco or game winning damage.
if im going bio and i make 12 helions im attempting cheese. if you die to that as a zerg you didnt scout but you got cheesed. its hard to know 12 helions are coming and maybe he sends 6 helions to your 3rd and 6 to your main. you made only 4 or 5 roaches which is MORE then enough but bam now you are screwed. it HAPPENS more often then you think to even good players.
|
On July 25 2013 09:55 Gr33n wrote:
no one is doing 1 base BC because that isnt a real cheese. i define cheese as anything that deviates from macro or sacrifices macro for massive eco or game winning damage.
if im going bio and i make 12 helions im attempting cheese. if you die to that as a zerg you didnt scout but you got cheesed. its hard to know 12 helions are coming and maybe he sends 6 helions to your 3rd and 6 to your main. you made only 4 or 5 roaches which is MORE then enough but bam now you are screwed. it HAPPENS more often then you think to even good players.
You're defining cheese in the widest possible scenario: anything not macro play = cheese. If you do that, you're going to be getting rid of at least 1/3 or a 1/4 of the games played total, which is not going to give an accurate representation of games played under 15 mins. It might be precise, but it could be wrong. I'm defining the narrowest scope of cheese possible in order to keep as many games as I can in order to keep a good accuracy/precision ratio. Not saying I don't believe in your kind of cheese, but if you want good statistics, you need to get as many games as you can.
Either way, defining cheese is a moot point in any discussion and was not the point of my post. The whole point of me mentioning cheese was to get rid of massive outliers that ruin the win ratios under 15 minutes.
|
Terran needs mech to buffed PVT. And big time.
|
Interesting. I bet it took a lot of work to amass those stats. Hopefully this will silence the balance whiners (prob not). :D
|
On July 25 2013 09:55 Gr33n wrote:
no one is doing 1 base BC because that isnt a real cheese. i define cheese as anything that deviates from macro or sacrifices macro for massive eco or game winning damage.
if im going bio and i make 12 helions im attempting cheese. if you die to that as a zerg you didnt scout but you got cheesed. its hard to know 12 helions are coming and maybe he sends 6 helions to your 3rd and 6 to your main. you made only 4 or 5 roaches which is MORE then enough but bam now you are screwed. it HAPPENS more often then you think to even good players.
Cheese =/= all-in. Cheese is an extraordinarily large gamble that is made without any knowledge of what your opponent is doing (aka it's chosen blindly at the start of the game).
|
Its funny, this is the first season where Toss seems to not be slightly behind balance wise and yet its my worst one yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zrdAcKq.png)
